ID: nht88-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roderick A. Boutin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Roderick A. Boutin, Esq. 960 One Main Place 101 S.W. Main Street Portland, Oregon 97204

Dear Mr. Boutin:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke, of my staff, asking for a statement of the legal requirements that would apply to a new product one of your clients plans to introduce. You provided no description of this product in your letter, other than to state that it "alters the alignment of an upper torso restraint to the increased comfort of the wearer." You also stated in the letter that the product would initially be sold as an aftermarket accessory to be installed by consumers, but that it might eventually be sold to manufacturers to be installed in new vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke on November 20, 1987, you stated that this product would clip the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of wearer's abdomen.

Although we understand your concern that safety belts be comfortable for the wearer, we have significant reservations about this product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on the product.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standards No. 208 s Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 5571.208 and 5571.210, respectively), applicable to new vehicles, and to establish Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @5 7l. 209), applicable to new seat belt assemblies. It does not appear that any of these regulations would apply to your client's product, however.

Additionally, you are not required to get some "approval" from this agency before selling the product. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" proc ess under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investiga tes other alleged safety-related defects.

While none of our safety standards appear to apply directly to your client's product, there are several statutory responsibilities your client must assume when it manufactures the product. All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the r equirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect pr oceeding, so we are unable to say at this time whether this product might or might not contain such a defect.

However, this product raises a host of safety concerns that we would advise your client to carefully consider. Section @7.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies that the intersection of the shoulder belt with the lap belt shall be at least 6 inches from the f ront vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant with the seat in its rearmost and lowest adjustable position. Attaching the shoulder belt to the lap belt in the middle of the abdomen, instead of joining the belts at the latchplate off t o the side of the occupant, would cause the belts to no longer comply with this requirement of Standard No. 208 and would significantly alter the distribution of crash forces on the occupant. The lap and shoulder belts as currently installed distribute t he crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The proposed device to attach the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of the abdomen would significantly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen, a part of the body that cannot withstand the same loading levels as the skeletal structure. This increase in abdominal loading could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt. Additionally, by realigning the shoulder belt, the device would seem to increase the likel ihood that a wearer of the belt would twist toward the middle of the vehicle, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. Further it is possible that the device attaching the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of the wearer's abdomen could not withstand the forces of the crash, and would allow the shoulder belt to detach. Since the shoulder belt could have an exc essive amount of slack in it, the occupant's head would be likely to contact the vehicle interior. All of these possibilities raise serious safety concerns with respect to this proposed device.

In addition, use of this product could be affected by section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2) (A)) . That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a motor ve hicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Shoulder belts are installed in the front seating positions of most vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less in compliance with Standard No. 208. If the install ation of this product causes the shoulder belts to offer less effective occupant protection, commercial establishments could not legally install the product on customers' vehicles.

The prohibition in section 108(a) (2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on safety belt systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard No. 208. However, our policy is to encourage consumers no t to tamper with the safety belts installed in their vehicles. Installation of this product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 9, 1987

Mr. Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh St. S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Automobile Seatbelt Standards

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

I represent an Oregon company involved in the development of a device which alters the alignment of an upper torso restraint to the increased comfort of the wearer. Initially, the product would be sold as an after-market accessory to be installed by the consumer. However, if favorably received, there is the potential for licensed sales to automotive manufacturers for use in new vehicles. Would you please be so kind as to provide an opinion addressing which, if any, federal standards (either statutory or regulatory) guide, govern or control the design standards, testing, sale or use of such devices. It is hoped that you will be able to pr ovide such an opinion without the necessary of detailed descriptions or drawings disclosing confidential business information. However, should you require information about the device more detailed than is set forth herein, I would be pleased to answer y our request, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 512. Please let me know what additional information you need, if any.

Thank you for your assistance and courtesies. I await your reply. Sincerely,

Roderick A. Boutin Attorney at Law

ID: nht88-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: LLOYD J. OSBORN -- CHIEF, CUSTOMS AND QUARANTINE DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 12-11-87, FROM LLOYD J. OSBORN, TO NHTSA, 20950

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1987, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards of this agency in which you request a "list of vehicles which have been determined by NHTSA to be excluded as motor vehicles."

