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: aiam5573

Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to General Motors' (GM's) inquiry raised in a June 16, 1995 meeting with the agency, regarding the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 for determining whether a vehicle is in the 'park' position. Under those procedures, a vehicle is deemed to be in park if it ceases rolling within 150 mm. You were concerned that different methods of measuring this distance could result in some vehicles not complying with the requirement that the vehicle roll less than 150 mm. The short answer to your question is that the test procedure is a 'static' measurement procedure. In other words, the agency will not measure the distance that a vehicle has rolled until after the vehicle has completely ceased moving. This agency recently amended Standard No. 114, adding test procedures to determine whether the key can be removed when the transmission is in positions other than the 'park' position and that the transmission remains locked in 'park' after key removal. (60 FR 30006, June 7, 1995) NHTSA initiated that action in response to a petition from the automotive industry alleging that such a procedure was needed to make the standard objective. Section S4.2.1(a)(3) of the amended standard specifies that ' e ach vehicle shall not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park.' To demonstrate that the vehicle is in 'park' prior to attempting to remove the key, the test procedures in S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both state: Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake (if present). Move the shift mechanism to the 'park' position. Apply the service brakes. Release the parking brake. Release the service brakes. . . . Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm after release of the service brakes. In the June 16 meeting with the agency, GM stated that vehicle movement could be measured in two different ways: dynamic or static. GM inquired as to which method NHTSA interpreted the standard as specifying, because the results using these two methods would be different. The 'dynamic' method of measuring vehicle movement was described by GM as measuring the maximum play-out of a spool of wire attached to the front bumper after release of the service brakes. The 'static' method would measure vehicle movement from a reference point on the wheels after the vehicle has come to a complete stop. Under the dynamic method, a portion of the measured play-out would be due to the 'rocking' motion of the vehicle's chassis on its suspension when the transmission engaged. The driveline components would also contribute some movement by temporarily storing some of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle by flexing and twisting. However, both of these contributions to total rearward movement are temporary, disappearing after the vehicle comes to rest, as in the static measuring method. GM presented test data for certain vehicles and theoretical worst-case calculations of static roll distance on non- production hypothetical vehicles and one test vehicle. The test data showed that dynamic measuring produces larger measurements of roll than does static measuring. NHTSA interprets the limitation on vehicle movement specified in S4.2.1(a)(3) as referring to static movement. The agency did not contemplate using the dynamic method. The agency intends to measure only permanent components of total vehicle movement, using the 'static' method. When conducting compliance testing, NHTSA will measure vehicle movement from a reference point such as the wheel centerline position. The starting time for the measurement will be at the moment before the service brakes are released. The ending time of the measurement will be when the vehicle has completely ceased moving, bouncing, and rocking (i.e., until the vehicle is again 'static'). This agency believes that its confirmation that the static test method is the proper method should relieve any realistic concerns regarding compliance of the 1996 model year vehicles GM tested, and probably of any future vehicles as well. The actual tests GM conducted in preparation for the meeting with NHTSA all showed static roll distances well within the requirements of Standard No. 114. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4574

"Dear Mr. Mikoll: This responds to your letter asking for clarificatio of my November 3, 1988 letter to you. In a letter dated August 11, 1988, you requested my opinion concerning the acceptability of installing a new product you are developing (a 'safety bar') in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less instead of installing safety belts in those vehicles. The 'safety bar' consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the 'safety bar.' These curved poles are joined by three cross or transverse members that are parallel to the seat and are covered with padding. The padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is intended to protect. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the safety bar and then sit down and allow the safety bar to lower so that it rests on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap resembling a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash. In my November 3, 1988 reply to your letter, I explained that the crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222). That section requires that each designated seating position be equipped with either safety belts or a protection system that requires no action by vehicle occupants. Since the 'safety bar' is not a protection system that requires no action by vehicle occupants, my November 3 letter explained that the 'safety bar' could not be installed in place of safety belts in small school buses, i.e., school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. My November 3, 1988 letter also explained that safety bars could be installed in small school buses in addition to safety belts, if the safety bars do not destroy the ability of the required safety belts to comply with the requirements of our safety standards. I also stated that a manufacturer that installed these safety bars in small school buses would have to certify that the bus in which the safety bars were installed complied with the school bus emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217) and with the impact zone requirements specified in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. You asked whether my November 3, 1988 letter addressed the situation for both large school buses (i.e., those with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and small school buses, or whether it addressed only small school buses. Your previous letter asked only about small school buses, so my November 3 letter addressed those vehicles only. Assuming this was the case, you asked for 'an opinion that the safety bar does not conflict with any standard for large school bus installation.' I am happy to have this chance to explain our regulations to you. Let me begin by noting that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires each manufacturer to certify that each of its motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this statutory provision, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for your product. Instead, any manufacturer that installs your safety bar in its large school buses must itself certify that those large school buses comply with all applicable safety standards when the safety bars are installed. The occupant crash protection requirements for large school buses are set forth in Standard No. 222. No provision of Standard No. 222 expressly prohibits the installation of 'safety bars' in large school buses. Hence, 'safety bars' can be installed in a large school bus, provided that the manufacturer of the bus certifies that it complies with all applicable requirements set forth in the safety standards with the safety bars installed. These requirements include the emergency exit requirements specified in Standard No. 217, all of the requirements of Standard No. 222, and the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR /571.302). Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: nht88-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/07/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TITLE: AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER (SSF)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/ 13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: It is assumed that NHTSA standards relating to automobile brake lights require that brake lights be steady burning. If so, this would exclude a device such as the SSF.

However, I appeal for a variant interpretation which would allow use of the SSF for the following reasons:

1. The SSF would actuate only rarely - perhaps as little as 1% of all brake applications. The highway would not be "filled with blinking lights." Furthermore, actuation would be only momentary because heavy deceleration cannot be sustained for more tha n a few seconds. The deceleration level at which the SSF would actuate would be determined and preset during development and testing and the point of actuation would be set at a level which maintains the respect of drivers. This means rare actuation in only the final - but critical - segment of the deceleration envelope. In fact, I would request that NHTSA establish standards that specify factory-sealed units and standardize deceleration limits under which the SSF actuates to insure infrequent actuat ion.

2. The concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system.

3. Whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration. Any device which could prevent a significant percentage of high-speed rear-end crashes, ruptured gas tanks, and possible serious injuries or fatalities would seem to be in the best interest of NHTSA and in the best interests of American families traveling U.S. highways.

4. Development of the SSF would be expensive and I am not willing to undertake that expense unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model. I think this is a fair and reasonable reques t.

ID: nht88-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/23/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TO: RALPH HITCHCOCK -- OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/ 07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

I was advised by Mr. Lewis Buchanan that he had forwarded my letter regarding my "Sudden Stop Flasher" (SSF) to you for response. In the event his letter did not reach you yet, I am enclosing another copy.

I should mention to you that I have conceived of several additional features which I did not mention in my letter to Mr. Buchanan because my intent was to communicate the basic concept only. However, I might briefly mention one of them. This the "Cr ash Lock-up Mode." This feature would cause the system to "lock-up" in the rapid warning flash sequence whenever an "impact-level" deceleration is encountered. When drivers have an accident, they are often confused and disoriented and fail to take measu res to protect themselves, such as turn on the hazard warning flashers. The Crash Lock-up feature would automatically send out a continuous warning when an actual crash occurs, thus possibly preventing yet another crash. Several years ago, I read of a 56-car pile up on a Florida Interstate on a very foggy night. I believe if only a few cars in that string of smashed up vehicles had this feature, that major disaster could have been significantly less severe. The Crash Lock-up would remain actuated un til the ignition switch was recycled.

Please accept my apologies for not addressing my original letter to you instead of Mr. Buchanan. Unfortunately, I was advised by the Kansas City Office that Mr. Buchanan would be the proper recipient.

Thank you very much for your attention.

ID: aiam0447

Dear Mr. Pieratt: In your letter of September 23, 1971, you asked whether Standard No 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applied to materials in the passenger compartments of vehicles.; The answer is yes. The standard, as stated in S4.1, applies t 'components of vehicle occupant compartments' only.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/85

FROM: JOFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: HAYLEY ALEXANDER -- MARKETING CONSULTANT THE LONDONCOACH CO., INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES; REDBOOK A34 B; PART 567; PART 568; LETTER DATED 11/16/88 FROM TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMIBES TO CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA; REF 49CFR 567, CERTIFICATION; OCC 2857

TEXT: Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1985, asking for our comments on your planned London Taxi marketing program.

Under the program, products of Carbodies Ltd. of Coventry, England, would be imported "devoid of an engine, transmission, and finished interior." LondonCoach would then install "an [American] engine, transmission and driveshaft, interior seats, coverings and details, and various exterior cosmetic trim items." However, a "representative" vehicle with the modifications mentioned above will have undergone all testing necessitated by the standards, at the Motor Industry Research Association in England. Vehicles would be certified by Carbodies as meeting the standards prior to importation, and LondonCoach Co., Inc., in the role of alterer, would attach the label attesting to continued compliance required by 49 CFR Section 567.7 upon completion of the modifications.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, certification of compliance of a motor vehicle can only be provided by the manufacturer or importer of a completed motor vehicle. Certification of compliance with at least four Federal motor vehicle safety standards is directly dependent upon the manner in which the Carbodies vehicles are completed by LondonCoach: Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems; Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity; and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Therefore, LondonCoach is the only party who can certify compliance of the completed vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As the manufacturer, LondonCoach is also responsible for assigning and affixing the vehicle identification number (VIN) to each vehicle, according to the requirements of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number -- Basic Requirements, and 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number -- Content Requirements.

The Carbodies products are an assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and should be labeled as equipment items for importation into the United States. Carbodies should certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard

complies with such standard. Those items are brake hoses, now pneumatic tires, brake fluid, surface glazing, seat belt assemblies, and lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. This certification should free LondonCoach, as the importer, from the obligation under 19 CFR 12.80 to post a compliance bond upon entry into the United States.

Sincerely,

ID: 2855yy

William J. Bethurum, Esq.
Patent Attorney
Jefferson Place - Suite 302
350 North Ninth Street
Boise, Idaho 83702

Dear Mr. Bethurum:

Your letter of December 14, 1990, to the "U.S. National Highway Safety Commission" for reply. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is the Federal agency responsible for establishing and enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your client, Mr. E.D. Farnsworth, has asked about "when and how side lights adjacent to the main head lights came to be first used with head lights on automobiles." You have, in turn, asked to be apprised of the regulations which govern new headlamp designs for automobiles and other motor vehicles.

The Federal regulations that apply to motor vehicle headlamps are found in 49 C.F.R. 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The current version of the CFR volume (Parts 400 to 999) containing that standard is updated to October 1, l990.

We are uncertain as to what you mean by "side lights adjacent to the main head lights". Standard No. l08 requires amber or white parking lamps on the front of passenger cars and other types of motor vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, amber turn signal lamps, and amber front side marker lamps. Other types of lamps that are sometimes found on the front, and on the side at the front, are fog lamps and cornering lamps. They are not required by Standard No. l08, and are permissible as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard.

Standard No. l08, which has been in effect for passenger cars since January l, l969 (the mandatory requirement for a side marker lamp replaced the earlier provision giving manufacturers a choice of lamp or reflector effective January 1, l970), has always prescribed lamp location in general terms. Thus, parking lamps and headlamps are to be installed "at the front" and "as far apart as practicable" (Table IV of Standard No. l08). Similarly, turn signals are to be located "at or near the front" and "as far apart as practicable." Amber side marker lamps are to be on the side but placed "as far to the front as practicable." Because Standard No. l08 does not otherwise specify lamp location, we surmise that the head lamp and adjacent side lamp relationship to which you refer resulted from the choice of the vehicle manufacturer within the overall general parameters of the Federal specifications.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:2/26/9l

ID: Unassembled_motorcycles

Mr. Kevin Alsop
Big Bear Choppers, Inc.
P.O. Box 3021
Big Bear City, CA 92314




Dear Mr. Alsop:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would apply to the manufacture of complete, unassembled motorcycles. As explained below, the agency would treat such a vehicle, regardless of the state of assembly, as a motorcycle for the purpose of our regulations.

In your letter and in a telephone conversation with Mr. Eric Stas of my staff, you stated that your company, Big Bear Choppers Inc. (Big Bear), manufactures and sells motorcycle frames and complete, unassembled motorcycles. You further stated that the complete, unassembled motorcycles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You also stated that the frame of each complete, unassembled motorcycle is assigned a VIN, presumably that complies with our regulations. You then asked if we require the assignment of a VIN to complete, unassembled motorcycles such as those manufactured by Big Bear.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to establish regulations for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). The statutory definition of "motor vehicle" states, in part, that a "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is "driven by mechanical power" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)).

If an unassembled vehicle were sold with all of the parts needed to produce a completed vehicle, including the power source, we would treat the unassembled vehicle as a motor vehicle for the purpose of our regulations. See letters to Christopher Banner, dated July 9, 1993, and Ron Dawson, dated March 29, 1999 (copies enclosed).

Part 565 of our regulations specifies the format, content and physical requirements for a VIN and its installation to simplify vehicle identification information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns (49 CFR Part 565). This Part is applicable to motorcycles. Therefore, the complete, unassembled motorcycle would be required to comply with vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements.

We also note that under 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1)(ii):

If a vehicle is fabricated and delivered in complete but unassembled form, such that it is designed to be assembled without special machinery or tools, the fabricator of the vehicle may affix the [certification] label and name itself as the manufacturer[.](Emphasis added. )

Finally, your letter asked a series of questions regarding the issuance of manufacturer statements of origin (MSO), the legality of registering an unassembled vehicle, and the issuance of a bill of sale. MSO, vehicle registration, and bills of sale are matters of State law. Our regulations do not govern these issues.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:571.3#565
d.2/16/05

ID: aiam0858

Dear Mr. McSherry: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to the nylon cable ties you manufacture.; Paragraph S4.1 of the Standard does not include nylon cable ties o their equivalent and, accordingly, these components are not subject to the requirements of the Standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel