ID: nht93-4.9

DATE: May 24, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: John Paul Barber -- Legislative Counsel, American Association of Blood Banks

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-92 from John Paul Barber to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8079); Also attached to letter dated 4-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takeo Wakamatsu (Part 567)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether second stage manufacturers may affix additional certification labels with a new gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) on vehicles. You asked this question in the context of the Federal Highway Administration's commercial driver's license program which applies in part to commercial vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 pounds or more.

You stated in your letter that your organization has advised its members that second stage manufacturers that convert buses to bloodmobiles have the authority under 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 to affix an additional label with a new GVWR to newly converted vehicles as well as to vehicles already in use. You stated, however, that you have since received a legal opinion from a private party asserting that those regulations preclude affixing an additional label to vehicles already in use. You enclosed a copy of your earlier advice (American Association of Blood Banks Bulletin #92-5), which reads in part as follows:

Many bloodmobiles have a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds. This renders the bloodmobiles commercial motor vehicles requiring an operator with a commercial driver's license. However, options may be available to avoid the classification of bloodmobiles as commercial motor vehicles on the basis of their gross vehicle weight rating.

. . . When originally constructed, buses will be given gross vehicle weight ratings in excess of 26,000 pounds. When converted for use as bloodmobiles, their actual weight is reduced to two or three thousand pounds less than the 26,000 pound threshold, yet many converters do not change the gross vehicle weight rating.

By federal regulation, vehicle converters have the authority to affix an additional label containing a new gross vehicle weight rating, to newly converted vehicles as well as to vehicles already in use.

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 567 and 568.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, under the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

I will first discuss the issues you raise concerning new vehicles. Under NHTSA's certification regulations (Parts 567 and 568), manufacturers must assign a GVWR to a new vehicle. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the safety standards to which the vehicle must be certified, and at which NHTSA conducts any compliance testing. NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight and load carrying capacity. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." See also section 567.5.

You asked about the authority of persons who convert buses to bloodmobiles to reduce the GVWR of the vehicle. I note that, assuming that the conversion takes place before the first sale of the vehicle for purpose other than resale, i.e., while the vehicle is still new, the converter would be considered either a "final stage manufacturer" or an "alterer," depending on the circumstances. A final stage manufacturer is a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a complete vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 568.3. An alterer is a person who modifies a previously certified, new motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 567.6, 567.7, and 568.8.

A final stage manufacturer is ordinarily responsible for making the final assignment of GVWR for a vehicle that it completes. See 49 CFR Part 567.5(c). (Special requirements apply if the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or an intermediate vehicle manufacturer assume legal responsibility for all duties imposed by the Safety Act.) However, as discussed below, a final stage manufacturer may, as a practical matter, need to assign to the completed vehicle a GVWR that is consistent with that specified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

Incomplete vehicle manufacturers (typically GM, Ford or Chrysler) are required to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a document which specifies, among other things, the GVWR of the completed vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle is intended (i.e., the GVWR that is appropriate for the incomplete vehicle when completed) and statements concerning how the design of the incomplete vehicle affects conformity with safety standards. See 49 CFR Part 568.4. Moreover, manufacturers of chassis-cabs are required also to attach a certification label concerning the conformance of the chassis-cab with safety standards. See 49 CFR Part 567.5(a). (A chassis-cab is an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant compartment, that requires only the addition of cargo-carrying, work-performing, or load-bearing components to perform its intended function.)

If a final stage manufacturer wishes to base its certification on the incomplete vehicle document or other information furnished by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, as the vast majority of final stage manufacturers do in actual practice, the final stage manufacturer will likely need to assign to the completed vehicle a GVWR that is consistent with that specified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. I note that, since most safety performance requirements are easier to meet at lower loads than higher loads, it is possible that a final stage manufacturer might be able to justify assigning a

reduced GVWR to some vehicles. We would urge the final stage manufacturer to consult with the incomplete vehicle manufacturer about such an action. As indicated above, the reduced GVWR would need to comply with the requirement set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(3), and we would expect it to reflect the manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight and load carrying capacity.

I note that the final stage manufacturer is subject to the same basic requirements concerning GVWR as a single stage manufacturer. I have enclosed a copy of an April 29, 1991 letter to Mitsubishi which discusses the issue of reducing the GVWR of certain vehicles.

An alterer has a more limited certification responsibility. Under 49 CFR Part 567.7, an alterer must allow the original certification label to remain on the new vehicle and must affix an additional label which states that, as altered, the vehicle "conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration." If the GVWR of the vehicle as altered is different from that shown on the original certification label, the modified value must be provided. I note, however, that since an alterer only certifies a vehicle with respect to the alterations it makes, the alterer would only have a basis to change the GVWR if the alterations are relevant to GVWR.

You also asked whether manufacturers may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to vehicles after they are sold for purposes other than resale, i.e., after they become used vehicles. As discussed above, the term GVWR refers to "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle," and the GVWR is assigned by the vehicle's manufacturer as part of the certification process. Therefore, for purposes of NHTSA's regulations, a vehicle's GVWR is fixed as of the time of its first sale to a consumer. The only exception to this is if the manufacturer seeks to correct an error (e.g., calculation error or typographical error) regarding the originally assigned GVWR.

We recognize 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. While not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in such situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle.

You also asked whether the affixing of a new label with an adjusted GVWR would have the effect of rendering existing bloodmobiles noncommercial motor vehicles for purposes of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Since the commercial driver's license program is administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), I have referred this question to that agency. If you wish to speak to someone at that agency about your question, you may contact Charles Medalen, of the FHWA Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-1354.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-5.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Michael H. Dunn -- Vice President of Marketing, Micho Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-93 from Michael Dunn to Greg Fera; Also attached to letter dated 11-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael H. Dunn; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Michael H. Dunn to Paul Jackson Rice.

TEXT: This agency has received copies of your May 17 and June 3, 1993, letters to Mr. Greg Fera, Pupil Transportation Specialist, New Jersey Department of Education, advising Mr. Fera that you can now "certify" your product, the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R-Bars), as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) No. 222.

This agency has repeatedly asked you to refrain from false or misleading representations that, among other things, NHTSA has "approved" R-Bars or that R-Bars comply with Federal safety standards. (For example, we sent a letter to you on this subject on November 29, 1991, copy attached.) As we previously explained, FMVSS 222, SCHOOL BUS SEATING AND CRASH PROTECTION, applies to school buses, not to individual items of motor vehicle equipment mounted or mountable in school buses, such as R-Bars. Further, there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to equipment such as R-Bars. Therefore, it is not possible to "certify" that R-Bars comply with any FMVSS.

In your December 3, 1991, response to our November 29, 1991, letter (copy attached), you stated that you and other company employees would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars. However, that letter is silent as to our demand that your company cease its representation that R-Bars meet applicable Federal Standards.

To alleviate any possible misunderstanding, you are again asked to refrain from claiming that Micho Industries can "certify" the compliance of R-Bars. Such a claim is false, and misleads people into believing that your product complies with or is "certified" to a safety standard that does not exist. Such a false and misleading certification is prohibited by S108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(1)(C). This agency is prepared to bring appropriate legal action against you and your firm if you persist in making these representations in the future.

ID: nht93-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lanny Kness -- Coach Design Engineer, Chance Coach, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/93 from Lanny Kness to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of two sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and displays (49 CFR S571.101). You ask whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. As explained below, the answer is no. You also ask whether S5.3's illumination requirements can be met by two different means: reflected light, and an overhead light. The answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your first question asks whether S5.1 requires a turn signal control to be hand operated. S5.1 specifies location requirements for each control listed in S5.1 "that is furnished." S5.1 does not require manufacturers to furnish any control, such as a hand-operated turn signal control, or prohibit manufacturers from providing an unlisted control, such as a foot-operated turn signal control. While FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR S 571.108) specifies the "turn signal operating unit" as required equipment, it does not specify that the unit be hand operated. (See S5.1.1 and Table I of FMVSS No. 108.)

Your second question asks whether the following proposed method of illuminating the windshield wiper/washer control complies with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101. You state that the wiper/washer control is located on the dashboard and at night, the "control knob's identification" can be barely seen from indirect lighting coming from other controls and displays. The wiper washer control would become "very discernible" by turning on an "overhead driver's controlled light."

For the following reasons, the above described method of illuminating the wiper/washer control would not comply with Standard No. 101. S5.3.3(a) requires means to be provided to make controls visible to the driver under all driving conditions. S5.3.3(b) states that "the means" (emphasis added) for providing the required visibility:

(1) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in S5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.

S5.3.3(b) therefore requires that a single control (i.e., "the means") be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness. Under your proposal, however, two different means must be used to provide two levels of brightness. The overhead driver's light would provide one level of brightness, that makes the control "very discernible." The other level of brightness (one barely discernible to the driver) is provided from reflected light given off by other controls and displays located on the dashboard. Since no single "means" that you propose for illumination would be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, your proposal would not comply with S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-5.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: Joel Trim -- Manager - Mechanical Service Dept., Neal and Massy Motors

TO: The Secretary -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Joel Trim (A41; Part 567)

TEXT:

Within recent times various owners of motorcars who have had their vehicle bodies modified (extended) in the main for Limousine Service have solicited my assistance in inspecting the modifications before inspection for licensing by our Road Transport Authorities. However, our country does not have any laws or regulations pertaining to the inspection and certification of these vehicles, nor for vehicles falling under the categories: Kit Cars or Homemade Vehicles.

As a result of this the owner of such vehicles are unable to obtain a license from the Transport Department to operate them legally on the roads. There are however a number of private modified (extended) vehicles on our roads.

I have discussed this matter with several persons some of whom are directly related to the Transport Department and it is in the general view that if proof is shown where these vehicles are modified, assembled, built and inspected according to certain National or International Standards, the Licensing Department of the Ministry of Transport may be willing to license these vehicles.

Could you be so kind to assist in obtaining copies of any existing regulations/standards which govern the certification and operation of such vehicles on highways.

Thanks very much for your assistance. I look forward in anticipation to your favorable response.

ID: nht93-5.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-31-93 from Michael Love to Mary Versailles (OCC 8506)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 31, 1993. Your letter refers to vehicle designs which have locations which meet the definition of "designated seating position," as defined at 49 CFR S571.3(b), at certain times but not at others. "For example, a seat with a folding seat back may be a seating position with the seat back in the up position and not with the seat back folded over the seat base. Another example of this could be if a platform or other device has several positions, one of which covers the seat so as to remove the necessary room to meet the designated seating position criteria." You asked for verification of the following two statements which you believe are a correct interpretation of such a situation:

When the seat meets the criteria, then seat belts must be provided according to the requirements of 571.208. In addition, those belts, since required by 571.208, must also meet the requirements of 571.209 and 571.210.

When the seat does not meet the criteria, then seat belts are no longer required by 571.208. Any seat belts provided in this situation must no longer meet requirements of 571.208, 209 or 210.

As explained below, NHTSA disagrees with your suggested interpretation.

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR S571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

In both of the examples you provide, the position would be a "plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female." Therefore, these positions would be considered "designated seating positions" at all times. Even though some adjustment may be necessary before the seat can be used, the seat is available at any time if needed.

Your statements also raise the question of whether a vehicle must comply with all requirements related to a specific "designated seating position" when that position is not usable for seating. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test

conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. NHTSA would only test a "designated seating position" for compliance with applicable safety standards when testing can be done according with the test conditions and procedures specified in the standard. While the examples you provide are not specific enough to explain how testing would be done in those instances, if a "designated seating position" was completely blocked under certain circumstances, NHTSA would not test under those circumstances.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-5.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Luckemeyer -- SWF Auto-Electric GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from Thomas Luckemeyer to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

As you have requested, we are responding by FAX to your FAX letter of June 25, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our FAX letter to you of May 28, 1993, provided an interpretation of SAE J588 NOV84, incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You mention the 1990 SAE Ground Vehicle Lighting Manual which refers to SAE J588 September 1970, and ask which is the correct SAE reference.

Standard No. 108 was amended with an effective date of December 1, 1990, to substitute "SAE J588 NOV84" for "SAE J588 September 1970" as the U.S. Federal requirement for turn signal lamps used as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles with an overall width of less than 80 inches overall width. Turn signal lamps may still be manufactured to the requirements of "SAE J588 September 1970" if they are intended to replace original equipment turn signal lamps that were manufactured in accordance with "SAE J588 September 1970." We understand that your earlier letter asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it related to the design of lamps for future production, and trust that this answers your question.

As you have requested, we are also FAXing a copy of Table III.

ID: nht93-5.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Durin B. Rogers -- Legal Assistant, Saperston & Day

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/18/93 from John Womack to Durin B. Rogers (A41; Std. 205; VSA 103(d); Redbook 4); Also attached to letter dated 7/1/91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard E. Wright (Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 11/29/84 from Frank Berndt to Wayne Ivie (Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance with regard to a legal matter within our office at this time.

According to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations S571.205 (otherwise known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205, Glazing Materials), certain motor vehicles operating on land highways are required to use windows made of treated "safety glass" or tempered glass to reduce the likelihood of shattering, as well as to minimize the possibility of vehicle occupants being thrown through a window during a collision. More specifically, I am interested in the glazing material requirements for side windows in what are known as "fifth wheel campers/trailers." Although Section 5.1.1 of Standard #205 designates that such requirements should conform to the American National Standard Safety Code for safety glazing materials for motor vehicles operating on land highways (Z-26.1, 1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z-26.1(a), July 3, 1980), it fails to specify what grade or specification of glass is required for each window's location. For your information, the replacement side window was allegedly purchased from a manufacturer in Indiana in June 1987, and installed within a fifth wheel camper registered in the State of New York. Enclosed, for your reference, are copies of photographs of the subject camper.

Would you please research this issue and confirm what specific glazing requirements, if any, are applicable to side windows within fifth wheel vehicles, and whether any federal or industrial regulations exist which would require future window replacements and/or repairs to be made of such glass?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Attachment

(Photos omitted)

ID: nht93-5.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: R-BAR Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/15/93 from John Womack to Michael F. Hecker (A41; Std. 222; Part 571; VSA 108(A)(2)(a)

TEXT:

I have reviewed the letter sent to our Mr. Michael H. Dunn on January 29, 1993 and as a result, I am providing the following response.

We fully understand that NHTSA neither approves, or certifies, products such as the R-BAR Passenger Restraint System. We are very careful to explain this to customers when we are asked if the agency has approved the device.

In regards to Micho Industries certification of compliance to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, there appears to be some confusion as a result of past correspondence with your office. While we understand that there are no standards directly applicable to lap bar restraints, it was our understanding that once the R-BAR was mounted to the seat it was part of the seat and subject to the requirements of the seat. This was re-emphasized in a letter from your office (to Micho Industries) on May 14, 1992 when Mr. Paul Rice stated "once the restraining bar is attached to the seat back, it is part of the seat back. Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4 (c).".

In the same letter Mr. Rice further states that "Manufacturers are required to certify that vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure."

Previous correspondence from your office has stated that "the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard."

Based on our understanding of the regulations and past correspondence with your office, we have developed the R-BAR so that it was in compliance to regulations that apply to the seat as well as other regulations that apply to the general safety of the school bus. Further, it has been our understanding that, as the manufacturer, it was our responsibility to "certify" that compliance on installations in existing buses.

John, we do not want to mislead anyone or misrepresent the product, our company or your agency. After 8 years of development and testing we believe the R-BAR will stand on its own merits. If, after consideration of the above, it remains the position of your agency that Micho Industries stating "certification of the R-BAR to compliance to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" would be possibly misleading - then we

will of course refrain from making that statement. In the meantime Micho Industries, and it's representatives, will respond to customer inquiries, regarding compliance, with the following statements;

At this time there are no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are directly applicable to the R-BAR Passenger Restraint System.

Properly installed the R-BAR will not violate any regulation or standard, or make inoperative any existing safety device or feature of the bus in which it is installed.

I look forward to your comments and thank you for your consideration in this matter.

ID: nht93-5.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Harold R. Burke, Esq. -- Duel and Holland

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Importation of type M-151 military vehicle

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/94 from John Womack to Harold R. Burke (A42; Part 591; VSA Sec 571.7(a))

TEXT:

At the suggestion of Mr. George Shifflett, I am contacting you with respect to the importation of approximately 8,000 type M-151 military vehicles ("Jeeps") originally built in the United States between 1973-75. These vehicles have never been used and are currently located outside this country. It is my client's intention to return these vehicles to the United States and resell them for use here. Specifically, my client requests a legal opinion as to the following questions:

1. As U.S. origin vehicles which have been outside this country since 1975 are they now classified as "foreign" vehicles which are subject to current D.O.T. and E.P.A. safety and emissions criteria?

2. If they are not considered "foreign" vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?

3. If they are considered "foreign" vehicles what, if any, D.O.T. regulations would apply to the registration of such vehicles for use on U.S. roads?

If I can provide any additional information with respect to these questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you and your earliest reply will be appreciated.

ID: nht93-5.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 9, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Christopher Banner

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-21-93 from Christopher Banner to John Wolmack (Womack) (OCC 8477)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA's regulations would apply to some manufacturing operations you are contemplating. I apologize for the delay in this response. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you would like to start producing vehicles based on Ford pickup truck chassis. Some of these Ford chassis would come from wrecked vehicles that you would strip down to the frame, and others would be new chassis that you would purchase directly from Ford. You would then install new bodies on top of some of these chassis and offer them for sale as completed vehicles. You also would like to offer some of these bodies and chassis for sale as "kit cars." In the "kit car" version, you would sell the body and chassis to the purchaser of the kit, and the purchaser of the kit would have to furnish some other parts in order to complete the vehicle.

This agency's Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law does not require motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment to continue to comply with the safety standards after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment item in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, Federal law does prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" compliance with a safety standard for a vehicle or item of equipment. See 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A), and (b)(1).

1. NEW BODY ON NEW CHASSIS. All vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a new chassis would be considered new vehicles. You would have to certify that each of those vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. You would be considered a "final stage manufacturer" of the vehicles, as that term is used in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

2. NEW BODY ON USED CHASSIS. We cannot say from the information you have provided whether the vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a stripped, wrecked Ford pickup would be treated as a new vehicle, and have to be certified as complying with the applicable safety standards. The answer depends on how extensively you modify the Ford pickup chassis.

To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when the modifications to a used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the Federal safety standards, NHTSA has established specific criteria at 49 CFR 571.7(e), COMBINING NEW AND USED COMPONENTS. That section reads as follows:

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.

This provision means that if you leave the frame, engine, transmission, and drive axle in place from the wrecked vehicle, and place a new body on top of it, we would consider that vehicle to be a used vehicle, which would not have to be certified by you as complying with applicable safety standards. On the other hand, if you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the Ford pickup chassis, 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 safety standards.

3. KIT CARS. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a "motor vehicle" is defined, in part, as one that is "driven by mechanical power." See 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). We have interpreted this provision to mean that a unit would be considered only an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle, until such time as a power source is added. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to assemblages of motor vehicle equipment, or to used equipment items in the assemblage (items used on a vehicle previously in service on the public roads). However, certain of the safety standards would apply to new equipment items included in the assemblage. It would be a violation of Federal law if your kit car includes any new brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, or seat belt assemblies that do not comply with the applicable safety standards.

If you ship your kit cars with all parts needed to produce a completed motor vehicle, including the power source, this agency will treat the kit car as a motor vehicle, not an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of the state of completion of the kit. You would be required to certify that the kit car conformed to all applicable safety standards if it were treated as a new vehicle under the rules set forth in 1. and 2. above, but not if it were treated as a used vehicle under those rules.

I have enclosed for your information a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of them. I have also enclosed a brochure titled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" that briefly describes each of the safety standards.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.