ID: nht78-4.4

DATE: 02/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Eagle Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Our Regional Office in San Francisco has forwarded to us for reply your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements.

The question you raised is who executes the odometer statement when the vehicles are owned by and registered in your name, but turned over to a leasing company who in turn sells the vehicles. Section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires each transferor of a motor vehicle to issue an odometer disclosure statement to each transferee. The transferor is defined in 49 CFR Section 580.3 as "any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle . . . " Therefore, you as the owner of the vehicle are required to execute the statement. However, since you never see the vehicles, but rely on the leasing company to sell them for you, you may also rely on the leasing company to act as your agent and execute the odometer statements for you. Since you are the legal owner of the vehicles, it is your responsibility to execute the statements. If you are concerned about the possiblity that thee leasing company may alter the odometer or make an improper disclosure, you may find it advisable to protect yourself by requiring the leasing company to indemnify you in the event of liability under the Act.

ID: nht78-4.5

DATE: 05/10/78

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

TO: The Barbour House

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 12, 1978, letter asking several questions concerning the applicability of the Federal safety standards to vehicles that are being reconstructed with new chassis. The answers to your specific questions are set forth below.

1. You ask whether the replacement of the engine, transmission, drive train, rear end, frame, front axle, front brakes, wheels, and steering box constitutes the manufacture of a new chassis requiring a new or upgraded body. The answer to your question is yes. Part 571.7(e) of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifies the items that must be retained in a truck chassis in order that such chassis be considered used. These same considerations apply to reconstructed school buses since they are built on truck chassis.

2. You ask what parts of a chassis must be retained to ensure that the vehicle could continue to utilize an old body that does not comply with current Federal safety standards. Part 571.7(e) states that, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) must be retained.

3. You ask who must certify a remanufactured vehicle if its chassis is considered old or new. In the case of an old chassis that retains the required components and is therefore considered used, no certification is required of any repair business. In the case of a remanufactured chassis, the chassis manufacturer must certify his chassis for compliance and the shop that installs the body must certify the final compliance of the vehicle.

4. Part 568.8 states that vehicles altered before the first purchase for purposes other than resale must be labeled with an alterer's label. When a new chassis is installed in a vehicle, this is not an alteration, but rather, it is the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Therefore, section 568.8 would not apply. The other provisions of Part 568 relating to the manufacture of a new motor vehicle would apply to this reconstructed vehicle. The person undertaking the remanufacture would be treated like the original manufacturer of the vehicle and would be required to certify it for compliance with the standards.

5. Standards promulgated after 1975 that are specifically applicable to school buses are: Standard No. 217-76, Bus Window Retention and Release, Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity. Many of the other safety standards apply to school buses as well as other vehicles. I am enclosing a sheet detailing the applicability of Federal safety standards. All Federal safety standards are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. By examining the standards in Part 571, you can ascertain when their most recent amendment has occurred.

ID: nht78-4.6

DATE: 05/10/78

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

TO: Potts Motorcycle Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 11, 1978, letter asking whether a device manufactured by you which is designed to tow motorcycles behind a motor vehicle would be considered a trailer.

The term trailer is defined in Part 571.3 of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations to mean "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." Since your device falls within the ambit of this definition, it is considered a trailer and must comply with all of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that vehicle type.

SINCERELY,

POTTS MOTORCYCLE CO.

February 11, 1978

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs:

This is in reference to your letter of January 30, 1978, concerning HEF 32 GSH.

The Trakor is a two wheel towing accessory for transporting motorcycles behind a car, van or truck. I hold the Patent in my name. The Trakor is being manufactured and distributed under contract by Trakor Inc., 5005 East Evans, Denver, Colo.

The accessory is not a trailer, as it can not be towed unless it is attached to a motorcycle. When not in use, it can be folded to fit in the trunk of a car or stored in a small place.

When used on a road motorcycle, the tail light can be connected to the circuit of the towing vehicle. When used on a race motorcycle, a light can be attached to the motorcycle or unit if it is to be towed at night.

Enclosed is literature regarding the information you requested. If additional information is needed, either contact Trakor or Potts Motorcycle Company.

THE TRAKOR

Specially designed for traveling with your bike by a bike racer, rider and dealer.

This is Trakor, the revolutionary new, easy-to-load bike tow. Trakor was designed and engineered by a motorcycle dea who is also an avid rider and racer. He found the available small tows too small -- and the large ones too large. So designed the perfect size: Trakor. There are several other features about the new Trakor you'll love: 1) It doesn't have be licensed or titled. 2) It weighs only 72 lbs. 3) It folds up to fit into a trunk or closet. 4) It will tow a 600 lb. bike at free speeds.

(Graphics omitted)

It's so simple anyone can do it:

First, open the unit out to its full extension.

Then, back the bike straight over the hitching plates.

Making "tracks" with TRAKOR.

You'll see when the bike's wheel passes over the unit's axle, the swing arm (folded section) lifts up to bolt directly to the bike frame.

Attach the U bolts over the frame of the bike on each side. It bolts down through the welded attachment of the swing arm.

(Graphics omitted)

It is now securely attached and can be towed anywhere -- even with a 4-wheel drive vehicle.

At this point the bike is securely on the Trakor. You should be able to lift the unit onto the hitch with relative ease.

The Trakor uses a standard hitch, take the ball off the hitch, the plate bolts directly to the hitch tongue.

Now, attach the unit to the towing vehicle. And . . .

THE TRAKOR even fits in your trunk

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-4.7

DATE: 05/31/78

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

TO: Arcola Bus Sales Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms your conversation of May 9, 1978, with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the school bus safety standards to smaller van-type vehicles. As Mr. Tilton indicated, a vehicle that transports 9 passengers and a driver is not considered a school bus and need not comply with the school bus safety standards. A vehicle that transports 10 passengers and a driver is a school bus and must comply with all of the applicable school bus safety standards.

ID: nht78-4.8

DATE: 11/29/78

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

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Ms. Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: MVSS 101 - Controls and Displays Docket 1-18; Notice 13

By notice published in the Federal Register on June 26, 1978 (43 FR 27541) the NHTSA amended MVSS 101 - Controls and Displays to require the use of ISO symbols on specific controls, telltales and gauges and the use of specified word call-outs to identify certain other controls and displays. The amendment is effective September 1, 1980 and until that date vehicles may comply with either the current or the amended standard.

As amended the standard specifies symbols for separate oil pressure and coolant temperature gauges or telltales. It has been industry practice on some models to combine the monitroing of these two functions into a single telltale to indicate an "engine" malfunction. We believe that combining these two functions is appropriate because the response by the driver to either of these engine malfunctions is the same, safely pull to the side of the road and turn off the engine. We see nothing in the standard to prohibit the continued use of an engine function telltale. Therefore, Chrysler Corporation interprets the requirements of the standard to mean that a telltale which monitors engine function may be identified by the word "Engine".

Therefore, we request the Administrator's concurrence with our interpretation that a telltale which monitors both engine oil pressure and coolant temperature may use the identifying word "Engine". If, however, our interpretation is not correct, this letter should be considered as a petition for reconsideration requesting that S5.2.3 and Table 2 be amended to allow the use of the word "Engine" to identify a telltale which monitors both engine oil pressure and coolant temperature.

Sincerely,

ID: nht78-4.9

DATE: 08/31/78

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

TO: L. F. Henneberger, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/9/78 letter from Lawrence F. Henneberger and Robert W. Green to Joseph J. Levin

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1978, on behalf of your client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company ("Jacobs" herein).

Jacobs manufactures a diesel engine retarder system which "produces significant deceleration of a large truck so equipped." Jacobs believes that some means should be provided to warn following vehicles when a retarder is in use. It proposes to connect the retarder activation switch to the hazard warning system when a retarder is installed either as original equipment or as an aftermarket accessory. You have asked whether installation of the system would violate either 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, or 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any device as original equipment that would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Paragraph S4.1.1 and Table I require trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or greater to be equipped with a hazard warning flasher system. The Jacobs device may not be installed if it would impair the effectiveness of the required hazard warning flasher system. The intended use of the Jacobs device is that it act as a warning of a decelerating vehicle in the roadway which may present a potential hazard. As such it augments the hazard warning system and, in our view, would tend to enhance rather than impair its effectiveness. Therefore, it may be installed as original equipment without violating S4.1.3. We have no provisions that would either permit or preclude its sale as an aftermarket device, and whether it is permissible as such is a matter to be determined by the laws of the States in which the truck is registered and operated, as well as those administered by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits a manufacturer, among others, from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Nothing in your letter indicates that the Jacobs device will affect the hazard warning signal flasher's ability to function at times when the Jacobs device is in operation, and therefore, it does not appear that its installation violates section 108(a)(2)(A).

SINCERELY,

Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn

June 9, 1978

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

Dear Mr. Levin:

Our client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company, has manufactured and distributed its well-known diesel engine retarder (the "Jake[R] brake") for a number of years. The Jake[R] brake is sold both in the OEM market as original engine equipment (by such companies as Cummins Engine Co. and Mack Truck, among others) and as an aftermarket installation. This retarder provides auxiliary retarding capabilities independent of the vehicle's foundation brakes and permit a heavy truck to travel at normal traffic speeds on long downgrades, under full control, as well as extending the service life of the foundation brakes.

In recent years, the retarding force generated by current-design engine retarders has increased considerably, and electric driveline retarders with markedly greater retarding horsepower have become available. For example, Jacobs is now marketing an electric retarder (the "Jake ER[R]"), rated at some two to three times the retarding force of a typical large diesel engine equipped with the Jake[R] brake.

Because retarding forces of this magnitude are capable of producing significant deceleration of a large truck so equipped, Jacobs believes that some means should be provided to warn following vehicles when a retarder is in use. In addition, since a truck tractor equipped with a retarder may be used to pull a variety of different semi-trailers, the warning system must utilize existing vehicle equipment and operate both on the tractor alone ("bob-tail" configuration) and with any semi-trailer that may be hooked up.

After careful analysis and based upon a meeting with NHTSA and BMCS representatives on June 6, 1978, Jacobs has concluded that use of the existing hazard warning flasher system would best provide such warning to following drivers. Many states now require trucks moving less than 40 m.p.h. on limited access highways to use their hazard warning flashers to alert other motorists that they are slow-moving.

In order to provide this retarder warning signal automatically, Jacobs proposes to connect the retarder activation switch to the hazard warning system when a retarder is installed, either at the OEM or aftermarket level. Accordingly, the Company requests an advisory opinion that such use and connection of the hazard warning system is permissive and will not violate the requirements of FMVSS 108, nor will it violate the "antitampering" provisions set out in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

Lawrence F. Henneberger

Robert W. Green

cc: Z. TAYLOR VINSON; GERALD M. BLOOM; JOSEPH WALSH; ROBERT BRENNER

ID: nht79-1.10

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Theodore Bargman Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Edward F. Tannery Theodore Bargman Company 129 Industrial Avenue Coldwater, Michigan 49036

Dear Mr. Tannery:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether doors on aftermarket top covers for American Motors Jeeps would have to comply with Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

Safety Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, which would include Jeeps. The standard applies only to completed vehicles, however, and not to aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the doors on aftermarket Jeep top covers would not have to have locks. Further, doors on new Jeep vehicles would also not have to comply with the standard if they are "designed to be easily attached to or removed from" the vehicle, as provided in section S4 of the standard.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 30, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th St., S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Hugh Oates Legal Counsel

Dear Mr. Oates:

On October 29, 1979 I had a phone conversation with Mr. William Smith discussing the legalities of door latches and their requirements for Jeep Motor Vehicles. I know the requirements for automotive, motor homes, etc., all all under the FMVSS No. 206 and test procedures of S.A.E. for transverse, longitudinal, inertia testing but on the American Motor Jeep, it has no top cover or a canvas type cover. There is only a handle latch without a first and second stop strike, and no locking mechanism. My question is, where can we find information covering such a top if they were to be manufactured or fabricated for the aftermarket by an independent company. Would this type of application require a safety lock or come under a different category?

I would appreciate any help you can give on door restraint handles and latches for either canvas tops with side curtains and canvas doors, or fiberglas tops with side doors (entrance doors) for Jeeps.

Sincerely,

THEODORE BARGMAN COMPANY

Edward F. Tannery Vice President of Manufacturing

iw

ID: nht79-1.11

DATE: 01/09/79

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

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 9 1979

NOA-30

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

Please excuse the delay in responding to your letter of October 25, 1978. You asked whether a webbing guide you are planning for the rear seat belt in station wagon vehicles would have to comply with the strength requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

The agency has examined the drawings included in your letter and discussed this new webbing guide with Volvo engineers. We have concluded that the webbing guide would not qualify as an "anchorage" and, therefore, would not have to comply with the Standard 210 requirements for anchorages. The standard defines "anchorage" as a device that transfers seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure. Your proposed webbing guide is not intended to transfer loads to the vehicle structure, and will only be added to increase the comfort of the assembly. As you indicated, the device marked "B" on your drawings would qualify as an anchorage and would have to meet the strength requirements of the standard.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 25, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 900 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS No. 210

Dear Mr. Levin:

Volvo is planning to modify the belt geometry of the rear seat belt in our station wagons. We will introduce an extra webbing guide, which is marked "A" on the enclosed sketch. This modification will improve the belt use comfort and will thereby encourage increased seat belt usage.

It is Volvo's interpretation that this webbing guide is not a seat belt anchorage and is therefore not required to meet the strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210, S4.2. Please confirm whether our interpretation is correct. The device which Volvo uses "for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure", is marked "B" on the enclosed sketch, and is designed to meet the strength requirements of FMVSS No. 210, S4.2.

If additional information is required on this issue, don't hesitate to contact me at your convenience.

Sincerely yours,

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning & Development

Manager, Regulatory Affairs

WS/dpl ENCLOSURE (1)

ID: nht79-1.12

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Essex Group

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Daniel I. Borovik Director of Development and Planning Essex Group Wire Assembly Division 6233 Concord Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48211

Dear Mr. Borovik:

This is in reply to your letter of August 7, 1979, asking whether "trailer warning lamps should flash or be steady-burning" when the towing vehicle's hazard warning system is actuated and the service brakes are applied.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require trailers to be equipped with hazard warning signal lamps, and you may design your trailer tow electrical package without reference to it. Lack of Federal regulation in this area, however, means that each State may set its own requirements, and you should ascertain whether such exist before finalizing your design.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ESSEX GROUP WIRE ASSEMBLY DIVISION 6233 Concord Ave. Detroit, Michigan 48211

August 7, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Gentlemen:

Reference is made to FMVSS 108, paragraphs 4.1.1.32, 4.5.4 and 4.6.

We are developing a trailer tow electrical package for passenger cars and light trucks. Critical to the design is the logic for the signalling functions of optically (and electrically) combined lamps on trailers. Specifically, when the hazard warning system is actuated and the service brakes are applied, should the trailer warning lamps flash or be steady-burning? FMVSS 108 does not provide explicit direction.

We request a position from the DOT whether the lamps should flash or be steady burning in the above situation.

Very truly yours,

Daniel I. Borovik Director of Development and Planning

DIB/lg

ID: nht79-1.13

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yamaha Motor Corporation USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 22 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Michael J. Schmitt Counsel, Engineering Division Yamaha Motor Corporation USA P.O. Box 6620 Buena Park, California 90622

Dear Mr. Schmitt:

This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1979, with respect to Yamaha's plan to equip its motorcycles with a hazard warning signal system.

You have cited S4.5.5 of Standard No. 108 which requires that the hazard warning signal "operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch". Because of the ease with which such a switch can be operated on an open vehicle such as a motorcycle by a person other than the vehicle operator, you would like to integrate the warning system with the ignition switch, so that it will flash when the ignition is in the "on" or "off" position, but not the "off-lock" position unless the key is inserted.

As you noted, the Standard does not require that a motorcycle be equipped with a hazard warning system. Should you voluntarily install the system on a motorcycle, there is no legal requirement that it conform to the requirements specified in Standard No. 108. Because of this, although we appreciate your wish to meet the requirements of the standard, we offer no opinion on your system and are willing to defer to your judgment in this matter.

We are confident that Yamaha would not install such a system without insuring that the charging system has an adequate capacity, otherwise, the turn signal system might be viewed as "additional ... motor vehicle equipment ... that impairs the effectiveness" of required lighting equipment, within the prohibition of S4.1.3.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

February 22, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this correspondence is to gain a regulatory interpretation from your office relative to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Yamaha is exploring the possibility of voluntarily incorporating a hazard warning system for motorcycle application. Hazard warning systems are not required on motorcycles pursuant to FMVSS 108.

FMVSS 108 S4.5.5 requires that the hazard warning signal operating unit "operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch". It is feared that because a motorcycle is not enclosed and that control access cannot be precluded by locking, such as with other vehicles, passerbys may intentionally activate the system. This mischief will discharge the battery and cause unneeded attention which may be adverse to safety.

We would like to inquire as to the permissibility of the following concept. The vehicle will have a three position ignition switch (On, Off, Off-Lock). The hazard warning system will be capable of activation in the On and Off position. The hazard warning system will not operate in the Off-Lock position unless the key is inserted. The steering column is also locked when in this position.

Although such hazard warning devices are not required, we are reluctant to incorporate a system which does not comply with standards applicable to other vehicle types. We believe that motorcycles need such a switch system to preclude unauthorized activation. It is submitted that S4.5.5 is a viable requirement so other vehicle owners can activate the flashers and lock and leave the vehicle. A motorcycle operator under our proposed concept could leave the switch in "Off" position, remove the key, and activate the flasher.

We believe that our concept fulfills the intent underlying S4.5.5. We respectfully solicit your concurrence in this matter.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Schmitt Counsel Engineering Division

MJS:kc