ID: NCC-230927-001 FMVSS 135 - Telltale_ St. Pierre_ Canoo

June 7, 2024

Mr. Barry St. Pierre 

Sr. Homologation Engineer  

Canoo 

19951 Mariner Ave 

Torrance, CA 90503 

barry.st.pierre@canoo.com

Dear Mr. St. Pierre: 

I write in response to your September 12, 2023 email to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking for information on federal requirements for telltales in light vehicle brake systems. Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email correspondence. 

In responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Background 

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) setting performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. 

Your email correspondence seeks clarification of the requirement in 49 CFR § 571.135 S5.5.5(a) that visual indicators “shall have letters not less than 3.2mm (⅛ inch) high.” You state correctly that, if the telltale is the word “BRAKE,” it must meet the height requirement. You also ask about the specific proposed brake and ABS icon symbols pictured in your correspondence. In particular, you ask: (1) if a brake symbol includes the letter “P” as part of the symbol, whether it is sufficient for the symbol as a whole to meet the 3.2 mm height requirement of S5.5.5(a), or whether the letter “P” by itself must meet the height requirement; and (2) if an antilock braking system symbol includes the letters “ABS” as part of the symbol, whether it is sufficient for the symbol as a whole to meet the 3.2 mm high requirement, or whether the letters “ABS” by themselves must meet the height requirement. 

Discussion 

As you acknowledge in your correspondence, 49 CFR § 571.135 (FMVSS 135) S5.5.5(a) specifies labeling requirements for light vehicle brake systems. It states: 

Each visual indicator shall display a word or words in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 101 (49 CFR 571.101) and this section, which shall be legible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions when activated.
Unless otherwise specified, the words shall have letters not less than 3.2 mm (⅛ inch) high and the letters and background shall be of contrasting colors, one of which is red. Words or symbols in addition to those required by Standard No. 101 and this section may be provided for purposes of clarity. 

49 CFR § 571.101 (FMVSS 101), in turn, includes requirements for telltales and indicators. Section 5.2.1 states, in relevant part: 

[E]ach control, telltale and indicator that is listed in column 1 of Table 1 or Table 2 must be identified by the symbol specified for it in column 2 or the word or abbreviation specified for it in column 3 of Table 1 or Table 2. If a symbol is used, each symbol provided pursuant to this paragraph must be substantially similar in form to the symbol as it appears in Table 1 or Table 2. 

Table 1 of FMVSS 101 shows the required telltales for the items for which you request clarification: brake system malfunction and anti-lock brake system malfunction. These telltales have specific words or abbreviations that must be used as identifiers. Specifically, the word “Brake” must be used to indicate brake system malfunction. The words “Antilock” or “Anti-lock,” or the abbreviation “ABS,” must be used to indicate antilock brake system malfunction for vehicles subject to FMVSS Nos. 105 or 135. Unlike certain other items, Table 1 of FMVSS 101 does not permit the use of a symbol as an alternative to words or abbreviations to indicate either a brake system malfunction or an anti-lock brake system malfunction. Further, these required words or abbreviations must comply with the 3.2 mm height requirement of FMVSS 135 S5.5.5(a). 

NHTSA understands the symbols proposed in your correspondence to be separate from and additional to the required words or abbreviations discussed above. With this understanding, the two proposed symbols pictured in your correspondence would not be subject to the word height requirement laid out in FMVSS 135 S5.5.5(a), as they would be considered additional words or symbols used for clarification purposes. Accordingly, neither the symbols, nor the letters that are part of the symbols, would be required to be at least 3.2 mm. 

However, if a vehicle does not use Table 1’s required words or abbreviations as a telltale for the item in question, and instead only uses a symbol that does not contain the required words or abbreviations, then the vehicle does not meet the requirements of FMVSS 101 S5.2.1, regardless of the height of the symbol or the letter(s) in the symbol. 

Finally, we note that, as discussed above, one permissible telltale for an anti-lock brake system malfunction is the abbreviation “ABS.” Accordingly, if the symbol pictured in your letter that includes the letters “ABS” is the only telltale used in a vehicle to indicate an antilock system brake malfunction, then the letters “ABS” in that symbol must meet the 3.2 mm minimum height requirement in FMVSS 135 S5.5.5(a). It would not be sufficient for the symbol as a whole to meet this height requirement, because S5.5.5(a) specifically requires the “words” to meet the requirement. 

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Natasha Reed of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Adam Raviv
Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/7/24
Ref: Standard No. 135

ID: aiam4524

"Dear Mr. Reeser: I am writing in response to your December 4, 198 letter in which you described Caterpillar Inc.'s worldwide program to review lighting used on Caterpillar product lines in order to standardize the devices. You specifically asked if any of Caterpillar's lighting devices were covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108. You enclosed descriptive literature on the Caterpillar product line. I regret the delay in responding to your question. It must be noted at the outset that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for 'motor vehicles.' Therefore, Standard 108 and all of our other regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a 'motor vehicle' under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 102(3) of the Act defines 'motor vehicle' as: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles because Congress clearly did not intend to include them in its coverage. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., Airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. As noted above, this agency has consistently interpreted 'motor vehicle' to exclude vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel. Therefore, the track-type tractors, excavators, track-type loaders, tracked pavement profilers PR-450, PR-750B and PR-1000, concrete slipform pavers & auxiliary equipment, finegraders, front shovels, swing machines, tracked skidders D4H and D5H are not considered to be 'motor vehicles.' In your letter, you described the Caterpillar line of construction and industrial equipment as basically for off-highway use: 'There are occasional uses on the highway for such equipment as motor graders, but obviously none of this equipment is designed for normal highway use or for the transportation of people.' Despite their use of the highway, some vehicles are excepted from the motor vehicle classification. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered 'motor vehicles.' Although many items in the Caterpillar product line have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles, the product literature enclosed with your letter did not provide sufficient information on the maximum speed capabilities or intended uses (i.e., strictly off highway or occasional on-highway use) of the motor graders, off-highway tractors, articulated dump trucks, wheel tractors, compactors, landfill compactors, wheel loaders, integrated toolcarriers, backhoe loaders, pavement profilers PR-75, PR-105 and PR-275, asphalt pavers & auxiliary equipment, compaction equipment, skidders, pipelayers, scrapers, and off-highway trucks to enable me to make a determination whether these would be considered 'motor vehicles.' However, I believe that the guidelines for classifying vehicles that are set forth above will allow you to determine if these are 'motor vehicles.' If they are, they must comply with safety standards, including Standard 108, applicable to trucks. The lighting devices and other features of 'motor vehicles' would be required to comply with the FMVSS (49 CFR Part 571). As you are aware, Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR 571.108) specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment necessary for signaling andfor the safe operation of motor vehicles during darkness and other conditions of reduced visibility. Finally, the product literature included several items which did not appear to be self-propelling, including the asphalt drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment items TSF-54 and TSM-54. These products fall within NHTSA's jurisdiction if they are 'trailers' as that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3. That section defines 'trailer' as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' Based on the depiction in the brochure, the equipment appear to be designed for carrying property (drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment) and for being drawn by another vehicle. Therefore, whether the equipment are trailers depends on whether they are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act and on whether the vehicles the equipment are designed to be drawn by are 'motor vehicles.' Specific information has not been provided about the intended uses of the equipment. If they make frequent use of the highways, and stay at one particular job site for a limited amount of time, the items mentioned above would be motor vehicles, and would fall within the definition of 'trailers.' Trailers are subject to Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If, on the other hand, the equipment are intended to be drawn by vehicles that are not motor vehicles, or the equipment stays at a job site for extended periods of time and it travels on the highways only to move to another job site for an extended stay, the equipment would not be considered motor vehicles. It is important to note that NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self certification' process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product. I hope the information provided above will be useful to you and to Caterpillar, Inc. If there are any further questions or if you need further information, please do not hesitate to write to me. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5307

"Dear Mr. Haywood: This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993 requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows: Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation. This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases. You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term 'motor vehicle' as follows: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. If a vehicle is a 'motor vehicle' under the definition, then the vehicle must comply will all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority. Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site. NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a 'truck' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a 'truck' for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA 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.' NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all 'occupant seats' in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, all 'occupant seats' in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position. The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to be comply with Standard No. 209. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer. Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that are appropriate to a safe design. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5561

Dear Mr. Grubb: This responds to your letter asking whether thi agency's requirements apply to several products you are selling. One is called the 'California Go-Ped,' a small push scooter with non-pneumatic tires, a 2-cycle motor mounted above the rear wheel, and a top speed of 20 mph. Another is called the 'Tsi Power Scooter,' and resembles a scooter in frame style, but has larger pneumatic tires and can be outfitted with a seat. The Power Scooter has a top speed of 15 mph. You cited a previous interpretation stating that a scooter (similar to the Go-Ped) is not a motor vehicle, and thus not subject to our requirements, so I assume that you are asking whether the products you sell are motor vehicles. You also asked about motorized 'skateboards' and motors for mounting on a conventional bicycle. The short answer to your question is that the Go-Ped is not a motor vehicle but the Power Scooter may be, depending on whether it is sold with a seat. Motorized 'skateboards' are not motor vehicles, but motors for mounting on bicycles are 'motor vehicle equipment.' You indicated that you have a copy of a letter dated April 1, 1991, in which we discussed whether a small push scooter called a 'Walk Machine' is considered a motor vehicle for purposes of our standards. In that letter, we discussed the general principles for determining whether a product is a motor vehicle. As discussed in that letter, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that are or can be operated off-road, but are also used on the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off- road operation. If a vehicle will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, even though its greatest use will be off-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. In discussing whether the Walk Machine is considered a motor vehicle, we noted that NHTSA has stated in previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. We concluded that the Walk Machine is not a motor vehicle since it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles. I will now apply these principles to the products you ask about in your letter. First, the California Go-Ped has an almost identical configuration to that of the Walk Machine and a maximum speed of 20 mph. Therefore, we do not consider it to be a motor vehicle, for the same reasons that apply to the Walk Machine. Second, the Power Scooter has a maximum speed of 15 mph and, when sold without a seat, has a configuration similar to that of the Walk Machine. In that configuration, we do not consider it to be a motor vehicle. When equipped with a seat, however, the Power Scooter is considered to be a motor vehicle. Although the advertising literature states that the Power Scooter is 'not for in-street use,' NHTSA believes that it is indistinguishable from a moped, which is an on-street vehicle that we have long interpreted as a motor vehicle. Although most mopeds have chain drives, pedal starters, and lower-mounted engines, we do not think that these distinctions are important. The seated rider on the power scooter appears to other traffic to be riding a moped. We also note that the low ground clearance of the central platform appears poorly suited to off-road use. Further, we consider the Power Scooter, when equipped with a seat, to be a type of motorcycle. A motorcycle is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground' (Title 49, section 571.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)). Motorcycles are subject to our regulations in 49 CFR Part 571, including Standards for lights (No. 108), rear view mirrors (111), brakes (122), and controls and displays (123). The materials you sent do not disclose the horsepower of the 21 cc engine, but we assume that it is less than 5 brake horsepower. If that assumption is correct, the vehicle would be a 'motor-driven cycle,' a type of motorcycle that is subject to less stringent requirements under our regulations. However, the Power Scooter does not appear to meet even the less stringent requirements. For example, the Scooter lacks lights, dual braking systems, and rear view mirrors. The motors for mounting on a conventional bicycle are designed specifically to convert the bicycle into a motorcycle. Therefore, they are motor vehicle equipment. Despite the notation 'not for in-street use' in the advertising brochure, bicycles are predominantly used in the streets. Merely adding a motor does not change this fact. The motorized 'skateboard' is not a motor vehicle because it was not manufactured for in-street use and is also not used on the public roads. You stated in your letter that you want to clarify the application of our motor vehicle requirements to your products so that you can advise your customers exactly where they can and cannot operate them. We strongly encourage you to read the enclosed information sheet on your responsibilities under Federal law as a retailer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In addition, while the location of use of particular vehicles can affect our determination of whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle, the actual regulation of the operation of vehicles and motor vehicles is a matter of State law. For information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22203. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: aiam4372

Dear Mr. Fujitani: This letter responds to your inquiries addressed to Joan Tilghman of m staff. Your letters concern buses purchased by the State of California, and manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division (Champion). You inform us that Champion is a final stage manufacturer of vehicles built on a Ford chassis. You have rejected delivery of these vehicles because you assert that they do not comply with either California or Federal motor vehicle regulations. This response addresses only those issues arising from Federal requirements.; As I understand your letters, you pose two principle questions. First you ask whether classifying an incomplete vehicle as a 'chassis' rather than as a 'chassis cab' means that a final stage manufacturer can not alter the original chassis manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You assert that Champion's altering of the GVWR on a vehicle classified as a 'chassis' is a noncompliance under 49 CFR sections 567.5 and 568.4 which you may use as grounds for rejecting delivery of Champion's vehicles.; Your second question involves data set out in your letter of April 14 suggesting that Champion's certified GVWR for these vehicles is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, the rated cargo load, and 150 lbs. times the vehicles' designated seating capacity. You state that this circumstance is a second noncompliance with Federal regulations upon which you have rejected delivery of Champion's buses.; >>>*The Cutaway Chassis/Chassis Cab Question*.<<< In both your letters, you refer to provisions of 49 CFR 567.5 an 568.4, and to a 1977 Federal Register document (42 FR 37814, 37816, July 25, 1977). You state your interpretation of these 49 CFR provisions as 'mean(ing) that final stage manufacturers (who build on RV cutaways) are not authorized to alter the (GVWR) imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for certifying a greater load carrying capaci(ty) without altering axle components to handle the extra load.' As I understand it, when you speak of an RV cutaway you mean a vehicle chassis with an incomplete occupant compartment, intended for completion as a recreational vehicle. For any incomplete vehicle (including a cutaway or chassis cab), Part 568 requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide a document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the vehicle's compliance status. This document is *not* a certification.; If the incomplete vehicle is other than a chassis cab, the final stag manufacturer who builds on the incomplete vehicle must certify its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). On the other hand, the certification process is different if an incomplete vehicle meets the agency's definition of 'chassis cab.' The Federal Register document to which you refer amended 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 to conform with a court decision holding that NHTSA could not require a final stage manufacturer to make the 'sole certification' of compliance for a vehicle built on a chassis cab. As a consequence of this decision, NHTSA established a dual certification scheme for such vehicles in which the chassis cab manufacturer makes one certification statement in each of three categories, and the final stage manufacturer makes corresponding statements depending on how the final stage manufacturer affects any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).; Under this dual certification scheme, the original chassis ca manufacturer may provide instructions telling a final stage manufacturer how to complete a vehicle so that it conforms with applicable FMVSS. The final stage manufacturer has the choice of either conforming his work to the chassis cab manufacturer's instructions and shifting the burden under Part 567 of certifying compliance to the chassis cab manufacturer, or deviating from those instructions, and assuming the certification burden for himself. Further, the final stage manufacturer must certify compliance respecting any FMVSS for which the chassis cab manufacturer makes no representation.; While you are correct that in the 1977 Federal Register document th agency decided to exclude RV cutaways from the definition of 'chassis cab,' the only effect of this exclusion is that dual certification requirements do not apply to vehicles completed on an RV cutaway.; Therefore, the answer to your first question is that a final stag manufacturer may change the GVWR for any incomplete vehicle, irrespective of whether he builds the completed vehicle on an RV cutaway or a chassis cab. However, if the final stage manufacturer changes the GVWR for the vehicle, it must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS at this new GVWR. Compliance with Standards No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*, and No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* might well be affected by an increase in the GVWR. The final stage manufacturer is required to exercise 'due care' when certifying that its vehicle complies with all safety standards at this increased GVWR. Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has asked the final stage manufacturer of these vehicles to provide the data and other evidence that were the basis for Champion's certification of compliance at this higher GVWR.; >>>*Champion's Certified GVWR Calculation*.<<< Part 567 of NHTSA regulations sets out requirements for affixing certification label or tag to a motor vehicle. Section 567.4(g)(3) of that Part states that the certified GVWR:; >>>'...shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120.'<<<; In your April letter, you supply weightmaster readings for the tw Champion motor vehicles that are the subject of your inquiry. While Champion certifies the GVWR for both these vehicles at 12,000 pounds, you indicate that according to your S567.4(g)(3) calculation, the sums are 12,147 pounds and 12,580 pounds. This agency considers vehicle overloading a serious safety problem for the affected vehicle and for the motoring public, and NHTSA may take appropriate remedial action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, laden with its intended cargo load, exceeds the manufacturer's GVWR. NHTSA's Office Of Vehicle Safety Compliance is investigating this matter further.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4892

"Dear Mr. Albury: This responds to your letter of June 3, 199 concerning whether your company would be considered the manufacturer of certain vehicles. Your company is planning to use jeep conversion kits on Chrysler Corporation jeeps. Under one approach, your company would purchase the basic stripped down model jeep from Chrysler and add the body, stereo, air conditioning, tires, running lights, carpeting, and high visibility seats. You state that the body would be one solid piece and that your company would add wheel wells, doors, a solid or canvas top, and a windshield. Alternatively, your company would purchase the chassis, with engine and transmission, from Chrysler and add the above items. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. 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. I will address the responsibilities of your company under the Safety Act in each of the situations you described. First, if your company purchased a stripped down vehicle from Chrysler and made the modifications described, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as: A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been 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, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale . . . . As an alterer, your company would be required to certify compliance of its vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567. The only exception would be if: 1. The modifications consisted solely of 'readily attachable components,' or 2. The modifications were only 'minor finishing operations.' Whether modifications involve 'readily attachable' components depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. In the past, the agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise. Without extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve 'readily attachable' components. If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label would state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed. In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. Alterers also are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. Second, as an alternative, your company is considering buying a chassis from Chrysler. In that case, your company would likely be considered a final-stage manufacturer. Under 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, a final-stage manufacturer is defined as: A person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle. Under the regulation, incomplete vehicle is defined as An assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle. As a final-stage manufacturer, your company's certification responsibilities would depend on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle: 1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle, 2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer, 3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards. After receiving this document from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, your company would be required to certify compliance with the safety standards. In addition to these certification requirements, a final-stage manufacturer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means a final-stage manufacturer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. In addition, final-stage manufacturers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4648

"Dear Mr. Hudyma: Thank you for your letter requesting a interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked about certification requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles that will be assembled in Italy and in Michigan. I apologize for the delay in this response. The vehicles in question will be assembled in Italy to the extent that they will be 'complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.), transmission and transfer case in Italy.' These assemblies will then be imported into the United States where the vehicles will be completed. You state that both the operations in Italy and in Michigan will be performed pursuant to a contract with LAFORZA, who will have 'complete control over the manufacturing process at all times.' It is your understanding that in the fact situation described above, LAFORZA is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore LAFORZA is responsible for affixing the certification label on the completed motor vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. You asked us to confirm this interpretation. We cannot do so. Under our law and regulations, the company that completes the vehicles in Michigan is a 'manufacturer' of the vehicles in question. The information provided in your letter is inadequate to allow us to determine whether LAFORZA might also be considered a 'manufacturer' of these vehicles. The first issue to be addressed in our analysis is whether the products in question are 'incomplete vehicles' when they arrive in the United States. An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as: ... an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle. Your letter states that the products that arrive in the United States will not have an engine or transmission, which means they will not have a power train. Accordingly, 568.3 makes clear that these products would not be 'incomplete vehicles' for the purposes of our regulations. In previous interpretations, we have referred to products that do not qualify as 'incomplete vehicles' as an 'assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment'. In those previous letters, we have stated that the assemblage should be labeled as items of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States and that the importer of the assemblage must certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. See the enclosed May 6, 1985 letter to Mr. Hayley Alexander. This finding also means that the Italian company that produces these 'assemblages of items of motor vehicle equipment' is not a 'manufacturer' of motor vehicles with respect to the vehicles in question. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5), the Safety Act) defines a 'manufacturer' as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' In this case, the Italian company producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment has not manufactured or assembled any motor vehicles, nor has it imported any motor vehicles. Hence, it does not fit the statutory definition of a 'manufacturer' of the vehicles in question. After these assemblages are imported into the United States, the operations performed by the Michigan company will transform the items of motor vehicle equipment into a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Michigan company would be a 'manufacturer' of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Since 567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to include the name of the manufacturer, the vehicles could comply if the name of the Michigan company were shown on the certification label. The information in your letter was inadequate to allow us to make even a tentative determination of whether LAFORZA may also be considered a manufacturer of these vehicles. The agency discussed the issue of vehicles with more than one 'manufacturer' at length in its proposal to establish rules of attribution for determining which of the manufacturers would be responsible for complying with the phase-in requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). In that proposal, NHTSA said: Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility of compliance with safety standards on manufacturers, the agency does not have authority to attribute a vehicle to a party other than one of the vehicle's manufacturers. However, the agency considers the language in section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer is 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles . . .' to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer. This follows from application of basic principles of agency law. In this case, the sponsor is the principal. On the other hand, the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles. 50 FR 14589, at 14596, April 12, 1985. According to your letter, LAFORZA has a contractual relationship with the company in Italy that is producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and a contractual relationship with the company in Michigan that is assembling the motor vehicle. These contractual relationships led you to assert that '... LAFORZA Automobiles will have complete control of the manufacturing process at all times.' If LAFORZA merely has contractual relationships under which it purchases products for resale from the companies in Italy and Michigan, LAFORZA would not be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles. If you can provide us with information about any role LAFORZA has in producing these vehicles besides contracting with other companies to assemble the vehicles, we will review that information and offer our interpretation of whether LAFORZA could be considered a 'manufacturer' of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. Hans W. Metzger LAFORZA Safety Consultant 6323 E. Turquoise Avenue Scottsdale, Arizona 85253";

ID: aiam5449

"This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA' regulations apply to your company's plans to refurbish used vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that after refurbishing, the vehicles will have lower gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs). You wish to know whether you could add a label showing the lower GVWR to the vehicles' original certification label (which you refer to as the 'original Vin Plate'). As explained below, NHTSA does not require the supplementary label on a refurbished--and not newly manufactured--used vehicle. We would, however, encourage you to add the label on the refurbished vehicles, since the label would provide important safety information to the vehicle operator. On the other hand, the modifications you make to the vehicle could be so extensive that the resulting vehicle is considered 'new' under our regulations. If the vehicle is a new vehicle, you must certify the vehicle as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), and include on your certification label the new GVWR of the vehicle. Based on the information you provided, the vehicles you are refurbishing are 'trucks' under section 571.3 of our regulations. Section 571.3 defines a 'truck' as a motor vehicle with motive power 'designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' You provided two photographs of the vehicles after they have been refurbished. Your photographs show the refurbished vehicles as carrying 4' x 8' 'Advanced Warning Flashing Arrow' signs on flat beds. Since your vehicles are designed for transporting property or special purpose equipment, the vehicles are 'trucks' under 571.3. You describe your refurbishing process in your letter. You state that you will take a used truck with a GVWR of 45,000 or 80,000 pounds (lbs.), 'scrap' the body, and check remaining truck parts such as the subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, and suspension. You will repair and replace those parts, as needed. Next, you will clean and paint the frame and running gear, and add a new support frame and 'attenuator mounting hardware with braces.' After the vehicle is refurbished, its GVWR will be approximately 25,500 lbs. As a general rule, NHTSA has no requirements for 'used' vehicles. Whether a vehicle is considered new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage of a new body on a chassis of a vehicle that was previously registered for use on the public roads to be a 'used' vehicle and therefore not subject to the FMVSS's. When a modified chassis is being used in the refurbishment, NHTSA has a regulation (49 CFR section 571.7(e)) for determining when the modifications to the used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the FMVSS's. Section 571.7(e) states: When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . ., unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. It does not appear that you plan to add a new engine, transmission, or drive axle to each refurbished truck. If you leave the requisite components specified in section 571.7(e) in place from the previous vehicle, we would consider the vehicle you produce to be a used vehicle. However, please keep in mind that you would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. section 30122(b), which provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . This means that the refurbished truck must continue to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification, such as those for braking, lighting and safety belt systems. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. You ask whether, after refurbishing the used truck, your company may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to reflect the lower GVWR. Since NHTSA generally does not regulate used vehicles, we do not require or prohibit the addition of a supplementary GVWR label. However, we would encourage you to add the supplementary GVWR label to the vehicle. As you note, in an interpretation letter of May 24, 1993 to the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), NHTSA recognized that certain modifications that might be made to a used vehicle (e.g., adding or deleting an axle) could make the originally assigned GVWR inappropriate for the vehicle as modified. In the letter to the AABA, NHTSA stated that although it is not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in these situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle. Similarly, in your case, since the GVWR of the refurbished trucks would be much lower than that indicated on the certification label, we believe it would be appropriate for your company to add a label to the trucks which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the refurbished truck. As noted at the beginning of this letter, it is possible that your modifications could result in a 'new' vehicle. You indicate that, if needed, you could replace the vehicle's subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, suspension, and/or support frame. If you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the original vehicle and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable FMVSS's in effect on the date of the remanufacture of the new vehicle. You also asked that NHTSA 'approve' your proposed operations. NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' refurbishing operations. Under our regulations, manufacturers of new vehicles 'self-certify' that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Likewise, businesses refurbishing used vehicles must assure themselves that the resulting vehicle continues to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification. NHTSA can examine the refurbisher's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4267

Dear Ms. Cunningham: This is in response to your letter of November 5, 1986, concerning th new Federal odometer law and the Washington Attorney General's proposed legislation.; As you know, on October 28, 1986, President Reagan signed into law th Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, P.L. 99-579, which amends Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. S 1981 *et seq*. Beginning April 29, 1989, a motor vehicle may not be licensed in a State unless the transferee includes with the application for title the transferor's title. If the transferor's title contains the space for the transferor to disclose the mileage as required by Federal regulation, the mileage disclosure must be included on the title and it must be signed and dated by the transferor. If the transferor's title does not contain a space for the transferor to disclose the mileage, the transferor must issue a separate odometer disclosure statement. In addition, the law provides that, beginning April 29, 1989, all motor vehicle titles issued must meet the following requirements.; >>>1. Titles must be set forth by means of a secure printing process o other secure process.; 2. Titles must indicate required mileage disclosure information. 3. Titles must contain space for the transferee to disclose, in th event of future transfer, the mileage at the time of such future transfer and to sign and date such disclosure.<<<; A copy of the Act is enclosed for your reference. We are aware that the titling and disclosure provision of the new Ac will require changes in many state motor vehicle titling laws and title forms. For that reason, the Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to provide assistance to any State in revising its laws to meet the new Federal criteria. It is our desire to cooperate with the states to the maximum extent possible, to assure a smooth and timely transition to the new Act.; NHTSA intends to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to implement the ne Act and resolve technical issues. Because that process will take several months, we recommended to the States through the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators that they may wish to defer changes to their vehicle title forms and titling procedures until the rulemaking has been completed. In that way, they will be in a better position to assure full compliance with the new Act and implementing regulations.; We have been advised by the Washington Attorney General's Office however, that the State law which local prosecutors currently enforce is a relatively weak statute and that strong State odometer laws are needed as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, in an effort to assist the State in combatting odometer fraud, I offer the following comments to point out inconsistencies between portions of the proposed State legislation and the new Federal law.; Section 3 of the proposed legislation concerns the issuance of odomete disclosure statements by owners, lessees and lessors. While Section 3 does not apply to vehicles leased for a period of less than six months, Section 2(e) of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 defines a leased motor vehicles as 'any motor vehicle which is leased to a person for a term of at least 4 months by a lessor who has leased 5 or more motor vehicles in the past 12 months.' Furthermore, under Section 2(e) of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, lessors are required to provide lessees written notice regarding mileage disclosure requirements and penalties for failure to comply with them. The proposed legislation includes no analogous provision.; In addition to the above comments that pertain to the new Federal law I also offer the following comments regarding differences between the proposed State law and the Federal law and regulations now in effect.; Section 7 of the proposed legislation states as follows: >>>(1) The department shall adopt an odometer disclosure statement tha complies with the federal motor vehicle information and cost savings act of 1972, P.L. No. 12-513, as amended.<<<; However, the minimum requirements contained in Section 7 of th proposed legislation vary from the requirements of the regulation promulgated under the statute. Federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. S 580.4(a)(3), requires the disclosure of the transferor's current address. In addition, 49 C.F.R. S580.4(b) requires that the odometer disclosure statement refer to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and shall state that incorrect information may result in civil liability and civil or criminal penalties. (Reference to State law is acceptable in lieu of a reference to Federal law.) Furthermore, 49 C.F.R. S580.4(e) states that 'The transferee shall acknowledge receipt of the disclosure statement by signing it.' Neither the transferor's current address nor a penalty notice and signature are required by the proposed legislation.; Section 7(k) of the proposed legislation requires the disclosure o both miles and kilometers when the odometer is 'altered to reflect miles instead of 'kilometers.' This Agency has not required any similar type of disclosure. We have determined that 15 U.S.C. S1987 could be relied upon to lawfully replace odometers which register kilometers travelled with those that register miles travelled. (To convert the odometer reading from kilometers to miles, multiple (sic) the kilometer reading by .62.) It is NHTSA's position that transferors who convert the odometers from kilometers to miles should check the first box of the first set of certifications which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odomete reading as stated above reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle described below.<<<; Furthermore, these transferors should check the second box in th second set of certifications which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that the odometer was altered for repair o replacement purposes while in my possession, and that the mileage registered on the repaired or replacement odometer was identical to that before such service.<<<; With regard to Section 4 and the question you raised in your letter, understand that the Section has been amended so that the dealer's disclosure will be included on the assignment and title.; I hope these comments assist you in your efforts to ensure th coordination of Federal and State odometer laws so that no undue burden is placed upon your members.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 15208.og

Mr. Brent Gruenig
Crow River Industries
850 State Highway 55
P.O. Box 70
Brooten, MN 56316

Dear Mr. Gruenig:

This is in response to your letter regarding a seating system which Crow River Industries is developing for the purpose of adapting vehicles for use by less-abled individuals. As described in your letter, the seat rotates on a pivot, allowing the seat to face out of the car, and two sets of slide tracks. One set of slide tracks is used for adjustment in the vehicle. The second set of slide tracks is used for exiting the vehicle after rotation. You are concerned about the legal implications of this design. In particular, you state that you understand that Crow River Industries cannot "make the vehicle inoperable or 'out of specification' with the replacement of the OEM seat with our seat." You wish to know what exactly is "out of specification."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to your seat design. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars. The second is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because Federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the seat occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 207, No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the adaptive seat installed in the vehicle.

Installation Prior to First Sale

If an adaptive seat were added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified 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.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a 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.

In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation.

In situations involving a potential violation of 30122, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have, where appropriate, been willing to consider certain unavoidable violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need. However, it is often possible to make modifications in a way that does not degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard.

If a company believes that certain modifications must be made to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, and that the modifications cannot be made without violating the "make inoperative" provision discussed above, it may write to us and request a letter stating that we will not enforce that provision. The letter should identify the specific facts at issue and why it is not possible to avoid violating that provision. It should also demonstrate that the proposed modifications minimize the safety consequences of the noncompliances.

For your information, NHTSA is considering proposing a regulation establishing conditions under which a vehicle may be modified to accommodate a person's disability so that the modifier will not be subjected to the make inoperative requirements of 30122. Enclosed is a copy of page 22101 of the agency's April 25, 1997 regulatory agenda where this possible rulemaking is described (entry number 2266).

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at(202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208
d.11/14/97