The agency does not maintain a list of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as a vehicle, with or without motive power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. This c ategory includes vehicles capable of off-road use but which are nevertheless generally licensed for use on the public roads. Over the years, NHTSA has provided interpretations that the following types of vehicles are not "motor vehicles": single seat ra cing cars; stock cars modified to the point that they are no longer licensable for use on the public roads; all-terrain vehicles, racing motorcycles and off-road motorcycles that are trailered over the public roads, golf carts, in-plant vehicles lacking doors and lighting devices, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and shuttle buses, snowmobiles, mobile homes, farm tractors, farm trailers whose use of the public roads is limited to crossing from one field to another, and trailers like mobile compressors which spend lengthy periods of time at an off road worksite and only infrequently travel by road to a new worksite. In addition, the agency does not consider construction cranes to be "motor vehicles". Finally, vehicles manufactured pursuant to militar y contracts, while "motor vehicles", are nevertheless exempted from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them, as well as furnish whatever other assistance you may require in formulating your Customs procedures.

ID: nht88-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MARTIN CHAUVIN -- CHIEF, CARRIER SAFETY BUREAU STATE OF NEW YORK, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-29-87, FROM MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, TO ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, OCC-745

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of last year where you asked us to address a statement allegedly made by an unidentified "school bus" manufacturer that a school bus driver's seat equipped with an "upper torso restraint" or "shoulder harness" violates, "head impact protection", requirements contained in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. Nothing in our Federal standards prohibits a manufacturer from installing a seat belt assembly that includes a " lap belt" and upper torso restraint at the driver's seat of a school bus.

Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies "occupant protection" requirements for the driver's seat of all buses. Section S4.4 of that standard gives a manufacturer the choice of equipping a bus driver's seat either with a complete automatic res traint system, a Type 1 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap belt), or a Type 2 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap and shoulder belt). There are no, "head impact protection", requirements in Standard No. 208 for the driver's seating posi tion in a bus. Thus, the driver's seat of all buses may be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt if the manufacturer chooses to do so.

Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, sets forth additional requirements for occupant crash protection for school buses. Section S5.3 of standard 222 refers to a "head protection zone," and establishes head impact requirements within the head protection zones. However, the head protection zones are established with respect to passenger seats in the school bus. Standard 222 does not contain any head impact protection requirements for the driver's seat in school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht88-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1988

FROM: GARRY GALLAGHER -- VICE PRESIDENT, METZELER MOTORCYCLE TIRE

TO: LARRY COOK -- NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MAY 31, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO GALLAGHER

TEXT: Thank you for your help, over the phone on February 9, 1988 in regards to additional wording to be added to the sidewall of our ME88 Marathon model motorcycle tire. To refresh your memory, I inquired as to adding the word "reinforced" to the sidewall. Your verbal response, after checking with legal council, was that there is no problem with adding the word "reinforced".

I would now like to request a written confirmation and approval to add the word "reinforced" to the sidewall of our ME88 Marathon rear tire model. Please let me know if you need any further information on this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: BETH WHITMAN -- MARKETING SERVICES MANAGER KEN-TOOL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/09/87 FROM LEO CAREY TO BETH WHITMAN; LETTER DATED 01/21/87 FROM SL LEPOSKY TO DISTRIBUTORS; UNDATED LETTER FROM SL LEPOSKY TO ALL DISTRIBUTORS AND SALESMEN RE NON USE OF DUCK BILL STEEL TIRE HAMMERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Whitman:

This responds to your letter of September 25, 1987, concerning the use of "steel duck-billed hammers" to change farm and truck tires. You expressed concern that a competitor is using a safety chart produced by NHTSA to support its claim that the use of these tools is prohibited.

The NHTSA safety chart, "Safety Precautions for Mounting and Demounting Tube Type Truck/Bus Tires," includes two specific references to hammers/hammering. Under the heading "Deflation and Assembly," the chart states: "Never use a steel hammer to assemble or disassemble rim components--Use a lead, brass, or plastic type mallet. Proper tools are available through rim/wheel distributors." Under the heading "Assembly and Inflation," the chart states: "Never hammer on components of an inflated or partially inflated assembly." These precautions apply to steel hammers and hammering in general, and the chart does not state that steel duck billed hammers should not be used for other applications in changing tires.

We note that you enclosed a copy of a July 13, 1987 letter from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), stating the following:

[OSHA] does not prohibit the proper use of a steel duck billed hammer for servicing wheels used on large vehicles such as trucks, tractors, trailers, buses and off-road machines.

Under the OSHA regulations at 29 CFR 1910.177(d)(6), employers are required to furnish and assure that only tools recommended in the rim manual for the type of wheel being serviced are used to service rim wheels. Further, under 29 CFR 1910.177(f)(8), the regulations specify that: No attempt shall be made to correct the seating of side and lock rings by hammering, striking or forcing the components while the tire is pressurized.

You state that you are concerned that your competitor's tool may not meet OSHA regulations and may be less than safe to use. We suggest that you

contact OSHA about this concern. You may also wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning your belief that your competitor's advertising is misleading.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht88-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88

FROM: JERRY SMITH -- MINNESOTA BODY AND EQUIPMENT CO

TO: SHARON L. FORD -- HEAD START DIRECTOR SOUTHEAST IOWA ACTION ORGANIZATION, INC.

TITLE: FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF SCHOOL BUS USER'S

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO R.C. ROAST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 03/18/88 TO CHIEF COUNCIL -- NHTSA, FROM R C ROST RE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COLO R OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED, OCC - 1763; LETTER DATED 12/21/77, TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN; LETTER DATED 02/25/88 TO SHARON FORD, FROM JERRY SMITH; UNDATED BROCHURES ON SCHOOLBUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: Dear Sharon:

As per our telephone conversation of February 9, 1988, I am enclosing copies of communications regarding and/or effecting what type of bus that can be sold to, or purchased by the Head Start organization.

Please note that this is not Minnesota Body Company's policy, nor is it our wish to cause you any inconvenience. However, due to the interpretation by the U.S. Department of Transportation, we are bound to provide a vehicle that meets all applicable sch ool bus criteria including warning lights CATCH 22. I further realize that warning lights are not allowed in Iowa for non-school use. Therefore, the warning lights would have to be removed or de-activated before you placed the bus in service.

Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can be of further service

Sincerely,

Dear Sharon,

I have contacted the following people in an effort to resolve the interpretation of school bus user's etc.

Dwight R. Carlson Assistant Chief Bureau of School Administration and accreditation Grimes State Office Bldg Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0146 (515) 281-5811

J.P. Golinvaux District Representative Iowa Department of Transportation Air and Transit division State Capitol Des Moines, iowa 50319 (515) 281-4265

Jerry Smith

ID: nht88-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allan J. Lameier -- Defense Electronics Supply Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/1/80 letter from Frank Berndt to E.C. Elliott

TEXT:

Mr. Allan J. Lameier Quality Assurance Specialist, Defense Logistics Agency Defense Contract Administration Services Management Area, Dayton C/O Defense Electronics Supply Center Dayton OH 45444

RE: A. Lameier 513-684-3915

This is in response to your letter requesting clarification concerning the classification of a Davey mobile compressor. You state that the manufacturer of the compressor indicates that the wheeled compressor need not comply with Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and related equipment, because the compressor is not a trailer. Based on the information provided with your letter, we believe that the compressor is not a motor vehicle and is therefore not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 108 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act: 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Nati onal Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its product s meet all applicable safety standards.

A "trailer" is defined at 49 CFR 5571.3 as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." The mobile compressor shown in the brochure enclosed with your letter appea rs to be designed for carrying property (the compressor) and for being drawn by a motor vehicle. The answer to your question of whether this compressor is a trailer, then depends on whether the compressor is a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Sa fety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles such as forklifts and mobile construction equipment which are sold primarily for off-road use, but which incidentally use the public roads to travel from one job site to another, are not considered m otor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles which regularly use the public roads and stay off-road for only limited periods of time are motor vehicles and are subject to our safety standards.

The agency has previously concluded in a July 1, 1980 letter to Mr. E.C. Elliott (copy enclosed) that his company's portable air compressors were not motor vehicles, based on statements that these devices spend the bulk of their useful lives on construct ion sites and are seldom drawn over public roads by mechanical power. If the Davey portable compressors are used in the same fashion as the compressors discussed in the July 1, 1980 letter, we believe that the Davey compressors were properly classified b y the manufacturer as something other than a "motor vehicle". This means that the Davey compressors are not subject to any of the federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information has been useful. My apologies for the delay in responding to your letter.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

IN REPLY REFER TO: A. LAMEIER 513-684-3915

SUBJ: APPLICABILITY OF FMVSS #108 TO PORTABLE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES

1. Enclosed is a photocopy of a brochure showing a compressor being bought on navy contract DLA-700-86-C-8263. This contract requires compliance with " All Applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in effect on the Date of manufacture." 2 . Davey Co. insists STD#108 (Lighting and Reflectors) is not applicable because a wheeled compressor is not a "Trailer."

3. Please send me copies of any rulings or opinions which would clarify this requirement.

Allan J. Lameier Quality Assurance Specialist

Attch 1 Photocopy omitted.

ID: nht88-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: DONALD N. STAHL -- DISTRICT ATTORNEY; JOHN T. FORTH -- CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR, OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY MODESTO CA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO. CF696

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DONALD N. STAHL; REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119; LETTER DATED 03/01/88 FROM DAVE TAYLOR TO JOHN FORTH; LETTER DATED 07/13/87 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO JACK DENIJS; LETTER DATED 05/19/87 FROM JACK D ENIJS TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC - 500; RE COVERED DOT NUMBERS ON REMANUFACTURED TRUCK CASINGS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Our office is currently conducting an investigation pursuant to Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code (unfair business practice).

The case was brought to our office's attention on January 28, 1988, by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). A routine inspection of a local school district's buses disclosed new recapped tires on a bus which had no D.O.T. markings on the tire casing. The CHP learned during the course of their investigation that these tire casings were originally designed for use by a rubber tire train in Japan and were new tires that had been imported for recapping purposes. The CHP investigation disclosed the tir e casings were imported as slicks (no tread design) and the slick was removed. The tires were then recapped using the "bondag" process and resold by the captioned company to the school district.

We contacted Mr. Dave Taylor, Regional Manager/Field Engineer of Bridgestone (USA) Inc., as the tire casings were manufactured by Bridgestone. Attached as Exhibit 1 is his response regarding these tires. His response also indicated the tire was spec ifically designed for rubber tire subway trains in Japan. He also wrote, ". . . is not suitable by any means for highway use", referring to the tires themselves in his letter.

Mr. Taylor also included in his letter a copy of an opinion by your office (date unknown) indicating that tire casings could be imported for recapping use. The letter refers to a June 18, 1981, letter from former Chief Counsel Frank Bundt to Mr. Ray L ittlefield. Attached as Exhibit #2 is a copy of a letter from your office to Mr. Jack DeNijs which refers to these two mentioned opinions.

I have also included as Exhibit #3 a CHP drawing of the tires in question depicting all the markings on the tire casing. Three (3) of these tires are currently being held as evidence by the CHP.

We are requesting an opinion as to the following: 1. Is it permissible to import this type of tire casing?

2. If it is permissible to import this tire casing, does this particular type of tire casing meet Department of Transportation standards?

Your prompt handling of this matter would be greatly appreciated as the above captioned company wants the tires back. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at telephone number (209) 525-5550.

Enclosures

ID: nht88-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/88

FROM: FRANK H. MILLER -- GERRY BABY PRODUCTS QUALITY ENGINEER

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/02/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FRANK MILLER -- GERRY BABY PRODUCTS; RED BOOK A33; FMVSS 302

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

This is in further reference to my communication to you dated October 19, 1987 and also to your response received December 3, 1987. Both were in reference to paragraph S4.2.1 of Safety Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials".

I appreciate your response regarding the testing of threads used in the manufacture of seat cushions and testing them as a part of the component and now would like to know if the binding we use on the edges of the cushion should also be tested as a part of the material. We currently test it as an independent entity but it would ease our testing if it were to be done as a portion of a cushion assembly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jeffrey W. Sullivan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jeffrey W. Sullivan Rt. 1, Box 3 Jackson, NC 27845

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This is in reply to your letter of October 27, 1987, to this agency asking for Information on Federal safety and pollution requirements for kit cars.

We are unable to advise you on emission control regulations, and you should address this inquiry to the Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

You have given us, as an example of the type of vehicle you would manufacture for resale, "a '76 year drivetrain on a modified or not original frame/chassis" and asked whether it will have to meet 1976 model or new model standards. You have also asked wh ether you can relocate the engine and transmission, and whether it is would have an effect upon the standards you must meet.

New model Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles built upon the chassis of a vehicle previously in use. However, under certain circumstances the 1976 safety standards could apply. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safe ty Act a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if a manufacturer re moves a body from a chassis and installs a new one, he must ensure that the resulting vehicle continues to comply with the Federal safety standards with which the vehicle originally complied. A "Manufacturer" is defined in part as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles. This definition would seem to encompass your planned activities. Accordingly, if you removed the 1976 body from its chassis, there is no restriction against your relocation of the engine or transmission, but upon installation o f a new body you are required to ensure that the new vehicle meets 1976 Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

On the other hand, if you purchase the chassis after the body has been removed by another person, there would be no Federal safety standards applicable to it upon installation of the body. However, the vehicle would have to meet State standards necessary for its registration and operation.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel