ID: 10204

Albert W. Unrath, Sr., President
Albert W. Unrath, Inc.
P.O. Box 631
Colmar, PA 18915

Dear Mr. Unrath:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA's regulations apply to your company's plans to refurbish used vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that after refurbishing, the vehicles will have lower gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs). You wish to know whether you could add a label showing the lower GVWR to the vehicles' original certification label (which you refer to as the "original Vin Plate").

As explained below, NHTSA does not require the supplementary label on a refurbished--and not newly manufactured--used vehicle. We would, however, encourage you to add the label on the refurbished vehicles, since the label would provide important safety information to the vehicle operator. On the other hand, the modifications you make to the vehicle could be so extensive that the resulting vehicle is considered "new" under our regulations. If the vehicle is a new vehicle, you must certify the vehicle as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), and include on your certification label the new GVWR of the vehicle.

Based on the information you provided, the vehicles you are refurbishing are "trucks" under section 571.3 of our regulations. Section 571.3 defines a "truck" as a motor vehicle with motive power "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." You provided two photographs of the vehicles after they have been refurbished. Your photographs show the refurbished vehicles as carrying 4' x 8' "Advanced Warning Flashing Arrow" signs on flat beds. Since your vehicles are designed for transporting property or special purpose equipment, the vehicles are "trucks" under 571.3.

You describe your refurbishing process in your letter. You state that you will take a used truck with a GVWR of 45,000 or 80,000 pounds (lbs.), "scrap" the body, and check remaining truck parts such as the subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, and

suspension. You will repair and replace those parts, as needed. Next, you will clean and paint the frame and running gear, and add a new support frame and "attenuator mounting hardware with braces." After the vehicle is refurbished, its GVWR will be approximately 25,500 lbs.

As a general rule, NHTSA has no requirements for "used" vehicles. Whether a vehicle is considered new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage of a new body on a chassis of a vehicle that was previously registered for use on the public roads to be a "used" vehicle and therefore not subject to the FMVSS's. When a modified chassis is being used in the refurbishment, NHTSA has a regulation (49 CFR section 571.7(e)) for determining when the modifications to the used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the FMVSS's. Section 571.7(e) states:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . ., unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. It does not appear that you plan to add a new engine, transmission, or drive axle to each refurbished truck. If you leave the requisite components specified in section 571.7(e) in place from the previous vehicle, we would consider the vehicle you produce to be a used vehicle. However, please keep in mind that you would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. section 30122(b), which provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

This means that the refurbished truck must continue to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification, such as those for braking, lighting and safety belt systems. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

You ask whether, after refurbishing the used truck, your company may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to reflect the lower GVWR. Since NHTSA generally does not regulate used vehicles, we do not require or prohibit the addition of a supplementary GVWR label. However, we would encourage you to add the supplementary GVWR label to the vehicle.

As you note, in an interpretation letter of May 24, 1993 to the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), NHTSA recognized 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. In the letter to the AABA, NHTSA stated that although it is not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in these situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle. Similarly, in your case, since the GVWR of the refurbished trucks would be much lower than that indicated on the certification label, we believe it would be appropriate for your company to add a label to the trucks which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the refurbished truck.

As noted at the beginning of this letter, it is possible that your modifications could result in a "new" vehicle. You indicate that, if needed, you could replace the vehicle's subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, suspension, and/or support frame. If you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the original vehicle and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable FMVSS's in effect on the date of the remanufacture of the new vehicle.

You also asked that NHTSA "approve" your proposed operations. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" refurbishing operations. Under our regulations, manufacturers of new vehicles "self-certify" that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Likewise, businesses refurbishing used vehicles must assure themselves that the resulting vehicle continues to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification. NHTSA can examine the refurbisher's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:567 d:10/11/94

ID: nht94-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Unrath, Albert W., Sr. -- President, Albert W. Unrath, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 7/5/94 From Albert W. Unrath, SR. To John Womack (OCC 10204)

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA's regulations apply to your company's plans to refurbish used vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that after refurbishing, the vehicles wil l have lower gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs). You wish to know whether you could add a label showing the lower GVWR to the vehicles' original certification label (which you refer to as the "original Vin Plate").

As explained below, NHTSA does not require the supplementary label on a refurbished -- and not newly manufactured -- used vehicle. We would, however, encourage you to add the label on the refurbished vehicles, since the label would provide important saf ety information to the vehicle operator. On the other hand, the modifications you make to the vehicle could be so extensive that the resulting vehicle is considered "new" under our regulations. If the vehicle is a new vehicle, you must certify the vehi cle as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), and include on your certification label the new GVWR of the vehicle.

Based on the information you provided, the vehicles you are refurbishing are "trucks" under section 571.3 of our regulations. Section 571.3 defines a "truck" as a motor vehicle with motive power "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." You provided two photographs of the vehicles after they have been refurbished. Your photographs show the refurbished vehicles as carrying 4' x 8' "Advanced Warning Flashing Arrow" signs on flat beds. Since your vehicles are designed for transporting property or special purpose equipment, the vehicles are "trucks" under 571.3.

You describe your refurbishing process in your letter. You state that you will take a used truck with a GVWR of 45,000 or 80,000 pounds (lbs.), "scrap" the body, and check remaining truck parts such as the subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, and s uspension. You will repair and replace those parts, as needed. Next, you will clean and paint the frame and running gear, and add a new support frame and "attenuator mounting hardware with braces." After the vehicle is refurbished, its GVWR will be app roximately 25,500 lbs.

As a general rule, NHTSA has no requirements for "used" vehicles. Whether a vehicle is considered new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage of a new body on a chassis of a vehicle that was previously registere d for use on the public roads to be a "used" vehicle and therefore not subject to the FMVSS's. When a modified chassis is being used in the refurbishment, NHTSA has a regulation (49 CFR section 571.7(e)) for determining when the modifications to the use d chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the FMVSS's. Section 571.7(e) states:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . ., unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

It does not appear that you plan to add a new engine, transmission, or drive axle to each refurbished truck. If you leave the requisite components specified in section 571.7(e) in place from the previous vehicle, we would consider the vehicle you produc e to be a used vehicle. However, please keep in mind that you would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. section 30122(b), which provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard . . .

This means that the refurbished truck must continue to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification, such as those for braking, lighting and safety belt systems. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

You ask whether, after refurbishing the used truck, your company may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to reflect the lower GVWR. Since NHTSA generally does not regulate used vehicles, we do not require or prohibit the addition of a supplementary GVWR label. However, we would encourage you to add the supplementary GVWR label to the vehicle.

American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), NHTSA recognized 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. In the let ter to the AABA, NHTSA stated that although it is not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in these situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle. Similarly, in your case, since the GVWR of the refurbished trucks would be much lower than that indicated on the certification label, we believe it would be appropriate for your company to add a label to the trucks which indicates the appropriate loaded weigt of the r efurbished truck.

As noted at the beginning of this letter, it is possible that your modifications could result in a "new" vehicle. You indicate that, if needed, you could replace the vehicle's subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, suspension, and/or support frame. If you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the original vehicle and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable FMVSS's in effect on the date of the remanufacture of the new vehicle.

You also asked that NHTSA "approve" your proposed operations. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" refurbishing operations. Under our regulations, manufacturers of new vehicles "self-certify" that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Like wise, businesses refurbishing used vehicles must assure themselves that the resulting vehicle continues to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification. NHTSA can examine the refurbisher's determination in the context of an enforcement proceedin g.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht75-6.10

DATE: 06/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A.G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Holley Carburetor Division

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your defect notification and remedy campaign involving some chrome reverse wheels which may have insufficient welds between the center disc and the rim. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) identification number 75E-022 has been assigned to this campaign. Please refer to that number in any future correspondence concerning this campaign.

The letter which you have submitted as the letter to be sent to retail purchasers of the subject wheels does not meet the requirement of Part 577 (49 CFR) as well as the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. Part 577, the Defect Notification regulation, is presently still in effect except for those sections which conflict with the 1974 amendment. Your notification letter therefore should have had the opening statements specified by Part 577.4(a) and (b).

The letter also does not notify owners that they may inform the Secretary of Transportation if they are unable to receive remedy without charge, as required by Section 153(a)(6) of the 1974 amendment. The fact that your company has set up a procedure intended to insure that all owners will receive remedy without charge does not eliminate that requirement. This office knows of numerous instances where an individual owner of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment was not able to have a defect corrected. This may be due to a parts' supply problem, an uncooperative dealer, or some other problem which may not be known to the manufacturer. In any event, NHTSA does not have the authority to delete a requirement imposed by an act of Congress and must therefore insist that all manufacturers respond to Section 153(a)(6) in their owner notification letters. To comply, owners may be told that they may write to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590.

Although the letter does imply that dealers are prepared to remedy the defect, it does not give the earliest date on which the defect will be remodled without charge, as required by Section 153(a)(5) of the 1974 amendment.

It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification letter to conform with Part 577, as well as Section 153 of the 1974 amendment. A copy of the revised letter should be sent to all owners who have not yet had their wheels inspected or replaced, and also to this office. If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. James Murray or W. Reinhart of this office at (202) 426-2840. A copy of Part 577 is enclosed.

Sincerely,

Colt Industries

Holley Carburetor Division May 9, 1975

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

This is a "notification to the Secretary", in accordance with Section 151 of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, to which you will find attached a copy of our notification to our known customers (39 warehouse distributors), in accordance with Section 153 and proposing to remedy any defect in accordance with Section 154.

This notification is made in view of a determination resulting from an investigation made as a result of the one (1) and only failure of which we are aware, a copy of our letter to that consumer being attached.

The writer is advised that, according to our records, we have already recalled 307 wheels for purposes of our investigation, which comprises about 71% of the total of 431 suspect wheels built by us. This leaves only 124 suspect wheels to be recalled, and, since 229 of the 307 wheels already recalled were found to be free of any possible defect, we have sufficient good wheels available to begin to replace suspect wheels immediately. Our suggested letter to retail purchasers states that they should bring suspect wheels in for inspection "just as soon as possible", which we consider to satisfy the "earliest date" requirement of Section 153(a)(5). Our letter to our customers is, likewise, effective immediately.

This is our first notification experience. However, we consider that our attached notification meets the requirements of the Act. While we do not fully understand what is meant by Section 153 (a)(6), we consider that such a "description" is not required inasmuch as we are able to remedy this defect without charge.

Walter Potoroka -- Asst. Sec'y,

Resident General Counsel,

Patent Counsel

(SUGGESTED LETTER TO BE SENT BY W.D. AND OTHERS TO RETAIL PURCHASERS/OWNERS.)

cc: S. D. Jursek

Holley Carburetor Div.

Colt Industries

Dear Sir:

This is a notification under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974.

Our records indicate that you purchased for your own use (quantity) Chrome Reverse Wheel(s), Holley part number 253-461 (14" x 6" with a 5-bolt pattern on a 4" bolt circle).

We have recently received notification from Holley Carburetor Division that some of these wheels, produced during a certain period, may have insufficient welds which could possibly cause the center disc to separate from the rim, possibly resulting in an accident.

If the wheels you purchased are still in your possession will you please bring them to our shop, just as soon as possible, for inspection. If the wheels are identified as suspect they will be replaced with reasonably equivalent wheels at no charge to you. If these wheels are no longer in your possession please advise us the name and address of the present owner, if known to you, or what other disposition was made of these wheels.

Please call us if you have any questions about these wheels.

ID: nht71-2.30

DATE: 04/23/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: J.O. Phillips

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of March 31 you ask what requirements may apply to you if you rebuild truck tractors from salvage units.

To begin with, you become a "manufacturer" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and subject to the requirements which the Act imposes upon manufacturers. These requirements are that you ensure that any motor vehicle you manufacture complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, that you cooperate with safety-related investigations by providing information and access to your premises upon request by this agency, that you furnish certification to distributers(Illegible Word) of your motor vehicles that the vehicles comply with applicable general standards, standards, and that you furnish notification to vehicle owners of any safety-related defects in the vehicle when they come to your attention. At present, regulations requiring that prospective purchasers be supplied with certain safety-related performance information do not apply to manufacturers of truck tractors.

Under our regulations a "truck tractor" is a sub-category of "truck," and therefore it must comply with Federal standards applicable to trucks, as well as requirements that specifically apply to truck tractors.(Illegible Word) standards, however, do not apply to vehicles in use, that is, to a vehicle which is merely repaired. A vehicle which is rebuilt, however, so that it becomes in(Illegible Word) motor vehicle must. In our view, comply with all Federal Standards applicable to the manufacturer of new vehicles.

You informed Mr. Vinaon of our Office of Chief Counsel on April 19 that, in a typical operation, you would assemble a truck tractor using both parts from one or more existing truck tractors and new parts contained in a "Glider" kit such as is held by(Illegible Words), and that the resulting truck tractor would be eligible for registration as a new motor vehicle. In our opinion, truck tractors which you produce in this manner must comply with all Federal standards applicable to trucks or truck tractors as of the date of their manufacture.

I enclose a copy of the Act and "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Other Regulations" for your guidance.

Enclosures

ID: 21281.ztv

C. Thomas Terry, Director
Safety Affairs & Regulation
General Motors North America
Safety Center (480-111-S56)
30200 Mound
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Terry:

On February 11, 2000, you wrote the Acting Administrator, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and petitioning for its amendment. This letter provides an interpretation of Standard No. 108. The Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards will inform you in due course whether he has granted your petition.

Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You asked "whether brake lamp illumination is required, prohibited, or allowed under other conditions." You set forth two such conditions where the brake pedal is not employed. The first condition is:

Service brakes applied with intent of decelerating the vehicle. An example in this category would be adaptive cruise control where the service brakes may be automatically applied (without driver application of the brake pedal) to slow the vehicle in order to preserve spacing between vehicles.

We are providing an interpretation that covers only the system given as an example, an adaptive cruise control automatically applied "to slow the vehicle in order to preserve spacing between vehicles." The SAE Standards on stop lamps that are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, J586 MAY84 and J1398 MAY85, define stop lamps as "Lamps . . . [which] indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Since you state that the intent of the brake application in this context would be "to slow the vehicle," which would "diminish speed by braking" within the meaning of the applicable SAE standards, we conclude that activation of the stop lamps would be required under these circumstances.

The second condition you set forth is:

Service brakes applied with no intent to decelerate the vehicle. The best example in this category would be traction control, where the intent is to help accelerate, rather than decelerate, the vehicle. Electronic stability control is another technology that can momentarily actuate the service brakes with minimal or no vehicle deceleration.

The intent of the brake application under the first part of the second condition is not to stop the vehicle or diminish its speed. Therefore, activation of the stop lamps, as defined in the applicable SAE Standards, would not be required. In addition, S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. In our view, activation of the stop lamps for a purpose other than to indicate stopping or slowing will create confusion for the driver following as to the meaning of the signal, with the potential of causing that driver to apply the brakes in his or her vehicle inappropriately. Thus, illumination of the stop lamp during traction control would be an impairment of the stop lamp function within the meaning of S5.1.3. We have therefore concluded that installation of traction control systems, or any other equipment, that activates the stop lamps for purposes other than to indicate that the vehicle is stopping or slowing is prohibited by S5.1.3 and would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Regarding the second part of the second condition, electronic stability control, the same interpretation would apply if the vehicle speed was not diminished by application of the service brakes (or any part). It would not apply if the application of the service brakes resulted in deceleration. In that case, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

We realize that, under some circumstances, the driver's application of the service brake system to achieve the same result, i.e. not actually achieving a reduction in speed, will cause the stop lamps to illuminate, but this is an unavoidable consequence of the technology available for driver application of the service brakes. With the advent of sophisticated electronic systems, such as those that you mention, there is no need for them to provide false signals.

Also, you have asked that we "for the near term . . . agree that FMVSS 108 allows, but does not require or prohibit, illumination of the brake lamps under the two conditions described above" because a "strict 'required' or 'prohibited' interpretation could have the effect of raising compliance issues with current production vehicles." We cannot adopt a different interpretation for the near term than for the long term. We encourage manufacturers to write us for interpretations before introducing new systems into production so that compliance issues will not arise, or to file petitions for rulemaking where appropriate. If a manufacturer constructs a noncompliant vehicle based upon a misunderstanding of what is required by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, it must accept the consequences of its actions.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/26/00

ID: 15401pre.emp

Mr. Donald Fowler
Interpretations Committee Chairman
1995 National Conference on School Transportation
1213 E. Main St.
Richmond, MO 64085

Dear Mr. Fowler:

This responds to your June 12, 1997, interpretation request which you faxed to this agency, asking whether your organization's recommendations for school bus fuel tanks "conflict" with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. The question you ask presupposes that a State has prescribed a standard incorporating the recommendations for fuel tanks of the 1995 National conference on school buses. You wish to know whether the State standard would be preempted by Federal law, or whether it would be considered to impose a "higher level of performance" and thus permitted.

The recommendations of the 1995 National Conference of School Transportation include seven for the "Fuel Tank" (pages 16-17, National Standards for School Buses and School Bus Operations, 1995 Revised Edition). We have restated these in an attachment to this letter. The recommendations primarily concern location of the fuel tank and related components, such as the fuel filter and filler spouts. There is also a provision concerning installation of alternative fuel systems and LPG tanks.

Conventional Fuels

Under 30103 of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., see attachment), Federal law will preempt a State law if (1) there is a Federal safety standard in effect, (2) the State law covers the same aspect of performance as that Federal standard, and (3) the State law is not identical to the Federal standard; except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the State's use.

Our statute would preempt State requirements of general applicability governing the location of the tank and components. The State requirements are intended to ensure the integrity of the vehicle fuel system and, therefore, would be regarded by the agency as relating to the same aspect of performance as the barrier impact tests of Standard 301. In developing the performance requirements of the standard, the agency did not intend that the location of fuel tanks and other components should be regulated. That aspect of fuel system construction is preempted by Standard 301.

However, the second sentence of 30103(d)(1) clarifies that the limit on State safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for the State's own use. Thus, the State or its political subdivisions could specify additional fuel system requirements, such as those for tank location and the other provisions set forth in your recommendations, in the case of public school buses. The State requirements cannot, however, prevent the school bus or equipment from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.

Alternative Fuels

Recommendation No. 7 states: "Installation of alternative fuel systems, including fuel tanks and piping from tank to engine, shall comply with all applicable fire codes and applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the bus. * * * Installation of LPG tanks shall comply with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 58."

Our statute would preempt State requirements of general applicability governing compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel system integrity unless they are identical to the Federal standard. Standard 303, Fuel System Integrity of Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles, applies to school buses that use CNG as a motor fuel. A State standard for CNG vehicle fuel system integrity must be identical to Standard 303, unless it specifies additional requirements for public school buses.

There is no Federal standard on LPG tanks. We have issued Standard 304 for CNG fuel container integrity, but there is no comparable standard for LPG containers. Because there is no Federal standard for LPG tanks, State standards for such tanks would not be preempted.

The Federal Highway Administration may have operational and equipment requirements for some types of school buses. We have forwarded a copy of your fax to the FHWA for its views on your recommendations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#301#303

ATTACHMENT A

Excerpt from National Standards for School Buses

and School Bus Operations

(1995 Revised Edition, Pp. 16-17)

1. Fuel tank or tanks having a 30 gallon capacity with a 25 gallon actual draw shall be provided by the chassis manufacturer. The tank shall be filled and vented to the outside of the body, in a location where accidental fuel spillage will not drip or drain on any part of the exhaust system.
2. No portion of the fuel system which is located outside the engine compartment, except the filler tube, shall extend above the top of the chassis frame rail. Fuel lines shall be mounted to obtain maximum possible protection from the chassis frame.
3. Fuel filter with replaceable element shall be installed between the fuel tank and engine.
4. Fuel tank installation shall be in accordance with SBMI Design Objectives, 1990 edition, and all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the bus.
   
   1. Fuel tank(s) may be mounted between the chassis frame rails or outboard of the frame rails on either the left or right side of the vehicle.

5. The actual draw capacity of each fuel tank shall be 83% of the tank capacity.
6. Unless specific agreement has been made between the body and chassis manufacturers, fuel tanks and filler spouts shall not be located in spaces restricted by SBMI Design Objectives, 1990 edition.
7. Installation of alternative fuel systems, including fuel tanks and piping from tank to engine, shall comply with all applicable fire codes and applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the bus.
   
   1. Installation of LPG tanks shall comply with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 58.

Section 30103(b)(1) of Title 49 of the United States Code

When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter.

ID: ES02-002690

Bruce Vokoun
3745 Pioneers Blvd.
Lincoln, NE 68506

Dear Mr. Vokoun

This responds to your correspondence directed to Senator Nelson and forwarded to the U.S. Department of Transportation regarding the obtainment for you of a waiver of DOT's regulations so that you may obtain a non-breakable windshield. I apologize for the delay in our response. As explained below, the agency has determined that an exemption for your windshield from the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205) is permissible in this situation.

By way of background, the NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's most important functions under the Act is to issue and enforce FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicle and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 205 establishes performance and marking requirements for all glazing installed in motor vehicles. The standards incorporates by reference the requirements of Standard ANS Z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," of the American National Standard Institute. Standard ANS Z-26 requires that glazing materials for windshields must pass a specified group of test requirements designed to address safety concerns related to both visibility and occupant protection in the event that the windshield breaks. Under Federal law, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses normally are prohibited from deactivating components that have been installed to comply with such safety standards.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). The exception, codified at 49 CFR Part 595, was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle. Accordingly, it does not apply to vehicle manufacturers or alterers. Vehicle modifiers, i.e., businesses that modify a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to negate the vehicle's compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards.

While portions of several FMVSSs are included in the Part 595 exemption, FMVSS No. 205 is not. This is because NHTSA is generally unaware of circumstances where there would be a need to install glazing materials that do not meet the standard. NHTSA does, on occasion, issue letters of non-enforcement to address vehicle modifications that are not covered by the Part 595 exemption. In accordance with our policy of case-by-case consideration of specific situations, and in view of your son's medical condition, NHTSA will not enforce this provision against any dealer or repair business that installs a non-breakable windshield in your vehicle.

You should show this letter to your dealer or repair business when you take your vehicle to have the windshield replaced. If the dealer or repair business wishes to verify the authenticity of this letter, they may call the telephone number below.

Because of the safety benefits provided by glazing that complies with FMVSS No. 205, we strongly urge you to have the original windshield reinstalled in your vehicle prior to selling your vehicle. In addition, it is imperative that you use your safety belt at all times.

If you have any questions, pleas call Nancy Bell of my staff, who may be reached at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:205
d.4/18/03

ID: 86-6.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: H. Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated October 30, 1986, seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard and seeking our comments on sample reports required under several of our regulations. This letter addresses your question about our bumper standard first, and then comments on your sample reports.

You asked about one of the protective criteria specified in section 581.5(c) of Part 581. Part 581 requires vehicles to meet the damage criteria of that section after specified test impacts.

Section 581.5(c)(8) states:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact, except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. (Emphasis added.)

You stated that you understand "exterior surfaces" to refer to the exterior body surface which can be observed without the removal of any components, and that it does not mean the body surface which cannot be observed unless components are removed. Based on this understanding, you stated that you believe that two areas of a car, identified in an attached drawing as Area A and Area B, need not conform to the no damage requirement. Both Area A, a radiator support panel located directly under the headlamp, and Area, B, a fender apron located below the headlamp but along the side of the car, cannot be observed unless the bumper assembly is removed.

Your understanding of "exterior surface," with respect to Areas A and B of your drawing, is correct. Those areas are not exterior surfaces, because they are located behind the bumper assembly and cannot be observed unless that assembly is removed.

Sample Reports

1. 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements

Assuming that the Daihatsu is the only make and type of vehicle you will sell in the United States, the submission of the unique identifier would comply with @ 565.5(b). If you are planning to sell other makes, you would also have to include information on those makes in this submission.

The deciphering information would be sufficient under @ 565.5(d) except for the information about the engine type. The information you suggest providing describes the engine only as a "CB". The term "engine type" is defined at @ 565.3(d) as "a power source with defined characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement, and net brake horsepower." None of these factors can be deciphered from your "CB" marking. The deciphering information should indicate whether this is a gasoline or diesel engine, the number of cylinders, engine displacement, and net brake horsepower. With this modification, the sample report would comply with the requirements of Part 565.

2. 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification

The sample identifying information from Daihatsu is sufficient for the purposes of Part 566.

You also asked how accurate this identification must be with respect to the GVWR ranges of the vehicles. As you noted, @ 566.5 (c) requires manufacturers to submit the "approximate ranges" of GVWR for each type of motor vehicle produced by the manufacturer. The agency explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule that it was seeking only basic information on the vehicles produced by the manufacturer. See 36 FR 7970, at 7971; April 28, 1971. Thus, if you wish to state that you produce passenger cars with a GVWR between 2300 and 2500 pounds, as suggested in your letter, that information would satisfy the requirements of Part 566.

You also asked the purpose of requiring the Part 566 report. The purpose was explained as follows in the notice of proposed rulemaking:

In order to carry out the provisions of the Act, it is often necessary to have certain basic information about the manufacturers of motor vehicles or vehicle equipment subject to the Act. This is particularly so in the area of enforcement and in carrying out the several requirements for communication, inspection, and reporting. It is necessary to have centrally organized and collected information regarding the manufacturer's corporate status, mailing address, items manufactured, and manufacturing location. Moreover, it is necessary to assemble this information so as to make it readily accessible to those having enforcement responsibility under the Act, and provide a means for identifying and classifying manufacturers according to the types of motor vehicles or equipment which they manufacture. A system is also needed whereby NHTSA can provide information to manufacturers of various types of vehicles or equipment. 36 FR 7971; April 28, 1971.

3. 49 CFR @ 551.45 Designation of Agent

You first asked whether your sample designation of agent conforms with the requirements of 49 CFR @ 551.45. It does not. Section 551.45 specifies that a designation of agent must include the following six items of information:

1. A certification by the person or persons signing the designation that it is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made.

Your sample contains no such certification.

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer.

This information is set forth only on the letterhead of your stationery. If the corporate name set forth on your stationery is the full legal name, it would satisfy this requirement. If that is not the full legal name, however, the full legal name must be separately shown. The same principle applies to the requirements to submit your principal place of business and mailing address.

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origins of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its legal name.

It is impossible for us to determine whether there are no such marks, if the Daihatsu symbol on your letterhead is the only such mark, or if you have not satisfied this requirement.

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.

There is no such statement in your sample.

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the manufacturer.

Your sample would satisfy this requirement.

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. Your sample would satisfy this requirement. Your sample would satisfy this requirment.

You then asked what the designated agent does, and whether all reports had to be submitted to this agency via the designated agent. The designated agent acts as the agent for foreign manufacturers upon whom service of process, notices, orders, and decisions may be made for and on behalf of the manufacturer. Please note that both your designation of agent and acceptance erroneously state that such service may be made by or on behalf of the agent. Under the due process clause of our Constitution, a party cannot be bound by the outcome of a legal proceeding unless he or she has been given notice of such proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. Since we cannot go into a Japanese court, the U.S. government must have some device by which it can ensure that a foreign manufacturer is given proper notice of any proceedings affecting it in the United States. Thus, the designation of an agent by Daihatsu helps to ensure that the company will be fully and promptly apprised of any governmental action involving the company.

Hence, foreign manufacturers are not required to submit reports through their designated agents - the designated agent is only a means for this agency to serve process and so forth on the foreign manufacturer. In fact, we recommend that foreign manufacturers submit reports and other correspondence directly to NHTSA, so as to facilitate the exchange of information.

4. 49 CFR Part 575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

The sample report you submitted is exactly that which is specified in Figure 2 of @ 575.104. It would therefore comply with @ 575.6(a) and @ 575.104(d)(1)(iii). Please note that there are typographical errors for the words "treadwear" and "passenger" in the sample you submitted.

5. 49 CFR @ 575.101, Vehicle Stopping Distance

Your stopping distance sample report is in the format specified in Figure 1 of @ 575.101. Accordingly, it would satisfy the requirements of @ 575.101((c).

6. 49 CFR Part 537, Automotive Fuel Economy Reports

Your sample fuel economy report, including the statement as to representativeness, satisfies the requirements of Part 537. Please note that the timing for submitting the reports is set forth in @ 537.5(b), and that your 1988 pre-model year report is due in December 1987, while your 1988 mid-model year report is due in July 1988.

7. 49 CFR Part 542, Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard

Your sample Part 542 submission would satisfy the requirements of that Part.

Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information on our regulatory requirements.

ID: nht94-1.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 12/6/93 from Tilman Spingler to Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

We have received your FAX of December 6, 1993, titled "Petition for an 'Exemption for Inconsequential Noncompliance'" with paragraph S7.8.5.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have also received your FAX of January 14, 1994, in which you seek to withdraw your petition because "we did not realize that it is allowed to use scales without any identification of the markings."

While it is true that the graduations need not be marked, a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 will exist if the spacing of the graduations is not in accordance with Standard No. 108. In your December FAX petitioning for an inconsequentiality determina tion, you have asked for "permission to use scales with graduations of 0.2/0.4 degree." This indicates that a noncompliance exists, as Standard No. 108 specifies that graduation spacing be not greater than 0.19/0.38 degree. As we explain later in this letter, Bosch is not the proper person to file an inconsequentiality petition. However, Bosch may submit a petition for rulemaking to change paragraph S7.8.5.2.

The regulatory requirements to which you refer occur at S7.8.5.2(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i). The graduation increment specified is based on the need to provide an increment consistent with the laws of the States pertaining to correct aim. The increment cor responds to 1 inch at 25 feet; State aiming laws typically specify aim measurements in whole inches at 25 feet. These paragraphs relate to requirements that must be met by a component of those headlamp systems that are capable of being aimed by equipmen t installed on a vehicle. This component is called a "Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device", or "VHAD." Section S3 defines a VHAD in pertinent part as "motor vehicle equipment permanently installed on a motor vehicle by the manufacturer of the vehicle...." Because the VHAD is installed by the vehicle manufacturer, we regard the vehicle manufacturer as responsible for correction of any noncompliance in the VHAD even if the VHAD were manufactured by another person such as Bosch.

If Bosch has manufactured a VHAD whose specifications do not comply with those of S7.8.5.2, Bosch should notify any vehicle manufacturer to whom it has sold the VHAD so that that manufacturer may have information upon which to make a formal determination of noncompliance and to notify this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 573. If the vehicle manufacturer wishes to petition the agency for a determination that the noncompliance of the VHAD is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, th e agency will proceed to consider the petition after the manufacturer has notified the agency pursuant to Part 573. Because Bosch is under no legal obligation to correct a noncompliance caused by the VHAD that the manufacturer has installed on the vehic le, Bosch is not the proper party to file such a

petition.

The only effect of granting an inconsequentiality petition is that the vehicle manufacturer is excused from its obligation to notify purchasers and to remedy the noncompliance. The granting of the petition does not effect an amendment of the standard. Thus, the grant does not entitle the petitioner to continue to install a VHAD that does not meet S7.8.5.2(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht94-8.40

DATE: January 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 12/6/93 from Tilman Spingler to Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT:

We have received your FAX of December 6, 1993, titled "Petition for an 'Exemption for Inconsequential Noncompliance'" with paragraph S7.8.5.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have also received your FAX of January 14, 1994, in which you seek to withdraw your petition because "we did not realize that it is allowed to use scales without any identification of the markings."

While it is true that the graduations need not be marked, a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 will exist if the spacing of the graduations is not in accordance with Standard No. 108. In your December FAX petitioning for an inconsequentiality determination, you have asked for "permission to use scales with graduations of 0.2/0.4 degree." This indicates that a noncompliance exists, as Standard No. 108 specifies that graduation spacing be not greater than 0.19/0.38 degree. As we explain later in this letter, Bosch is not the proper person to file an inconsequentiality petition. However, Bosch may submit a petition for rulemaking to change paragraph S7.8.5.2.

The regulatory requirements to which you refer occur at S7.8.5.2(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i). The graduation increment specified is based on the need to provide an increment consistent with the laws of the States pertaining to correct aim. The increment corresponds to 1 inch at 25 feet; State aiming laws typically specify aim measurements in whole inches at 25 feet. These paragraphs relate to requirements that must be met by a component of those headlamp systems that are capable of being aimed by equipment installed on a vehicle. This component is called a "Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device", or "VHAD." Section S3 defines a VHAD in pertinent part as "motor vehicle equipment permanently installed on a motor vehicle by the manufacturer of the vehicle...." Because the VHAD is installed by the vehicle manufacturer, we regard the vehicle manufacturer as responsible for correction of any noncompliance in the VHAD even if the VHAD were manufactured by another person such as Bosch.

If Bosch has manufactured a VHAD whose specifications do not comply with those of S7.8.5.2, Bosch should notify any vehicle manufacturer to whom it has sold the VHAD so that that manufacturer may have information upon which to make a formal determination of noncompliance and to notify this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 573. If the vehicle manufacturer wishes to petition the agency for a determination that the noncompliance of the VHAD is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, the agency will proceed to consider the petition after the manufacturer has notified the agency pursuant to Part 573. Because Bosch is under no legal obligation to correct a noncompliance caused by the VHAD that the manufacturer has installed on the vehicle, Bosch is not the proper party to file such a

petition.

The only effect of granting an inconsequentiality petition is that the vehicle manufacturer is excused from its obligation to notify purchasers and to remedy the noncompliance. The granting of the petition does not effect an amendment of the standard. Thus, the grant does not entitle the petitioner to continue to install a VHAD that does not meet S7.8.5.2(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) of Standard No. 108.