ID: nht78-4.3

DATE: 02/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Jerome Avenue Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 1, 1977, requesting information on the Federal odometer disclosure law.

You asked whether an employee has the authority to sign an odometer disclosure statement relating to the purchase of vehicles sold dealer to dealer. Section 580.4 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, requires each transferor of a motor vehicle to furnish to the transferee a written statement of the mileage traveled by the vehicle. "Transferor" is defined as "any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest." In a dealer-to-dealer transaction, as in all other transactions, the owner of the vehicle is responsible for signing the disclosure statement. He may assign that responsibility to an employee or representative. The transferor, however, as the owner of the vehicle, nevertheless remains liable for the actions of his employee.

You also raised the question in your telephone call of January 18, with Kathy DeMater of my staff, whether in a wholesale transaction all vehicles could be listed on one invoice as long as separate disclosure statements are issued for each. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is concerned with the issuance of correct mileage statements for each vehicle and does not have any objection to all the vehicles being listed in one invoice.

The sample "Odometer Statement" which you enclosed with your letter meets all of the requirements of the Federal regulation. Thank you for your cooporation in preparing the revised statements.

ID: nht78-4.30

DATE: 06/09/78

FROM: LAWRENCE W. HENNEBGERGER; ROBERT L. GREEN -- ARENT FOX

TO: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/31/78 FROM JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER AND ROBERT W. GREEN; REDBOOK A26(3); STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Levin:

Our client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company, has manufactured and distributed its well-known diesel engine retarder (the "Jake 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 perm[Illegible Words] 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 ERR"), 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 believe 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.

Sincerely,

ID: nht78-4.31

DATE: 08/19/78

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY -- ATTORNEY AT LAW

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JULY 14, 1976 TO GEORGE SHIFFLET, NHTSA, FROM WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY IS ATTACHED.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflett of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client (Illegible Word) reply on the warranty of a fabric manufacture that the fabric sold meets the requirements" of Standard No. 302.

You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1) (A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems. No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Inferior Materials.

As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the addition of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the

exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (2).

With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabric supplier "test each fabric lot for flammability before certification." In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of "due care" the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the "warranty" of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a "due care" defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.

Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seg) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.

I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 for your information.

Enclosures

ID: nht78-4.32

DATE: 10/05/78

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHARLES B. HONEYCUTT -- DIRECTOR OF PUPIL PERSONNEL GLASGOW INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This responds to your July 13, 1978, letter asking whether you may use a 12 Passenger van to Transport 9 cheerleaders to basketball games. This van does not comply with the school bus safety standards.

If the van to which you refer was manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, then it may be used to transport school children. The new school bus safety standards became effective on that date and, therefore, do not apply to vehicles manufactured prior to that date.

Any vehicle manufactured on or after that date designed to carry more than 10 persons and which is sold to transport school children to or from school or related events must comply with all of the school bus safety standards. These vehicles must comply with the standards regardless of the fact that a user might not transport more than 9 students in the vehicle.

A dealer is in violation of the law if it knowingly sells to a school a vehicle that was manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, that is to be used to transport school children, and that does not comply with the school bus safety standards. Such violation is punishable by a fine of up to $ 1,000. If your van was manufactured on or after the effective date, we suggest that you arrange with the dealer to repurchase the van. If the dealer refuses, please notify us and we will take appropriate action.

ID: nht78-4.33

DATE: March 27, 1978

FROM: Joseph J. Levin, Jr. - Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bill Nanninga -- Division of Planning, Wisconsin Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J.L. O'Connell (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 7-12-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J. Thomason (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to E. Kultgen (A36; VSA 108(b)(1)); VSA 102 (14); Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from E. Kultgen to S.P. Wood (OCC 4843); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to M.V. Chauvin

TEXT:

This confirms your March 13, 1978, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the Federal school bus safety standards to buses designed to transport handicapped adults or other adults to training or rehabilitation facilities. Such vehicles are not considered school buses for purposes of the application of Federal school bus safety standards and would not have to comply with those standards.

You indicated that a state law requires that these buses be labeled school buses although they are not painted school bus yellow nor used to transport school children to and from school or related events. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) discourages the use of the label school bus on vehicles that are not used to transport school children. Further, although the agency would not consider these vehicles to be school buses and would not require their compliance with school bus safety standards, you will probably find very few manufacturers who are willing to mark a bus as a school bus without manufacturing it in compliance with the standards, because the use of such a vehicle as a school bus would subject the manufacturer to liability.

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,