ID: nht80-2.32

DATE: 05/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Miller Tilt-Top Trailer Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 2, 1980, in which you request approval for the vehicle identification numbering (VIN) system Miller Tilt-Top Trailer, Inc., proposes to use to satisfy the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 (49 CFR 571.115).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not approve a manufacturer's compliance with the safety standards, as manufacturers serve as self-certifiers under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information that you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115. We would also recommend that when you submit information to the agency pursuant to S6 of the standard, you follow each "series" designation (4th and 5th characters of the VIN) with the phrase "rectangular, flat platform trailer and body."

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

April 2, 1980

Fred Schwartz -- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: FMVSS-115 VIN Requirement

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

The following is my understanding of the new VIN requirement, as it will be implemented by Miller Tilt-Top Trailer:

- To be supplied by S.A.E.

- Series of trailer (i.e. "OT").

- Length of platform to nearest foot (i.e. "20"). *

- Number of axles (i.e. "4").

- Check digit (calculated per S5.1).

- Model year (i.e. "A" for 1980).

- Plant of manufacture (i.e. "M" for Milwaukee).

- Sequential number assigned by Miller Trailer

* - All trailers that we manufacture have a rectangular, flat platform which should satisfy the "Type of Trailer" and "Body Type" information requirements.

Does all of this information meet with D.O.T. approval?

Sincerely,

MILLER TILT-TOP TRAILER, INC.;

Philip J. Carpenter -- Administrative Engineer

ID: nht70-1.15

DATE: 10/01/70

FROM: C. A. Baker for R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: Barrington Homes of Florida, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1970, to Mr. Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director for Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Safety Bureau concerning clearance lights on mobile homes.

A mobile home moved on its own wheels is a "motor vehicle" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and is categorized as a "trailer".

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires clearance lamps to be installed on trailers 80 or more inches in overall width. In transit a mobile home towed on its own wheels must therefore be equipped with clearance lamps; however, these lamps may be temporarily installed and removed when the mobile home has reached its destination.

We would appreciate your providing us, if possible, with the names of manufacturers of mobile homes whom you believe to be towing these vehicles without equipping them with lighting devices meeting Standard No. 108. This will assist us in our efforts to insure that all manufacturers meet their obligations under the Act.

ID: nht75-6.34

DATE: 09/16/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bergman & Hicks

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1970, to Mr. Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director for Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Safety Bureau concerning clearance lights on mobile homes.

A mobile home towed on its own wheels is a "motor vehicle" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and is categorized as a "trailer".

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103 requires clearance lamps to be installed on trailers 80 or more inches in overall width. In transit a mobile home towed on its own wheels must therefore be equipped with clearance lamps; however, these lamps may be temporarily installed and removed when the mobile home has reached its destination.

We would appreciate your providing us, if possible, with the names of manufacturers of mobile homes whom you believe to be towing these vehicles without equipping them with lighting devices meeting Standard No. 108. This will assist us in our efforts to insure that all manufacturers meet their obligations under the Act.

ID: nht92-1.27

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DAVID KENNEDY -- W. Y. MOBERLY, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-11-92 FROM DAVID KENNEDY TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 8035); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-30-82 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO KENNETH M. BUSH

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 11, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal regulations pertaining to the importation of automotive rims for motorcycle use.

Your Canadian client ships to the United States a motorcycle conversion kit consisting of a prefabricated rear end assembly complete with brakes, drums, brake lines, and passenger car tires mounted on passenger car rims. While the tires bear a DOT certification symbol, the rims do not. You understand that motorcycle rims must bear a DOT certification symbol, and that passenger car rims are not required to be certified. You have asked whether, under these circumstances, the passenger car rims in the kit must bear a DOT certification.

Some years ago, Suzuki Motor Co. asked the agency whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, allow a manufacturer to equip a motorcycle with passenger car tires and rims. On December 30, 1982, we replied that paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 did permit a motorcycle to be equipped with tires meeting the requirements of Standard No. 109, the passenger car tire standard. Although passenger car tires must be fitted to rims suitable for their use, which will ordinarily be passenger car rims, Standard No. 120 nonetheless requires that rims intended for use on motorcycles be marked in accordance with paragraph S5.2. These markings include the DOT certification symbol. As you have surmised, the standard that covers passenger car tire rims, Standard No. 110, contains no marking requirements. Therefore, since your client wishes to export new tire/rim combinations for use on motorcycle conversions, the tires must be certified as conforming to Standard No. 109, and the rims certified as conforming to Standard No. 120. I enclose a copy of our letter to Suzuki.

ID: nht79-2.11

DATE: 01/17/79

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

TO: J. R. Randolph

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 28, 1978, letter concerning an auxiliary fuel tank installed by the dealer on a 1978 Ford van that you purchased. You are concerned that the auxiliary tank represents a safety hazard due to the location of the tank's filler cap in the left rear wheel-well.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, specifies performance requirements for fuel systems on motor vehicles. Although the standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components, your dealer had to assure that your van complied with the standard. A person who mounts an auxiliary fuel tank on a new motor vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is a vehicle alterer under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations. That person is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix a label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Therefore, there should be an "alterer" label on your van in addition to the certification label placed on the vehicle by the original manufacturer.

Even if the vehicle complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75, the location and design of the auxiliary fuel tank could constitute a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer would also be responsible. I am, therefore, forwarding a copy of your letter to the agency's Office of Defects Investigation. That office will examine this situation and may be in touch with you at a later date.

Thank you for your letter and for bringing this matter to our attention.

SINCERELY,

December 28, 1978

Chief Counsel Office of the Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

I am writing this letter to inform you of what appears to me to be a definite safety hazard and requesting of you an interpretation of the regulations which authorize either a direct intervention or the issuance of a consumer advisory. This letter is a result of a discussion with, and at the suggestion of, Mr. C. G. Keiper of your Denver office.

On September 7, 1978, I purchased a new 1978 Ford Econoline 150 van from Lakewood Ford, Incorporated. I requested that an auxiliary gas tank be installed and the dealer included the installation on my purchase agreement. Upon delivery to me, I found that the filler cap for the auxiliary gas tank was located in the left rear wheel well. My concerns were responded to by statements which varied from "all after-market auxiliary gas tank installations are the same", to "it meets Federal criteria for a side impact crash".

I subsequently learned that a local dealer, other than Lakewood Ford, had installed the tank according to the manufacturer's directions. The tank is manufactured by ARA.

My concerns are twofold. First, the wheel well is one of the filthiest places on a van, and no reasonable person can keep dirt from entering the auxiliary tank. I have already experienced an engine failure which resulted from dirt in the auxiliary tank; fortunately, the breakdown occurred in the city and only consituted an annoyance. A similar breakdown in the Colorado Rockies, or anywhere else outside a metropolitian area, could conceivably result in explosion and possibly death.

My second concern is that if I were to use tire chains the one on the left rear tire could break, strike the filler cap and cause a fire or explosion.

In either event I am unable to use the product for its intended purpose except in a sterile environment -- normal driving is impossible using this tank except for careless and unthinking persons.

I have brought this matter to the attention of the dealership's president. As of this date, the dealer has not clearly indicated its willingness to either modify the installation to eliminate the hazards or to remove the tank and refund my money.

I will appreciate your consideration in this matter both for my own peace of mind and for the safety of myself and the many people who had the same installation without prior knowledge of the placement of the gas filler cap.

James R. Randolph

cc: JESS B. CARROWAY - LAKEWOOD FORD, INC.; C. G. KEIPER NHTSA, DENVER

ID: 0826

Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler
Manager of Government Relations
Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A.
P.O. Box 25252
Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252

Dear Mr. Shetler:

We are responding to your FAX of March 29, 1995, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

On May 6, 1994, we advised you that a motorcycle headlamp with an upper beam projector on one side of the vertical centerline and a lower beam projector on the other did not comply with Standard No. 108. You now ask whether the headlamp would comply if an exterior housing were installed on the headlamp which "provides the appearance of two headlamps."

This modification in the design does not result in a complying headlamp. Regardless of its exterior appearance, the lamp remains a single headlamp incorporating both an upper and lower beam projector. Since both projectors are within a single headlamp, both projectors must be on the vertical centerline, as specified in Table IV of Standard No. 108.

Even if the upper and lower beam projectors were in separate units, neither in itself would be a complying headlamp, and hence not a two-lamp system that could be mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Standard No. 108 does not permit motorcycles to have a headlamp system with asymmetrical beam location.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel ref:109 d:4/24/95

ID: nht80-1.15

DATE: 02/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance - Enforcement

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DATE: Feb. 8, 1980

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation of Fuel Tank Capacity as used in Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity

FROM : Chief Counsel

TO : Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Enforcement

This confirms the oral response previously given by Hugh Oates to your memorandum requesting an interpretation of the term, "capacity", as used in Safety Standard No. 301-75. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard provides that "the fuel tank is filled to any level from 90 to 95 percent of capacity with Stoddard solvent ...." You ask whether "capacity" should include the vapor volume in the air dome plus the volume of the fuel filler pipe when filling a fuel tank for compliance purposes. (Total tank volume = usable capacity + unusable capacity + vapor volume + fluid in filler pipe.) Apparently, the vapor volume can be filled with solvent if the solvent is added very slowly to force the air vapors out of the dome. This has been done in past compliance testing.

It is our opinion that the term, "capacity", should not be interpreted to include the vapor volume in the air dome, since fuel tanks are never filled to this level by vehicle users. Fuel tanks are designed to include an area for fuel vapor and pressure build- up. Vehicle users never fill their tanks so slowly that this area is displaced with fuel. Therefore, it would be an unrealistic test to require manufacturers to fill tanks in this fashion. Moreover, I understand from convervations between our offices that fuel is actually squeezed out of the filler pipe during compliance testing if the tank is filled to this absolute level. This would not seem to be an accurate test of fuel tank integrity, since it is leaks or punctures in the tank itself that generally cause fuel loss in real-world crashes.

In consideration of these facts, we would interpret "capacity" to mean "usable capacity", as used in the vehicle manufacturer's Part I submission to the EPA, plus "unusable capacity" (i.e., the volume of fuel left in the tank when the engine fuel pump sucks air).

I think it should be emphasized that the "usable capacity" should be determined only after the tank has been filled to its "unusable capacity". In other words, when testing a tank that has never been filled, the unusable, residual fuel level should be reached before the "usable capacity" is added to the tank. If this is not done, the actual volume of fuel in the tank will be somewhat below the "usable fuel capacity".

Frank Berndt

February 20, 1980

Note From Tom Grubbs FMVSS 301-75 Safety Compliance Engineer Office or Vehicle Safety Compliance

As of February 20, 1980, all FMVSS 301-75 vehicle compliance tests will use the following fuel tank filling technique:

1. Test vehicle's engine will be "run dry"*.

2. 95% of the "usable capacity" of the fuel tank (as determined from EPA Part I submissions) will be added.

*After "run dry", the fuel left in the tank will be the "unusable capacity".

November 25, 1979

Request for Interpretation of Fuel Tank Capacity as used in FMVSS No. 301-75, "Fuel System Integrity" NEF-31TGr

Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

THRU: Associated Administrator for Enforcement In order to preclude controversies during the FY 1980 FMVSS No. 301-75 vehicle safety compliance testing program, it is requested that an interpretation of "capacity" be issued by your office. At the present time, S7.1.1 of FMVSS No. 301- 75 states, "The fuel tank is filled to any level from 90 to 95 percent of capacity with Stoddard solvent...." The word "capacity" can be interpreted to mean one of the following: 1. Total Tank Volume - The unusable tank capacity plus the usable capacity plus the vapor volume in the air dome plus the volume of solvent in the fuel filler pipe as shown on the attached sketch. In order to completely fill the total tank volume, the solvent must be added slowly to force the air/vapors out of the air dome which is presently being performed by the OVSC testing laboratories. The vehicle manufacturers claim that this is not a realistic fuel tank filling technique.

2. Usable Capacity - The usable capacity of the fuel tank as stated in each vehicle manufacturers' Part I submission to the EPA. Some manufacturers are using 95 percent of this "usable capacity" value for their FMVSS No. 301-75 certification tests. It appears that this would be the most realistic fuel tank filling technique.

The FY 1980 FMVSS No. 301-75 vehicle compliance testing program will be initiated during the first week of January 1980, and it is requested that an interpretation be made prior to that time.

Francis Armstrong

Attachment

NEF-31TGrubbs:vgw:11/21/79:62807

cc: NEF-01 Chron NEF-30 Chron NEF-31 Subj/Chron/TGrubbs/File

LEFT SIDE VIEW OF TYPICAL GM FUEL TANK IN 1980 MODEL

*INSERT DIAGRAM HERE

ID: nht73-2.12

DATE: 08/22/73

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON For Lawrence R. Schneider -- NHTSA

TO: Alfa Romeo Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 9, 1973, in which you inquire whether Alfa Romeo may add to the consumer information "handouts" for prospective purchasers, required by NHTSA regulations, the consumer information required by the Environmental Protection Agency.

As long as the information required by NHTSA is presented in conformity with 49 CFR Part 575, we have no objection to the inclusion within the same covers of additional information relative to EPA requirements.

The wall posters you mentioned are not required by our regulations, so you may do with them as you please.

Alfa Romeo, Inc.

August 9, 1973

Richard Dyson --

N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Dyson:

I'm enclosing a copy of our consumer information handout that is used by our dealers in their showroom. This, as you know, is given to prospects.

This same layout is also given to each dealer in poster size format (about 30" x 40") for his showroom display.

What we'd like to do, is to add to both the handout and the poster, EPA's fuel consumption table. Ms. Sue Hickey of Dr. Briceland's office has already discussed this with you, and explained their program. It was suggested that we write you asking for your authorization to modify the Part 375 format to include EPA's table.

Our sample will give you an idea of the type of approach we'd like to use. We feel that this will present to prospective buyers all of the C.I. in one source, and possibly avoid some confusion.

Sincerely,

D. Black

Technical Director

Enclosure

cc: Claire Bain

ID: nht93-1.31

DATE: 02/11/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JAMES L. VASKO

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-13-93 FROM JAMES L. VASKO TO NHTSA (OCC 8257)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 1993, to the agency in which you call our attention to your invention, the "Front Brake Light System." You have informed us that your invention utilizes "the present turn signal lights . . . to notify the driver and or pedestrian in front of the vehicle that the vehicle is in a braking mode," and that this is accomplished with only the present circuitry. You wish to "open a dialogue" with us and will answer any questions we may have.

We do have some questions about this invention. As you know, the individual front turn signal lamps also operate in tandem as hazard warning signal lamps, and flash simultaneously when the hazard warning switch is activated. We assume that your invention flashes both front signal lamps when the brake pedal is applied, and request confirmation of our assumption. We would also appreciate knowing how this is accomplished without "necessity and expense of adding new, complicated apparatus" as you put it. If, on the other hand, the front signal lamps are activated in a steady-burning state, that would be of interest to us. Finally, we would appreciate your views as to how this device would enhance safety, as our concerns have been directed to warning those to the rear of the vehicle that it is about to stop, rather than those to the front.

When we have this information, we shall be pleased to provide you with an interpretation as to the relationship of your invention to the statutes and regulations that this agency administers.

ID: nht76-5.61

DATE: 07/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Vorys; Sater; Seymour and Pease

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 15, 1976, concerning 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Record-keeping.

As we understand the situation, Geo. Byers Sons, Inc., ("Byers") has imported 988 motorcycles whose tires were manufactured by VEB REIFENKONBINAT ("VEB"), a corporation in the German Democratic Republic. VEB has to date failed to apply for a manufacturer's designation and to mark the tires supplied with the motorcycles in accordance with Part 574. Consequently, Byers wishes to apply for an identification mark on behalf of the manufacturer and itself carry out Part 574 marking requirements.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 defines a manufacturer to include a person importing motor vehicles for resale. As a statutory manufacturer, the importer of record could become responsible for insuring compliance with Part 574. We understand that the importer of record is East-Europe Export, Inc., but that there is a serious question of East-Europe's continuation as a corporation and, consequently, the ability of the NHTSA to require East-Europe to satisfy the requirements of Part 574. Therefore, although not expressly permitted by the regulation, we would not object in this instance to Byers, as the distributor of the motorcycles, applying in its own name for a manufacturer's tire identification mark (so long as it is willing to accept the responsibility for carrying out the requirements of Part 574). Because of the recordkeeping requirements of Part 574, we would not permit Byers to apply for an identification mark, on behalf of VEB itself, without showing that VEB intended to fulfill the requirements of Part 574.

In any event, VEB must submit a designation of an agent for service of process as required by Section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR 551.45.