ID: volvo.crs

Mr. William Shapiro
Director, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter of March 11, 1998, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on vehicles within a new car line, currently designated as "P23," that Volvo plans to introduce into North America beginning in model year 1999. Although you requested confidential treatment of the information contained in the March 11, 1998 letter and in its enclosure, you subsequently withdrew that request. Accordingly, this letter makes reference to certain of that information.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(c) prescribe specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provide that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for the agency's approval. As identified in your letter, and in an accompanying drawing, the alternate location for which you have requested approval is on the vehicle's B-pillar, facing the door opening of the rear door on the driver's side. In a subsequent letter, dated March 23, 1998, you state that it is not possible for the certification label to be placed in any of the locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4(c) owing to the size of the label, the corresponding surface geometry of each of those locations, and adhesion difficulties owing to the surface properties at some of those locations.

In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for vehicles in the P23 new car line would meet this objective. NHTSA therefore approves your request.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:567
d.4/29/98

ID: volvov70.crs

Mr. William Shapiro
Director, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter of January 6, 2000, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on vehicles within a new, early 2001 model year passenger car line, to be designated as the "Volvo V70," that Volvo plans to begin offering for sale on or about March 15, 2000.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(c) prescribe specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provide that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for the agency's approval. As identified in your letter, and in an accompanying drawing, the alternate location for which you have requested approval is on the vehicle's B-pillar, facing the door opening of the rear door on the driver's side. You note that by letter dated April 29, 1998, NHTSA approved this same location for the placement of the certification label on vehicles within the Volvo S80 line. You state that the new Volvo V70 shares with the S80 many safety features that involve structural design, and has the same basic vehicle platform as the S80.

Your letter states that it is not possible for the certification label to be placed in any of the locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4(c) owing to the size of the label, the corresponding surface geometry of each of those locations, and adhesion difficulties owing to the surface properties at some of those locations. You state that the alternate location that Volvo has proposed will meet the requirements of 49 CFR 567.4(c) because it is in "the same general area" as the locations specified in that section, and because a label in the proposed location will be "easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except an outer door."

In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for vehicles in the new V70 passenger car line would meet this objective. NHTSA therefore approves your request.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.2/22/2000

ID: vondale.ztv

Mr. James P. Vondale
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental & Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company, Fairlane Plaza South
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126-2738

Dear Mr. Vondale:

This is in response to your letter of April 22, 2003, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue an interpretation that the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations (Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579) "were not intended to capture data generated by two non-typical data sources. These data sources are from subsidiaries of Ford Motor Company that are a rental car company (Hertz), and "a company that administers external, supplemental third party extended warranty programs that can be purchased for both Ford and competitive vehicles (Automobile Protection Corporation or APCO).

For purposes of the EWR regulations, we have defined "manufacturer to specify that "This term includes any . . . subsidiary . . . . See Section 579.4(b). Therefore, the question is whether it is appropriate to require Ford to provide data that these subsidiaries may generate that would be reportable under the EWR regulations if it were generated by a vehicle producer itself.

You pointed out that Hertz is "an authorized vehicle service center, and that "warranty repair information on Ford vehicles operated by Hertz is contained in our warranty information system and will be included in the EWR warranty count information, as well as "any consumer complaints that were directed to Ford from renters of Hertz Ford products. We understand, then, that Ford will include in its EWR reports relating to the number of warranty claims and consumer complaints such claims and complaints as are reported to it by Hertz.

You asserted that other data Hertz collects should not have to be reported. We do not expect Ford to report on non-Ford vehicles that Hertz rents or leases. As to Ford vehicles that Hertz rents or leases, while it is possible that some valuable EWR information might be in the possession of Hertz, inclusion of that data would skew the Ford reports, since no other vehicle manufacturer would have a similar data source. Moreover, we expect that ordinarily claims involving death or injury, based on alleged problems with Ford vehicles, received by Hertz would also be asserted against and received by Ford. On the other hand, we would expect that if Hertz were required to report all claims involving death or injury, we would receive information on numerous claims based on Hertzs ownership of the vehicle, as opposed to a potential problem with the Ford vehicle. Similar considerations apply to property damage claims. Therefore, we will not require reporting of claims for death, injury or property damage, or consumer complaints, received only by Hertz (on Ford vehicles or other vehicles).

With respect to field reports, you asserted that you did not believe that "non-warranty data from Hertz would be valuable as field reports as "Hertz data does not come directly from employees of a vehicle manufacturing company. However, a field report need not be a communication that originates with an employee of a manufacturer. The term "field report also includes a communication from "an authorized service facility, or an entity known to the manufacturer as owning or operating a fleet to a manufacturer. See the revised definition of "field report at 68 FR 18142. A "fleet is defined as "more than ten motor vehicles of the same make, model, and model year. See 49 CFR 579.4(b). Thus, a communication from Hertz to Ford relating to failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem in a vehicle manufactured by Ford, would be reportable by Ford. (We note, parenthetically, that a similar communication from Hertz to a vehicle manufacturer other than Ford would be reportable as a "field report by that manufacturer assuming that Hertz is an authorized service facility of that manufacturer, or owns and operates a fleet of vehicles produced by that manufacturer). However, we agree that a report by a Hertz employee to Hertz that was not forwarded to Ford in its capacity as a vehicle manufacturer would not have to be reported to NHTSA by Ford in its EWR submissions.

With respect to APCO, you related that this "subsidiary administers a third party supplemental extended warranty program, and that "the warranties are available to customers directly through [Ford] dealers [and] are also available through other, non-Ford dealers.

You also advised that Ford has an "internal ESP extended warranty system, which is contained in our warranty information system [and] will be included in the TREAD EWR warranty count information . In the preamble to the final rule (67 FR 45822, 45851), we observed that "in our view, the proposed definition [of warranty] already excludes third-party insurance-type contracts. However, we also noted that the proposed (and adopted) definition of warranty included "any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale or lease of a motor vehicle . . . by a manufacturer to a buyer or lessee . . . . Thus, claims under an APCO extended warranty that was sold by a Ford dealer in connection with the sale of a motor vehicle would be reportable by Ford under the EWR regulations. However, if the APCO extended warranty was purchased from a Ford dealer other than in connection with the sale of lease of the vehicle, or if the APCO extended warranty was purchased from other than a Ford dealer, each of these transactions would not be included in the definition of "warranty, and a claim filed under these APCO extended warranties would not have to be reported by Ford, even if the APCO contract covered a Ford-manufactured vehicle.

We recognize that this may create a reporting obligation, especially if APCO does not currently segregate its information in the manner we have described. However, the approach suggested in your letter would encourage Ford, and other vehicle manufacturers, to sell all extended warranties through subsidiaries to avoid reporting requirements, and would lead to a loss of potentially valuable EWR data.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:579
d.5/14/03

ID: Wagar.1

Mr. Terry W. Wagar
Vehicle Safety Technical Analyst III
NYS Department of Motor Vehicles
6 Empire State Plaza, Room 111
Albany, NY 12228

Dear Mr. Wagar:

This responds to your e-mail of June 2, 2003, asking whether a proposed New York State bill (A5226) would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Your correspondence attached a version of the bill and expressed concern regarding an amendment to existing State law that would require motor vehicles sold in New York (except motorcycles) to be equipped with a blind spot mirror.

I would note that except for a change in dates, it is our understanding that the New York Assembly sought to pass a nearly identical provision in 1996 (A9376, March 5, 1996). In the enclosed interpretation letter to Mr. R. Karbowski, we stated that the proposed State requirement would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). Because the State legislative provision and the applicable Federal laws have remained essentially unchanged in relation to this matter, NYS bill A5226 would be similarly preempted for the reasons set forth in our earlier interpretation letter.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:111
d.6/30/03

ID: wagar.ztv

Mr. Terry W. Wagar
Vehicle Safety Technical Analyst III
Technical Services Bureau
Office of Vehicle Safety & Clean Air
Department of Motor Vehicles
State of New York
6 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12228
FAX 518-473-9903





Dear Mr. Wagar:

This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 2001, to Thomas M. Louizou, NHTSA Regional Administrator, and confirms our telephone discussion of July 27, 2001.

You have written to us about several aspects of the relationship between State and Federal requirements for low-speed vehicles (LSV). Under Federal law, a "low-speed vehicle" is defined as a "4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface." A "truck" is a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." These definitions are found at 49 CFR 571.3(b). In addition, the enclosed letter of March 8, 2001, to Neil Mardell clarifies that a truck cannot be a LSV. At this time, we do not have sufficient information about the vehicles you describe as "small trucks" to offer an opinion as to whether they meet the Federal description of low speed vehicle or truck.

A vehicle that meets the definition of "low-speed vehicle" must be manufactured to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, Low-speed vehicles (49 CFR 571.500). You have informed us that "New York State law and regulation recognize the vehicles that have speeds not to exceed 40 MPH as limited use vehicles and must be uniquely registered and operated." There is no conflict here between State and Federal authority. NHTSA has no authority to prescribe conditions for registration and operation of motor vehicles, and with respect to LSVs (as opposed to other types of motor vehicles), New York may adopt and enforce whatever conditions for registration and operation it deems appropriate, including a total prohibition against the use of these vehicles on public roads.

You relate your initial understanding that "where equipment was addressed under 500, New York State would be preempted and could not have more stringent standards." However, "more recently, the answer from NHTSA has been that low speed vehicles only have to meet a specific seatbelt and windshield glazing requirement." You ask for a clarification.

Under Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1)), when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may prescribe its own standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance . . . only if the standard is identical to the [Federal] standard. . . ." Standard No. 500 requires LSVs to be equipped with a windshield of AS-1 or AS-5 composition, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly conforming to Standard No. 209. These are performance standards, and New York State's windshield glazing and seat belt standards as they apply to low-speed vehicles (i.e., limited use passenger-carrying vehicles with a maximum speed of more than 20 miles per hour but not more than 25 miles per hour) must be identical to those of Standard No. 500.

Standard No. 500 also requires LSVs to be equipped with certain items of lighting equipment, mirrors, and parking brakes, but it does not specify that these items must comply with Standards Nos. 108, 111, and 135, the Federal standards establishing performance requirements for lighting equipment, mirrors, and parking brakes. The American Association for Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) petitioned for reconsideration of Standard No. 500 and asked that States be allowed to establish their own performance requirements for these equipment items. We agreed, and on September 1, 2000, we published a notice (65 FR 53219), copy enclosed, saying (at 53221) that States "may adopt and apply their own performance requirements for required LSV lighting equipment, mirrors, and parking brakes until we have established performance requirements for those items of equipment." To date we have neither proposed nor established these requirements.

You mentioned that the GEM LSV appears to have a SAE "Y" symbol on the lens of its headlamp, indicating that the lamp is a driving light. As noted above, NHTSA has not proposed nor established requirements for the headlamp required by Standard No. 500, although we may do so in the future. A lamp with the SAE "Y" symbol on its lens is one that has been manufactured to comply with SAE Standard J581, Auxiliary Driving Lamps. The SAE defines an auxiliarly driving lamp as "a lighting device . . . intended to supplement the upper beam of a standard headlamp system. It is not intended for use alone or with the lower beam of a standard headlamp system." Thus, while the SAE clearly does not consider a driving lamp to be a headlamp, we have concluded that 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) permits a State to make its own decision as to whether it will accept a driving lamp as a headlamp for low-speed vehicles.

You also mentioned bumpers. As with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, "a State or political subdivision of a State may prescribe or enforce a bumper standard for a passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to" 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 U.S.C. 32511(a)). However, Section 581.3 specifically excludes low-speed vehicles from the applicability of the bumper standard. This means that New York, or any other jurisdiction, may establish a bumper standard for low-speed vehicles until such time as NHTSA may prescribe its own.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: wakley.2.wpd

Mr. Mark Wakley
25919 25^th Lane South, Apt. E-201
Kent, WA98032

Dear Mr. Wakley:

This is in response to your several e-mails in October 2003, concerning your desire to have the daytime running lights (DRLs) on your model year 2004 Chevrolet Cavalier disconnected. I understand that you discussed this issue at length with Eric Stas and other agency staff. You stated that your vehicle is equipped with DRLs that illuminate upon vehicle start-up and that there is no manual on-off switch. You stated that despite repeated requests, General Motors is unwilling to provide a means to disable the DRLs. Further, you described problems this has engendered in your delivery operations to military bases and other federal facilities, which require extinguishment of such lighting as a security measure.

Because DRLs are not required motor vehicle equipment, we confirm that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are free to disconnect the vehicles DRLs or to install an on-off switch, at customer request. As the vehicle owner, you are also free to disconnect the DRLs yourself. However, vehicle manufacturers are not required to provide a means to disable DRLs.

By way of background, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not require vehicle manufacturers to install DRLs on new vehicles; however, if manufacturers choose to install such devices, paragraph 5.5.11 of the standard sets forth certain performance requirements. Paragraph S5.5.11(a) provides that DRLs are to be "automatically deactivated when the headlamp control is in any on position, and as otherwise determined by the vehicle manufacturer." In the context of paragraph S5.5.11(a), "headlamp control" refers to those position(s) of the master lighting switch that cause the headlamps themselves to be turned on.

Because DRLs are not required by FMVSS No. 108, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may disconnect DRLs or provide on-off switches without violating the statutory prohibition against knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 49 U.S.C.

30122. However, these entities may not alter the performance specifications of DRLs in a manner that would make them not comply with the performance requirements specified for DRLs under the standard.

I hope that this clarifies NHTSAs regulations related to DRLs. If you have any further questions regarding our regulations, please contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/22/04

ID: Wallach.1

Mr. Mark Wallach
President
Air Chex Equipment Company, Inc.
27 New Street
Nyack on Hudson, NY10960

Dear Mr. Wallach:

This responds to your letters concerning your companys new tire pressure safety devices for use on trucks, buses, and other large vehicles. The attachments to your letters describe three products intended to be mounted on a vehicles wheels which allow the vehicle operator to gauge tire inflation pressure and which facilitate the addition of air up to the proper inflation level. You seek assurance that these planned items of motor vehicle equipment are in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

The agency does not have any regulations covering tire pressure safety devices for heavy vehicles. However, if your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle, prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Thus, these entities could not install your tire pressure system if it would take the vehicle out of compliance with any existing safety standard. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify NHTSA and purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact FMCSA for further information about any FMCSA regulations that may apply to your system. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I note for your information that NHTSA is currently in the process of rulemaking to establish FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMSs), which will set forth requirements for TPMSs that are installed in new passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.6/25/04

ID: Wallach.3

ID: ward.ztv

L. Taylor Ward, III, Esq.
Vice President & General Counsel
Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC
100 N.W. 12^th Avenue
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442

Dear Mr. Ward:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 2003, relating to motor vehicle distributors who add accessory equipment to new vehicles before they are sold. You are concerned specifically about accessory equipment produced by someone other than the manufacturer of the vehicle. This equipment includes "audio systems, tires, wheels, cruise control, trailer hitches, luggage racks, running boards, spoilers, truck bed liners, and convenience equipment." You are unclear "where [distributors] fit under the [TREAD] Acts definitions, and what reports are required of them for the non-Toyota, domestic accessories they install." You believe that distributors of Toyota cars and trucks "should logically only be responsible for reporting information on non-Toyota parts and accessories they install."

The early warning reporting (EWR) obligations of the TREAD Act (Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579) apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. They do not apply to distributors and dealers who only add accessory equipment to a vehicle before its first sale, in the nature of the equipment you listed: "audio systems, tires, wheels, cruise control, trailer hitches, luggage racks, running boards, spoilers, truck bed liners, and convenience equipment." The fact that the accessory equipment may not be factory authorized is irrelevant to this conclusion.

The manufacturer is responsible under EWR for reporting certain information it receives from distributors and dealers in the ordinary course of business, such as the number of field reports and warranty claims. But there is no independent obligation under EWR for distributors and dealers to report this, or any other information, to NHTSA under the EWR regulations.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.5/16/03

ID: warner.ztv

Mr. Robert J. Warner
Member of Assembly
124th District
State of New York
State Office Building, Floor #17
44 Hawley Street
Binghamton, NY 13901-4416

Dear Assemblyman Warner:

Your letter of August 16, 1996, to the Office of Public & Consumer Affairs of this agency has been forwarded to the Office of Chief Counsel for reply. We are pleased to assist you in your development of a proposal for economical, energy-efficient alternative vehicles.

You mention that an important issue is "whether all four-wheeled vehicles manufactured in this country (excluding trucks, etc.) must comply with the Safety Standards for the 'Passenger Vehicle' category." As a general rule, the answer is yes; all four-wheeled passenger cars manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). However, through letters of interpretation, this Office presently excludes from compliance specific on-road vehicles whose configuration is "abnormal" and whose top speed does not exceed 20 mph. The agency has been asked to raise the speed to 25 mph but has taken no action yet on this request.

You also ask whether a vehicle called the Intruder "has been subjected to crash testing and emissions compliance? Is this vehicle actually legal for sale in the United States? Has it been approved by the DOT for sale in this country? If not, how can they claim it is U.S. Legal?"

Under the basic Federal vehicle safety regulatory statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to approve a vehicle for sale. The legislation establishes a self-certification scheme under which a manufacturer permanently affixes a label to each motor vehicle upon its manufacture which certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS. No submission of data to NHTSA or prior approval is required. A manufacturer must have a reasonable basis for its certification, but there is no legal requirement that it test according to the procedures set out in the FMVSS. For example, it is not necessary to crash test a vehicle in order to certify compliance with those

FMVSS which specify performance requirements to be met in barrier impacts if the manufacturer has satisfied itself through computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematic calculations, or other bases, that the vehicle would meet the performance requirements were it to be crash tested.

Our legislation establishes no requirements for vehicles constructed from used parts, or a mixture of them. It is possible that the Intruder consists of a new body placed on the chassis of a vehicle previously in use from which its original body has been removed. If this is the case, no certification is required, and a state may establish its own equipment requirements as a condition of registration.

In summary, the manufacturer of the Intruder has been under no obligation to report to us whether it has crash tested its vehicle. The Intruder is legal for sale in the U.S. under Federal law if it is constructed on a used chassis, or, if it is a new vehicle and it bears its manufacturer's certification of compliance with the FMVSS. We have no knowledge of its compliance with emissions requirements as those standards are issued and enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency.

You also asked "Is there an exemption to the safety . . . regulations for small volume 'passenger vehicle' manufacturers? If so, what are the rules for such an exemption?"

NHTSA is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30113 to exempt, on a temporary basis, a manufacturer whose total yearly production does not exceed 10,000 motor vehicles, from any FMVSS that would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship were it required to meet it immediately. The application procedures for such an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(a). The applicant must not only show hardship but also that it has tried in good faith to meet the standard from which it requests relief..

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:555

d:9/13/96