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: 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.

ID: nht74-3.10

DATE: 01/08/74

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DARROLL P. YOUNG -- PRESIDENT YOUNG'S MACHINE CO. MONTICELLO, UTAH 84535

TITLE: N40-30 (TWH)

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/26/73 FROM DARRELL P. YOUNG -- PRESIDENT YOUNG'S MACHINE COMPANY TO THE OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Young:

In place of the two standards which you requested in your letter of December 26, 1973, I am providing the following discussion of what vehicles qualify as "motor vehicles" subject to our regulations. If your vehicles are not "motor vehicles" under this definition, they are not required to conform to Standards 105a and 121. Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

Tracked and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment is another non-motor vehicle category, because Congress clearly did not intend to include them in its coverage. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. aircraft runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of his customers actually would use them on the highway.

Just as clearly, vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work-performing nature and as such their manufacturer contemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, mobile drill rigs, and towed equipment such as brush chippers and pull-type street sweepers are examples in this area. Even if the equipment uses highways infrequently, it is considered a motor vehicle on the same basis as is a "mobile structure trailer" which is often towed only once from the factory to the home site. All these motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to several of the motor vehicle safety standards, and their manufacturer must comply with other regulations in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.

There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicle classification despite their use of the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment such as lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles.

From these guidelines you should be able to determine whether your equipment qualifies as a motor vehicle, and if so, as a truck or a trailer. Please write again if you are unable to make this determination. I have enclosed an information sheet that advises you how to obtain an up-to-date copy of the regulations which apply to motor vehicles and their manufacturers.

ENCLOSURE

Yours truly,

ID: nht73-1.39

DATE: 06/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Bendix Automotive Aftermarket

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1973 and confirms the telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of my staff on June 14, 1973.

The amendments to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 published on May 17, 1973 modified container labelling requirements only for silicone-based brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil (paragraph S5.2.2.3) and did not affect the requirements for conventional DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids (paragraph S5.2.2.2) as you assumed. Therefore you appear to have no problem, and it is not necessary to consider your letter as a petition for reconsideration.

Sincerely,

Bendix

Automotive Aftermarket

May 30, 1973

Department of Transportation

Attention: Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Reference: Phone conversation with Mr. Taylor Vincent on 5/14/73

Dear Mr. Schneider:

The revision to the FMVSS #116 Standard, as published May 17, 1973, has an effective date for label changes of July 1, 1973, but does not specifically authorize the sellers of Brake Fluid to exhaust existing container stock.

The label changes are minor, as follows:

Existing Safety Warnings:

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY. Contamination with dirt, water, petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

4. CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER, AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

* New Safety Warnings:

1. FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

2. KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN. Contamination with dirt or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

3. CAUTION: STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED. DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER OR USE OTHER LIQUIDS.

* We have corrected the labeling as to the use of upper and lower case letters per the instructions of Mr. Taylor Vincent.

The current safety warning label requirements are not inadequate for the conventional Brake Fluids. Bendix labeling for DOT 3 Brake Fluid conforms to the existing standard for safety warnings.

This letter is a request for permission to exhaust container stock purchased prior to the July 1, 1973, effective date. Existing Bendix container stock is in the form of lithographed containers both filled and unfilled. A minimum of 60 - 90 days is required to modify lithography plates. If permission is not granted, this letter is to be considered a petition to amend the Docket No. 71-13, Notice 4, published May 17, 1973. Please amend this docket to give the conventional Brake Fluid sellers the right to exhaust stock purchased prior to the July 1, 1973, effective date.

Very truly yours,

Cam Brame --

Quality Assurance Analyst

cc: M. J. Stepanek; B. Stubbs; R. Hasnerl; J. Howard

ID: nht75-2.46

DATE: 06/09/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1975, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a described lamp design.

In pertinent part, S4.4.1 states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp." The lamp design that interests you has separate compartments for the taillamp and for the clearance lamp. You are concerned that at a distance it will be difficult to distinguish the two lamps, and you feel that this violates the spirit of S4.4.1.

We have no objection to the design of this lamp. Since the clearance lamp and taillamp are in separate compartments and not optically combined, and since Standard No. 108 does not specify a minimum separation distance between the two lamps, the lamp design does not violate S4.4.1.

SINCERELY,

(Graphics omitted) See illustration on original

May 13, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Active Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Wesbar Corporation is a manufacturer of lights, primarily used on boat trallers and utility trallers. We have received from a number of our customers an inquiry as to the possibility of making a tall light similar to the attached sketch, which would serve then as a tall light, stop light, turn signal, reflex reflector, and clearance light.

We have taken the position that a light of this type would not meet the spirit of DOT 108, paragraph S 4.4.1, which states, "Two or more lamps, reflective devices, or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are met, except that no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tall lamp or identification lamp."

A light of the design we indicate on the enclosed drawing would include a separate compartment for the tall, stop and turn light and a separate compartment for the clearance lamp. However, at a distance of 30 or 40 feet to the rear of the vehicle, it would be very difficult to make a distinction between the tall light and the clearance lamp, except possibly by doing some design work on having a different configuration to the lens on the clearance lamp.

We do not wish to be in the position of second guessing your department's interpretation of S 4.4.1 and would therefore appreciate your comments and interpretation of that section. On receipt of same, we will send a copy of this interpretation to the manufacturers who have made these inquires of us.

Your early attention in this matter will be very much appreciated.

WESBAR CORPORATION

Bernard R. Weber Executive Vice President

SINGLE HOUSING WITH SEPARATE COMPARTMENTS FOR EACH LIGHT

TAIL, STOP & TURN SIGNAL LIGHT

CLEARANCE LIGHT

CLASS "A" REFLEX REFLECTOR

1/8" APPROX. BETWEEN ALL LENSES

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-5.13

DATE: 03/12/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: McIntosh & Boynton

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 19, 1974, forwarding to us for approval a draft notification letter regarding the Checker front seat adjuster (CIR-727).

The one remaining problem we have with your letter is in the second paragraph. Because Checker is a manufacturer of motor vehicles, the appropriate determination by Checker pursuant to @ 577.4(b)(1) is that the defect exists in the motor vehicles in question. Your second sentence should be changed, and may be changed to read, "The Checker Motors Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in some 1972 model Checker vehicles manufactured from December 9, 1971, through April 5, 1972, and results from improperly installed front seat adjuster assemblies."

We have decided to accept notification letters in which the reference to "some" vehicles (@ 577.4(b)(2)) is placed in the sentence required by @ 577.4(b)(1).

SINCERELY,

Dear Checker Owner:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The Checker Motors Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the front seat adjuster. This defect exists in some 1972 model Checker vehicles manufactured from December 9, 1971 through April 5, 1972 and results from improperly installed front seat adjuster assemblies.

Your vehicle is equipped with an adjuster assembly which allows selective fore and aft positioning of the front seat (see attached illustration). The seat is secured at the selected position by the engagement of a pawl and notch on the right and left hand seat adjuster track. The right hand pawl is engaged by a spring and disengaged by a wire attached to both the left and right hand pawl. If tension was introduced in the wire during installation, it may not allow full engagement of the pawl and notch at the right hand seat adjuster track. If a vehicle with only partial engagement between the pawl and notch is involved in an accident or is suddenly decelerated, the seat could slide forward and cause injury to the front seat occupants from impact with the vehicle interior (windshield, dashboard and steering column).

You are urged to take your vehicle to a Checker dealership to have the front seat adjuster installation checked for proper operation. Should your seat adjuster require repair, your Checker dealer will at "no cost" to you:

1. Using the prescribed template, drill four (4) 3/16 diameter holes through the center section of the seat frame.

2. Install a new pawl actuator wire.

3. Anchor the pawl actuator wire with a 1/8 x 1 cotter pin at the hole which removes the minimum amount of slack necessary to accurate the right hand pawl.

In the majority of cases, the actual work described above will take less than 30 minutes, however, prior to taking your vehicle to a Checker dealership, it is suggested that you contact the dealer's service department and determine when service time will be available. The necessary parts and instructions will be available at Checker dealerships by March 1, 1974. Presentation of this letter will assist you in obtaining this service.

CHECKER MOTORS CORPORATION

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: nht94-4.67

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: nht94-5.24

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Schaub, James -- Midas Muffler Shop (Louisiana)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/21/93 Letter From James Schaub To John Womack (OCC 9252)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows:

(f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. .

. .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation.

We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.

ID: nht94-5.46

DATE: May 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James Schaub -- Midas Muffler Shop

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/21/93 from James "Bubba" Schaub to John Womack (OCC-9252)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking us about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles.

While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors.

With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows:

(f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . .

This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area.

The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation. We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter.