ID: nht94-2.68

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Randolph Schwarz

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/30/93 Est. from Randolph Schwarz to John Messera (OCC-9211)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera of NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids. Your letter has been referred to my office for a response. As a consumer retrofitting your vehicle with DOT 5 brake fluid, you had several questions concerning the possible effects that an ingredient in the brake fluid might have on elastomers used in brake systems. Your questions are answered below.

You described "seal swelling additives" added to DOT 5 brake fluid, that contact various elastomers in the brake system. Your first question was, when brake fluid manufacturers combine additives with brake fluid, should consumers be concerned with the c ombined fluids' compatibility with various elastomers used in braking systems?

Standard No. 116 defines, at S4. Definitions, brake fluid as a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system where it will contact elastomeric components made of: styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR); ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR) ; polychlorophene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock; or natural rubber (NR). In order to minimize failures in hydraulic braking systems, Standard No. 116 specifies minimum performance standards for brake fluids. These performance standards include tests for styrene and butadiene rubber cups,the most common type of elastomer in a hydraulic brake system. The brake fluid manufacturer must certify that the brake fluid complies with Standard No. 116. (See S5.2.2(d).)

While DOT 5 brake fluid must meet Standard No. 116, the specific ingredients in the fluid are not regulated by the standard. However, in addition to compliance with Standard No. 116, brake fluid manufacturers must ensure that the fluid is free of safety -related defects under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the brake fluid manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the brake fluid contains a safety related defect, the brake fluid manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective brake fluid and remedying the problem free of charge.

In your letter, you stated that you are retrofitting a vehicle with DOT 5 brake fluid. If your vehicle contained a brake fluid other than DOT 5 in its brake system, we recommend that the old fluid be flushed completely out of the brake system, before be ing replaced with DOT 5. This is necessary to ensure that the DOT 5 brake fluid does not mix with any other brake fluid type.

Your second question was whether DOT 5 brake fluid's compliance with

Standard No. 116 ensures compatibility with elastomers. The answer is yes, for SBR elastomers. Further, besides Standard No. 116, the brake fluid manufacturer is subject to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act, that were previously discussed. At this ti me, NHTSA is not aware of safety related defects resulting from other ingredients used with brake fluid.

Your third question was whether Standard No. 116 only addresses SBR compatibility with brake fluid. Standard No. 116, at S4, addresses brake fluid that contacts four elastomer types. However, the tests specified in the standard are only of the most com monly used SBR cups.

Your fourth question was, if Standard No. 116 only mentions SBR elastomer, would it be advisable to add other elastomers to the specification, or to discuss elastomer compatibility on the brake fluid container?

Information discussing the elastomer compatibility of the brake fluid, or other ingredients, may be voluntarily placed on brake fluid containers. Standard No. 116 specifies information that brake fluid containers must carry. However, Standard No. 116 do es not prohibit manufacturers from noting on brake fluid containers, compatibility of the silicone brake fluid, or other ingredients, with various elastomers.

Finally, you asked what Standard No. 116 specifies as the maximum viscosity for DOT 5 brake fluid, at -40 degrees Fahrenheit. Standard No. 116 specifies, at S5.1.3 (o), that the maximum viscosity is 900 centistokes (cSt).

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.1

DATE: May 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Randolph Schwarz

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/30/93 Est. from Randolph Schwarz to John Messera (OCC-9211)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera of NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids. Your letter has been referred to my office for a response. As a consumer retrofitting your vehicle with DOT 5 brake fluid, you had several questions concerning the possible effects that an ingredient in the brake fluid might have on elastomers used in brake systems. Your questions are answered below.

You described "seal swelling additives" added to DOT 5 brake fluid, that contact various elastomers in the brake system. Your first question was, when brake fluid manufacturers combine additives with brake fluid, should consumers be concerned with the combined fluids' compatibility with various elastomers used in braking systems?

Standard No. 116 defines, at S4. Definitions, brake fluid as a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system where it will contact elastomeric components made of: styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR); ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR); polychlorophene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock; or natural rubber (NR). In order to minimize failures in hydraulic braking systems, Standard No. 116 specifies minimum performance standards for brake fluids. These performance standards include tests for styrene and butadiene rubber cups,the most common type of elastomer in a hydraulic brake system. The brake fluid manufacturer must certify that the brake fluid complies with Standard No. 116. (See S5.2.2(d).)

While DOT 5 brake fluid must meet Standard No. 116, the specific ingredients in the fluid are not regulated by the standard. However, in addition to compliance with Standard No. 116, brake fluid manufacturers must ensure that the fluid is free of safety-related defects under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the brake fluid manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the brake fluid contains a safety related defect, the brake fluid manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective brake fluid and remedying the problem free of charge.

In your letter, you stated that you are retrofitting a vehicle with DOT 5 brake fluid. If your vehicle contained a brake fluid other than DOT 5 in its brake system, we recommend that the old fluid be flushed completely out of the brake system, before being replaced with DOT 5. This is necessary to ensure that the DOT 5 brake fluid does not mix with any other brake fluid type.

Your second question was whether DOT 5 brake fluid's compliance with

Standard No. 116 ensures compatibility with elastomers. The answer is yes, for SBR elastomers. Further, besides Standard No. 116, the brake fluid manufacturer is subject to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act, that were previously discussed. At this time, NHTSA is not aware of safety related defects resulting from other ingredients used with brake fluid.

Your third question was whether Standard No. 116 only addresses SBR compatibility with brake fluid. Standard No. 116, at S4, addresses brake fluid that contacts four elastomer types. However, the tests specified in the standard are only of the most commonly used SBR cups.

Your fourth question was, if Standard No. 116 only mentions SBR elastomer, would it be advisable to add other elastomers to the specification, or to discuss elastomer compatibility on the brake fluid container?

Information discussing the elastomer compatibility of the brake fluid, or other ingredients, may be voluntarily placed on brake fluid containers. Standard No. 116 specifies information that brake fluid containers must carry. However, Standard No. 116 does not prohibit manufacturers from noting on brake fluid containers, compatibility of the silicone brake fluid, or other ingredients, with various elastomers.

Finally, you asked what Standard No. 116 specifies as the maximum viscosity for DOT 5 brake fluid, at -40 degrees Fahrenheit. Standard No. 116 specifies, at S5.1.3 (o), that the maximum viscosity is 900 centistokes (cSt).

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dennis T. Snyder, Esquire

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/11/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS T. SNYDER TO DAVID COLEMAN (OCC 10926)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1995, asking whether a client of yours is a "final stage manufacturer" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and implementing regulations on manufacturer identification and v ehicle certification found in 49 CFR Parts 566, 567, and 568. You have described this client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from used chassis-cabs.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(5) (formerly section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) as "a person- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . " (emphasis added). Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the assembly of completed motor vehicles, it would appear to meet this definition. Because the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 apply to "all manufacturers of moto r vehicles," as stated in section 566.3 of that Part, your client would be required to submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the identifying information specified in 49 CFR 566.5.

The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage con sisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." The term "completed vehicle" is in turn defined in section 568.3 as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function . . ." Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and r oad tractors from chassis-cabs, it would qualify as a final stage manufacturer, as that term is defined in section 568.3.

Requirements for final stage manufacturers are specified at 49 CFR 568.6. This section provides that a final stage manufacturer shall complete each vehicle "in such a manner that it conforms to the [Federal motor vehicle safety] standards in effect on t he date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates," and shall affix a label to the vehicle attesting to that conformance in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5, which specifies certification requir ements for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. These certification requirements are in implementation of 49 U.S.C. @ 30115, which requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle to certify to the dealer or distributor at delivery that the vehi cle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has long taken the position, however, that a vehicle is used if it is assembled by adding a new body to the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads. As a consequence, your client would not be required to certify the vehicles that it manufactures in this fashion.

Your client would nevertheless be subject to 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which provides that "[a] manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or i n a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . ." NHTSA has interpreted this provision as requiring any of the specified entities that remove an old body from a vehicle in order to install a new one to ensure t hat the newly completed vehicle meets the standards that the vehicle was originally required to meet. For example, a vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1995 mounted on a used 1989 chassis must meet all standards that applied to 1989 vehicles. Your client would be liable for any violation of this requirement on vehicles that it manufactures, regardless of whether it removed the body from the old vehicle itself, or directed another entity to do so.

Additionally, as a vehicle manufacturer, your client would be required under 49 U.S.C. @ 30118 to furnish owners with notification of, and a remedy for, any safety-related defect or any noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standa rd that is found to exist in a vehicle that it assembles.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: 8951

Mr. C.N. Littler
Coordinator-Regulatory Affairs MCI/TMC
Engineering Centre
1558 Willson Place
Winnepeg, Manitoba R3T 0Y4

Dear Mr. Littler:

This responds to your FAX and phone call of July 30, 1993 to Mary Versailles of my office. Your FAX enclosed information on a vehicle, the AMF Invader, which is built on a remanufactured MCI chassis, and advertised and sold as a new vehicle. You do not believe that such a vehicle should be considered a new vehicle. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, we can explain whether such a vehicle would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the implications of such a determination. I suggest you also contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it is appropriate to advertise this vehicle as new. To determine whether this vehicle can be titled and registered as new, you would have to contact the various states concerning their laws.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle's first retail sale, a provision affecting its modification is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) which provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

It is possible that modifications on an existing vehicle may be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle for purposes of compliance with the safety standards. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such modifications were completed.

The agency has stated that a bus built with a new body is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle (see, for example, August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer). The agency has also stated that a bus constructed from an old body and a new chassis is a new vehicle (see, for example, July 17, 1981 letter to Mr. Larry Louderback). When neither the body nor the chassis are completely new, the agency looks to see if the vehicle has so deviated from the original components and attributes that it may be considered a new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a used vehicle (see, for example, April 22, 1991 letter to Mr. Kent Morris).

You enclosed an article titled "The New Invader" from the August 1993 issue of National Bus Trader magazine. The manufacturing process for the Invader is described beginning on page 14. Page 16 of this article states, "the Invader is supplied with a new engine," but the article does not contain enough information to determine whether the vehicle, which includes both new and old parts, would be considered new. If the Invader has a new body, NHTSA would considered the vehicle to be new if the chassis lacks the used components referenced in the Farmer letter. Any new vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture before the vehicle can be sold in the United States.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: AMF 1830 LeBer Street, Montreal Quebec, Canada H3K 2A4 ref:571 d:1/10/94

ID: nht74-4.34

DATE: 01/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your communication of January 3, 1974, forwarding to us correspondence dated November 29, 1973, from Mr. Bruce Motyka of Des Plaines. Mr. Motyka requests information regarding laws relating to pickup truck and camper weight limits, laws or studies relating to the sale of trucks exceeding GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) rate minimums, and regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.

The NHTSA has issued regulations relating to the installation of campers onto pickup trucks. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 "Truck camper loading" (49 CFR @ 571.126) requires each camper to bear a permanent label containing information on its maximum loaded weight. The standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that contains information on total camper weight, the selection of an appropriate pickup truck, appropriate methods of camper loading, how to determine the camper's center of gravity and where it should be placed in the truck cargo area. A companion "Consumer Information" regulation, "Truck camper loading" (49 CFR @ 575.103) requires that written information be provided at the sale of each truck capable of being equipped with a slide-in camper that deals with the correct installation of a slide-in camper in that vehicle. This information is also required to be available in dealers' showrooms for retention by prospective purchasers of such trucks.

Other NHTSA regulations (49 CFR Part 567, "Certification") require every motor vehicle, including pickup trucks, to be labeled, usually on the driver's door or door jam, with its gross vehicle weight rating, and the gross axle weight rating for each axle. Each of these ratings is intended to be based on the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, as determined by the vehicle's manufacturer. While it is possible for manufacturers to incorrectly rate vehicles, and thus be in noncompliance with the regulations, we have not found this practice to occur in the case of pickup trucks.

There are also Federal requirements requiring motor vehicle tires to carry a load rating. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 applies to passenger car tires and has been in effect since January 1, 1968. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 applies to tires for all other types of motor vehicles (trucks, trailers, buses, motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles) and will become effective September 1, 1974. This agency has conducted a study of the overloading of tires on recreational vehicles, and information regarding this study as well as copies of the safety requirements referred to above are enclosed.

We did not receive Mr. Motyka's earlier letter to us. As his questions are of a general nature we have provided him with general answers. If his questions involved a particular problem we would be happy to provide further assistance.

ENC.

REPLY TO: Office of United States

Senator Charles H. Percy

January 3, 1974

Mr. Bruce Motyka

2030 Laura Lane

Des Plaines, Ill. 60018

Respectfully referred to:

Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Division 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D. C. 20590

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, along with return of the enclosure, will be appreciated by

CHARLES H. PERCY/MO

Nov. 29, 1973

Senator Charles Percy Senate Office Building Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

Close to 2 month's ago I wrote a letter to the Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety - Washington, D.C. requesting the following information:

1. Laws Relating to Pickup Truck & Camper weight limits.

2. Laws and or studies relating to manufactures selling trucks exceeding GVW Rate maximums.

3. Regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.

I sent the Department of Transportation a rather lengthy letter requesting specific information, help & guidance

With all of the Public feeling concerning the present administration, it is very disturbing to me that I can't even get an answer to a simple inquiry.

This is the reason that I am writing to you. Would you please have someone check to see what happened to my original letter & ask that they reply as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Bruce J. Motyka

ID: nht76-5.66

DATE: 03/18/76

FROM: R. L. CARTER FOR J. B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: Richard Nolan; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1976, in which you ask six questions pertaining to tire identification and recordkeeping, and to defects notification and recall. The statutory basis for and regulations governing this subject are set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq., and 49 CFR Part 574. I have enclosed copies for your reference. Specific answers to your questions follow in the sequence asked:

1. Manufacturers are required to retain tire registration information for three years. (49 CFR 574.7(d)).

2. As in all defect recall campaigns under our Act, the tire manufacturer, not the Department of Transportation, traces and notifies individuals of defective tires. There have been approximately 2,526,480 tires subject to recall in 119 recall campaigns.

3. The number of persons employed by industry to process this information has not been reported, but the filling systems are highly automated by the use of computer processing techniques. The cost of storage of this information during the three-year period is minimal. The recording of information at the time of purchase, however, is manually performed at the retail level, usually by the salesman, and has been estimated by dealers to cost anywhere from 5 or 10 cents per tire up to $ 2.5C per tire. The substantial difference in cost estimates is to a large part due to whether or not one assumes the salesman who completes the forms and the clerk who mails them would not be employed but for the tire registration process. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) takes the position, which has yet to be refuted, that additional personnel are not needed to carry out the program on the retail level and consequently the costis at the lower end of the scale. Simplification of the process has been achieved with the adoption of a standardized report form on which towrite the name and address of the purchaser. A copy is enclosed.

4. There is no cost incurred by the Federal government attributable to the tire registration and recordkeeping procedure except (Illegible Word) in that the regular staff, as one of their functions, assigns and maintains a manufacturer's identification code list and monitors the program of defects recalls and regulation enforcement. The cost of this work has been determined to be about $ 34,000 annually.

5. The NHTSA has undertaken no proscution of dealers or manufacturers for violation of the tire information and recordkeeping regulation. Fourteen civil penalties have been assesed for violation of the regulation, although these all occurred shortly after the regulation became effective.

6. We do not presently anticipate a major revision of the regulation. However, as with all our standards and regulations, it is regularly reviewed and revised to increase its effectiveness while lowering its cost to the industry and the consumer. Further, dealers, manufacturers, and others are free at any time to petition the NHTSA to amend the regulations. These procedures, which are found in 49 CFR, Part 552, require that we act on positions within 120 days.

At the present time, this program is also being analyzed by the National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council as part of its study of "Safety Defects and Recalls" requested by Secretary William T. Coleman. The Council's report will also guide us in revising and improving the regulation.

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

February 17, 1976

Congressional Liaison Department of Transportation

Would you please provide me with background information regarding the registration of tire serial numbers. I am especially interested in:

1. How long is this information kept on file?

2. How often has the Department of Transportation used this information to trace and notify individuals of defective tires?

3. Approximately how many persons are involved in processing this information?

4. What is the approximate cost of this procedure to the federal government?

5. How often have violators of this regulation been prosecuted?

6. Does the Department foresee any revision of this regulation in the near future?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Richard Nolan Member of Congress

ID: usedchas

Dennis T. Snyder, Esquire
7600 Red Road
Suite 200
South Miami, FL 33143

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1995, asking whether a client of yours is a "final stage manufacturer" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and implementing regulations on manufacturer identification and vehicle certification found in 49 CFR Parts 566, 567, and 568. You have described this client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from used chassis-cabs.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. ' 30102(a)(5) (formerly section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) as "a person- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . " (emphasis added). Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the assembly of completed motor vehicles, it would appear to meet this definition. Because the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 apply to "all manufacturers of motor vehicles," as stated in section 566.3 of that Part, your client would be required to submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the identifying information specified in 49 CFR 566.5.

The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." The term "completed vehicle" is in turn defined in section 568.3 as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function . . . ." Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from chassis-cabs, it would qualify as a final stage manufacturer, as that term is defined in section 568.3.

Requirements for final stage manufacturers are specified at 49 CFR 568.6. This section provides that a final stage manufacturer shall complete each vehicle "in such a manner that it conforms to the [Federal motor vehicle safety] standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates," and shall affix a label to the vehicle attesting to that conformance in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5, which specifies certification requirements for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. These certification requirements are in implementation of 49 U.S.C. ' 30115, which requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle to certify to the dealer or distributor at delivery that the vehicle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has long taken the position, however, that a vehicle is used if it is assembled by adding a new body to the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads. As a consequence, your client would not be required to certify the vehicles that it manufactures in this fashion.

Your client would nevertheless be subject to 49 U.S.C. ' 30122(b), which provides that "[a] manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." NHTSA has interpreted this provision as requiring any of the specified entities that remove an old body from a vehicle in order to install a new one to ensure that the newly completed vehicle meets the standards that the vehicle was originally required to meet. For example, a vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1995 mounted on a used 1989 chassis must meet all standards that applied to 1989 vehicles. Your client would be liable for any violation of this requirement on vehicles that it manufactures, regardless of whether it removed the body from the old vehicle itself, or directed another entity to do so.

Additionally, as a vehicle manufacturer, your client would be required under 49 U.S.C. ' 30118 to furnish owners with notification of, and a remedy for, any safety-related defect or any noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is found to exist in a vehicle that it assembles.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366- 5238.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:566#VSA d:6/13/95

ID: nht90-1.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/90 EST

FROM: Stephen W.A. Pickering -- Valley Sales Inc.

TO: Stephen R. Kratzke -- Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to 5 photos (graphics omitted); Also attached to Report on Test of Sofa Bar according to FMVSS No. 210 (text and graphics omitted); Also attached to Test Report Number 096441-89 (text and graphics omitted) (test results are available i n the file); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Pickering (A36; Std. 111, Std. 202, Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Per our conversation by telephone please find enclosed photographs, drawings, descriptions, and accompanying data that I have available at this time concerning the product I am making, trade named "RUMBLE SEAT". The product is a rear facing auxilary seat ing system for Pick up trucks.

It is a unique product that I have initiated a patent application on and a product which I have designed to be as safe and comfortable as I can.

It is my wish to be in compliance with any applicable codes and standards that I am now aware of or those I become aware of at a later date.

I have used for reference the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49 containing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Standards.

I have listed those standards that I feel may apply to my product, and those I feel I am in compliance with, Or at least those I feel I am NOT out of compliance with.

CODE 49-Standard 209 "Seat belt Assemblies"

I believe I am in compliance by the "DEFINITIONS" S3 by using a Type 1 seatbelt assembly a "LAP BELT FOR PELVIC RESTRAINT" please see enclosed test data on the seatbelts I am now using.

CODE 49 Standard 210 "Seatbelt Assembly Anchorages"

I have enclosed pictures, drawings, and test result data for you to determine compliance, I feel I comply here also.

CODE 49 Standard 571.208 "Occupant Crash Protection"

S4.1.1.3.2. "Convertibles and open body type vehicles" provides that either Type 1 or Type 2 seatbelt assemblys may be used. I am using a Type 1 belt assembly Manual Seatbelts, again, please find test data.

CODE 49 Standard S571.111 "REARVIEW MIRRORS"

My product provides seating for 2 (two) people with space between each

seat to help minimize interference with drivers "FIELD OF VIEW" When the seats are un-occupied with the headrests down there is very minimal interference with view and does not compromise, my compliance status at all.

CODE 49 Standard 571.202 "HEAD RESTRAINTS"

I feel I need HELP with interpertation and compliance here.

Because my product sets directly behind the cab, facing the rear of the pick-up bed, any adult would find the back of the head in close proximity to the outside rear of the cab.

It seemed prudent, therefore, to offer some sort of protection

While there may be several ways to attempt to accomplish this I need to settle on one that will be in compliance with the codes and standards of your bureau.

One way would be a stationary headrest in corporated in the product.

Another may be a stationary headrest permanently affixed to the cab.

Another may be an ADJUSTABLE headrest permanently affixed to the cab.

Another may be a removable headrest either on the product itself, or on the cab. (I WOULD FAVOR THIS SYSTEM)

I decided an adjustable headrest incorporated into the product would be the best way to proceed.

There is one other choice that I have considered, and I am in the opinion that I may have an easier time with compliance. I briefly describe the other system in the enclosed explaination and drawing.

I am asking you to comment as to the possibility of compliance of each system described I have outlined here.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope to be in contact with you regarding my progress in complying with any applicable standards. ANY additional suggestions you may have would be helpfull.

enclosed:

1. test results of seatbelt systems from United States Testing Co. 2. Test results for seatbelt bar anchorage system from Stoutco. 3. Photographs and drawings of product seeking compliance. 4. Possible alternate headrest mounting systems. explaination a nd drawings.

(Photos and text are omitted but are available in the file.)

ID: nht92-5.28

DATE: July 7, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/10/92 from Michael Love to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7401)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 10,1992, requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL). Your letter was occasioned by mine of April 27, 1992, with respect to the design presented in your letter of April 3.

To summarize our earlier correspondence, Porsche wishes to install a CHMSL on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that "If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars." Although Porsche's intended CHMSL meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible. Because the CHMSL on the Carerra would not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, we informed you that this design would not conform to Standard No. 108.

In your latest letter, you present the possibility of equipping the Porsche with two separate CHMSLs. The CHMSL discussed in your April letter, located at the trailing edge of the spoiler, would be activated when the spoiler had risen 35% from its at-rest position, and be deactivated at the time the spoiler lowers to 35%, from the at-rest position. The second CHMSL, located on the spoiler where it abuts the vehicle body and mounted at a complying height, would be activated when the vehicle is at rest, and when the spoiler is at heights less than 35% from the at-rest position, generally at times that the other CHMSL is deactivated. You expect that all photometric and height requirements of Standard No. 108 will be met in switching from one lamp to another while the spoiler is moving, though it might be necessary to have both lamps functioning together for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements.

A manufacturer's certification of compliance to the CHMSL requirements of Standard No. 108 is based upon the normal operation of motor vehicle equipment. The additional CHMSL you posit would appear to fulfill these requirements when the vehicle is at rest, and in low speed operation. Thus, for certification purposes, we regard this CHMSL as the one for which certification is supplied.

However, it appears that the spoiler in rising may affect the photometric conformance of the certification CHMSL. Under S5.3.1.1, when a part of a vehicle prevents a stop lamp from meeting its photometric output at any

applicable group of test points, any auxiliary stop lamp that meets these requirements may be provided. We interpret this as allowing the non-certification CHMSL to perform as a surrogate to the certification CHMSL at the point that conformance of the certification CHMSL is affected.

You have raised the possibility that it will be necessary to have both CHMSLs operating simultaneously for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements. While the meaning of this statement is not exactly clear, for purposes of this interpretation, it would appear to mean that simultaneous operation of both lamps might occur briefly when the rising spoiler masks the certification CHMSL at the same time the non-certification CHMSL is operating at a height below the minimum specified by Standard No. 108. Although in the past we have encouraged disabling of interior mounted CHMSLs when new ones are added to fixed spoilers, so that a vehicle will not be equipped with two permanent simultaneously operating CHMSLs, the situation here appears to differ. Under the circumstances outlined above, it does not appear that a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 would be created.

If our understanding is not correct, we would be willing to discuss the matter further.

ID: nht90-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TIMOTHY A. KELLY -- PRESIDENT SALEM VENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/29/90, FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217; OCC 4382; LETTER DATED 01/29/90 FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR / ESCAP E HATCH - FMVSS 217

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release as it applies to roof exits. You asked four specific questions which I have addressed below.

First, you asked for confirmation that the only specification in Standard No. 217 concerning the size of roof exits is the requirement that the exit be able to accommodate an ellipsoid with a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches pushed h orizontally through the exit opening. Your understanding is not entirely correct. The ellipsoid requirement to which you refer, set forth in S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, is the only provision in the standard that specifies a minimum size requirement for roof exit opening. Although there is no maximum size limit, you should be aware that S5.2 of Standard No. 217 provides that, in determining the total unobstructed openings for emergency exit provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. Thus, if a roof exit is larger than 536 square inches, only 536 square inches will be counted for the exit in determining whether the bus complies with the unobstructed op enings requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 217.

Second, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 does not permit the use of escape hatches or ventilators in the roof of school buses as a substitute for any of the emergency exits required on school buses by S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. This und erstanding is correct. Additionally, you should be aware that the agency has a longstanding position that any emergency exits, including any roof exits, installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by S5.2.3 must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 217 for emergency exits installed on buses other than school buses. See the enclosed July 6, 1979 interpretation to Robert Kurre on this issue.

Third, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 permits the use of roof exits as a substitute for the rear exit door on buses other than school buses. This statement is not entirely correct. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 requires the use of a rear exit door on all non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., except where the configuration of the bus precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. In that case, S5.2.1 requires the installation of a roof exit in the rear half of th e bus in lieu of the rear exit. This substitution of a roof exit for a rear exit door is allowed only where the bus design precludes the use of a rear exit (such as on rear-engine buses). It is not an option allowing the substitution of a roof exit for the rear door in any design.

Fourth, you asked whether the addition of more than one roof exit on a non-school bus would allow a manufacturer to delete any other required exits in addition to the rear door. It is possible that increasing the total exit space on the bus by adding ro of exits could enable a manufacturer to reduce the number or size of other emergency exits on the bus and still comply with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2. You should be aware that exit space provided by roof exits is not counted in deter mining compliance with the requirement in S5.2 that 40 percent of the total unobstructed openings be located on each side of the bus. Whether this substitution of additional roof exits could be made on any particular non-school bus would depend upon whe ther the bus complied with the exit space and location requirements of S5.2.1 (if the bus has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and the applicable requirements of S5.2.2 (if the bus has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE