ID: nht75-6.36

DATE: 10/15/75

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CITY AUTO SALES

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: It has come to the attention of this agency that you failed to complete an odometer disclosure statement in compliance with Federal law at the time you transferred ownership of a 1972 Chevrolet Camaro to Mrs. Connie Murphy on July 2, 1975.

Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) requires that a written disclosure of a vehicle's correct mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer.

Violation of either of the above requirements or a fraudulent completion of an odometer statement may subject the violator to civil liability. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever in greater. In addition to the private civil remedy, section 410 of the Act gives the U.S. Attorney General power to institute suits for injunctive enforcement of the odometer provisions.

If you are in violation of the Act, I strongly suggest that you take immediate steps to comply with its provisions. A copy of the relevant portions of the Act and the odometer disclosure requirements have been enclosed for your information.

ID: nht68-2.36

DATE: 10/11/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Tejas Campers

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1968, concerning glazing and lighting requirements in campers.

The amendment to Standard No. 205 to which you refer, Docket No. 23, is enclosed along with a copy of FHWA Ruling 68-1. The amendment does not allow AS2 tempered glass to be placed in forward facing windows of campers. Forward facing windows of campers must be AS1, AS2 laminated that meets the requirements of test no. 26 of ASA Standard Z26.1 - 1966, or AS3 laminated that meets the requirements of test no. 26 of ASA Standard Z26.1 - 1966. Rigid plastics may be used in other windows.

With respect to your question on vehicle lighting requirements, enclosed is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969. You will note from the standard that clearance lamps are not required on vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width. The specified requirements for side marker lamps and side reflex reflectors on vehicles of less than 80 inches in overall width are contained in paragraphs S3.1.1.6 and S3.1.1.8 and Tables III and IV of Standard No 108.

I have had your name added to our mailing list for all rulemakings related to multipurpose passenger vehicles and trailers and I have also enclosed information on subscribing to the Federal Register should you so desire.

ID: nht95-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 27, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fredd Scheys -- President, S.E.C. Carat, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/25/95 Fax from Fredd Scheys to John Womack; Also attached to 3/8/93 letter from John Womack to Fredd Scheys; Also attached to 11/16/92 letter from Rice to Scheys

TEXT: Dear Mr. Scheys:

This responds to your FAX of January 25, 1995, to John Womack of this Office asking whether the interpretation letter sent to you on November 16, 1992, and confirmation letter sent you on March 8, 1993, remain valid.

This confirms that these letters remain valid. We note that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) was recodified in July 1994. The correct citation today is 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety.

The first full paragraph of the second page of the November 16, 1992, letter refers to "Title 15, United States Code, section 1397(b)(2)." Under the recodification, the citation has become "Title 49 United States Code, section 30122(b)". Further, the qu oted phrase in that paragraph that reads "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device of element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard" has been restated to read "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." But the meaning remains the same and there is no substantive change in the prohibition.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht68-2.7

DATE: 06/19/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Robert Bosch Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 24, 1968, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this Bureau, concerning the testing of automotive flasher devices.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 specifies that turn signal flashers and vehicular hazard warning signal flashers conform to SAE Standards J590b and J945, respectively. These SAE standards, in turn, require that the test circuitry and test instrumentation conform to SAE Standard J823a. As you noted, the distribution of the 0.10+/-0.01 ohm series resistance in the standard test circuit (Figure 1 of J823a) is not specified in SAE Standard J823a. Therefore, your recommended distribution, namely, 0.025+/-0.005 ohms resistance between the power supply (positive terminal) and flasher input terminal, and 0.075+/-0.005 ohms resistance between the flasher output terminal and the flasher bulbs, would be permitted by SAE Standard J823a.

Flasher units having a ground terminal that is connected with the negative terminal of the power supply may be tested in the standard test circuit of SAE Standard J823a, provided the ground circuitry does not change the required resistance of 0.10+/-0.01 ohm looking into terminals A-B with the removable shunts in place (see note for Figure 1, SAE J823a).

The above-stated test provisions in no way except the flasher units from meeting all performance requirements specified in Standard No. 108, including those specified in basically referenced SAE Standards J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers," and J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher."

ID: 77-2.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 3, 1977

FROM: Joseph J. Levin, Jr. -- Chief Counsel

TO: Larry J. Stroble

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to R.B. Roden (A36; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 7-19-90 from R.B. Roden to P.J. Rice (OCC 5036)

TEXT:

This responds to your April 20, 1977, letter asking whether your client, a manufacturer of radiator cooling fans and air conditioner/heater fans, must comply with the requirements for certification found in Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1968 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et sec.).

Section 114 of the Act requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to certify that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since there are no safety standards in effect which regulate the items of equipment to which you refer, your client would not be required to perform the certification outlined in Section 114 and in the regulation promulgated thereunder (49 CFR Part 567).

You should note that as an equipment manufacturer your client might have some responsibilities under the Act with respect to defect notifications and recalls if he were to manufacture an item of equipment that contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety. These responsibilities are outlined in the Act in Section 151 et seq.

ID: 14386.drn

Mr. Ronald J. Hemmer
Engineering Manager
DuraTech
P. O. Box 1940
Jamestown, ND 58402-1940

Dear Mr. Hemmer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company's mobile industrial tub grinders must be assigned vehicle identification numbers (VIN) pursuant to 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter stated that your company was asked to provide your "World Manufacturer Identification (WMI) Code." The WMI is the first three digits of a VIN and identifies a motor vehicle manufacturer. Your letter emphasizes that the grinders "are not used on the highway for commercial purposes." The grinders are mobile to facilitate towing from DuraTech to the buyer, which "may then use the highway system to get the machine from one jobsite to another." You enclosed six brochures, each describing a different model of an industrial tub grinder. The brochures describe the grinders as used for grinding timber and debris ranging from (depending on the model) tree limbs and yard waste, to large trees, construction debris, tires and demolition lumber.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the length of time a grinder is at a job site depends on the task. The grinder could be at a tire dump or construction site for months at a time. You stated that the grinders very rarely stay at a job site for less than a week.

NHTSA's VIN requirement (49 CFR Part 565) applies only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). That section defines "motor vehicle" 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 grinders 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 the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on your description, it appears that your company's grinders are not motor vehicles. This is because the grinders stay on job sites for extended periods of time (usually for months) and only use the highway to move from site to site. Therefore, your grinders need not be assigned VINs pursuant to 49 CFR Part 565. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that the grinders use the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

Please note that since a State may require equipment such as your grinders to be registered, you may wish to contact the States about the status of your grinder in that State.

You also informed Ms. Nakama over the telephone that the Canadian government would require your grinders to be assigned VINs for sale in Canada. NHTSA and the Canadian government have independent requirements, and our determination that your grinders need not be assigned VINs would have no effect on Canadian requirements. NHTSA cannot prohibit your company from assigning VINs (in accordance with the format prescribed in Part 565) to your grinders to meet Canadian requirements.

However, since the grinders are not "motor vehicles," I would recommend that your company ensure that grinders sold in the U.S. not be assigned VINs. For U.S. purposes, assigning VINs to your grinders may cause confusion as to whether the grinders are "motor vehicles." If a DuraTech grinder had a VIN, state officials, including law enforcement officers and highway inspectors, reviewing the VIN may question why the grinder has no certification label pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 Certification (i.e., certifying that a vehicle meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)(at 49 CFR Part 571) applicable to the vehicle type), and why the grinder does not appear to meet such safety standards. Your U.S. customers may find it difficult to respond to such questions.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565#VSA
d:6/4/97

ID: 77-4.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/77

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

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone conversation of November 9, 1977, with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the tire performance standard (Standard No. 109. New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars) to temporary-use spare tires.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has permitted the manufacture of temporary-use spare tires because they are smaller than regular spare tires and thus when carried in the automobile reduce its overall weight. A reduction in motor vehicle weight can result in increased fuel efficiency of the vehicle. These tires must comply with all of the safety requirements applicable to passenger car tires.

ID: 1982-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. John Glenn - US Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

16 AUG 1982 NOA-30

The Honorable John Glenn United States Senator 200 North High Street, Suite 600 Columbus, Ohio 43215

Dear Senator Glenn:

This responds to your July 1, 1982, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent Mr. Donald M. Robinson. Mr. Robinson would like to know whether Federal regulations prohibit him from purchasing a pickup cab and chassis without the body attached. The answer to his question is no.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration only requires that all vehicles be manufactured in compliance with the applicable motor vehicle safety standards. We have no requirement, nor do we know of any other Federal regulation, that would prevent Mr. Robinson from purchasing just the cab and chassis of a vehicle that he desires. When he adds his own utility body to the cab and chassis, he would become the final-stage vehicle manufacturer and would be required to certify that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. I am enclosing copies of the regulations pertinent to such an operation.

If I can be of further assistance to you or Mr. Robinson, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures: Constituent's Correspondence 49 CFR Parts 567 & 568

cc: Washington Office

June 23, 1982

Senator John H. Glenn 200 N. High Street, Room 6 Columbus, Ohio 43215

We have asked truck dealers in the area for bids on two one-half ton cab and chassis and one three-quarter ton cab and chassis trucks upon which we intended to install utility beds so that the trucks would be equipped properly to be used as service trucks on our distribution system.

We have been told by the dealers that they cannot order just the cab and chassis but have to include the pickup bed for which we have absolutely no use. This is our first knowledge of this and, quite frankly, it shocks me.

We are told that this is a federal law, regulation or whatever.

Could you check into this matter at your convenience to see if there is any recourse.?

We will appreciate whatever you can do.

Yours truly,

Donald M. Robinson Manager

DMR/mb

ID: nht74-3.13

DATE: 01/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 3, 1973, requesting clarification of paragraph S5.1(c) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release." Your letter, and attached photograph of a push-out window, suggest that the words "window frame" in S5.1(c) refer not to the window "sash", the structure immediately surrounding the glazing material, but to the side of the bus.

We do not agree. The words "window frame" in S5.1(c), with respect to the push-out window, refer to the component that interfaces with the glazing.

The intent of S5.1 is to require a window retention system to be strong enough to retain occupants in a crash, at least up to the strength limit of the glazing itself. Since there are no limits on movement of the window "sash" relative to the bus structure, the interpretation you suggest would allow a window system that provides no retentive properties at all, thus defeating one of the main purposes of the standard.

ID: nht91-2.27

DATE: March 12, 1991

FROM: Rueben K. Brown -- Product Engineer, Crane Carrier Company

TO: Chief Counsel -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Rueben K. Brown (A37; Std. 105)

TEXT:

I am employed as a product engineer with Crane Carrier and am currently involved in FMVSS 105 testing of our school bus chassis. I am unclear on the applicability of the spike stop requirement for school buses greater than 10,000 lb. GVWR. There appears to be some confusion in the industry on this subject. (I have previously spoken with Zack Fraser, of NHTSA, who referred me to your office for an expert opinion.)

Please provide an interpretation of FMVSS 105 regarding spike stops on school buses greater than 10,000 lb. GVWR.

You can reach me at the Bendix Automotive Proving Grounds, New Carlisle, Indiana 46552 (219-654-7400) for approximately the next 2-3 weeks. After that I can be reached at the address shown above for Crane Carrier.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.