ID: nht79-1.29

DATE: 11/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Hein, Smith & Berezin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

06 NOV 1979

Mr. Lawrence D. Smith Hein, Smith & Berezin 25 East Salem Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07601

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1979, asking whether the Federal Government has any rule, regulations or statutes that obligate an insurance carrier to maintain a log of odometer readings with respect to vehicles declared a total loss. If a vehicle is repairable and will subsequently be used as a motor vehicle, disclosure of the actual miles would have to be made to the purchaser and those statements would have to be maintained by the insurance carrier for four years. However, if the vehicle is so badly damaged that it cannot be returned to the road, it will have ceased to be a motor vehicle for purposes of the regulations. Disclosure and retention would, therefore, not be required. In those instances where disclosure and retention are required, the format is specified in 49 CFR Part 580. For your information, I have enclosed copies of the relevant portions of the regulations, along with a sample disclosure form.

Sincerely,

John Womack Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law & Legislation Enclosure

October 1, 1979

United States Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

I am an Attorney in the State of New Jersey, andrepresent several insurance companies. Recently, inquiry was addressed to me by one of my clients, requesting that I ascertain whether the State of New Jersey or the Federal Government has any rules, regulations or statutes that obligate an insurance carrier to maintain a log of odometer readings with respect to vehicles declared a total loss as the result of an automobile accident where the carrier, on paying its assured, takes title to the totaled vehicle and then sells that vehicle for salvage. I would appreciate any information you can provide me, together with copies of any pertinent rules, regulations or statutory citations.

I thank you, in advance, for your cooperation and assistance.

Very truly yours,

HEIN, SMITH & BEREZIN

Lawrence D. Smith

LDS/kd

ID: nht79-1.3

DATE: 01/26/79

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

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Szkolnicki Mechanical Engineering Motor Coach Industries, Inc. Pembina, North Dakota 58271

Dear Mr. Szkolnicki:

This responds to your January 2, 1979, request for confirmation that a July 23, 1976, interpretation of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, has been incorporated into the body of the regulation. I regret that you did not receive a reply to your letter of November 27, 1978, which was addressed to someone who is no longer in this office.

The interpretation in question has not been incorporated into the body of the regulation. During a court review of the standard which only recently concluded, the agency was making a few changes to the standard as possible. Consideration is now being given to revision of the standard in minor respects, but no date has been established for action. Until any such action is taken, you may continue to rely on the July 23, 1976, interpretation as the agency's official view of the meaning of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4.

Sincerely,

Original signed By

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

January 2, 1979

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We refer you to our letter of November 27th, copy enclosed, in which we referred your letter of July 23rd, 1976 to White Motor.

We would appreciate a reply, confirming that an amendment to the FMVS 121 was issued.

MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES

T. Szkolnicki, Supervisor Mechanical Engineering

TS/cf Enclosure

November 27th, 1978

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Frank A. Berndt - Acting Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We refer you to your letter of July 23rd, 1976, to the White Motor Corporation, copy enclosed. The letter refers to the FMVSS #121. Specifically, it refers to the apply and release times for brake chambers that have a lower max. brake chamber pressure.

The last paragraph notes that "the agency will issue an interpretive amendment to S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 to reflect this interpretation".

Can you advise if this amendment was issued, and if so, please forward a copy of this. If the amendment was not issued, can you comment on when this will be done? Thank you.

Yours very truly,

MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES, INC.,

T. Szkolnicki, Supervisor, Mechanical Engineering.

TS/jp

ID: nht79-1.30

DATE: 01/17/79

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

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 17 1979

Clarence W. Woody Maryland Department of Transportation 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E. Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062

Dear Mr. Woody:

This is in response to your letter of December 5, 1978, asking whether the abbreviated odometer disclosure statement currently used on Maryland certificates of title may also be used on a Uniform Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Motor vehicle manufacturers are not required to provide dealers with odometer disclosure statements for new vehicles. Section 580.5 of Title 49 specifically exempts these transactions. Therefore, since there is no Federal requirement that any odometer disclosure statement be issued, you may include the abbreviated statement on the Uniform Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Manufacturers, however, would not be required by Federal law to complete it.

You should be interested to know that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will shortly issue a proposed notice of rulemaking that will allow use of the abbreviated form on all transfer of ownership documents, not merely the certificate of title.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.31

DATE: 01/23/79

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

TO: Illinois Department of Administrative Services

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 23 1979

Mr. Ben Bagby Illinois Department of Administrative Services 716 Stratton Office Building Springfield, Illinois 62706

Dear Mr. Bagby:

This is in response to your letter of November 28, 1978, requesting our interpretation of the Federal odometer law. Your questions and answers are as follows:

1. Is the State of Illinois required to furnish odometer disclosure statements to purchasers of used vehicles which are sold by the State at public auction? Yes. For purposes of the Federal odometer law, it is irrelevant where or how vehicles are sold. The State is the transferor of the vehicles and as such is required under 49 CFR Part 580 to provide every transferee with an odometer disclosure statement.

2. If the Federal government donates to the State surplus vehicles, is the Federal government required to provide odometer information to the State? Is the State required to furnish odometer information to other governmental units and not-for-profit institutions to whom it sells these vehicles? The answer to both questions is yes. The Federal government has incorporated the odometer disclosure statement onto Standard Form 97, which is the form which officially transfers a vehicle and evidences its release from the custody of the Federal government. In some instances a separate form is used and is attached to Standard Form 97.

Part 580.3 of Title 49 defines "transferor" 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." Therefore, it is irrelevant that the vehicles were donated by the Federal government rather than sold. The State as the new owner must, likewise, provide the purchaser with a disclosure statement.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 28, 1978 Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Kathy DeMeter

Dear Ms. DeMeter:

The Chicago Heights Office suggested that I contact you for a legal opinion on the following facts and questions.

1. The State of Illinois sells at public auction a number of surplus vehicles each year. For the most part the vehicles are purchased by dealers for resale, but a number are for the purchasers' personal use. Under these circumstances, is the State of Illinois required to furnish odometer information to the purchasers of the used vehicles?

2. The federal government donates to the State of Illinois a number of surplus vehicles. The State then sells these vehicles for a service charge to governmental units and select not-for-profit institutions. Under these circumstances, is the federal government required to provide odometer information to the State? Is the State required to furnish odometer information to other governmental units or not-for-profit institutions?

Let me thank you in advance for your help. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 217/782-4217.

Sincerely,

Ben Bagby Assistant Counsel

BB:ms

ID: nht79-1.32

DATE: 02/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Pennsylvania Notaries

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

22 FEB 1979

S. B. Aronson Pennsylvania Notaries 625 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Dear Mr. Aronson:

This is in response to your letter of January 4, 1979, requesting our opinion as to whether a rubber stamp which contains the odometer information on the newest Pennsylvania title could be applied to older titles in lieu of having a separate form attached.

There are no legal bars to your recommendation. In fact, the stamp you recommend makes more sense than a separate form. A separate form can be removed and replaced with another sheet. A stamp cannot be so abused.

We appreciate and support your recommendation.

Sincerely,

John Womack Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.33

DATE: 01/12/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Lori Malinovsky

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

12 JAN 1979 NOA 30 (KDe)

Lori Malinovsky Gladiator Southeast 1250 8th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205

Dear Ms. Malinovsky:

This is in response to your letter of October 30, 1978, requesting information on the Federal Odometer Mileage Statement. Section 580.5(b) of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations provides

A transferor of a new vehicle prior to its first transferor for purposes other than resale need not disclose the vehicle's odometer mileage.

Manufacturers of vehicles fall within this section and are exempt from the disclosure requirements because they sell vehicles to dealers who intend only to resell the vehicles. Since Gladiator, Inc. purchased the vans new with the intent to resell them and since the vans are being sold to dealers only who also intend only to resell them, Gladiator is likewise exempt from the disclosure requirements. The dealerships, however, will be selling the vans to customers who will use them for some purpose other than resale. Consequently, the dealerships are required to issue disclosure statements each time they sell a van.

Sincerely,

John Womack Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.34

DATE: 11/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: SEV Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 9 1979

Mr. H. J. T. Young Vice president - Technical Affairs SEV Corporation 33201 Harper Avenue St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office in which you requested an interpretation of S4.1.1.19 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.1.1.19 states:

A lamp manufactured on or after January 1, 1974 and designed to use a type of bulb that has not been assigned a mean spherical candlepower rating by its manufacturer and is not listed in SAE Standard J573d "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units", December 1968, shall meet the applicable requirements of this standard when used with any bulb of the type specified by the lamp manufacturer, operated at the bulb's design voltage. A lamp that contains a sealed-in bulb shall meet these requirements with the bulb operated at the bulb's design voltage.

It is noted that this paragraph consists of two sentences. You have asked whether the "lamp" and "bulb" of the second sentence are the same "lamp" and "bulb" of the first sentence.

The answer is no. The first sentence would require testing, at the bulb's design voltage, of bulbs used in sealed beam headlamps but not of bulbs used in, for example, taillamps; the former, though listed in J573d (Table 2), is not assigned a mean spherical candlepower rating since these bulbs emit shaped beams while the latter are both listed in J573d and have assigned mean spherical candlepower ratings. However, if the latter is used in the sealed lamp, it is tested at the bulb's design voltage rather than using the rated mean spherical candlepower. Furthermore, the rulemaking history of the paragraph clearly indicates that the two requirements are separate. As the agency noted in the preamble to the proposal, "The proposal specifies that when no rating has been assigned by the bulb manufacturer or the SAE or if the lamp is sealed and the bulb cannot be replaced, the bulb shall be operated at design voltage" (emphasis supplied) (38 FR 16230).

You noted that your question relates to the voltage required by Standard No. 108 for the photometric testing of a sealed beam headlamp that utilizes a European halogen bulb that meets ECE Regulation 37.

Since J579c requires the test voltage to be 12.8 volts for all the sealed beam bulbs, the photometric tests should be at 12.8 volts and not at the so-called "system voltage" of 12 volts.

I hope this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Taylor Vinson Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street S W WASHINGTON DC 20590 September 24 1979

Dear Mr Vinson

Request for Interpretation

With reference to S4.1.1.19 of FMVSS 108, are the "lamp" and "bulb" of the second sentence the same as these two items referred to in the first sentence, that is to say, is the bulb of the second sentence one to which the two conditions attaching to the bulb of the first sentence also apply?

This question relates to the voltage required by FMVSS 108 for the photometric testing of a sealed beam headlamp that comprises, in part, a "sealed-in bulb" that is an H1, H2, H3 or H4 halogen bulb that bears the E-mark signifying that it is in compliance with E/ECE/TRANS/505/rev.1/Add.36 Regulation 37 of the Geneva Agreement of 20 March 1958 as adopted by the several European governments. Yours sincerely

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

ID: nht79-1.35

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 22 1979 NOA-30

Mr. C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company State Route 7, P.O. Box 766 Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Newman:

This is in reply to your letter of February 15, 1979, asking for an interpretation of S4.3.1.1.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have informed us that dimensional changes in refrigeration units on the front of commercial trailers mean that clearance lamps are no longer visible at 45 degrees inboard if they are mounted as they have been in the past. You have proposed three alternate solutions to the problem.

S4.3.1.1.1 provides in pertinent part that "clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of the vehicle...and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." Your first proposed solution is that "The lamps could be mounted on the front of the vehicle as normal and the 45 degree inboard visibility requirements waived in accordance with S4.3.1.1.1."

We believe that this is preferable to your other suggested solutions that utilize angle-mounted combination lamps. Standard No. 108 appears to prescribe alternate requirements for location and visibility of clearance lamps--preferably on the front and visible throughout 45 degree angles, but if not, elsewhere than the front and where they need not be visible through the 45 degree angles. Your first proposed solution comprises elements of each of Standard No. 108's alternatives, and while it is not expressly permitted by Standard No. 108, it does not appear to violate it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

February 15, 1979

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, DC 20590

Attn: Mr. J. J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

Recently there have been dimensional changes in the refrigeration units used on the front of commercial trailers and these new dimensions restrict the visibility of the front clearance lamps. These new refrigeration units are up to 80 inches wide, 83 inches high and extend out from the front of the trailer up to 23 inches. These larger units restrict the mounting location of the clearance lamps on the front of the vehicle.

With this obstruction the in-board 45o visibility angle cannot be met if the clearance lamps are mounted as they normally have been.

Section S4.3.1.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard states, "Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45o in-board".

Our interpretation of Section S4.3.1.1.1 would allow for three possible solutions to the problem described earlier.

The methods are as follows:

1. The lamps could be mounted on the front of the vehicle as normal and the 45o in-board visibility requirements waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #1.

2. A combination lamp meeting the requirements of both a side marker lamp and a clearance lamp mounted at 45o could be installed on the corner of the trailer and again the 45o in-board visibility requirements waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #2.

3. The front clearance lamps could be omitted completely from the front of the trailer and a lamp meeting the combination requirements for a side marker and clearance lamp could be mounted on the side of the trailer at the front. This lamp would then meet the requirements for a side marker lamp having 45o visibility each side of the center line and having light directly to the front of the vehicle. The 45o in-board visibility requirements would again be waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #3.

Before making any recommendations to our customers regarding the possible solution to this problem, we would like to have your comments.

Yours very truly,

THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering

CJN/aj

Encl.

ID: nht79-1.36

DATE: 11/23/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 23 1979

Mr. T. Fujita Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd 2-9-13, Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Fujita:

This is in reply to your letter of October 17, 1979, asking for an interpretation for Paragraph S4.3.1.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.3.1.7 says in effect that a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp may be closer to each other than 4 inches "if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamp measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 1 is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps."

You have asked whether a motorcycle turn signal lamp should "satisfy the values specified in S4.3.1.7 or half those values. The answer is, the values specified in S4.3.1.7. Half those values would be "less than two and one-half times the sum specified ..." and impermissible under S4.3.1.7.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 17, 1979

Att.: Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re: Photometric requirement of a motorcycle front turn signal lamp which is mounted closer to the low beam headlamp than 4 inches.

Dear Mr. Finkelstein,

Section 4.3.1.7 of FMVSS No.108 specifies as follows;

S.4.3.1.7

The requirement that there be not less than 4 inches between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp, specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970, shall not apply if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamp measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 1 is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps.

When we apply this provision to a motorcycle turn signal lamp, we would like to have your opinion as to which one of the following requirements the lamp should satisfy.

A: the values specified in S.4.3.1.7

B: half the values of that specified in S.4.1.3.1.7

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Very truly yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Fujita Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

MF/mo

ID: nht79-1.37

DATE: 04/03/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 3 1979

NOA-30

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This responds to your letter of January 23, 1979, concerning a new design belt system for rear seat lap belts that you would like to use in future vehicles. You ask if the proposed design would comply with the requirements of Safety Standard No 208.

The answer to your question depends in which seating position in the rear seat of the vehicle the proposed belt system would be used. The new design would not comply with paragraph S7.1.1 of Safety Standard No. 208 if installed at outboard designated seating positions in the rear seat. That paragraph requires lap belts to adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th-percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th-percentile adult male. In some cases your proposed design would not adjust automatically to fit a 95th-percentile adult male.

The proposed design would comply with the standard, however, if installed in the center seating position of the rear seat, since paragraph S7.1.1.2 specifies that a seat belt assembly installed at any designated seating position other than the outboard positions of the front and second seats shall adjust either by a retractor or by a manual adjusting device.

Since your new belt system design would currently be precluded for outboard designated seating positions, you may wish to petition for amendment of Safety Standard No. 208. Any petition should include an adequate description of the belt design, including: (1) seating positions for which the belt system would be applicable, (2) advantages of the system, (3) size of the belt system hardware, and (4) problems, if any, associated with automatic retraction of the belt system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hereby grants your request for confidentiality of the new belt system design described in your letter. Please notify us if the design becomes public in the future. Also, please note that if you petition for rulemaking in this area, the details of your belt design would probably have to be disclosed to the public, at least in general terms.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel