ID: cernosek.ztv

Larry Cernosek, Chairman
Texas Towing & Storage Association
2104 Lyons Avenue
Houston, TX 77020

Dear Mr. Cernosek:

This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 2000, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You describe "a light bar that is factory mounted on every tow truck manufactured." The bar incorporates "additional stop and tail lamps which are the same color and no brighter than the required ones at the rear of the vehicle." You have asked whether "these lights are legal under Federal law."

Tow trucks, and all other motor vehicles, are required to be manufactured to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 permits two types of supplemental lighting equipment. Under S5.1.3 of the standard, additional lighting equipment is permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. It need not meet any performance or location requirements.

The second type of lighting equipment is covered by S5.3.1.1. This paragraph of Standard No. 108 requires that lighting equipment be installed so that it meets the photometric and visibility specifications of the standard. But if other vehicle equipment, such as "mirrors, snow plows, wrecker booms back hoes, and winches," prevents the required lighting equipment from complying with these specifications, the vehicle manufacturer must add auxiliary equipment that meets the photometric and visibility specifications. Because S5.3.1.1. specifically refers to wrecker booms, we assume that the light bar has been installed to ensure compliance of the tow truck, with wrecker boom installed, with the stop lamp and taillamp requirements of Standard No. 108. Under these circumstances, the light bar lamps are "legal" under Federal law if the lamps in the light bar meet all requirements that apply to stop lamps and taillamps. We make no judgment as to whether the lamps do, in fact, meet these requirements, except to note that the light bar in one of the photos you enclosed appears to be mounted higher than 72 inches from the road surface, which is the maximum mounting height for taillamps allowed by Standard No. 108. Thus, a light bar installed by the manufacturer or dealer in new tow trucks, intended to fulfill the taillamp function mounted higher than 72 inches from the road surface, would not be "legal" under Federal law.

You also mention that "tow lights are also used on the rear of the vehicle being towed just as if you were towing a trailer." We are not sure whether you are also requesting an opinion as to whether these temporary lights are legal under Federal law. The laws that we administer govern the manufacture of vehicles and not their use. While a trailer must be manufactured with specified lighting equipment, there are no Federal requirements that apply to other vehicles under tow. The lighting requirements for the rear of vehicles being towed by a tow truck are established by the local laws of the place where the towing occurs.

If you have further questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson at (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/9/00

ID: certlab3.crs

Ms. Michele Mor
Professional Micro Computer Service, Inc.
2525 Honolulu Avenue
Montrose, CA 91020

Dear Ms. Mor:

This is in response to the memorandum of July 29, 1997 that you telefaxed to Coleman Sachs of my staff, forwarding for our review a format for a vehicle certification label (which you refer to as a "VIN label") that your company is proposing to offer to clients who manufacture trailers for sale in both the United States and Canada. Your memo requested that we disregard your letter of July 15, 1997, forwarding for our review an earlier version of the certification label format that you withdrew after speaking to David Coleman of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Certification requirements for vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States are set forth in this agency's regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.4 of those regulations specifies the contents and format of the certification label that manufacturers are required to affix to new motor vehicles to which one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply. To meet those requirements, the following modifications would have to be made to the certification label format that your company has most recently proposed:

1. Section 567.4(g)(2) requires the certification label to specify the vehicle's "month and year of manufacture." The first line of your company's label format contains the word "date" followed by a colon. We recommend that this heading be changed to "date of manufacture" or "manufactured in" to better identify the date provided.
2. Section 567.4(g)(3) specifies that the certification label must include the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating, or "GVWR," "followed by the appropriate value in pounds . . . ." The second line of your company's label format contains the letters "GVWR/PNBV" followed by the abbreviation "KG," which presumably represents "kilograms." To comply with section 567.4(g)(3), the GVWR value must be specified in pounds. If you wish to provide a metric equivalent for this value, it should be specified in kilograms, with that word fully spelled out, followed by the corresponding value in pounds, appearing in parentheses. With this format, the entry for GVWR/PNBV would be as follows:

   GVWR/PNBV: ________ kilograms (________ pounds)

3. Section 567.4(g)(4) specifies that the certification label must include the gross axle weight rating, or "GAWR," "followed by the appropriate value in pounds for each axle, identified in order from front to rear . . . ." The third line of your company's label format contains the letters "GAWR/PNBE," followed by the abbreviation "KG." To comply with section 567.4(g)(4), the GAWR of each axle should be specified in pounds. If you wish to provide a metric equivalent for this value, it should be specified in kilograms, with that word fully spelled out, followed by the corresponding value in pounds, appearing in parentheses, as set forth in the above format for GVWR/PNBV entries.

We note that your company's proposed label format also includes information on the size designation for tires and rims and the recommended cold inflation pressure for tires that is required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars, as found at 49 CFR 571.120. Paragraph S5.3 of that standard requires the cold inflation pressure to be identified first in metric units (kPa) and then in English units (psi). On your company's proposed certification label, English units are listed before metric units under the heading "COLD INFL PRESS." To comply with paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 120, this order of presentation should be reversed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, do not hesitate to contact Mr. Sachs at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.7/31/97

ID: clarke.ztv

Mr. Robert M. Clarke
President
Truck Manufacturers Association
1225 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005-6156

Dear Mr. Clarke:

This is in reply to your letter of July 11, 2003, regarding early warning reporting (EWR) requirements for manufacturers of incomplete vehicles, Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

You referenced my letter of April 11, 2003, to Spartan Motors, Inc., in which I advised that manufacturers of incomplete medium-heavy vehicles and buses are subject to the limited reporting requirements of 49 CFR 579.27, rather than the comprehensive reporting requirements of Section 579.22. In my letter, I observed that EWR information is more likely to be received by the manufacturer completing the vehicle rather than by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. However, you believe that "in the case of chassis-cab manufacturers, warranty claims, field reports, consumer complaints, etc. are usually filed with the chassis-cab manufacturers and their dealers, not the final stage manufacturers." Accordingly, you have asked whether your member companies that manufacture "chassis-cab incomplete vehicles" should report under Section 579.22 or Section 579.27.

It is possible that some relevant EWR information with respect to multi-stage vehicles may not be received by the final stage manufacturer. However, for many years, NHTSA has considered incomplete chassis to be items of original equipment. (Nonetheless, incomplete vehicle manufacturers are subject to NHTSAs defect and noncompliance responsibility and reporting regulation, 49 CFR Part 573.) Therefore, under the EWR regulation, "chassis-cab incomplete vehicles" are subject only to the limited reporting requirements of Section 579.27. Please note that the agency may consider this issue as part of its review of the EWR regulation conducted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(5).

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson or Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.8/22/03

ID: Classic_SoftTrim_cmc

Dwight Forrister, President & CEO
Classic Soft Trim, Inc.
1212 East Anderson Lane
Austin, TX 78752

Dear Mr. Forrister:

This responds to your inquiry as to whether your company, which re-upholsters vehicle seats, is an alterer for the purposes of Federal motor vehicle regulations. Your letter also inquired as to the certification responsibilities of an alterer. As explained below, by removing vehicle seats from a certified vehicle prior to the first retail sale of a vehicle for the purpose of re-upholstering, your company is an alterer and is subject to the applicable certification responsibilities.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its vehicles meet all applicable safety standards and labeling its products to reflect such certification.

Your letter stated that your company, Classic Soft Trim Inc., re-upholsters vehicle seats with a leather-trimmed interior. Your letter explained that your company removes seats originally installed in a certified vehicle, replaces the seats upholstery, and then places the seats back into the vehicle. Your letter further stated that this work is typically done for a motor vehicle dealer. Based on this process, you asked four questions regarding the responsibilities of your company under the Federal regulations. Each question is addressed below.

1) "Since a comprehensive list is not provided, would the replacement of seat upholstery be considered a readily attachable component?"

49 CFR 567.7 and 568.8 establish certification requirements for alterers. They are not applicable to a person who removes, substitutes, or adds readily attachable components such as "mirrors or tire and rim assemblies." However, the agency has stated in the past that the list of readily attachable components contained in these sections is not comprehensive. The agency has noted that whether a modification involves "readily attachable components" depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching a component. The agency will look to the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise to perform the alteration. Absent extraordinary ease of installation, the agency would not consider an alteration to involve a readily attachable component. (See Letter to Mr. Terry Rowe; March 7, 1991; copy enclosed.)

The re-upholstering process described in your letter involves the removal and re-installation of a vehicle seat, which cannot be accomplished with "extraordinary ease." Therefore, the leather upholstery you install would not be considered a "readily attachable component." Further, we previously determined in an August 29, 1999, letter to Mr. Brian Goodman that a company re-upholstering vehicle seats was an alterer for purposes of 568.8 (copy enclosed).

2) "Would the replacement of upholstery invalidate any vehicles stated weight rating?"

As required under 568.8, if the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of a vehicle as altered is different from that shown on the original certification label, the alterer must provide the modified value. However, it is the alterers responsibility to determine if any alteration would affect a vehicles weight rating. Although we do not see any reason why a mere re-upholstering would affect the GVWR, the agency is unable to make that determination.

3) "If a company adds or replaces components to a certified vehicle that are readily attachable and does not change the vehicle weight rating, would they be considered an Alterer?"

Section 567.6 states, in part, that a person who alters a vehicle:

[O]nly by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicles stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle.

Accordingly, a person performing these types of alterations would not be considered an alterer for the purposes of Part 567 and Part 568.

4) "If replacement upholstery is not a readily attachable component yet does not change a vehicles weight rating, how should the requirements of [] 567.7 and 568.8 be applied?"

As explained above, 567.7 and 568.8 apply to a person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or who alters a vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first retail sale. Therefore, the replacement of upholstery as described in your letter would subject your company to the certification and certification label requirements in 567.7 and 568.8.

As an alterer, your company would be responsible for determining which FMVSS are impacted by the alteration and then certifying that a vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable FMVSS affected by the alteration. As recognized in your letter, removal of a vehicle seat during the upholstering process may affect advanced air bag technologies installed in a vehicle seat for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Your company would be required to determine if your actions would affect that vehicles compliance with FMVSS No. 208 as well as all other applicable standards.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref..208#567#568
8/27/04

ID: cmc4935car_carrier

Massoud S. Tavakoli, Ph.D. , P.E.
Savage Engineering, Inc.
132 N. Leroy Street
Fenton, MI 48430

Dear Dr. Tavakoli:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry as to whether a motor vehicle you designed to transport other motor vehicles is subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 223, Rear impact guards, and 224, Rear impact protection. As explained below, the vehicle you described is not subject to these standards.

In your letter, you described a vehicle that you refer to as a "roll-back car carrier."You stated that the vehicle is a single-unit truck that is at least 10,000 lb in weight. You explained that the vehicle has a flat bed that can be rolled back and tilted down so that another vehicle can be pulled on the bed. In addition, you state that the vehicle is equipped with a wheel-lift device that is used to tow vehicles behind the truck in a "more traditional way. "

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to establish regulations for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). To reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries that occur when light duty vehicles collide with the rear end of trailers and semitrailers, we established FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. FMVSS No. 224 requires most trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or more to be equipped with rear impact guards that comply with the requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 223. Vehicles other than trailers and semitrailers are not subject to FMVSS No. 224.

The agency defines a trailer as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

(49 CFR 571.3(b)). A semitrailer is a subclass of trailer and is defined as:

[A] trailer, except a pole trailer, so constructed that a substantial part of its weight rests upon or is carried by another motor vehicle.

(49 CFR 571.3(b)).

The vehicle described in your letter is a straight truck and is not designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle. Therefore it is not a trailer or semitrailer. As your vehicle is not a trailer or semitrailer, it is not subject to FMVSS No. 224.

Your e-mail also inquired into the applicability of related Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations. We are unable to speak to the applicability of these regulations and suggest you contact FMCSA directly. The general number for FMCSA is (202) 366-2519.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:224
d.9/22/04

ID: CNGLABEL.CRS

Mr. Stan Gornick
Manager, Engineering Quality
Western Star Trucks
2076 Enterprise Way
Kelowna, British Columbia
Canada V1Y 6H8

Dear Mr. Gornick:

This is in response to your letter of September 3, 1996, to Coleman Sachs of my staff, raising a question regarding the certification of compressed natural gas ("CNG") powered buses under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ("NHTSA's") vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. As described in your letter, Western Star Trucks has a sister company, Orion Bus Industries, Inc. ("Orion"), which manufactures transit buses. Orion currently has an order for fifteen CNG powered buses. While inspecting the CNG containers that have been supplied to it for this order, Orion noted that the containers were missing labels required under paragraph S7.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity, 49 CFR 571.304. After bringing this matter to the attention of the container supplier, Orion was informed that the containers were manufactured before March 27, 1995, the date on which the requirements of FMVSS 304, including the labeling requirement, went into effect. You have asked whether Orion can install these containers in the transit buses, and still certify that those vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on their date of manufacture.

Paragraph S6.1 of FMVSS 304 provides, in relevant part, that "[e]ach . . . bus that uses CNG as a motor fuel shall be equipped with a CNG fuel container that meets the requirements of S7 through S7.4." Paragraphs S7 through S7.3 prescribe three separate tests to establish that a CNG fuel container complies with the standard. As previously noted, paragraph S7.4 establishes a labeling requirement for CNG fuel containers. The information to be inserted on this label must include the month and year of the container's manufacture and the symbol DOT, which, as stated in paragraph S7.4(d), constitutes certification by the container's manufacturer that the container complies with all requirements of the standard. In light of these provisions, a bus that uses CNG as a motor fuel could not be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards if it is manufactured with a CNG container that lacks the label required under paragraph S7.4 of FMVSS 304.

Following his receipt of your letter, Mr. Sachs informed you by telephone that Orion could use the containers in question, regardless of their date of manufacture, if they were manufactured in conformity with the requirements that were ultimately adopted as FMVSS 304, are certified to comply with that standard, and are labeled as required in paragraph S7.4. Citing an interpretation letter dated March 2, 1995, that this Office sent to Mr. Steve Anthony, you questioned whether a manufacturer could label a CNG container as complying with the standard if the container were manufactured before March 27, 1995, the standard's effective date. The pertinent language in the letter to Mr. Anthony reflects his acknowledgment that "it would be impermissible for a manufacturer to include the symbol DOT on CNG containers manufactured prior to March 27, 1995."

This language should be read in the context of the letter in which it appeared. That letter was sent prior to the effective date of the standard and was focused on the issue of whether a CNG container could be certified as complying with FMVSS 304 before the standard went into effect. The letter concluded that this was prohibited, based on language in the preamble of the final rule establishing FMVSS 304, which characterized a certification as "a statement that a vehicle or item of equipment meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are then in effect." (See letter to

Mr. Anthony, quoting 59 FR 49010, 49020, September 26, 1994). Nevertheless, now that the standard has taken effect, this prohibition no longer applies.

The preamble of the final rule establishing FMVSS 304 describes that standard as being modeled after existing industry standards. (See preamble at pages 49012-49020). If the CNG containers in question were manufactured in compliance with the requirements that were ultimately adopted as FMVSS 304, the manufacturer of those containers may now certify them as complying with the standard. If the containers are labeled in accordance with paragraph S7.4 of the standard to reflect this certification, their installation would not preclude Orion from certifying the buses on which they are installed as complying with all applicable standards in effect on their date of manufacture.If you have any further questions concerning vehicle certification, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567

d:10/30/96

ID: coachmen2.ztv

Ms. Kathy L. Samovitz
Associate Counsel
Coachmen Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 3300
Elkhart, Indiana 46515

Dear Ms. Samovitz:

This is in reply to your e-mail of March 18, 2003, to Jonathan White of this agency, with regard to reporting of field reports under the early warning reporting regulation promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579).

You asked whether "prior authorization submissions for warranty repairs fall into the category of field reports."If we conclude that these submissions are "field reports," you asserted that it would be "an incredible burden on each manufacturer to capture the historical information for the last ten model years" if it were required to include prior authorization submissions in the count of field reports.

In an e-mail to Taylor Vinson of this Office on April 9, 2003, you described a "prior authorization submission" as follows:

The dealer submits a "prior approval" which sets out the identifying information of the vehicle, the problem complained of, and the anticipated repair. The warranty claim dept of the manufacturer then approves or denies the submission. If it is approved, the dealer submits a warranty claim. If not, nothing further is submitted. This is not necessarily a step that every manufacturer takes in their processing of claims. But it is a step that Coachmen RV takes.

As we understand your concern, if the dealers submission is considered a field report and the dealer later submits a warranty claim relating to it, there will be duplicate reporting of numbers under field reports and warranty claims. On the other hand, if the submission is not considered a field report and the manufacturer denies the submission, the information will not result in a warranty claim and could go uncaptured.

In developing the early warning reporting requirements, we were not aware of documents called "prior authorization submissions" and, thus, did not develop a definition for this term. Your letter implies that other manufacturers may have similar "prior approval" documents, but, in the absence of a definition or generally accepted meaning of the term, the format of such a submission may vary from manufacturer to manufacturer in terms of its informational content. While such a document may appear to have some elements of a "field report," it apparently simply identifies the problem as a foundation for a warranty claim, and the action item sought is simply a warranty authorization. If the manufacturer approves the authorization, the incident will be reflected subsequently in the manufacturers quarterly report on warranty claims. We believe that this serves the purpose of early warning reporting. However, if the document contained an assessment of a performance problem to the manufacturer and was not oriented primarily toward warranty approval, it would be considered to be a field report.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Lloyd S. Guerci
Assistant Chief Counsel
for Litigation and Enforcement

ref:579
d.4/29/03

ID: codemk-3

Mr. Jerel M. Sachs
General Manager, Automotive Glass
Import Products Glass (IPG)
385 West Street
West Bridgewater, MA 02379

Dear Mr. Sachs:

This responds to your June 26, 1995, letter requesting a manufacturer's code mark for automotive glazing to comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated in your letter that you "intend to engage in the manufacture and/or contract manufacture of automotive safety glass in the United States and overseas." Your letter also stated that you were negotiating for the tooling, machinery, and the code mark of Lin's Glass Company in Taiwan.

In a June 29, 1995, phone conversation between Paul Atelsek and a member of your staff, we learned that IPG only imports and distributes, but does not actually make, glazing. He was also told that Lin's has gone out of business, and that you had switched to another supplier in Taiwan. In a July 13, 1995, phone conversation with Mr. Atelsek, you confirmed that IPG makes no glazing and that your new supplier has a code mark assigned by NHTSA, but said that you preferred to use a "fresh" number assigned to your company. You said that other companies that do not make glazing have code marks assigned to them, and named another company that you said imports "cheap" Chinese glass and applies its own manufacturer's code mark in order to disguise the origin of the glass from its buyers. In a July 13, 1995, letter in support of your request, you stated that IPG would be doing contract manufacturing with a supplier who is also supplying other customers, and that having your own number would help you monitor quality control and track your product in the marketplace. You believe that having your own number would also benefit NHTSA because the agency would have an easier time implementing a recall through IPG than through the Taiwanese supplier.

As Mr. Atelsek explained on the telephone, we cannot issue a number to your company because you are not a "prime glazing manufacturer." Standard 205, at S6.1, defines "prime glazing material manufacturer" as "one who fabricates, laminates, or

tempers the glazing material." As your company does none of these things, we cannot issue a code mark to IPG. To show you that this is a matter of longstanding legal interpretation, I have enclosed some interpretation letters we have written to others asking this question and related questions.

The glass should be marked with the number we have assigned to your supplier, the prime glazing manufacturer in Taiwan. The practice you mentioned of using code marks to disguise the identity of the manufacturer is directly contrary to our policy. This code mark is supposed to help NHTSA identify the prime manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Therefore, the code mark on a particular piece of glazing needs to refer to the company that actually made the glazing, and code marks should never be applied to glazing made by anyone else.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:205 d:8/4/95

ID: Colman

Mr. Earl Colman
Colman Equipment Co.
901 Foster Drive
Casper, WY 82601

Dear Mr. Colman:

This is in response to your letter of January 21, 2002, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. You state that you run a full line truck equipment company that qualifies as a final stage truck manufacturer, and that you ensure that the vehicles your company manufactures comply with all applicable safety requirements. You express concern, however, that other companies conducting similar operations in your area are less conscientious than your company. As a consequence, you suspect that the number of small commercial trucks being operated in your area that are not properly certified is greater than the number that are. This had led you to ask what the agencys enforcement position would be in three distinct scenarios.

The first scenario involves a new truck dealer who delivers an incomplete vehicle, such as a chassis cab, to a private customer, such as a farmer or rancher, but makes no mention of the vehicle certification requirements. You state that in this circumstance, the purchaser will often complete the vehicle himself or have a local machine shop do the necessary work. Under the statutes and regulations that this agency administers, there is nothing that would restrict a dealer from directly selling an incomplete vehicle to a consumer. In this circumstance, the party who completes the vehicle by adding components that are necessary for the vehicle to perform its intended function would be considered the final stage manufacturer, regardless of whether that party is the purchaser himself or a commercial entity such as a local machine shop.

If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer must certify that the vehicle, as finally manufactured, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). To assist the final stage manufacturer in carrying out this responsibility, the certification regulations at 49 CFR 568.4 require an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the vehicle a document (referred to as the incomplete vehicle document, or IVD, or, more commonly, as the build book) that specifies, among other things, the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) to be assigned to the vehicle once it is completed, a listing of the vehicle types (e.g., truck, multi-purpose passenger vehicle, bus, trailer) into which the incomplete vehicle can be manufactured, and a listing of all FMVSS that apply to each of those vehicle types. The IVD must also specify, with respect to each of those standards, either (1) that the vehicle will conform to the standard upon completion if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, (2) the conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform to the standard, or (3) that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle. In order to assure that the final stage manufacturer understands what further steps are needed to complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS, the dealer must ensure that the applicable incomplete vehicle document is either furnished with the vehicle or is forwarded immediately after the purchase to the party who is to complete the vehicle.

As provided in the certification regulations at 49 CFR 568.6, the final stage manufacturer of a vehicle built in two or more stages must complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates. The final stage manufacturer must also affix a label to the completed vehicle certifying such conformance. It is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for any person to introduce into interstate commerce a motor vehicle manufactured after the date an applicable FMVSS takes effect unless the vehicle complies with the standard and is so certified. The agencys Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) investigates suspected violations of section 30112(a), and where a probable violation is found, will refer the matter to this Office with a recommendation for civil penalties. Under 49 U.S.C.

30165(a)(1), a civil penalty of up to $5,000 can be imposed for each violation of section 30112(a). A separate violation exists for each vehicle introduced into interstate commerce in violation of that provision. See 49 U.S.C. 30165(a).

In the second scenario described in your letter, the new truck dealer removes a pickup box from a certified vehicle and sells the vehicle as a chassis cab. If this is done prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle, under our regulations the dealer would be considered a vehicle alterer. The certification regulations at 49 CFR 567.7 provide that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, must allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and must affix an additional label stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable FMVSS affected by the alteration. Section 567.7 additionally provides that [i]f the gross vehicle weight rating or any of the gross axle weight rating of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label, the modified values must be specified on the alterers certification label. See 49 CFR 567.7(b).

It is unlikely that the dealer could certify the vehicle as conforming to all applicable FMVSS once it has removed the pickup box, because removal of the box could bring the vehicle out of compliance with certain FMVSS, such as Standard

No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. In addition, by eliminating substantial weight from the vehicle, the removal could affect the vehicles compliance with other FMVSS, such as Standard No. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems. It would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for the dealer to sell such a nonconforming vehicle. As previously noted a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per vehicle can be imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165(a) for a violation of this nature.

If the dealer removes the pickup box after the vehicles first retail sale, the removal of the box would not constitute an alteration under our regulations and the dealer would not have the certification responsibilities described above. However, in this circumstance the dealer would be subject to the statutory prohibition in 49 U.S.C.

30122(b) against knowingly [making] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable [FMVSS]. As previously noted, removal of the pickup box could bring the vehicle out of compliance with certain FMVSS, such as Standard No. 108, and, by virtue of removing substantial weight from the vehicle, could affect its compliance with other FMVSS, such as Standard No. 105. By the terms of Section 30122(b), the making inoperative prohibition does not apply in circumstances where the dealer reasonably believes the vehicle . . . will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative. Unless it could establish that it had such a reasonable belief, a dealer who violates the making inoperative prohibition is subject to civil penalties of up to $5,000 per vehicle under 49 U.S.C. 30165(a).

The third scenario described in your letter involves ranch supply stores in small distant communities that stock and sell ranch and contractor bodies for pickup trucks. You state that in selling these components, the stores often advise the customer not to be concerned about the need to certify the vehicle once it is completed and that the component manufacturers are often aware of this practice. Under the statutes and regulations that we administer, there is nothing that would require a party selling the components you have described to alert the purchaser to the need to certify its vehicle after the components are installed.

I hope this explanation of our statutory and regulatory authorities is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

NCC-10:CSachs:crs:5-1-02:65238:cyt(5/1/02)
revised per KWeinstein 6-7-02
revised 7/5/02
Doc. 24173; NHTSA # CC2002033445
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron
NCC-10 Csachs, cyt
NPS-01; NSA-01
Redbooks(2), Part 567

ID: colonial_ice

Mr. Edward Gordos
President
Colonial Ice Inc.
2323 Greenville Road
Cortland, OH 44410

Dear Mr. Gordos:

This is in response to your letter of August 12, 2002 to Coleman Sachs of my staff, concerning a problem that you have recently encountered with one of your delivery trucks.As described in your letter, the Ohio State Patrol issued the driver of this vehicle a citation for operating the vehicle without a commercial drivers license (CDL).The patrolman who issued the citation informed the driver that he concluded that a CDL was required based on information derived from the vehicle identification number (VIN) assigned to the truck. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration requires a CDL if the vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) that exceeds 26,000 pounds.

You identify the vehicle as a 1994 International 4900 series single axle truck that you purchased in May 2000 from Hoffman Trailer Company in Louisville, Kentucky. In making this purchase, you state that you selected a used cab and chassis and a used refrigerated body to be mounted on this cab and chassis.After noting that the cab and chassis had a GVWR of 29,000 pounds, you informed Hoffman Trailer Company that you needed a truck that could be operated without a CDL. The company informed you that the vehicle would be modified so that a CDL would not be required.

When you picked up the vehicle after the agreed work had been performed, you were given a copy of a work order invoice from Uhl Truck Sales in Louisville, Kentucky, showing that springs had been removed from the vehicle to bring it under the CDL threshold. In addition, a label was affixed inside the vehicle, on the cab wall above the drivers seat, identifying Uhl Truck Sales as the vehicles manufacturer. Enclosed with your letter was a separate sheet setting forth the contents of this label. From the information on this sheet, the label has the same language and format prescribed in NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR 567.5(c) for the certification label that a final stage manufacturer is required to affix to a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages. The label also identified the vehicle as having a GVWR of 26,000 pounds.

After receiving the citation from the Ohio State Patrol, you contacted Hoffman Trailer Company, which referred you to Uhl Truck Sales.You state that you were informed by Mr. Pete Dalton, the service manager of Uhl Truck Sales, that his dealership had "derated the rear axle to 16,000 pounds by removing springs on that axle." Mr. Dalton assured you that the modifications to the vehicle and the relabeling were lawful, as they had been performed by his dealership on hundreds of vehicles. Mr. Dalton disregarded your requests to contact this office for guidance on this matter. You have consequently asked us to advise you in writing whether your vehicle is still subject to the CDL requirements.If it is still subject to the CDL requirements, you have asked whether any means are available for recertifying the vehicle so that it would no longer be subject to those requirements.

Because the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and not NHTSA, administers the CDL program, we are not in a position to advise you whether your vehicle is subject to the CDL requirements.All we can inform you of is the GVWR that we would recognize for the purpose of our own regulations.

NHTSA has long taken the position that the only parties who can assign or modify a vehicles GVWR are the original manufacturer, a final stage manufacturer, or an alterer. The term "final-stage manufacturer" is defined in the agencys regulations at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." Even though it attached the refrigerated body to the cab and chassis of your delivery truck, Uhl Truck Sales cannot be regarded as the vehicles final stage manufacturer. That is because the cab and chassis were used at the time these manufacturing operations were performed.

For the same reason, Uhl Truck Sales cannot be considered an "alterer" with respect to the modifications it performed on your vehicle. The vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR 567.7 describe an "alterer," as

a person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified . . . other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale . . . (emphasis added).

Consistent with this description, a person who makes modifications to a used vehicle (i.e., a vehicle that has already been purchased for purposes other than resale) does not qualify as an "alterer," as that term is used in NHTSAs regulations.

NHTSA has stated in past interpretation letters that when a used vehicle is modified in such a manner that the originally assigned GVWR is inappropriate for the vehicle as modified, the modifier can affix an informational label to the vehicle, identifying its appropriate loaded weight. See, e.g., letter to James Barber dated April 2, 1997. The agency has noted, however, that it would not recognize the loaded weight specified by the modifier as the vehicles GVWR. That is because the modifier would not be in a position to assign the vehicle a new GVWR since he would not qualify as an original or final stage manufacturer or as a vehicle alterer. Id.

Consistent with these interpretations, NHTSA would not regard the value specified by Uhl Truck Sales on the label it affixed to your vehicle as the vehicles GVWR. The agency would instead recognize the 29,000 pound GVWR assigned by the vehicles original manufacturer. Because the originally assigned GVWR remains with the vehicle throughout its service life, no means are available for "recertifying" the vehicle with a lower GVWR.

We are furnishing a copy of this letter to Hoffman Trailer Company and to Uhl Truck Sales so that they are apprised of our views on the issue you have raised.If you have any further questions regarding the vehicle certification regulations, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc: Hoffman Trailer Company, Inc.
Uhl Truck Sales

ref:567
d.9/23/02