ID: nht94-1.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cheryl Graham -- District Manager, Northeast Region, ARI

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/10/93 from Cheryl Graham to Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA (OCC-9345)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of November 10, 1993, asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps "at each side of the rear window."

by way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole res traint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design in stalled on...a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the "device or element of design," then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by y our letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three-lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in p reventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe.

The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the tail lamp).

Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array.

We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would "render inoperative" the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the

permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its add ress is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

You have also asked "if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?" This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it.

ID: nht94-2.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/21/94 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC 9719)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1994, requesting further clarification of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Section S5.5.3( c) states that "(e)ach opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape." *1 Your letter referenced our July 7, 1993 letter to you in which we stated that S5.5.3 (c) permits interruptions in the tape necessary to accommodate curved surfaces and functional components. You requested confirmation "that retro-reflective tape around the perimeter of the rear of a school bus can be used to satisfy the requirements of S5.5.3(c)."

I cannot interpret the requirements of S5.5.3(c) as you request, since for many, if not most, designs the nearest possible location will be closer than the perimeter of the bus. While we appreciate your concerns about durability if numerous cuts or notc hes are made to accommodate rivets, our July 7 letter stated that manufacturers have the option of placing the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets. As an example, from the illustrations you enclosed, it a ppears that it may be possible to apply retroreflective tape outside the rivets adjacent to the lower portions of the door. Thus, that would be the nearest possible location, rather than the perimeter of the bus itself. I note, however, that the illust rations do not provide sufficient detail of all obstructions for us to determine the nearest possible location for each design.

I also note that your letter stated in support of your request that all school buses are required to have a rear emergency exit. While this is true, the type of emergency exit will vary and retroreflective tape at the perimeter of the exit would allow r escuers to immediately know the precise location of the exit. Moreover, retroreflective tape at the perimeter would enable rescuers to immediately know which type of exit is in this location. This information could be vitally important. Because push-ou t windows are not required to have a means of releasing the exit from outside the bus (S5.3.3.2), this information would allow rescuers to quickly determine that they should move to the sides of the bus to locate an exit they can open.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if we did not interpret the standard as you requested. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

*1 The July 7, 1993 letter also stated that the agency planned to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. This notice has not yet been published. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

ID: nht94-4.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: John E. Getz -- Director, Mobile Products Engineering, Ellis & Watts

TO: Taylor Vinson, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO JOHN E. GETZ (REDBOOK (2)); PART 571.7

TEXT: We are in the custom trailer manufacturing business. Most often we purchase new trailers and finish them, primarily inside, for specific applications such as medical trailers or trailers for specific electronic functions (see enclosed Brochure). In suc h cases our new trailer product is subject to all of the latest DOT regulations. However, in other cases we start with a used trailer and change its finishing and equipment for a new application. For example, we recently took an old (1985) vintage trai ler, stripped the inside, and refinished it for a major computer company to use as a mobile marketing facility. In this case the running gear did not change nor did the Vehicle Identification number. However, ownership did change which raised the questi on of "Newly Manufactured" as addressed in @ 571.7 "Applicability" (copy enclosed). Telephone discussions with Patrick Boyd and Ken Hardy in Vehicle Safety indicate preliminarily that this is not a newly manufactured trailer because the basic trailer st ructure did not change. However in some cases we may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application.

What we are requesting is an interpretation as to whether we would fall in the category of a newly manufactured trailer if the running gear. VIN, and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does. In the example above we did add conspicuity treatment, not because it was thought to be legally required (although we did want to protect the company prior your interpretation), but mainly from a liability and safety standpoint in the event of an accident and subsequent litigation. If you have any questions regarding this request please call me at (513) 752-9000 ext. 208. Thanking you in advance. I am

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

RICHARD P. BOWLING

PRESIDENT

FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET

Date: October 18, 1994

Number of pages including this sheet: 1

From: Don Vierimaa

To: John Getz, 1-513-943-3395 TITLE 49 - TRAILERS

@ 671.7 Applicability.

(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each standard set forth in Subpart B of this part applies according to its terms to all motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment the manufacture of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard.

(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirement s of this chapter, and the Act, unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer--

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

ID: nht95-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 13, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: G. Brandt Taylor -- President, Day-Night Mirrors, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/6/94 LETTER FROM G. BRANDT TAYLOR TO PHILIP R. RECHT (OCC 10553)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements applicable to multiple reflectance mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rear View Mirrors. You stated that your mirror can change its reflectivity either by mechanica lly rotating a shaft or by actuating an electrical motor.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any veh icles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

FMVSS No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which specifies requirements for mirror construction, provides in relevant part that

All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure, or achieve such refl ectance automatically in the event of electrical failure.

You asked several questions about the requirement for adjusting the mirror in the event of electrical failure. You first asked if a manual override knob could be removable. You then asked whether a removable manual override could be supplied by the car manufacturer along with the car keys or with the owner's manual for insertion into the mirror and use only in the event of an electrical failure. You also asked about whether "west coast" mirrors and mirrors on trailer trucks could have a removable man ual override.

The answer to each of your questions is that a removable manual override knob would not be permitted. In the preamble to the final rule amending the mirror construction requirements in FMVSS No. 111, NHTSA stated that the agency's goal is to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. (see 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991)

The manual override knob you discuss would serve as the means for the driver to adjust the mirror's reflectance level. However, a removable manual override knob would not always serve this purpose, since it would not necessarily always be with the mirro r. We are concerned that a removable override device may become lost or otherwise not available when a mirror's reflectance needs to be adjusted. Accordingly, since the agency's goal of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operat ion would only be achieved by requiring this device to be permanent, a removable override would not be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John E. Getz -- Director, Mobile Products Engineering, Ellis & Watts

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/27/94 LETTER FROM JOHN E. GETZ TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 10462; P.567)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether certain operations that your company performs on used trailers result in the trailers being considered "newly manufactured" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You stated that you somet imes change the finishing and equipment of a used trailer for a new application. As an example, you stated that you recently took a 10-year old trailer, stripped the inside, and refinished it as a mobile marketing facility. You also stated that in some cases you may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you indicated that you have also changed trailers by adding heating or air conditioning units, or making th e trailer usable as an auditorium.

In your letter, you asked whether the trailers would be considered "newly manufactured" if the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does change. You asked this question in light of the fact that change of ow nership is relevant under 49 CFR part 571.7(f) in determining whether a trailer manufactured from new and used components is considered newly manufactured. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the operations you describe do not result in the trail ers being considered newly manufactured.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Ins tead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 49 CFR part 571.7(f) reads as follows:

Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of [the safety standards], unless, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer --

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

This section only applies when new and used materials are used in the "assembly" of a trailer. It is our opinion that the operations that you describe, i.e., where the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, do not constitute tr ailer assembly. Therefore, this section, including its provision concerning transfer of ownership, does not apply. We consider your operations to be in the nature of repair or refurbishment of a used trailer, which does not result in the trailer being considered newly manufactured.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.18

DATE: March 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/21/94 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC 9719)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1994, requesting further clarification of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Section S5.5.3(c) states that "(e)ach opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape." *1 Your letter referenced our July 7, 1993 letter to you in which we stated that S5.5.3(c) permits interruptions in the tape necessary to accommodate curved surfaces and functional components. You requested confirmation "that retro-reflective tape around the perimeter of the rear of a school bus can be used to satisfy the requirements of S5.5.3(c)."

I cannot interpret the requirements of S5.5.3(c) as you request, since for many, if not most, designs the nearest possible location will be closer than the perimeter of the bus. While we appreciate your concerns about durability if numerous cuts or notches are made to accommodate rivets, our July 7 letter stated that manufacturers have the option of placing the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets. As an example, from the illustrations you enclosed, it appears that it may be possible to apply retroreflective tape outside the rivets adjacent to the lower portions of the door. Thus, that would be the nearest possible location, rather than the perimeter of the bus itself. I note, however, that the illustrations do not provide sufficient detail of all obstructions for us to determine the nearest possible location for each design.

I also note that your letter stated in support of your request that all school buses are required to have a rear emergency exit. While this is true, the type of emergency exit will vary and retroreflective tape at the perimeter of the exit would allow rescuers to immediately know the precise location of the exit. Moreover, retroreflective tape at the perimeter would enable rescuers to immediately know which type of exit is in this location. This information could be vitally important. Because push-out windows are not required to have a means of releasing the exit from outside the bus (S5.3.3.2), this information would allow rescuers to quickly determine that they should move to the sides of the bus to locate an exit they can open.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if we did not interpret the standard as you requested. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

*1 The July 7, 1993 letter also stated that the agency planned to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. This notice has not yet been published. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

ID: nht94-8.26

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cheryl Graham -- District Manager, Northeast Region, ARI

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/10/93 from Cheryl Graham to Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA (OCC-9345)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of November 10, 1993, asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps "at each side of the rear window."

by way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole restraint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on...a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the "device or element of design," then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by your letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three-lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in preventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe.

The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the tail lamp).

Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array. We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would "render inoperative" the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the

permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

You have also asked "if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?" This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it.

ID: nht74-5.52

DATE: 01/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: West & Wilkinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 2, 1974 requesting information concerning the legal permissibility of an automobile dealership furnishing private passenger motor vehicles with add-on gasoline tanks or modifying existing gasoline tanks.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, establishes minimum performance requirements for motor vehicle fuel systems. Compliance with the level of performance mandated by the standard is enforced by Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet the requirements of applicable safety standards. Therefore, if your client modified a motor vehicle fuel tank in such a manner that it no longer complied with Standard No. 301 and then offered it for initial sale for purposes other than resale he would be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and would be subject to civil penalties of not more than $ 1,000 for each such violation. If, however, your client performed a fuel tank modification on a vehicle that was already owned by and in the possession of a buyer who purchased the vehicle for purposes other than resale, no violation of the Act could result. The installation of an add-on fuel tank would be considered a modification. Therefore, the fuel system would have to comply with Standard No. 301 with the add-on fuel tank considered as part of the system.

There are no Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to add-on gasoline tanks since these are items of motor vehicle equipment and Standard No. 301 restricts its application to motor vehicles. Section 113(c)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If the Secretary finds that a safety-related defect exists, your client may be compelled to notify all purchasers of vehicles with the add-on fuel tanks of the attendant hazard.

The action of installing add-on gasoline tanks in motor vehicles exposes your client to the requirements of yet another safety regulation (49 CFR 567.7) If the vehicle in which he installs the fuel tank is a certified and complete vehicle that has not yet been purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale, your client will be considered an alterer of the vehicle, and he must provide a certification that the vehicle as altered still conforms to the standards.

YOURS TRULY,

WEST & WILKINSON January 2, 1974

Secretary of Transportation Department of Transportation

According to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Act, 15 USC Sections 1391 et seq., and particularly Section 1392, your office was empowered and directed to adopt minimum safety standards for motor vehicles. We do not have ready access to whatever standards have been promulgated but have received inquiry from a client concerning the existence of a specific provision in such standards. Specifically, my client, an automobile dealership, inquires if there is any prohibition(Illegible Word) civil or criminal sanctions on adding gasoline tanks to private passenger motor vehicles, including campers, or modifying existing gasoline tanks on such vehicles.

Your assistance will be appreciated.

Richard Wright West

ID: nht74-4.32

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1974, request for permission to stamp label information on hose assemblies in place of banding, and to reduce S9.2.5 burst pressure from 350 to 100 psi, and your further request for an interpretation of the status of an in-line check valve as part of a vacuum brake hose.

The in-line check valve is not subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, as a brake hose and fitting. In this configuration, the couplers depicted in your drawing are the clamps, and the check valve is a separate component to which the hose assemblies are attached.

The issue of stamping instead of banding will be answered in our upcoming Notice 11 in response to petitions for reconsideration of the brake hose standard.

Your petition for a reduction in the burst strength requirement for vacuum hoses is denied. The minimum burst pressure of 350 psi was established by the Society of Automotive Engineers in 1942, taking into consideration the effects of backfire pressure and the severe underhood environment to which vacuum hose may be exposed. Hoses with this burst pressure have provided excellent reliability and durability. We have no data to justify a reduction in burst strength in view of the two hazards just cited.

MAY 10, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportation

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106

(Docket no. 1-5, Notice 10

According to Notice 10 the designation of fittings was dropped due to objections raised by various manufactures because of insufficient clearness. For years we successfully used to emboss the date of manufacture on to the fittings (after the swaging process). We therefore ask you to extend item S 5.2.4 to the effect that in case of two-piece end fittings, which are attached by crimping or swaging, embossing of the designation on to the fittings will also be allowed instead of using a band.

The present standard according to which only a band will be allowed would be connected with a high degree of capital expenditure (reconstruction of entire assembly machinery) for the manufacturing department of Alfred Teves GmbH.

As far as vacuum brake hoses (see item S 9.2.5) are concerned, we think that a 350 psi burst strength is too high. The maximum operating pressure amounts to a vacuum of 0,80 bar, so that the required 350 psi would mean a 27-fold safety.

For this field of application a burst strength of 100 psi is sufficient. We therefore ask you to amend item S 9.2.5 to the effect that in the case of vacuum brake tubes the burst strength will be reduced to 100 psi.

Our production programm also comprises a vacuum check valve, which 1st mounted between two vacuum brake tubes, according to the attached sketch. We kindly ask you to inform us whether in the case of vacuum check valves the same requirements as are applicable for complete brake tubes regarding a burst strength of 350 psi (item S 9.2.5) and a minimum cross-section of 70% (item S 9.2.1) will be made.

Considering the near effective date of FMVSS, we would like to receive your answer concerning the three items mentioned above as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

ppa.

i.V.

BELLER

Attachment

1 sketch

Ruckschiagventil

Schlauchhalter

Vakuumschiauch

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-3.39

DATE: 06/21/76

FROM: THOMAS L. HERLIHY FOR STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jack Roadman

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of February 26 and March 8, 1976, concerning the certification of a truck that you wish to build with a chassis that you have purchased from International Harvester. You have indicated that the chassis did not include an engine, transmission, or radiator. You installed a diesel engine, transmission, and a new driveshaft, and made various modifications to the chassis. You have had difficulties in persuading a body manufacturer to install a truck body.

The source of your difficulties appears to be a misunderstanding of the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) and the accompanying certification regulations. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards apply to completed motor vehicles and to certain items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., brake hoses, tires). The manufacturer of a motor vehicle or an item of equipment to which a standard applies is required by Section 114 of the Act to certify that his product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

"Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as:

an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

An incomplete vehicle is, strictly speaking, an item of motor vehicle equipment. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply directly to these particular equipment items, and thus there is presently no certification requirement for incomplete vehicles. The manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle is required by Part 568, however, to furnish an "incomplete vehicle document". This document, which is described in @ 568.4, must indicate the conformity status of the incomplete vehicle with respect to each standard that applies to the vehicles into which it may be completed.

The chassis that you bought from International Harvester (IH) was an item of motor vehicle equipment to which no standards apply. Therefore, IH was not required to furnish you with a certification of compliance. Further, the chassis was not an incomplete vehicle because it lacked an engine and transmission. Therefore, IH was not required to furnish an incomplete vehicle document. Because of your operations on the chassis, you are the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle. You, therefore, are the person required to furnish an incomplete vehicle document.

Your letter also indicated a concern they you were not given a "certificate of origin" by International Harvester when you purchased the chassis. Federal law does not require the issuance of a certificate of origin. Unless you intended to refer to the Section 114 "certification" discussed above, I assume that you have in mind a document that would be the subject of Pennsylvania state law.

Copies of the Act and the certification regulations are enclosed for your convenience.