ID: 21508retaillabelneb

Mr. Harold Schapiro
1709 Sulgrave Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21209

Dear Mr. Schapiro:

This responds to your April 10, 2000, correspondence requesting an opinion as to your proposal to "add, at the retail level, a sticker to the wall of the tire that indicates the retailer (e.g. Sears, Wal-Mart, Mr. Tire, NTB, etc...)." You further state that the sticker would be "non-obtrusive" and ask this office to advise you if there is any regulation that would prohibit this action.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

It is not clear from your letter whether you are interested in labeling replacement passenger car tires or replacement tires for use on other motor vehicles. To ensure that you receive the information that is of concern to you, I will discuss identification requirements for replacement tires for use on both passenger cars and on other motor vehicles.

All new passenger car tires must satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (49 CFR 571.109), and be labeled in accordance with Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping (49 CFR Part 574). This is true whether the new passenger car tire is a mud and snow tire, all-season tire, high speed-rated tire, temporary spare tire, or a normal highway service tire. Section S4.3.2 of Standard No. 109 explicitly requires each tire to be labeled with the manufacturer's name or a brand name and the identification number assigned to the manufacturer. The "brand name" refers to the name under which a tire is sold at retail, whether it is identical to the manufacturer's name (e.g., Firestone), a name owned by the manufacturer and used in place of its corporate name (i.e., a house brand, such as Falls that is manufactured by Cooper), or a name owned by someone other than the manufacturer (i.e., a private brand such as Atlas that is made by several manufacturers). Section S4.3.2 uses the singular form to identify the name that must appear on the sidewall (name of manufacturer or the brand name) and connects the alternative with the disjunctive "or." This grammatical structure indicates that only one name, either that of the actual manufacturer or the brand name owner, shall be labeled on the tire. The agency chose this grammatical structure to ensure that consumers would not be confused about the identity of the brand name or manufacturer of the tire.

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(b) requires that each tire be marked with "the tire identification required by part 574 of this chapter." Section 574.5, Tire identification requirements, specifies that "[e]ach tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufactures, except tires manufactured exclusively for mileage contract purchasers, or non-pneumatic tires of non-pneumatic tire assemblies, by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification number (TIN) containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." Both section S6.5(b) of Standard No. 119 and section 574.5 use the singular form to identify the identification number that must appear on the sidewall. This grammatical structure indicates that identification number, representative of a single manufacturer, shall be labeled on the tire. The agency chose this grammatical structure to ensure that consumers would not be confused about the identity of the manufacturer of the tire.

As discussed above, Standards Nos. 109 and 119 are intended to provide the tire purchaser with necessary information for the safe operation of those tires on the purchaser's vehicle. Although the situation described in your letter is not specifically addressed by the language of these standards, needless confusion could result from the attachment of a retailer's name to a tire which is, as required by our regulations, marked with a manufacturer's name, a brand name, or a manufacturer's TIN. NHTSA believes that this confusion would impair the purpose of tire information labels. Therefore, this agency interprets Standards Nos. 109 and 119 to prohibit the attachment of a retailer's name, through any means, to replacement tires for passenger cars and motor vehicles other than passenger cars.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:109#119
d.6/19/00

ID: nht94-8.15

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA/DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/11/94 from John Womack to Lawrence A. Beyer (A42; Part 591; Part 592)

TEXT:

This letter requests an opinion latter from your office concerning a determination made my OVSC regarding the importation of vehicles from Canada.

OVSC has allowed the importation of vehicles which conform to Canadian safety standards, and U.S. safety standards with the exception of "minor labeling requirements." These vehicles must be for the owner's personal use.

OVSC has interpreted "personal use" to exclude importations of vehicles by corporations for their corporation's personal use. For example, an individual moving to the U.S. would be allowed to import a vehicle, provided he had a statement from the manufacturer that the vehicle complied with all FMVSS with the exception of labeling. However, a company moving to the U.S. with the identical vehicle and letter would be required to import the vehicle through the R.I. program, under bond, etc.

I agree that if the company was importing the vehicle for resale, the R.I. program is necessitated. I do not understand the distinction OVSC makes between individual personal use and corporate personal use.

Please provide me with an interpretation to settle this issue.

ATTACHMENT

PERMANENT IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN VEHICLES

PERSONAL USE (Not included - vehicles owned by business or used in commerce)

If an individual has a letter from the manufacturer stating that a Canadian vehicle was manufactured to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper and theft prevention standards (FMVSS), except minor labeling:

a. A letter is provided by our agency that it is satisfactory to import the vehicle under the Box 2 category on the declaration statement (Form HS 7).

b. The HS-7 form must be completed with Box 2 checked and a copy of the manufacturers letter and our correspondence must be attached.

c. If a manufacturers letter isn't available - a registered importer must be used.

FOR SALE

Such vehicles have to be imported by a registered importer (The RI is not necessarily the owner. If the vehicle manufacturer provides a letter that the vehicles comply except for minor labelling, we will require:

a. An HS-7 form indicating the registered importer (RI) as the importer of records. A Box 3 entry will be required.

b. A compliance package showing any modifications that were required including photos of the speedometer and Canadian certification label, DOT bond, and payment of appropriate fees.

c. Warranty Insurance Policy

MANUFACTURERS LETTERS

Since we have previously made a determination about Canadian vehicles that was published in the Federal Register, if a manufacturers letter is not available, the process also falls into a Box 3 category. We will require all of the items listed above. If a Canadian vehicle was built on or after September 1, 1989, if it is not on our approved-eligible vehicle list, and if the MANUFACTURER DOES NOT INCLUDE AUTOMATIC RESTRAINTS THAT COMPLY WITH STANDARD NO. 208, or any other crash survivability standard, a petition will be required and it will have to be entered as a Box 3 (formerly allowed for determination under Box 7).

HOWEVER

If the vehicle is equipped with the necessary automatic restraints and other modifications required to meet U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards but the manufacturers letter is not available, the RI DOES NOT have to petition if it can verify identicality with a car certified by its original manufacturer to meet the U.S. Standards by part numbers, drawings etc.

ID: nht91-4.47

DATE: July 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by other (name illegible)

TO: Roddy Williams -- Container Enterprise

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-28-91 from Roddy Williams to Paul J. Rice (OCC 609?)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter that asked whether your company is permitted to assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements (49 CFR S571.115) to trailers that it "remanufactures" from previously used trailers. The answer is that a company that performs the remanufacturing operations described in your letter may assign a new VIN to its remanufactured trailers. By doing so, however, the trailers would be treated as newly manufactured trailers for the purposes of this agency's safety standards and regulations. Among other things, this would mean that your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with all applicable safety standards in effect as of the date of the remanufacturing operations, including the lighting, tire, and brake standards applicable to new trailers.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your company, Container Enterprise, works on trailers that were used to carry cargo containers. You stated that approximately 90% of the trailers that Container Enterprise works on were originally built between 1974 and 1979. Container Enterprise takes used container chassis that are 23 feet long and removes the axles and half of the crossmembers on the original frame. Container Enterprise then manufactures a 12 foot subframe and reinstalls the used axles on this subframe. The subframe is then attached to the container chassis, extending its chassis length to 27 feet. The conversion allows the chassis to slide open or closed. You stated that upon completion of this process, Container Enterprise will issue "a new manufacturer plate with a new VIN number" and date of remanufacture.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 115, which applies to all new vehicles. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that vehicles manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the vehicle manufacturer and S4.5 specifies that the assigned VIN shall appear clearly and indelibly on the vehicle.

Thus, the only person that can assign a VIN to a vehicle is the vehicle's manufacturer. The question then is whether your company's "remanufacturing" operations are substantial enough that the remanufactured trailers should be considered to be new vehicles and the manufacturer of those vehicles would be your company, instead of the original manufacturer of the trailer.

NHTSA's regulations specifically address the question of when trailers produced by combining new components (the subframe fabricated by your company) and used components (the parts of the used container chassis) are considered to be new trailers. 49 CFR S571.7(f) states that when new and used components are used in trailer manufacture, the trailer will be considered "newly manufactured" unless the following three conditions are met. First, the trailer running gear assembly, which includes the axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension, is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer. Second, the existing trailer's identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number. Third, the existing trailer is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

You have stated that your company would assign new VINs to the trailers it remanufactures. Upon doing so, the second condition in S571.7(f), continuing use of the original VIN, would not be met. Therefore, the trailers "remanufactured" by your company would be considered to be newly manufactured. Your company, as the manufacturer, must certify that these trailers comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of the remanufacture. This means that, in addition to complying with the 1991 requirements of Standard No. 115, your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with the 1991 versions of the lighting standard (Standard No. 108), the tire and rim standard (Standard No. 120), and the air brake standard (Standard No. 121), to name a few examples of applicable standards. To assist you in making any such certifications, I am enclosing a brochure that briefly describes each of the safety standards and an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles that explains how to get copies of our standards and regulations.

Your letter also referred to U. S. Department of the Treasury Publication 510 on Excise Taxes. We can only tell you that your remanufactured trailers with new VINs would be considered new vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you have any questions about the trailers for purposes of excise taxes, you should contact the Internal Revenue Service. Their District Office for Louisiana it located at 500 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

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

Attachment

Information sheet from NHTSA dated September 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. (Text omitted)

Attachment

Information sheet from NHTSA dated September 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. (Text omitted)

ID: 11498DRN

Mr. John Gray
2484 Hyde Road
Grove City, OH 43123-1414

Dear Mr. Gray:

This responds to your request for an interpretation as to whether Aa truck and trailer that passes all highway safety, and federal regulations [may] be joined together legally . . . . @ In telephone conversations with my staff, you explained that you would like to design a type of trailer that a Amodification shop@ would install on new trucks. Our answer is that the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permit the joining of the truck and trailer, provided that certain safety requirements are met.

You describe your product as a "trailer" with no articulation, that would lock under the chassis of a truck, and that can be temporarily disconnected in minutes. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that locking your product onto a truck chassis (by means of a "pintle hook") would enable the truck to carry up to 10,000 pounds more of weight.

This agency has the authority under Federal law to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards and related regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or endorse products. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers are responsible for "self-certifying" that their products comply with all applicable standards. They must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

None of the safety standards specify how a truck may be joined to a product such as yours. However, since your product is designed to carry property and will be towed by another motor vehicle, NHTSA would consider your product a trailer. When sold to the first purchaser, the trailer must meet all standards applicable to trailers. There are additional NHTSA requirements that the manufacturer of your product must meet. I am enclosing a copy of our fact sheet "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," that briefly describes these requirements.

A trailer manufacturer must submit certain identifying information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed). The manufacturer must also meet 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and place on the trailer a label with information specified in 49 CFR 567.4, including the vehicle's gross axle and gross vehicle weight ratings.

A person or business modifying a new truck (i.e., the Amodification shop@ of your inquiry) to incorporate the trailer would be considered an "alterer" of the truck, and would have certain certification responsibilities. An alterer is a person who modifies a previously certified, new motor vehicle (i.e., before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale). Under 49 CFR 567.7 if a new vehicle is altered in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, the alterer must allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and affix to the vehicle an additional label with the following information:

(a) The statement: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year.)"

(b) If the gross vehicle weight rating or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label, the modified values shall be provided.

We offer no opinion as to whether it is appropriate to simply add the two separate gross vehicle weight ratings in ascertaining the gross vehicle weight rating of a modified truck.

In addition, if the addition of your trailer caused the altered truck to have a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety, the alterer would be required to notify all owners of the defect and to provide a remedy without charge.

You have additional questions regarding the applicability of commercial driver license (CDL) requirements to a modified vehicle. Since CDLs are administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), we are referring your CDL questions to that agency. A copy of your letter and our response is being sent to Mr. James E. Scapellato, Director of the Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, FHWA.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Mr. James E. Scapellato, Director Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards Federal Highway Administration

ref:567#vsa102(3) d:4/24/96

ID: nht74-2.5

DATE: 11/04/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Todco Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Todco's September 27, 1974, question whether Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, 49 CFR 571.121, requires a spring brake system on Todco's "Jifflox converter dolly." You describe the Jifflox dolly as a trailer converter dolly which may also be used as a "third axle attachment" on a two-axle truck.

Standard No. 121 applies to vehicles, and specifies separate requirements for trucks, buses, and trailers. It appears that the Jifflox is subject to separate requirements under the standard depending on its use.

If Todco manufactures (Illegible Word) sells the Jifflox for use as a "trailer converter dolly" (defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as a trailer equipped with one or more axles, a lower half of a fifth wheel, and a drawbar), it constitutes a vehicle subject to Standard No. 121. As such it is exempted from the parking brake system requirements (S5.6) and its emergency braking capability is not required to be applied by an emergency source, such as a spring brake, that is not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system.

If a truck manufacturer utilizes the Jifflox as an additional axle in the suspension of its vehicle, the truck manufacturer must assure that the truck meets the requirements applicable to it with the Jifflox incorporated in it. This means that, if the truck is manufactured to accept the Jifflox dolly and the truck is rated for a gross vehicle weight rating that depends on inclusion of the axle, the truck must comply with all applicable requirements of the standard with the Jifflox attached. If the truck manufacturer determines that parking brakes are required on the Jifflox axle to meet S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, those parking brakes would have to be applied by an energy source that is not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

September 27, 1974

Richard Dyson -- Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

This is a second request regarding a ruling on the Jifflox Converter Dolly. This letter is in lieu of our first request of which our copy has been misplaced.

The Jifflox Converter Dolly has been manufactured, sold and licensed as a converter dolly. As stated in F.M.V.S.S.-121 paragraph S.5.8 a converter dolly need not have spring brakes. However, the Jifflox is unique in the fact that it can also be used as a third axle attachment.

In previous conversations with Mr. Sid Williams it has been his opinion that since the Jifflox is sold and licensed as a converter dolly it would be exempt from spring brakes. He reffered us to your office for an official ruling.

Since we deal directly with the truck manufacturers they are obviously concerned with this ruling. They have in fact requested from us an official ruling from your office.

I would think that since the Jifflox is sold throughout the United States, an ammendment to F.M.V.S.S.-121 would be in order. However an official ruling from your office in letter form would suffice.

Since we are a member of the T.T.M.A., I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Bert Weller, in hopes that research in this matter may be expedited.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely

Frank L. Wigand, Eng. Dept. -- TODCO Division

cc: Joseph J. Cunha; Bert Weller

ID: nht73-4.41

DATE: 08/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Raymond's Utility Trailers

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By notice letter dated April 27, 1973, you were advised that this agency was considering seeking imposition of civil penalties against you for violation of sections 108(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 108(a)(1) provides in pertinent part that "No person shall manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale . . . any motor vehicle . . . unless it is in conformity with [all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards]." Section 108(a)(3) provides in pertinent part that "No person shall fail to issue a certificate required by section 114." You were afforded an opportunity to submit to us any information, data, or arguments relevant to this matter. We have carefully reviewed your response of May 15, 1973.

We have concluded that you have violated sections 108(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the Act by manufacturing for sale, selling, and offering for sale snowmobile and bicycle trailers that did not conform and were not certified as conforming with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and that accordingly you are subject to civil penalties not to exceed $ 1,000 for each separate violation of section 108. Section 109(b) authorizes the Secretary to compromise any civil penalty. This authority has been delegated to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator. If you wish to seek a settlement, you should submit a written offer in compromise to

the undersigned, accompanied by a certified check payable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, not later than twenty (20) days after you have received this letter. The Administrator views a compromise of $ 1,000 as appropriate under the circumstances. If we do not hear from you within the 20 day period we will proceed with a court action to seek the maximum civil penalty authorized by law and an order restraining further violations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We have also reviewed your letter of June 22, 1973, forwarding to us a sample defect notification letter regarding the failure of trailers manufactured by your company to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

We are of the opinion that the sample notification you have submitted does not fully conform to the requirements of the Defect Notification regulation (49 CFR Part 577) and should be modified as follows:

1. Section 577.4 of the regulation requires the opening statement of the notification to be: "This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act." While your opening statement is similar, we see no necessity for a departure from the regulatory language, which was intended to be used verbatim, and suggest that you modify this sentence to conform to the regulation.

2. The second sentence of your letter states that the determination of a defect was made by the NHTSA. This, however, is not the case. Section 577.5 of the Defect Notification regulation provides that the notification letter shall state that the defect was determined to relate to motor vehicle safety by the NHTSA when that determination results from an administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to section 113(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402(e)). This proceeding did not take place in your case, however, and we consequently view the determination regarding the defect to have been made by you. We believe it would serve to further clarify your letter if your second sentence were to indicate as well that the defect relates to a nonconformity to Standard No. 108.

