ID: nht80-1.19

DATE: 02/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1980, asking whether a partial vehicle identification number (VIN) may be stamped into the frame of the Suzuki motorcycles under the certification label.

The answer is yes. The use of identifying numbers other than the VIN is allowed if the numbers cannot be confused with the VIN. In the situation you described, the identifying number would be hidden from view by the certification label. Since the label is required to be riveted or permanently affixed to the vehicle (Part 567 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations), the hidden identifying number is not likely to become visible during the life of the vehicle. Therefore, there appears to be no chance that the number would be confused with the VIN.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 7, 1980

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS No. 115 - Vehicle Identification Number

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request an interpretation by your Agency regarding Section S4.3 of the Standard.

Suzuki as required by Part - 567 Certification (@ 567.4(g)(6) ) will place the Vehicle Identification Number on the Motorcycle Certification Label.

Suzuki wishes to also stamp, using 5mm Sans Serif characters, the Vehicle Identification Number minus the check digit onto the headpipe of the motorcycle (at the intersection of the steering post with the handlebars). This second placement of the Vehicle Identification Number would be for internal use by the Company prior to the Certification label being affixed on the headpipe of the motorcycle.

This second placement of the Vehicle Identification Number would be entirely covered by the Certification label when it is affixed to the motorcycle.

We wish to obtain your interpretation if such a plan would be permissible under the standard, by not including the check digit in the second application of the Vehicle Identification number, whereas it would not be visible to either the consumer or Law Enforcement Personnel unless the label had been removed from a motorcycle. We believe that this number, even though it was missing the check digit, would be helpful in identifying such a motorcycle.

We would appreciate being advised of your opinion at the earliest possible date regarding this request.

Sincerely,

SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD.;

F. Michael Petler -- Manager, Government Relations Department

ID: nht80-1.2

DATE: 01/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Haynsworth

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telephone conversation with Kathy DeMeter of my staff on Friday, December 21, 1979. You asked for the status of section 580.5(a)(1) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. That section exempts from the odometer disclosure requirements anyone transferring a vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 16,000 pounds. That exemption is part of the regulation, originally issued in January 1973, which prescribes rules requiring a transferor of a motor vehicle to make a written disclosure to the transferee concerning the odometer reading and its accuracy.

In January 1977, the exemption was declared void by the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on the grounds that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has exceeded its authority in fashioning the exemption. Notwithstanding the court's decision, the NHTSA believes that it has the authority to create exemptions for vehicles for which the odometer reading is not relevant. The exemption, consequently, remains a part of the odometer disclosure regulations.

For your information, I have enclosed copies of the statements submitted by Freightliner, White, and the National Association of Motor Bus Operators, which support the exemption for larger vehicles.

SINCERELY,

ENC.

FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION

January 8, 1973

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: Docket No. 72-31; Notice 1 Odometer Disclosure Requirements

Gentlemen:

Freightliner Corporation manufactures the White-Freightliner truck which is a cab-over vehicle generally used in over-the-road transportation. This vehicle is marketed by the White Motor Corporation. We represent 10% of the Class 8 diesel vehicles and over 25% of the Class 8 cab-over vehicles. 94% of our vehicles pull a semi-trailer; an additional 5% plus are full trucks pulling a pull trailer.

The basic intent of this proposed rule is to provide the purchaser with an accurate measure of the life already expended in a given vehicle so that he may judge the potential remaining life against the dollar value asked for the vehicle. It is apparent from the writing of this proposed rule that it is aimed primarily at the passenger car industry although there are no exclusions of vehicles of over 10,000 pounds weight rating.

There is a unique situation, however, involved in the original sale of this class of vehicle in that it is not normally handled by truck or train transport. The majority of vehicles, particularly in the Class 8 category, are delivered via driveaway and over 25% of our vehicles travel 2,000 or more miles before they reach the hands of the first purchaser. 2,000 miles may be significant mileage for a passenger car requiring reporting; however, in a commercial vehicle which will operate well in excess of 100,000 miles per year, the 2,000 delivery miles are insignificant, particularly since they are under a no-load condition or under a light load condition if a piggy back operation is used in delivery.

In our operation we have two title changes prior to the vehicle reaching the customer and this proposed regulation would put an undue burden on us as a manufacturer. Freightliner Corporation sells its vehicles to the White Motor Corporation who in turn sell them to the individual White Motor dealer who then sells the vehicle to the customer. The vehicle is given a road test by Freightliner which may be anywhere from 10 to 100 or more miles. The White-Freightliner Division of White Motor, in delivering the vehicle to the dealer, may put as much as 3,000 miles on the vehicle, for instance from Portland to Florida. The receiving dealer may put another 10 to 100 miles on the vehicle-in pre-delivery road testing, and then another 100 or so miles in making the actual delivery to the customer. The paperwork in keeping track of all of these incremental mileages in the normal process of delivering a vehicle seems burdensome and unnecessary, and certainly does nothing to influence the customer in deciding whether or not to purchase the vehicle. The customer has consumated the purchase with a downpayment or other financial arrangements prior to its manufacture (as is customary in this custom building industry) and fully recognizes the mileage difference between the point of manufacture and his planned point of use.

Even in dealing with the used truck, there is a serious question as to the need of this certified mileage since it refers to the chassis as a total and the engine and other major components of the vehicle are normally changed and serviced during the time of first ownership. It is more important for the potential used truck buyer to know when the engine was changed and overhauled and what work was done to the axles, transmissions and other major components rather than knowing how many miles were actually on the chassis.

Thus, we believe the total exclusion of vehicles over 10,000 pounds is warranted and that it be imperative to exclude this requirement on any vehicles to the first customer.

Norman B. Chew

WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

January 5, 1979

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Docket No. 72-11, Notice 1 Odometer Disclosure Requirements

Gentlemen:

In response to the subject Notice, White Motor Corporation is (Illegible Words) submit its comments on the proposed requirements dealing with odometer disclosure. Since White manufactures and/or distributes heavy motor trucks with a gross vehicle weight of more than 24,000 pounds only, our comments are necessarily limited in their application to such vehicles.

Our comments on specific sections of the proposed requirements are as follows:

680.4 Disclosure of Odometer Mileage

(b) In many cases the transferer may not know that the odometer reading differs from the number of miles that the vehicles has actually traveled, but may have some reason to believe it is incorrect. It is believed that it would be desirable, therefore, to change the word "knows" to "has reason to believe".

(c) In the case of heavy trucks, many such vehicles are used in fleet operations and transferred from terminal to terminal. When traded (Illegible Word) they are often turned over to the vehicle manufacturer, distributor (Illegible Words) dealer at various locations. The (Illegible Words) kept at a central location and as a result a serious problem would be involved in obtaining the mileage (Illegible Word) shown on the vehicle odometer and adding this information to the (Illegible Words) (Illegible Lines)

Exactly the same problem as discussed under (Illegible Word) with respect to Certificate of Title would be encountered in requiring that the vehicle odometer reading be shown on the document transferring ownership to the transferee where no Certificate of Title is in effect for a motor vehicle.

1.5 Recommended Form for Disclosure

is our recommendation that consideration be given to a separate meter disclosure form at least in the case of heavy trucks. We commend that the wording "the odometer reading shown above is known to differ from the actual mileage" be changed to reflect the comments made above under Section 580.4 (b).

other problem that is presented is the determination of the "Transferor's present address" due to the fact that the odometer reading (Illegible Words) have to be added to the disclosure form at the truck's location rather than at the main address for the fleet operation. Therefore an indication would be given as to which address should be shown on the disclosure form.

our opinion, the proposed regulation is completely impractical for (Illegible Word) trucks. Many of these vehicles operate between 100.000 to (Illegible Word) les per year and the reliability of the highest quality odometers and odometer drive cables is such that failures are often experienced at (Illegible Word) substantially below the annual mileage operated. Our estimate that not more than 25% of the heavy trucks which we receive in trace (Illegible Word) the true vehicle mileage on the odometer. In fact, a retail buyer rely assumes that the odometer reading is the correct mileage, since in many cases a typical vehicle runs for months without a working odometer (Illegible Word) time during its useful life.

(Illegible Word) many cases, heavy trucks are equipped with hubodometers, particularly on vehicles are used in fleet operations. However, most such instruments are removed from the vehicle prior to trade in, and therefore cannot be (Illegible Word) to show the vehicle odometer reading, particularly when subsequently transferred.

(Illegible Words) our recommendation that the odometer disclosure requirements do not (Illegible Words) such vehicles due to the extremely high mileage (Illegible Word) (Illegible Words) by a very large percentage of such vehicles, which (Illegible Word) the (Illegible Words) of little value due to the fact that it probably (Illegible Words) indicate that there would be a greater variation (Illegible Lines)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

January 10, 1973 (Illegible Text)

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[49 CFR Part 580]

[Docket No. 72-31: Notice No. 1]

Odometer Disclosure Requirements

Notice of Proposed (Illegible Words)

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF (Illegible Words)

This statement is filed by the National Association of Motor (Illegible Words) (Illegible Words) (Illegible Lines) city motor bus industry (Illegible Words) all companies affiliated with the National Trailways Bus System and more than 400 other carriers not affiliated with either system. Collectively, these members of NAMBO provide more than 90 percent of the intercity motor bus transportation in the United States. In addition to its operator members, NAMBO has numerous associate members engaged in the manufacture of buses and other bus equipment.

For the reasons hereinafter stated, NAMBO is convinced that Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, does not apply to transfers of ownership of intercity coaches. Accordingly, intercity bus operators, in our opinion, would not be affected by the proposed odometer disclosure regulations even though transferors of intercity coaches are not specifically exempted.

Many motor carriers of passengers do not have odometers on their buses. Such carriers use an electronic speedometer which they feel has greater accuracy and durability. Obviously, Title IV of the Act and any odometer disclosure regulations issued thereunder would not apply to intercity bus operators who do not use odometers.

With respect to intercity bus operators who have odometers on their buses, such odometers are set to record mileage up to 99,999 miles. However, the typical intercity coach is operated more than one million miles prior to its sale as used equipment. When such buses are equipped with an odometer, the odometer would have made ten complete cycles. Obviously, purchasers of intercity buses are not entitled, in the language of Section 401 of the Act, "to rely on the odometer reading as an accurate reflection of the mileage actually travelled by the vehicle . . .". When the Congress found in Section 401 of the act that "an accurate [odometer] indication of the mileage travelled by motor vehicles assists the purchaser in determining its safety and reliability . . .", it could not have been thinking about purchasers of used buses who know that the odometer readings are usually at least ten times less than the actual mileage of the vehicles. Since the purpose of Title IV of the Act, as stated in Section 401, is "to establish certain safeguards for the protection of purchasers with respect to the sale of motor vehicles having altered or reset odometers . . .", and since that purpose is clearly inapplicable to transactions between buyers and sellers of intercity coaches, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should make clear in its proposed regulations that buyers and sellers of intercity coaches are not covered.

A further reason for excluding intercity buses from the proposed regulations is that the Congress did not intend to impose on the intercity bus industry requirements which it would be literally impossible to satisfy. For example, Section 407 of the Act provides that odometers which have been repaired or replaced --

"shall be adjusted to read zero and a notice in writing shall be attached to the left door frame of the vehicle by the owner or his agent specifying the mileage prior to repair or replacement of the odometer and the date on which it was repaired or replaced."

Intercity coaches, unlike passenger automobiles and trucks, have no left door frame to which the required notice could be attached.

Section 408(a) of the Act, pursuant to which the proposed odometer disclosure requirements would be issued, provides that the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe rules requiring any transferor to give the following written disclosure to the transferee in connection with the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle:

"(1) Disclosure of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer;

(2) Disclosure that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is known to the transferor to be different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually travelled."

Section 580.4(b) of the proposed regulations would implement Section 408(a) of the Act by requiring the transferor, if he knows that the odometer reading differs from the number of miles the vehicle has actually travelled, to inform the transferee by a notation on the document transferring ownership that the actual vehicle mileage is unknown. It is impossible for transferors of intercity coaches to comply with that provision of the statute and the implementing regulations, which is a further reason for concluding that intercity bus operators were not intended to be covered by the Act.

Compliance by intercity bus operators is impossible because in most instances the transferor of an intercity coach knows that the odometer reading differs from the number of miles the bus has actually travelled and because he also knows from his accounting and maintenance records the actual mileage the vehicle has accumulated. Thus, for an intercity bus operator to state that the odometer reading does not correspond with the actual mileage of the bus and that such actual vehicle mileage is unknown would be a false statement of a material fact.

Intercity bus operators maintain accurate records respecting accumulated mileage on vehicles. An operator's accounting department or bookkeeper collects and retains such information because of its importance in developing cost and other statistical data and also because the mileage data, which is derived from the trip reports of bus drivers, is the basis on which drivers are paid. Therefore, purchasers of used buses have no interest whatever in odometer readings but they are interested in the accounting and other records of the vendor which show the accumulated mileage on used vehicles.

In addition, intercity bus operators are required by Part 396 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety to systematically inspect and systematically maintain buses and to keep records on such systematic inspection and maintenance. Accordingly, the maintenance departments or shop foremen of intercity bus operators also have accurate information respecting the actual miles travelled by a used bus.

"Motor vehicle," as used in Title IV of the Act, is defined in Section 2(15) thereof to include any vehicle "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways . . .". Of course, intercity coaches are included within that definition of "motor vehicle." However, the term "odometer" as used in Title IV of the Act does not include odometers used on buses. Section 402(1) of the Act defines the term "odometer as an instrument for measuring and recording the actual distance a motor vehicle travels while in operation . . .". Congress' obvious intent was to require disclosure of the readings of odometers which are installed in vehicles for the purpose of informing owners, prospective purchasers, and others concerned about the accumulated mileage of the vehicle. Since odometers installed in intercity coaches are not intended to serve that purpose, they are not within the definition set forth in Section 402(1) of the Act.

Purchasers of intercity buses are sophisticated buyers and do not need the protection accorded by the Act to purchasers of automobiles and pick-up trucks. Accordingly, we believe the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should amend its proposed regulations to state, in effect, that buses used in intercity service are not covered in the proposed regulations because such coverage clearly was neither authorized nor intended by the Congress.

On the other hand, if the Administration believes that the Congress intended to protect purchasers of intercity motor coaches and that such purchasers should be provided with information concerning the actual mileage of used buses, we suggest that such disclosure be the subject of a separate regulation. Intercity bus operators would be willing, if the Administration believes it necessary or desirable, to provide every purchaser of a used intercity bus with a statement of the actual accumulated mileage of the bus to be sold. Such information would be derived from accounting and maintenance records of the transferor. If for any reason, the transferor does not have accurate accounting or maintenance records concerning actual vehicle mileage, he could be required to advise the transferee that such records do not exist and that the actual mileage of the vehicle offered for sale is unknown.

In conclusion, we would be happy to consult with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in regard to the language of a proposed regulation applicable to sales of used intercity coaches if the Administration concludes that such a regulation is necessary or desirable

For the reasons set forth above, we do not believe Congress included intercity bus operators within the scope of Title IV of the Act and that any regulation on the subject which the Administration might adopt would not give purchasers of used buses any more information than they already receive from sellers of used buses.

CHARLES A. WEBB, President National Association of Motor Bus Owners

Due date: January 11, 1973

ID: nht80-1.20

DATE: 02/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 24, 1980, to Mr. Schwartz of my office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.

I understand from your letter that Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, intends to comply with S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 115 by placing the vehicle identification number (VIN) on the certification label of the motorcycles it manufactures. Since the standard specifies the precise placement of the VIN only for passenger cars and trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.4), placing the VIN on the certification label of motorcycles is authorized.

You also wish to know whether Standard No. 115 precludes Kawasaki stamping a model designation and production sequence into the frame near the certification label. As long as the number which you stamp into the frame cannot be mistaken for the VIN because of its length or other factors, this would not be prohibited.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Research & Development Center

January 24, 1980

Frederic Schwartz -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 115 V.I.N. Requirements

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This letter requests your confirmation that Kawasaki's interpretation of, and action to be taken under, the requirements of 49 CFR 571.115 is correct.

The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) regulations promulgated by NHTSA at 49 CFR 571.115 (FMVSS 115) require vehicle manufacturers to assign to each motor vehicle a unique vehicle identification number, consisting of 17 digits (16 plus check). This VIN is to be used in defect recall and information retrieval efforts where accuracy will benefit the goal of motor vehicle safety. As required by 571.115 S4.3:

"The vehicle identification number and check digit of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such part." Standard 115 is silent as to the specific location of the VIN. However, 49 CFR 567, Certification, specifies content and location of the required label certifying compliance with applicable NHTSA requirements. In addressing content, @ 567.4 (g) (6) requires the label to contain the vehicle identification number, while @ 567.4 (e) specifies the location of the label on motorcycles. Finally, @ 567.4 (b) requires that "(t)he label shall, unless riveted, be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it."

Our current VIN appears on a non-removable, per @ 567 (b), label located on the portion of the main frame through which the steering assembly pivots, meeting the applicable location requirements of @ 567(e). To accommodate the 17 digit VIN of @ 571.115, we shall simply modify the labels with the new VIN format.

At the present time, we also stamp our model designation and production sequence into the frame near the certification label, although this stamped number is more difficult to see than the VIN as it does not contrast with its background. In order to facilitate our production control we wish to continue stamping this information into the frame, while placing the new VIN on the label in the location it currently occupies. We believe the visual prominence of the VIN and its recognizable format will prevent confusion of the VIN with our internal control system identifier.

We do not interpret Standard 115 as prohibiting placement of other forms of information in a location near the VIN. We ask if you concur with this interpretation.

We are in the process of designing our VIN system and integrating the VIN into our other information control systems. Your timely response to this letter would thus be greatly appreciated.

Please contact the undersigned if more information is required.

Sincerely, KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.;

Roger Hagie -- Government Relations Manager

CC: L. Yurikusa; N. Murakami

ID: nht80-1.21

DATE: 03/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Debra Weiner; NHTSA

TO: Delta Inc. of Arkansas

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please find enclosed copies of letters concerning the legal implications of manufacturing and installing automotive auxiliary fuel tanks. In addition to the enclosed material, please note that a person who goes into the business of manufacturing motor vehicle equipment, such as auxiliary fuel tanks, is required to submit identifying information and a description of the items he produces to this agency in accord with 49 CFR Part 566 (copy enclosed).

I hope that you will find the enclosed materials helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at 202-426-2992.

ENCLS.

ID: nht80-1.22

DATE: 03/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Diesel Fuel Saver, Jay Blanchard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter requesting confirmation of statements made to you by an NHTSA engineer, Robert Williams. Apparently, Mr. Williams stated that your product, the "Diesel Fuel Saver," would comply with Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75).

As you describe the product, the "Diesel Fuel Saver" is a piece of aftermarket equipment that can be readily attached to diesel fuel systems to heat the fuel and ostensibly increase fuel economy. However, Safety Standard No. 301-75 is only applicable to new vehicles and, therefore, would not apply to motor vehicle equipment such as yours unless it is installed on new vehicles. Further, Safety Standard No. 301-75 does not specify design requirements for individual components of fuel systems. Rather, the standard specifies performance requirements that must be achieved by vehicle fuel systems during barrier crash tests.

There are no other safety standards that would be applicable to your product. However, you would be responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), our enabling authority, for any defects in the "Diesel Fuel Saver" relating to motor vehicle safety. This means that you would have to notify purchasers of your product of any such defects that might exist and remedy those defects at your own expense.

Although Safety Standard No. 301-75 is not directly applicable to the "Diesel Fuel Saver," the standard does create responsibilities for certain persons who may install the product.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that none of the mentioned persons, which could include your own company, would be permitted to install the "Diesel Fuel Saver" on a motor vehicle if the equipment would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 (or any other applicable safety standard). Therefore, as a responsible manufacturer, you should determine whether vehicles can meet the performance requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 301-75 with your product installed. The prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) only applies to those persons mentioned above. Therefore, a private individual (the vehicle owner, for example) could install the "Diesel Fuel Saver" with impunity, regardless of whether the vehicle thereafter complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75. This, of course, would not remove your liability in private litigation.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

SINCERELY,

D.F.S.

DIESEL FUEL SAVER

February 8, 1980

Office of the Chief Counsel Debra Winer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mrs. Winer:

I talked with Bob Williams at 1-202-426-1828 and I told him about our unit and he said that the unit we have would meet the MVSS-301 Safety Standards.

What I would like you to do if you would is to say what Bob Williams said and put it in black and white so that if we are asked about it then we can say that it does meet the requirements.

The only thing we are doing is using the water from the radiator block to heat the fuel(we have a water jacket and a coil inside a steel jacket and the water goes through that and heats the fuel and then we have a plug in heater so that when the vehicle is not in use then it can be heated so that you have hot fuel.

Enclosed is some information concerning the Presca Diesel Fuel Saver that I'm sure will help you understand how it works and that there is no way that our unit has any danger to it.

I shall look forward to hearing from you.

For information purposes: We are getting 14% increase in mileage on Long Haul Trucks. 17-30% on Farm Tractors, A V W Rabbitt was getting 43 MPG and we brought it to 55 around town and 60 on the highway.

The prices run: $ 299 $ 269 & $ 249 for each one.

Jay Blanchard Administrative Assistant

Attachment Omitted.

ID: nht80-1.23

DATE: 03/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ross Frame & Axle, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 8, 1980, letter asking whether the computers connected to the air brake systems of trucks can be disconnected.

The computerized braking systems were used by some manufacturers to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Part of that safety standard was invalidated by the court in PACCAR v. NHTSA, 532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978). In that decision, the Court invalidated portions of the standard involving some of the road test requirements for trucks and trailers. The computer systems that you question were usually added for purposes of complying with the invalidated antilock sections of the standard.

The agency has previously addressed the question of whether the antilock systems can be disconnected in light of the court decision. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that--

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock systems or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

SINCERELY

Jan. 8, 1980

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Attn: Office of Administration

Dear Sirs:

I run a truck repair shop in southern Ohio. One of my customers has around thirty-five trucks. The largest percentage of these are equipped with the computerized braking system. Due to one accident and constant problems with the other trucks, it is their desire to disconnect the computers from their trucks braking system.

We have received word from the manufacture that this is now legal. My customer requests, in writing, a verification of this matter so they may turn it over to their lawyer for verification, so that in case of an accident, there will not be a law suit due to the disconnecting of the computerized brakes.

Any information you may have about this, please send to me so I may forward it on to my customer.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Joe Cain Ross Frame & Axle, Inc.

ID: nht80-1.24

DATE: 03/05/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Stumbaugh, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please accept my apologies for our delay in responding to your letter of September 17, 1979. You asked whether your client would be required to submit to this agency's inspection or gain its approval before installing a device which connects the gas cap of an automobile to the horn by wires and switches so that the horn blows continuously when the gas cap is removed by a potential thief.

Your client would not be required to obtain an inspection of his product by this agency or to obtain an approval of his product. However, he would be required to comply with other requirements should he begin to manufacture or install his device.

Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed) requires every person who begins the manufacture of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to submit certain information about his business to this agency not later than thirty days after he begins manufacture. The information consists primarily of the name and address of the manufacturer and a description of the types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to be produced.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (copy enclosed) is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, he would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this information helpful. If you have further questions please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my staff at 202-426-2992.

SINCERELY,

PAUL STUMBAUGH ATTORNEY AT LAW

September 17, 1979

Dept. of Transportation Auto Safety Standards

Gentlemen:

I have a client who has invented a device for use on an automobile. His unit involves wires and switches which connect the gas cap to the horn, and the horn blows continuously when someone removes the gas cap for stealing gas; but the same can be disconnected by a switch in the front seat of the automobile for the purpose of filling your tank with gas, etc.

I need to know if any type of inspection, is required and approval by your department before this device can be installed in vehicles for every day use.

Your advice would be appreciated.

PAUL STUMBAUGH Attorney at Law

ID: nht80-1.25

DATE: 03/05/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bus Con Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 22, 1980, letter asking two questions about the use of your body conversion numbers on the certification labels of vehicles you produce.

First, you ask whether a final-stage manufacturer may substitute its body conversion number for the vehicle identification number (VIN) that comes with the incomplete vehicle. The answer to this question is no. The VIN must be continued from the incomplete vehicle certification label to the final-stage certification label. However, you may insert your body conversion number on the label in addition to the VIN. Your number should appear at the bottom of the label below the required information.

In your second question, you ask whether you may include your body conversion number on the alterers' labels for previously certified vehicles that you alter. The answer to this question is yes. As indicated above the number should appear at the bottom of the label below the required information.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BUS CON CORP

January 22, 1980

Chief Counsel -- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir,

I am enclosing photostats of two certification labels mandated by Part 567. I would appreciate answers to the following questions.

1). On the label for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, may we the final stage manufacturer, insert our body conversion number as the vehicle identification number? If not, where may we put our number?

2). On the label for persons who alter previously certified vehicles, may we put our body conversion number somewhere on this label. If so where on the label may we put it. If not can we put our number elsewhere.

I would appreciate a prompt reply to this letter so that I may get labels printed. If you have any questions, please contact me. My business card is enclosed.

Yours truly,

David Shomberg

Enc/

Label Requirements for Persons Who Alter Previously Certified Vehicles Effective: February 1, 1974 *

* Tire sizes can be listed. 567.4(h)

Individual or corporate name

Month and year in which alterations were completed (May be abbreviated 2/74)

No earlier than the manufacturing date of the original vehicle nor later than the date alterations were completed

Use if different from the original

Use if alterations change vehicle type

THIS VEHICLE WAS ALTERED BY THE FINE CAR CO., INC. IN FEBRUARY 1974

AND AS ALTERED IT CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT IN JANUARY 1974

*GVWR 0000

*GAWR FRONT 0000 REAR 0000

TYPE BUS

Can I put our Body Conversion Number on this label?

Label Requirements for Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages On or After: January 1, 1972 *

* Tire sizes can be listed. 567.4(h)

See text of the regulation for alternatives for final stage manufacturers who complete chassis-cabs.

May be abbreviated MFD Full corporate name

Month and year of manufacture (May be abbreviated 7/72)

Name of original manufacture of incomplete vehicle (May be abbreviated "INC. VEH. MFD. BY")

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR)

Use exact text specified in Regulations No earlier than the manufacturing date of incomplete vehicle nor later than the date of completion

Vehicle Identification Number

Type vehicle

MANUFACTURED BY THE FINE CAR CO., INC. JULY 1972

INCOMPLETE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED BY

CLASSIC TRUCKS INC.

JANUARY 1972

GVWR 0000

GAWR FRONT 0000 REAR 0000

THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT IN MARCH 1972

0000 TRUCK

NOTE: When preparing labels, all characters must be 3/32" or more in height in block capitals and numerals and printed in a color in contrast to the background. See text of the regulation for labeling requirements for intermediate manufacturers.

Can I put our Body 10 Conversion Number where circled or must the number there be the one assigned by the chassis manufacturer?

ID: nht80-1.26

DATE: 03/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Glenn Brinks

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your earlier questions concerning Federal requirements for fuel systems on motorcycles. As stated in our previous letter, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fue' System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75), does not apply to motorcycles. You are correct in your assumption that there are no Federal regulations that would preclude the use of fiberglass fuel tanks for motorcycles. I might add that Safety Standard No. 301-75 does not specify design requirements for any vehicle (e.g., that the tank be made of metal or any particular material). Rather, the standard specifies performance levels that the entire fuel system must achieve during barrier crash tests.

Although no safety standards or other regulations preclude the use of fiberglass fuel tanks for motorcycles, you should still be responsible for assuring that such tanks are safe. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for any defect relating to motor vehicle safety which may exist in the manufacturer's product (15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq.). The manufacturer would be required to notify all purchasers of the existence of the defect and to remedy the defect at the manufacturer's expense.

I might point out that the agency is concerned that fiberglass fuel tanks will shatter upon impact in a collision, rather than crushing as do metal tanks. If you have any crash data regarding the performance of fiberglass motorcycle fuel tanks, we would appreciate receiving the information

I hope this has answered all your questions.

SINCERELY,

January 26, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt;

Thank you very much for your prompt reply to my query about motorcycle fuel tanks. Could you clear up one remaining point? In your reply you state that the FMVSS regarding fuel system integrity does not apply to motorcycles. Does this mean that motorcycle fuel tanks can legally be made from fiberglass? A fiberglass fuel tank can be much lighter, stronger and more resilient than a comparable steel one, but I would like to make sure that such a tank is legal. Thank you very much for your help.

Glenn Brinks

ID: nht81-3.40

DATE: 11/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your recent letter to the Administrator, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and its related requirements for the comfort and convenience of safety belts.

You stated in reference to paragraph S7.4.4, Latchplate Access, that "the standard as written is design restrictive in not permitting inboard location of the latchplate when stowed by virtue of requiring the latchplate to be located within the outboard reach envelope . . ." You requested that the wording be changed to permit either inboard or outboard reach envelopes.

Paragraph S7.4.4 was not intended to limit the location of latchplates to outboard locations. Latchplates located in the outboard reach must be located within the reach envelopes as specified. However, the requirement would not be applicable to latchplates located inboard, since there should be no difficulty in reaching latchplates in this location. It should also be noted that the requirement is not applicable to automatic belts.

We believe the Agency's response to the petitions for reconsideration of the comfort and convenience requirements will answer your remaining questions. We expect to issue that notice in the very near future.

You requested an early announcement of the final content of FMVSS No. 208 as it would apply to automatic restraints. On October 23, 1981, the Department rescinded that portion of the standard that would require automatic restraints. We have enclosed a copy of the news release pertaining to that action for your information.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

OCTOBER 9, 1981

R. PECK -- ADMINISTRATOR, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FMVSS 208 - OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION

Dear Administrator,

As a company producing three models of car of wheelbase in excess of 114 inches Rolls-Royce Motors is closely affected by the continuing uncertainty in implementation of the automatic restraint requirements of standard 208. In addition to the uncertainty of introduction date the content of the rule is also subject to debate.

Rolls-Royce is in urgent need of guidance from NHTSA to permit us to use our limited resources in a constructive way to the benefit of our customers.

1. Comfort and Convenience Amendments

During 1979 Rolls-Royce commenced development of automatic restraints for production, both belts and ACRS. Following General Motors' decision late in 1979 to delay introduction of ACRS the Rolls-Royce programme was revised to install automatic belts in all models.

Production lead times dictated that parts for build in September 1981 should be given engineering release by March 1980. This meant that the proposed addition to standard 208 of comfort and convenience requirements were not accommodated in our initial production designs.

When the comfort and convenience amendments were finally adopted in the regulation on the 8th January with an effective date of September 1982 the necessary changes to our installation to ensure compliance were programmed in accordance with that 1982 date.

Amid the statements on regulatory reform announced by the Reagan administration early in 1981 was, on the 6th April a notice of intent to the Federal Register to "eliminate all requirements except belt tension and to defer the effective date for one year". (Actions to Help the U.S. Auto Industry, April 6 1981, NHTSA Action 8) Such action was promised for "on or about July 1". In anticipation of the promised action our programme was again revised. Since that time, over three months ago there has been no official action.

Some sources of information suggest that when the action on comfort and convenience amendments is announced the final ruling will contain accessibility requirements in addition to those for belt contact load. If this is to be the case we request further consideration of the following points concerning S7.4.4 which were not mentioned in the discussion of comments listed in the final rulemaking Docket 74-14 Notice 19.

1.1 The standard as written is design restrictive in not permitting inboard location of the latchplate when stowed by virtue of requiring the latchplate to "be located within the outboard reach envelope . . ." We request the wording be changed to permit inboard or outboard reach envelopes.

1.2 Some commenters requested clarification of the term "unhindered" referring to transit of the test block. In particular, is compression of soft surfaces permissible? In one of our installations compression by the occupant of the seat cushion will pre-empt compression by the test block, except that there is no occupant (dummy) specified for this test. Could you please clarify?

2. Automatic belt warning system

S4.5.3.3.(b)(1)(B) specifies two conditions for determination of the automatic belt being fastened, both requiring switching in the emergency release mechanism. This appears inconsistent with the permissible conditions for determination of a manual belt being fastened, for which S7.3(b) states "either by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened or by the belt not being extended at least 4 inches from its stowed position".

In the case of our design of automatic belt which employs a buckle as an emergency release on the door frame the standard as written at present necessitates routing a cable from the buckle and down the frame. An additional option permitting switching with the belt extended from its stowed position would allow a switch to be fitted in the retractor and wiring to be included in existing loops in that area of the car. The additional option would be of considerable benefit to ourselves.

We believe the only objection to the belt extension option is the possibility that the belt may be withdrawn and knotted to simulate the belt being fastened. This would be less convenient then obtaining a spare latchplate and inserting it in the buckle to disable the warning mechanism by the existing option.

We propose amending the wording of S4.5.3.3.(b)(1)(B) by adding the following wording between ". . mechanism not being fastened" and "or, if the automatic belt is non-separable . .":-

"or by the belt not being extended at least 4 inches from its stowed position".

3. On the 9th April 1981 NHTSA issued an NPRM (49 CFR Part 571 Docket No. 74-14 Notice 22) proposing further amendment to the implementation of automatic restraint requirements in Standard 208. The comment date was 26th May.

In comment on that proposal Rolls-Royce Motors requested "an early announcement of a decision" (BGR/JO DT 19th May 1981, filed in the Docket). Since that comment date over five months ago Rolls-Royce have been unable to commit long term resources to automatic restraints for fear of further change in requirements resulting in wasted money. For manufacturers such as Rolls-Royce who must meet the September 1982 introduction date the long delay in announcing the uncertain outcome of the comments and public hearings mean that production lead times are being eroded. We urgently request an announcement of the final content of Standard 208.

We would be grateful for a quick response to these points.

For and on behalf of Rolls-Royce Motors Limited;

John OSBORNE -- Project Manager - Passive Restraints