ID: wedekind

Lt. Ronald E. Wedekind
Florida Highway Patrol
Bureau of Investigations
1551 E. International Speedway Blvd.
DeLand, FL 32724-8714

Dear Lt. Wedekind:

This is in response to your letter of December16, 1999, concerning a practice being followed by a Florida salvage company with respect to vehicles with electronic odometers.

As you describe the situation, when the company sells vehicles with electronic odometers, it enters the odometer reading on the titles as "999999, Warning - Not Actual Mileage." An odometer reading could be obtained for most of these vehicles by connecting them to a power source, but the company is not taking this step.

You have advised the company that it must secure a power source and read the odometer mileage unless the dash has been destroyed by fire or crash damage. You are requesting our views.

We confirm the advice you gave the company.

The Federal odometer law requires a person who transfers ownership of a vehicle to disclose the vehicle's odometer reading. The transferor must either certify that the mileage is the actual mileage, state that it represents the amount by which the mileage in excess of the designed mechanical odometer limit, or state that it is not the actual mileage and should not be relied on (49 CFR 580.5). In this case, the number 999,999 is not the odometer reading and must not be represented as such, even if accompanied by the words "Warning -- Not Actual Mileage." The company must activate the electronic odometer, note the odometer reading, and state that reading on the title when it transfers ownership. If it has reason to believe that the mileage is not the actual mileage, it may state that fact on the title. The only circumstance in which the company can transfer ownership without stating the reading on the odometer is if the odometer has been destroyed and is incapable of providing a reading.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.580
d.1/13/00

ID: nht78-1.34

DATE: 01/25/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 24, 1977, letter asking whether the framework of a roof hatch must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) that encloses occupant space in a bus comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the frame of a roof hatch, it appears that this joint need not comply with the requirements. This conclusion is reached because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that a roof hatch is equivalent to a door or window for the purposes of the application of the requirements. The joint connecting the frame of a door, window, or roof hatch to a bus body falls within the exception to the applicability of Standard No. 221.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

October 24, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this letter is to get an interpretation regarding the applicability of FMVSS 221 relative to roof hatch emergency exit components.

The attached photos show a roof hatch viewed from inside the bus and from the roof of the bus. We would like confirmation of our interpretation that the metal framework of the roof hatch opening, shown in the attached photos, enclosing the edges of the roof opening are for a "functional purpose" as used in FMVSS 221, paragraph S4 and are, therefore, not subject to the requirements of that standard.

We will appreciate your early reply.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

CC: JIM MOORMAN; JIM SWIFT; GARY MOYSES; TOM TURNER

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 17321.wkm

Mr. Craig May
Process Machinery, Inc.
1636 Isaac Shelby Drive
Shelbyville, KY 40065

Dear Mr. May:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of this agency, asking whether the equipment your company produces will be required to be equipped with antilock brake systems (ABS). The answer is no.

You explained that your company manufactures various types of equipment for the aggregate industry. Some of that equipment must be portable, permitting movement of the equipment within quarries or to other quarries. The weights of your equipment vary from 17,000 to 100,000 pounds. You also enclosed drawings of a portable rock crushing plant and a portable conveyor.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code (U.S.C.) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S. C. 30102(6).

In analyzing the information you provided, including your drawings, it is our opinion that your portable rock crusher and the portable conveyor are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition. They are primarily designed to be used off-road and although they are portable and therefore capable of being transported on-road from one job site to another, their on-road use is only incidental and not the primary purpose for which the equipment was manufactured. Not being motor vehicles, your portable rock crusher and portable conveyor are not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121), requires

trailers, among other things, equipped with air brake systems to be equipped with ABS. Excluded from that requirement, however, is:

Any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR.

Subparagraph S3(f), 49 CFR 571.121.

Your drawings indicate that the rock crusher and conveyor would also meet this exclusion. Therefore, even if your equipment were considered motor vehicles, they would still be excluded from the ABS requirement under this provision.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:121#VSA
d.5/1/98

ID: nht76-5.62

DATE: 02/25/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Motocross Engineers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 6, 1976, concerning the application of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, to certain off-road motorcycle tires that you plan to import.

"Motor vehicle" is defined in Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

The Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulation does motor vehicles. From the description in your letter, it not apply to tires that are not manufactured for use on motor vehicles. From the description in your letter, it appears that the vehicles for which the tires in question are designed are not motor vehicles. Therefore, unless these tires are also designed for use on other vehicles that do meet the statutory definition of "motor vehicle", they are not subject to any labeling requirements of the Department of Transportation.

YOURS TRULY,

February 6, 1976

Office of Chief Council, Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation

Yesterday I spoke at length with Mr. Mark Schwimmer of your office regarding our plans to import knobby motorcycle tires manufactured by Lien Shin Tire Co. in Taiwan. In my initial correspondence from Lien Shin, they noted their tires are approved by DOT and carry a UI marking. This was confirmed by Mr. Coleman in your Boston Office.

Before placing a purchase order and Letter of Credit on Lien Shin, I have undertaken an investigation to iron out all details that might incumber clearning the containers upon arrival. This attempt to avoid future storage charges has resulted in my confronting Section 574 - The Identification Code. I am therefore requesting from your Office a definition of what sidewall markings would be required on tires of this nature. What steps must I take to assure that the tires comply with DOT specifications?

I have enclosed a photograph of the tread pattern used in these off-road, dirt motorcycle tires. I wish to import these tires in sizes 4.00 - 18", 4.50-18", 4.75-18", 3.00-21". These motorcycle tires are designed with deep knobs for gripping dirt and mud when used on racing motorcycles in off-road riding and dirt track events, for which they are designed. Each tire bundle is marked "Not for Highway Use." The tires would be used as replacement tires on such motorcycles as Husqvarna, Maico, CZ, Bultaco, KTM, etc., which are usually imported without lights or other machine carries an inscribed plate stating that it does not conform to DOT highway specifications and is inscribed plate stating that it does not conform to DOT highway specifications and is designed for off-road riding only.

I would appreciate your definition of tire sidewall identification and code requirements for these shipments. I will convey your requirements to the manufacturer as part of my Purchase Order, making sure their product will comply before initiating a Letter Of Credit for the purchase. Thanking you for your assistance, I am

MOTORCROSS ENGINEERS, INC.

S.L. Smead

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-1.41

DATE: 11/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of March 19, 1975, requesting clarification of the relationship between the masking requirement and the brake hose assembly performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

On August 1, 1975, the NHTSA issued a notice delaying until March 1, 1976, the effective date of the masking requirement, in order to allow time for public comment on its proposed elimination. Copies of this and a more recent notice are enclosed.

If the standard is amended to eliminate the masking requirement, the issues which you have raised will be mooted. Otherwise, these issues will be dealt with in an upcoming Federal Register notice.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

March 19, 1975

Chief Council's Office -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

If you would, I would like some clarification on FMVSS-106. My question is in regards to effective dates.

First, we understand that all fittings, tubings and hoses in the air brake system must now meet all performance requirements of the 106 regulation. We further understand that all fittings, tubings and hoses must be properly labeled and that the assembler, except the vehicle manufacturer, must band to indicate his certification. The vehicle manufacturer will certify his assembly by the normal certification label installed on the vehicle.

Regarding the labels, we are now receiving fittings properly labeled and the assembler bands are installed as required and are properly labeled. The tubings and hoses, even though they meet the performance requirements, are in most cases not labeled. This, we understand, has been approved.

We understand that painting over the embossed type labels on fitting and banding is completely satisfactory. However, masking must be done at least one place on each tube or hose for identification. It would be useless for us as a manufacturer to mask tubing and hoses that have no label.

It is our understanding that tubing and hose must be properly labeled and that we as a manufacturer must so protect this label as outlined above no later than 31 August, 1975. Is this correct?

We have to problem areas.

1. In our tubing assembly from the front connector to the running gear area. In this area we will install a protective sleeve over the tubing in our assembly process. This can be done without real complications, as we are making the assembly.

2. The major problem area is in the hose assembly purchased with permanent end fittings. In many cases the end fittings are large with relation to the hose size. Therefore, it is desirable for the assembler to install this protective sleeve to fit the hose, rather than us install a large sleeve to clear the fitting that may not do a good job.

I would appreciate your review of this problem area and would like to have a clarification in the labeling requirements.

Sincerely, Dudley E. DeWitt -- Manager, Research & Development

cc: Don W. Wieriman - TTMA

ID: nht81-1.44

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nu-Wa Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Neil Ford Plant Engineer Nu-Wa Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 768 Chanute, KS 66720

Dear Mr. Ford

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 18, 1980

Administrator, NHTSA

Attn: VIN COORDINATOR

Reference: Vehicle Identification Number

Dear Sir:

Enclosed please find the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) as established by Nu-Wa Industries, Inc. for Custom Covers and Campers, Inc.

The VIN application for Custom Covers and Campers, Inc. is being submitted by Nu-Wa as an engineering service. Additional computer services and coordination will be required of Nu-Wa as the new VIN system is incorporated by Custom Covers and Campers, Inc.

Custom Covers is a manufacturer or less than 500 units per year.

The target date for affixing the first VIN is January 1, 1981 although the application was not submitted 60 days prior to implementing the system.

Attachment "A" and Attachment "B" are enclosed to illustrate how to decipher the Custom Covers VIN. Attachment "A" describes each character used in the VIN. Attachment "B" indicates a typical Custom Covers VIN and the check digit computation.

The following information determines how to decipher the VIN characters, reference attachment "A" and NHTSA part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

1C9 - The first three (3) characters are the World Makers Identification as assigned by the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. SAE verification of the assigned number is to be mailed to my attention by January 1, 1981.

3 - The fourth (4th) character indicates the "type"; travel trailer-2, fifth wheel trailer-3, and truck campers-7.

2 - The fifth (5th) character indicates the "number of axles"; one axle-1, two axles-2, three axles-3, and no axles-9.

O - The sixth (6th) character is not used.

L - The seventh (7th) character indicates the units length in feet; 10-12 ft. -D, 12-14 ft. -E, 14-16 ft. -F, 16-18 ft. -G, 18-20 ft. -H, 20-22 ft. -J, 22-24 ft. -K, 24-26 ft. -L, 26-28 ft. -M, 28-30 ft. -N, 30-32 ft. -P, 32 ft. & up -R.

O - The eighth (8th) character is not used.

4 - The ninth (9th) character is the check digit. The check digit is computed as specified per para. 5.2.1 -5.2.4.

A - The tenth (10th) character is the model year as established by table II, paragraph 4.5.3.1.

A - The eleventh (11th) character is the plant location; Custom Covers and Campers, Inc. has only one plant location.

113 - The twelve (12th) thru the fourteenth (14th) characters are the manufacturers world maker identifier as assigned by SAE.

183 - The fifteenth (15th) thru the seventeenth (17th) characters are the sequential numbers as assigned by Custom Covers and Campers, Inc.

Please review the information and advise if any additional information is required or if the Custom Covers and Campers, Inc. VIN is acceptable as submitted.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

NU WA INDUSTRIES, INC.

NEIL FORD Plant Engineer

Attachments Omitted.

ID: 86-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5335

This responds to your February 19, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards prohibit commercial businesses from using fiberglass on the exterior of school buses. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue minimum performance standards for school buses. Our safety standards do not specify the materials to be used for the exterior of school buses. However, the materials chosen by a manufacturer must be strong enough to enable the bus to meet the requirements of those standards. Among those requirements are the rollover protection ones of Standard No. 220, fuel system requirements of Standard No. 301, and strength requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, for body panel joints on school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. Manufacturers of new school buses using fiberglass for school bus exteriors must certify that their vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 19, 1986

Ms. Deadra Holm U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Holm,

We have discovered the presence of fiber glass in the outer skin of the Van Conversions manufactured by the Collins Industries Inc. of Hutchinson, Kansas. While, admittedly, we see little if any, safety hazard associated with the practice, we do forsee the possibility of legal actions "down the road" if children are seriously injured and the presence of this material is exposed.

Our school bus specifications require compliance with the National Minimum School Bus Standards as well as all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to the manufacture, sale and operation of pupil transportation equipment. My question is: Does the use of fiberglass in the manufacture of Type II school buses conflict with any known FMVSS?

An early response will be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation

ID: 9460b

Mr. Winston Sharples
President
Cantab Motors, Ltd.
RR1, Box 537
Round Hill, VA 22141

Dear Mr. Sharples

I enclose a copy of an order of the Administrator granting the petition by Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The exemption from Standard No. 208 will expire on September 1, 1997, and that for Standard No. 214 on September 1, 1998.

In accordance with agency regulations on the subject, within 30 days after your receipt of this letter please provide the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with a copy of the certification label reflecting the exemption that will be used on Cantab's vehicles (49 CFR 555.9(a)).

We have received your letter of August 17, 1995, which admits that Cantab manufactured and sold nine vehicles manufactured after the expiration of its previous exemption that did not conform with Standard No. 208, and which enclosed a petition for a determination of inconsequentiality on this matter. This is currently under review.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555 d:9/25/95

ID: 5110r

D. E. Dawkins, Acting Director
Automotive Safety Planning and Compliance
Product Strategy and Regulatory Affairs Office
Chrysler Corporation
CIMS 414-01-22
12000 Chrysler Drive
Highland Park, MI 48288-0857

Dear Mr. Dawkins:

This responds to the petition dated September 30, 1991, that Mr. Kittle submitted on behalf of Chrysler Corporation seeking temporary exemption for the TEVan from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of low emission motor vehicles.

The petition indicates (page 4) that exemption is sought for four l989 Dodge Caravans, converted to electric power, that "were manufactured for test and evaluation". We understand that this conversion occurred after completion of the manufacture of the vans, and that the conversion was performed by a subsidiary of Chrysler. If an exemption is granted, the petition states that "one or more of the vehicles will be titled and sold for ongoing endurance evaluation." Finally, we understand that the TEvans are currently in the possession of the Electric Power Research Institute in California for evaluation, and that presumably they are being driven on the public roads.

We regret the delay in responding to Mr. Kittle's letter. The petition represents a rare instance in which a manufacturer has petitioned for an exemption for a vehicle whose manufacture has been completed, and which has been in use. The purpose of an exemption is to allow a manufacturer to engage in conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically, the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction, or importation into the United States of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and which does not bear a certification of compliance with those standards.

With respect to the four TEVans for which petition has been made, it appears that they have already been introduced into interstate commerce without a certification of compliance (or, if bearing the certification of the original vehicle, a certification that is false and misleading in a material respect, a further violation of the Act). Any exemption by the Administrator could not cover conduct violative of the Act that has already occurred. However, we have concluded that the Administrator may grant an exemption to vehicles, which would apply to conduct that would violate the Act, but which has not occurred. As Chrysler seeks an exemption in order to sell the TEVans, or to offer them for sale, the Administrator's exemption authority may be exercised to permit Chrysler to do so, after the procedural requirements have been followed.

The petition meets our requirements for form and content, and a notice requesting public comment is being prepared for publication in the Federal Register. We shall notify you when the Administrator has reached a decision.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:555 d:3/30/92

ID: nht92-8.11

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: D.E. Dawkins -- Acting Director, Automotive Safety Planning and Compliance, Product Strategy and Regulatory Affairs Office, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/30/91 from W.R. Kittle to Jerry R. Curry

TEXT:

This responds to the petition dated September 30, 1991, that Mr. Kittle submitted on behalf of Chrysler corporation seeking temporary exemption for the TEVan from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of low e mission motor vehicles.

The petition indicates (page 4) that exemption is sought for four 1989 Dodge Caravans, converted to electric power, that "were manufactured for test and evaluation". We understand that this conversion occurred after completion of the manufacture of the vans, and that the conversion was performed by a subsidiary of Chrysler. If an exemption is granted, the petition states that "one or more of the vehicles will be titled and sold for ongoing endurance evaluation." Finally, we understand that the TEvans are currently in the possession of the Electric Power Research Institute in California for evaluation, and that presumably they are being driven on the public roads.

We regret the delay in responding to Mr. Kittle's letter. The petition represents a rare instance in which a manufacturer has petitioned for an exemption for a vehicle whose manufacture has been completed, and which has been in use. The purpose of an exemption is to allow a manufacturer to engage in conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically, the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction, or importation into the United States of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and which does not bear a certification of compliance with those standards.

With respect to the four TEVans for which petition has been made, it appears that they have already been introduced into interstate commerce without a certification of compliance (or, if bearing the certification of the original vehicle, a certification that is false and misleading in a material respect, a further violation of the Act). Any exemption by the Administrator could not cover conduct violative of the Act that has already occurred. However, we have concluded that the Administrator may grant an exemption to vehicles, which would apply to conduct that would violate the Act, but which has not occurred. As Chrysler seeks an exemption in order to sell the TEVans, or to offer them for sale, the Administrator's exemption authority may be exercised to permit Chrysler to do so, after the procedural requirements have been followed.

The petition meets our requirements for form and content, and a notice requesting public comment is being prepared for publication in the Federal

Register. We shall notify you when the Administrator has reached a decision.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).