ID: 1985-01.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Herbert R. Apuzzo -- Laboratory Supervisor, American Safety Equipment Corporation, Corporate Quality Assurance & Reliability

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Herbert R. Apuzzo Laboratory Supervisor American Safety Equipment Corporation Corporate Quality Assurance & Reliability 11441 Bradley Avenue Pacomia, CA 91331

This responds to your letter of September 25, 1984, to Mr. William Smith which was forwarded to this office for reply. You asked several questions concerning the requirements of section 5.2(b) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which are answered below.

Your first question concerns the conditioning requirements of Procedure D of ASTM D756-78, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 209. You pointed out that the agency' s compliance test procedure (document TP-209-01) calls for conditioning for 24 hours, while ASTM D756-78 calls for conditioning for not less than 40 hours. The conditioning requirement incorporated by reference in Standard No. 209 is the correct version and is the method which will be used by the agency. The version of the agency's compliance test procedure you cite was prepared before the June 30, 1983, amendments to Standard No. 208 which adopted ASTM D756-7B. The compliance test procedure will be revised to specify not less than 40 hours of conditioning.

Your second question concerned the requirement of Procedure D that part of the testing be done in a sealed container placed over water in a 176oF recirculating oven. The test calls for maintaining "a humid atmosphere" in the sealed container. You asked what percentage of humidity should be maintained.

You are correct that Procedure D does not specify the specific percentage of humidity. However, section 6.2, Test conditions, of ASTM D756-78 specifies that the tests should be conducted in the Standard Laboratory Atmosphere of 23 +- 2oC and 50 +- 5% relative humidity "unless otherwise specified in the test methods or in this practice." Since Procedure D does not specify a humidity level, the agency will use the humidity of 50 +- % relative humidity specified in section 6.2.

You also asked whether a recirculating chamber can be used to conduct the test. The test equipment specified in the standard is the equipment the agency will use in its compliance tests. Manufacturers are free to use other test equipment as long as they can make a good faith certification that their product complies with the requirements met in the standard.

Your final question concerns another difference between ASTM D756-78 and the compliance test procedure. As explained above, the version of the compliance test procedure you cite was prepared before the June 1983 amendments to the standard and will be updated to cite the requirements adopted in those amendments. You asked for a description of "dessicator" and "uncharged dessicator" referred to in ASTM D756-7B. A dessicator is a closed container that has a drying agent to absorb moisture. An "uncharged dessicator" is a dessicator that does not have a test specimen in it.

In addition, you asked whether you could use an environmental chamber rather than a dessicator. As discussed previously, the test procedures and equipment specified in the standard are the procedures and equipment which the agency will use in its compliance tests. Manufacturers are free to use other test equipment and procedures as long as they can make a good faith certification that their product complies with the requirements set in the standard.

If you have any other questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel September 25, 1984

Mr. William E. Smith Office of Vehicle Safety National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20509

Mr. Smith,

American Safety Equipment Corporation, a major manufacturer of Seat Belt Restraint Systems, requires an interpretation of a long-standing but updated ASTM Standard identified in FMVSS-209, paragraph SS.2(b) "Hardware Temperature Resistance".

The Federal registry, under docket 48 FR 30138 (June 30, 1983) amended said paragraph to include updated ASTM D756-78, procedure D, which did not incorporate present standard industry practices.

In this regard, would you please review the following and inform American Safety Equipment of your interpretation.

1. Paragraph S5.2(b) calls for "Conditions prescribed in procedure D of ASTM D756-78" which in turn calls for conditioning at 73.4 +- 3.6 F and 50 +- 5% RH. for not less than 40h, per ASTM Methods D618, while TP-209-01 (page C-1) calls for conditioning for 24 hours. It is our understanding that 24 hours conditioning (as called out in TP-209-01) is "Standard" in the automotive industry, as opposed to the 40 hour conditioning period identified in ASTM D756.

Question: Will both methods satisfy the requirements of FMVSS-209?

2. ASTM D756-78, Procedure D calls for testing "OVER WATER" (at 176o F, in recirculating oven) in sealed container with small capillary "To maintain a humid atmosphere", but does not mention any specific percentage of relative humidity. In general practice, environmental chambers capable of relative humidity from near-zero to 100% are being used to maintain high humidity.

Question: What percentage of humidity can be expected with the "OVER WATER" method, and will recirculating chambers satisfy this requirement?

3. ASTM D756-78, calls for bringing specimens to room temperature in an "Uncharged dessicator which will require 10-30 minutes", then within 2h of exposure over water, expose the specimen for 24h in the oven at 176o F.

TP-209-01 states: "Within two humid of the humid exposure, place the specimens in a DRY HEAT OVEN which has been pre-conditioned to a temperature of 176 = 1.8o F for 24 hours, but does not mention the use of an uncharged dessicator for 10-30 minutes.

Question: Would you please provide us with a description of "Dessicator" and "Uncharged Dessicator" and a determination as to the acceptability of an environmental chamber set at 73.4 +-3.6oF and 50 +- 5% RH to bring specimens to room temperature and then to 176 +- 1.8oF dry heat.

We would appreciate your response (written) at your earliest possible convenience so that American Safety Equipment can maintain the most accurate test conditions possible.

Thank you,

Herbert R. Apuzzo Laboratory Supervisor American Safety Equipment Corporation Corporate Quality Assurance & Reliability 11441 Bradley Avenue Pacoima, CA 91331

HA:dm

cc: F. Neumann T. Israelson

ID: aiam1857

Dear Senator Hartke: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1975, asking for detaile consideration of Mr. David L. Daugherty's concern that final-stage manufacturers will be unable to fulfill their certification responsibilities on air-braked trucks built after March 1, 1975. As you know, Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, became effective for trucks and buses on March 1, 1975.; Mr. Daugherty has raised one of the most critical aspects of truc manufacturing in assuring a minimum brake performance level. Unlike passenger cars, the vast majority of heavy trucks are manufactured by adding specialized bodies or equipment to a chassis-cab. These additions affect the center of gravity, dynamic load transferral, and other characteristics of the truck which determine in large part its stopping capability.; As a practical matter, meaningful dynamic brake performance standard cannot be developed without regulating the truck as it is completed and sold.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognize that Standard No. 121, as the first comprehensive performance requirement for trucks, will limit somewhat the freedom of manufacturers to modify brake systems and mount bodies without regard for their effect on braking. We consider the increased care exercised by final-stage manufacturers to be one of the most significant benefits of the standard.; Mr. Daugherty correctly points out that chassis-cab manufacturer released the necessary information on their chassis only a short time before March 1, 1975. The two trade associations for final-stage manufacturers petitioned for delay of the standard for this reason. After careful consideration of possible relief, NHTSA denied those petitions. It was concluded that every form of relief had obvious drawbacks and would not achieve the objective of final-stage manufacturers to receive 121-type chassis to use in re-engineering their body and equipment installations. It was concluded that if the standard for completed vehicles were suspended, chassis manufacturers would no longer have to provide incomplete vehicles with the necessary equipment and final-stage manufacturers would be unable to develop solutions for their engineering problems. Even if incomplete vehicles could be certified and completed vehicles could be exempt, serious danger would exist when modifications of the new systems were undertaken without consideration of the handling consequences.; I would like to point out that the March 1, 1975, effective date doe not require an instantaneous ('one day') change for final-stage manufacturers. Part 568 of our regulations (49 CFR Part 568) permits a final-stage manufacturer to use the date of completion of the chassis as the date of certification of the completed vehicle. This means that the chassis manufactured prior to March 1 may be completed at any later period without meeting Standard No. 121. It is not until final-stage manufacturers begin to receive the chassis which have just started to be produced that they will have to complete vehicles in conformity with the standard. They now have data on the new chassis, and thus have a period in which to make modifications. Several manufacturers have large inventories of pre-121 chassis and it should be several months before all trucks will be completed in conformity with Standard No. 121.; Thank you for your continuing interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: nht71-5.53

DATE: 06/10/71

FROM: CLUE D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY ZEMAITIS

TO: Physicians for Automotive Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 24, 1971, informing us of Mr. Hurley's Safe-Trip-Seat and inquiring about enforcement of Standard No. 209 concerning a non-complying Hankscraft child harness.

Mr. Hurley sent us a letter on April 10, 1971, informing us of his device. Our letter to him was sent out on May 10, 1971, so he had not received it when he wrote to you. I believe we have adequately informed him of his lack of compliance with Standard No. 213 and the penalties involved if he does not. A copy of our letter to him is enclosed for your information. Our compliance personnel were also alerted on the Safe-Trip-Seat.

Hankscraft was notified in a letter dated March 23, 1971, of our position on any child harness (copy enclosed). Please note that we will enforce Standard No. 209 on harnesses advertised in any way to provide any measure of protection in a vehicle accident. We will not enforce the requirements of Standard No. 209 on harnesses which "carefully state that they are not intended to protect a child from the effects of an accident."

A copy of this letter is being forwarded to our compliance personnel for appropriate action by them.

ENC

ID: nht75-2.41

DATE: 12/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Maine

COPYEE: LEONARD FINK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received copies of correspondence between you and Leonard A. Fink, Washington counsel for Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycles, concerning requirements of the State of Maine for motor driven cycle headlamps. I understand that Mr. Fink has provided you with a copy of my letter of September 17, 1975 to him. Mr. Fink has asked that I write you directly concerning our views on Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards.

At issue is whether the State of Maine may continue to require motorcycles of 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with multiple beam headlamps. In my letter to Mr. Fink I stated:

"Any motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, may be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlamp (Table III, Standard No. 108, incorporating by reference SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. See Table I of J584. This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one".

You replied to Mr. Fink on November 7, 1975 that

"Table I appears to be inconclusive . . . . The most reasonable interpretation . . . is that motor driven cycles at high beam frequently utilize both the upper beam of the multiple beam light and a additional single beam light, whereas motor driven cycles at low beam may use the lower beam of the multiple lights (Table II of J584). At any rate, I have not found any clear preemptive language such as we find with regard to turn signal lamps in Standard No. 108 @ 4.1.1.26."

There are actually four different permissible lighting configurations available for motor driven cycles. The "multiple beam light and an additional single beam light" to which you refer is one of them, specifically the "one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam units" referred to in SAE J584's General Requirement. But the photometrics of Table I do not refer to this configuration, whose photometrics are those of J579. As a practical matter motor driven cycles will rarely if ever be equipped with more than one headlamp because of the severe drain on their low power reserve. In recognition of the limited generating capability of motor cycles with 5 horsepower or less, J584 does allow use of a single beam headlamp as the sole forward lighting source. The texts of the sections on Beam Aim During Photometric Test and At-Focus Tests refer specifically to test methods for single beam headlamps, and while the standard could be even more specific, its requirements appear to be generally understood by manufacturers and law enforcement officials. It is not a prerequisite for preemption that there be language in the body of Standard No.

108 specifying allowable headlamp systems for motor driven cycles. Where, as here, the area of motor driven cycle headlighting is clearly covered by Standard No. 108, a State must allow all four headlighting systems and cannot require only one of them.

If Maine officials would like the NHTSA to consider changing these existing Federal requirements for motor-driven cycles, they should submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552 for an amendment to Standard No. 108.

If you have any further questions I would be pleased to answer them.

SINCERELY,

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE AND OCHS

November 17, 1975

Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Re: Federal Preemption of State of Maine Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

As suggested by Mr. Taylor Vinson in our telephone conversation of November 17, I am enclosing copies of the following correspondence re the above:

1. My letters dated August 22, 1975 and September 22, 1975 to Robert S. Raymond, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Maine.

2. Your letter dated September 17, 1975 to me, a copy of which was enclosed with my September 22, 1975 letter to Mr. Raymond.

3. Mr. Raymond's reply letter to me dated November 7, 1975.

One would have thought that your September 17 letter clearly resolved any doubts as to whether the State of Maine could require motor driven cycles of 5hp or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlight. Alas, Mr. Raymond still seems unpersuaded. Mr. Vinson thus suggested that NHTSA deal directly with Mr. Raymond. I would appreciate your doing so and sending us copies of the relevant correspondence.

For your information, on November 17 I contacted Mr. Walter Ross, Chairman, Motorcycle Headlight Task Force, SAE, 216-266-2272. Mr. Ross confirmed that SAE J584 permitted either single or multiple beam headlight in this case. According to Mr. Ross, SAE will provide any further statement of clarification in support.

On behalf of our clients, Steyr-Daimier-Puch, A.G., and Bombardier, Ltd., and others in the same position, our thanks for your efforts to resolve this situation.

Leonard A. Fink

cc: TAYLOR VINSON (W/ENCS.)

STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL November 7, 1975

Leonard A. Fink, Esquire Friedman, Medalie, Ochs and Jacks

Re: Federal preemption - motor driven cycle headlights

Please excuse my tardiness in researching the questions you presented to me pertaining to the above matter.

It is my feeling at this point that federal rules and regulations in the motor vehicle safety area do indeed generally preempt state regulations. I say this, however, with the qualification that federal courts narrowly construe the preemptive provisions to give states as much flexibility as possible within the federal regulatory framework.

With that introduction in mind, it is my present feeling that there is no federal requirement which prohibits a state from requiring a high and low beam headlight on a motor driven cycle with 5 horsepower or less whose speed does not exceed 30 m.p.h. I say this after having carefully studied Table III of Federal Standard No. 108 which incorporates by reference SAE Standard J584. Both you and Mr. Frank Berndat have placed great significance on Table I of SAE J584. At best, however, Table I appears to be inconclusive as to the issue we are concerned with. The most reasonable interpretation of Table I of J584 is that motor driven cycles at high beam frequently utilize both the upper beam of the multiple beam light and an additional single beam light, whereas motor driven cycles at low beam only use the lower beam of the multiple lights (Table II of J584). At any rate, you have not indicated to me and I have not found any clear preemptive language such as we find with regard to turn signal lamps in Standard No. 108 @ 4.1.1.26.

In conclusion, I feel it would be improper for me at this time to recommend a change in Maine's regulations pertaining to head lamps on motor driven cycles. I will be glad to correspond with you further regarding this matter.

ROBERT S. RAYMOND Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division

cc: CAPT. RICHARD JONES -- DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS

September 22, 1975

Robert S. Raymond, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Attorney General's Office

AUGUSTA, MAINE 04330

Re: Federal Preemption

Following up my letter of you of August 22 and our several telephone conversations, I am enclosing for your information a copy of an opinion letter dated September 17, 1975 from Frank Berndt, Esq., Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

As you will see, Mr. Berndt's letter makes clear that Federal Safety Standard No. 108 permits a motor driven cycle of 5 bp or less to be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlight. Furthermore, Mr. Brandt's letter states "This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392 (d), that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one."

I would hope that under these circumstances you can promptly advise the appropriate State of Maine officials that the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle, and any others in the same category, quality for registration and inspection with the single beam headlight. As you can well understand continued delay in resolving this matter is working a hardship on purchasers, dealers and distributors of the motorized bicycle.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Leonard A. Fink

ID: aiam1811

Dear Mr. Luce: Thank you for your response dated December 5, 1974, to ou certification information request (CIR 1177) letter dated November 4, 1974, pertaining to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release,' failure.; The failure pertained to the bus not meeting the window retentio requirements (Section S5.1) when it was subjected to a compliance test conducted by a laboratory under contract to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; Due to the disparity that exists between Blue Bird Body Company's tes results and those of the NHTSA, it is requested that the appropriate Blue Bird personnel participate in an informal technical meeting with NHTSA personnel on March 25, 1975. This meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. in Room 3222, Trans Point Building,2100 Second Street, S.W.,Washington, D.C.; The following additional information will be required: 1. The number of buses modified to date as a result of the defec notification.; 2. Copy of the detail drawings or sketches and procedures to follow t accomplish the defect notification rework.; 3. Sample copy of the letters sent to the purchasers and th distributors or field representatives as a result of the defect notification.; 4. Specify at what point, in the buildup of the bus body, is the windo opening checked.; 5. The date when the bus body, Serial No. F25048, was assembled. 6. The date when the redesigned rubber extrusion was incorporated. Please advise by Monday, March 17, 1975, the names and titles of you representatives who will attend and whether the meeting date is satisfactory.; Should there be any questions concerning this letter, please refer the to Mr. Alfred Kazmierczak, a member of my staff, on telephone number 202-426-0826.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: 20080.ztv

Mr. Mike Spencer
Timpte, Inc.
1827 Industrial Drive
David City, NE 68632-2201

Dear Mr. Spencer:

This is in reply to your letter of May 19, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking for an "evaluation of clearance and identification lamp location on [two bulk commodity] trailers" in view of our interpretive rule of April 5, 1999 (64 FR 16358). You have enclosed drawings and photographs of these trailers.

Clearance and identification lamps are required by Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to be located as close to the top of a vehicle as practicable. Our interpretive rule states that, if under all the circumstances, it would be practicable to locate identification and clearance lamps above the rear doors, the manufacturer must do so, and that we will presume that it is practicable to locate lamps on the header of a vehicle when the header extends at least 25 mm (1 inch) above the rear doors.

You tell us that "most bulk commodity trailers are equipped with an arched roll tarp kit," and that "it is not practical to install identification lamps in the purchased roll tarp cap."

Our response is that, for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108, we do not consider a roll tarp cap to be part of a vehicle's header.

The first type of bulk commodity trailer about which you have inquired is one with a fixed rear header. From the drawing and photograph you have enclosed, we see that the identification lamps are already located in the header area. The clearance lamps appear located on the same horizontal plane as well. We therefore regard the present location of the identification and clearance lamps as conforming to Standard No. 108.

The second type of bulk commodity trailer is one that is equipped with a removable or swinging type rear header. You state that installing identification lamps on these headers exposes the harness system to the product being discharged. The identification lamps on these vehicles, according to your drawing and photographs, are located on the lower sill. The centers of the front and rear clearance lamps are located, respectively, 12 and 34 1/8 inches below the crown of the roll tarp cap.

We believe that the qualification we expressed in the interpretive rule should be applied in this instance, i.e. whether, under all the circumstances, it would be practicable to locate the identification and clearance lamps above the rear doors. Inasmuch as the header above the rear doors on the second type of trailer is designed to be swinging or removable and that the potential exists to threaten the integrity of the wiring of header-mounted identification lamps, we will not contest your determination that these circumstances render it impracticable to locate rear lamps in the header area of these trailers, and that the sill-mounted identification lamps are "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle" as required by Table II.

Table II also requires that clearance lamps be located "as near the top [of a vehicle] as practicable." Your drawing shows that the center of the rear clearance lamps on the bulk commodity trailers with non-fixed headers are 34 1/8 inches below the highest point of the vehicle. At this location, they may not conform to Standard No. 108. Although it may not be practicable to locate these lamps on the header, it should be practicable to locate them higher than 34 1/8 inches below the highest point of the vehicle, preferably at the same height as the clearance lamps on the front of the vehicle, with centers 12 inches below the highest point.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/18/99

ID: 77-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/77

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

TO: Coach & Equipment Sales Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1977, letter asking what standards apply to vehicles designed to transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school.

Vehicles that transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school are not considered buses according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of "bus" found in 49 CFR Part 571.3. Accordingly, these vehicles transporting fewer than 10 passengers would not need to comply standards applicable to either school buses or buses in general. The vehicles to which you refer would be required to comply with standards applicable to passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles depending upon the type of vehicle being used to transport children. Your should consult Part 571.3 (enclosed) of our regulations to determine the classification of the vehicle you intend to construct since the vehicle classification establishes the applicability of the standards.

SINCERELY,

Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

May 6, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I first want to thank you very much for your response to my questions pertaining to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

My question today involves, I believe, proper certification, identification and standards compliance. I hope I am correct in the above description of the question as offered herein.

It is our belief that by terms of Federal definition, "a bus" incorporated 10 passengers or more, exclusive of the driver. "A school bus" is subject to the above passenger load and is further defined as a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes, that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. If the above facts are correct, then my question is as follows.

What certification, and thus, what Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will apply to a vehicle designed primarily and used exclusively to transport students to and from school or related events, which has a passenger load of less than 10?

I am, of course, referring to a vehicle that transports primarily handicapped students Sample floor plans depicting wheelchair locking positions and some seat positions are enclosed. As you can readily see, both floor plans have less than 10 passengers.

We will certainly appreciate your answer to the questions presented and if you desire any additional details, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

RICHARD L. KREUTZIGER Executive Vice President

ID: Supreme_intl_reconsidered

Ms. Melissa A. Burt
Foley & Lardner, LLP
Attorneys at Law
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20007-5143




Dear Ms. Burt:

This responds to your recent letters on behalf of your client, Supreme International Limited (Supreme), asking us to reconsider our January 12, 2005, letter to you concerning whether your clients Truck Mount Feed Processor ("TMFP") is a motor vehicle. You wrote us on January 28, 2005, and on February 15 and 16, following telephone conferences with my staff. (The February 16 letter corrected the letter sent the previous day.)In our January 12, 2005, letter we concluded that the facts indicated that the TMFP should be considered a motor vehicle for purposes of our regulations. After considering the information you provided in your follow-on letters, we have reconsidered our earlier determination and conclude that the TMFP is not a motor vehicle.

We made the determination in our earlier letter that the TMFP was a motor vehicle based on several factors. We believed that the vehicles on-road use would be more than incidental, as your original letter indicated that some portion of TMFPs in fact traverse public roads when traveling between "the feed barn and the livestock". Your follow-on letters clarified that the TMFP is used "to transport grain or other feed only on a farm from the silo or barn where the farmer stores his grain to the field" and that "[g]rain is delivered to the farmers farm by other means". You also state that the vast majority of TMFPs spend no time on the public roads, and that the on-road use "is, in the vast majority of cases, limited to crossing from one field to another". You further state that when Supreme sells a TMFP to a customer, the TMFP is usually shipped via flatbed truck to the customer.

Another factor that we had weighed from your original letter was that it appeared that the vehicle had all the features of a truck, could be certified (according to your letter) as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and did not have features that would distinguish the vehicle as not intended for on-road use. You provided information in your follow-on letters that shows that the vehicles are specially designed for their off-road purpose. The vehicles suspension can handle the weight of a mixer unit loaded with feed on rough and muddy terrain. The truck has a lower speed differential of 7.17 than that of on-road vehicles, which slows down the TMFP so that the vehicle can travel at very low speeds (1 to 2 miles per hour) to ensure a proper distribution of feed to the cattle. Further, the vehicles engine must be equipped with a front or rear end power takeoff that can run the mixers machinery in the farmers field.

Last, we considered the information you provided in your original letter that purchasers of the vehicles may request a certificate of title so that the TMFP can be registered and licensed under the motor vehicle laws of their respective States. You explained in your follow-on letters that for every ten TMFPs sold, Supreme will usually receive a request for one or two titles and that half of the requests for titles that Supreme receives comes from financial institutions needing a title for loan purposes. You estimate that probably 95 percent of the vehicles sold are never driven on public roads, even incidentally.

In consideration of the information you have provided in your follow-on letters, we now conclude that the TMFP is not a motor vehicle for purposes of our regulations. We believe that the TMFP is a type of farm equipment that is not manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. It is thus excluded from the definition of "motor vehicle".

If you have any additional questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.3/21/05

ID: nht70-1.32

DATE: 01/19/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Technical Research Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter, dated November 11, 1969, in which you seek an interpretation as to how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) 103 and 104 are applicable to cars equipped with right-hand drive or a central steering wheel.

For motor vehicles equipped with right-hand drive, the windshield areas to be defrosted and wiped by FMVSSs 103 and 104 respectively, are mirror images of those areas required for vehicles equipped with left-hand drive.

More information is required before a reply can be given on vehicles equipped with a central steering wheel. Defrosting and wiping areas requirements would naturally vary depending on the number and location of the front seat passenger seating positions in the vehicle equipped with a central steering wheel.

We trust that we have been of assistance to you.

ID: aiam5591

"Dear Ms. Rychlewski: This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, t the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test. In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not), (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions. The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged. The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engagethe inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";