ID: nht79-4.1

DATE: 05/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 23, 1979, in which you requested the agency's opinion whether a four-wheel drive hatchback sedan could be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV).

As was stated by Eileen Leahy of my staff in telephone conversations regarding your request, the agency cannot give an opinion regarding this vehicle's classification for purposes of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards without knowing whether the vehicle has any special features for off-road use other than four-wheel drive. An MPV is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3(b) as "a motor vehicle with motor power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Since the vehicle you describe is not constructed on a truck chassis, it must have "special features for occasional offroad operation" in order to qualify as an MPV. The agency interprets this language as requiring that the vehicle contain more than a single feature designed for off-road use. This interpretation is based on the use of the word "features" in the plural rather than the singular in the definition, and on the fact that a vehicle's total design determines its likely use. Four-wheel drive would be useful in snow on public streets, roads and highways, so this feature cannot be determinative of the vehicle's classification if there are no features for off-road use.

Also, the agency is reluctant to exempt a vehicle from compliance with any of its safety standards purely on the grounds that it is equipped with four-wheel drive. There is little likelihood that a vehicle that is identical to a passenger car in every other respect will be used differently than other passenger cars. Under these circumstances, the agency sees no reason for treating such vehicles any differently from other passenger cars with respect to the applicability of safety standards.

Therefore, unless you can provide us with additional information (including, but not limited to, pictures or drawings of the vehicle) concerning other special features of this vehicle that would make it suitable for off-road operation, the agency cannot concur with the opinion expressed in your letter that this vehicle should be classified as a multipurpose vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Also, I would refer you to 49 CFR @ 523.5(b)(2) for a description of some of the characteristics that would be considered as "special features for off-road operation" although that section relates primarily to fuel economy.

If you will provide us with additional information, we will be happy to offer a final opinion.

SINCERELY, SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.

April 23, 1979

Our Ref. No. 056-79C

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Gentlemen:

As part of a new car line for 1980, Subaru of America is going to import four-wheel drive hatch back sedans.

This new four-wheel drive sedan was designed for occasional off-road operation. In consideration of the vehicle's various uses we feel it should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Please provide your opinion as to whether or not this vehicle can be classified as an M.P.V.

Should you have any questions, please contact this office.

John Cordner Technical Assistant Product Compliance

ID: nht79-3.41

DATE: 08/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter about Chrysler's general need for relief from Federal regulations and the denial of its petition for a one-year exemption from the automatic restraint requirements for Chrysler 1982-model full-size cars. There are several statements by Chrysler regarding the petition denial that you wish placed in the public record. Accordingly, your letter has been placed in the public docket on occupant crash protection (74-14; General Reference).

This agency is fully appreciative of the significance of Chrysler's circumstances and needs. Where relief can be considered consistent with the spirit and provisions of the laws we administer, we will do so. This willingness was amply demonstrated by my recent action in reducing the 1981 fuel economy standard for light trucks. Chrysler's automatic restraint petition presented us with a substantially different situation. Under our statutory authority, the only way we could have exempted Chrysler's large-size 1982 model from compliance with the automatic restraint requirements would have been to classify that vehicle as a unique type of car under our exisiting authority. Clearly, such a classification would have been challenged in court, and we believe it would not have been sustained. Indeed, such an action would severely strain our credibility with the court which just recently reviewed that very issued.

Regarding your statements about the safety issues associated with the denial, the agency agrees that some safety belt reminder systems can be effective in encouraging belt use. We do not believe, however, that most simple warning systems can equal the life-saving potential of automatic restraints. Further, the NHTSA has no authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require ignition interlock systems, which are probably the most effective systems for encouraging use of manual belts.

In this particular matter, the law precludes us from granting the relief you seek. I regret that we are unable to assist you under these circumstances.

SINCERELY,

July 12, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

We have reviewed the NHTSA denial of our petition for a one-year exemption from MVSS 208 for Chrysler 1982 model year full-size cars. We are revising our product and capital plans accordingly; nonetheless, we are convinced that the reasons set forth by NHTSA in its denial of our petition are in error. There are three basic arguments in the statement of denial: that there will be a significant reduction in safety if these cars do not have passive restraints, that Chrysler can produce cars with passive restraints at a competitive price, and that the economic risks to Chrysler would be "slight." We cannot agree with these conclusions and believe that the public record should include the following comments:

Safety

The NHTSA estimates that an average of fifteen lives per year would be lost if 1982 Chrysler full-size cars were not equipped with passive restraints. Although the calculations were not made public, presumably they are based in part on the historical NHTSA overestimation of passive restraint benefits. In addition, Chrysler and NHTSA staff had discussed informally improved safety belt reminder systems for the cars in question. NHTSA researchers have found that improved reminders increase belt use sharply, and cars so equipped could equal or exceed the performance of passive restraint cars at a small fraction of the cost. The NHTSA did not even mention this approach in its denial.

Consumer Cost of Passive Restraints

The NHTSA contends that Chrysler can build full-size cars with passive restraints in 1982 at a cost comparable to its competitors. It cannot. A major part of the price of any car or component is amortization of capital expenses necessary to bring it to production. The basic reason for our petition was the short life and low volume of cars over which we could amortize costs. Our competitors can spread costs over more years of production, and over more cars per year. Without question our costs per vehicle would be much higher than the corresponding ones from Ford and General Motors.

A corollary NHTSA argument is that a passive restraint exemption would give Chrysler a competitive advantage. It is widely understood that Chrysler already is at a serious competitive disadvantage because the costs of compliance with federal regulations are much higher, per unit, than for Ford and General Motors, and that this disadvantage will continue into the foreseeable future. The passive restraint exemption would do no more than reduce this price disadvantage -- a little.

Capital Expenses

The costs of meeting a multiplicity of federal regulations is causing an enormous financial strain on Chrysler Corporation. This is not only our contention, but also the conclusion of every researcher who has examined the automobile industry recently. All studies found that because of federal regulation Chrysler will suffer in comparison to Ford and General Motors. All of these studies are known to NHTSA and some were done specifically for the agency. In saying that the cost to provide passive restraints for one year "can be borne by Chrysler without significant difficulty," the agency simply ignores facts. Chrysler is already at its limit and can bear not additional capital costs without extreme difficulty.

We did not expect our petition to be denied. Over the past several months federal officials have gained increased understanding of the crushing burden federal regulations have placed on Chrysler Corporation, and the competitive disadvantages they have created. These officials have recognized that some measure of relief is necessary for Chrysler and have pledged that future government action would not damage the corporation further. This NHTSA denial is the first important decision since the need for revised government policy became apparent; instead of providing the expected relief, it makes an already difficult financial picture even worse.

JOHN J. RICCARDO -- CHAIRMAN

ID: nht78-2.4

DATE: 11/28/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. D. P. Weiher Office of Corporate Safety Emissions and Noise Control AM General Corporation 32500 Van Born Road Wayne, Michigan 48184

Dear Mr. Weiher:

This responds to your August 2, 1978, letter asking whether it is permissible to perform the tests of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, with only part of the vehicle mechanism at the designated temperatures. You state further that there is not sufficient time to find an environmental chamber large enough to accommodate the size vehicle that you are testing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue approvals of manufacturer's plans for compliance with agency standards. Standard No. 124 mandates that a vehicle shall meet the requirements of the standard at any temperature between -40o F. and 125o F. When the agency tests for compliance with the standard, it finds a chamber sufficiently large to accommodate the entire vehicle and tests according to the standard. Any manufacturer deviation from this accepted test procedure carries with it certain risks that a vehicle may not conform to the requirements.

With respect to the vehicles that you are constructing, you state in your letter that they are being manufactured for use by the army. As such, these vehicles are not required to comply with the agency's safety standards, and the NHTSA would not test these vehicles for compliance.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 2, 1978

Mr. Joseph Levin Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NASSIF Building 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Levin:

We urgently request legal interpretation as to whether our plan for compliance testing meets the intent of FMVSS 124, Accelerator Control Systems, Paragraph S5, requirements which state, "The vehicle shall meet the following requirements when the engine is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40o F and +125o F after twelve hours of conditioning at any temperature within that range."

AM General Corporation is in the process of mass producing heavy truck tractors in the 55,000 pound to 75,000 pound GVWR range for the U.S. Army. These diesel engined tractors are of sucn physical size that the number of environmental chambers capable of accommodating them, as well as their availability, is extremely limited. Those capable of accepting this size vehicle are not available within the time frame remaining until the start of our production in November of this year. In consideration of these circumstances, and with the purpose in mind of complying with the intent of the cited Federal standard, we are planning to conduct compliance testing using an actual accelerator control system mounted to a production floor pan and dash panel assembly to which will be oriented the diesel fuel pump with all linkages connected. This assembly will be environmentally soaked to -40oF and then, again, to +125oF, and the linkage connections individually disconnected to measure the return capabilities of the energy sources (springs). Our logic for not testing an entire vehicle (with engine) is based on the contention that engine rock or motion would have an insignificant effect on our accelerator system and, in fact, the heat produced by the running engine would cause the accelerator linkage at the engine-mounted fuel pump to be less than the worse condition under extreme cold, and the temperature increase at this linkage during extreme high ambient would be inconsequential.

Your immediate telephone response with follow-up official written reply would be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

D. P. Weiher

Office of Corporate Safety, Emissions and Noise Control Phone No. 1-313-722-4900

DPW/emr

entir

ID: nht95-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 12, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Byrne -- Vice President, Goodridge (USA) Inc.,

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/3/95 letter from Tom Byrne to John Womack

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106; Brake hoses. According to your letter, you plan to sell a brake hose assembly for hydraulic brake systems that you refer to as "Stainless Steel Br aided Brakelines." n1 You then asked several questions about selling your product in this country.

n1 The standard defines a "brake hose assembly" as a "brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system . . ."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hose assemblies . Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). This process requires each manufacturer to dete rmine that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a nonco mpliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each noncomplying it em it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities you must meet as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Standard No. 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties an d the recall responsibilities mentioned above.

You first asked NHTSA to "confirm" that an independent laboratory certification is valid for the United States. As explained above, NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or conduct pre-sale testing of their products. In the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS's.

You then asked NHTSA to confirm that such a brake hose assembly can be used with an adapter into the master cylinder or caliper. Your brake hose assembly can be used at any place in a motor vehicle, provided that in installing it, a vehicle manufacturer , distributor, dealer or repair business does not knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, a vehicle or item of equipment which is in compliance with any applicable safety standard. Specifically, inclusion of your brake hose assembly could not m odify a hydraulic brake system subject to FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to the extent that it no longer complies with the standard.

Your next question asked whether there are any special marking requirements for brake hose assemblies manufactured for sale in the United States. Section S5.2.4 sets forth labeling requirements for brake hose assemblies.

Section S5.2.4 states that

Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly as specified in this paragraph or at the option of the manufacturer, by means of labeling as specified in S5.2.4.1. The band may at the manufacturer's option be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band shall be etched, embossed, or stamped in block capital letters, numerals or symbols at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the following information:

(a) The symbol DOT constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

(b) A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol.

In addition, section S5.2.4.1 provides as an option that at least one end fitting be etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly.

I have also enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufa cturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S. W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

7. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992.

ID: Braun

The Braun Corporation
631 W. 11^th St.
PO Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Braun Corporation:

This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform lifts installed for motor vehicles, and No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, to lifts manufactured before the effective date. I have addressed your concerns below.

In a December 27, 2002, final rule, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle (67 FR 79416; amended 69 FR 58843, October 1, 2004). FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that certain vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. The effective date of these standards has recently been delayed until April 1, 2005 for FMVSS No. 403 and July 1, 2005 for FMVSS No. 404 (69 FR 76865; December 23, 2004).

In your letter, you expressed concern that individuals would not be able to have a lift that was manufactured prior to the effective date installed on a vehicle that was manufactured on or after the effective date. You explained that it is a common practice for lift users to transfer a lift from one vehicle to another. You expressed concern that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 will prohibit a lift user from having a lift transferred to a vehicle that was manufactured after the effective date of FMVSS No. 404.

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first retail sale. See 49 U.S.C. 30112. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122.

The "make inoperative" provision only applies to standards with which a vehicle is certified as complying. If a vehicle with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005, or later is manufactured with a lift, that vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if after first retail sale a platform lift is added to a vehicle manufactured either before or after July 1, 2005, that was not equipped with a lift at first retail sale, there is no duty for a modifier to bring that vehicle into compliance with FMVSS No. 404; i.e. , there is no requirement to equip the modified vehicle with a lift that complies with FMVSS No. 403. Therefore, in such instances, a lift user would be able to have a non-compliant lift taken from an older vehicle and installed on a vehicle that he or she had previously purchased.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.1/3/04

ID: nht78-4.14

DATE: 11/28/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Alloy Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 24, 1978, questions about the effect of the PACCAR v. NHTSA decision (532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978)) on certain aspects of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This reply addresses several issues related to the questions you asked.

Standard No. 121 as a whole was not invalidated by the Court decision. Only the "road testing" requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.7.1 for trucks and trailers were addressed by the Court, and only some of the performance requirements and test procedures associated with them were held invalid. Thus, requirements such as timing, dynamometer, and equipment specifications remain valid and enforceable.

One question raised is whether the court invalidated these "road testing" requirements and associated procedures only as of the October 11th entry of mandate, or whether the court found the requirements invalid back to their January and March 1975 implementation dates. While there are conflicting statements in the court's opinion about the holding on "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances, we believe that these requirements are invalid from the effective date of the standard for affected vehicle types. This conclusion relies on the court's conclusion about the adequacy of promulgation "at the time [the standard] was put into effect" (573 F2d. at 640).

Thus the NHTSA does not believe that a vehicle which lacks "no lockup" performance or the specified 60-mph stopping distance capability would be in noncompliance with Standard No. 121. Noncompliance enforcement of these performance aspects will, therefore, not be pursued.

A second question is whether a commercial facility (manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business) can disconnect or remove antilock systems that were installed prior to October 11, 1978, the date on which the court made its decision effective. With regard both to new vehicles in inventory and used vehicles in service that have already been antilock equipped, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that --

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

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

I would emphasize that disconnection of systems prior to the first retail sale may not have the effect of causing the vehicle to fail to comply with other applicable requirements.

The issue of disconnecting systems in service is totally different in the case of a manufacturer of agency determination that an antilock system contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Under @ 154 of the Act, the vehicle manufacturer must provide an adequate repair of safety-related defects, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is undertaken. "Adequate repair" is defined in @ 159(4) not to include "any repair which results in substantially impaired operation of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment." The agency does not agree with the court's view that antilock systems have the potential to reduce highway safety, and therefore, anything other than repair of an antilock system containing a safety-related defect would be considered by the NHTSA to constitute substantial impairment of the motor vehicle.

A third question is whether Canadian-built (or U.S.-built for export) trucks and trailers which comply with the Canadian air brake standard can now be imported since certain "road testing" portions of the U.S. standard have been invalidated. The Canadian standard came into effect later than the U.S. standard and it differs in having no stopping distance, "no lockup", timing, or dynamometer requirements. Thus, there may be differences between vehicles built for the U.S. and those built for Canadian service.

Operation of uncertified vehicles in the United States constitutes an importation in violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act if built after the applicable effective date of Standard No. 121. Enclosed is a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association on this subject. The invalidation of some of the differences between the U.S. and Canadian standards does not completely eliminate the disparity of required performance between the two groups of vehicles. This would apply both to vehicles in service and to newly manufactured vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 121.

You also asked whether the 12-foot-lane requirement of S5.3.2 for trailers remains in effect. The answer to your question is yes. Because trailers are not required to stop within a specified distance, we concluded that there would be no difficulty in coming to a controlled stop within the 12-foot-lane without "no lockup" performance, as long as the 90-psi application requirement was also considered invalidated by the Ninth Circuit. If you have information that indicates this not to be the case, we would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible as the basis for reconsideration of our interpretation.

You undoubtedly noted that our October 19th Federal Register notice of interpretation of the PACCAR decision stated that requirements such as reservoir capacity were not invalidated by the Ninth Circuit, despite their indirect relationship to the "no lockup" requirement. As for rulemaking to make such a change, I have enclosed a copy of our recent proposal on trailer parking and emergency brake requirements. You will find a discussion of the reservoir issue on page 41058 and a request for information from manufacturers. I encourage you to submit available information to the NHTSA, at the address noted in the proposal.

ID: nht76-2.20

DATE: 07/20/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 20, 1976 N40-30

Mr. David E. Martin, Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activites Staff General Motors Corporation Warren, Michigan 48093

Dear Mr. Martin:

It has come to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that General Motors Corporation is planning to include in its 1977 Cadillac incomplete vehicle document the following statement with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity:

Conformity with FMVSS 301 is not subtantially determined by the design of this incomplete vehicle and General Motors makes no representation as to conformity with this Standard.

The use of this statement would not comply with 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

A copy of the March 8, 1976, letter from Mr. W. J. Owen of the Cadillac Motor Car Division to Mr. R. B. Kurre of the Wayne Corporation is attached for your reference. That letter was included in the petition of Wayne's Miller-Meteor Division for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 as applied to the ambulances and funeral coaches that Wayne manufactures using Cadillac commercial chassis.

I understand that these chassis are delivered to Wayne with the fuel system components already installed, that Wayne removes certain components in order to mount the body, and that those components are reinstalled after the mounting of the body.

The incomplete vehicle document is required by S568.4(a)(7) to include a--

listing by number of each standard...followed in each case by one of the following three types of statement, as applicable:

(i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle....

(ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard.

(iii) A statement that conformity with the standard. is not substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

There is a factual limitation on use of the third statement. It may not be used for standards conformity to which is substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle. Where the basic fuel system components, including fuel tank and lines and filler pipe, are included in the incomplete vehicle, compliance of the completed vehicle with Standard N0.301-75 is substantially determined by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final stage manufacturer. Therefore, General Motors is required to include a statement of the first or second type with respect to Standard No. 301-75 in the incomplete vehicle documents accompanying Cadillac commercial chassis that are manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, add designed for completion into multipurpose passenger vehicles. Such chassis that are manufactured before that date are not required by Part 568 to include any statement concerning Standard No. 301-75, because there are no fuel system integrity requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles until that date.

The above discussion also applies to any other commmercial chassis manufactured by General Motors for sale as incomplete vehicles.

Yours truly,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 8, 1976

Mr. R. B. Kurre Wayne Corporation Industrial Road Richmond, Indiana Dear Mr. Kurre:

Confirming our phone conversation, the following statement will be used relating to FMVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity in the 1977 Cadillac Document for Incomplete Vehicle as required by Part 568-Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages:

Conformity with FMVSS 301 is not substantially determined by the design of this incomplete vehicle and General Motors makes no representation as to conformity with this Standard.

Please let us know if we can help you further.

Very truly yours,

W. J. Owen Safety and Legal

-ajj

cc: Messrs. E. W. Anderson A. MacDonald

ID: 1985-02.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Ab Tunaverken

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AB Tunaverken Narjeholmevagen 18 S-633 46 Eskilstuna SWEDEN (Sverige)

Dear Sirs:

This responds to your recent letter to this office seeking information about this agency's requirements applicable to the importation of rims for use on trucks and buses. You were particularly interested in learning the requirements for you to use the DOT symbol on your rims, and asked what technical support the agency would need to make that determination.

All rims for use on trucks and buses which are imported into or sold in the United States customs territory must satisfy Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.120; copy enclosed). This standard specifies two requirements applicable to these rims. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims mounted on a new vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle. That is, the rim size must be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer. This requirement is the sole responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will be mounted on the rim.

The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim be marked by the rim manufacturer with five specified items of information. These are:

(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions;

(2) The rim's size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

(3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards;

(4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark, or symbol; and

(5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

You stated that you were interested in knowing the requirements for you to mark your rims with the symbol "DOT." The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the rims to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual rim manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with all applicable standards. In the case of rims for use on trucks and buses, Standard No. 120 contains all the applicable requirements. The certification need not be based on actual tests; the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care when making the certification. Obviously, in the case of rims for use on trucks and buses, no testing is necessary since the standard only sets marking requirements for those rims. Once the manufacturer determines that these rims satisfy those requirements, it marks the symbol "DOT" on the rims.

If either your company or this agency determines that your rims do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 or determine that the rims contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company would be required to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B) specifies that, if the rims fail to comply with Standard No. 120 or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect or noncompliance and must either:

(1) repair the rim so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or

(2) replace the rim with an identical or reasonably equivalent rim which does not have a defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the rim manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the rim owner for the remedy if the rim was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

Additionally, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which apply to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This requires your company to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture (aluminum wheels for cars, trucks, and buses) to the agency within 30 days of the date your wheels are shipped into the United States.

The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. This regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The individual designated as the agent may be either a person or a business entity. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on your company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of your company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designation of origin of any of your wheels and rims which do not bear the name of your company;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by your company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by your company, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

This designation should be received by this agency before you ship your wheels and rims into the United States.

If you need further information, or a clarification of any of the information contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Chief council National Highway traffic Safety Administration 400 7th street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 USA

Attn: Steven Kratcke.

Dear Sir!

Tunaverken is a manufacturer of aluminium wheels for cars, trucks and buses.

Since half a year there have been requests from bus and truck manufacturers that they should be able to use our wheels on buses and trucks used in the USA.

We would like to know the requirements in order to use the "DOT" symbol. Are all requirements in the S 571.120 Standard No. 120 Tire selection and Rims for Motor vehicles other than Passenger Cars. What technical support do You need, test reports a.s.o. If the vehicle manufacturer sells the wheels with its own name on the wheel and not ours, should they apply for the "DOT" symbol?

We would appreciate very much if we could get an answer soon.

Yours Sincerely

AB TUNAVERKEN MK:bam

ID: 8701

Mr. Richard A. Zander
AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds
32104 State Road 2
New Carlisle, IN 46552

Dear Mr. Zander:

This responds to your letter asking about the fade and recovery requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You noted that the standard requires vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to be capable of making a specified number of fade stops "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop." You stated that you are aware of a number of different understandings within the industry of the quoted phrase, and requested an interpretation as to whether vehicles must be capable of maintaining an average deceleration of at least 15 fpsps or a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps. As discussed below, vehicles must be capable of maintaining a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. 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.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery test requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1. The purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions cause by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Each of the fade and recovery tests consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops, (2) fade stops, and (3) recovery stops. The requirements for the fade stops are set forth in S5.1.4.2(a), which states that:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less shall be capable of making 5 fade stops (10 fade stops on the second test) from 60 mph at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop, followed by 5 fade stops at the maximum deceleration attainable from 5 to 15 fpsps."

As you noted, S5.1.4.2(a) must be read in conjunction with S7.11.2.1, which sets forth the procedure for conducting the fade stops. It reads, in relevant part, as follows:

Make 5 stops from 60 mph at 15 fpsps followed by 5 stops at the maximum attainable deceleration between 5 and 15 fpsps for each stop. ... Attain the required deceleration within 1 second and, as a minimum, maintain it for the remainder of the stopping time. Control force readings may be terminated when the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. (Emphasis added.)

The words "required deceleration" in S7.11.2.1 refer to 15 fpsps. (That value is set forth both in S5.1.4.2(a) and the first sentence of S7.11.2.1.) Thus, in conducting fade stops, within one second of beginning a stop, a deceleration of 15 fpsps must be attained. S7.11.2.1 then specifies that, "as a minimum," the required deceleration (15 fpsps) must be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. (The word "it" in the highlighted sentence refers back to the phrase "required deceleration.") Thus, after a deceleration of 15 fpsps is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even momentarily.

You stated that you are aware of the following three understandings within the industry concerning the meaning of this requirement:

1.The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps. The average deceleration is calculated from one second after the stop begins to a vehicle speed of 5 mph.

2.After 1 second the deceleration can not drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. If the deceleration drops below 15 fpsps at any time it is considered a failure even if the average deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps.

3.The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps and the deceleration must be greater than 15 fpsps for at least 75% of the stop excluding the first second of the stop.

Of the three understandings, the first and third are inconsistent with the plain wording of S7.11.2.1 which specifies that, after the required 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), it must, as a minimum, be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. The first and third understandings would, among other things, replace S7.11.2.1's specification that the 15 fpsps deceleration be maintained as a "minimum" with one that it be maintained as an "average."

The second understanding is largely correct. It is correct to state that, in conducting a fade stop, after a 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. However, if the deceleration did drop below 15 fpsps, that would not necessarily indicate a "failure" but might simply be an invalid test. As you note in your letter, a deceleration might fall below 15 fpsps because the driver did not compensate for in-stop fade. However, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

You stated in your letter that the second understanding appears to not consider the intent of the fade procedure, the intent being that a vehicle must be capable of making multiple high deceleration stops in a short period of time without drastic changes in effectiveness. As discussed above, the purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions cause by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. If a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would indicate inadequate stopping capability during conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

You also stated that in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, published by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC), the data sheet for the fade stops requests the following information for the deceleration: "Average Sust Decel." You stated that it therefore appears that NHTSA's interpretation of the phrase "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop" is "the average sustained deceleration."

It is incorrect to interpret the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures as limiting the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I call your attention to the following note which is set forth at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure:

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

I am enclosing a copy of the most recent version of the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, in response to your request. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:105 d:3/23/94

ID: nht94-1.93

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 23, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard A. Zander -- AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds (New Carlisle, IN)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/19/93 from Richard A. Zander to NHTSA Office of Chief Council

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the fade and recovery requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You noted that the standard requires vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to be capable of making a specified number of fade stops "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop." You stated that you are aware of a number of different understandings within the industry of the quoted phrase, and requested an interpretation as to whether vehicles must be capable of maintaining an average deceleration of at least 15 fpsps or a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps. As discussed below, vehicles must be capable of maintaining a minimum dec eleration of at least 15 fpsps.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1381, et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor ve hicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all appli cable safety standards.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery test requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1. The purpose of the fade and recover y test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Each of the fade and recovery tests consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops, (2) fade stops, and (3) recovery stops. The requirements for t he fade stops are set forth in S5.1.4.2(a), which states that:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less shall be capable of making 5 fade stops (10 fade stops on the second test) from 60 mph at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop, followed by 5 fade stops at the maximum dec eleration attainable from 5 to 15 fpsps."

As noted, S5.1.4.2(a) must be read in conjunction with S7.11.2.1, which sets forth the procedure for conducting the fade stops. It reads, in relevant part, as follows:

Make 5 stops from 60 mph at 15 fpsps followed by 5 stops at the maximum attainable deceleration between 5 and 15 fpsps for each stop. ... Attain the REQUIRED DECELERATION within 1 second and, AS A MINIMUM, MAINTAIN IT for the remaind er of the stopping time. Control force readings may be terminated when the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. (Emphasis added.)

The words "required deceleration" in S7.11.2.1 refer to 15 fpsps. (That value is set forth both in S5.1.4.2(a) and the first sentence of S7.11.2.1.) Thus, in conducting fade stops, within one second of beginning a stop, a deceleration of 15 fpsps must be attained. S7.11.2.1 then specifies that, "as a minimum," the required deceleration (15 fpsps) must be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. (The word "it" in the highlighted sentence refers back to the phrase "required deceleration.") Thus, after a deceleration of 15 fpsps is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even momentarily.

You stated that you are aware of the following three understandings within the industry concerning the meaning of this requirement:

1. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps. The average deceleration is calculated one second after the stop begins to a vehicle speed of 5 mph.

2. After 1 second the deceleration can not drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. If the deceleration drops below 15 fpsps at any time it is considered a failure even if the average deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps.

3. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps and the deceleration must be greater than 15 fpsps for at least 75% of the stop excluding the first second of the stop.

Of the three understandings, the first and third are inconsistent with the plain wording of S7.11.2.1 which specifies that, after the required 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), it must, as a MINIMUM, be maintain ed for the remainder of the stopping time. The first and third understandings would, among other things, replace S7.11.2.1's specification that the 15 fpsps deceleration be maintained as a "minimum" with one that it be maintained as an "average."

The second understanding is largely correct. It is correct to state that, in conducting a fade stop, after a 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even

for an instant. However, if the deceleration did drop below 15 fpsps, that would not necessarily indicate a "failure" but might simply be an invalid test. As you note in your letter, a deceleration might fall below 15 fpsps because the driver did not co mpensate for in-stop fade. However, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the req uirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

You stated in your letter that the second understanding appears to not consider the intent of the fade procedure, the intent being that a vehicle must be capable of making multiple high deceleration stops in a short period of time without drastic changes in effectiveness. As discussed above, the purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhi ll driving. If a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would indicate inadequate stopping capability during conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

You also stated that in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, published by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC), the data sheet for the fade stops requests the following information for the deceleration: "Average Sust Decel." You stated that it therefore appears that NHTSA's interpretation of the phrase "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop" is "the average sustained deceleration."

It is incorrect to interpret the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures as limiting the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I call your attention to the following note which is set forth at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure :

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are les s severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in t he OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

I am enclosing a copy of the most recent version of the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, in response to your request. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias of my st aff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.