ID: nht93-4.48

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: Kenneth P. Simons -- Lawyer

TO: Department of Transportation -- Trucking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to Ken Simons (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I would like an answer or information as to whether or not over the road trailers (as in tractor trailer) of recent manufacture are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles.

The "maxi" brake I am referring to is found on all road tractors and sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level.

Thank you for you anticipated cooperation.

ID: nht93-4.49

DATE: June 28, 1993

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

TO: Henry Murillo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-20-93 from Henry Murillo to Z. Taylor Vinson (OCC 8609).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 20, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked for an interpretation of the regulations regarding new automotive products, and how they apply to your invention, the "Green Light System". This system consists of two strips of green plastic, illuminated from behind. One would be mounted "somewhere in the front of the car", and the other "possibly on top of the cyclops (rear top dash mounted brake light)." The flashing of each unit (strip plus light source) would indicate to a vehicle either in front or behind when it was safe to pass.

The general rule with automotive accessory equipment that a dealer adds before sale of a vehicle is that it must not create a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which the vehicle manufacturer has certified.

For example, the Green Light System unit installed in the front should be mounted so that it does not block the field of view required by the safety standard on rearview mirrors (Standard No. 111) or that it is not in the head impact area of the instrument panel so as to interfere with interior occupant protection requirements (Standard No. 201).

When the Green Light System is mounted in the rear, the same concerns with the field of view required by Standard No. 111 still apply. With respect to our safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108, in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance the Green Light System must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We believe that the Green Light System mounted in the rear of the vehicle has the potential to impair required rear lamp systems equipped with red lenses if the Green Light System is wired so that it may operate simultaneously with one of these systems. The public is not used to seeing a flashing green lamp at the rear, and momentary confusion may result. For example, a driver following a slow-moving vehicle could confront simultaneous operation of a flashing red turn signal and a flashing Green Light System, and would not know whether the leading vehicle was intending to turn or signalling that it was safe to pass.

Accessory equipment that is installed on vehicles after their sale, when they are in use, is also permissible if its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not knowingly create a partial or total noncompliance with a standard. However, under Federal law, the vehicle owner may install aftermarket equipment such as the Green Light System without regard to its effect upon compliance with the standards. There remains the question of whether use of accessory equipment such as the Green Light System is permissible under the laws of the State where the vehicle is registered and operated. We are unable to answer questions relating to State laws, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht93-4.5

DATE: May 20, 1993

FROM: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel, Rulemaking, NHTSA

COPYEE: David Elias; William Fan

TITLE: Re: 49 CFR 571.206, FMVSS No. 206; Door Locks and Door Retention Components; Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from John Womack to Karl-Heinz Ziwica (A41; Std. 206)

TEXT:

Recently, William Scully of my staff and our counsel, Donald M. Schwentker, met with David Elias of your staff and William Fan of Rulemaking to discuss our interpretation of 49 CFR 571.206, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, with respect to a new design door latch and lock system that BMW is planning to introduce on a new car line in the United States in the near future. At that time, Mr. Scully also demonstrated the new system on a modified production BMW passenger car.

We hereby request the agency's confirmation of our interpretation that the operation of BMW's new system conforms to the applicable provisions of FMVSS 206.

FMVSS 206 REQUIREMENTS

S4.1.3 DOOR LOCKS. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means inside the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 SIDE FRONT DOOR LOCKS. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. S4-1.3.2 SIDE REAR DOOR LOCKS. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged, both the outside and inside door handles or other latch releases controls shall be inoperative.

DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATION OF THE BMW SYSTEM

The inside door handle operates as a door lock release AND SUBSEQUENTLY as a door latch release. The first complete activation of the recessed handle (a pulling motion) releases the door locking mechanism. The second activation (another pulling motion) operates the door latch release control.

WHY THE BMW DOOR LOCK SYSTEM COMPLIES WITH FMVSS 206

-- When the rear door locking mechanism is engaged, the door handles ARE INOPERATIVE.

-- After the door locking mechanism is disengaged (by activating the common door lock/door latch release handle), the door handle BECOMES OPERATIVE.

OCCUPANT PROTECTION INTENDED BY FMVSS 206, AND HOW BMW'S DOOR LOCK SYSTEM PROVIDES SUCH PROTECTION

-- Ejection

* BMW's system affords even more protection against inadvertent opening of doors than that required by FMVSS 206 for front doors.

-- Inadvertent Opening by Children

* All BMW products are fitted with rear door child locks (which deactivate operation of the inside door handles) as standard equipment, and when such child locks are engaged, the rear doors CANNOT BE OPENED FROM THE INSIDE.

* Restrained children cannot reach the rear door handle.

* Two separate actions are required to open the rear doors (when the child locks are not engaged), just as in a conventional door lock and door latch release system.

* The door lock release of most current conventional systems is placed immediately adjacent to the door latch release.

OTHER ADVANTAGES OF BMW'S DOOR LOCK SYSTEM

In addition to the convenience provided to the vehicle occupants, BMW's door lock system affords easier exit after a crash, and is less vulnerable to damage during side impact.

For these reasons, BMW believes its new system fully complies with the applicable provisions of FMVSS 206, while providing distinct advantages to its customers.

If you have any questions about this request or the operation of the new BMW door locking system, please contact Mr. William Scully at (201) 573-2069.

ID: nht93-4.50

DATE: June 28, 1993

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

TO: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-26-93 from Steven Henderson to Howard Smolkin (OCC 8732).

TEXT: This responds to your petition of May 26, 1993, to the Acting Administrator for rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to permit use of your motorcycle "horn-activated headlight/signallight flasher system." As you have described it, pushing the horn button "causes the headlight and signal lights to flash 10 times per second." This matter has been the subject of previous correspondence by this Office, specifically letters to you from Chief Counsel Rice dated June 29, 1992, and August 28, 1992.

As Mr. Rice informed you in his first letter, the operation of your device conflicted with several paragraphs of Standard No. 108. First, the flash rate of 10 cycles per second exceeded the maximum of 280 cycles per minute that is allowed under S5.6.1(a) for modulation of motorcycle headlamps. Second, the taillamps would no longer be steady-burning as required by S5.5.10 (d). Further, it appeared that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

You responded on August 11, 1992, that it was improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus, in your view, our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon that section, were misplaced. In his reply of August 28, 1992, Mr. Rice assumed for the sake of argument that your device was not part of a headlamp modulating system subject to S5.6. However, he pointed out that S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits installation of equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires, and that the applicability of that paragraph did not affect his previous comments regarding the noncompliances of the flashing taillamps and the turn signal flash rate. He also commented that the device's flash rate of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz, as well as having another undesirable consequence, the triggering of a photic reaction in an observer.

The cover letter to your petition of May 26, 1993, states that the taillamps will now be steady burning. Further, the system has been redesigned so that the turn signal has priority, "so that if the horn button is pressed while a turn is being signalled, the turn signal continues to flash at 2 hz and only the headlamp flickers at the 10 hz rate." Your letter also contains data and arguments indicating that our concern about photic reaction to a 10 hz rate is misplaced. In our view, these modifications and comments have adequately addressed our previous concerns about your system, and no rulemaking is required for its manufacture and sale. For this reason, we see no need for further agency action upon your petition. However, the amendments you have asked for differ in some respects from the redesigned system you have described

(e.g., that both the turn signals and the headlamp be permitted to flash at 10 hz). If you wish to go forward with the redesigned system without an amendment to Standard No. 108, we ask that you withdraw your petition. On the other hand, if you wish us to go forward with consideration of your petition, please inform us.

Your most recent letter raised one further question with regard to S5.1.3, that is, whether the operation of the headlamp at 10 hz impairs the effectiveness of a turn signal operated at 2 hz. We have noted that S5.6 permits simultaneous operation of a turn signal and a headlamp modulating in the range of 6 hz, and have concluded that the difference in flash rate ought not to impair the turn signal function.

Finally, we would like to advise you that usage of the system in the United States is governed by the laws of any State in which the system is operated, and not by any Federal regulation. We are unable to advise you as to the permissibility of use of your system under State laws, and suggest that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

ID: nht93-4.51

DATE: June 28, 1993

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

TO: Eddie Bernice Johnson -- U.S. House of Representatives

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-2-93 from Eddie Bernice Johnson to Art Neill (OCC 8736).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 2, 1993, to Art Neill of this agency on behalf of your constituent, Dr. Bill Way of Dallas. Dr. Way is concerned about the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) to destroy M151 jeeps at the end of their useful military life because "for some reason the Department of Transportation has deemed (them) unsafe to be used on public roads." He finds this unusual "because if they are found to be unsafe on our roads, how can we consider these vehicles safe for use by military personnel?" Pointing out that used M151s could be sold for civilian use, he submits that "this is another waste of materials by the government."

As you know, it is the mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to improve safety upon the public roads of the United States. Over 20 years ago, NHTSA became aware of allegations regarding the tendency of the M151 jeep to roll over during turning maneuvers. DOD was aware of these allegations and provided special handling instructions to M151 operators intended to minimize the possibility of roll overs. At that time, it sought NHTSA's advice as to the proper disposition of these vehicles at the end of their useful military life.

Because the suspension systems of the M151s could not be modified and because civilian operators would not have access to the same training in handling that was provided military drivers, NHTSA advised that surplus M151s should be rendered inoperable rather than sold to the public. DOD concurred, and formulated the policy that these vehicles should be destroyed at the end of their military life. This decision involved a balancing of the competing public interests of recovery of governmental funds and safety on the nation's highways, and the latter has been found to be the predominant public interest. In the years since DOD adopted this policy, it has been reviewed by both agencies from time to time and no compelling reason has been found to change it.

ID: nht93-4.6

DATE: May 21, 1993

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

TO: Duane Bartels -- Commercial Vehicle Inspector III, MN State Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-10-92 from Duane Bartels to NHTSA (OCC 8022)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information on how the agency's regulations would affect a Minnesota resident wishing to change the seating in passenger vans by removing or modifying seats in the vans. The contemplated changes would reduce the seating in a 12 or 15 passenger van to a maximum of 10 persons. I will give you some background information concerning the relevant rules, and then proceed to answer your four questions.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or equipment, however. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer of a new motor vehicle or items of equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

If any party performs conversion operations (i.e., anything other than addition or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires, or minor finishing operations such as painting, see 49 CFR S567.6) on a certified vehicle before the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, the party would be an "alterer" under 49 CFR S567.7, and would be required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the altered vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration.

If alterations are made to a vehicle after its first sale to a consumer, there are no certification requirements. However, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety 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. The "render inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Let me now proceed to answer each of your four questions:

1. BY DOING THIS ALTERING TO SEATS, IS HE DOING ENOUGH WORK TO THE VEHICLE TO QUALIFY UNDER 49 CFR 567.7?

If the modifications are carried out prior to a vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person to whom you refer in your letter would be considered an alterer under 49 CFR S567.7. As discussed above, an alterer would be required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the altered vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration.

I note that, if alterations change the classification of a vehicle, the alterer must certify that the vehicle meets all Federal safety standards applicable to the new classification. As you noted in your letter, the contemplated alterations, resulting in a change in capacity from either 12 or 15 passengers to a maximum of 10 persons, would change the vehicle's classification from "bus" to "multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV)," under 49 CFR Part 571.3. The alterer would therefore be required to certify that the altered vehicle meets all Federal safety standards applicable to MPV's. I note that different safety standards apply to MPV's and buses.

If the modifications are made to a used vehicle, the person to whom you refer in your letter would not be considered an alterer. However, if the person is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business, the person would have to take care not to violate to the "render inoperative" provision discussed above.

2. WILL THIS PERSON BECOME A MANUFACTURER AND IF SO, DOES HE NEED TO COMPLY WITH 49 CFR 566.5?

Alterers are considered manufacturers under the Safety Act. Since 49 CFR 566.5 sets forth requirements for "each manufacturer of motor vehicles," alterers must file the information required by that section. This information includes the name of the manufacturer, its address, and a brief description of the vehicle or vehicle equipment manufactured.

I note that NHTSA has issued several previous interpretation letters addressing the question of whether alterers must file under 49 CFR 566.5, and has taken positions which are difficult to reconcile. In at least one early letter (October 30, 1975 letter to Mr. James E. Harris), the agency indicated that some alterations might be so minor that the alterer might not be considered a manufacturer. In another letter (May 12, 1976, addressed to Mr. Mike Watson), the agency stated that a person who alters completed vehicles but "does not otherwise manufacture" vehicles or equipment is not required to file under section 566.5. In still other letters (see, e.g., April 4, 1973 letter to Mr. Warren Morris and July 5, 1985 letter to Houston N. Tuel, Jr., Esq.), NHTSA stated that alterations which change vehicle category are sufficient to require the person making the alterations to file under 566.5.

After reviewing 49 CFR 566.5 in light of these earlier letters, we have concluded that alterers (persons required to attach a label under 49 CFR Part 567.7) are subject to the filing requirements of section 566.5. First, there is nothing in Part 566 which indicates that alterers are excluded from the filing requirements. Second, application of the filing requirements to alterers is consistent with one of the stated purposes of Part 566, facilitating the regulation of manufacturers under the Safety Act. As indicated above, section 567.7 requires an alterer to affix a label identifying itself and certifying that the altered vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration. If the agency believes that there may be a safety problem with work that has been performed by an alterer, the information submitted under Part 566 makes it easier to find and contact the alterer. I note that the burden on manufacturers (including alterers) complying with section 566.6 is minimal.

3. CAN HE PURCHASE A NEW VEHICLE, DO THE ALTERING AND RESELL THE VEHICLE OR

MUST AN OWNER BRING THE VEHICLE TO HIM AND HAVE THE ALTERING DONE?

Modifications can be carried out both on new vehicles (prior to first sale to a consumer) and on used vehicles. As discussed above, however, different requirements apply to these two situations.

4. CAN THIS ALTERING AND RECERTIFYING BE DONE ONLY TO A NEW VEHICLE OR CAN THIS BE DONE TO A USED VEHICLE?

As discussed above, while modifications can be carried out both on new vehicles and on used vehicles, the certification requirements only apply to persons making modifications to new vehicles. Thus, a "certification" of a used vehicle would not have any legal significance under the Safety Act.

I note that your letter states that one of the ways the person may modify seats is to do upholstery work to reduce the number of people that can sit in a seat.

However, modifications to seat upholstery will not result in reduced designated seating capacity unless the modified design is such that the extra area CANNOT be used for seating. I have enclosed two letters to Nissan, dated 8/15/79 and 10/1/79, which explain our position in greater detail.

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

ID: nht93-4.7

DATE: May 21, 1993

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

TO: Joseph G. Wilson -- President, The Monmouth Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 01-01-93 EST from Joseph G. Wilson to John Womack (OCC 8594)

TEXT: Thank you for your letter informing us of the Blu-Lite System, which your company developed. You stated that the system "protects a vehicle driver from the threat of rear-end collision." You enclosed a brochure for our information, and would like to demonstrate your system to us.

We regret that we cannot accept your offer for a demonstration. In addition, as discussed below, we must advise you that Blu-Lite appears to conflict with both Federal and local laws. Your brochure shows that Blu-Lite is a three compartment lamp, consisting of a center compartment with blue lens (described as "emergency stop") flanked by two "red stop lights". Blue-Lite is shown installed in the rear parcel shelf, apparently as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp. In use, Blu-Lite flashes rapidly.

The center highmounted stop lamp has been required as original equipment on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The effect of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) is to forbid any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the center highmounted stop lamp, and replacing it with any lamp that does not meet the requirements for the center lamp that was original equipment. Blu-Lite does not meet the original equipment specifications in lamp color, which must be red, and in operation, which must be steady-burning. Thus, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who substituted Blu-Lite for an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp would appear to be in violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A).

The Safety Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Blu-Lite, or any other person, including manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, from installing it on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985. However, the legality of its use must be determined under state laws. It is our impression that many states allow the use of blue lamps only on emergency vehicles. Additionally, many states have laws similar to the Federal one as it relates to the performance and use of the center highmounted stop lamp. If you wish to confirm this, we suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht93-4.8

DATE: May 21, 1993

FROM: Carl W. Vogt -- Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-11-93 from Howard M. Smolkin to Laura J. Platter (A41; Part 571)

TEXT: Enclosed is correspondence received from Honorable Barbara Mikulski on behalf of Mrs. Laura J. Platter regarding the classification of minivans.

We have advised Senator Mikulski that her correspondence would be forwarded to you for your review.

Thank you for your time and attention.

May 11, 1993

Mr. Brent Bahler Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs 490 L'Enfant Plaza East, S.W. 6th Floor Washington, DC 20594

Dear Mr. Bahler:

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached correspondence from Laura J. Platter is requested. Please respond directly to Ms. Platter and send a copy to Chip Paucek of my staff.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Barbara A. Mikulski United States Senator

BAM:cjp

Enclosure

6662 Mohawk Court Columbia, MD 21046

January 29, 1993

Dear Senator Mikulski:

In reference to minivans: rather than impose a tariff on imported minivans, I think all such vehicles should be reclassified as passenger vehicles so that they come under the same safety regulations as passenger cars. We have driven vans since 1970, and we continue to be angry at Congress for catering to the auto manufacturers, and at the manufacturers for using the "truck" classification to get away with providing less in the way of safety features for their passengers. This is becoming even more of a potential scandal as more and more young families use minivans.

Please take the lead in moving to classify minivans as passenger cars. And please don't let us get into the vicious circle of punitive tariffs. Times are changing, and industry has to make painful changes too.

Sincerely,

Laura J. Platter (Mrs. John Platter)

ID: nht93-4.9

DATE: May 24, 1993

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

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

TITLE: None

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We recognize that certain modifications that might be made to a used vehicle (e.g., adding or deleting an axle) could make the originally assigned GVWR inappropriate for the vehicle as modified. While not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in such situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle.

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

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

ID: nht93-5.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1993

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

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

TITLE: None

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

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

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

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

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