ID: nht74-4.42

DATE: 01/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1973, asking whether motor vehicle new or used car dealers are prohibited from selling vehicles mounted on regrooved or recapped tires. You indicated in a phone conversation with Michael Peskoe of this office that your concern is with motor vehicles generally, and not passenger cars alone.

New passenger cars are required to be sold with tires meeting the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109; 571.110). New vehicles other than passenger cars are not presently required by NHTSA regulations to be sold with particular tires, but requirements in this regard have been proposed (36 F.R. 14273; August 3, 1971).

This agency has no requirements regarding the sale of used motor vehicles equipped with recapped or retreaded tires. However, buses subject to Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations are prohibited from operating with recapped, retreaded, or regrooved tires on their front wheels (49 CFR @ 393.75(d)).

Trucks and truck tractors subject to Motor Carrier Safety requirements may not be operated with regrooved tires on the front wheels which have a load carrying capacity equal to or greater than that of 8.25-20 8 ply-rating tires (49 CFR 393.75(e)). For more information regarding the applicability of these requirements you should contact, Regulations Division Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C. 20590.

P2

The sale of regrooved tires is subject to regulations issued by this agency (49 CFR Part 569). The recent opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals (NAMBO v. Brinegar, D.C. Cir., Case No. 71-1268; July 26, 1973) appears to allow the sale of regrooved tires under these regulations in certain circumstances. We believe the opinion is unclear in this regard, and as a result we have determined to seek additional judicial review to further clarify the matter.

ID: 1984-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: McGraw-Edison Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. G. Brown Chief Engineer Materials Engineering McGraw-Edison Company 18448 Craig Road St. Louis, Missouri 63146

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. You asked whether paper labels on brake fluid containers are sufficient to comply with the "indelibly marked" requirements of the standard. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.

By way of background information, I would note that NHTSA does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine that its motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116 states:

Each packager of a brake fluid shall furnish the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. . . .

It is our opinion that this section requires the relevant information to be marked directly on the brake fluid container and not merely on a label, whether paper or of some other material, that is affixed to the container. This is clear both from the plain language of the section and from the Federal Register notices proposing and adopting that language.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 30, 1970, NHTSA proposed the following language as part of the packaging and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake fluids:

S4.2.2.2 Each packager of brake fluid shall furnish to each distributor or dealer to whom he sells brake fluid, the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container, or on a label or tag firmly attached to each such container. . . . 35 FR 15229, 15231.

The final rule, published on June 24, 1971, did not adopt the proposed alternative of permitting the information to be provided on a label or tag firmly attached to the container, but instead required the information to be clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. The language as adopted, which is very similar to the current language, was:

S5.2.2.2 Each packager of motor vehicle brake fluid shall furnish the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. . . . 36 FR 11987, 11989.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 5, 1983 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to you with regard to paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116 which reads in part as follows:

"Each packager of a brake fluid shall furnish the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container, . . . . "

I have observed a number of brands of brake fluids in the marketplace packaged in containers having a loose-fitting paper sleeve for the label. In the past we have been requested to supply brake fluid in containers with paper labels and have declined to do so on the basis that in my judgment a paper label does not comply with the requirement "indelibly marked".

Within the past few weeks we have been approached once again to supply brake fluid in containers with paper labels. We are reluctant to pursue this matter unless we have some assurance that a paper label does, indeed, comply with the "indelibly marked" provision of paragraph S5.2.2.2 FMVSS-116.

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

WAGNER DIVISION McGRAW-EDISON COMPANY

R. G. Brown Chief Engineer Materials Engineering RGB:ab

ID: nht68-1.9

DATE: 12/15/68

FROM: LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER FOR ROBERT M. O'MAHONEY--NHTSA

TO: Heath Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 13 with regard to the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the GT-18 Trail Bike kit, and the "Boonie-Bike" assembled from it.

I am unable to tell from your letter the exact nature and use of the Boonie-Bike but I will assume that it is an off-the-road special purpose motorcycle designed for recreational use. Such a machine is a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1955 since, like a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it is equipped with special features for off-road use but is capable of being operated both on and off the public roads. Thus it is not correct to say that trail bikes have not been considered motor vehicles in the past. The interpretation to which you refer, incidentally, if it appears, will be directed toward the so-called "mini-bikes".

Accordingly, it is possible to confirm your understanding that:

". . . for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Heath's responsibility is limited to insuring that any kit item which it supplies to which a Federal Safety Standard is directly applicable (i.e., only glazing materials at the present time) shall meet such Safety Standards, and inasmuch as Heath does not build the kits or perform the actual conversion, it is not a manufacturer of motor vehicles and consequently not responsible for the entire assembled product."

Since a Boonie-Bike is equipped with a "5-broke horse power Briggs and Stratton 4-cycle engine" it is sub-classified as a "motor-driven cycle" which is defined as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less".

As you(Illegible Word) Federal Standard(Illegible Word) 103 will apply to motorcycles manufactured or assembled on or after January 1, 1969. Motorcycles are required to be manufactured with one white headlamp in accordance with SAE Standard J584 (Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps). This SAE Standard allows a motor driven cycle to be assembled with either a single or multiple beam headlamp. Consequently a motor driven cycle assembled with a single beam headlamp is not subject to paragraphs S3.4.1 and S3.4.2 of Federal Standard No. 108 requiring provision of a headlamp beam switch and indicator.

I hope this answers your questions

ID: 1982-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (Confidential)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1982, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays. You have asked whether the standard permits three-wheeled motorcycles to be equipped with a reverse gear.

Standard No. 123 applies only to motorcycles with handlebars, which are generally those machines with two wheels. As the standard is silent with respect to reverse gears, the agency considers that a manufacturer of a three-wheeled motorcycle with handlebars may provide and locate a reverse gear change mechanism wherever he deems appropriate.

This office can offer no comments on three-wheeled motorcycle safety in general. However, I suggest that you contact NHTSA's Office of Research and Development. Several years ago it conducted a study of three-wheeled vehicles, and as I recall, a configuration with two wheels in front and one behind was found to offer greater stability than the converse.

We shall delete your name and that of your company from the publicly available copies of this letter, in accordance with your wish for confidentiality.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/89

FROM: JOHN K. MOODY -- MOODY & MOODY ENTERPRISES

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION FMVSS-108 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN K. MOODY -- MOODY AND MOODY ENTERPRISES; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 09/14/89 FROM S. WATANABE -- STANLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY TO STEPHEN P. WOOD NHTSA; OCC 3931

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

My company is planning to market nationwide a vehicle aftermarket kit which effects the front turn signals on motor vehicles. The intent of this letter is to inquire as to whether or not vehicles equipped with our product would be in conflict with exist ing vehicle lighting standards established by N.H.T.S.A..

Prior to writing this letter I had telephone conversations with several individuals there at N.H.T.S.A. and the consensus was that, since our product does not interfere with the normal operation of the existing vehicle lighting equipment, there would be no conflict. It was recommended, however, that I write this letter to you in order to obtain an official evaluation of our product and to receive a reply in writing.

Our product is really quite simple. We connect both front turn signal lamp filaments so that when the brake pedal is pushed and the rear brake lights are illuminated, both front turn signal lights are also illuminated. If a turn signal is activated eit her before or during application of the brakes, the front turn signal light flashes in its normal manner thereby indicating the direction of turn while the other front turn signal light will be illuminated as long as the brake pedal is being pushed.

This product is intended to add a significant measure of safety to vehicles by providing a forward indication as to whether or not the driver of the vehicle is attempting to apply the brakes. This would be a benefit to other drivers and pedestrians alik e.

According to the directional analysis of 1987 motor vehicle traffic accidents published by the National Safety Council, this safety improvement could have been helpful in reducing 41.6% of all two car accidents (8,652,800) and 29.5% of all two car fatali ties (12774). In addition, we believe that a significant number of pedestrian-car accidents (90,000 total resulting in 8200 fatalities in 1987) could have been avoided had the car been equipped with a forward directed brake application indicator.

Although we are requesting your evaluation concerning our product's compatibility with vehicle lighting standards, we also would appreciate any comments which you or others would offer concerning your opinion as to the safety benefits which would result from vehicles being equipped with a forward directed brake application indicator.

For your information, we are sending a similar letter to each state requesting their opinion concerning our product and their state vehicle lighting regulations.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. A prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

ID: GF009450-2

John Russell Deane III, Esq.
General Counsel
Specialty Equipment Market Association
1317 F Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004




Dear Mr. Deane:

This is in response to your November 30, 2005, letter concerning legal responsibilities of vehicle modifiers (i.e., entities that modify motor vehicles after the first retail sale) with respect to the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask whether vehicle modifiers are obligated to replace the tire safety information placard required by S4.3, if the relevant information on the placard becomes inaccurate as a consequence of their actions. As discussed below, the answer is no.

By way of background, S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less contain a placard showing certain critical tire safety information, including but not limited to, the vehicle capacity weight, the recommended inflation pressure, and the tire size designation. This information enables consumers to ascertain the cargo carrying limitations of their vehicles, and to properly inflate their tires. It also enables consumers to purchase correct size replacement tires.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

In your letter, you ask whether it would be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision if modifiers change a vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

In evaluating this question, we have focused on the language of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. One of the items of safety information required by that section is identified in paragraph (d), which reads as follows:

"Tire size designation, indicated by the headings "size" or "original tire size" or "original size," and "spare tire" or "spare," for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the statement "see above" may, at the manufacturer's option replace the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word "none" must replace the tire size designation;" [Emphasis added]

Thus, the requirement for one of the critical items of safety information to be provided on the tire placard is specifically expressed in terms of the "tires installed at the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale." We also note that there is a relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard.

We observe that regardless of what changes a modifier may make to a vehicle, it does not change the size of the tires that were installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale (the information S4.3 of FMVSS 110 requires to be on the placard). Given this, and recognizing the relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard, it is our opinion that it would not be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision, with respect to S4.3 of FMVSS 110, if modifiers change the vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

We note that while our regulations do not require changes to the tire safety information placard if the changes to the vehicle occur after it is first sold for the purposes other than retail, the potential inconsistency between the information on the placard and the actual vehicle could in some cases be misleading and dangerous to vehicle operators. Specifically, relying on what has become inaccurate information, vehicle operators could over-inflate or under-inflate their tires, thereby creating a safety hazard. Also, vehicle operators could overload their vehicles, which also would create a safety hazard. Finally, vehicle operators could end up purchasing incorrect replacement tires (e.g., original tire size not appropriate for aftermarket rim), erroneously relying on the placard that is no longer accurate.

In light of these concerns and consistent with previous interpretation letters concerning post-sale modifications relating to a vehicles Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (May 24, 1993, letter to Mr. John Paul Barber, Esq., and April 2, 1997, letter to Mr. James Baker), we would urge a party which modifies a used vehicle so that the tire safety information is no longer accurate to either add a new label to the vehicle which indicates the correct tire safety information or add a warning label (preferably proximate to the placard) indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate.

We would like to conclude this letter with a couple of observations. First, I note that your letter suggested that the "make inoperative" provision should not apply to the situation because it was not discussed by the agency during the FMVSS 110 rulemaking. However, because the "make inoperative" provision is statutory and applies to all FMVSSs, the agency does not separately address this statutory prohibition in each rulemaking action.

I also note that this interpretation applies only to modifications occurring after the first retail sale. With respect to vehicles altered prior to first retail sale, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid.

If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood,
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.4/7/05

ID: nht74-5.19

DATE: 02/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Office of the Attorney General; State of Kansas

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1974, concerning the application of the Federal odometer law to certain automobile operated by the Kansas State Department of Education. The cars in question are equipped with special odometers whose use normally requires the disconnection of the original equipment odometers.

The question posed by the Department of Education is whether this practice violates the Federal law and whether the Department must keep the special odometer in the car when selling it. Our reply is that the Department is not violating the Federal law, and that while it must make certain disclosures when it sells the cars, it need not leave the special odometers installed.

Sections 404 and 405 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1981) make it unlawful for a person to disconnect an odometer with the intent to change the number of miles it indicates (section 404) and for a person with the intent to defraud to operate a vehicle with an inoperative odometer (section 405).

With respect to section 404, it does not appear that the Department will be changing the indicated mileage. With respect to section 405, it is apparent that the Department has no fraudulent intent in operating the vehicles with the standard odometers disconnected. We therefore find that the Department's practice does not violate the odometer law and may be continued.

We suggest that in executing the disclosure statement required by Section 408 of the Act, the Department should indicate that the indicated mileage is in error. Although section 408 does not

require disclosure of the true mileage, we regard full disclosure to be in the public interest and therefore recommend that the Department also include the true mileage on the disclosure statement. By doing this, it will avoid any appearance of deceptive intent.

YOURS TRULY,

STATE OF KANSAS

Office of the Attorney General

January 30, 1974

Hon. Claude S. Brinegar Secretary of Transportation

Re: Our File No. AC=63-82-3 Kansas State Department of Education Building 120 East Tenth Street Topeka, Kansas 66612 office has been requested to issue an opinion regarding the Kansas State and Federal odometer laws as applied to forty three automobiles assigned to the Kansas State Department of Education. It appears that these automobiles perform a certain function which necessitates removal of the original odometer and substitution of another for precision measurement of mileage.

While we feel most capable of rendering an opinion regarding the Kansas law on the matter, I am requesting your assistance for an opinion based upon the recently enacted federal legislation regarding odometers in motor vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of Dr. Whittier's letter for your reference.

Let me thank you in advance for whatever assistance you can render.

Very truly yours,(Illegible Word) MILLER Attorney General

BY: JOSEPH P. O'SULLIVAN Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division

ID: 8056

Mr. Allan Ferver
Product Manager
Waekon Industries, Inc.
100 South Walnut Street
Kennett Square, PA 19348

Dear Mr. Ferver:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations would apply to a product which you call the "Universal Replacement Fuel Cap." You explained that this product is designed to replace lost fuel caps until the proper replacement can be obtained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is directly applicable to a replacement fuel cap. Nevertheless, you should be aware of Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, which may be relevant to your product. Standard No. 301 applies only to new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following crash tests. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to a replacememt fuel cap, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which you should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes fuel caps, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place your fuel cap on a motor vehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected. Whether your fuel cap could be installed on a vehicle by a person in one of those categories without taking the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 301 or any other applicable Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by the entity making the installation.

Please note that the prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, a vehicle owner may install or remove any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the Federal safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the vehicle's safety.

We suggest that you also contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect you as the manufacturer of a fuel cap. The general telephone number for EPA is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:301 d.2/1/93

ID: nht93-1.25

DATE: February 1, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allan Ferver -- Product Manager, Waekon Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/1/92 from Allan "Buzz" Ferver to Paul Rice (OCC 8056)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations would apply to a product which you call the "Universal Replacement Fuel Cap." You explained that this product is designed to replace lost fuel caps until the proper replacement can be obtained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is directly applicable to a replacement fuel cap. Nevertheless, you should be aware of Safety Standard No. 301, FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY, which may be relevant to your product. Standard No. 301 applies only to new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following crash tests. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to a replacement fuel cap, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which you should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes fuel caps, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle, in compliance with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place your fuel cap on a motor vehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected. Whether your fuel cap could be installed on a vehicle by a person in one of those categories without taking the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 301 or any other applicable Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by the entity making the installation.

Please note that the prohibition of S 108 (a)(2)(A) does not apply to

individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, a vehicle owner may install or remove any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the Federal safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the vehicle's safety.

We suggest that you also contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect you as the manufacturer of a fuel cap. The general telephone number for EPA is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

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