Interpretation ID: 77-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body & Equipment Assoc., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 22, 1977, request for clarification of my July 21, 1977, letter to you stating that, in the case of brake and axle modifications to change the function of a used vehicle from that for which it was originally manufactured, it is the NHTSA's view that degradation of the brake system would only occur as prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (@ 108(a)(2)(A)) if portions of the brake system originally installed are removed, disconnected, or otherwise rendered inoperative. You asked whether a change in "function" of a vehicle would include a modification that simply increases the load-carrying capacity or stability of the vehicle to carry out the same task for which it was originally manufactured.

The answer to your question is no. In the NHTSA's view, the changes you describe would only increase the capabilities of the vehicle to perform its originally manufactured function. Thus, the "element of design" that constitutes the original braking system of the vehicle could be knowingly degraded by the installation of an additional axle that does not provide the capability that would have been required for it if installed in the new vehicle.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC

July 22, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In response to your letter of July 20, 1977, (see attachment #1), a question has arisen concerning the Agency's use of the term "function" as it relates to a truck.

It would appear that a change in a truck's function dictates whether or not an anti skid unit is applied to the additional axle installed on a used vehicle. (See attachment #2).

Whenever our industry adds an axle to any vehicle, our intent is always to change the function of the vehicle by either increasing the load carrying capacity or by increasing the vehicle's stability. A used moving van may be originally operated to transport furniture but upon resale to the second owner, an additional axle may be installed to allow the vehicle to transport heavy machinery. Just as in the original example cited in our letter of April 12, 1977, the addition of the second rear axle to the van type truck clearly changes the function of the vehicle.

We recognize that the Agency must ensure that no one deliberately attempts to circumvent the requirements of the Law by claiming that a vehicle is used and therefore not subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. But in the same sense, whenever a vehicle is reworked to provide a different service after it initially has been operated to perform a specific vocational duty, the vehicle has clearly established a new job function.

Therefore, with respect to your letter of July 20, 1977, are we correct in assuming that when referring to a used vehicle, the term "function", indicates either a physical or job related operational change?

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services