Interpretation ID: ADA3

Ms. Victoria Krull
Executive Director
Adaptive Driving Alliance
4218 W. Electra Lane
Glendale, AZ 85310

Dear Ms. Krull:

This is in response to your letter of March 11, 2002, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567.You state that the Adaptive Driving Alliance (ADA) is an organization that serves both manufacturers and dealers of vehicles for the handicapped and disabled, who are commonly referred to as members of the "adaptive driving" or "mobility" industry. You state that the ADA has learned that some final stage manufacturers and alterers may have sold to adaptive driving industry dealers vans with potential problems concerning their gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

As described in your letter, the assigned GVWR of these vehicles may be exceeded by the unloaded weight of the vehicle, when added to the weight of a full tank of gasoline and 150 pounds times the number of designated seating positions, without any cargo being added to the vehicle. You acknowledge that this presents a safety issue, in that an overloaded vehicle could be prone to failures of the suspension, axle, hubs, brakes, tires, rims, frame, and steering linkage. This has prompted you to ask a number of questions regarding the issue of gross vehicle weight, as it applies to vehicles manufactured or altered for use by the handicapped and disabled.

The Agency addressed your substantive questions regarding the computation of these vehicles GVWR in recent letters to Adaptive Mobility Inc. and Ride-Away Handicap Equipment Corporation. Copies of those letters are enclosed.

You have also asked what responsibilities a motor vehicle dealer has when it learns that a vehicle in its unsold inventory is overweight, and what responsibilities the vehicles manufacturer and alterer would have in that situation. As you point out in your letter, the situation you describe does not involve a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If the GVWR/GAWR information on the certification label is incorrect, the manufacturer responsible for the determination of that value whether a final stage manufacturer or an alterer could be subject to civil penalties for violation of the Agencys regulation.Regardless of whether the GVWR/GAWR information on the label is correct, the vehicle could be considered to contain a safety related defect if the overloading presents a risk of a safety problem (e.g., because the axle failed or stability problems, potentially leading to a crash). Both a final stage manufacturer and an alterer could be responsible for notifying owners and remedying the defect free of charge, if the defect was introduced into the vehicle as a result of the manufacturing operations they performed.

The manufacturer, which includes an alterer, whose manufacturing operations led to the defect is responsible for making a defect determination and notifying the agency pursuant to Part 573 of the Agencys regulations. The manufacturer is also responsible for notifying the dealer that the vehicle contains a safety related defect and is subject to the recall obligations under the Vehicle Safety Act. Federal law prohibits a dealer from delivering to a purchaser a vehicle with a safety related defect or noncompliance without first repairing the defect or noncompliance. A dealer who believes a vehicle may be built in the overloaded condition described in your letter may also want to consider the impact of any applicable state laws.

You also ask whether the Agency might consider the defect to be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Although NHTSAs empowering statute alludes to the possibility of an inconsequentiality determination with regard to a defect, the granting of such a petition would be highly unusual. The Agency has only once granted such a petition.The Agency determined that a certification label containing erroneous GVWR information was inconsequential because the correct information was also provided and the error was apparent.Since the obligation to recall and remedy a defect under the Safety Act is premised on a determination that the defect relates to motor vehicle safety, it is highly unlikely that the Agency would grant an exemption from the recall and remedy requirements. This is especially true given a situation, such as that you describe, which poses "an obvious safety issue."

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:567
d.9/23/02