In addition, our enforcement file in this case indicates that trailers manufactured by you were not certified in conformity with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). Your notification letter should refer to this as well. An appropriate second

sentence for your letter would therefore read: Raymond's Utility Trailers has determined that a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety exists in your (year) trailer in that it fails to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment", and has not been certified as conforming to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards in accordance with applicable regulations.

3. Section 577.4(c) requires the notification to contain a clear description of the defect. In your case, the defect concerns a failure to conform to specific requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and NHTSA certification requirements. We believe that to fulfill this requirement your notification letter should indicate how, specifically, your trailers fail to conform to the standard and the regulations. To do so would require a statement of the number, color, and type of specific lighting equipment with which your trailers have not been equipped, and the fact that the required certification label has not been affixed.

A statement that such lighting and the required label will be affixed to the vehicle should also be included to meet the requirements of @ 577.4(e)(1), which requires a statement of the measures to be taken to repair the defect when the manufacturer offers to repair the defect without charge to the purchaser.

RAYMOND'S UTILITY TRAILERS

Dear Trailers Owner:

Be informed that this is a defect notification letter being sent pursuant to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The National Highway Traffic Administrator has determined that a defect relating to motor vehicle safety exists in your trailer which was built by me in 19 .

All trailers must have side marker lights and if over 80" wide they also require clearance and identification lights. Most trailers have a very low silhouette and the extra lights are to outline the outer edges of the trailer to prevent possible collision. Such an incident could occur at an intersection if another vehicle was waiting to pull into the intersection and could not see the trailer being pulled behind your car. If a trailer is over 80" wide, identification lights are needed to designate the width as being wider than that of the car and to prevent possible side swiping of the trailer.

It is suggested that until you have the extra lights installed on your trailer you do not haul your trailer at night.

All additional lights are being installed at no expense to you. In most cases it will take 2 - 3 hours to install the additional lights, dependent upon the number of lights already on your trailer. Parts are available at this time for installation on your trailer by appointment. Please call for an appointment so correction of this defect can be made in a timely manner.

Very truly yours,

Richard R. Raymond

ID: nht79-1.19

DATE: 10/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 25, 1979

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This is in confirmation of the discussion with Mr. Schwartz of my office when you met with him on September 10, 1979, as well as further confirmation of the telephone conversation between you and Mr. Schwartz in response to the letter from Mr. Maeda of your company dated February 9, 1979. As you may remember, the questions raised in this letter were substantially answered in the Agency's response of February 13, 1979, to a previous letter from your firm. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the Agency's letter to Volvo on the same subject as requested.

Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) states that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. "Line" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type." "Series" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line', denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes."

Your particular concern relates to the division of a particular Datsun model into several series based on the amount and type of optional equipment with which it is sold.

Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that Datsun models with different optional equipment packages could each be designated a "series" if Nissan desired. Nonetheless, the definition of "series" makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the "series" designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If the differences between the potential series are superficial and a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality, the agency will not require such a designation.

Examples of series include Chrysler Plymouth Fury I, Fury and Fury III.

You also wish to know which types of restraint systems need to be distinguished within the VIN. Active belts, passive belts, and air bags must each be separately designated. Please note that if all the vehicles of a particular model utilize one restraint system type, that type must be reported to the Agency, but need not be directly encoded in the VIN itself.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 9, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION D.O.T. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

We would like to take this time to ask for your interpretation concerning FMVSS No. 115 - VIN.

In our Datsun 210 series, there are two 2-Door Sedans (the ordinary 2-Door Sedan and the Deluxe 2-Door Sedan). These 2-Door Sedans have the same "Body Type", "Engine Type" and "Line".

However, the Deluxe 2-Door Sedan costs $450 more than the ordinary 2-Door Sedan due to the different equipment.(See Attachment Nos. 1 and 2)

It is my understanding that these two types of 2-Door Sedans do not have to be distinguished between in the "Series" even though there is a difference in equipment. (Refer to Attachment 2) I would like to know the answers to the following questions, if possible.

1) Would it be required or just requested to distinguish in the "Series" between these two 2-Door Sedans (Refer to Attachment Nos. 1 and 2)

2) What is the reason for the answer to Question No. 1?

3) Regarding Question No. 1, if it is not required to distinguish between these two 2-Door Sedans in the "Series", would it be OK for the Manufacturers to voluntarily distinguish between them even though it is not required in FMVSS No. 115-VIN?

4) Using the current models of GM, Ford or Chrysler, please show us some examples of "Series".

Thank you for your cooperation with regard to the above questions.

We would appreciate receiving the answers to the above questions as soon as possible.

We would also like to ask that you treat Attachment No. 2 "Confidential".

Should any questions arise with regard to the above mentioned matters, please feel free to contact Mr. Hisakazu Murakami, a member of my Staff, at 201-871-3555.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO.,LTD.

Teruo Maeda General Manager

TM:mh Attachments

ID: nht95-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 27, 1995

FROM: J. Randle Schick, Assistant Chief Counsel, Illinois Dept. Of Transportation

TO: Susan Kunkel; John Womack

TITLE: SB 52

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO EDWARD GOWER (A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: The Chief Counsel has asked me to respond to your question whether he concurs with Mr. Myers' interpretation of the United States Code. I do not concur with his interpretation that a vehicle dealer is prohibited by federal law from selling a van, which is not a school bus, with a capacity of more than 10 passengers to be used for school transportation.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are manufacturing standards. A school bus must be manufactured to certain federal standards. The manufacturer must certify to the dealer that a school bus has been manufactured to that standard. Federal law d oes not take the next step and require the dealer to sell only school buses for school transportation. State law, and only state law, governs the operation of school buses by schools and sets those requirements. If schools are authorized by state law t o use vans which are not school buses, a school can do so and can purchase a van for that purpose.

I believe what Mr. Myers had in mind is that if a school is shopping for a school bus, the dealer has to sell the school a bus that is certified as a school bus.

ATTACHMENT

SENATE BILL NO. 52

89th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

State of Illinois

1995 and 1996

(Prefiled January 10, 1995)

Introduced January 11, 1995, By Senator Watson

SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED

105 ILCS 5/29-6.3 new 625 ILCS 5/1-182 from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-182 625 ILCS 5/11-1414.1 from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1414.1 Amends the School Code to provide that school districts may transport up to 15 students to and from interscholastic or school sponsored activities in a van under certain conditions. Amends the Vehicle Code to provide that these vans do not fall under the definition of a "school bus". Effective immediately.

Fiscal Note Act may be applicable

AN ACT concerning school property and transportation, amending named Acts.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The School Code is amended by adding Section 29-6.3 as follows:

(105 ILCS 5/29-6.3 new)

Sec. 29-6.3. Transportation to and from specified interscholastic or school sponsored activities. Any school district may transport not more than 15 students to and from an interscholastic athletic or other interscholastic or school sponsored activi ty in a motor vehicle designed for the transportation of not less than 7 nor more than 16 persons commonly referred to as a van, provided that the van is operated by or for the district under a rental or for hire arrangement entered into by the district with respect to the specific activity in connection with which such transportation is to be furnished, and provided further that any school district furnishing transportation for students under the authority of this Section shall insure against any loss or liability of the district resulting from the maintenance, operation, or use of the vehicle in a company licensed and authorized to write such coverage in this State.

Section 10. The Illinois Vehicle Code is amended by changing Sections 1-182 and 11-1414.1 as follows:

(625 ILCS 5/1-182) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-182) Sec. 1-182. School bus.

(a) "School bus" means every motor vehicle, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this Section, owned or operated by or for any of the following entities for the transportation of persons regularly enrolled as students in grade 12 or below in connect ion with any activity of such entity:

Any public or private primary or secondary school;

Any primary or secondary school operated by a religious institution; or

Any public, private or religious nursery school.

(b) This definition shall not include the following:

1. A bus operated by a public utility, municipal corporation or common carrier authorized to conduct local or interurban transportation of passengers when such bus is not traveling a specific school bus route but is:

On a regularly scheduled route for the transportation of other fare paying passengers; Furnishing charter service for the transportation of groups on field trips or other special trips or in connection with other special events; or

Being used for shuttle service between attendance centers or other educational facilities.

2. A motor vehicle of the First Division.

3. A motor vehicle designed for the transportation of not less than 7 nor more than 16 persons that is operated by or for a public or private primary or secondary school, including any primary or secondary school operated by a religious institution, for the purpose of transporting not more than 15 students to and from interscholastic athletic or other interscholastic or school sponsored activities.

(Source: P.A. 83-299.)

(625 ILCS 5/11-1414.1) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1414.1) Sec. 11-1414.1. School transportation of students. (a) Every student enrolled in grade 12 or below in any entity listed in paragraph (a) of Section 1-182 of this Code who is transported in a seco nd division motor vehicle owned or operated by or for that entity, in connection with any official activity of such entity, must be transported in a school bus or a bus described in subparagraph (1) of paragraph (b) of Section 1-182.

(b) This Section shall not apply to any second division vehicle being used by such entity in a parade, homecoming or similar school activity, nor to a motor vehicle designed for the transportation of not less than 7 nor more than 16 persons while that vehicle is being operated by or for a public or private primary or secondary school, including any primary or secondary school operated by a religious institution, for the purpose of transporting not more than 15 students to and from interscholastic ath letic or other interscholastic or school sponsored activities. (Source: P.A. 83-299.)

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

ID: 1984-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Office of Public Instruction; Montana

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Terry Brown, Specialist Pupil Transportation Safety Office of Public Instruction State Capitol Helena, Montana 59620

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your March 12, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the use of ordinary passenger vehicles, vans, and motor coaches, as school buses. You posed three separate questions regarding school district liability when these vehicles are used to transport school children.

Your first question asked for information on school district liability when 9, 12, or 16 passenger vans which do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards are used to transport school children on activity trips. First, as you are probably aware, NHTSA does not hold schools responsible for operating noncomplying vehicles. Our enforcement authority is directed toward the vehicle manufacturer or the dealer that sells the noncomplying vehicle. Accordingly, there is no Federal prohibition against the operation by schools of noncomplying school buses. However, the laws of your state might not allow the use of such vehicles for the transportation of school children. Further, operation of noncomplying vehicles can pose insurance problems as qell as the possibility of private liability in the event that a child is injured in an accident involving one of those vehicles. You might want to discuss the issue of school district liability further with your insurance company and attorney.

Your first question can be restated to ask, "Do 9, 12, or 16 passenger vans which are used to transport school children on activity trips have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards?"

The floor debates on the Motor Vehicle Safety and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974 show that Congress chose to specify a broad definition of school bus to include so-called "activity buses" in the definition. Therefore, activity buses are subject to the same Federal school bus safety standards which apply to buses that transport children to and from school.

A vehicle that is significantly used to transport school children to and from school and related events must be certified as complying with the school bus safety standards if the vehicle is a bus, and if the date of manufacture of that vehicle is after April 1, 1977. Under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.3, Definitions, a bus is defined as a motor vehicle (other than a trailer) designed for carrying more than 10 persons including the driver. Thus, a 9 passenger van would not be considered a bus nor a school bus under the Federal regulations. The school bus safety standards would not apply to such a vehicle. On the other hand, your 12 and 16 passenger vans are considered school buses since passenger capacity is above 10 persons.

Whether these 12 and 16 passenger vans must comply with the safety standards depends on the date of manufacture of those vehicles. The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which directed NHTSA to issue safety standards for new school vehicles, established the date on which the standards were to become effective. The comprehensive school bus safety standards became effective on April 1, 1977. If your 12 and 16 passenger vans were manufactured in or imported into this country on or after April 1, 1977, they must be certified as complying with the Federal school bus safety standards.

Your second question asked about school district liability when "regular or four-wheel drive suburbans (9 passenger)" are used to transport children to and from school. Again, the question we are addressing here is whether these vehicles must comply with the school bus safety standards. The answer to this question is no. A motor vehicle carrying 9 passengers is not considered a bus or a school bus under the Federal regulations.

Your third question asked, "What problems could school districts face when they use over-the-road coaches (greyhound types) to transport children on activity trips?" As discussed previously, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, together with the school bus safety standards, require that these buses be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal school bus safety standards if they are significantly used to transport school children to and from school-related events. Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing such. Therefore, although NHTSA could not bring an enforcement action against a school using noncomplying school vehicles, a school district using a Greyhound-type motor coach may encounter problems obtaining insurance for its noncomplying vehicle. Further, the potential for private liability in the event of an accident involving one of these vehicles is very high.

If you have any further questions on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 12, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Bern Chief Council NHTSA NOA-30 U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Bern:

I am inquiring about material I have read recently about school bus safety. Particularly statements from your legal people about the use of vans and over-the-road coaches to haul school children.

State Superintendent Argenbright has asked that I contact you for some specific information about 1) school district liability when they use regular 9, 12 or 16 passenger vans to transport school children on activity trips, 2) the possible liability when they use regular or four-wheel drive suburbans (9 passenger) to transport children to and from school and, 3) what problems could school districts face when they use over-the-road coaches (greyhound types) to transport children on activity trips?

I am talking about the use of school vehicles that do not meet our state or national "school bus" standards.

Rather than sending just printed material, I would appreciate receiving written information from you or one of your staff members, concerning these issues.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Terry Brown, Specialist Pupil Transportation Safety

cc: Ed Argenbright

ID: 86-4.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: J. L. HENDRICKS -- MANAGER, PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CUMMINS ENGINE COMPANY, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/06/86, TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM J.L HENDRICKS, OCC-0033

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hendricks:

This responds to your letter regarding the difficulty, during an ongoing safety defect campaign (NHTSA 85E-016), of locating current owners of heavy-duty diesel engines and replacement engine products which are installed in trucks selected by the original equipment manufacturer. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

The information contained in your letter and in telephone conversations with agency staff indicates your concern with the delay in your efforts to locate the current owners in Connecticut of Cummins engines and replacement equipment involved in this voluntary recall. This problem arose when a large number of original recall notices mailed to the most recent known purchasers of this equipment were returned to you. You then contacted each State and requested a search of their motor vehicle files using the truck vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) in order to locate the current owners. We understand that special procedures followed by Connecticut to protect individual privacy have led to delays in your obtaining the names and addresses of current owners.

In your letter, you mention Connecticut's practice of requiring a formal declaration of VIN's and a justification for conducting a search of their vehicle registration files. While we agree with the statement in your letter that each State has the right to safeguard individual privacy and place restrictions on access to lists of motor vehicle owners, we also regret the delay, which is apparently caused by Connecticut's procedure, in notifying the current owners of the equipment involved in this campaign.

You indicate that this delay is increased by Connecticut's practice of requiring the services of a third party agency who, by contractual agreement, obtains the registration information and sells it to the party conducting the safety recall campaign.

These difficulties do not, of course, diminish the responsibility of manufacturers to conduct notification campaigns. We appreciate the difficulty of locating current owners of trucks with original and replacement Cummins equipment, and commend your efforts to locate them. However, this agency cannot interfere in the efforts of a State to protect the privacy of Connecticut motor vehicle owners. Further, this agency cannot interfere in a contractual agreement between a State and a third party.

You indicate that the task of locating current owners is additionally complicated by at least two factors. First, we understand that Cummins receives a list of VIN's from the original vehicle manufacturer with the names and addresses of the first purchasers of trucks on which your equipment is installed. These purchasers may or may not be the actual users of the trucks. Second, the owners/operators of the trucks on which these engines and replacement equipment are installed tend to be very mobile in their operations and registration practices. The result has been a large number of safety-related defect notices returned to your company, because the current owners cannot be located.

In your letter, you also request that this agency write to the Connecticut Bureau of Motor Vehicles and solicit their assistance in negotiating with Cummins a program to enable your company to maintain an on-going system to obtain vehicle registration on a timely basis. We think that such a program could be appropriate during a specific safety recall campaign. While not wishing to interfere with a State's decision to set reasonable procedures to safeguard lists of vehicle owner names and addresses, the agency believes that a request to Connecticut to assist you could be helpful in locating the current owners of Cummins equipment involved in this recall campaign. For these reasons, NHTSA, by separate letter, is requesting the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles to provide assistance to Cummins, as expeditiously as possible, in supplying the names and addresses of the equipment owners requested by your company.

Sincerely,