ID: 3266o

Erman Jackson, Sales Manager
Trailmaster Tanks, Inc.
P. O. Box 161759
1121 Cantrell-Sansom Road
Fort Worth, TX 76161-1759

Dear Mr. Jackson:

This is in response to your letter which requested our interpretation of the applicability of certification requirements to your company. You indicate that you attached a new body to a truck chassis that has been in service for a number of years. Your customer believes that Trailmaster Tanks, Inc., (Trailmaster) should have issued a new final-stage manufacturer certificate at the time of the mounting of the new body. Trailmaster, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the final-stage manufacturer certificate is only issued when the chassis is new. You asked me whether your company was required by Federal law or regulations to certify that the new body on the used truck chassis complies with all applicable safety standards. The answer to your question depends on whether the used chassis consisted of any new components and, if not, whether the used components of the chassis came from different vehicles, as explained below.

As a general matter, our safety standards and certification requirements apply to vehicles only before the first sale of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Generally speaking, vehicles that are produced from a chassis that has already been sold to the public are not considered new vehicles, and are not subject to our safety standards or certification requirements. However, there is a special provision in our regulations for vehicles that are produced by combining new and used components. This provision is in 49 CFR 571.7(e), which provides:

(e) Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the Act, 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 are from the same vehicle.

This regulation means that a party attaching a new body to an old chassis is not required to attach a new certification label or make any certification under Federal law if that party simply uses the engine, transmission, and drive axle that are installed on the old chassis at the time the party receives the old chassis. Based on your statement that the truck "was not modified in any way" at the time the new body was installed on the old chassis, this would appear to be the case in your situation. If this is true, you were not required to make any certification in connection with this vehicle.

On the other hand, if you substituted a new engine, transmission, or drive axle in the old chassis when you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured under 571.7(e) and your company was required to certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567. Similarly, if you substituted used components on the old chassis at the time you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured unless at least two of the three specified components (engine, transmission, and drive axle) were from the same vehicle.

It should be noted that, even if the vehicle created when you attached a new body to a used truck chassis did not result in a newly manufactured vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR 571.7(e), your company was still subject to the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used vehicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the first instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited "rendering inoperative" violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I believe you can use the information presented in this letter to determine whether or not the vehicle your company made was considered a newly manufactured vehicle, subject to our safety standards and certification regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#571 d:l2/9/88

ID: 3324o

Mr. Donald Smith
Chief Inventor
New Innovative Systems
1047 E. Vernon Road
Philadelphia, PA 19146

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter regarding the "Highway Automatic Communications Indicator (HACI)", as supplemented by a telephone conversation between you and Stephen Wood of my staff on December 20, l988. You have asked for approval of your device.

The HACI "will display, via a transparent display screen mounted in the rear window, pre-programmed distress messages, activated only when with the automobile is at a complete standstill." The diagram of the display alert indicates that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, rather than at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be. When not activated, the device would be transparent. It would be activated by a special switch, not by the brake pedal. It is our understanding that the HACI would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, and is not wired into the brake light or hazard light system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to approve or disapprove individual inventions or devices. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of the HACI to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under the authority of which the standards are issued. These standards must be met at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, and persons other than the purchaser may not modify a vehicle after its sale in a manner that, in essence, renders it noncompliant with any standard.

There are three standards potentially affected by the HACI. The first is the lighting standard, Standard No. l08. Since the HACI's display screen is mounted in the rear window, a problem could arise if the center high mounted stop lamp required by Standard No. l08 is also mounted in that area. The HACI is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp, or any other lamp required by Standard No. l08. While this determination is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer (or dealer, if the HACI is installed after vehicle manufacture but before sale to its first purchaser) in the first instance, it appears to us that the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp would not be impaired. We base this conclusion on our understanding that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, instead of at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be and that it would apparently be activated only when the vehicle was stationary, such as parked on the side of the road.

The second standard potentially affected is Standard No. lll, relating to rearview mirrors. This standard specifies a field of view to be met by the inside rearview mirror; if the mirror does not provide this field of view, an outside mirror on the front seat passenger side must be provided. Since your device is reportedly transparent when not activated, and would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, it may well be that there is no necessity for the addition of an outside mirror. However, we do not have sufficient information to determine whether the HACI would impede the field of view under all conditions.

The third standard potentially affected is Standard No. 205, relating to glazing. This requires, in part, that all glazing in passenger cars have at least 70 percent light transmittance. To the extent that the display screen reduces light transmittance, it could create a noncompliance with this standard. However, because you have indicated that your display screen is transparent, it does not appear likely that any reduction in light transmittance would fall below the specified minimum.

With this guidance and your knowledge of the HACI, you should be able to judge whether installation of the HACI either before or after the initial sale of a passenger car might be regarded as creating a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, or otherwise be in violation of the Act. An official judgment regarding noncompliance or violation is made by the agency only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

In addition, you should be aware that the HACI remains subject to the laws of the individual States. We cannot advise you of its legality under these laws. To obtain an opinion on this matter, you may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:l2/29/88

ID: 1982-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Baily Ford, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 26, 1982

Mr. Lloyd L. Bailey President Bailey Ford, Inc. West Main Street Road Malone, NY 12953

Dear Mr. Bailey:

This responds to your letter of December 4, 1981, requesting current regulations on installing a glider kit on an existing truck chassis. Your letter also asked about regulations on repowering a truck from gas to diesel, changing axles, and transmission changes. We apparently did not receive your letter of October 16 and regret the delay in responding.

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, is the agency's regulation on glider kits. It states that when a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for the purpose of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards 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. We have enclosed a copy of Part 571.7 for your convenience.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that you plan to add a new cab and other components to an existing vehicle's engine and axles. Unless you also use a transmission that is not new, the truck would be considered newly manufactured under Part 571.7(e). If the truck is newly manufactured under that Part, you must certify compliance with all applicable current Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If the truck is not considered newly manufactured under Part 571.7(e), the changes would be considered in the nature of repairs and certification would not be required. However, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, you as a repairer of a vehicle other than your own must not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would mean that the reassembled truck with the glider kit installed must continue to meet the standards that it met before the alteration.

The agency does not have specific regulations concerning repowering a truck from gas to diesel, changing axles, or transmission changes. In making such changes, however, a person other than the vehicle's owner must not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (except temporarily during the course of repairs).

The changes you refer to could affect compliance with a number of safety standards. For example, repowering a truck from gas to diesel could affect compliance with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. Changing axles could affect compliance wit standards in such areas as braking and tires.

We suggest that you examine the various Federal motor vehicle safety standards before making such changes. Due to the volume of requests, the agency does not provide copies directly. We have, however, enclosed an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

In your telephone conversation with Mr. Glancy, you asked what model year designation should be given when a glider kit is used. This agency is interested in the compliance of motor vehicles with safety standards and does not regulate the model year designation of vehicles. However, it is our belief that a vehicle considered to be newly manufactured under Part 571.7(e) would receive a new registration, while other vehicles would continue to carry their original registration. State laws may cover the question. Further, you should consult with the Federal Trade Commission with respect to the legality of calling such vehicles new, since that agency is concerned with any consumer fraud that might arise when a vehicle with used parts is sold as a new vehicle.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

December 4, 1981

Dept. of Transportation Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen: Would you please send us current regulations on installing a glider kit on an existing truck chassis; also regulations on repowering a truck from gas to diesel, changing axles and transmission changes.

We asked for this information back on October 16th, and never received a reply.

Very truly yours,

Lloyd L. Bailey President

LLB:rm

ID: 1982-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1981, concerning differences between the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) Regulation on sun screening devices and applicable Federal standards. In addition, you asked about the requirements of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and how they affect Pennsylvania vehicle inspection standards.

Your first question concerns any differences in light transmittance requirements between the Federal standard and the 70 percent light transmittance requirement set by VESC in its Regulation No. 20, Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Sun Screening Devices. We have issued a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The standard sets a minimum light transmittance level of 70 percent for glazing materials used in areas requisite for driving visibility, such as the windshield and front side windows.

As explained in the enclosed letter, the agency does not consider sun screening solar films to be glazing materials themselves and thus they would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, as the enclosed letter explains, use of such devices on motor vehicles would be prohibited in certain cases if the vehicle glazing no longer complies with the light transmittance or other requirements of the standard.

You also asked if bumper height is regulated by a Federal standard. The agency has issued, under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), a Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581, copy enclosed) that specifies performance requirements for bumper systems. One aspect of performance regulated by the standard is the impact protection provided by the bumper at certain heights.

Section 110 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1920) provides, in applicable part, that:

No State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authority to establish or enforce with respect to any passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment offered for sale any bumper standard which is not identical to a Federal bumper standard.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides, in applicable part, that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Therefore, unless the Pennsylvania regulation is identical to the Part 581 Bumper Standard, it is preempted.

Finally, you asked about Federal safety standards regulating the height of the windshield. The agency has not issued any safety standard specifying requirements for the vertical height of the windshield. Therefore, Pennsylvania's inspection standard on vertical windshield height is not preempted.

ENCLS.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY OPERATIONS

November 16, 1981

Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is presently in the process of reviewing its current inspection regulations to determine the validity of present equipment requirements or their present exclusion. If you could assist by responding to the two issues which follow, it would be greatly appreciated.

