ID: aiam5000

"Dear Mr. Faist: This responds to the letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from Chris Kuczynski, Fleet Services Division, City of Seattle Department of Administrative Services, dated February 4, 1992, asking how the provisions of 49 CFR, Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 pertained to 'a municipal government agency that transfers, modifies and/or fabricates custom vehicle bodies for use by it's own departments.' In a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office on April 3, 1992, you stated that the vehicle modifications referred to in the letter involve only trucks, both light and heavy, that you combine both new and used bodies with both new and used chassis, endeavoring to retain the old engines, power axles, and transmissions to the extent possible, that such modifications include mounting equipment on truck chassis to create such specific-purpose vehicles as dump trucks, cranes, and the like, that some of such modifications and fabrications are done in your own shops while others are contracted out to local body shops, and that passenger cars and buses are not involved. Before addressing the specific issues raised in the letter, some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U. S. Code, 1381 - 1431 (hereinafter 'Safety Act') authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or disapprove motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process which requires each manufacturer, in the exercise of due care, to ensure and certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Thereafter, NHTSA will periodically test vehicles and equipment for compliance with the standards and investigate allegations of safety-related defects. Turning now to the modifications to your trucks, we start first with the provisions of 49 CFR, Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, which provides in pertinent part: 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. NHTSA has consistently interpreted that provision to mean that, by its terms, it applies only to new bodies and not to old ones, and that placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axles, as a minimum, are not new and at least two of which were taken from the same vehicle. Conversely, a new vehicle would result by placing a new body on an old chassis utilizing new, a combination of new and used, or used engine, transmission, and drive axles no two of which were taken from the same vehicle. A new vehicle would also result by placing a body, new or used, on a new chassis. In that case the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle which is defined at 49 CFR, Part 568.3 as: A n 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. By adding a body to the new chassis, you, the City of Seattle, become a final-stage manufacturer, defined in Part 568.3 as '. . . A person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.' As such, you are required by Part 568.6(a) to '. . . C omplete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, . . . .' Part 568.6(b) then requires that 'Each final-stage manufacturer shall affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with 567.5 of this chapter.' For your additional information I am enclosing a NHTSA fact sheet entitled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT. To summarize, placing a new body on a used chassis does not make a new vehicle if, as a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axles are not new and if at least two of those components were taken from the same vehicle. A new chassis, however, is an incomplete vehicle and placing a body thereon, whether new or old, results in a new vehicle which must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the new chassis, and the final-stage manufacturer who completes the assembly of the vehicle must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR, Part 567. Accordingly, in response to your question about the applicability of 49 CFR, Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 to your truck customization program, the answer is that if you create a new vehicle, all those provisions apply. If you do not create a new vehicle, none of them do. This is true whatever procedures/steps you choose to utilize in accomplishing your vehicle customization program. One final matter should be discussed before concluding. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a complying vehicle. That restriction does not apply to private owners, which would include municipalities, who are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the vehicles so modified comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Such restriction would apply, however, to those local body/repair shops to which you contract out some of your customization work. Accordingly, those businesses would have to be very careful to leave intact all the safety devices and features that are on the vehicles that they work on for you. I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry and will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Enclosure Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5032

"Dear Mr. Flagstad: This responds to your FAX of June 20, 1992, wit respect to importation of a 1981 Kenworth truck from Canada. This vehicle bears VIN M911042. You state that you imported the truck on February 12, 1990, through 'a licensed broker and all necessary declarations and papers were properly submitted.' You have enclosed a letter from Kenworth of Canada dated March 6, 1991, stating that this truck was 'in compliance with the U.S. federal laws . . . at the time of delivery', which was August 31, 1981. Although you experienced no difficulty in titling the truck in California, the purchaser of your truck, resident in another state, is 'having a problem registering it' because the VIN has only seven characters. Joan Moniz, the daughter of the purchaser talked with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 23, 24, and 25, 1992, and explained that the problem is that the State of Hawaii is requiring registration as a 1975 vehicle. According to her copy of the HS-7 importation form under which the truck entered the United States, Box 2 was checked, the declaration that the vehicle was manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bears a certification label to that effect. However, according to her, the truck bears no U.S. certification label, and her records indicate that the date of importation and clearance was January 31, 1990. We are furnishing Ms Moniz a copy of this response. You ask whether paragraph S2 of Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, exempts this vehicle from the 17-character requirement of paragraph S4.2, 'and make it legal in the United States with a seven digit number.' Paragraph S2 of Standard No. 115 applies to trucks and other motor vehicles, and states in pertinent part that 'Vehicles imported into the United States under Sec. 591.5(f), other than by a corporation which was responsible for the assembly of that vehicle, or a subsidiary of such a corporation are exempt from the requirements of S4.2 . . . .' Section 591.5(f) corresponds to Box 3 on the HS-7 importation form, the declaration that the vehicle to be imported was not manufactured in conformity with the safety standards but will be brought into conformity with them. However, S2 makes it clear that conformity does not require the nonconforming vehicle to meet the requirement of Standard No. 115 that VINs be composed of 17 characters. Indeed, S4.9(a) specifically requires passenger cars imported under part 591 to retain their original VINs. We note that the truck in question was imported under section 591.5(b) (Box 2), as a conforming vehicle, and, in a legal sense, is not eligible for the exclusion provided for vehicles imported under section 591.5(f). However, importation under section 591.5(b) was erroneous, since the truck bore no certification of compliance. Furthermore, in spite of the letter from Kenworth of Canada stating that the truck was 'in compliance with U.S. federal laws' at the time of its delivery on August 31, 1981, it manifestly failed to comply with Standard No. 115 which, as of September 1, 1980, required trucks to have 17-character VINs. Ms Moniz believes that is also lacks an air brake system as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. Lacking a certification label, the truck should have been imported under section 591.5(f), which would have excused it from compliance with the 17-digit requirement. I shall shortly address a possible resolution of this dilemma. You have also asked whether this truck should have been imported through a 'registered importer'. You state that Taylor Vinson told you in a recent telephone conversation that 'as U.S. Customs had accepted the vehicle's compliance to U.S. Safety Standards and had not required a bond, a registered importer was not required.' This opinion was based on the assumption that the letter from Kenworth of Canada attesting to the truck's conformance with U.S. safety standards had accompanied the vehicle's importation, and was accepted by Customs (for the record, NHTSA currently permits importation of Canadian vehicles without bond or reference to a registered importer provided that a conformance letter from the manufacturer has been submitted for the agency's approval before importation). However, we see that our assumption was incorrect, Kenworth's letter is dated March 1991, and could not have accompanied the truck when it was imported in 1990. If a Canadian-manufactured vehicle is not accompanied by such a letter (or a permanently affixed label certifying compliance to U.S. standards), the vehicle must be entered under section 591.5(f) (Box 3) by a registered importer or by an importer who has a contract with a registered importer who will assure compliance with all the standards. Therefore, the truck in question was subject to the requirement that it be imported by a registered importer, or by a person who had a contract with a registered importer. Furthermore, the truck could not have been admitted into the United States unless the Administrator of this agency had determined that it was capable of conformance to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the Administrator had made no such determination. However, the effective date of section 591.5(f), the registered importer requirement, and the vehicle capability requirement was January 31, 1990, the date that the truck appears to have been imported into the United States. Both Customs personnel and brokers should have been aware of the new requirements that became effective on that date. However, as of that date (and for some months thereafter), no registered importers had been appointed, and no vehicle capability determinations had been made. Thus, even if the truck had been imported pursuant to section 591.5(f), this could not have been accomplished until much later in 1990 when the agency made a blanket capability determination concerning Canadian vehicles. Because of the passage of time and the apparent present location of the truck in Hawaii, the agency has no interest in requiring re-entry of this vehicle at this date to conform with regulations that went into effect the date that it was imported. As for the problem of the truck's registration, it is curious that Hawaii would wish to register as a l975 model-year truck a vehicle that was manufactured in 1981. Perhaps the State simply wishes to treat it as a vehicle that conforms to standards in effect in 1975, and does so by assigning it a model year reflecting a time before Standard No. 115 required a 17- character VIN, and before the effective date of Standard No. 121. In any event, Hawaii has recognized that S2 of Standard No. 115 permits the importation of a truck to which the 17-character VIN requirement of S4.2 does not apply. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Ms Joan Moniz 45623 Halekou Road Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744";

ID: 17331.ztv

Angela Dyer, Company Secretary
Broomstick Cars Limited
Willow Farm
Ivinghoe
Aston Leighton Buzzard
Bedfordshire LU7 9DG
England

Dear Ms Dyer:

Forgive my delay in replying to your letter of 4th February 1998, regarding the possible importation into the United States of a Jaguar XK120 replica "as a vehicle over 25 years old."

According to your letter, the car has "a new chassis and GRP body panels, but most of the parts are from the original car. These include engine, gear box, suspension, steering, transmission and axles." You have explained that the original car is a "Jaguar S type over 25 years old."

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(9), "a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old" may be imported into the United States without having to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Although the Jaguar XK 120 replica is composed partly of parts that may be over 25 years old, the car's age is computed as of its date of its manufacture. Thus, a replica assembled in 1998 is not "a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old" and it cannot be imported into the United States under Sec. 30112(b)(9).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.5/13/98

ID: 86-5.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/12/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JEROME J. ABT -- TRIM-LINE OF WEST WISCONSIN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/25/85 FROM JEROME J. ABT TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Abt:

This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office. As a seller of aftermarket "flush mount luggage racks" you are concerned about potential liability should a rear-end collision occur when luggage is carried and blocks the center high-mounted stop lamp (mandatory on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985).

Such an occurrence would not be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the high-mounted stop lamp standard was issued, as compliance would be judged only with the rack in place but not in use. Your question then cannot be answered under Federal law, but only under the laws of the individual State in which an accident occurs. I suggest that you consult your local counsel for advice.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 21, 1988

FROM: BRADLEY J. BAKER -- PRESIDENT, CLASSIC MANUFACTURING, INC.

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNCIL, U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO AUGUST 31, 1989 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, TO BRADLEY J. BAKER, CLASSIC MANUFACTURING, INC.; [A34; STD. 108]

TEXT: Our company currently manufactures a Recreational car dolly used to tow a vehicle behind motorhomes. It is also used by car dealerships to retrieve cars and trucks.

We have a question regarding the 3 bar light cluster on the back of this unit. Is it a necessity? So far, we have to guess at our interpretation of the Federal laws. We don't know if this is considered a motor vehicle under FMVSS 108; 49 CFR 571.108. The National Truck Equipment Association could not answer this question and recommended we write to you.

We would appreciate your opinion on this matter. I can be reached at the following address:

Classic Manufacturing, Inc. 21900 W. U.S. 12 Sturgis, Mi 49091 Attn: Brad Baker (616) 651-9319 Fax No.(616) 651-2921

Thank you for your help in advance

Sincerely

ID: nht89-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/89

FROM: BUTLER DERRICK -- CONGRESS

TO: STEVE WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BUTLER DERRICK -- CONGRESS; REDBOOK A31; STANDARD 208 TEXT OF THE RULING BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING THE STATE'S LAW REQUIRING SEAT BELT USE BY DRIVERS AND FRONT SEA T PASSENGERS IN AUTOMOBILES; DATE 10/01/86

TEXT: I am writing to inquire about a matter which was brought to my attention by a constituent from South Carolina.

The constituent states that the Supreme Court has found laws requiring the wearing of helmets by motorcyclists to be unconstitutional. He does not understand why laws requiring people to wear seat belts in cars would not also be unconstitutional.

The constituent poses an interesting question, and I respectfully request that you look into this matter, particularly as it relates to existing federal and state precendents, and furnish me with a reply that I might share with him.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

With kind regards, I am

Respectfully

ID: 2836o

Robert L. Bernard
Attorney at Law
12342 Wrenthrope Drive
Houston, TX 77031

Dear Mr. Bernard:

This letter responds to your inquiry of August 21, 1987, where you asked for this agency's opinion on whether Federal motor vehicle safety standard 115 (49 CFR 571.115) requires a manufacturer's chrome script name on the trunk of vehicles it manufactures. It does not.

Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number- Basic Requirements, directs a vehicle manufacturer to place a discrete vehicle identification number (VIN) on each vehicle it manufactures. Under paragraph S4.5, the VIN for any motor vehicle must appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle other than the glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair. Paragraph S4.6 states that the VIN for passenger cars must appear inside the passenger compartment. Title 49 CFR Part 565, VIN-Content Requirements, states that among other things, the VIN's first three characters must identify the vehicle manufacturer. However, neither Standard 115 nor Part 565 require a manufacturer's name plate to appear on the vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:115#115 d:3/7/88

ID: nht78-4.29

DATE: 04/13/78

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MOE PARE -- DIRECTOR OF DESIGN CARS & CONCEPTS, INC.

TITLE: NOA-30

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/26/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MELANIE TURNER; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 08/31/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM MELANIE TURNER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2777

TEXT: Dear Mr. Pare:

This responds to your letter of February 16, 1978, asking whether the certification markings required on glazing materials by Safety Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle after installation.

The answer to your question is no. There is nothing in the certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked his glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as these markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer there is no prohibition against covering the markings.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-4.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 6, 1994

FROM: Michael A. Holmes -- Farmington Correctional Center

TO: Federico F. Pena -- Secretary of Transportation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/11/95 letter from Philip Recht to Michael A. Holmes (A43; Part 571)

TEXT: Dear Sir;

I am an inmate at Farmington Correctional center in Farmington Mo. . When I get out of prison I am wanting to start a business constructing cars and light trucks. I want to do this on a small scale. What I would like from you is information on what laws and statutes exist on this class of vehicle. I am trying to use my time to learn what I will need to know. Before I fell, I was going to college on an electronics degree. I paid for my schooling b y being a mechanic for several years. When I get out I am going to move my degree more toward the mechanical engineering side.

I know this is a strange request, except I feel that my designs of a hydrogen turbine over electric, will be quit enjoyed on the market. I thank you for your time, and your effort. I would appreciate if you could let me know of receiving this letter.

ID: nht70-1.3

DATE: 09/17/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Univeral Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Office of Trade Regulation Rules of the Federal Trade Commission has forwarded your letter of July 30, 1970, concerning tires marked "Radial" that have casing cord angles that vary as much as 15 degrees from 90 degrees.

Paragraph 33 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 -- New Pneumatic Tires, Passenger Cars -- defines a radial ply tire as a "pneumatic tire in which the ply cords which extend to the bends are laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the trend".

The Bureau does not consider cords laid at 75 degrees to the centerline of the trend as "Radial" tires and tires marked as much would not be in compliance with the tire standard.

Persons importing tires that do not comply with the standard would be violating section 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1397).

For your information enclosed is a copy of the Passenger Car Tire Standard and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.