Interpretation ID: nht92-6.45

DATE: May 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Nathan W. Randall

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/2/92 from Nathan W. Randall to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 7067)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 2, 1992, asking for confirmation that you will be a manufacturer of "used" motor vehicles under the fact situation that you outlined and a previous interpretation of this agency.

You intend to assemble replica vehicles which will incorporate new items of motor vehicle equipment except for "previously used engine/transmission/drive axle/gearing combinations from previously certified configurations," in compliance with EPA emission requirements for rebuilt vehicles. Because "its running gear is not new", you believe that we would consider your vehicle "as 'used' even though its body and chassis are previously unused." You inform us that "these vehicles will be fully compliant with EPA regulations for rebuilt automobiles and the Colorado State Motor Vehicle code."

In support you cite a 1980 interpretation of this Office under which the then Chief Counsel stated that "the agency tends to view as 'used' a motor vehicle whose running gear is not new even though its body and chassis may be previously unused." That 1980 interpretation addressed a situation in which the vehicle was to be constructed from all new parts except for the front suspension and axle, engine, and transmission.

You are correct that your situation appears analogous to the one in the 1980 letter, and that you will be viewed as a manufacturer of "used" motor vehicles. As you also correctly understand, you will be responsible for notification and remedy of any safety related defects occurring in your product. However, you should also be aware that our views relate only to the specific facts as you have related them. On April 22, 1991, we informed Memory Motors, another replica vehicle manufacturer, that its products would be considered "new" vehicles for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards where the previously used chassis was retained in modified form, and the only other used components retained included the rear axle assembly and front end components. Because the engine and other fuel system components were new, we assume that the Memory vehicle did not qualify as a "rebuilt" vehicle under EPA regulations.