ID: nht79-1.7

DATE: 10/24/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: VDO-ARGO Instruments Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. H. A. Ritzenthaler VDO-ARGO Instruments Inc. 980 Brooke Road P.O. Box 2630 Winchester, Virginia 22601

Dear Mr. Ritzenthaler:

This is in response to your letter of January 25, 1979, in which you stated your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 127, Speedometers and Odometers, and asked that we advise you if action taken in accordance with this interpretation would place your company in violation of the standard. This letter is to confirm that your interpretation is correct.

According to your interpretation of Safety Standard 127, those provisions which become effective for new motor vehicles on September l, 1979 and September 1, 1980 are not applicable to speedometers and replacement parts produced for use in motor vehicles manufactured before those dates. This is correct because Safety Standard 127 is a vehicle standard and an equipment standard which applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, motorcycles, and buses manufactured after the standard's effective dates and to speedometer and odometers for use in such vehicles. (Section 3, Safety Standard 127).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 300 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 January 25, 1979

ATT: Mr. Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Dyson:

We are a manufacturer of automotive instruments, including speedometers. The changes required on speedometers for new cars after the effective dates September 1979 and September 1980 are clearly defined in Regulation 127, and our original equipment speedometers will be in compliance with this regulation.

We also have an obligation toward the automotive industry to supply original replacement parts for a period of ten years after manufacture of a particular vehicle model has ceased. These replacement parts for cars manufactured before the effective dates of Regulation 127 would, of course, not embody the changes called for in Regulation 127, nor does the regulation itself require such modifications in reference to replacement parts.

This is our interpretation of the applicability of Regulation 127. Should you feel that this interpretation would put us in violation of Regulation 127, please advise us accordingly.

Sincerely, VDO-ARGO INSTRUMENTS, INC.

H. A. Ritzenthaler Manager, Engineering

HAR/nf

ID: nht88-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jeffrey W. Sullivan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jeffrey W. Sullivan Rt. 1, Box 3 Jackson, NC 27845

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This is in reply to your letter of October 27, 1987, to this agency asking for Information on Federal safety and pollution requirements for kit cars.

We are unable to advise you on emission control regulations, and you should address this inquiry to the Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

You have given us, as an example of the type of vehicle you would manufacture for resale, "a '76 year drivetrain on a modified or not original frame/chassis" and asked whether it will have to meet 1976 model or new model standards. You have also asked wh ether you can relocate the engine and transmission, and whether it is would have an effect upon the standards you must meet.

New model Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles built upon the chassis of a vehicle previously in use. However, under certain circumstances the 1976 safety standards could apply. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safe ty Act a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if a manufacturer re moves a body from a chassis and installs a new one, he must ensure that the resulting vehicle continues to comply with the Federal safety standards with which the vehicle originally complied. A "Manufacturer" is defined in part as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles. This definition would seem to encompass your planned activities. Accordingly, if you removed the 1976 body from its chassis, there is no restriction against your relocation of the engine or transmission, but upon installation o f a new body you are required to ensure that the new vehicle meets 1976 Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

On the other hand, if you purchase the chassis after the body has been removed by another person, there would be no Federal safety standards applicable to it upon installation of the body. However, the vehicle would have to meet State standards necessary for its registration and operation.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-8.39

DATE: February 29, 1992

FROM: Allan Schwartz -- President, Tron Industries, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to Allan Schwartz (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are the manufacturer of LUMITRON, an electronic neon lighting kit for vehicles which is sold and installed as an automotive aftermarket product. Each LUMITRON neon tube is enclosed and sealed in polycarbonate tubing and is energized by a miniature electronic module which is connected to each tube. Our LUMITRON tubes are not like the neon tubes made by local sign shops and used under vehicles. LUMITRON tubes require NO external high voltage (6,000 to 12,000 volt) transformers and NO interconnections of high voltage GTO wires running under the vehicle between the neon display tubes and into the engine compartment.

The product described above is legal for street use as long as it is installed below bumper level and under the vehicle. We do NOT manufacture this product for street use in RED, BLUE, YELLOW, and WHITE because they are reserved for Police, Fire and Emergency Services. After speaking with both The Florida Highway Patrol and Mr. Kevin Cavey, N.H.T.S.A., Dept. of Transportation they confirmed our findings that our product falls under 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-90 Edition) Sec. 571.108. A highlighted copy of this section is enclosed for your convenience to reference. As you can imagine we were delighted to learn that our LUMITRON neon lighting kit, when installed and used as per our instructions, places the user's vehicle into further compliance with S2 Purpose as it illuminates the roadway and enhances the conspicuity of the vehicle thus reducing the possibility of traffic accidents, deaths and injuries.

We have been informed by our dealer, Mr. Harry Adcock of All State Audio Services, Inc., 11554 Plank Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70811 that Louisiana and possibly other states have not uniformly adopted or follow the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive aftermarket lighting. Authorities in Louisiana believe these products are legal but they have to be approved by the Commissioner. We would be most appreciative if you could write us a letter confirming what we already understand about this regulation that we could submit to the Commissioner. He would then be able to adopt it as Louisiana Law thus making our product legal for use in that State. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

ID: nht94-3.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 20, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott R. Dennison -- Consultant, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/31/94 from Scott R. Dennison to Administrator

TEXT: We have received your letter of May 31, 1994, petitioning for a temporary exemption from paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 on behalf of Excalibur Automobile Corporation (the Federal Express Airbill indicates that it was mailed July 9, 1994).

The petition does not, as required by 49 CFR @ 555.5(b)(7), set forth the reasons why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety.

You make the statement that "the door hinge system incorporated in the Excalibur Cobra has been tested to exceed the FMVSS by over four times the required strength." Please provide a copy of the test report that demonstrates this performance. Under @ 55 5.6(d)(1)(iv), a petitioner is required to provide "the results of any tests conducted on the vehicle demonstrating that its overall level of safety exceeds that which is achieved by conformity to the standards."

The second page of the petition references a "Plymouth Sunbird" vehicle for model year 1994. We assume you mean Pontiac, as we are unaware of any Plymouth with this model name.

The timing of your letter raises the inference that Excalibur may presently be manufacturing convertibles equipped with manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Please inform us as to the number of Cobras that the company may have produced on or after Septemb er 1, 1989, that were equipped with driver and passenger manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies.

Finally, it has been customary for petitions to be signed by an officer of the manufacturer. We have accepted petitions signed by foreign manufacturers but submitted by a person resident in the United States, on the manufacturer's behalf. Your use of E xcalibur's letterhead leads to an assumption that you have the authority to make the representations of the

2

petition, but your title of "Consultant" does not identify you as a corporate officer. We would appreciate an explanation of your relationship to Excalibur, or, alternatively, the signature of a corporate officer on the petition.

We shall hold the petition in abeyance until we have heard further from you.

ID: nht94-4.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 25, 1994

FROM: Matt Decker -- Project Engineer, Wenger Corporation

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Petition for Exemption of FMVSS 108 (Section only with reference to the addition of trailer conspicuity)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/16/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MATT DECKER (A42; STD. 108; PART 555)

TEXT: The Wenger Corporation of Owatonna, Minnesota, U.S.A. is petitioning for exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment as it relates to the conspicuity treatment in S5.7 (effective date December 1, 1993).

The Wenger Corporation manufactures and sells a complete line of music education and performance equipment. Wenger Showmobiles, mobile performance stages in trailer form, are offered and sold primarily to city municipalities such as Park and Recreation Departments throughout the United States. As you can see from the enclosed advertising literature, aesthetics is of major concern to our customers. The addition of the conspicuity striping is unacceptable for many of our potential customers because of how it would impact their graphics on the sides and rear of the product.

The annual sales volume for this particular product is approximately 20 (twenty). The Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) is 13500 lbs. Average annual mileage after delivery of this product ranges from a low of 25 miles to a high of 500 miles. Our cust omers generally store this product within their city yards. This product is typically towed by a 1-1/2 ton pick-up truck or city truck to the performance site which is normally within the city limits. The performance sites can vary from a closed off st reet to the middle of a city park.

In summary the Wenger Showmobile product is a low mileage vehicle that is generally parked off-road at night, either on private city property or city parks. Exterior appearance (graphics) is very important to owners of this product. With utmost importa nce it is Wenger Corporation's opinion that exemption from the conspicuity requirement would not have an adverse effect upon safety with regards to the Showmobile product.

Please review the information included with this petition and offer your ruling as soon as possible. If there are any questions relating to this petition please direct them by telephone or in writing to:

The Wenger Corporation

Attention: Matt Decker

555 Park Drive Owatonna, MN 55060

Telephone: (507) 455-4100 Ext. 174

ID: nht76-5.49

DATE: 04/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: HON. M. L. Esch - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Secretary of Transportation has asked me to respond to your March 16, 1976, request for all information submitted to him since December 31, 1975, concerning the safety and economic feasibility of air cushion restraint systems or, in the alternative, the specific basis for withholding particular documents. We interpret your request to include documents submitted to the Office of the Secretary or to the public docket on passive restraints.

All materials concerning the safety and economic feasibility of air cushion systems that have been placed in the public docket are enclosed. These documents include all material on air cushion systems provided to the Assistant Secretary for Systems Development and Technology and to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Consumer Affairs during their recent visits to General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation. Films submitted to the docket that support this material are available for viewing at your request.

The NHTSA has provided material to the Office of the Secretary that discusses the value of requiring passive restraints in motor vehicles. All of this material consists of intra-agency memoranda that contain the opinions of agency staff on the considerations underlying a decision concerning passive restraints. The preparation of this material involved choosing and weighing data and making certain assumptions. I conclude that it is important to have full and free staff input to this decision-making process. Accordingly, I deny your request for this information pursuant to the exemption in the Freedom of Information Act for intra-agency memoranda (5. U.S.C. @ 552(b)(5)). I am the person responsible for this decision.

Pursuant to the Regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (49 CFR 7), this decision, to the extent information you seek is not released, may be appealed to John Hart Ely, Esq., General Counsel of the Department, whose decision will be administratively final. Your application for reconsideration must be made in writing within sixty days from the date of receipt of the original denial and must include all information and arguments relied upon in your original request. Such application must indicate that it is an appeal from a denial of a request made under the Freedom of Information Act and the envelope in which the application is sent must be prominently marked with the letters "FOIA".

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht78-1.2

DATE: 12/08/78

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

TO: Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Eugene D. Sambucetti Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales P.O. Box 626 1960 E. Main Street Woodland, California 95695

Dear Mr. Sambucetti:

This responds to your October 30, 1978, request to know how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expects a trailer manufacturer to provide the lateral stability necessary to remain within a 12-foot-wide lane while stopping from 60 mph in the absence of antilock installation. Your question follows from an interpretation of the recent Ninth Circuit ruling in which the agency stated its view that trailers are still required to stop from 60 mph within the 12-foot-wide lane, but without the capability of "no lockup" performance.

In interpreting the court's ruling that "no lockup" performance on trailers was invalid, the NHTSA recognized that the 12-foot-wide lane requirement would probably also be invalid if the requirement for 90 p.s.i. air pressure in the trailer control line during the stop remained effective. As you know, there is no stopping distance for trailers that would otherwise require a strong brake application and resulting loss of lateral stability. The agency therefore concluded that the 90 p.s.i. requirement was invalidated, stating in its October 19th interpretation,

It does appear that the requirement for 90 p.s.i. air pressure in the trailer control line during the stop constitutes a portion of the "no lockup" requirement and is therefore invalidated by the court.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 30, 1978

Mr. Tad Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

In looking over the interpretation of your department's views of what is valid and what was invalidated by the decision rendered by the Ninth District Court we have one question to present to you for an answer;

How can we, a trailer manufacturer, comply with the law when you state as valid "Remaining within a 12 foot lane while stopping" without "antilock" which you state has been invalidated?

We look forward to your prompt reply so we can assure ourselves to be in compliance.

Very truly yours,

WESCO TRUCK & TRAILER SALES

Eugene D. Sambucetti President

EDS:bw

ID: nht76-3.50

DATE: 03/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lufkin Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 6, 1976, questions whether Lufkin Industries may, as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, build "incomplete chassis trailers" that do not have brakes installed that comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and whether Lufkin may tow the "incomplete chassis trailers" over the highway to the final-stage manufacturer without brakes that conform to Standard No. 121.

Lufkin's activities are regulated by Part 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, if the "incomplete chassis trailers" qualify as "incomplete vehicles." A copy is enclosed for your information. Part 568 does not require the incomplete vehicle to meet all applicable safety standards, but @ 568.4 does require a statement of the status of an incomplete vehicle's conformity with all applicable standards.

In answer to your second question, the NHTSA permits the use of an incomplete vehicle on the public highways for the purpose of transit between the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and subsequent manufacturers, but for no other purpose, until such time as the vehicle complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it as completed. This ruling by the NHTSA does not relieve the manufacturer or shipper from any applicable requirement imposed on the incomplete vehicle by other Federal, State, or local authority.

SINCERELY,

February 6, 1976

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

We would like to have your legal opinion on the following two questions:

1. We, as an original equipment manufacturer, have an order to build incomplete chassis trailers for another manufacturer who is qualified to complete and certify. He has requested we do not install the air brake system to meet S121 regulations. We would not certify these vehicles but would furnish the necessary documents prescribed for an incomplete vehicle.

Our question is: Can we legally build these incomplete vehicles with brakes that do not meet S121 regulation?

2. Provided we can legally build these vehicles, we would like to have your opinion on the following question:

Can the final stage manufacturer transport these incomplete vehicles over public highways pulling one vehicle with two like vehicles loaded on top? The supporting documents will accompany these vehicles.

Thank you for an early reply.

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC. Trailer Division

A. G. Colburn Director of Trailer Design

ID: nht76-4.11

DATE: 12/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack's Tire Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 23, 1976, letter concerning retreaded tires and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117.

Your understanding that you are required to retain for three years certain records described in your letter is mistaken. While such a requirement was proposed in a Federal Register notice published on March 5, 1970 (35 FR 4136), it was never adopted. The NHTSA strongly recommends, however, that retreaders retain information on the materials and processes that they use, so that in the event of a defect or noncompliance they will be able to determine which tires are involved.

To assign you a retreader's identification mark, we need more information from you. 49 CFR Part 574.6 specifies that:

To obtain the identification mark required by @ 574.5(a), each manufacturer of new or retreaded motor vehicle tires shall apply after November 30, 1970, in writing, to "Tire Identification and Record- keeping," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, identify himself as a manufacturer of new tires or retreaded tires, and furnish the following information:

(a) The name, or other designation identifying the applicant, and his main office address.

(b) The name, or other identifying designation, of each individual plant operated by the manufacturer and the address of each plant, if applicable.

(c) The type of tires manufactured at each plant, e.g., passenger car tires, bus tires, truck tires, motorcycle tires, or retreaded tires.

Enclosed for your convenience is an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

SINCERELY,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

MEMO

TO: Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service National Highway Safety Bureau Federal Highway Safety Administration U.S. Dept of Taxation

FROM: JACK'S TIRE COMPANY INC

SUBJECT: D O T. REg. No. DATE: 11/23/76

MESSAGE

Please Issue a Code # to identify retreads produced by My Company. I understand that it is required of me to keep the following records for at least a period of three years. (1) records of the material used in theretreading process) (2) records of performance test, (3) records of reported defects and failures, with associated causes.

Also requesting a Current copy of "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117.

Jack D. Cooper, PRESIDENT

ID: nht76-4.21

DATE: 05/13/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. WOOD for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rome Engineering & Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Remco's April 26, 1976, question whether an exclusion from a safety standard based on the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of an axle is met by using the rating of the axle beam by its manufacturer, or whether the truck or trailer manufacturer must also consider the load-bearing abilities of the wheels, rims, and hubs used with the axle beam.

Gross axle weight rating is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean:

. . . the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tireground interfaces.

This definition means that the determination of GAWR is made by the vehicle manufacturer and that the axle beam rating of the component supplier cannot be the only basis for GAWR calculation. The GAWR is the value established at the tire-ground interfaces at each wheel position, and this means that the wheels, rims, hubs, and tires must be included in the determination. Thus, with regard to the exclusion from Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, until September 1, 1977, for any vehicle with an axle that has a GAWR of 24,000 pounds or more, the vehicle manufacturer must take into consideration each component on the axle as well as its attachment to the vehicle frame.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

ROME ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CO.

April 26, 1976

TAD HERLIHY -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

We are in need of clarification of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 as pertains to paragraph S3 of Part 571-S121-1, quote: "or that has a gross axle weight rating for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more."

Does this mean that a certification from the axle manufacturer that his product is rated at 24,000 pounds or more would exempt the trailer manufacturer from compliance with MVSS 121 or is it necessary to have a single axle as well as the tires, wheels, hubs, and rims on that axle rated at 24,000 pounds or more capacity before the exemption is valid?

We would appreciate an advisory opinion on this matter.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

R. A. Plummer -- Vice President & General Manager