ID: 86-4.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger Pezzulich

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roger Pezzulich Parts Mgr. Friendly Honda House 549 Dutchess TurnPike Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12603

Dear Mr. Pezzulich:

This is in reply to Your letter of April 2B, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of this Office pointing out that a center high-mounted stop lamp may be obscured when a luggage rack is in use, and asking for the legal ramifications involved in such use.

Compliance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, under which such lamps are now mandatory on new passenger cars, is judged with the luggage rack in place, but not in use. We are not aware of any State restrictions on use of a luggage rack if it would interfere with the output from a center high-mounted stop lamp.

You may have noted that the lamp is placed between the rack and the deck on the rear of some cars on which racks have been installed as standard equipment, and not behind the rack in the parcel shelf area. This appears to be an effective solution to the problem posed by luggage racks.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Taylor Vinson April 28, 1986 Legal Council Room 5214 N.H.T.S.A.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

This letter is in regard to a legal matter that has been brought to my attention. I am the Parts Manager at a Honda dealership located in Poughkeepsie, New York. One of the accessories offered with our car is a luggage rack that mounts to the trunk of the vehicle. Now, with the new requirement of a 3rd brake light in the rear window, any luggage stored in this rack would obstruct the view of this light.

I would like to know what, if any, are the legal ramifications involved in the use of this luggage rack.

Thank you for your time and help in this matter.

Very truly yours, Roger Pezzulich Parts Mgr.

Very truly yours,

Roger Pezzulich Parts Mgr.

ID: aiam5334

"Dear Mr. Hulshof: This responds to your letter to Mr. Patrick Boy requesting a written interpretation concerning whether your sunroof would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118, 'Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems.' I apologize for the delay in responding. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and are subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine your product and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control. You explain in your letter that your power-operated sunroof (which is a power operated 'roof panel system' under Standard 118) can be closed only in four circumstances. In three of these, the ignition key must be activated. In the fourth, the sunroof can be closed when there is 'Continuous operation of Central close mechanism, not capable sic closing the roof panel from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle.' Standard 118 requires sunroofs other than those that have an automatic reversing feature to close only in certain circumstances. One of those (S4(a)) is when the key controlling the vehicle's engine is in the activated (i.e. 'on', 'start' or 'accessory') position. The three circumstances you described where the ignition key must be activated to operate the sunroof appear to satisfy S4(a). With regard to the fourth circumstance, Standard 118 also permits sunroofs to close 'Upon continuous activation of a remote actuation device, provided that the...device shall be incapable of closing the sunroof from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle' (S4(d)). The circumstance you described appears to satisfy S4(d). Your sunroof will close only upon continuous operation of a 'Central close mechanism,' and the mechanism is incapable of closing the sunroof from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam1781

Dear Senator Scott: This is in response to your letter of January 28, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association urging the issuance of a 2.5 mph bumper impact requirement by February 15, 1975.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) published a Federal Register notice proposing to reduce the current 5-mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph. The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency- conducted studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost-beneficial. The aim of the proposed reduction in the bumper impact requirements is to allow manufacturers to produce lighter bumpers, which NHTSA studies indicate would have a favorable effect on the cost-benefit ratio.; No agreement was made with the motor vehicle industry concerning th proposal. The proposed reduction in the bumper requirements does not constitute a final statement of the NHTSA's position. All comments and data submitted in response to the proposal will be thoroughly considered before any final decision is reached.; Petitions have been received from various motor vehicle manufacturers insurance groups, and members of Congress requesting extensions of the period allowed for the submission of comments to the proposal. Although the motor vehicle manufacturers limited their request for an extension to that portion of the proposal that would not take effect until 1978, sufficient interest has been shown to indicate that more time is needed for the preparation of comments. Therefore, the comment period has been extended until March 3, 1975.; In addition, in order to allow the airing of all views, we have decide that a public hearing would be desirable. The hearing has been scheduled for February 18 and 19, 1975, at which time all interested persons are invited to present their views on the proposed amendment. I cordially invite the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association to attend and present its thoughts on this subject. We feel that the time schedule for the hearing and the comment closing date will permit the presentation of all sides of the questions involved, and enable the agency to make a final decision in time for the motor vehicle manufacturers to act with respect to the 1976 model year.; For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Federal Registe notice scheduling the public hearing and extending the comment period. Your interest and that of the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association is greatly appreciated.; Sincerely, Barmin

ID: BBRmotorsports.1

Mr. Ryan Hall
BBR Motorsports, Inc.
19632 70^th Avenue South, Bay 3
Kent, WA 98032

Dear Mr. Hall:

This responds to your June 18, 2003, e-mail to David Coleman in the Office of Vehicle Safety (OVSC), in which you sought clarification of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations for vehicle identification numbers (VINs) and how they apply to off-road vehicles. Specifically, you seek confirmation that NHTSA will not issue World Manufacturer Identifiers (WMIs) for off-road vehicles and that the agency does not object to private sector development of a suitable VIN system for such vehicles. Consistent with our enclosed May 21, 2003, letter to the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), we confirm that NHTSA does not regulate vehicles manufactured for off-road use, and we have encouraged industry groups to consult with State officials to develop an alternative WMI system for these vehicles that meet State law requirements.

Although we believe that the letter to the MIC fully explains this issue, the following points are offered in summary. NHTSA has the authority to regulate "motor vehicles," which are defined as vehicles "manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways."49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) has jurisdiction over the safety of off-road vehicles. Although NHTSAs contractor has in the past erroneously issued WMIs to off-road vehicle manufacturers under NHTSAs VIN regulations (49 CFR Part 565), the agency has taken steps to remedy this error.

We are sensitive to the difficulties facing off-road vehicle manufacturers in light of State laws demanding VINs for those vehicles that are consistent with Part 565 requirements. Therefore, NHTSA has agreed to stay rescission of the WMIs previously issued to off-road vehicle manufacturers until January 1, 2005, in order to permit sufficient time for the development of and migration to a new system for WMIs

issued to off-road vehicle manufacturers. Because we view the problem as primarily a matter of State law, we have encouraged close consultations with State officials, in order to develop a system that both meets stakeholder needs and does not cause confusion with Part 565 WMIs and VINs.

Particularly because NHTSA does not regulate off-road vehicles, the agency will not endorse any alternative WMI/VIN system nor any private sector organization(s) to undertake such development efforts.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:565
d.7/17/03

ID: 15596buc.kle

Mr. Bengt Rimark
Br. Holmbergs Fabriks AB
Box 63
S-334 21 ANDERSTORP
SWEDEN

Dear Mr. Rimark:

This responds to your letter asking about paragraph S6.2.1 of Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether we would consider the buckle you developed for infant restraints to be a "hinged button" as the term is used in S6.2.1, or a buckle in the "other buckle release mechanism" category in S6.2.1. Our answer is the buckle would be a hinged button.

S6.2.1 sets forth the buckle release test procedure in Standard 213. The procedure determines where to apply the force needed to release the buckle based on the type of buckle (e.g., hinged, pushbutton, or other) being tested. If the buckle is of the hinged button category, the force would be applied "at the centerline of the button, 3 mm away from the movable edge directly opposite the fixed edge, and in the direction that produces maximum releasing effect." If the buckle is in the "other" category, the force would be applied "on the centerline of the buckle lever or finger tab in the direction that produces the maximum releasing effect." You state that if your buckle is a hinged button, it would have to be redesigned to increase the force needed to release the buckle. You also state that while you can do this, you would prefer not to because the buckle "works well and feels right" with a depression in the buckle that guides the finger to the release point, and because you prefer to keep any force applied close to a newborn as low as possible.

We have examined the sample buckle you sent with your letter and conclude that the buckle has a pushbutton-release mechanism with a fixed edge, which the standard refers to as a "hinged button." While you have reasons for wanting to call the buckle other than hinged button, under the clear language of the standard the buckle is not in the "other" category. If you believe the standard should be changed, there are procedures for petitioning the agency to amend the standard. See 49 CFR Part 552 of our regulations (copy enclosed).

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff by telephone at 011-202-366-2992 or fax at 011-202-366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.1/30/98

ID: aiam5352

"Dear Mr. Drymalski: This responds to your letter and telephon conversations with David Elias, formerly of this office, asking about a situation you term as the 'cannibalization' of new, unsold vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. The situation involves motor vehicle dealers who remove equipment (e.g., a power steering pump) from new vehicles to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment on previously-sold vehicles. The new vehicles are 'cannibalized' to expedite repairs when replacement equipment for the repair is temporarily unavailable. The new vehicles have their cannibalized equipment replaced when the parts become available, before the vehicles are sold. You ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permits dealers to cannibalize parts. As explained below, the answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act') authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards ('FMVSS's') applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a new vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. Under 114 of the Safety Act, each motor vehicle must be certified as conforming to the FMVSS's. NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) require any person altering (i.e., performing extensive manufacturing operations on) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle by the consumer to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7. However, persons altering a certified vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of 'readily attachable components' (e.g., mirrors or tires and rim assemblies) or by performing minor finishing operations (e.g., painting), are not considered alterers, and need not re-certify the vehicle. Whether modifications involve 'readily attachable' components depends on the intricacy of the installation of those components. 'Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable.' NHTSA letter to Fred Cords, March 4, 1975. Applying these considerations to the situation you present, we conclude that a power steering pump is a readily attachable component. A power steering pump can be installed with extraordinary ease. The pump can be replaced on the dealer's lot in minutes, simply by opening the hood and popping the old pump out and inserting the new one, with no need to use special tools or have special expertise. The pump can be replaced without extensively modifying the vehicle in any manner. Since the power steering pump is a readily attachable component, the dealer described in your letter is not an alterer under 567.7. The dealer can 'cannibalize' the new unsold cars for power steering pumps and install new pumps when they arrive without applying its own new certification label. I emphasize that a dealer would not be considered an alterer only in the narrow circumstances in which the component being 'cannibalized' is readily attachable. If the component is not readily attachable, the dealer could 'cannibalize' the new cars and later repair and sell them if the following requirements are met. First, the dealer would be responsible under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act for ensuring that each new vehicle it sells complies with the applicable FMVSS's. Thus, the new vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's. Second, the dealer would be responsible, as an 'alterer,' for certifying the new vehicles from which it removed and replaced the equipment. The dealer would be an alterer since the work performed would be more extensive than 'the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components' or the 'minor finishing operations' described in 567.7. The dealer would certify the vehicle by allowing the original certification label to remain on the vehicle and affixing an additional label of the type and form specified in 567.7. In all cases, including where the dealer is replacing a readily attachable component, the dealer must also adhere to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used... during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to limit the modifications that a dealer may make to a new or used vehicle. If, in making the temporary repair affecting a new vehicle, the dealer 'renders inoperative' a device or design installed on the new vehicle pursuant to an FMVSS, the dealer must return the vehicle to compliance before the new vehicle can be sold to the public, or even test- driven by a member of the public. Section 108(a)(2)(A) also applies to the used vehicles into which the cannibalized equipment is installed. The dealer must ensure that it does not violate the Safety Act by 'rendering inoperative' equipment or designs on the vehicles in the process of repairing them. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht90-3.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 27, 1990

FROM: Thomas R. Mounteer -- Esquire, Stovall & Spradlin

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Heritage Motor Cars, Inc./VIN for Legacy Passenger Vehicles (NEF-31KNU IR 831-836)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-1-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Thomas R. Mounteer (A37; Std. 115)

TEXT:

This firm has been retained to assist Heritage Motor Cars, Inc. ("Heritage") in complying with the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance's certification review program. We are coordinating those efforts through Karen Nuschler in that office.

As part of its compliance efforts, Heritage will ensure that it has fully satisfied Part 567's certification requirements. Our purpose in writing this letter is to ensure that VINs are properly assigned to Legacy vehicles under Part 565. I discussed th is matter with Ms. Dot Nacoma of your office, and she requested that I write to request an interpretation from the agency.

Ms. Nacoma explained that Heritage's method of manufacturing the Legacy complicates the assignment of VINs. As I explained to Ms. Nacoma, Heritage builds its Legacy on the frame of used Chevrolet Camaros. I have enclosed photocopies of Heritage's broch ure for its Legacy assembly kits by way of illustration. You should be aware, however, that in its finished Legacies, Heritage uses new engines and transmissions purchased from GM's Parts Division. With that caveat, the diagrams on page two of the encl osure illustrate what portion of the donor car remains.

My preliminary thought was that the Heritage Legacy would need an entirely unique VIN for purposes of Part 567 certification. However, I recognize that the donor car's VIN is retained for so-called "altered vehicles," although Heritage manufacturing pro cess does not constitute vehicle alteration. Nevertheless, Ms. Nacoma pointed out that a discrepancy between the confidential VIN which GM stamps on the Camaro frame (a number not regulated by NHTSA) and the VIN used for purposes of Part 567 certificati on might thwart theft prevention efforts.

Your interpretation of the proper approach for assigning VINs for Heritage's Legacy vehicles would be very much appreciated. I would be pleased to provide any additional information which might be required in this regard.

Attachment

Heritage Motor Cars brochure for Legacy assembly kits (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: 6983r

Mr. John Faist
DAS Fleet Services Division
City of Seattle
8618 2d Avenue, 12th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Mr. Faist:

This responds to the letter to the National Highway 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

ref:571 d:5/19/92

ID: 2742y

Mr. Lawrence W. Rusk
Project Engineer, Drum Brakes
Bendix Automotive Systems
Allied-Signal, Inc.
P.O. Box 4001
South Bend, IN 46634-4001

Dear Mr. Rusk:

This responds to your recent inquiry concerning adjustment procedures for hydraulic brakes during testing in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105; Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked whether, following the revisions effective September 1, 1991, the Standard will authorize manual brake adjustment on a vehicle equipped with duo-servo brakes and automatic brake adjusters following the initial burnish and three subsequent reburnishes. Although your letter did not specify that the focus of your inquiry is vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, based on the context of your letter, I am assuming that this is the case. The answer to your question is yes, if manual adjustment is the published procedure recommended by the vehicle manufacturer.

Standard 105 currently provides that where automatic brake adjusters have been locked out during testing, the brakes may be manually adjusted following the initial burnish and each subsequent reburnish. Where the automatic adjusters have not been locked out, the Standard requires that the brakes be adjusted at these points by making stops in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. See, S7.4.1.2, S7.6, S7.12 and S7.14.

On September 29, 1989, NHTSA published a final rule (54 FR 40080) which requires that as of September 1, 1991, for all vehicles equipped with automatic brake adjusters being tested to Standard No. 105, that the automatic adjusters be operational during the test. In addition, the rule revises the provisions in S7.4 governing brake adjustment after burnish to delete language requiring that vehicles equipped with automatic adjusters be adjusted by making stops in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. These provisions are revised to state that following each specified burnishing, the brakes are to be adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's published recommendations (e.g. recommendations set forth in service literature). Thus, if the manufacturer recommends that the brakes be adjusted manually, notwithstanding the automatic adjusters, they are to be manually adjusted. Alternatively, if the manufacturer recommends that the brakes be adjusted by completing a series of specified stops, that procedure must be followed.

In conclusion, under the new provisions in Standard No. 105, brakes on a vehicle with automatic brake adjusters and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less should be manually adjusted at the end of the initial and subsequent burnishes if the manufacturer's published recommendations call for manual adjustment.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref: 105 d:ll/7/90

ID: aiam4142

Dear Mr. Goldfeder: This responds to your January 28, 1986 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the definition of 'truck' set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.3 of our regulations. You asked whether manufacturers may certify 'passenger vans,' which have seating capacities of more than 10 persons, as trucks.; By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) and NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567), the classification of a motor vehicle is determined by its manufacturer. Part 567 requires manufacturers to certify that their motor vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, and classify their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in Part 571.3 of our regulations. The agency may, of course, question a manufacturer's classification of its vehicle if it appears that the vehicle has not been properly certified under our regulations. This would generally arise in the context of compliance or enforcement proceedings.; We define a 'truck' in Part 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle ... designe primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' Based on the information in your letter, it does not appear that the vans meet that definition, given their passenger capacities. Our regulatory definition of a truck would be only appropriate for vehicles designed primarily for transporting property or equipment, which does not appear to be the case for the vans you described.; The situation you described appears to raise question of complianc with Federal law by the persons certifying the vehicles. We are interested in learning more about the sale of the vans, and would appreciate your contacting NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance with any information you may have, at the address given above.; Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of furthe assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel