ID: 6962

Mr. Kenneth R. Brownstein
Senior Counsel
PACCAR Inc.
P.O. Box 1518
Bellevue, WA 98004

Dear Mr. Brownstein:

This responds to your letter, requesting that the agency clarify a provision in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. (49 CFR 571.120) Specifically, you asked whether under section S5.1.3, a vehicle manufacturer could, if requested by the purchaser, install retreaded tires procured by the manufacturer on a new vehicle. You stated that allowing the vehicle manufacture to buy retreaded tires would be more efficient and would help the truck owner to avoid having to make a separate purchase. I welcome this opportunity to respond to your request for an interpretation.

Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 states:

In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol.

For the vehicle manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new truck, bus, or trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that five conditions must be satisfied. These are:

(1) the purchaser must request such a retreaded or used tire, (2) the vehicle must be equipped with the retreaded or used tire at the vehicle's place of manufacture, (3) the retreaded or used tire to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser, (4) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle, and (5) used tires equipped on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 (and contain the DOT certification symbol).

Your letter indicates that in buying the retreaded tires at the purchaser's request, PACCAR's actions would comply with the first condition (and presumably the second condition). However, since PACCAR and not the vehicle purchaser would supply the tire, your requested action clearly would not comply with the third condition which requires the retreaded or used tire to be owned by the purchaser. This condition permits a purchaser to order a new vehicle without any tires and install any tire it may choose. It is not clear from your letter whether the fourth condition would be satisfied. The fifth condition is not applicable to retreaded truck tires, since such tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on their sidewalls. Based on the above, we conclude that having a vehicle manufacturer supply a retreaded or used tire for a new vehicle would not comply with S5.1.3.

We disagree with your view that the purpose of section S5.1.3 is to allow the purchaser to choose whether the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure it has knowledge of this fact. As discussed in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the purpose of the provision is to accommodate a practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to the vehicle manufacturer for installation on new vehicles they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been taken off vehicles no longer in service. (49 FR 20822, 20823, May 17, 1984).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref:120 d:3/23/92

ID: 6971

Mr. Frederick Harris
Frederick Harris Associates
5717 Huberville Avenue
Dayton, Ohio 45431

Dear Mr. Harris:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to your product, which you described as a cloth device containing plastic items useful to a baby, for use in motor vehicles. You explained that your product would be placed in a motor vehicle adjacent to, but not touching, a child in a nearby child safety seat. In particular, you were concerned about flammability resistance standards applicable to your product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to the cloth device containing baby items, it appears that your product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of your device, it appears that a substantial portion of its expected use will be during the operation of a motor vehicle. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Dee Fujita of my staff, you explained that your device is intended to be sold for use in motor vehicles. In addition, it appears that your product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While it appears that your device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, this agency has not issued any standards setting forth performance requirements for such a device. Obviously, your device could not be determined to be in noncompliance with a safety standard if there is no applicable safety standard.

As for your concern about flammability resistance requirements, please be advised that our safety standard about this issue, Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, (49 CFR 571.302, copy enclosed), would not apply to your device. That standard sets forth such requirements applicable to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment.

You should be aware that, as a manufacturer of an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 302 d:3/5/92

ID: 6972

Mr. Lance Watt
Director of Engineering
The Flxible Corporation
970 Pittsburgh Drive
Delaware, Ohio 43105-2859

Dear Mr. Watt:

This responds to your letter of February 11, l992, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to several scenarios regarding the wiring and use of optional brake retarder transmissions on city transit buses manufactured by your company.

In your current design, the retarder is designed so that it is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn illuminates the stop lamps. You have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 20. 1990, confirming that this design conforms to Standard No. 108, specifically S5.5.4 which states that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

Since that time, several additional scenarios have presented themselves. First, some customers have requested that the transmission retarder be activated when the accelerator pedal is released, rather than when the brake pedal is applied. In this configuration, the stop lamps would not be illuminated, "and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed", unless the service brakes were also applied. However, some customers wishing this option would like to have the stop lamps illuminated by the retarder, that is to say, when the accelerator is released. Second, some customers have also requested a retarder cut-off switch in order to disable the retarder during icy or slippery road conditions. In such a case, the stop lamps would also be activated at the time of accelerator release "with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes." To date, your company has resisted these requests, but these customers, without a specific NHTSA interpretation on the point, threaten to declare your company a nonresponsive bidder on transit bus procurements. You have asked whether a noncompliance with section S5.5.4 would result "if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers."

The purpose of the retarder feature is to provide supplemental braking to city transit buses. This braking results in the deceleration of the vehicle. A stop lamp is defined by SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width as one that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Whenever the brake retarder is activated with the intent of diminishing speed by braking, Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamps be activated. The only mandate of the standard (S5.5.4) is that when the service brakes are applied, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

Nor does Standard No. 108 prohibit illumination of the stop lamps by release of the accelerator pedal followed by activation of the retarder. This is because the intention of the driver is to diminish speed by the braking action of the retarder. We distinguish this situation from the one in an interpretation provided Larry Snowhite, Esq. on January 25, 1990, in which a device activated the stop lamps whenever the accelerator pedal was released, regardless of the intent of the driver. Activation of the stop lamps initiated by release of the accelerator pedal is permissible only when the intent of the driver is to reduce the speed of the vehicle by an immediate subsequent act of braking, whether that is achieved through his use of the service brake system, use of retarders, or a combination of the two.

However, a configuration where the stop lamps operate in the absence of service brake application or activation of a retarder system (as appears to occur when a retarder cut off switch has been activated) would be subject to S5.1.3 of the standard. This prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In this instance, the retarder cut off feature would permit the stop lamps to send the false signal that the operator intended to stop or reduce vehicle speed when, in fact, there was no intent to do so.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:4/10/92

ID: 6973

Dr. Carl C. Clark
Safety Systems Company
23 Seminole Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21228-5638

Dear Dr. Clark:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). More specifically, your letter indicated your belief that Standard No. 205 permits a prime glazing material manufacturer to designate an item of glass-plastic glazing that it manufactures as "Item 14" glazing if that glass- plastic glazing item passes all the tests specified for Item 14 glazing. It is your view that it is irrelevant whether the individual glass layers in the glass-plastic glazing are tempered or annealed glass. Your understanding is correct.

Standard No. 205 specifies the performance requirements for Item 14 glazing, through a series of 14 tests designated for that item of glass-plastic glazing material. No test applicable to Item 14 glazing specifies that any individual layer, either glass or plastic, of this laminated glazing is to be tested separately. Instead, the 14 tests applicable to Item 14 glazing set forth performance levels that must be achieved by the glazing as a laminate.

One of the 14 tests designated for Item 14 is Penetration Resistance, Test No. 26. You are correct in noting that, effective September 23, 1991, Test No. 26 specifies the glass-plastic specimen is to be clamped into a test fixture before the specimen is tested. If an item of glass-plastic glazing passes each of the 14 tests applicable to Item 14 glazing, including Test No. 26, with clamping, and complies with Standard No. 205's labeling and certification requirements, the prime glazing material manufacturer of the material may designate that item of glass-plastic glazing as Item 14 glazing.

You were also correct in your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits Item 14 glazing to be used for passenger car glazing in any position except the windshield of convertibles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:3/5/92

ID: 6975

Mr. R. Wendell Moore
Acting Chief Counsel for Advocacy
U.S. Small Business Administration
Washington, D.C. 20416

Dear Mr. Moore:

Thank you for your letter concerning a petition for rulemaking on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. While your letter did not identify the petitioner by name, your concerns relate to issues raised in Philatron International's petition to the agency.

Philatron requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) remove Standard No. 106's oil resistance requirement for "air brake tubing." Philatron believed that there was no safety need for the requirement and that it impeded new developments in technology. The petitioner asked that the agency conduct rulemaking to remove the requirement without first providing notice or seeking public comment.

Your letter supports Philatron's petition. Further, it endorses the idea of our issuing an interim final rule which removes the oil resistance requirement from the standard, and then asks us to study the merits of the requirement, pending issuance of a final rule.

This agency is, of course, sensitive to the concerns of small businesses and currently is carefully reviewing its regulations pursuant to the President's recent directive. As required by NHTSA's regulation for rulemaking petitions (49 CFR Part 552), we are evaluating Philatron's petition to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the requested order would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding. Please note that NHTSA views the issues and facts relevant to the petition as being more involved than the information available to you may suggest. In addition, please note further that, if a proceeding were commenced, it would be a normal notice and comment proceeding as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.

We appreciate your interest in this matter and will carefully consider your views as part of the petition evaluation process.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

ref:106 d:3/10/92

ID: 6977

Mr. Jeff Ruff
Director of Fleet/Government Sales
The Braun Corporation
1014 S. Monticello
P.O. Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Ruff:

This responds to your letter of February 10, 1992 requesting advice regarding the location of the upper anchorage for the front passenger seat shoulder belt.

By now, you should have received our reply (dated February 14, 1992) to your previous letter (dated October 30, 1991). In that letter, I explained that NHTSA will not conduct any crash testing of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while the agency reviews the petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association to exclude these vehicle from the dynamic crash test requirement. Because this is now a pending rulemaking, the agency cannot discuss what requirements the agency will propose for these vehicles prior to the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). However, as explained in our previous letter, NHTSA is aware of the need of manufacturers such as yourself and your customers to have this matter addressed as soon as possible. Therefore, the agency is proceeding with preparation and publication of the NPRM as quickly as possible.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:5/3/92

ID: 6978

Mr. Douglas Kubehl
Safety Engineering Associates, Inc.
2798 S. Fish Hatchery Rd.
Madison, Wisconsin 53711-5398

Dear Mr. Kubehl:

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1992, concerning the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. You asked for verification of your understanding of the requirements of two sections of Standard No. 209. Your discussion of these two sections and our response follows.

In 209-S.4.4a(1), it is clearly stated that a loop force of 5000 pounds is required to produce a force of 2500 pounds on each structural component. However, part 209-S4.4b(4) seems to be a bit ambiguous. It states: "The length of the pelvic restraint between anchorages shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when subjected to a force of 2500 pounds". My interpretation of this statement is that one must employ a loop force of 5000 pounds to achieve 2500 pounds of force on each component, as specified in S4.4a(1). I am concerned that one could misinterpret the above statement as requiring a 2500 pound loop force, rather than the intended value of 5000 pounds.

Your statements indicate a common misunderstanding of the requirements of S4.4 of Standard No. 209. A seat belt assembly would not be subject to the requirements of S4.4(a) and to the requirements of S4.4(b). If the seat belt assembly is a Type 1 seat belt assembly, defined in S3 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint," the assembly is subject to the requirements of S4.4(a). Section S4.4(a)(1) requires a Type 1 seat belt assembly loop to withstand a force of 5,000 pounds. Section S4.4(a)(2) states that the length of the assembly between the anchorages shall not increase more than 14 inches or 36 centimeters when the load required in S4.4(a)(1) is applied.

If the seat belt assembly is a Type 2 seat belt assembly, defined in S3 as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints," the assembly is subject to the requirements of S4.4(b). Section S4.4(b)(1) requires the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly to withstand a force of 2,500 pounds. Section 4.4(b)(4) states that the length of the pelvic portion of the assembly shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when the load required in S4.4(b)(1) is applied.

Part 209-S5.3a, which addresses the performance of the belt assembly, refers to Figure 5 and requires a tensile force of 2500 pounds. It goes on to say that this force is equivalent to a 5000 pound force being applied to an assembly loop. Figure five is referred to several times throughout the passage, each reference requiring a specific force. Again, because the relationship of the tensile force to assembly loop force is not explicitly stated, we are concerned that one may mistake the tensile force to be the total loop force applied.

The test procedure to determine compliance with the requirements of S4.4 of Standard No. 209 is found in S5.3 of that standard. The test procedure for seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.4(a) (a pelvic restraint) is found in S5.3(a). As you have correctly stated, a force of 2,500 pounds is applied to each component of the pelvic restraint, or a force of 5,000 pounds to the entire loop. The test procedure for seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.4(b) (a combined pelvic and upper torso restraint) is found in S5.3(b). The pelvic portion of such a seat belt assembly is tested by applying a total force of 2,500 pounds to the entire loop.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:209 d:3/16/92

ID: 6982

Mr. Brad Beach
389 Terrace Avenue
Suite 204
Virginia Beach, VA 23451

Dear Mr. Beach:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff, inquiring about Federal safety standards that apply to objects designed to be attached to the rear and side windows of passenger automobiles. Although you did not specify what this object is, you described the object as being "not transparent," rectangular in shape, with dimensions of 12 inches in width by 18 inches in length. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your product.

Some general background information on the Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we 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. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

The agency has issued two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that might affect your product. These are Standards No. 205, Glazing Materials, and No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger automobiles). Standard No. 111 sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors. The standard provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standards No. 205 and 111. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install a device that was not readily removable over the glazing and that impaired the field of view to the rear of the vehicle, that subsequent manufacturer or dealer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standards No. 111 and 205 with this additional device installed.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, none of these commercial entities may legally install a sun screen device or other device on a vehicle, if the device would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standards No. 111 and/or 205.

In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as a device that is mounted on the glazing of motor vehicles and that is not readily removable, is responsible for the recall and remedy of all such devices, if it is determined that the device contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

You should note that the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their own vehicles as they please, without violating any provision of Federal law. Thus, Federal law would not prohibit you, as an individual vehicle owner, from installing any devices you wish in the windows of your own vehicle, even if such installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standards No. 205, No. 111, or any other of our safety standards. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of the safety features designed into their vehicles.

However, you should also note that the individual States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles by their owners and modifications owners can make to their own vehicles. Each of the States have exercised this authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered and operated within their borders. I cannot advise you about the laws established by each of the States. If you wish to learn whether Virginia or any other State prohibits the installation of your device in a vehicle, you may wish to contact the Department of Transportation for those States in which you are interested.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205#111 d:4/14/92

ID: 6983r

Mr. John Faist
DAS Fleet Services Division
City of Seattle
8618 2d Avenue, 12th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Mr. Faist:

This responds to the letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from Chris Kuczynski, Fleet Services Division, City of Seattle Department of Administrative Services, dated February 4, 1992, asking how the provisions of 49 CFR, Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 pertained to "a municipal government agency that transfers, modifies and/or fabricates custom vehicle bodies for use by it's own departments." In a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office on April 3, 1992, you stated that the vehicle modifications referred to in the letter involve only trucks, both light and heavy; that you combine both new and used bodies with both new and used chassis, endeavoring to retain the old engines, power axles, and transmissions to the extent possible; that such modifications include mounting equipment on truck chassis to create such specific-purpose vehicles as dump trucks, cranes, and the like; that some of such modifications and fabrications are done in your own shops while others are contracted out to local body shops; and that passenger cars and buses are not involved.

Before addressing the specific issues raised in the letter, some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U. S. Code, 1381 - 1431 (hereinafter "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or disapprove motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process which requires each manufacturer, in the exercise of due care, to ensure and certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Thereafter, NHTSA will periodically test vehicles and equipment for compliance with the standards and investigate allegations of safety-related defects.

Turning now to the modifications to your trucks, we start first with the provisions of 49 CFR, Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, which provides in pertinent part:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

NHTSA has consistently interpreted that provision to mean that, by its terms, it applies only to new bodies and not to old ones, and that placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axles, as a minimum, are not new and at least two of which were taken from the same vehicle. Conversely, a new vehicle would result by placing a new body on an old chassis utilizing new, a combination of new and used, or used engine, transmission, and drive axles no two of which were taken from the same vehicle.

A new vehicle would also result by placing a body, new or used, on a new chassis. In that case the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle which is defined at 49 CFR, Part 568.3 as:

[A]n 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.

By adding a body to the new chassis, you, the City of Seattle, become a final-stage manufacturer, defined in Part 568.3 as ". . . [A] person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." As such, you are required by Part 568.6(a) to ". . . [C]omplete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, . . . ." Part 568.6(b) then requires that "Each final-stage manufacturer shall affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with 567.5 of this chapter." For your additional information I am enclosing a NHTSA fact sheet entitled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT. To summarize, placing a new body on a used chassis does not make a new vehicle if, as a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axles are not new and if at least two of those components were taken from the same vehicle. A new chassis, however, is an incomplete vehicle and placing a body thereon, whether new or old, results in a new vehicle which must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the new chassis, and the final-stage manufacturer who completes the assembly of the vehicle must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR, Part 567. Accordingly, in response to your question about the applicability of 49 CFR, Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 to your truck customization program, the answer is that if you create a new vehicle, all those provisions apply. If you do not create a new vehicle, none of them do. This is true whatever procedures/steps you choose to utilize in accomplishing your vehicle customization program.

One final matter should be discussed before concluding. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a complying vehicle. That restriction does not apply to private owners, which would include municipalities, who are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the vehicles so modified comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Such restriction would apply, however, to those local body/repair shops to which you contract out some of your customization work. Accordingly, those businesses would have to be very careful to leave intact all the safety devices and features that are on the vehicles that they work on for you.

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry and will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:5/19/92

ID: 6991

AIR MAIL

Mr. Charles Danis Les Enterprises Track Test Inc. 4652 Avenue Victoria Montreal, Quebec H3W 2N1 Canada

Dear Mr. Danis:

This responds to your letter about testing related to Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, (49 CFR 571.121). You explained that your company has recently conducted a compliance test on an articulated bus manufactured by MCI Greyhound Canada. According to your letter, the buses were tested using 28 psi for the brake actuation test and 40 psi for the brake release test. While these air pressures differ from the pressures specified in S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 for brake actuation and release times, you stated that MCI was relying on a July 23, 1976 interpretation issued by the agency to Mr. J.W. Lawrence of the White Motor Corporation that permitted such brake actuation and release pressures. We note that to be consistent with that interpretation, the maximum brake chamber pressure must have been 40 psi when the service reservoir pressure was at 100 psi. Your letter was not clear on that point. You asked whether this interpretation is still valid. As explained below, the answer is yes.

In its inquiry to NHTSA, White Motor Corporation asked whether S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121 require minimum brake chamber actuation and release time pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi, respectively, or whether these air pressures are included in the sections only as "bench marks" on which to base specifications for minimum actuation and release timing. In response, the agency's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter stated in relevant part that:

Your understanding that S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 only specify the air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi as the basis for timing requirements is correct. Neither value is intended as a requirement that the vehicle be designed to provide a certain level of brake chamber air pressure. The values were based on an understanding of the typical configuration of existing air brake systems at the time the final rule was issued.

In response to your specific question, NHTSA's July 23, 1976 interpretation letter continues to be valid.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 121 d:4/3/92