NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: nht91-3.26

DATE: April 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kent Morris -- President, Memory Motors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Kent Morris to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5812)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 6, 1991, with reference to compliance of your product, the M-53 replica of the 1953-55 Corvette, with Federal regulations. You have also asked two specific questions which I shall answer first.

You report that Texas does not consider a "manufacturer" to include persons assembling vehicles with any used components, and you ask whether this is correct, and whether it matters "on a national basis". We are unable to advise you on Texas law. However, whether a person is a "manufacturer" under the laws that this agency administers is determined with reference to Federal statutory definitions and not State laws. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a "manufacturer" is defined in pertinent part as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . ." As no qualifier is used in the definition, a "manufacturer" is any person assembling more than one motor vehicle, whether or not the parts are new.

Your second question is whether production quantity has "any bearing on compliance with federal safety laws or emissions." We are unable to answer your question with respect to emissions, as relevant statutes and regulations are enforced by an agency outside the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency. However, production quantity is irrelevant to the obligation to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, even if only one vehicle per month is produced (such as the turnkey version of the M-53). Nevertheless, the Safety Act permits low-volume manufacturers (those producing 10,000 or less new motor vehicles a year) to petition for a temporary exemption of up to three years from any standard where immediate compliance would create a substantial economic hardship for the manufacturer.

Kit cars, especially those manufactured from a combination of new and previously used parts, have presented problems of interpretation for the agency from the beginning. The root of the difficulty is that Congress apparently did not consider this type of manufacturing operation when it promulgated the Safety Act, and we have had to use the authority that was provided us to fashion interpretations on an ad hoc basis as varied fact situations arise.

With respect to the M-53, you state that it is sold both as a "kit" and as a "turnkey." As a kit, the M-53 is sold as a rolling unit, and you have enclosed a list of "Donor Parts Necessary to complete the M-53", the items that the kit purchaser must furnish. As both a "kit" and a "turnkey", a

new fiberglass body is mounted on "a used chassis from a 1978-85 Chevrolet Monte Carlo", but one that is shortened and given new side rails. The Memory kit retains the existing rear axle assembly and front end components. On the turnkey, Memory installs a new engine and a used (but rebuilt) automatic transmission.

Under our interpretations, the kit M-53, lacking an engine, is an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, not a motor vehicle. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to assemblages of this nature, or continue to apply to assemblage equipment items previously in use on the Monte Carlo that may have been refurbished for use on the M-53. Certain of the safety standards do apply to new equipment items. The standards that apply to components that appear to be used in the M-53 cover brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, and seat belt assemblies. Thus, if your company is fabricating (or causing to be fabricated) any of these items for the M-53 kit, they must meet Federal standards that apply to them. In general, items manufactured in the United States for sale in the aftermarket ought to comply with these standards. However, the windshield and other glazing for the M-53 will be newly fabricated and you must ensure that they comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. In addition, as the manufacturer of the assemblage, Memory is responsible for notification of owners should an item in the kit fail to comply with a Federal standard or if the assemblage contains a safety related defect, and for remedy of the noncompliance or defect. After a kit is sold, the person completing the assemblage into a motor vehicle is legally responsible for ensuring its compliance with the Federal safety standards that apply to passenger cars, if the motor vehicle appears to be "new", as subsequently discussed.

With respect to the "turnkey" vehicle, different considerations apply. The Safety Act states that Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) (which establishes the requirement that motor vehicles must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards) shall not apply to the sale, the offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale" (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). The basic legal question with respect to a turnkey kit car is whether it has so deviated from the original components (such as engine and chassis), and attributes (such as VIN and original registration) of a donor car that it may be considered a new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a vehicle which has been previously purchased. For example, a kit car consisting of a new body on a used Volkswagen chassis, and which continues the original VW registration is considered to be a used vehicle, and one not required to conform to safety standards applicable to newly manufactured vehicles.

After review of this matter, we have decided that if the chassis of a donor vehicle has been modified to such an extent that it would no longer accept the original body, the chassis will be considered "new". Under your operation, the chassis is shortened, so that the original Monte Carlo body will no longer fit. Further, the body is new, and a new engine is used. The old Monte Carlo components retained include the rear axle

assembly and front end components. On balance, we believe that the M-53 turnkey is a "new" passenger car, and one that must comply with all today's safety standards, including the requirement for automatic restraint systems.

I hope that this information is useful to you. We appreciate your efforts to determine your responsibilities.

ID: nht92-4.31

DATE: August 20, 1992

FROM: Richard Allison -- Program Manager, The Bott Group, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars", Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard Allison (A39; Std. 216)

TEXT:

The Bott Group, Inc. (a Design, Sales & Engineering firm for manufacturers of roof racks (luggage racks), decklid racks and accessories), on behalf of all O.E.M. clients who use our products, requests the Agency render an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars", while considering the conditions as described herein.

To be specific, The Bott Group requests an interpretation of 1) the proper application and orientation of the test device (S6.2 of this standard) and 2) the distance the test device is allowed to travel (paragraph S4 of this standard), when testing vehicles equipped with roof mounted accessories, such as roof racks (luggage racks).

This accessory neither contributes to nor detracts from the actual strength of the roof panel and would collapse easily upon application of the forces as specified in paragraph S6.3 of the standard. The roof rack examples we present for consideration, in the attached documentation, can be easily removed for compliance testing.

Roof racks are positioned on the roof panel surface to lend aesthetic enhancement to vehicle contours. This could influence the positioning of the test device (per S6.2), as well as render impossible compliance with the maximum allowed travel of the test device (per S4), and thus, not achieve the true objective of the standard.

The Bott Group roof rack designs fall into two unique categories:

1) Four Seasons Style Has adjustable/removable crossbar assemblies with end supports that move fore and aft above the vehicle roof in fixed, outer channels. Refer to Figure 1 on attachment "A".

2) Elevated Siderail Style (with fixed position end supports) Has adjustable crossbar assemblies that move fore and aft above the roof surface by sliding in an elevated, channeled siderail assembly, however, the end supports are in fixed positions on the vehicle roof. Refer to Figure 2 on attachment "B".

Please consider, for instance, the roof rack example in Figure 2 on attachment "B". The fixed position, front end support of the siderail assembly is mounted in the area of the "B" pillar on the roof surface.

Under normal conditions this style of roof rack assembly is not removable during use, but it can be easily removed for testing.

The adjustable crossbar assembly on the roof rack example shown in Figure 1 on attachment "A" (normal forward positioning is also in the "B" pillar area) can:

1) be adjusted to its rearward most position out of the contact area of the test device or,

2) be removed completely or,

3) the entire roof rack assembly can be easily removed for testing.

The Bott Group believes that there are three different test conditions which should be considered. We have illustrated the differences in the positioning of the test device (refer to Figure 3 on attachment "C").

Condition 1- Test conducted without a roof rack installed or the roof rack has been removed and the test device has been positioned as outlined in S6.2. The first point of contact has been established and is indicated (marked "A").

NOTE: Test condition 2 & 3 assumes that the "elevated siderail style" roof rack with the fixed position end supports is used.

Condition 2- Test conducted with a roof rack installed and the test device positioned the same as in test condition-1. Using the first point of contact established in condition-1 (marked "A"), as reference, the test proceeded. The actual first point of contact during this condition was to the fixed end support of the roof rack (marked "B") and this was a considerable distance rearward from the original contact point "A" established in condition-1.

The dimension between point "A" and point "B" varies according to the fore/aft positioning of the fixed end support of the roof rack on the roof surface.

When the first point of contact, "B", occurred, the second item we identified was a gap between the bottom of the test device and the roof surface at point "A". This may not comply with S6.2(c).

Condition 3- Test conducted with a roof rack installed and the test device positioned as outlined in S6.2 to the contact point (marked "B") established in test condition-2. This condition seemed to create three situations.

a) The complete test device is relocated some distance rearward of the original positioning in test condition-1 and its established contact point (marked "A"). This may not provide test requirements per S4, S6.2 & S6.4 of the standard.

b) The positioning of the test device left a gap between the bottom surface of the test device and the surface of the roof at point "A". The test device, not being tangent to the surface of the vehicle roof, when first point of contact occurs, may not comply with S6.2(c) of the standard.

c) With the test device not making contact (not tangent) with the roof surface at point "A" when the required pressure is applied to the test device, as specified in S6.3, a considerable amount of test device travel is required before contact (tangency) with the roof surface point "A" is made. This may cause non-compliance with S4, as measured in accordance with S6.4, of the standard.

The Bott Group requests the Agency's interpretation of which test condition above, number 1, 2 or 3, is correct and thus, satisfies the intent of FMVSS No. 216.

If test condition 2 or 3 is deemed correct, can the additional amount of test device travel, required between first point of contact and the actual contact (point "A") on the roof surface, be added to the "allowed distance" of test device travel when determining compliance with paragraph S4 of the standard?

The Bott Group is concerned for the timeliness of this matter because of the design timelines we work under (several model years in advance) and we would like to thank the Agency, in advance, for its kind, prompt, attention and consideration of this matter.

(Figures omitted)

ID: aiam0137

Dear Mr. Green: Thank you for your letter of January 23, 1969, to William Haddon, Jr. M.D., requesting information on Federal standards for child restraint devices.; I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses' which includes requirements for a Type 3 seat belt assembly for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds and capable of sitting upright by themselves.; The technical requirements of the present standard No. 209 wer previously included in Standards for Seat Belts for Use in Motor Vehicles (15 CFR Part 9, 31 F.R. 11528)' which was incorporated by reference in the initial Standard No. 209. I am also enclosing copies of these previous documents.; We are in the process of developing a standard for child car seats an I am enclosing a copy of a recently issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making on this subject. It is important to note that this is only a *proposed* regulation and the requirements may be modified somewhat when the final rule is published. However, this proposed rule indicates those safety features which are considered to be important for a child car seat.; There are no other existing Federal standards on child restrain systems for use in motor vehicles.; Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Standards o Crash-Injury Reduction, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam2624

Dear Mr. McNeil: This responds to your May 25, 1977, letter asking whether two sampl certification labels you submitted comply with the requirements of Part 567, *Certification*, and Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The two labels you submitted do not follow the format required by Part 567 for certification labels. Therefore, they do not appear to comply with the requirements. Your method of stating tire and rim sizes differs from that required in Part 567 and Standard No. 120. For example, you state your tire and rim information as follows: '10-20-F-Tires-7.5 Rims at 75 PSI Cold Dual.' By the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 as they apply to certification labels, this information should read: '10.00-20(F) tires, 20x7.5 rims, at 75 psi cold dual.' Further, the statement after GAWR 'maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below' should be deleted from the certification label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 for your information.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4636

Dear Mr. Aston: This is in reply to your letter with respect to you wish to import motor vehicle parts from England, to be used in the construction of a kit car for your own use. I regret the delay in responding. You have informed us that you are not importing parts controlled by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, such as 'lights, tires, brake hoses, glazing materials,' or 'the engine, transmission, wheels, instruments, and miscellaneous items that are readily available here'. Instead, you will be importing 'body parts, frame parts, suspension and some steering parts, some electrical parts and the gas tank.' From your description, we believe that your intention is to import motor vehicle equipment and not a motor vehicle. The only items of motor vehicle equipment which are covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and hence must comply or be brought into compliance with those standards are: brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting and reflective devices, passenger car tires, retreaded tires, tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, wheel covers, warning devices, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and child seating systems. If the motor vehicle equipment you are importing includes none of these items, then the equipment may be entered without the necessity of giving a bond for the production of a statement that it has been brought into compliance. I hope that this letter is helpful to you. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam2619

Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to your May 6, 1977 letter asking whether your tir information label complies with the requirements of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, and Part 567, *Certification*. Further, you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expedite treatment of Docket No. 73-31, Notice 1, which, if implemented would simplify the certification and information labels.; Concerning Docket 73-31, the NHTSA published on June 20, 1977, a notic (42 FR 31161) implementing Notice 1 which proposed the use of the designation 'all axles' rather than listing each axle individually on the certification label. The implementation of this regulation should resolve many of your problems.; Regarding the sample information label you submitted with your letter the NHTSA does not give advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety regulations or standards. We will, however, giver an informal opinion of whether your label appears to comply with the requirements. The label you submitted does not appear to comply with the requirements of Part 567 or Standard No. 120. I have enclosed copies of both these regulations for your information.; Your certification label should use the designation 'all axles' no 'each axle.' The tire and rim information should follow that designation stated in the form presented in the examples in Standard No. 120 and Part 567.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2622

Dear Mr McNeil: This responds to your May 25, 1977, letter asking whether two sampl certification labels you submitted comply with the requirements of Part 567, *Certification*, and Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The National HIghway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The two labels you submitted do not follow the format required by Part 567 for certification labels. Therefore, they do not appear to comply with the requirements. Your method of stating tire and rim sizes differs from that required in Part 567 and Standard No. 120. For example, you state your tire and rim information as follows: '10-20-f-Tires-7.5 Rims at 75 PSI Cold Dual.' By the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 as they apply to certification labels, this information should read: '10.00-20(f) tires, 20x7.5 rims, at 75 psi cold dual.' Further, the statement after GAWR 'maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below' should be deleted from the certification label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 for your information.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2321

Dear Mr. Thompson: I am writing to point out an error in an article that appeared in th May 24-31, 1976, issue of *NTDRA Dealer News* (Vol. XXXIX, No. 15). The article summarized a recent Federal Register notice (41 FR 18659, May 6, 1976, Docket No. 71-19, Notice 4) that delayed certain effective dates of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.*; The error appears in the paragraph of the article that reads: >>>Section 5.1.1 says that rims used must be those designated by th tire manufacturer. The effective date has been changed from March 1, 1977 to September 1, 1979.<<<; One requirement of S5.1.1 is that a vehicle be equipped with rims tha have been designated by the manufacturer of the vehicle's tires as suitable for use with those tires. The effective date of this requirements was originally established as September 1, 1976, and was not delayed be Notice4. Another requirement of S5.1.1 is that a vehicle be equipped with rims that comply with the standard, i.e., with rims that are marked according to S5.2, *Rim Marking.* Only the effective date of this vehicle requirement was changed from March 1, 1977, to September 1, 1979.; A clarification of these effective dates in a forthcoming issue o *NTDRA Dealer News* would be much appreciated.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1891

Dear Senator Bayh: This is in response to your letter requesting information concernin correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Albert E. Huber, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal bumper standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1979 model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency-sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975, which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; We appreciate your interest and that of Mr. Huber in this importan area of motor vehicle performance.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1600

Dear Mr. Harris: This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1974, asking about 'thos requirements which presently exist for limited volume manufacturers.'; I enclose a copy of an information sheet that tells where you ma obtain the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations. No exceptions are automatically provided for limited volume manufacturers. Those whose total annual production is 10,000 units or less may petition for a temporary exemption from one or more standards upon the grounds that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship.; As a converter of production sedans into extended wheelbase vehicles and as a customizer of automobiles, your principal obligation is to insure that any new and previously untitled vehicle you sell and deliver to the ultimate purchaser conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars. This means that you should review the standards to determine whether your manufacturing operations affect conformity of any new vehicle as delivered to you that is certified by its manufacture as meeting Federal requirements. In any event, since your alterations consist of more than minor finishing operations you are required to attach the label described by Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7, a copy of which I also enclose.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel