ID: aiam0326

Dear Mr. Shrake: This is in reply to your letter of February 1, 1971, requesting ou interpretation of the term 'provision' as used in the definition of seat belt assembly anchorage in Standard No. 210 (35 F.R. 18116, November 26, 1970).; The change from the use of the word 'device' in the prior issuance o the rule (35 F.R. 15293) to the use of 'provision' in the November 26 issuance was made to avoid any appearance of requiring a specific type of structure.; A hole capable of accepting a seat belt assembly's attaching hardwar would therefore qualify as an anchorage. It would not, of course, be an anchorage conforming to Standard No. 210 unless it could also withstand the forces specified in that standard.; Please advise us if you have further questions on this matter. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam3200

Dear Mr. Kawano: This responds to your recent letter asking whether a manual, Type 1 la belt assembly installed in conjunction with an upper torso automatic belt can qualify as the pelvic portion of a Type 2 belt assembly for purposes of the elongation requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*.; Safety Standard No. 209 limits the elongation of webbing in a Type lap belt to 20 percent, but allows the webbing in the pelvic portion of a Type 2 belt assembly to elongate 30 percent. The standard defines a 'type 2 seat belt assembly' as a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints. Although a manual lap belt installed in conjunction with an automatic upper torso belt is not in fact a 'combination' belt as originally contemplated by the definition, the function of the system is equivalent to the Type 2 belt. Therefore, since the pelvic portion of a Type 2 belt may elongate up to 30 percent under the requirements of the standard, we conclude that a lap belt installed in conjunction with an upper torso automatic belt should be considered the pelvic portion of a Type 2 system and subject to the same requirement.; To assure that all interested persons are aware of this interpretation the agency intends to amend Safety Standard No. 209 to clarify that manual lap belts installed in conjunction with automatic upper torso belts may meet the elongation requirements specified for Type 2 belts. The amendment will also specify that such lap belts must be labeled to indicate they are only intended for use with an automatic upper torso restraint. Rulemaking in this regard will be initiated in the near future.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: BakerDaniels.ajd

Melissa M. Hinds, Esquire
Baker Daniels
300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700
Indianapolis, IA 46204-1782

Re: Request for Interpretation

Dear Ms. Hinds:

This is in reply to your letter dated November 19, 2003 seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 579, Reporting of Information and Communications About Potential Defects. In particular, you seek an interpretation of several terms in 49 CFR 579.4 and the reporting requirements under 49 CFR 579.5.

You note that the regulatory term "manufacturer" in section 579.4 includes "any parent corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate, and any subsidiary or affiliate of a parent corporation of such a person."You ask whether a manufacturers obligation to report an external communication under section 579.5 is triggered when communications are made to multiple recipients who are in a corporate family. In particular, you provided the following scenario with two questions.

"Big A" manufacturers motor vehicles. In addition to its own plants, Big A also has first and second tier subsidiaries, "Subsidiary B" and "Subsidiary C," both of which manufacturer motor vehicles sold under Big As brand and trademark. Enter "Supplier D," which manufacturers motor vehicle equipment for Big A, Subsidiary B, and Subsidiary C.

1) Supplier D identifies a defect in its motor vehicle equipment. It sends a letter identifying the defect to Subsidiary B and Subsidiary C.

2) Supplier D identifies a defect in its motor vehicle equipment. It sends a letter identifying the defects to Subsidiary B and Big A.

You ask if these communications are "external communications" for the purposes of section 579.5.

You also note that the answer to this question may depend upon the construction of the word "affiliate," which you state is not defined in the regulations.

All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, including equipment manufacturers that manufacture parts that enter into use only through a vehicle manufacturer and its subsidiaries, have an obligation, independent of the vehicle manufacturer, to provide certain communications to NHTSA pursuant to Sections 579.5(a) and (b). This obligation arises when the equipment manufacturer issues a notice, bulletin, customer satisfaction campaign, consumer advisory or any other communication within the scope of Section 579.5(a) or (b) and sends it to more than one manufacturer, distributor, dealer, lessor, lessee, owner or purchaser in the United States. Vehicle manufacturers have the same obligations for notices that they issue.

As you point out, the definition of manufacturer includes "any parent corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate, and any subsidiary or affiliate of a parent corporation of such a person." In applying this definition to the two hypothetical situations you presented, Big A, Subsidiary B and Subsidiary C would all be considered the same manufacturer for the purposes of 49 CFR Part 579. Thus, in each instance, Supplier Ds notice is not an external communication that needs to be submitted pursuant to 49 CFR 579.5 because it is not sent to more than one manufacturer, distributor, dealer, lessor, lessee, owner or purchaser. Therefore, Supplier Ds notices do not have to be submitted to NHTSA.

Lastly, while the term "affiliate" is not dispositive to the outcome here, we note that "affiliate" is defined in 49 CFR 579.4. For the purposes of Part 579, affiliate means:

In the context of an affiliate of or person affiliated with a specified person, a person that directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediates, controls or is controlled by, or is under common control with, the person specified. The term person usually is a corporation.

If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:579
d.2/2/04

ID: nht79-2.22

DATE: 09/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: PACCAR, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mark K. McDonald PACCAR, Inc. Business Center Building P. O. BOX 1518 Bellevue, Washington 98009

Dear Mr. McDonald:

This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

You have asked whether a manufacturer must designate a vehicle an "incomplete vehicle" if, although it is shipped in an incomplete form, its completed type is known. The "incomplete vehicle" type was established to deal with situations where the manufacturer did not know what the vehicle's final type would be when it assigned the VIN. If the final form the vehicle will take is known to the manufacturer, it may identify that type in the VIN, or it may designate it as an incomplete vehicle. The agency would prefer, however, that the final type be indicated.

There is no requirement that use of a particular vehicle type designation for VIN purposes be consistent with any other documentation regarding shipment or sale of vehicles manufactured in more than one stage, except that the actual VIN must be used where it appears on the documentation. For example, a vehicle may be designated an incomplete vehicle for the purposes of the NHTSA certification requirements and a truck for the purposes of the VIN requirements.

You have also asked the agency to confirm that engine horsepower need not be directly or indirectly decipherable from the VIN. This is essentially correct. "Engine type" is defined in S3 of the standard to mean a power source with defined characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement and net brake horsepower. Thus, encoding an engine manufacturer's basic model number would be sufficient. There remains, however, a question as to the point at which two engines with the same characteristics except for horsepower become two different engines. The agency intends to resolve this question in a notice in the Federal Register. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 22, 1979

Mr. Fred Swartz National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Fred:

To follow up our phone conversation of today, PACCAR will proceed to formulate its VIN code in compliance with FMVSS 115 under these assumptions:

1. Incomplete Vehicle Type:

It is our understanding that this designation is to be used at the manufacturer's discretion when designation of a complete vehicle type would not be practical. There are no circumstances which require that the manufacturer use the incomplete vehicle type designation. Moreover, there is no requirement that use of the incomplete vehicle designation be consistent with any other documentation regarding shipment or sale of vehicles manufactured in more than one stage.

2. Horsepower Rating:

There is no requirement that engine horsepower be either directly or indirectly decipherable from the VIN. Horsepower may be used as one characteristic by which engines are classified. A complete and acceptable method of classification would be to encode as a separate classification each basic model number as specified by the engine manufacturer.

I am requesting that you send written acknowledgement that the above assumptions are proper interpretations of FMVSS 115.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mark K. McDonald

MKM:ed

ID: nht94-1.58

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Business Distributor Ass'n, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Attorney Advisor, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (Std. 217; USA 103(d)); Also attached to letter dated 2/20/87 from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

I am following up on the fax that I sent to you dated January 12, 1994.

As of this date - I have not received a response, to the question that was raised during our verbal conversation, and which I requested a formal written response in the aforementioned fax.

Will greatly appreciate your follow-up with the written formal response.

Another question has developed pertaining to the implementation of FMVSS 217 (amended). New York State school bus regulations - Chapter VI transportation regulations - article 3 safety part 721 requires two side emergency doors on vehicles of greater th an 67 pupil capacity. New York State also - in the past has required the side emergency doors to be "to the rear of center of the passenger compartment?" - they have just recently amended their regulations to conform t the FMVSS as to location "as near center of passenger compartment" - and have also in my reading have required both the left and right side emergency doors in center - BUT not in the same body section. The question is raised by some of the manufacturers/distributors - can the right side emergency door be located to the rear of the passenger compartment?

TEXT OF RICHARD KREUTZIGER'S 1/12/94 FAX TO WALTER MYERS:

In a follow-up to our morning phone conversation of this date, I hereby formally request a written response (preferably by fax) to the point of discussion in reference to the ability of any individual state agency to require that an entity other than a p olitical sub-division of the state (such as a school district) had only to meet the requirements/standards/regulations of NHTSA and not added individual state regulations, even if such regulations exceed the federal standards.

Example: "ABC" Central School - is required in their purchase of a school bus to transport students to and from home to school - and/or to transport students to school sponsored events - such vehicle must meet the prescribed FMVSS and to further meet the individual state regulations that exceed the FMVSS.

"XYZ" Bus Company - has a contract with "DEF" school district to transport the school pupils of the district to and from home to school, and/or school sponsored events. Because this entity is not a political sub-division the

state enforcement agency relating to school bus regulations can not mandate that this private enterprise meet the state regulations that exceed the FMVSS - the only requirements for this private entity and their school buses are those that are mandated b y FMVSS.

I hope my interpretation of our phone conversation, reflects your

ID: nht94-8.16

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Business Distributor Ass'n, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Attorney Advisor, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (Std. 217; USA 103(d)); Also attached to letter dated 2/20/87 from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

I am following up on the fax that I sent to you dated January 12, 1994.

As of this date - I have not received a response, to the question that was raised during our verbal conversation, and which I requested a formal written response in the aforementioned fax.

Will greatly appreciate your follow-up with the written formal response.

Another question has developed pertaining to the implementation of FMVSS 217 (amended). New York State school bus regulations - Chapter VI transportation regulations - article 3 safety part 721 requires two side emergency doors on vehicles of greater than 67 pupil capacity. New York State also - in the past has required the side emergency doors to be "to the rear of center of the passenger compartment?" - they have just recently amended their regulations to conform t the FMVSS as to location "as near center of passenger compartment" - and have also in my reading have required both the left and right side emergency doors in center - BUT not in the same body section. The question is raised by some of the manufacturers/distributors - can the right side emergency door be located to the rear of the passenger compartment?

TEXT OF RICHARD KREUTZIGER'S 1/12/94 FAX TO WALTER MYERS:

In a follow-up to our morning phone conversation of this date, I hereby formally request a written response (preferably by fax) to the point of discussion in reference to the ability of any individual state agency to require that an entity other than a political sub-division of the state (such as a school district) had only to meet the requirements/standards/regulations of NHTSA and not added individual state regulations, even if such regulations exceed the federal standards.

Example: "ABC" Central School - is required in their purchase of a school bus to transport students to and from home to school - and/or to transport students to school sponsored events - such vehicle must meet the prescribed FMVSS and to further meet the individual state regulations that exceed the FMVSS.

"XYZ" Bus Company - has a contract with "DEF" school district to transport the school pupils of the district to and from home to school, and/or school sponsored events. Because this entity is not a political sub-division the

state enforcement agency relating to school bus regulations can not mandate that this private enterprise meet the state regulations that exceed the FMVSS - the only requirements for this private entity and their school buses are those that are mandated by FMVSS.

I hope my interpretation of our phone conversation, reflects your

ID: aiam0355

Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in response to your letter of May 13, 1971, with which yo enclosed eleven questions that time precluded answering at the recent Recreational Vehicle Institute symposium. Some of the questions are really comments or expressions of opinion, and the answer must be of the same nature.; >>>1. Where does the manufacturer's responsibility start and end, an where does the sub-contractor's or supplier's responsibility start and end?; This question must obviously be answered in general terms. The primar thrust of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is the regulation of manufacturers. Under the statutory scheme set up by Congress and the standards and regulations that we have issued, the 'manufacturer' is viewed as the final producer of a particular product--either a completed vehicle or a defined type of motor vehicle equipment. Although we recognize that in virtually all types of manufacturing there is actually a multiple chain of production from basic raw materials to final product, it is necessary for our purposes to fix legal responsibility on the final 'assembler', our legal system offers ample ways in which the final manufacturer can and does share some of the responsibility with his suppliers, primarily through the system of contracts and warranties that is basic to all commercial activities. Thus, where a standard is concerned, we look to the final manufacturer for compliance purposes. His responsibilities are, of course, modified by the possibility of a due care defense, whether or not supplied products are involved. There are some exceptions: for example, the Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulation places some limited responsibilities on the manufacturers of 'incomplete vehicles', and the responsibility for safety-related defects extends to all manufacturers of other vehicle components, whether or not covered by a standard.; 2. Are RV manufacturers required to provide more proof of complianc than the compliance nameplate?; There is no requirement that manufacturers 'provide proof o compliance', beyond the certification label, as a routine matter (the sense in which the question was probably intended). If the NHTSA discovers evidence of noncompliance with the standards, by testing or otherwise, it normally asks the manufacturer to provide the test results or other information or data that formed the basis for his certification that the product conformed to the particular standard in question. This is a normal function of the administrative process whereby the agency gathers all available information in the course of deciding whether and how to proceed in an enforcement action. Obviously, it is in the manufacturer's interest to maintain carefully the records of testing and other data upon which he bases his certification.; 3. Are defect reports required relative to plumbing or electrica defects which are functional defects but could in some cases have safety implications? Who makes the decision concerning the safety implication?; Defect reports and appropriate notification action are required in th case of any defects determined to be safety-related. These would include defects in the plumbing or electrical systems, as in any other system of the vehicle. Section 113 of the Act requires the vehicle manufacturer to make this determination and take appropriate action on his own initiative. The NHTSA also has the authority to make an independent determination on the question, under procedures that afford the manufacturer the opportunity to present his own evidence.; 4. Is there a statutory requirement that rulings and standards in fac be reasonable, and in fact reduce some known hazard? If so, how do you establish the fact that a particular hazard is real, does exist and the proposed standards will reduce such hazards?; The act requires that a standard 'shall be practicable, shall meet th need for motor vehicle safety, and shall be stated in objective terms,' and also that it be 'reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed.' The NHTSA devotes a great deal of effort to establishing that hazards are 'real', and that a standard 'will reduce such hazard'. The effort is multifaceted, and includes analysis of known accident data, existing research data, research studies and tests funded and managed by NHTSA, information gathered from industry and other sources, and the knowledge and expertise of NHTSA technical personnel.; 5. What will be the NHTSA's view in regard to a motor home that exceed the chassis manufacturer's GVWR?; Under the new certification regulations scheduled to come into effec January 1, 1972, the final-stage manufacturer will have the responsibility for establishing the GVWR of his vehicle, and there are no inherent restrictions on the value that he establishes. It is anticipated that the standards will base many of the performance requirements on the GVWR and GAWR of the vehicle, and it may often be to the final- stage manufacturer's advantage to remain within the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's recommended values in order to take full advantage of the protections provided by the regulation on Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.; 6. Mr. Wood's talk mentioned that 'some trailers' might be included i the definition of 'passenger motor vehicle' in S 976, the 'Hart Bill'. What trailers are 'some trailers'?; Our opinion on the meaning of terms in bills before Congress can onl be speculative, and the terms in question may be changed if and when the bill is enacted, or clarified by legislative history. 'Motor vehicles' under the present National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act clearly include trailers. We are not sure whether or not the reference in the definition ('any motor vehicle manufactured primarily for the transportation of its operator and passengers upon the public streets, roads, and highways') to 'its operator' is intended to excluded trailers.; 7. Do you think that the NHTSA should use 'due care' before proposing standard to be reasonably certain that there exists correlation between a small- scale test and realistic tests--which are preferably large scale?; The answer to question 4. includes the statutory criteria under whic the NHTSA operates in issuing standards and regulations. The validity of test procedures is one of the basic things that must be taken in to account by the NHTSA in the issuance of any regulation.; 8. When a proposal or rule is issued, have the test procedures bee proven by the government? If not, how can 'doubted' results be correlated by the NHTSA test facilities? How do you compare results as related to test equipment?; In terms of the broad generalities of the question and the scope o this letter, little more can be said in addition to the answers to questions 4. and 7. The agency must make every reasonable effort to assure that the standards meet the statutory criteria, and are the best way of dealing with the safety problems involved.; 9. What are the present tie down angle requirements for seat belts an are there any exceptions?; The requirements for seat belt installations are contained in th published standards, and we request that persons concerned with requirements such as those mentioned first examine the standards as they relate to his particular case. We will be pleased to answer questions related to specific requirements of the standards, either by letter or in person.; 10. It would seem that the standards and due care testing lead to concentration of the industry into a few major companies. Is NHTSA concerned about this effect and is it willing to see it happen in order to accomplish NHTSA's goal?; The economic impact of the standards is one of the main concerns of th NHTSA in its rulemaking activity, it is part of the determination of 'practicability' required by the Act. Mr. Toms devoted a major part of his address at the banquet (after the question was asked) to this problem, and his remarks probably contain the most complete discussion on the subject that we can offer.; 11. Which, if any, of the speakers has had personal experienc vacationing in a recreational vehicle?; The speakers, and other personnel of the NHTSA, have the responsibilit to discharge their functions as objectively and fairly as possible, unbiased by their 'personal experiences', vacationing or otherwise. We hope and intend that the motor vehicle safety program will, to the greatest extent possible, enable the public to have safe and enjoyable vacation experiences with your members' products.<<<; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-2.35

DATE: 05/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Avery International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

MAY 8, 1980

Mr. Ralph F. Lundregan Government Relations Manager Avery International Specialty Materials Division 50-L Edwards Ferry Road Leesburg, Virginia 22075

Dear Mr. Lundregan:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1980, asking whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allows "reflective markings (such as red diagonal stripes on a white reflective background) to be used to increase visibility on the front of trucks and heavy vehicles".

You are correct that Standard No. 108 does not directly address this question. The section of the standard that appears most pertinent to it, however, is S4.1.3 prohibiting the installation as original equipment of any reflective device "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. We would be concerned, for example, if reflective materials were installed in a manner that might cause confusion with headlamps or front turn signal lamps. We also wish to point out that under the standard the use of the color red is at the rear of motor vehicles and that its appearance in any other location might also cause confusion.

However, as a practical matter the use of reflective materials as truck and heavy vehicle equipment sold either as original equipment or in the aftermarket is governed by requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (Federal Highway Administration) which prohibit use of the color red on the front of a vehicle. You should review their requirements before proceeding with your marketing plans. (49 CFR 393.26(e)(4)).

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

AVERY INTERNATIONAL Specialty Materials Division

April 16, 1980

Mr. Stephen P. Wood Rulemaking Section Office of the Chief Council NOA-30 NHTSA 400 7th St., S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

Avery International manufactures self adhesive materials for a wide variety of uses including markings, decals, striping, etc. for various vehicles.

Although our Fasign reflective materials may be used for markings on the side and the rear of trucks and heavy vehicles, a question has been asked on whether similar reflective markings (such as red diagonal stripes on a white reflective background) may be used to increase visibility on the front of such vehicles?

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108 on lights and reflective devices does not seem to address this particular question.

Since Avery is in the process of possible marketing for such truck markings, we would appreciate a ruling, interpretation, or reference to something specific regarding this subject.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Ralph F. Lundregan Government Relations Manager

RFL:jh

ID: 0513

Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui
Manager, Legal & Homologation Section
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9 13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Matsui:

We have received your letter of November 16, 1994, to Patrick Boyd of this agency, asking for an interpretation of the final rule that amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on November 2, 1994.

The rule amended S5.1.2(c) to specify, in pertinent part, that "after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors . . . shall not show . . . haze that exceeds 7 percent . . . ." The amendment is effective November 1, 1995. You have presented two fact situations with respect to replacement reflex reflectors, and ask whether the amended haze requirement is applicable in each case. These are:

"First case - replacement reflex reflectors manufactured after the effective date, but the vehicle to which the reflex reflectors are fitted is no longer manufactured after the effective date."

Motor vehicle replacement equipment is governed by S5.8 of Standard No. 108. S5.8.1 requires that any reflective device manufactured to replace any reflective device on any vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies shall be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. Paragraphs S5.8.2 through S5.8.9 permit certain specified items of replacement equipment to be manufactured to original equipment specifications (e.g., earlier versions of SAE standards no longer specified for original equipment on motor vehicles); however, reflex reflectors are not included among them. This means that any reflex reflectors manufactured on and after November 1, 1995, whether original or replacement, must conform with the 7 percent haze limitation, regardless of the date of manufacture of the vehicle.

"Second case - Replacement reflex reflectors manufactured before the effective date, which may be

fitted to a vehicle manufactured before or after the effective date. (In this case, the same type of vehicles are manufactured before and after the effective date continuously.)"

A replacement reflex reflector manufactured before November 1, 1995, to replace a reflex reflector on a vehicle manufactured either before or after November 1, 1995, is subject to the requirement that the plastic materials used in them shall show no haze in a visual inspection after the outdoor exposure test because that is the requirement in effect at the time the replacement reflex reflector is manufactured.

As a practical matter, it would appear to make no difference when the reflector was manufactured or to which specification. The amendment is not intended to change manufacturing techniques or composition of plastics materials in any way. Because it is impossible not to have some degree of haze at the end of the three-year test period, Standard No. 108 was amended to make it more objective and practicable, and the measured haze limit raised to 7 percent, at which point haze is visible to the naked eye.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/7/94

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)