Our first concern is the validity of the VESC regulation regarding motor vehicle sun-screening (VESC Stand 20, approved July 1980), and any distinction from the National level between tinting by the original manufacturer and after market applications. Our specific concern is the 70 percent transmittance level set by VESC. Please refer to the enclosed copy of VESC 20.

The second issue in which we are interested and which, under certain circumstances is controlled by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, is bumper and windshield heights on newly manufactured reproductions of old cars. Our present regulations specify a bumper height of 16"-20", and a vertical windshield height of no less than 12". Please see the enclosed information concerning a 1950 Porsche reproduction.

Any information you could supply on these two matters would be very helpful to this Department in determining what standards to set, so as to insure minimum compliance with any Federal requirements. If you have any additional questions, please contact me.

Kathy G. Phillips, Manager Vehicle Safety Division

ID: nht88-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LEON STEENBOCK -- ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER, ENGINEERING FWD CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO J. W. LAWRENCE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 124; LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM J. W. LAWRENCE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS; OCC 2650

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle leve l. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the t hrottle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicl e acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood yo u to be referring to this type of design.

2

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The pur pose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to ongoing runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

(EXCERPT FROM PRODUCT SAFETY AND LIABILITY REPORT DATED 04/02/88)

Leon Steenbock, administrative manager, FWD Corp., Clintonville, Wis., in a March 17 opinion, that it is not permissible under Standard No. 124 -- Accelerator Control Systems (Reference File, 901:0889) to install a locking hand throttle control in a n ew motor vehicle. These devices are expressly prohibited by the standard, Paragraph S5.1 of that standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose o f the standard is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm the standard was designed to reduce, Jones said.

7/1/87

Subject: FMVSS 124 Accelerator Control Systems

Attn: Erika Z. Jones:

having discussed this standard requirements with your office in the past, as they pertain to locking hand throttles controls, I was left with the interpretation that a vehicle with a locking hand throttle would not meet the requirements of this standard.

As I have never received a written opinion regarding lacking hand throttle controls would your office consider giving me a written opinion of this standard requirement in regards to the use of locking hand throttle controls.

Your earliest consideration would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation

ID: nht88-4.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ERMAN JACKSON -- SALES MANAGER-TRAILMASTER TANKS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: APRIL 18, 1988 FROM JACKSON TO JONES

TEXT: This is in response to your letter which requested our interpretation of the applicability of certification requirements to your company. You indicate that you attached a new body to a truck chassis that has been in service for a number of years. Your customer believes that Trailmaster Tanks, Inc., (Trailmaster) should have issued a new final-stage manufacturer certificate at the time of the mounting of the new body. Trailmaster, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the final-stage manufacturer certificate is only issued when the chassis is new. You asked me whether your company was required by Federal law or regulations to certify that the new body on the used truck chassis complies with all applicable safety standards. The answer to your qu estion depends on whether the used chassis consisted of any new components and, if not, whether the used components of the chassis came from different vehicles, as explained below.

As a general matter, our safety standards and certification requirements apply to vehicles only before the first sale of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Generally speaking, vehicles that are produced from a chassis that has alr eady been sold to the public are notconsidered new vehicles, and are not subject to our safety standards or certification requirements. However, there is a special provision in our regulations for vehicles that are produced by combining new and used comp onents. This provision is in 49 CFR @ 571.7 (e), which provides:

(e)Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the Act, 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 are from the same vehicle.

This regulation means that a party attaching a new body to an old chassis is not required to attach a new certification label or make any certification under Federal law if that party simply uses the engine, transmission, and drive axle that are installe d on the old chassis at the time the party receives the old chassis. Based on your statement that the truck "was not modified in any way" at the time the new body was installed on the old chassis, this would appear to be the case in your situation. If this is true, you were not required to make any certification in connection with this vehicle.

On the other hand, if you substituted a new engine, transmission, or drive axle in the old chassis when you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured under @571.7(e) and your company was required to certify the vehicle in accor dance with Part 567. Similarly, if you substituted used components on the old chassis at the time you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured unless at least two of the three specified components (engine, transmission, and d rive axle) were from the same vehicle.

It should be noted that, even if the vehicle created when you attached a new body to a used truck chassis did not result in a newly manufactured vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR @ 571.7(e), your company was still subject to the provisions of section 108(a)(2)( A) of the Safety Act. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used vehicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the f irst instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited "rendering inoperative" violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I believe you can use the information presented in this letter to determine whether or not the vehicle your company made was considered a newly manufactured vehicle, subject to our safety standards and certification regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht88-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DONALD SMITH -- CHIEF INVENTOR NEW INNOVATIVE SYSTEMS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter regarding the "Highway Automatic Communications Indicator (HACI)", as supplemented by a telephone conversation between you and Stephen Wood of my staff on December 20, 1988. You have asked for approval of y our device.

The HACI "will display, via a transparent display screen mounted in the rear window, pre-programmed distress messages, activated only when with the automobile is at a complete standstill." The diagram of the display alert indicates that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, rather than at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be. When not activated, the device would be transparent. It would be activated by a special switch, not by the brake pedal. It is our understanding that the HACI would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, and is not wired into the brake light or hazard light system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to approve or disapprove individual inventions or devices. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of the HACI to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under the authority of which the standards are issued. These standards must be met at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, and persons other than the purchaser may not modify a vehicle after its sale in a manner that, in essence, renders it noncompliant with any standard.

There are three standards potentially affected by the HACI. The first is the lighting standard, Standard No. 108. Since the HACI's display screen is mounted in the rear window, a problem could arise if the center high mounted stop lamp required by Stan dard No. 108 is also mounted in that area. The HACI is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp, or any other lamp required by Standard No. 108. While this determination is the r esponsibility of the vehicle manufacturer (or dealer, if the HACI is installed after vehicle manufacture but before sale to its first purchaser)

in the first instance, it appears to us that the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp would not be impaired. We base this conclusion on our understanding that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, instead of at the bottom of the w indow where the lamp would be and that it would apparently be activated only when the vehicle was stationary, such as parked on the side of the road.

The second standard potentially affected is Standard No. 111, relating to rearview mirrors. This standard specifies a field of view to be met by the inside rearview mirror; if the mirror does not provide this field of view, an outside mirror on the fron t seat passenger side must be provided. Since your device is reportedly transparent when not activated, and would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, it may well be that there is no necessity for the addition of an outside mirror. However , we do not have sufficient information to determine whether the HACI would impede the field of view under all conditions.

The third standard potentially affected is Standard No. 205, relating to glazing. This requires, in part, that all glazing in passenger cars have at least 70 percent light transmittance. To the extent that the display screen reduces light transmittance , it could create a noncompliance with this standard. However, because you have indicated that your display screen is transparent, it does not appear likely that any reduction in light transmittance would fall below the specified minimum.

With this guidance and your knowledge of the HACI, you should be able to judge whether installation of the HACI either before or after the initial sale of a passenger car might be regarded as creating a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard, or otherwise be in violation of the Act. An official judgment regarding noncompliance or violation is made by the agency only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

In addition, you should be aware that the HACI remains subject to the laws of the individual States. We cannot advise you of its legality under these laws. To obtain an opinion on this matter, you may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Ve hicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: nht74-1.26

DATE: 05/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mazda; Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 9, 1974, requesting an interpretation of the test procedure specified in Standard No. 301 (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 2) concerning the operation of the vehicle's fuel pump during testing.

Paragraph S7.1.3 of the standard requires that electrically driven fuel pumps be in operation during the barrier crash tests if they normally operate with the activation of the vehicle's electrical system. If the pump is incapable of functioning with the independent activation of the electrical system and requires the operation of the vehicle's engine, then the pump should not be running during the barrier crash tests.

Based upon the description you provide in your letter, it appears that you should conduct your barrier crash testing without operating the fuel pump.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

May 9, 1974

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

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Re: MVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity

In section 7.1.3 of Docket 73-20; Notice 2, we can find, "If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump, that normally runs when the vehicles electrical system is activated, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash."

The underline was added to the Docket 73-20; Notice 1.

Although we feel NHTSA has granted our attached comments on February 8, 1974, hereby we confirm it again.

Our electrical fuel pump works only when the engine runs, and usually does not work when the ignition is in "on" position except that the engine works. In other words, our electrical fuel pump is connected to the engine and there's no relation directly from our electrical system in "on" position. Nevertheless, we will find that the vehicle's electrical system without fuel pump is activated, when the ignition is in "on" position and the engine is not in "running."

Our question is as follows: In the above system, we believe we may test the barrier crash without operating the electrical fuel pump. If its not so, we have to test it with another special connection between battery and fuel pump, "only on test."

Your opinion will be highly appreciated.

Always warmest,

Goro Utsanomiya -- Branch Manager, TOYO KOGYO U.S.A. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

cc: Mr. Williams; Mr. Makino

February 8, 1974

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Although the comment closing date is already over, we would like to submit the following comment, because we have a new problem by further review.

It would be appreciated if you consider this comment.

Sincerely yours,

Gorou Utsunomiya -- Branch Manager,

TOYO KOGYO U.S.A. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

cc: R. N. Williams

enc.

DOCKET 73-20, NOTICE NO. 1

COMMENTS OF TOYO KOGYO CO., LTD. ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY PASSENGER CARS, MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES TRUCKS AND BUSES (OF 10,000 GVWR OR LESS)

Comment

"S.7.1.4 - If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash test" should read as, "S.7.1.4 Ignition switch is at "On" position at the time of barrier crash tests."

Discussion

As you know, electrically driven fuel pumps are used on many cars. As far as we assume, this S 7.1.4 is established so as to minimize possibility of fire at the crash accident because electrical pump will keep working as long as ignition switch is at "On" position.

However, if we develop a system where the electrical fuel pump stops at the moment of impact in spite of ignition switch being in "On" position, this possibility will no longer exist.

As long as S 7.1.4 exists, we have to make the pump work by other means, such as direct connection between battery and pump, when we conduct a compliance test, and this S 7.1.4 will close the way of possibly developing a new safety device. We think that this situation is far apart from the actual one and this test is impractical.

Judging from the fact that there is no requirement, "Mechanical fuel pump is operating", we think S 7.1.4 can be changed. Needless to say, we recognize that we should minimize the possibility of a fire with electrical pumps. We would suggest S 7.1.4 should read, "Ignition switch is at "On" position.

ID: nht68-2.48

DATE: 09/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 13, 1968, calling my attention to Mr. Paul Johnston's comments and suggestions on the requirements for school bus signal lamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As Mr. Johnston pointed out, Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, provides for optional use of either the eight-lamp or four-lamp signal system. This optional provision was adopted after careful consideration of the comments and recommendations which were received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making as published in the Federal Register on February 3, 1967. The "Minimum Standards for School Buses", as published by the National Conference on School Transportation, and the regulations governing minimum standards for school buses in various states were also considered during development of the optional provision for signal lamp systems. Results of our studies and investigations indicated that approximately forty states were using either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system. Other states were using the adopted system with only minor variations in the installation and operational requirements.

Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1967. Under the procedural rules of the Federal Highway Administration, any person adversely affected by this order may petition the Administrator under Part 216, Subchapter B, Section 216.31 or Section 216.35, published in the Federal Register on November 17, 1967, a copy of which is enclosed. No petition of the adopted requirements for school bus signal lamps has been filed.

Although we do not dispute the safety benefits which Mr. Johnson claims for a six-lamp system, I must emphasize that our long-range objective is the adoption of one nationwide system. Even with the presently adopted systems, a motorist could be faced with the problem of interpreting two sets of signals during a very short time period. This problem will become more prevalent with the anticipated increase in rapid interstate traffic. To permit the use of a third optional system, six-lamp or other, would further complicate the situation.

Standard No. 108 applies only to new school buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1969. Retrofitting of buses presently in operation is not required. Since Iowa's fleet of buses is presently equipped with a six-lamp system, it appears that considerable data on the effectiveness of this system could be accumulated from this fleet during the next several years, or until such time that a single nationwide system is proposed. We will be pleased to carefully review and consider any such data which Mr. Johnson can provide in the future.

In summary, it is the position of this Bureau that the provision of Standard No. 108 permitting optional use of either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system is reasonable, practicable and in the interest of highway safety. Therefore, we do not believe that a change in this provision to permit optional use of a third or six-lamp system is justified.

We have reviewed our files with respect to the written and personal contacts Mr. Arthur Roberts, Director of Pupil Transportation, has had with this Bureau.

This review indicates that the correspondence from Mr. Roberts was submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Standard No. 112 (subsequently combined with Standard No. 108) as published in the Federal Register on February 3, 1967. It is not the practice of the Bureau to reply individually to the numerous responses received from published rule making notices, which often run to thousands of pages. However, a summary of the comments represented by the responses and the disposition of these comments is presented in the preamble to Standard No. 108 as published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1967. With respect to Mr. Roberts visit on May 7, 1968, the topics of discussion related primarily to the technical requirements of Standard No. 108 and other information relative to the merits of converting Iowa's school buses to either the four-lamp or eight-lamp system. Our understanding was that Mr. Roberts received the information he was seeking at the time of his visit and that no follow-up correspondence was necessary on our part.

ID: nht94-1.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs, MCI/TMC (Manitoba)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 7/30/93 from C.N. (Norm) Littler to Mary Versailles (OCC 8951)

TEXT:

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 t o 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. S1381 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 comm ercial 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, andy device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal m otor 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 n or 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 an 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 ne w 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 consider the vehicle to be new if the chassis lac ks 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.