ID: unimog.ztv

Mr. James Osse
Senior Ocean Engineer
Applied Physics Laboratory
University of Washington
1013 NE 40^th St
Seattle, WA 98105
FAX 206-543-6785

Dear Mr. Osse:

This is in reply to your letter of January 19, 1999, regarding your wish to import a 1981 Mercedes-Benz Unimog U1300L truck.

You ask permission to import it as an off-road vehicle, citing agency interpretation letters to support your request.

Under the laws that we administer, a "motor vehicle" that must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is one that has been "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). The determination of whether a specific vehicle is a "motor vehicle" is initially made by a manufacturer wishing to sell its vehicle in the American market, who may seek advice from us in making its determination. In 1972, Mercedes-Benz asked us our views regarding a line of Unimogs that it wished to import for agricultural use. We informed it on March 9, 1972, that its Unimog was not a "motor vehicle," and, on February 7, 1984, confirmed that interpretation to the company on the presumption "that the Unimog would still be marketed, as in the past, principally through farm machinery and heavy equipment dealers."

This interpretation was intended to cover only Unimogs that Mercedes-Benz manufactured for sale in the United States through farm machinery and heavy equipment dealers. It was not intended as a decision that Unimogs other than these were not "motor vehicles" and to exempt them also from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Indeed, your manifest intent is to convert the Unimog truck to a motor home and then use it on the roads to drive from the United States to other countries. We therefore cannot permit you to import the Unimog truck under Box 8 of the HS-7 Declaration Form as a vehicle that was not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

Under our regulations, the proper course to follow is to obtain the services of a "registered importer," who would petition the agency for a decision that the 1981 Unimog truck is capable of conversion to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied to trucks in 1981. If the decision is affirmative, the registered importer would convert the Unimog to meet the 1981 truck standards after you had imported it, and certify to this agency that the modifications had been performed. I enclose a list of registered importers who are conversant with European vehicles.

We understand that you wish to convert the truck to a motor home. We consider a motor home built on a truck chassis to be a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV). After the registered importer has certified the Unimog as meeting 1981 truck standards, any conversion work afterwards by the registered importer or by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the truck standards. However, conversion of a used 1981 truck to an MPV does not impose a new obligation to further convert the vehicle to meet 1981 MPV standards.

You also raise the possibility of removing the truck box before importation and importing the Unimog as a chassis only. This does not appear feasible under our regulations. Box 9 of the HS-7 Declaration Form permits the entry of vehicles requiring further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function, but the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle (Mercedes-Benz) must provide a statement that accompanies the Form which meets the requirements of 49 CFR 568.4, indicating the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with which the incomplete vehicle does not comply and describing the further manufacturing operations required to conform it.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:591
d.2/26/99

ID: 2906yy

Mr. H. Hurley Haywood
Vice President
Brumos Motor Cars, Inc.
10231 Atlantic Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32225

Dear Mr. Haywood:

This responds to your letter of March 20, 1991 with respect to "the sale of a very limited number of specially built cars in the U.S." Components would be manufactured by Porsche. The chassis would be "a carbon fiber 962 racing tub" with a hand built body. The car could be imported either as an assembled vehicle or as a kit and assembled here. You have asked for information regarding "low volume manufacturers exemptions from certain DOT regulations, emissions, passive restraints, bumper height, and all other pertinent information regarding manufacturing and sale of vehicles in the U.S."

You have not enclosed a photo of the car but your remark that the chassis is a "racing tub" raises the possibility that the vehicle may be intended for racing purposes. Single-seat vehicles imported for competition on closed circuit courses and not used on the public roads are generally not "motor vehicles" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and no regulations apply to them. If you wish to pursue this possibility further, please send us more information on the vehicle.

Assuming that the car is subject to the Safety Act, its manufacturer is eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards on several grounds. Exemptions of up to three years may be provided a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production was 10,000 units or less in the year preceding the filing of its petition. Alternatively, exemptions of up to two years may be provided covering up to 2,500 vehicles per year if the manufacturer-petitioner can demonstrate that the exemption would facilitate the field evaluation of innovative safety features or low-emission vehicles, or if, in the absence of an exemption, the manufacturer would be prevented from selling a motor vehicle whose overall level of safety is at least equivalent to that of a vehicle complying with all the safety standards. However, the exemption authority extends only to the safety standards. The bumper height standard was issued under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act which contains no exemption provisions. The emission standards are issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is not part of the Department of Transportation, and you will have to contact them as to their requirements.

If the intent is to import a fully assembled motor vehicle into the United States, at the time of entry it will have to bear the certification of its manufacturer that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards (the certification label must also list the standards from which exemptions may have been provided).

If the intent is to ship the vehicle in a disassembled state for assembly by the purchaser or manufacturer's agent in the United States, and if the kit contains l00% of the parts necessary for assembly, we regard the foreign supplier as the "manufacturer", responsible for ensuring compliance with all Federal requirements, including provision of certification.

I enclose an information sheet with respect to the regulations that we administer, and will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. If you prefer to telephone, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:59l d:4/3/9l

ID: nht91-3.11

DATE: April 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: H. Hurley Haywood -- Vice President, Brumos Motor Cars, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-20-91 from H. Hurley Haywood to Chief Consul U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA (OCC 5855)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 20, 1991 with respect to "the sale of a very limited number of specially built cars in the U.S." Components would be manufactured by Porsche. The chassis would be "a carbon fiber 962 racing tub" with a hand built body. The car could be imported either as an assembled vehicle or as a kit and assembled here. You have asked for information regarding "low volume manufacturers exemptions from certain DOT regulations, emissions, passive restraints, bumper height, and all other pertinent information regarding manufacturing and sale of vehicles in the U.S.

You have not enclosed a photo of the car but your remark that the chassis is a "racing tub" raises the possibility that the vehicle may be intended for racing purposes. Single-seat vehicles imported for competition on closed circuit courses and not used on the public roads are generally not "motor vehicles" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and no regulations apply to them. If you wish to pursue this possibility further, please send us more information on the vehicle.

Assuming that the car is subject to the Safety Act, its manufacturer is eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards on several grounds. Exemptions of up to three years may be provided a manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production was 10,000 units or less in the year preceding the filing of its petition. Alternatively, exemptions of up to two years may be provided covering up to 2,500 vehicles per year if the manufacturer-petitioner can demonstrate that the exemption would facilitate the field evaluation of innovative safety features or low-emission vehicles, or if, in the absence of an exemption, the manufacturer would be prevented from selling a motor vehicle whose overall level of safety is at least equivalent to that of a vehicle complying with all the safety standards. However, the exemption authority extends only to the safety standards. The bumper height standard was issued under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act which contains no exemption provisions. The emission standards are issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is not part of the Department of Transportation, and you will have to contact them as to their requirements.

If the intent is to import a fully assembled motor vehicle into the United States, at the time of entry it will have to bear the certification of its manufacturer that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards (the certification label must also list the standards from which exemptions may have been provided).

If the intent is to ship the vehicle in a disassembled state for assembly by the purchaser or manufacturer's agent in the United States, and if the kit contains 100% of the parts necessary for assembly, we regard the foreign supplier as the "manufacturer", responsible for ensuring compliance with all Federal requirements, including provision of certification.

I enclose an information sheet with respect to the regulations that we administer, and will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. If you prefer to telephone, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you (202-366-5263).

ID: aiam2244

Dear Mr. Tucker: This responds to Titan Trailer Corporation's March 2, 1976, questio whether certain bulk grain and feed meal trailers manufactured by Titan qualify as bulk agricultural commodity trailers that are permitted until June 30, 1976, to meet emergency and parking brake requirements other than those specified in S5.6 and S5.8 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; Sections S5.6 and S5.8 provide that a trailer manufactured before Jun 30, 1976, that is designed to transport bulk agricultural commodities in off-road harvesting sites and to a processing plant or storage location, as evidenced by skeletal construction that accomodates (sic) harvest containers, a maximum length of 28 feet, and an arrangement of air control lines and reservoirs that minimizes damage in field operations, is entitled to a specified option.; From the descriptive material enclosed, it appears that the Tita models 92 and 24 are designed for field use and conform to the criteria of skeletal construction that accomodates (sic) a harvest container, despite the fact that the container is permanently attached to the frame that surrounds it. It is not clear that the trailers are not more than 28 feet in length, or that the design positions air lines and reservoirs to minimize field-related damage. Assuming that the length, air lines, and reservoirs do meet these criteria, it appears that the trailers would qualify for the manufacturer option under S5.6 and S5.8.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: EPA_008378.cmc.2

Mr. Anthony J. Tesoriero
United States Environmental Protection Agency
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2498

Dear Mr. Tesoriero:

This is in response to your letter and phone conversations with my staff requesting an explanation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to the modification and operation of motor vehicles for experimental purposes. As explained below, the applicability of the FMVSS is dependent upon when the vehicles are altered in relation to the vehicles certification, and the type of entity installing the experimental system.

In your letter you stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was planning to modify a total of six vehicles through the installation of an experimental hybrid drive system. Your letter further stated that several of the vehicles would be retained at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) for testing and demonstration purposes, and that the remaining vehicles would be loaned to vehicle fleet operators in order to gain performance and durability data. Initially you stated in a phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff that several vehicles would be purchased by NVFEL as chassis-cabs, while others would be purchased "retail" from a local automotive sales dealer. You explained that the installation of the experimental drive system would be performed by EPA personnel and engineers contracted from outside engineering firms. In a subsequent phone conversation, you stated that only fully certified vehicles that have been purchased and are owned by the EPA would be modified. As such we will address only those issues regarding the modification of fully certified vehicles owned by the EPA.

Additionally, you requested that the plans and details about these vehicles incorporated into your letter be kept confidential. In response to your request, it is our

position that this information is exempt from disclosure under exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)). Accordingly, we will honor your request that the information be granted confidential treatment.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30112(a):

[A] person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle unless the vehicle complies with [all applicable FMVSS] and is covered by a certification issued under Section 30115 of this title.

Generally, our standards do not apply to vehicles after the first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale). Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (enclosed), it is the manufacturer that must certify that a vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS.

While the Section 30112(a) applies only new motor vehicles, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122). Accordingly, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to any entity so long as that entity is not of the type listed above and does not fall with in the definition of "motor vehicle repair business." The agency has defined "motor vehicle repair business" as follows:

The term motor vehicle repair business is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30122(a) as "a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." This term includes businesses that receive compensation for servicing vehicles without malfunctioning or broken parts or systems by adding or removing features or components to or from those vehicles or otherwise customizing those vehicles. (49 CFR 595.4.)

Based on your letter and subsequent conversations, it appears that the vehicles in question will not be modified by an entity specified in 49 U.S.C. 30122. As such, the prohibition would not apply.

Your letter also asked about regulations governing the operation of the experimental vehicles. NHTSA does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the States. Additionally, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to a vehicle by its owner. We recommend that you check with the appropriate State authorities to determine if any State laws would be applicable to the modification and operation of these vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita, of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:121
d.3/1/04

ID: aiam0172

Dear Mr. Masek: This is in reference to your letter of July 28, 1969, in which yo inquire whether a company that imports motorcycles, performing final assembly in regard to such items as fuel tanks and fenders, may designate itself as the manufacturer for the purpose of the certification regulations, 49 CFR Part 367.; You state in your letter that Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., th primary fabricator of the motorcycles, assembles the engine and basic frame, wheel and brake assemblies, handlebars, seat, and 'some front lighting equipment'. The purpose of the manufacturer's designation in the certification regulations is to identify the company that has primary technical responsibility for conformity of the design and quality control of the assembly. It is our opinion, on the basis of the facts presented in your letter, that Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. is the manufacturer of the motorcycles in question within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act and the certification regulations.; You should note, however, that the certification and import regulation do not require that Kawasaki affix the label to the vehicles. The import regulations allow importation of uncertified vehicles in certain cases. such as those where the importer declares that he will bring them into conformity. 19 CFR S. 12.80(b)(2)(iii) and (iv). In regard to such cases, section 367.2(b) of the certification regulations states:; >>>'In the case of imported motor vehicles, the requirement of affixin a label or tag applies to importers of vehicles, admitted to the United States under S. 12.80(b)(2) of the joint regulations for importation of motor vehicles and equipment (19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)), to which the required label or tag is not affixed.'<<<; Section 367.4(g)(1) requires in such a case that the label affixed b the importer bear both the name of the manufacturer (Kawasaki) and the importer (McCormack). thus, the net result is that the label affixed by McCormack must bear the name of Kawasaki above that of McCormack. Alternatively, Kawasaki could affix the label prior to importation, naming only itself as the manufacturer.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Dowell H. Anders, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-3.38

DATE: 08/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Renault USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION August 25, 1980

Mr. Francois Louis Head of Governmental Affairs Renault USA 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit, Michigan 48232

Dear Mr. Louis:

This responds to your letter of July 14, 1980, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether an engine stop control mounted on the engine cover of a cab-over-engine truck must be illuminated. The answer is no, it need not be illuminated.

Section S5.3.1 of the standard provides that except for "foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column, " any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4 shall be capable of illumination whenever the headlights are activated. Since the engine stop control is listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, it must be illuminated, unless it falls within one of the exceptions of S5.3.1.

In the case of the engine stop control in your truck, the control is located on the engine cover. Because the engine cover is separate from the instrument panel and mounted on the floor between the two front seats, the agency considers it a floor console. Thus, the engine stop control located on the cover does not have to be illuminated.

I would like to emphasize that oral interpretations by agency staff are only unofficial opinions. Therefore, if you have questions in the future, they should be directed at the outset in writing to this office.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 14, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to seek NHTSA's confirmation of the following interpreration given to us orally, by Mr. John Carson of the Rulemaking Staff:

"The engine cover of a cab-over-engine truck depicted on the attached drawing constitutes a floor console, and, therefore, under the provisions of paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS 101, the engine stop control mounted thereon need not be illuminated."

We would appreciate confirmation at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely.

Mr. Francois Louis Head of Governmental Affairs

Mr. Francois Louis Head of Governmental Affairs Renault USA 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit, Michigan 48232

Dear Mr. Louis:

This responds to your letters of July 14, 1980 seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether an engine truck must be on the engine cover of a cab-over-engine truck must be illuminated. The answer is no, it need not be illuminated.

Section S5.3.1 of the standard provided that except for "foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column," any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4 shall be capable of illumination whenever the headlights are activated. Since the engine stop control is listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, it must be illuminated, unless it falls within one of the exceptions of S5.3.1.

In the case of the engine stop control in your truck, the control is located on the engine cover. Because the engine cover is separate from the instrument panel and mounted on the floor between the two front seats, the agency considers it a floor console. Thus, the engine stop control located on the cover does not have to be illuminated.

** I would like to emphasize that oral interpretations by agency staff are only unofficial opinions. Therefore, if you have questions in the future, they should be directed at the outset in writing to this office.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerly,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NOA-30:SLOesch:pfp:8/6/80 cc: N)A-30 Subj/Chron, NOA-30 Mr. Oesch NEF-30, NRM-10, Interps: Std Redbook: (3) cc-963 1a

**NOTE: During the phone call Mr. Louis was advised that any remarks or opinions by the engineer were purely personal and that he must write to the Office of Chief Counsel for an official interpretation. This is standard procedure whenever anyone calls about an interpretation of a standard

ID: 9449

Mr. Robert Matulich
8801 Ravenna Avenue, NE
Seattle, WA 98115

Dear Mr. Matulich:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to your product. According to promotional literature that accompanied your letter, your "Clear Vu Mirror" is an attachment to exterior mirrors that clears raindrops, dust, and mist, thus making a mirror "virtually self-cleaning." I am pleased to explain the applicability of our regulations to your product.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) 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 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs.

NHTSA currently has no FMVSSs that directly apply to the product you plan to manufacture. NHTSA issued an FMVSS for vehicle rearview mirrors (FMVSS No. 111), but the standard applies to new vehicles, and not to aftermarket mirror products. If your product were manufactured and sold as part of a new vehicle, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 111. The standard sets field of view requirements for new motor vehicles, and your product would have to be mounted on a new vehicle such that it does not block the field of view required by FMVSS No. 111. However, since Standard No. 111 applies only to new vehicles, it does not apply to your product.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect you and your product. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ...." It is conceivable that your product, when placed on a vehicle's exterior mirror, could "render inoperative" the vehicle's ability to comply with FMVSS No. 111. Persons in the aforementioned categories cannot install your product if it blocks the field-of-view required by FMVSS No. 111, or otherwise caused the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 111.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your product were placed on an exterior mirror by the vehicle owner, the render inoperative provision would not apply. Nevertheless, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref 111 d:4/7/94

ID: 22372.ztv

Mr. J. R. Butcher
President
Portableacher Corp.
P.O. Box 402540
Hesperia, CA 92340





Dear Mr. Butcher:

This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 2000, asking for an "interpretation" regarding your product, "portableachers." You state that you "first got a determination on Portableachers about 24 years ago." You relate that at that time they were classified in the same category as a 'farm wagon.' You now would like "an up-to-date interpretation."

Jack Risin of your company informed Taylor Vinson of this office by e-mail that you do not have a copy of the earlier interpretation. We presume that it was an interpretation issued by this office but we, too, have been unable to find a copy after searching all relevant interpretations from the 1970s on file in this Office. For this reason, we cannot presently confirm that Portableachers are in the same category as farm wagons; i.e., that they are not "motor vehicles" subject to the regulations of this agency.

Your product appears to be a trailer which carries seats that erect into a grandstand for spectators. Your product literature states that the product has been used by "Cities, Universities, Parks and Recreation Departments, Government Bases, Circus companies, and Rental Dealers." This description is insufficient for us to judge whether your trailer has or has not been "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways," which is the definition of a "motor vehicle." See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). Although it seems evident to us that Portableachers are towed over the public roads for erection and use on sites that are off the public roads, we do not know the frequency with which Portableacher trailers are moved from site to site.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which we have little or no information about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

2. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

3. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as on-road vehicles.

4. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

5. Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

If you wish to provide us with answers to these questions, we will be glad to advise you further.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.1/22/00

ID: aiam5182

Dear Mr. Barber: This responds to your letter asking whether secon 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 gros 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. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ";