ID: nht79-1.20

DATE: 09/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer, Regulatory Affairs Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Friberg:

This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1979, and your telephone conversations with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) states that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. "Line" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type." "Series" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line,' denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes."

In Volvo's view, the only "line" it markets in the United States is the "200-series." Within this line, there are several models differentiated by body style and number of engine cylinders. Each model is offered in several different "sales versions," designated by a two- or three-letter suffix. Sales versions differ as to trim, upholstery, and other items which Volvo has designated as cosmetic. It is Volvo's desire not to encode the particular sales version of the vehicle in its VIN.

Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that each "sales version" could also be designated a "series" if Volvo desired. Nonetheless, the definition of "series" makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the "series" designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality of the differences between the potential series, the agency will not require such a designation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 5, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS No. 115

Dear Mr. Levin:

Section 4.5.2 of FMVSS No. 115 states that the second section (Vehicle Attributes section) of the VIN shall consist of five characters which shall uniquely identify attributes which, for passenger cars, must include line, series, body type, engine type, gross vehicle weight rating and restraint system type. Section 3 defines "series" as a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of a "line" denoting price, size or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes.

Currently, Volvo markets only one line of passenger cars in the United States, the "200-series" which includes 2-door and 4-door sedans, 2-door coupe, and station wagon body types. Except for the differences dictated by body type, U.S. Volvo car models share the same chassis, suspension and, to a great degree, body components. In fact it can be said that, except for minor cosmetic differences, all Volvo cars of a given model year and body type are basically the same in structure and appearance.

These minor differences are denoted by a "sales version" suffix which is a two or three-letter designation. The sales version's currently available in the U.S. are DL, GL, GLE, and GT. (A further designation, C, is used to designate the coupe, which is actually a different body type.) The cosmetic differences denoted by sales version may include such items as:

Grille Emblem Wheel Design Electric Mirrors Leather Upholstery Front Spoiler Rectangular Headlamps Tachometer Fog Lamps The distinction between sales version is further diluted by the fact that most of the components listed are available as options, and many Volvo owners select these options so that their car more closely resembles a higher priced version.

In future model Volvos, the sales version may also designate engine type (number of cylinders, gasoline or diesel). However, this information is coded elsewhere in the Vehicle Attributes section of the VIN.

While sales version may have some slight impact on retail price, this is determined to a far greater extent by body type, engine type, and the options chosen by the purchaser.

It is our interpretation that sales version, as described above, must not necessarily be decipherable from the VIN. Please advise as to whether you agree with this interpretation.

If I can be of any assistance in this matter, please feel free to call.

Sincerely yours,

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning and Development

Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer, Regulatory Affairs

NF/EB

ID: nht94-4.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 21, 1994

FROM: Scott E. Peters -- Director, Regulations & Compliance, U.S. Electricar

TO: Phil Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Interpretation Regarding Tire Loads for Electric Vehicles

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/13/95 LETTER FROM PHIL RECHT TO SCOTT E. PETERS (STD. 110)

TEXT: U.S. Electricar is a California corporation which manufactures electric vehicles, including the Electricar Pickup (converted Chevrolet S-10) and the Electricar Sedan (converted GEO Prizm). The Electricar Pickup is fully FMVSS certified while the Electri car Sedan is currently built under NHTSA temporary FMVSS exemption 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. We are aggressively pursuing development of the Sedan and expect to achieve full FMVSS certification within several months.

As you are aware, production electric vehicle development is fairly recent and most of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were not written with electric vehicles in mind. We occassionally come across a Safety Standard provision which does not se em applicable to electric vehicles because of their special operating characteristics and limitations compared to traditional internal combustion powered vehicles. Section 4.4.2 of Standard No. 110 is such an example, and we believe this section is not relevant to our particular electric passenger car (the Electricar Sedan), with a speed and speed/endurance limitation substantially below almost any internal combustion powered passenger car.

The purpose of Standard No. 110 is to ensure proper tire selection in order to prevent tire overloading, and thus prevent tire failure. Section 4.2.1 requires that vehicle maximum load on each tire shall not be greater than the maximum tire load rating as specified in one of the tire industry publications listed in Standard No. 109. This section alone prevents tire overloading as long as high speed operation is not a factor.

Section 4.2.2 of Standard No. 110 states that the normal load on the tire shall not exceed the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109. The test load is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating. As sp ecified in S5.5.4 of Standard No. 109, tires at this test load must operate at speeds of 75 mph for 30 minutes, 80 mph for 30 minutes and 85 mph for 30 minutes. It is our understanding that the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 is to ensure against ti re failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher.

It is our interpretation that Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 is not intended to apply to the Electricar Sedan and other electric passenger cars in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration. The Electricar Sedan is ba rely capable of reaching a speed of 75 mph, and could not maintain this speed for more than a few minutes due to the extremely high power requirements and limited energy stored on-board in the vehicle's batteries.

Electric vehicles are intended for use in urban areas with air quality problems and are not suitable for operation at prolonged freeway speeds because of their range limitations. To maximize range and reliability in the Electricar Sedan, the top speed i s limited by software in the vehicle's electronic power control unit. The drag limited speed (non-software governed) is also below most of the "high speed" figures cited in Standard 109, S5.5.4.

Optimizing tire size is an ongoing challenge in electric vehicle development. Because of the weight added in the electric conversion process, original tires must generally be replaced with larger tires which have a higher load capacity. Larger tires on c onverted electric vehicles have the disadvantages of increased rolling resistance and reduced tire clearance and turning radius compared to the original vehicle. Increased rolling resistance lowers the vehicle operating range, a factor which is critical in the acceptance of electric vehicles by both fleet users and the general public. Section 4.2.2 of Standard 110 is based on the load-carrying capacity of tires at high speeds and would require the use of tires which are larger than those needed for co mpliance with S4.2.1 and larger than we believe are required for the safe operation of an electric passenger car with limited speed and speed/endurance capability.

Would you please review Standard 110, S4.2.2 in light of the performance limitations of our electric passenger car and provide us with your interpretation as to the applicability of this section to the Electricar Sedan described above.

Please contact me if I can provide additional information for your consideration of our request.

ID: nht73-1.6

DATE: 09/11/73

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

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 8, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking for confirmation of your interpretation of two sections of Standard No. 105a.

You ask first whether S5.3.1 requires that the activation of an indicator lamp upon application of 50 pounds of force be instantaneous, or whether a minimal time lag is permissible. You indicate that in a "panic stop" there is a time lag of approximately 100 milliseconds between application of 50 pounds of force and lamp activities in the VW system. Since, as you state, it is "humanly impossible" to discern such a minimal time lag, we consider that the VW system complies with S5.3.1, and that the lamp is activated upon application of 50 pounds of force.

You are also correct in your interpretation of S5.2.1 that the 5-minute requirement applies only to vehicles that do not exceed the limit of traction on a 30 percent grade.

Sincerely,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

August 8, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This letter is a request for interpretation of certain language in S5.3.1 and S5.2.1 of FMVSS 105a, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

In regard to this matter a meeting was held on August 6, 1973 with personnel of the NHTSA and Volkswagen representatives. In attendance were Messrs. Taylor Vincent, E. Driver, C. Baker and V. Bloom of the NHTSA, and Messrs. G. Riechel, J. Kennebeck and K.H. Ziwica of Volkswagen of America.

1. S5.3.1 provides that "an indicator lamp shall be activated when the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" (run) position and whenever any of the following conditions occur: (a) a pressure failure in any part of the service brake system, other than a structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems, before or upon application of either (1) . . . or (2) 50 pounds of control force upon a fully manual service brake".

In the above mentioned meeting with the NHTSA, VW representatives described the conditions under which the brake failure system used by Volkswagen actuates if a failure in one of the subsystems has occurred. By using a normal or slow force application rate as shown in example "d" of attachment I, the failure indicator lamp will be activated before 50 pounds of control force are reached. By using a very fast application rate as shown in example "b" of attachment I, the indicator lamp will be activated with a certain time lag from the point where 50 pounds are reached. This characteristic is further illustrated in attachment II containing test data of a very slow control force application, and in attachment III for a panic brake force application.

In the discussion with the NHTSA representatives there was agreement that in regard to a fast control force application the wording in S5.3.1(a) "upon application of 50 pounds" does not mean that the failure indicator light must be activated instantaneously if a 50 pound control force is reached, but rather a certain time lag would be permissible before the warning light illuminates. For the panic brake situation, a time lag of approximately 100 ms, after 50 pounds control force are reached, was considered reasonable.

Based on the above mentioned discussion, we would appreciate it if you would provide us with written confirmation indicating that with a fast control force application the wording "upon application of 50 pounds" in S5.3.1(a) does not prohibit a reasonable time lag before the failure indicator lamp is activated. We want to emphasize that this interpretation would not detract from the safety intent of the requirement for failure indicators, as it is humanly impossible to discern such a minimal time lag.

2. According to S5.2.1, a parking brake system of a passenger car "shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the limit of traction of the braked wheels) for five minutes".

It is our understanding from the aforementioned discussion with the NHTSA personnel that the five minute requirement only applies to a vehicle which is able to be kept stationary by its parking brake at 30% inclination. A vehicle which slides down the 30% inclination with wheels locked by the parking brake is not required to meet the five minute requirement.

We also would appreciate receiving your written confirmation to this interpretation of S5.2.1 of FMVSS 105a.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

J.W. Kennebeck --

Manager,

Safety and Development

(Graphics omitted)

Attachment B

Broke Pedal applied very fast failure induced in rear circuit

ID: 10644

Mr. Ralph T. Welch
840 SE Summit Drive
Roseburg, OR 97470

Dear Mr. Welch:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) specify "the type of odometer" placed in a motor vehicle. As explained below, the FMVSS do not so specify. If an odometer is provided, its mileage may be stated in kilometers.

Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. Neither Standard No. 101 nor any other FMVSS specifies that an odometer be placed in a motor vehicle or that it register distance in miles, rather than kilometers. However, S5.3.1 (referencing Table 2 "Identification and Illumination of Displays") of Standard No. 101, specifies that if an odometer is provided and the odometer measures mileage in kilometers, the mileage must be stated as "KILOMETERS" or "km."

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:101 d:4/10/95

ID: nht95-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ralph T. Welch

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/5/95 LETTER FROM RALPH T. WELCH TO NHTSA (OCC 10644)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Welch:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) specify "the type of odometer" placed in a motor vehicle. As explained below, the FMVSS do not so specify. If an odometer is provided, its mi leage may be stated in kilometers.

Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. Neither Standard No. 101 nor any other FMVSS specifies that an odometer be placed in a motor vehic le or that it register distance in miles, rather than kilometers. However, S5.3.1 (referencing Table 2 "Identification and Illumination of Displays") of Standard No. 101, specifies that if an odometer is provided and the odometer measures mileage in kil ometers, the mileage must be stated as "KILOMETERS" or "km."

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

ID: nht73-6.16

DATE: 02/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 31, 1973, in which you asked us to confirm your "understanding that FMVSS No. 121 will not apply to fire-fighting vehicles until 1 September 1976, two years from the effective date." In general, you suggest that "we would expect to comply with FMVSS [for firefighting vehicles] within two years after the effective date or two years from the date of publication of the FMVSS, whichever date occurs later".

You have misread the relevant language of 49 CFR @571.8. That section provides that the effective date of a standard as applied to firefighting vehicles is "either 2 years after the date on which such standard or amendment is published in the Rules and Regulations section of the Federal Register, or the effective date specified in the notice, whichever is later", except as otherwise specified in the standard with reference to those vehicles. The alternatives are thus (a) 2 years after the publication date, or (b) the effective date, whichever is later -- not 2 years after the effective date, as you have read it.

Your reading would not be reasonable; since the effective date cannot be before the publication date, there would be no point to the alternative phrasing.

ID: aiam4362

Dear Mr. Murtha: Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Offic of Congressional Affairs, which has been referred to me for a response. In an addendum enclosed with your letter, you note that one of your constituents, Mr. Gene Bird, would like information on the Federal regulations addressing 'completing the finishing work on automobiles.' Apparently, another manufacturer would send small sports cars to Mr. Bird's business. Your addendum states that these sports cars 'will need the following type of work done: installation of the engine, components, radiators, interiors, and the cars will finally have to be tested.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.; By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) requires *every* new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act also specifies that the manufacturer *itself* must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not 'approve' any vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.; Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer' certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all. The Safety Act only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of 'due care' on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the safety standards. We would certainly recommend that a new manufacturer test some of its vehicles for compliance with the applicable safety standards.; It is not entirely clear from your addendum whether Mr. Bird would b classified as an 'alterer' or a 'final stage manufacturer' under our regulations. His company would be considered an 'alterer' of motor vehicles, if the second company referred to in your addendum furnishes completed and certified sports car to Mr. Bird's company, and Mr. Bird's company changes the engine and other components on those vehicles. If this is the contemplated action, Mr. Bird's company would be treated as an alterer under our regulations.; The certification requirements for alterers are set forth in 49 CF S567.7 (copy enclosed). Generally speaking, that section requires a person who alters a vehicle before its first purchase to supplement the certification label affixed by the original manufacturer with its own certification label. The alterer's certification label must include all of the information set forth in Part 567, including a statement that the altered vehicle complies will all applicable safety standards in effect on the date the vehicle was altered. In the case of sports cars, an alterer must certify that the altered car complies with all of the following:; >>>49 CFR S571.101 *Controls and Displays*, 49 CFR S571.102 *Transmission Shift Level Sequence*, 49 CFR S571.103 *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems*, 49 CFR S571.104 *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems*, 49 CFR S571.105 *Hydraulic Brake Systems*, 49 CFR S571.106 *Brake Hoses*, 49 CFR S571.107 *Reflecting Surfaces*, 49 CFR S571.108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, 49 CFR S571.110 *Tire Selection and Rims*, 49 CFR S571.111 *Rearview Mirrors*, 49 CFR S571.112 *Headlamp Concealment Devices*, 49 CFR S571.113 *Hood Latch System*, 49 CFR S571.114 *Theft Protection*, 49 CFR S571.115 *Vehicle Identification Number*, 49 CFR S571.116 *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*, 49 CFR S571.118 *Power-operated Window Systems*, 49 CFR S571.124 *Accelerator Control Systems*, 49 CFR S571.201 *Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts*, 49 CFR S571.202 *Head Restraints*, 49 CFR S571.203 *Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steerin Column*,; 49 CFR S571.204 *Steering Control Rearward Displacement*, 49 CFR S571.205 *Glazing Materials*, 49 CFR S571.206 *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*, 49 CFR S571.207 *Seating Systems*, 49 CFR S571.208 *Occupant Crash Protection*, 49 CFR S571.209 *Seat Belt Assemblies*, 49 CFR S571.210 *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, 49 CFR S571.211 *Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps*, 49 CFR S571.212 *Windshield Mounting*, 49 CFR S571.214 *Side Door Strength*, 49 CFR S571.216 *Roof Crush Resistance*, 49 CFR S571.219 *Windshield Zone Intrusion*, 49 CFR S571.301 *Fuel System Integrity*, and 49 CFR S571.302 *Flammability of Interior Materials*.<<< Alternatively, Mr. Bird's company may be treated as a 'final stag manufacturer,' as that term is defined at 49 CFR S568.4. A final stage manufacturer means a person who finishes the manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle. Thus, if the second company referred to in your addendum is planning to furnish Mr. Bird's company with sports cars that have no engine, radiator, and so forth, the vehicles provided to Mr. Bird's company would be considered 'incomplete vehicles' and Mr. Bird's company would be considered a 'final stage manufacturer.'; If this is the case, Mr. Bird's certification responsibilities depen on the information he is provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle, i.e., the second company referred to in your addendum. Part 568 (copy enclosed) requires the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle to furnish Mr. Bird's company with a document that states one of three things for the incomplete vehicle. These are:; >>>1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of th applicable safety standards *if* no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle.<<<; If Mr. Bird receives such a document and does not make any of th specified alterations, his company could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(C)(7). Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.; >>>2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of th applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final stage manufacturer.<<<; If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his situation will be ver similar to that described above. That is, if his company follows the specific conditions, it could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(c)(7). Again, Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.; >>>3. Conformity with some or all of the standards is not substantiall affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.<<<; If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his company would b required to certify compliance with the standards identified in the document on its own. This type of document would put Mr. Bird's company in the same position as an alterer for the listed standards.; I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturer of motor vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations that may apply and explains how to get copies of our regulations. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please contact this office.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Melvin Krewall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division Oklahoma State Department of Education 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-4599,

Dear Mr. Krewall:

This responds to your March 28, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning NHTSA's safety standards for school buses. You specifically asked, "May an air conditioner be mounted on the outside roof portion of a school bus without violating any FMVSS.?"

The answer to your question depends on the nature of the person making the modification to the school bus and whether the modification of the school bus will negatively affect the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), which authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from rendering inoperative equipment or designs incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. S108(a)(2)(A). A person in the aforementioned categories could install an air conditioner on the roof of a school bus if, in so doing, he or she did not violate S108(a)(2)(A) by rendering inoperative the compliance of equipment or designs incorporated in the school bus. For example, that person could not modify the school bus in such a way as to render inoperative a school bus roof emergency exit installed pursuant to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Please note that the prohibition in S108(a)(2)(A) applies only to motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. It does not apply to an owner, such as a state or a school, which modifies its own vehicles. Thus, an owner may make any modification that it chooses to its buses. Such action does not violate the Vehicle Safety Act or render the owner subject to any penalty under the Act. However, private liability might occur if the modifications took the school bus out of compliance with the safety standards and if a student were subsequently injured in the school bus. The issue of private liability, as well as any state prohibitions against operating a noncomplying school bus, should be discussed with your attorney and insurance company.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

March 28, 1985

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is intended to formalize the telephone conversation we had with Mr. David Soule of your staff.

The question has been raised in our state, may an air conditioner be mounted on the outside roof portion of a school bus without violating any FMVSS?"

We appreciate your efforts in responding to our concerns. If you need additional information, please contact me at (405) 521-3472.

Sincerely,

Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division

MK:bam

ID: 9731

Mr. Gilbert Gallahar
Kings Environmental Hydrogen Systems
P.O. Box 713
Marana, AZ 85653

Dear Mr. Gallahar:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to an on-board hydrogen generator used on an internal combustion engine to control exhaust emissions. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, including an on-board hydrogen generator.

NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Please note that no FMVSS would preclude the installation of your product as an item of original equipment. Nevertheless, if your device were installed on a new vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer or an alterer before the first consumer purchase, then they would have to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

A commercial business that installs the on-board hydrogen generator would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

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

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs. For instance, compliance with FMVSS No. 301 might be degraded if the hydrogen generator affected the integrity of a motor vehicle fuel system. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install an on-board hydrogen generator in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You may wish to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for any questions concerning emissions and air quality. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. You may also wish to contact the state of Arizona for information on its emissions testing regulations.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:301 d:5/18/94

ID: 77-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Robert Bosch Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1977, asking for confirmation of several interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

You are correct that, as an equipment standard, Standard No. 108 applies only to replacement of equipment that was originally mounted on the vehicle to enable it to comply with the requirements of the standard. It does not apply to items not covered by the standard, but which are frequently provided as new vehicle options, such as fog lamps and cornering lamps. Any item of lighting equipment not required is permissable to be installed, as you also noted, if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3). Additional lighting equipment is otherwise subject to State regulation.

You also asked "what would be the NHTSA's stand on products where SAE standards do not exist, for example halogen headlights?" A halogen headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108 and is intended as a replacement headlamp may not be imported and sold for this use. On the other hand, halogen fog lamps may be imported and sold, subject to State regulations.

I hope this answers your questions.

YOURS TRULY,

ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATION

January 26, 1977

Office of Chief Council (N40-30) NHTSA

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108

We have inquired at your Chicago District Office regarding FMVSS108. Robert Weltzer of that office has been extremely helpful in providing information and clarifying our questions. He also suggested we contact you for confirmation of a few points and insight into some others.

Robert Bosch is studying the feasibility of marketing a full line of auxilliary and replacement lighting products. As we understand it, FMVSS 108, Section 2, applies 1). only to actual replacement of equipment supplied new with the vehicle. 2). It is also implied that additional equipment which interferes with OE equipment would fall under this regulation. Can you confirm this?

We would interpret this to mean that 108 does not apply to products offered solely as auxilliary, add-on equipment. In practice, however, we realize that most states rely on the recommendations of the AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administration) which bases its recommendations on compliance of equipment with SAE standards, usually verified by ETL testing.

What would be the NHTSA's stance on products where SAE standards do not exist, for example, Halogen headlights?

Since no federal law would then apply to such products, are we right in assuming that state laws would prevail, more or less making the AAMVA's approval mandatory?

We are quite interested in literally shedding some light on the confused regulations prevailing in the U.S. for on-highway vehicle lighting. Bosch has some exceptional lighting products which have proven themselves in the European and Canadian markets in particular. We would also like to contribute here to the same safety awareness and concern that our products address themselves to in other countries.

Any insight and comment to the situation at large would be very much appreciated. We are particularly looking forward to your specific reactions to the questions raised in this letter to help guide our marketing decisions for lights.

Allan Cheshire Market Research Analyst