ID: 86-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roland L. Lafleur

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of May 5, 1986, to our former Chief Counsel, Jeffrey Miller, asking about comparative costs of a center high-mounted stop lamp. You read that the cost of such a lamp was $4 to $7, but in fact it cost you $136.18, tax included, to have one installed on your 1984 Cadillac.

The figures of $4 to $7 represent the agency's conclusions as to the cost to a vehicle manufacturer to install the new lamp as standard equipment when its installation became mandatory for new vehicles. As the new requirement does not extend to aftermarket equipment such as the lamp you bought for your 1984 Cadillac, the agency's cost estimates should not be read as applying to it. Also, our estimate was for the "average" vehicle. Costs will vary by manufacturer and by carline within a given manufacturers' fleet according to the particular design and placement chosen. In spite of your dissatisfaction over the cost you have nevertheless wisely equipped your car with a safety device which should lessen the likelihood of expensive rear end collisions and the injuries to passengers that can occur. We appreciate your interest in the lamp.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

OPELOUSAS, LA 5/5/86

DEAR MR. JEFFREY MILLER

I am retired & 71 years old, having time on my hands I read A lots. I am A auto (MUSTANG) NUT. 65 & 70 MUSTANG convertibles, I also bought A CADILLAC FLEETWOOD August 1984. I subscribe to 5 auto magazine one of which is HOME MECHANIX. In the JUNE 1986 issue I read on page 78 an article safety & (NHTSA) about NEW CENTER HIGH-MOUNTED STOPLIGHT, The article states that the light cost about $4 to $7 per car. The light was installed before I read the article, & it looks as if factory installed. I agreed the light is very good, but the price you stated like FANTICY-LAND. I took my CADILLAC to the CADILLAC dealer where it was bought. I now have the light you mention in Home Mechanix. The light & wires cost me $55.19 The labor listed by CADILLAC MOTOR CO, was 2.7 HRS. to install, Labor in Lafayette, LA. at CADILLAC is $32.00, so get you adding machine & figure the total cost. Also we in LOUISIANA have A 6% TAX. this amount is quite different from your estimate of $4 to $7. I know that the factory can install much cheaper. But $136.18 is unreasonable higher than $4 or $7.

When I read an article in a magazine I take it for granted that I am reading true articles. Lets try to get things straight before printing it.

THANKS A LOTS

JUST

PS Please advise if I am off or you off

ROLAND L. LAFLEUR 1155 W. GROLEE, ST. OFELOUSAS, LA. 70570

ID: 86-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: South Carolina Legislature

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ralph Davenport South Carolina Legislature P.O. 1301 Spartanburg, SC 20394

Dear Mr. Davenport:

This is to follow up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the effect of Federal regulations on the tinting of motor vehicle windows. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect the tinting of vehicle windows may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

You first asked if the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to foreign vehicles sold in the United States. As with all our standards, Standard No. 205 applies to any new vehicle, whether made by a foreign or domestic company, manufactured for sale in the United States. Thus, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Violation of Standard No. 205 can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. In addition, a manufacturer of a vehicle that does not comply with our standards is required to remedy any noncompliances in its vehicles.

You also asked how Federal law affects businesses that tinted the windows of used vehicles. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 100(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Thus, under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance, However, the agency recommends that vehicle owners not install materials that would impair their vision and thus adversely affect safety. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John C. Hilliard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John C. Hilliard Chairman & Technical Director Combustion and Fuel Research, Inc. 857-9 South Wagner Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Dear Mr. Hilliard:

Thank you for your letter of July 1, 1986 asking how our regulations would affect the placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles You asked whether there are any State or Federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As discussed below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any safety standards that would prohibit the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As to State laws, I suggest you check with the Department of Transportation in the States where your client wants to use the vehicles.

Some background information about our agency and its standards may be of assistance to you. NHTSA has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

We do not have any standards that prohibit the use of a right hand drive steering system. We have, however, issued two safety standards (Standard Nos. 203 and 204) that set performance requirements which apply to any steering system, whether left or right hand drive, installed in new passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A copy of each of these standards is enclosed.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 1, 1986.

Mr. Stephen Wood Assistant Chief Council for Rulemaking NHTSA 400 7th Street SW Room 5219 Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

On the advice of Mr. Charles Fisher, of the Michigan Department of Transportation , I am writing for information on the following matter.

We have a specific inquiry with regard to placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles. As you know, many postal service vehicles and street utility vehicles are equipped, with steering wheels on the right--hand side.

One of our clients is exploring the possible manufacture of delivery vehicles where the driver has to leave the cab at regular intervals. Could you please tell us whether there are any state and/or federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel for a privately owned, delivery company?

We thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

John C. Hilliard Chairman & Technical Director

JCH:ph

ID: 77-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/77

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

TO: Truck Body & Equipment Assoc., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 22, 1977, request for clarification of my July 21, 1977, letter to you stating that, in the case of brake and axle modifications to change the function of a used vehicle from that for which it was originally manufactured, it is the NHTSA's view that degradation of the brake system would only occur as prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (@ 108(a)(2)(A)) if portions of the brake system originally installed are removed, disconnected, or otherwise rendered inoperative. You asked whether a change in "function" of a vehicle would include a modification that simply increases the load-carrying capacity or stability of the vehicle to carry out the same task for which it was originally manufactured.

The answer to your question is no. In the NHTSA's view, the changes you describe would only increase the capabilities of the vehicle to perform its originally manufactured function. Thus, the "element of design" that constitutes the original braking system of the vehicle could be knowingly degraded by the installation of an additional axle that does not provide the capability that would have been required for it if installed in the new vehicle.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC

July 22, 1977

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

In response to your letter of July 20, 1977, (see attachment #1), a question has arisen concerning the Agency's use of the term "function" as it relates to a truck.

It would appear that a change in a truck's function dictates whether or not an anti skid unit is applied to the additional axle installed on a used vehicle. (See attachment #2).

Whenever our industry adds an axle to any vehicle, our intent is always to change the function of the vehicle by either increasing the load carrying capacity or by increasing the vehicle's stability. A used moving van may be originally operated to transport furniture but upon resale to the second owner, an additional axle may be installed to allow the vehicle to transport heavy machinery. Just as in the original example cited in our letter of April 12, 1977, the addition of the second rear axle to the van type truck clearly changes the function of the vehicle.

We recognize that the Agency must ensure that no one deliberately attempts to circumvent the requirements of the Law by claiming that a vehicle is used and therefore not subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. But in the same sense, whenever a vehicle is reworked to provide a different service after it initially has been operated to perform a specific vocational duty, the vehicle has clearly established a new job function.

Therefore, with respect to your letter of July 20, 1977, are we correct in assuming that when referring to a used vehicle, the term "function", indicates either a physical or job related operational change?

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: 77-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/77

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

TO: United Brake & Clutch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to United Brake and Clutch's June 1, 1977, request for confirmation that use of a brake chamber equipped with separate diaphrams for application of service brake air pressure and isolated air pressure, along with a mechanical device that automatically holds the brakes in the applied position once they have been applied by means of the protected source of air, would comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The relevant provision of the standard states:

S5.6.3 Application and holding. The parking brakes shall be applied by an energy source that is not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system. Once applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unable to "approve" system designs for compliance with a standard in advance, because there is no way to establish that a vehicle so equipped actually meets the requirements until it has been manufactured.

From your description, it appears that the design would not violate any provision of the parking brake requirement. Our understanding is that the protected source of air pressure is connected separately to the brake chamber, that it is designed to operate even with failure of the service brake chamber diaphram, and that the mechanical holding device operates automatically whenever air pressure in the trailer supply line is at atmospheric pressure. We assume also, that the braking force developed by the protected source of air pressure and maintained by the mechanical device would comply with the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

UNITED BRAKE & CLUTCH

JUNE 1, 1977

JOE LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL

RE: PARKLOCK BRAKING DEVICE

DEAR MR. LEVIN: IN DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. TED HERLIKY AND MR. DUANE PERRIN, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT WE CONTACT YOUR OFFICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A DEFINITION AS TO THE COMPLIANCE TO SS 121 OF OUR DEVICE.

THE PARKLOCK BRAKING DEVICE FUNCTIONS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE BENDIX WESTINGHOUSE'S DD 3. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, FUNCTIONALLY. THE SAME PLUMBING ARRANGEMENT IS UTILIZED, THE BRAKE IS HELD IN APPLIED POSITION BY MECHANICAL MEANS. THE UNIT IS A DOUBLE DIAPHRAM UNIT, ONE FOR SERVICE AND THE OTHER FOR EMERGENCY OR PARKING. THE SOURCE OF ENERGY IN THE EMERGENCY OR PARKING APPLICATIONS, LIKE THE DD 3, IS A SEPARATE ISOLATED AIR SOURCE FROM THE SERVICE.

IF YOU CAN TELL ME IF THE UNIT I HAVE DESCRIBED WOULD COMPLY TO THE SS 121 LAW, FOR BOTH TRUCKS AND TRAILERS, IT WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL.

ENCLOSED YOU WILL FIND A DESCRIPTIVE BROCHURE ALONG WITH A BLOW UP OF YOUR PRODUCT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND YOUR EXPEDIENT ATTENTION WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

YOURS TRULY,

RICHARD P. SEIB, PRES.

[Enc. Omitted]

ID: 1984-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. Nakaya -- Office Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1984, asking three questions concerning the compliance test procedures of Standard No. 219 that would be used in testing a truck with a forward tilt cabin. The answers to your questions are discussed below.

You first asked whether in doing the compliance test, "may the test sample consist of just the cabin with the production seating system installed?" In conducting Standard No. 210 compliance tests, the agency conducts the test on a fully assembled vehicle (i.e., cabin and chassis/frame).

You then asked whether the tilt cabin rear latch bracketry could be reinforced during the testing. The answer is no; the agency tests the vehicle as manufactured.

Finally, you asked "should the tilt cabin latch bracketry and mechanism be considered within the scope" of the Standard No. 210 compliance testing. The answer is no. The purpose of the standard is to measure the performance of the seat belt anchorages. A failure of the tilt cab latch would not constitute a failure of Standard No. 210. I must note, however, that a failure of a tilt cab latch under the loading experienced during a Standard No. 210 compliance test could raise the question of whether the latch contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I urge you to design the latch in such a manner that it will withstand the loads generated during a crash.

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

Sincerely, Original Signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

February 20, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration 400 7th S.W. Washington, DC 20590

re: Interpretation of Compliance Testing Criteria - Safety Standard 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda, after reviewing our test procedures used to verify compliance with Standard 210, has a number of questions relating to truck vehicles equipped with a forward tilt cabin:

1. When a forward tilt cabin equipped truck is to be tested for seat belt assembly anchorage performance, may the test sample consist of just the cabin with the production seating system installed?

2. If just the cabin is required, would it be possible to reinforce the tilt cabin rear latch bracketry? If the chassis/frame is required, would such reinforcement be allowed?

3. When performing Standard 210 compliance testing, should the tilt cabin latch bracketry and mechanisms be considered within the scope of their Standard 210 compliance varification testing?

Please respond to these questions and discuss any issues relevant to the accurate interpretation of Standard 210 testing procedures and criteria at your earliest convenience.

Thank you, Sincerely, Original signed by H. Nakaya

ID: 1984-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John Lindig -- President, Lindig Manufacturing Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John Lindig President Lindig Manufacturing Corporation 1875 W County Rd C St. Paul, Minnesota 55113

This is in response to your December 5, 1983 letter regarding the applicability of Federal vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements to brush chipper trailers manufactured by your company.

With very limited exceptions, all trailers are subject to VIN requirements and to certain other requirements under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Trailers which are manufactured exclusively for off-road purposes or those whose on-road use is limited to travel between work sites, with extended stays at individual work sites, are excluded. Trailers whose on-road use is restricted to travel between work sites, but whose stay at any particular site would not typically be an extended one, have been considered subject to our requirements. In particular, the agency has in the past issued interpretation letters stating that brush chipper trailers are subject to our requirements, including VIN requirements. Therefore, it is our view that your trailers are covered by those requirements.

Enclosed is information on how to obtain copies of our regulations.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

December 5, 1983

Dear Sir:

Recently, an equipment dealer that sells our products in California, advised us that his customer had been notified by the State of California, that a federal Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) was required for Lindig products which may be towed behind a car or truck.

A copy of the form letter of the State of California is enclosed. Palomar Tractor Co. is our dealer.

The machine in question is a Lindig Model XR16 brush chipper.

The Lindig XR16, plus similar machines such as our XK9 and XW12 chippers are landscape/construction machines. They are used to process tree branches into small woodchips. They are equipped normally with a gasoline or diesel engine...but are not self propelled. They must be towed from one job site to another, normally by a pickup truck or similar type of vehicle. They are not used to transport other machines or products, but are road towable only so that the machine itself may be moved to a new work location. Similar types of road towable units would be cement mixers, air compressors etc.

The State of California indicates that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 requires the VIN to be assigned, and it appears California feels that our brush chippers are covered by Standard 115.

From our limited understanding of this matter, we believe that products such as ours, are not in fact covered.

We ask for an opinion in this regard.

Sincerely, Original signed by John Lindig, President Lindig Manufacturing Corporation 1875 W County Road C St. Paul, Minnesota 55113

ID: nht79-2.1

DATE: 09/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tiger Trading Corporation International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 26, 1979, concerning an "after market" motor vehicle accessory you plan to distribute. You describe the accessory as an item of clear plastic that affixes to the inside of the rear window "to greatly improve the rear vision of the driver of a passenger vehicle."

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, establishes performance requirements for rearview mirror systems. The standard only applies to mirrors installed as original equipment in motor vehicles and does not apply to replacement equipment such as the aftermarket accessory you intend to distribute. However, since the device you plan to distribute is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), as amended, (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defect in your mirror accessory. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

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

Sincerely,

July 26, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

To Whom It May Concern:

We will be distributing a new automobile accessory to the retail trade selling "after market" accessories to the public. Following my brief phone conversation with Mr. Joseph F. Zemaitis, NHTSA, San Francisco, we deemed it advisable to check with your offices to determine if there will be any objections to the product.

Basically the article is made of plastic (clear) and is designed to greatly improve the rear vision of the driver of a passenger vehicle. The unit is affixed to the inside of the rear window by means of a self-adhesive mounting bracket. The driver when looking at the rear view mirror, with the field of vision passing through the unit rearward, then is capable of seeing objects on either side of their vehicle, which they cannot normally do so (Illegible Word) viewing through the rear view mirror.

The unit is 9"x3"x1" (rectangular) and is out of the way of any passengers. As it is not permanently mounted to the vehicle, it will break away upon impact. There are no sharp edges and the larger flat portion of the unit faces the interior of the vehicle. We have enclosed photocopies which will enable you to better understand the unit.

In light of the current problems with rearvision from the drivers seat, we believe the product is needed and timely. Your office's concern in this area as evidenced by Docket No. 71-3a;Notice 4 is indicative.

Your earliest comments will be appreciated.

David H. Lewis Import Manager

cc: Joseph F. Zemaitis

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

THIN METAL TO ELIMINATE SUN GLARE (FACES WINDOW)

CLEAR PLASTIC FACING INTERIOR OF VEHICLE

(Graphics omitted)

THIN METAL TO ELIMINATE SUN GLARE (FACES WINDOW)

PLASTIC

CLEAR PLASTIC FACING INTERIOR OF VEHICLE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.25

DATE: 10/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carolina International, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John W. Howard, III Product Engineering Manager Carolina International, Inc. 1 Hurstbourne Park, Suite 703 Louisville, Kentucky 40222

Dear Mr. Howard:

This is in response to your letter of June 19, 1979, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

The VIN format you forwarded with your letter is essentially correct. There are, however, several aspects of it which should be modified. They will be discussed as numbered in your letter.

It is important to point out at the outset that Standard 115 requires Carolina International Inc. to assign a VIN to only those vehicles for which it is the first stage manufacturer, in this case trailers. Ford and General Motors will be assigning a VIN to those vehicles for which it is the first stage manufacturer, even though Carolina is the final stage manufacturer.

I. World Identification Numbers.

The first three characters of the VIN designate the manufacturer, make, and type of vehicle. While Carolina is the final stage manufacturer for several types of vehicles, it is the first stage manufacturer for only one type. Consequently, one manufacturer identifer is sufficient. As the Agency has contracted with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to act as its agent in assigning these Identification codes (see enclosed notice), you should communicate with the SAE if your identifier was not assigned by it.

II. Vehicle Description Section (VDS).

Your proposed coding for the VDS is satisfactory, except that it encodes data relating to vehicles produced by other manufacturers who would, as explained above, assign the VIN for those vehicles.

III. Check Digit.

The mathematical values assigned to the alphabetic characters are not correct. Please consult Table IV in Notice 8 (44 PR 17489, March 22, 1979) which I have enclosed.

IV. Vehicle Indicator Section.

The format utilized in this section is correct, except that the series of trailer must be indicated in the Vehicle Descriptor Section. Perhaps this can be encoded where you previously intended to indicate chassis type (2.4).

I hope this information has been helpful. Please write or call Mr. Schwartz of my office at 202-426-1834 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

June 19, 1979

Mr. Frederick Schwartz, Jr. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification No.

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

Per our telephone conversation last week, and pursuant to the above referenced standard, attached please find an outline of Carolina International, Inc.'s proposed method to meet the above referenced standard.

Please review, and return an approved copy to me for our files. Should you have any questions, or need additional information, please call.

Sincerely,

John W. Howard, III Product Engineering Manager

JWH/nhs Encl.

ID: nht79-2.28

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dixson, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Clay Lansdown Chief Engineer H. D. Instrument Division Dixson, Inc. P. O. Box 1949 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501

Dear Mr. Lansdown:

This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1979, asking whether construction, mining and agricultural machinery must comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127. In order for a vehicle to fall within the ambit of Standard 127 or any other safety standard it must be a motor vehicle. Section 103(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) defines a motor vehicle as

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

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use the public highways as part of its intended function.

There are two exceptions to the above rule that permit certain vehicles to use the highways without being considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment that is strictly used in farm fields and only incidentally uses the roads adjacent to those fields has been excepted from the definition of motor vehicle. However, not all agricultural equipment is excepted from the definition of motor vehicle. A piece of agricultural equipment, like any other vehicle, that uses the public streets and roads not adjacent to the fields on a necessary and recurring basis would be considered to be a motor vehicle and must meet the requirements of Standard 127 and the other safety standards.

The agency has further excepted certain vehicles from the definition of motor vehicle despite frequent highway use. Some maintenance and construction equipment whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinquishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles.

I suggest that you contact the manufacturers to whom you are selling your equipment. It is their responsibility initially for determining whether use on the public highways is part of the vehicles' intended function. The enclosed information sheet should be helpful in making that determination.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 7, 1979

National Highway Traffic Administration United States Department of Transportation Docket No. 76-06 Speedometer-Odometers 400 Seventh Street S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir,

Our product line includes electronic speedometer-odometers. A significant portion of the units we manufacture are sold to manufacturers of construction, mining, and agricultural machinery. I am not sure if S3 of Standard 127 defines vehicles of the type listed above. These vehicles do on occasion, travel on highways, and in some cases are used to repair and build highways. The speedometers in these vehicles rarely, if ever, have markings above 40 MPH I wish to know if these vehicles are defined by S3 of Standard 127 in order to determine if the speedometers are required to meet S4.1.1 and S4.1.3 of Standard 127.

Sincerely,

DIXSON, INC.

Clay Lansdown Chief Engineer aH. D. Instrument Division

CL/ms