ID: nht75-3.5

DATE: 07/07/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1975, requesting answers to two questions "relating to the requirements for 16 or 18 gage wire specified by [SAE Standard] J589" ["Turn Signal Switches"] in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You first asked:

"1. Once the switch has met test requirements using the 16 or 18 gage wire, can a switch manufacturer change the wire gage to a smaller or larger size for installation and use on a vehicle?"

We are uncertain as to what you mean. If you intended to refer to the vehicle manufacturer, the answer to the question is yes. He may use a gage other than 16 or 18 when the switch is installed in his vehicle. The test set forth in J589 is a laboratory test measuring voltage drop that must be met by a switch when 16 or 18 gage wire is used.

You next asked:

"2. Would a switch which was tested with other than 16 or 18 gage wire (larger or smaller) meet the certification requirements of Part 567 of the federal standards?"

When a manufacturer certifies conformance to Standard No. 108, he is indicating that the turn signal switch will meet the requirements of SAE J589 if tested with 16 or 18 gage wire. He may use any method he chooses to ensure this. This agency does not, through its certification requirements or otherwise, instruct manufacturers how to test their products.

Thank you for your suggestion that we amend Standard No. 108 to incorporate SAE J589 which does not specify the gage of wire for test purposes. We have already proposed adoption of J589b in Notice 3 of Docket No. 69-19.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

May 21, 1975

File No.: 61.A1588.A3107

James C. Schultz -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schultz:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 specifies that signal switches meet the requirements of SAE J589. The durability test for switches in J589 states among other things that the voltage drop from the input terminal of the switch to each lamp terminal (including 3 inches of No. 16 or 18 gage wire from each side of the switch) should be measured at the beginning and at intervals of not more than 25,000 cycles during and upon completion of the test.

We would like answers to the following questions relating to the requirements for 16 or 18 gage wire specified by J589.

1. Once the switch has met test requirements using the 16 or 18 gage wire, can a switch manufacturer change the wire gage to a smaller or larger size for installation and use on a vehicle?

2. Would a switch which was tested with other than 16 or 18 gage wire (larger or smaller) meet the certification requirements of Part 567 of the federal standards?

We also note that the current version of J589 is J589b. This version does not specify the gage of wire for test purposes. If the answer to question one above is yes, we strongly recommend that consideration be given to amending Federal Standard No. 108 to indicate that switches meet the requirements of SAE J589b instead of J589.

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEATH -- Commander Engineering Section, DEPT. OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

ID: nht75-3.50

DATE: 06/10/75

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

TO: Volvo of American Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volvo of America Corporation's May 9, 1975, request for reconsideration of the NHTSA's March 31, 1975, determination that a Volvo brake system that employs air pressure modulated by the vehicle operator to provide the energy used to actuate the brake is an air brake system subject to Standard No. 121, Air brake Systems.

Having reviewed all of the data submitted with your letter, it is concluded that the Volvo system is an air brake system subject to Standard No. 121. In the development of separate air brake and hydraulic brake system standards, the NHTSA had to make a determination of the status of brake systems which employ both air and hydraulic fluid as a means of transmitting force to the vehicle brakes. The agency decided that use of air as a means of power and transmission of the brake force would quality the system as an air brake system. This decision permits manufacturers to determine with certainty whether a standard applies to their products.

Since the withdrawal of applicability to trucks of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, our decision has had the beneficial effect of ensuring that "air over hydraulic" systems are subject to a braking standard. If you are aware of any adverse safety consequences of our decision, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely,

May 9, 1975

James Schultz, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for interpretation, FMVSS 105-75 - Hydraulic Brake Systems, and FMVSS 121 - Air Brake Systems

This correspondence is a follow-up to our request for interpretation dated March 3, 1975, your response dated March 31, 1975, and a subsequent telephone conversation between the undersigned and Mr. Richard Dyson, Esq. of your office.

In our March 3rd request we described a somewhat unique truck service brake system employing both air and hydraulic subsystems and asked for your concurrence that the described system was in fact a "hydraulic brake system" with a "brake power unit" as defined in 571.105-75 S4 and, therefore, not subject to the requirements of 571.121. In your March 31st response you disagreed with Volvo's proposed interpretation, stating in part that the system in question appeared to be an "air over hydraulic" system and cited an earlier interpretation contained in the preamble to 571.121 which defines the term "air brake system" as including brake configurations commonly referred to as "air over hydraulic", in which failure of either medium can result in complete loss of braking ability.

Having reviewed your response very carefully, we are presently of the opinion that your classification of the described Volvo brake system as "air over hydraulic" may be somewhat arbitrary and it appears you may have overlooked some important characteristics of the system. This could be in part due to overly simplified technical information supplied with our original request. It is, therefore, our intention to submit more detailed technical information as well as additional arguments to support our position at this time, in hopes that you will review and revise your original interpretation.

It is Volvo's contention that the brake system in question is a "Hydraulic brake system" as defined in 571.105-75 S4 in that it uses hydraulic fluid as the primary medium for transmitting force from the service brake control to the service brake and in that it incorporates a "brake power unit" as also defined in S4. The "brake power unit" provides the energy required to actuate the brakes, with operator action consisting of only modulating the energy application level. It is our belief that the subject Volvo system, to be described more fully, is in principal identical to currently used hydraulic brake systems in all major respects, except that it is a power brake and that the energy source which the driver modulates happens to be derived from compressed air rather than vacuum or hydraulic pressure. This single factor is not, in our opinion, decisive for classifying the Volvo system as an "air brake system", inasmuch as failure of a single air or hydraulic subsystem will not result in complete loss of braking ability, as you imply is the case with "air over hydraulic" systems.

A complete set of specifications and working description of the Volvo brake system in question, including illustrations and braking performance characteristics, is provided as Attachment No. I. Additionally, we are providing as Attachment No. II a group of pictorials depicting the actual layout of the components on the truck chassis.

The subject Volvo brake system has the following major characteristics in common with other truck "hydraulic brake systems":

1. The main chassis plumbing consists of hydraulic lines connecting the master cylinders to the wheel brake cylinders.

2. The medium transmitting force between the master cylinders and the wheel brake cylinders is hydraulic brake fluid.

3. The brake shoes are activated by hydraulic wheel cylinders.

In addition to the mentioned similarities, the subject Volvo brake system offers the following features and characteristics which we believe are superior to most current truck hydraulic brake systems:

1. Volvo offers a "split service brake system" with completely independent hydraulic circuits for the front and rear axles. plus split "brake power" (air) circuits which are isolated from each other and other air powered equipment in case of leakage.

2. We are confident that Volvo trucks equipped with the subject system offer stopping performance which is superior to most competitive trucks with hydraulic system in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 393.40.

3. Volvo offers an air controlled parking brake system which can be effectively modulated and used for emergency braking.

4. The Volvo system includes a load sensitive valve which proportions hydraulic pressure to the rear axle.

The air portion of the subject Volvo brake system, as described in principal in Attachment No. I, will meet all applicable requirements of 571.121 S5.1. Additionally, the hydraulic fluid used meets the requirements of 571.116, and all brake hoses, both air and hydraulic, meet the requirements of 571.106.

We hope that the foregoing information and discussion will enable your office to revise its previous interpretation rendered to us on this topic. Before reaching a final decision, however, we would welcome an opportunity to meet with your technical and legal personnel to discuss the Volvo braking system in detail, and to further clarify our position in this matter. Due to pressing time constraints, we would appreciate your cooperation in arranging such a meeting before the end of May, 1975.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development

Donald W. Taylor Manager, Product Safety & Quality

cc: B. Klingenberg/Truck Div.

ID: nht75-3.6

DATE: 11/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1975, in which you request an interpretation of Standard No. 301 as it applies to a vehicle with an electric fuel pump that operates only when the ignition switch is in the "ON" position and the engine oil pressure is within the normal operating range.

You indicate in your letter that, in effect, the fuel pump can only operate when the vehicle's engine is running. Paragraph S7.1.3 of Standard No. 301 requires that an electrically driven fuel pump be operating at the time of the crash tests if the pump "normally runs when the vehicle's electrical system is activated." It appears from your letter that activation of the electrical system by switching the ignition to "ON" will not by itself activate the fuel pump. As a result, the pump need not be operating at the time of the crash tests.

SINCERELY,

October 14, 1975

Richard Dyson NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Department of Transportation

This is to request your official interpretation as to the applicability of S7.1.3 of F.M.V.S.S. 301 to the system described below.

The fuel pump is electrically driven but operates only when the ignition switch is in the 'ON' position and the engine oil pressure is within the normal operating range. The engine must be running in order to produce this condition.

Your earliest response in this matter would be appreciated.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Assistant Manager Safety & Environmental Activities

ID: nht75-3.7

DATE: 11/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 15, 1975, in which you request an interpretation of paragraph S7.1.3 of Standard No. 301, as to whether it is permissible to stop an electric fuel pump prior to the rollover test.

Paragraph S7.1.3 provides that "If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump that normally runs when the vehicle's electrical system is activated, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash." The static rollover test specified by S6.4 is not a barrier crash, and therefore is not covered by S7.1.3. In the amendments to Standard No. 301 published on October 15, 1975 (40 FR 48352), the addition of the phrase "In meeting the requirements of S6.1 through S6.3" to S7.1.3 clarifies the intent of the agency not to require that an electric fuel pump be operating at the time of the rollover test, because the rollover test is required by paragraph S6.4. Therefore, you may turn off the pump if it is still working at the time of the static rollover test.

SINCERELY,

October 15, 1975

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I would like to ask your interpretation of the following phrase which is found in MVSS 301, S.7.1.3 :

"at the time of the barrier crash"

My understanding is that this phrase means that we should turn on the electric system which activates the electric fuel pump before the barrier crash test and leave it on through the subsequent roll over test.

The breakage of the battery and the wiring disconnection, due to the crash, may or may not stop the electric fuel pump, but if it is still working, we should not turn off the switch.

Is my understanding on the above mentioned phrase correct, or may we turn off the pump if it is still working during the roll over test?

Your interpretation on the above will be greatly appreciated.

There may have been a discussion on this matter before. It would be a great help if you could send us the documents on the resolution of that discussion.

Thank you.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Naoyoshi Suzuki

Staff, Safety

ID: nht75-3.8

DATE: 09/16/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Hardy Heater Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, in which you inquire as to any rules and regulations to which you may be subject with respect to your pre-heater defroster. Your letter was referred to this office by the Environmental Protection Agency.

We assume, from the material submitted with your letter, that your pre-heater is sold for installation in used cars and supplements the vehicle's existing defrosting system. If our assumption is incorrect, please advise us. If your pre-heater is installed in a motor vehicle prior to its first purchase or if it replaces an existing defrosting system, you will be subject to regulations in addition to those mentioned in this letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop may not render inoperative any safety device or design in a motor vehicle after its first purchase by the owner. This means that the installation of the pre-heater must not take the vehicle out of compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. The standard with which you will likely be most concerned is Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems (copy enclosed).

(Graphics omitted)

In addition, if the fuel used in your pre-heater has a boiling point greater than 32 degrees F, you must ensure that the pre-heater fuel system complies with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (copy enclosed).

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

YOURS TRULY

THE HARDY HEATER COMPANY

July 30, 1975

Director E. P. A.

I am having manufactured and will market a pre-heater defroster for auto's as shown in the attached documents which are a part of my (Illegible Words).

Please advise me if I am required by rules, regulations or otherwise to obtain any (Illegible Word)) permits to prior to marketing my heater nationwide.

As you (Illegible Words) cylinder of L. P. (Illegible Words) am primarily concerned with any legal requirement with respect its use in automobiles.

I will appreciate any information on the subject.

Frank Hardy

Teddy's drivers in cold climates are not satisfied each day entering a miserably cold auto, with limited or no vision because of condensation, frost, ice, snow, build-up on the glassed areas.

A majority of the over 80 million cars on our highways, and the over 10 million being built each year, need this heater to provide a warm, safe comfortable car from the start. This device fills a gap that has been completely overlooked in automotive engineering.

Please note how many vehicles you see on the highway, especially in the morning, in cooler climates, driving virtually blind, until the standard heater defroster clears the glass area. My heater eliminates this dangerous condition, and provides a comfortable temperature inside the car from the start.

A common cold weather practice is to start the auto engine on cold mornings and let it set and run until the conventional heating process warms and defrosts the car. This practice causes excessive engine wear and long periods of cold engine idle, which is a major factor in air pollution by automobiles. This inconvenience, wear, and pollution can be eliminated with the use of my heater.

Volume sales will be to gasoline powered vehicles; however, it will be a natural as an inducement for all who are thinking of conversion or have converted to propane from gasoline as a motor fuel, as certain basic components such as fuel tank controls, etc., could serve both installations.

Attached is information on a unique gas fired auxiliary and independent automobile heater, that will eliminate the misery and danger of a cold automobile, with frosted glass area, when you first enter it in cold weather. It can provide home-like comfort 24 hours a day, or may be shut off to automatically come on several hours before returning to the car, at which time it will be heated and frost free for safe and comfortable driving from the start.

I have a patent pending for this heater, and am interested in working with a manufacturer for mutual benefits in the production and sale of this item.

I am available for an interview to discuss any ideas or interest you might have concerning my situation.

Warren Frank Hardy

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-3.9

DATE: 11/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 24, 1975, in which you ask whether it is permissible to test certain 1978 vehicles for compliance with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, with open vapor vent tube pressure relief valves.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not specify the tests which you must perform. They do specify the conditions and procedures under which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will conduct its compliance testing. S7.1.1 and S7.1.2 of Standard No. 301 specify that the vehicle's fuel system shall contain Stoddard solvent rather than fuel and, by implication, that the engine shall not be running. If, as you indicate, one consequence of the engine's not running is that a certain pressure relief valve in the vapor vent tube is closed, then that valve must remain closed during the NHTSA's compliance testing; the existing standard could not be interpreted otherwise. Although in an actual collision any rollover would probably occur immediately after the initial impact, in some accidents vehicle occupants would be trapped for some period of time after rollover. Therefore, we do not consider that this interpretation creates, as you suggest, an artificial condition by subjecting the fuel tank to a potential vapor pressure build-up during preparation for the rollover test.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

September 24, 1975

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

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Re: Request for Interpretation in Relation to Conducting FMVSS 301-75 Tests with Proposed 1978 Evaporative Emission System

In preparing for compliance with 1978 California SHED evaporative emission requirements (presently under consideration by EPA for application in all areas), Ford Motor Company (Ford) is considering modifications to the fuel tank vapor venting system. At this time, Ford's primary design direction for certain of its 1978 vehicles is to incorporate a pressure relief valve in the vapor vent tube between the fuel tank vapor separator/rollover valve and the carbon canister (see Attachment).

When the engine is operating, this pressure relief valve will be open and the fuel tank will vent in a normal manner through the carbon canister. When testing according to the procedure set forth in FMVSS 301-75, the pressure relief valve would be closed, contrary to its normal open position when the engine is operating, and such closure would prevent venting of vapor from the fuel tank into the carbon canister. As a result, vapor pressure could build up within the fuel tank during FMVSS 301-75 testing, and indeed would do so if the fuel tank were exposed to elevated ambient temperatures during the substantial time period (in some instances several hours) required to ready the test vehicle for the rollover test following an impact test. If such pressure built up, it (taken together with the hydrostatic pressure of the Stoddard solvent in the tank) might force open the vacuum/pressure valve in the fuel tank cap and permit leakage through that valve (cap).

Such leakage would not occur in an accident involving a rollover because, in such a situation, vapor pressure would not build up in the fuel tank, and therefore, the vacuum/pressure valve in the cap would not open. Any rollover of the vehicle that may occur would happen immediately after the collision, before vapor pressure build-up. Hence the vacuum/pressure valve (cap) would remain closed after rollover. More particularly, just before the accident, the vapor vent tube pressure relief valve would be open, preventing vapor pressure build-up.

Accordingly, Ford proposes to perform tests relating to compliance with FMVSS 301-75 with the vapor vent tube pressure relief valve open, the better to simulate actual usage conditions. Before testing in this manner, Ford would appreciate receiving assurance from the Administration that it regards as appropriate the maintaining open of this pressure relief valve during rollover tests, and would conduct in that manner its rollover tests of those Ford vehicles equipped with such a valve.

As you are undoubtedly aware, in addition to design and development work, a test program required to obtain emission certification covers a period of many months. Therefore, since Ford has only a limited time in which to develop a 1978 evaporative emission system complying with the SHED requirements, an early response to this letter is urgently requested.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. Eckhold -- Director, Automotive Safety Office, FORD MOTOR COMPANY

ATTACH.

PROPOSED 1978 EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEM

(Graphics omitted)

Automotive Safety Office September 22, 1975

ID: nht75-4.1

DATE: 11/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MOTAC, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to MOTAC's September 18, 1975, question whether rebuilding a platform trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the platform of a wrecked trailer is used (1) in combination with entirely new frame members, (2) in combination with one main frame member of the wrecked vehicle and one new frame member, and (3) in combination with part of one or both main frame members. You also ask whether the addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the deletion of one axle on a tandem axle trailer, qualifies as the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards.

In response to your first question, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined (in the Stainless Tank and Equipment letter to which you refer) that, as a minimum, the running gear and main frame of the existing trailer must be used to qualify the rebuilding operation as a repair where all other materials are new. This position does not apply to the three situations you describe in which only the main frame members, and perhaps several cross members, are replaced. Therefore a repair of this type is not considered the manufacture of a new trailer.

In response to your second question, the NHTSA would not consider the addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the removal of one axle from a tandem axle vehicle, to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle.

Sincerely,

September 18, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

We would appreciate your clarification as to the extent that major repairs and/or modifications may be made to semi-trailers and pull trailers without the inclusion of the FMVSS 121 anti-lock brakes.

We have two items or catagories that we wished resolved and they are brought about thru your letter of 8/28/75, file number N40-30 addressed to Stainless Tank and Equipment, Inc., Cottage Grove, Wisconsin. This letter was transmitted to all members of T.T.M.A.

ITEM NO. 1

Assume that a platform trailer had been in a serious accident and possibly rolled over, thereby bending and twisting the main frame members severely. We will also assume that the damage is to such an extent that the main frame members cannot be straightened, which generally can be done.

The following conditions could then prevail for the required repair:

A. Cut the damaged portion off of one or possibly both main frame rails and repair with a new partial section or sections.

B. Replace one main frame rail completely.

C. Replace both main frame rails completely.

In the above hypothesis, the "Bogie", axles, wheels, tires, supports, etc. would all be used. The trailer would maintain the same model and serial number.

In a major repair of this sort will the standard 121 brakes be required? If so, then the old axles would have to be junked and new S-121 axle assemblies with computor/relay valves must be purchased and installed.

ITEM NO. 2

Six years ago, our company manufactured thirty (30) single axle container semi-trailers and thirty (30) tandem axle container semi-trailers, 25 foot long to haul 20 foot containers. The main frame rails, bolsters, supports, etc., are identical on both trailers.

The customer is now contemplating converting the single axle semi-trailers to tandem axle semi-trailers. This will entail relocating the existing front and rear spring hangers, adding a center equalizer hanger and rocker arm assembly, one set of springs, one axle, brake, tire and wheel assembly. The trailer will be reregistered as a tandem axle semi-trailer for state licensing.

In converting a single axle semi-trailer to a tandem axle semi-trailer will the Standard 121 brakes be required? Also, conversely, if a tandem axle semi-trailer should be converted to a single axle semi-trailer will the Standard 121 brakes be required?

MOTAC, INC.

Jack A. Johnson Chief Engineer

ID: nht75-4.10

DATE: 06/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toledo Clutch & Brake Service, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 21, 1975, questions whether a 121-equipped chassis must be certified to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, after installation of a tractor conversion kit, whether an antilock wiring harness may be spliced for purposes of frame extension, whether additional weight (such as a body) or an axle may be added to a vehicle after it is sold and put into use, and whether the standard regulates the replacement of worn brake components. You state that it should be assumed that the vehicle has been delivered to the first user.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce, or importation of a vehicle which does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of manufacture. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A)). However, the Act also provides that this prohibition no longer applies to a vehicle (except in the case of importation) after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (1)). The Act also prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or design (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)).

These provisions mean that the manufacturer of the vehicle must assume responsibility for compliance and certification. Most trucks are built in several stages and completed by final-stage manufacturers like yourself. Cab-chassis are only incomplete vehicles which have not been certified, and therefore, whoever completes the vehicle and subsequently sells it or introduces it on the public highway must certify its compliance. In answer to your first question, it is the responsibility of the person who installs the fifth wheel, tractor protection system, etc., to certify compliance, whether or not the vehicle has been delivered to the first user. The owner himself would qualify as a final-stage manufacturer if he installed the conversion kit.

In answer to your third and fourth questions, the installation would be subject to certification unless it followed "the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." "Good faith" means that the first user could not, for example, buy a completed vehicle, drive it around the block and then install a non-conforming tag axle. Installation of a body after delivery to the first purchaser without compliance with Standard No. 121 would in most cases not appear to be good faith because the vehicle is not capable of use without the body.

It is permissible to make modifications to a vehicle that is already in service after the first purchase in good faith. A private party may make any change, but as noted above, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business such as yours cannot "knowingly render inoperative" a safety device in the process of modification. In answer to question number five, Standard No. 121 regulates the manufacture of new vehicles only and does not contain provisions which limit use of replacement parts. The only restriction in replacement would be to avoid knowingly rendering inoperative safety devices or design.

In answer to question number three, the standard establishes performance levels and does not contain any design requirements concerning the wiring harness of antilock systems. We would advise that you contact the antilock manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer as to the wisdom of splicing antilock wiring.

For your information, I enclose a discussion of the standard which addresses final-stage manufacture at page seven.

YOURS TRULY,

April 21, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Toledo Clutch & Brake Service, Inc. is a "Heavy Duty" brake shop. That is the majority of our sales is to fleets, school buses and off road equipment (earth moving equipment, cranes, quarry vehicles, etc.). By the nature of our business we must be and are a very safety oriented business, having held classes, clinics and seminars on brakes, brake safety and related subjects. We have followed the course of FMVSS 121 since its original proposal nearly five years ago. Our customers, and many of our competitors customers have relied on us to give them the latest up-date on FMVSS 121. However, since its implementation this year, many legal questions have arisen in the aftermarket that we feel only the Department of Transportation can clarify. We have listed a number of actual circumstances and some cases that we feel will arise in the future. We would like to have the Department of Transportations interpretation of these questions, assuming in all cases, except where noted, that the vehicle has been delivered to the first user with straight air brakes, and that any materials added comply with FMVSS 121:

1. A vehicle chassis is purchased, having no body (van, dump, stake, etc.), with the intention of converting to a tractor. Can a tractor convertion kit (hand valvue, tractor protection system and trailer outlets) be added after delivery to the first user, without recertification?

2. Can a truck frame be extended after delivery to the first user? If so, will a new anti-skid wiring harness be required or can the original one be spliced?

3. Can a tag axle be added to a vehicle that is already in service? A lift axle? A third axle to trailer? A twin screw to a tractor?

4. After delivery to the first user, can additional weight be added to a vehicle, such as saddle tanks, bodies, material to comply with up dated noise abatement laws etc?

5. When brake system parts (including foundation brake parts) wear out or become defective, through normal usage, can they be replaced with parts that are competetive with original equipment parts so long as the competetive or replacement parts are certified to comply with FMVSS 121?

Richard Schlichting President TOLEDO CLUTCH & BRAKE SERVICE, INC.

ID: nht90-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

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

TO: ROBERT A ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE, EAS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter asking for confirmation that an interpretation of a notice of proposed rulemaking remains in effect with respect to the final rule based upon that proposal. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, you reference an interpretation dated September 12, 1988, that this office provided Koito Corporation, informing it that each of the two Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) designs depicted "complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2" of Standa rd No. 108. The second design consisted of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. We informed Koito that under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for "the VHAD and head lamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD), and that this meant that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly or separate from it. However, we also cautioned that our comments were based upon the proposa l, and could change with the issuance of the final rule.

You have commented that the final rule was the same with respect to the pertinent VHAD wording. This is not entirely true. The final rule (paragraph S7.7.5.2(b)(vii)) omitted the parenthetical phrase "(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be use d ,with the VHAD). You also noted that paragraph S7.7.5.2(c)(1) of the final rule defines a headlamp assembly as "(the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism)". The intent of this language is to specify a VHAD that is a permanent part of the headlamp, and hence integral, or to have a separate VHAD that is part of the mounting mechanism. It was not meant as permitting a VHAD that could be physically separated from headlamp or the mounting mechanism. Thus, in our view and upon our fur ther consideration of the matter, a detachable VHAD does not meet the "intent" of the final rule.

This means that the spirit level design described in your letter, which is not integral to the headlamp or mounting mechanism, is not permissible. We shall provide Koito with a copy of this letter.

DATE: October 3, 1989

FROM: ROBERT A. ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: AUGUST BURGETT; BARRY FELRICE The purpose of this letter is to request that the NHTSA affirm a previous FMVSS 108 interpretation that it has issued. The interpretation involves the applicablity of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) requirements and is relevant to a design which G eneral Motors is considering.

BACKGROUND

On December 29, 1987, NHTSA published an NPRM (Dicket 85-15, Notice 5) which prrposed extensive revisions to FMVSS 108, including a provision to allow a VHAD.

In a letter dated April 8, 1988, Koito Manufacturing Company asked the agency for confirmation that two different VHAD designs that it was contemplating would comply with the proposed FMVSS 108 revisions. The second design described in the Koito lett er consists of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. Once the headlamp is aimed, the spirit level would be removed and the headlamp bulb would be reinstalled for normal operation. Th e key aspect of this design is that the VHAD is separate from, rather than integral to, the headlamp.

In responding to Koito on September 12, 1988, the agency stated:

"With respect to your two designs, you appear to have understood that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications. Under S7.7.5.2 it is the headlam p system that 'includes' a VHAD, rather than 'incorporates' it. Under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for 'The VHAD and headlamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)...' This means that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly, or separate from it (though presumably provided with the vehicle as part of its original equipment), as fits the manufacturer's design. Each of your designs complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2; however, I must emphasize that this (Notice 5) is only a proposal, and the form of a final requirement, if any, has not been determined.

On May 9, 1989, the agency issued a Final Rule (docket 85-15, Notice 8) patterned after the Notice 5 NPRM. With respect to the pertinent VHAD wording, the Final Rule was the same as the NPRM, and the preamble left unchanged the position stated above.

GENERAL MOTORE DESIGN:

The Notice 5 NPRM and Notice 8 Final Rule were partially the result of GM's petitions to permit the use of our new 55 X 135 millimeter integral beam headlamp. This new headlamp (scheduled for introduction in the 1991 model year) has been reviewed on several occasions with agency personnel. During those reviews, we indicated that the 55 X 135 would employ a spirit level VHAD that is integral to the headlamp mounting assembly.

The integral VHAD design entails four spirit levels on each vehicle - one for each headlamp. However, we have recently developed an alternative spirit level VHAD for the 55 X 135 which is not integral to the headlamp assembly. By adopting the non-in tregral VHAD, we are able to provide a single spirit level with each vehicle. This results in a significant cost saving opportunity. The proposed non-intregral VHAD would be furnished with each vehicle equipped with 55 X 135 integral beam headlamps. Th e attached sketch illustrates the VHAD we are comtemplating. To vertically aim the headlamp, the three legs of the VHAD adaptor would be held to the headlamp aiming ring, as shown in the sketch. The vertical adjusting screw on the headlamp would then b e turned to obtain a zero reading of the spirit level, just as with the earlier integral VHAD design.

As mentioned, a move to this VHAD design represents a significant cost saving opportunity for purchasers of the 55 X 135 headlamp. The separate VHAD also serves equally well as the integral VHAD in meeting the needs of motor vehicle safety.

We have carefully reviewed the wording of S7.7 of FMVSS 108, and we believe it supports the use of the separate VHAD being considered for the 55 X 135. In particular, S7.7.5.2(c)(1) explicitly comprehends a VHAD design of the type GM is developing.

Like Koito, GM understands "...that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications". We also believe that this intent is carried forward to the Final Rul e, since the pertinent wording was unchanged.

However, given that the agency emphasized that its September 12, 1988, comments were based on an NPRM only, we seek confirmation that the agency's interpretation of the actual standard is the same as the September 12 interpretation of the NRPM.

ID: nht90-2.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Lloyd Bentsen -- U.S. Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-90 To Jerry Ralph Curry and From Lloyd Bentsen; Also attached to letter dated 2-12-90 To Lloyd Bentsen and From Johannah Bonewald; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 To All Ford Rent- A-Car System Members and Fro m W.A. Jacques

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curry on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. The Administrator has asked me to reply. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out Ford's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and as ked for additional information about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information.

Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that tbe vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends tba t dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from tbe customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equi pment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new "school buses," which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are "sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a "school bus" for the purposes of the safety standards.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle manufactured on or aft er the date any applicable safety standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to

sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for, ensuring tbat the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applicable scbool bus standards.

The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of "school bus," that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportat ion, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statement indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified sch ool bus.

Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of tbe vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, the person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students i s not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person wbo plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicle is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards.

Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are "probably the biggest customer" Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either:

a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation.

Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact the State government to learn more about a ny State requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses.

Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety consid erations, NHTSA endorses Ford's

recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes.

I hope this information is helpful in responding to youCr constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional infor mation.