ID: nht69-1.27

DATE: 06/06/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. M. Jacklin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Rubber Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of May 14, 1969, to the National Highway Safety Bureau requesting the addition of the 6JJ alternative rim size for the E78-14 tire size designation to Table I of Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

On the basis of the data submitted indicating compliance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110 and other information submitted in accordance with the procedural guidelines set forth in the Federal Register, Volume 33, No. 195, page 14964, dated October 5, 1968, the 6JJ alternative rim size for the E78-14 tire size designation will be listed within Table I of Appendix A of Standard No. 110. This change will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.

The addition of new alternative rim size designations to the table is accomplished through an abbreviated procedure consisting of the publication in the Federal Register of petitioned alternative rim size. If no comments are received, the amendment becomes effective 30 days from the date of publication. If comments objecting to amendments are received, additional rule making pursuant to Part 216 of the Procedural Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will be considered.

ID: nht92-9.59

DATE: 01/06/92

FROM: Joseph B. Gordon -- Manager of Engineering, ESI BRAKE PARTS, DIVISION OF STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INC.

TO: Mr. Rich Van Iderstine -- U.S. Department of Transporation, NHTSA

COPYEE: Daniel Carboni, Sr. V.P. (Ignition and Brake Products) David Blasco -- (Product Test Lab)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-18-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOSEPH B. GORDON (A40; STD. 108; VSA (a)(2)(A))

TEXT: EIS has been approached as to the possibility of our manufacturing a product which provides an intermittently blinking brake light function. Before we actually consider such a project however, we need to learn if there are any existing prohibitions or problems which would disqualify this device from being introduced to the marketplace.

Intended for use in passenger vehicles, the product under consideration is an addition to the existing rear brake light system which causes the brake lights to flash intermittently when pressure to the brake pedal is applied. While this mechanism would provide an added measure of visibility to alert traffic behind a braking vehicle, our concerns are whether such a device would be confused with hazard warning lights or if there are other problems/restrictions connected with its manufacture.

EIS would very much appreciate any advice or information NHTSA can provide us with on this proposed braking product at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht73-1.15

DATE: 06/26/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1973, asking whether you may, consistently with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, label maximum load and maximum permissible inflation pressure as follows, using the 165 SR 15 tire size designation as an example:

1. Max Load 1200 Lbs. At 36 psi

2. Max Load 1200 Lbs. At Max Press 36 psi

We do not believe alternative 1 to be consistent with Standard No. 109 because it is not clear that 36 psi is the maximum permissible inflation pressure. Alternative 2 does so indicate, however, and we believe that alternative to be consistent with the standard.

Yours truly,

Secretary of Transportation National Highway Safety Bureau, US Department of Transportation

May 28, 1973

MVSS 109

Dear Sirs;

Please inform us if we are allowed to use this alternative labelling on our tires, i.e. on tire size 165 SR 15:

Alternative 1: "Max Load 1200 Lbs AT 36 psi"

Alternative 2: "Max Load 1200 Lbs At Max Press 36 psi"

Yours sincerely, TRELLEBORGS GUMMIFABRIKS AKTIEBOLAG Tire Research --

Erik Sundelin

ID: nht73-1.13

DATE: 08/01/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

By your telegram of July 16, 1973, you requested an interpretation of the passenger car tire standard -- No. 109, which would allow the branding of the information required to be on the sidewall.

As we understand the situation in this case, the tires in question are certified by the manufacturer as complying and have all the required information but the "DOT" certification is in the wrong location.

In this instance, we have no objection to branding the "DOT" in the proper location.

We are notifying the Baltimore Customs officials that the tires that do not comply with the standards can be brought into this country by making a box 3 declaration that the merchandise does not conform but will be brought into conformance within 90 days by branding "DOT" in the proper location. Under the Customs regulation, 19 CFR 12.80, this requires the posting of a bond equal to the value of the merchandise.

Sincerely,

WESTERN UNION

JULY 16, 1973

LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

CORRECTION OF MSG SENT JULY 13 - DO NOT DUPLICATE APPROXIMATELY 2,800 TIRES HAVE BEEN SHIPPED TO US FROM FABRICA NEUMATICOS ESPANOLA THESE TIRES ARE PRESENTLY BEING HELD BY CUSTOMS OFFICIALS IN BALTIMORE MARYLAND LESS THAN 1,000 OF THESE TIRES SPRINT JET RADIALS 165R 13 TECHNICALLY DO NOT COMPLY WITH STANDARDS PROMULGATED UNDER PARTS 57, AND 574 -- LABELING REQUIREMENT

REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL TO PERMIT ENTRY OF THESE TIRES SO THAT WE MAY ACCOMPLISH REBRANDING HERE IN AKRON REQUEST YOUR INTERPRETATION THAT THE STANDARDS DO NOT PROHIBIT SUCH BRANDING TO BRING TIRES(Illegible Words) PLEASE ADVISE 216-798-2048

WILLIAM & HENRICK THE GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER CO I GENERAL ST AKRON OHIO 44329

ID: 20264.drn

Russell Roden, P.E.
President
Atlantic Design Inc.
3740 Federal Lane
Abingdon, MD 21009-2742

Dear Mr. Roden:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your products are "motor vehicles" within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) definition. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter states that your company designs and manufactures "modular process systems" for the construction, industrial maintenance, and the quarry and mining industry. Your products include grit recycling and dust collection systems, and sand "dedusting units." In order to facilitate movement, your company's equipment is permanently attached to flat trailers which are manufactured by another company. You emphasize that the equipment your company designs and manufactures is a "process system where the trailer is used as a base skid with wheels for mobility and erection." As an example of your company's products, you included a photograph of an "air classification system" used in the bridge and industrial painting industry and in the quarry and mining industry.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time your company's equipment is at a job site depends on the task. The equipment could be at a maintenance or construction site or at a quarry for years at a time. You stated that the equipment rarely stays at a job site for less than six to eight weeks.

NHTSA's statute defines "motor vehicle" at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

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

Whether the agency considers your products to be motor vehicles depends on their use. The statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of our statute, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on your description, it appears that your company's vehicles are not motor vehicles within the meaning of our statute. This is because the vehicles stay on job sites for extended periods of time (usually for months or years) and only use the highway to move from site to site. We may reassess this interpretation if we were to receive additional information indicating that your vehicles use the roads more than on an incidental basis.

Please note that since States may require products such as those which your company manufactures to be registered, you may wish to contact State motor vehicle administrators to determine whether there are State requirements you must meet.

You also pose several questions about the application of excise taxes to your product. We are unable to answer questions relating to taxes. For further information about Federal taxes, please contact the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS's web site is at www.irs.gov. You should contact the State of Maryland for information about Maryland tax law.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.10/26/99

ID: nht70-1.38

DATE: 01/29/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Eshelman Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1969, in which you responded to our inquiry concerning consumer information on vehicles sold by your company.

You stated that your Golden Eagle cars are "made from new model Chevrolets without any mechanical change," and that the "consumer information and the warranty book as supplied by General Motors are passed along to the consumer with the vehicle." You also stated that you place a label next to the CM certification label, quoting language similar to that specified in the Certification Regulations for the distributor who alter a vehicle, 49 CFR @ 367.6. We are enclosing a copy of the Certification Regulation; please note that the abovementioned distributor statement, if it is applicable, requires the month and year of alteration to be stated immediately after the name of the distributor.

The question whether the procedure you have outlined in respect to certification is acceptable depends on whether the alterations that you perform on the Chevrolets are sufficiently minor to place you in the category of "distributor" rather than "manufacturer". In order to make this determination, we need and would like to receive more detailed information on the work that you do on the vehicles.

The question whether the practice you describe, of passing on the General Motors consumer information, is acceptable depends on whether the information is actually correct for the vehicle as you alter then. The weight of the final vehicle, for example, is an important factor in the vehicle's performance in all three areas of acceleration, braking, and tire reserve load. We should mention that you are fully responsible, subject to the penalties specified in section 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for ensuring that the correctness of the consumer information that you provide with your vehicles is not adversely affected by the work that you do on them, whether you are ultimately placed in the category of manufacturer or distributor.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: 77-5.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/77

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

TO: Kentucky Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your oral request to Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the new Federal school bus safety standards to vans school children to or from school or related events.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates safety standards applicable to all school buses. School bus is defined in Part 571.3 of our regulations (Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3) to mean a bus sold or introduced in interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. In turn, bus is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." More than 10 persons means 10 passengers or more plus a driver. Accordingly, any vehicle sold or introduced in interstate commerce to transport school children which carries 10 or more passengers to or from school or related events must comply with all of the new Federal school bus requirements. This includes vans which fall within that passenger capacity.

ID: nht90-1.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 29, 1990

FROM: JERRY W. MOONEY -- RESIDENT AGENT IN CHARGE, DEPT. OF THE TREASURY, U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE TO: STEVEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: FILE SV08PLOSV001

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-25-90 TO JERRY W. MOONEY FROM

STEPHEN P.WOOD; (A35; IMPORT REG.) TEXT:

Our office requests your assistance in an Investigation involving seventeen (17) M151A2 military jeeps illegally imported into the United States from Napierville, Quebec, Canada. S/A Todd Petrie of this office was advised by DOT Compliance Officer, Fred Coutts, to provide you with a written request.

The M151A2 is a quarter ton military jeep first produced for the Department of Defense by A. M. General Division in 1972. The investiga- tion has shown that these vehicles were imported into the country without declaring them as vehicles. The Customs declarations simply stated "miscellaneous jeep parts." No HS-7 declarations were filed. The vehicles were whole, intact jeeps. In addition, the jeeps were concealed inside containers and covered with parts.

To assist in this investigation, please respond to the following:

We are of the understanding that a list does not exist naming certain vehicles as being noncomplying. If not, what is the procedure to determine if a vehicle complies to DOT standards?

We are of the understanding that the M151A2 does not comply to DOT standards. What makes it a noncomplying vehicle?

Does the fact that the M151A2 was manufactured for DOD make it a noncomplying vehicle?

If you have any questions, contact S/A Todd Petrie or me at (912) 944-4341. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht75-6.9

DATE: 04/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Arnold and Porter

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 22 regarding a proposed defect notification letter by the Whittaker Corporation.

In our opinion, the proposed letter does not comply with the defect notification regulation (49 CFR, Part 577) and section 153 of the 1974 Amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The specific areas of nonconformance are:

1. The second sentence must be stated in the form and order as required by section 577.4(b); that is, you must add "defect -- which relates to motor vehicle safety -- exists."

2. The first sentence in the fourth paragraph referring to the fact that no accidents have been reported could be construed as a disclaimer, and is therefore prohibited by section 577.6.

3. Since owners may inspect these wheels themselves in lieu of having a dealer perform the inspection, it is necessary to provide the owner with a return post card so the owner can certify that the wheels were inspected and do not contain a defect or were exchanged for new wheels.

4. It is necessary to inform the owner that in the event the manufacturer, dealer or distributor is unable or fails to remedy the defect without charge, the owner may notify the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20591. This is required by section 153(a)(6) of the 1974 amendment.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. James Murray of my staff at 426-2840.

ID: nht90-3.18

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1990

FROM: S. Watanabe -- General Manager, Automotive Equipment Technical Coordination Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Watanabe (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would like to ask you a question about a configuration of combination rear lamp which fulfils both tail and rear side marker functions as sketched below.

(Graphics omitted)

In accordance with the requirement of S.5.5.7 of FMVSS No. 108, the two functions (ie. Tail & Side marker) are presented at the same time. Thus the light output of side marker lamp is also emanated toward the rear of the vehicle mixed with tail lamp ligh t, and similarly, the light output of tail lamp is also emanated toward the side mixed with side marker lamp light.

Please let us have your answers to the following questions.

1) Should the Tail lamp function of this lamp meet the photometric requirements for 2 lighted sections, or 3 lighted sections?

2) Should the Side marker function of this lamp meet the photometric requirement of SAE J592e by 3 lighted sections or 1 lighted section?

I greatly appreciate receiving your reply to the above as soon as possible.