ID: aiam5137

"Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your letter asking whether there ha been any consideration given to excluding 'non-route-type' school buses from Standard No. 131's requirement that school buses be equipped with a stop signal arm. You stated that, as a manufacturer of school bus bodies, you are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service. According to your letter, a number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. You stated that these buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload, and do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic. You stated that the purchasers of these school buses are concerned about paying for stop arms which are never used. As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, is a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard which requires all new school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the bus. To answer your specific question, this agency has not considered whether 'non- route-type' school buses should be excluded from Standard No. 131's requirement for a stop signal arm. I note that this issue was not raised in the comments on our notice of proposed rulemaking. We do appreciate the concern of a purchaser about paying for safety equipment that he or she believes will never be used. However, the limited information provided in your letter does not provide a basis for concluding that we should consider changing the standard. We do not know how many school buses are used exclusively or primarily for 'non-route-type' service, although we assume the number is small. Further, it would appear that there would be occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses used for such service. For example, these safety devices might be used while loading and unloading students when the school bus is parked on a school driveway or a road near a school, if the school bus is used to transport students to activities at locations other than schools, or if the school bus is sometimes used as a replacement for out-of-service regular route school buses. I also note that, assuming that there is occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses which are primarily used for non-route service, it is not clear how the agency would distinguish, for purposes of a regulation, which school buses should be excluded from the requirement for stop arms. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking";

ID: nht88-3.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: ERNIE J. BUNNELL -- VICE PRESIDENT/GENERAL MANAGER PACIFIC T-TOP, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 08/30/88 LETTER FROM ERNIE J. BUNNELL TO TAYLOR VINSON; OCC 2485

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bunnell:

This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1988, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have provided diagrams of two types of deck lid spoiler installations, intended as either OEM or aftermarket equipment, and have asked how these relate to requireme nts for the center highmounted stop lamp. You understand that the spoiler itself does not have to meet the lighting standard, but would like to comply if possible.

You are correct that the spoiler itself is not subject to the lighting standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108); however, its installation has the potential for creating a noncompliance with that standard. The basic requirements for the lamp is that it must meet the photometric intensities at each of the test points specified in Figure 10 of the standard, and the visibility (and other) requirements of paragraph S4.1.1.41. Photometric testing is conducted according to SAE Recommended Pr actice J186a, with the photometer at a distance of at least 10 feet from the lamp. Test points lie above and below the horizontal axis of the lamp, and to the left and right of the vertical axis.

According to your first design, the spoiler is "at or below the rear brake light using the 5 degree measurement as a guide." You are correct in taking into account the necessity of meeting the 5 degree down test points. But compliance will be affected b y the location of the lamp and slope of the deck lid as well as the shape of the spoiler. The second spoiler is designed "to go over the horizontal intensity of the light." We interpret this as recognition of the need to meet the test points lying 5 and 10 degrees above the horizontal. Our comments are the same as for the first spoiler. In short, if a spoiler design is not vehicle specific there may be no practicable way for you, as the manufacturer of the spoiler, to determine whether its installati on would create a noncompliance. If your design is vehicle specific, the SAE photometric test could be conducted with the spoiler installed.

The responsibility for compliance with Standard No. 108 is initially that of the vehicle manufacturer. If the spoiler is installed as part of the vehicle manufacturing process, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable Federal m otor vehicle safety standards would cover the center lamp with the spoiler in place. But the dealer also must ensure that a certified vehicle remains in conformance at the time it is delivered to its first purchaser. Therefore, a dealer could be reluct ant to install a spoiler that is not vehicle specific in the absence of some showing that it does not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Once the vehicle is sold, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in effect forbids the dealer, or any motor vehicle repair business, from modifications that affect compliance of equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. This p rohibition, however, does not extend to the vehicle owner, who may modify the vehicle as (s)he wishes, subject to State laws. We are not aware of any State laws that would forbid spoilers of the designs indicated.

We have enclosed a copy of paragraph S4.1.1.41 and Figure 10 for your information, and appreciate your interest in learning more about Standard No. 108.

ENCLOSURE

ID: 3151o

Mr. Ernie J. Bunnell
Vice President/General Manager
Pacific T-Top, Inc.
l5241 Transistor Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

Dear Mr. Bunnell:

This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1988, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have provided diagrams of two types of deck lid spoiler installations, intended as either OEM or aftermarket equipment, and have asked how these relate to requirements for the center highmounted stop lamp. You understand that the spoiler itself does not have to meet the lighting standard, but would like to comply if possible.

You are correct that the spoiler itself is not subject to the lighting standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08); however, its installation has the potential for creating a noncompliance with that standard. The basic requirements for the lamp is that it must meet the photometric intensities at each of the test points specified in Figure l0 of the standard, and the visibility (and other) requirements of paragraph S4.l.l.41. Photometric testing is conducted according to SAE Recommended Practice J186a, with the photometer at a distance of at least l0 feet from the lamp. Test points lie above and below the horizontal axis of the lamp, and to the left and right of the vertical axis.

According to your first design, the spoiler is "at or below the rear brake light using the 5 degree measurement as a guide." You are correct in taking into account the necessity of meeting the 5 degree down test points. But compliance will be affected by the location of the lamp and slope of the deck lid as well as the shape of the spoiler. The second spoiler is designed "to go over the horizontal intensity of the light." We interpret this as recognition of the need to meet the test points lying 5 and l0 degrees above the horizontal. Our comments are the same as for the first spoiler. In short, if a spoiler design is not vehicle specific there may be no practicable way for you, as the manufacturer of the spoiler, to determine whether its installation would create a noncompliance. If your design is vehicle specific, the SAE photometric test could be conducted with the spoiler installed.

The responsibility for compliance with Standard No. l08 is initially that of the vehicle manufacturer. If the spoiler is installed as part of the vehicle manufacturing process, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards would cover the center lamp with the spoiler in place. But the dealer also must ensure that a certified vehicle remains in conformance at the time it is delivered to its first purchaser. Therefore, a dealer could be reluctant to install a spoiler that is not vehicle specific in the absence of some showing that it does not create a noncompliance with Standard No. l08.

Once the vehicle is sold, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in effect forbids the dealer, or any motor vehicle repair business, from modifications that affect compliance of equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. This prohibition, however, does not extend to the vehicle owner, who may modify the vehicle as (s)he wishes, subject to State laws. We are not aware of any State laws that would forbid spoilers of the designs indicated.

We have enclosed a copy of paragraph S4.l.l.41 and Figure l0 for your information, and appreciate your interest in learning more about Standard No. l08.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:108 d:ll/3/88

ID: aiam3294

Dear Mr. Krall: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1980, asking whether a ne electrical switch complies with S4.5.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; As you have described it, the switch has three positions under two o which ('IGN/ACC' and 'ACC') the hazard warning signals will operate. The third position, however, ('OFF') is a master switch which disconnects most electrical circuits on the vehicle including hazard warning signals. You have asked whether this design is permissible under S4.5.5 which requires the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit to 'operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch.' You have cited as precedent a 1972 letter from this agency to Imperial Fire Apparatus approving a battery disconnect switch design. In the 1972 system the hazard signals would only be activated by turning both the master switch and the flasher to 'on'. This was acceptable to NHTSA under paragraph 3(e) of SAE J910, *Hazard Warning Signal Switch*:; >>>'... providing the master switch is separate from the ignitio switch and the hazard warning signal lamps will flash with the master switch on and the ignition switch off.'<<<; The principal difference between the two systems is that your switc 'is a part of the ignition switch assembly and not physically located elsewhere on the instrument panel.'; The intent of S4.5.5 is that the hazard warning signals operat regardless whether the ignition switch is on or off.; This intent would not appear to be met by your system whose maste switch is part of the ignition switch assembly. We suggest, therefore, that you modify your design so that the hazard warning signal circuit is added to that of the 'CB' and clock which remain operable when the master switch is in the 'off' position.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4782

"Dear Mr. Palius: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of m staff, seeking an interpretation of the effects of a procedural provision that appears in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, but not in the standard itself. Specifically, you asked whether crash testing under Standard No. 208 must be conducted only with a tow road 500 feet in length. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you. Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies 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. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidelines are called compliance test procedures. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities. The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 when they are tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in various sections of the standard, including S5, S8, S10, and S11. These sections specify that the vehicle shall be traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 miles per hour (mph). However, these sections do not specify any particular length for a tow road for crash testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 208 may be based on tests using a tow road of any length, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 208 are satisfied. You correctly noted that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that the tow road should be at least 500 feet in length. This length was chosen for agency compliance testing to ensure the test dummies' positioning would not be affected by the acceleration of the vehicle and that the test dummies' positioning would be stabilized before impact. Tow roads of this length also allow sufficient room to abort the test if needed. Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to use a 500-foot tow road in its certification testing, a shorter tow road that affected the dummies' positioning might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. Please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 17690.ztv

Mr. William A. Parkyn
Teledyne Lighting & Display Products
12525 Daphne Avenue
Hawthorne, CA 90250

Dear Mr. Parkyn:

This is in reply to your letter of March 20, 1998, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to stop lamps for motor-driven cycles.

Paragraph S5.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that a motor-driven cycle may be equipped with a stop lamp whose photometric output "for the group of test points specified in Figure 1 is at least one-half of the minimum values set forth in that figure." Table III specifies that motorcycle stop lamps shall meet SAE Standard J586. You ask for confirmation that S5.1.1.22 "means that motor-driven cycle stop lamps must meet one half of the minima set forth in SAE Standard J586."

The minimum allowable candlepower value for a stop lamp is established by Figure 1b. For a single compartment stop lamp, this is 80 candlepower. Rather than determining photometric compliance through measuring candlepower at each individual test point, Figure 1c groups the individual test points into five Zones. Figure 1c is titled "Sum of the Percentages of Grouped Minimum Candlepower." The sum of the percentages for Zones 1 and 5 is 65 percent. The minimum allowable candlepower value for Zones 1 and 5 is determined by multiplying the minimum value of Figure 1b by the Zone percentage in Figure 1c, that is to say 65 percent of 80 candlepower, which is 52 candlepower. Under S5.1.122, then, at least half this value must be met by a motorcycle stop lamp, that is to say, Zones 1 and 5 must achieve at least 26 candlepower. The corresponding value established by SAE J586 is only 25 candlepower. For this reason, it is not correct to say that S5.1.1.22 means that motor-driven cycle stop lamps must meet one-half the minima set forth in SAE J586. However, this is a true statement for Zones 2, 3, and 4 where the values under both Figure 1 and SAE J586 are 100, 380, and 100 candlepower respectively.

In our review of your letter, we find that S5.1.1.22 could be more clearly expressed, and should read that the "photometric output for any group of test points specified in Figure 1c is at least one-half of the minimum value obtained when the minimum allowable stop lamp candlepower value of Figure 1b is multiplied by the appropriate percentage for the group that is specified in Figure 1c."

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/1/98

ID: aiam4775

Dear Mr. Cornell: This is in reply to your letter of July 25, l990, t Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for clarification of the amendments to Standard No. 108 which were published on May l5 of this year. With reference to section S5.1.1.31, requiring photometric measurement of the entire lamp (and not its individual compartments), you have asked whether this includes the maximums because the preamble to the final rule discussed the requirement only in terms of the minimums. Section S5.1.1.31 refers unqualifiedly to 'measurements' of photometrics, and thus includes maximums as well as minimums. The preamble spoke of minimums only as an example, and was not intended to exclude maximums. I am sorry if this caused some confusion. You have also pointed out that the preamble refers to a minimum luminous lens area of 12 square inches for certain lamps, while the applicable SAE standards that Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference state the minimum as 75 square centimeters, which is only 11.625 square inches. You request a clarification of this point. The appropriate value is 75 square centimeters (11.625 square inches). As a general rule of construction, the text of a standard constitutes the legal requirements which apply. When a value is clearly stated, as in the SAE materials, it takes precedence over an inconsistent value appearing outside the standard, such as in the preamble to the May l5 amendments. The earlier versions of the SAE standards (which the new SAE materials supersede for new motor vehicle equipment) spoke in terms of 12 square inches, and the agency retained this non-metric terminology for purposes of discussing in the preamble the difference between the old and new requirements. Although the SAE could have adopted a value of 77.42 square centimeters (12 square inches) in its new materials, it chose to round the value off to 75 square centimeters, thereby reducing its previously specified minimum luminous lens area by .375 square inch. With respect to another concern, you have presented the hypothetical of the use 'in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap' of three identical single compartment stop lamps per side, none of whose individual luminous lens areas meets the 75 square centimeter requirement, but which, in combination, would exceed it. You have asked whether this would comply with the new requirements. Our answer is no. On May l5, Standard No. 108 was also amended to add a definition for 'Multiple lamp arrangement.'(S3). This is 'an array of two or more separate lamps on each side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signal.' Paragraph 5.3.2 of the newly-incorporated SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 for stop lamps on wide vehicles states in pertinent part that 'The functional lighted lens area of a single lamp . . . and each lamp of a multiple lamp arrangement shall be at least 75 square centimeters.' The configuration you describe is a 'multiple lamp arrangement' and each lamp in the array is subject to the minimum specified requirement. You further ask, if 'the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing', whether this would create a 'multiple compartment lamp', and if so, 'then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap.' The definition of 'Multiple compartment lamp' adopted on May 15 states that it is 'a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens.' Multiple lamps cannot be combined to create a 'multiple compartment lamp'. If the individual lamps are mounted in a molded housing, they remain 'an array of two or more separate lamps on the same side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signal', that is to say, a 'multiple lamp arrangement.' The 'lighted areas' of a 'multiple compartment lamp' are something less than a complete lamp, but, when joined by common parts become a single lamp. The configuration you describe is not a 'multiple compartment lamp.' If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5217

"Dear Mr. Niedzwiecki: This responds to your letter requestin information about this agency's activities related to cylinders for 'compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle on- board motor fuel storage.' According to your letter, EDO is developing an all- composite cylinder that has a safety factor of 3.5. You further explained that your company is planning to begin a conversion program using these cylinders. Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff discussed your letter with your associate, Mr. John Vincenzo. Mr. Vincenzo said that EDO knows that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is conducting a rulemaking related to CNG cylinders. Mr. Vincenzo seeks confirmation that, until a rule results from that rulemaking, there is no Department of Transportation regulation with which your company is required to comply before you start your conversion program. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or any regulation dealing with the conversion of vehicles to be equipped with such cylinders. Therefore, until such time as a standard is issued, you are correct that you are not required to comply with any NHTSA safety standard related to CNG fuel systems. However, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, NHTSA has certain restrictions on vehicle fuel system conversions, depending on who does the conversion and when the work is done. I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under our present regulations of converting new and used gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses NHTSA's vehicle alterer requirements (49 CFR 567.7) which apply to work on new vehicles, and the Safety Act's 'render inoperative' provision (108(a)(2)(A)), which applies to work on new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from 'knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed ... in compliance' with any FMVSS. Please contact us if you have further questions relating to the enclosed discussion. I also note that the enclosed discussion is based on the FMVSS's that are currently in effect. As you know, NHTSA issued a proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If the agency were to ultimately decide to adopt the proposal, it would be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the 'render inoperative' issues that relate to vehicle conversions. For example, if NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on new or used vehicles converted to CNG fuel. With regard to present requirements for vehicle conversions, you should also note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650. You were particularly interested in NHTSA's proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. In response to that proposal, the agency received over 55 comments (including one from your corporation), which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. In addition, please be aware that the January 1993 notice was a proposal and does not necessarily reflect the precise requirements that will be contained in the final rule. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 17325.ztv

Mr. F.G.M. Bol
Car Innovations
P.O. Box 143
2665 ZJ Bleiswijk (Holland)
Netherlands

Dear Mr. Bol:

This is in reply to your January 1998 letter to the Department informing us of your V.E.B. System, and stating that "it remains to you the decision to commercialize this product in co-operation with us."

You are interested in marketing this system "with an auto-manufacturer." Therefore, you intend the V.E.B. system to be installed as original equipment on motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. The system may be best described as a center highmounted stop lamp that displays a vehicle's registration number under ordinary circumstances and the word "stolen" when the vehicle is being operated without the owner's authority.

The center highmounted stop lamp must comply with all requirements of United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. One of these requirements is that the lamp comply with the requirements of Figure 10. This Figure prescribes minimum and maximum candela to be measured at 18 individual test points. If any one of these test points is obscured by the vehicle's registration number or the word "stolen," then it is not legal to install the lamp on a motor vehicle. We believe that it might be difficult to design a lamp that both displays the information you anticipate and meets Standard No. 108. I enclose a copy of Figure 10 so that you may determine whether any of the 18 test points may be obscured by the V.E.B. system. A second requirement is that the lens area must be at least 4.5 square inches. Any obstruction would affect this, too.

Standard No. 108 also prohibits the installation of any device that impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment such as the center stoplamp. Even if the candela and lens area requirements are met, the clarity and meaning of the stop signal may be undermined by letters or numbers appearing when the lamp is lit that have no relation to the stop lamp function.

The Department has no authority to engage in commercial promotions with manufacturers, and we cannot help you with this product.

Finally, we would like to call your attention to a typographical error on the cover and interior of your sales folder. The verb indicating theft in English is "to steal," not "to steel."

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d:5/6/98

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";