ID: nht91-6.21

DATE: October 14, 1991

FROM: Robert W. Smith -- President, Auto Safety Corporation

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Senior Staff Attorney, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated November, 1991 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert W. Smith (A38; Std. 108)

TEXT:

My partner and I want to thank you for all the help you gave us during the course of the meeting in your office on August 15, 1990.

Since that meeting we have been continuing the development of our prototype stop lamp license plate frame, in order to conform to all applicable NHTSA standards.

The purpose of this letter is to confirm what we learned at that meeting. Your computer search of Safety Standard #108 data as it would apply to our device, the flashing/steady burning stop lamp, turned up the following:

1. In the case of the Simcox letter (A29, Redbook 3, Erika Z. Jones to Bettie Lou Simcox, October 24, 1986), the use of a flashing/steady burning stop lamp is permissible on a motorcycle. As you'll recall, our embodiment, which complies with specifics of the Safety Standard #108, is a specially designed license plate frame that incorporates a light assembly and a patented (U.S. Patent No. 4,871,945) electronic circuit. (See attached drawings Fig. 1 and Fig. 2)

2. Safety Standard #108 also would allow the use of a flashing/steady burning stop lamp on passenger cars. Specifically, for our purposes, in the embodiment of a license plate frame with built-in lights and circuitry. (Drawing Fig. 1)

3. Safety Standard #108 would permit the use of an auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp which could be mounted on the rear of vans, pickup trucks, and mini vans. (Drawing Fig. 3)

In closing, we again thank you for the help you have given us.

ATTACHMENT

Motor vehicle flashing/steady burning stop lamp license plate frame. (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) (Graphics omitted)

Auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp. (Fig. 3) (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-6.22

DATE: October 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Elizabeth D. Smith -- Department Head, Community and Special Services, Division of Program Monitoring, State Health and Human Services Finance Commission

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-14-91 from Elizabeth D. Smith to Mary Versailles (OCC 6363)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 14, 1991, "regarding the addition of safety belts to a 1986 Ford Club Wagon" and other similar vehicles. The vehicle is certified as a bus according to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and is primarily used to transport pre-school age children (between three and five years of age) to and from a child development center and on field trips. The vehicle has seat belts for 15 passengers, including the driver. Currently, more than 14 children can be transported in these vehicles, by belting more than one child to a seat belt. However, you are concerned about the legality of doing so. Therefore, you wish to increase the capacity of these vehicles by adding additional belts in the passenger area. The additional belts would be installed by a local Ford dealership.

Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. Section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) do not apply "after the first purchase ... in good faith for purposes other than resale."

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, this "render inoperative" provision would require any of these named entities to ensure that it does not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard when modifying a motor vehicle. Violations

of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

Before discussing how these provisions would affect the modifications you wish to make, I would like to discuss another issue raised by your letter. While your letter indicates that your vehicles are certified as "buses," it appears that, under Federal law, the person who sold you these vehicles should have sold you a vehicle certified as a "school bus." NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for purposes that include transporting students to and from "school or school-related events." NHTSA has also stated that whether a program for preprimary-age students is a "school" is determined by whether the program is educational or custodial. Based upon phone conversations between you and Mary Versailles of my staff, it appears that our "child development center" would be considered a school. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to SELL any new vehicle that does not comply with all Federal school bus safety standards to a purchaser that intends to use the vehicle as a school bus, if the seller knew or should have known of the purchaser's intent. However, it is not a violation of Federal law for the purchaser to USE a vehicle to transport school children that does not comply with all the Federal school bus standards. Some states, however, require that only certified "school buses" be used to transport school children.

Later in this letter, I explain why it appears that additional seat belts could be added to a "bus" without violating Federal law. I caution you that my subsequent analysis would NOT apply to a "school bus." Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating requires a seat belt at every designated passenger seating position in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 222 calculates the number of seating positions on a school bus bench seat by dividing the seat width by 15, and rounding the result to the nearest whole number. Therefore, it would appear to "render inoperative" a school bus' compliance with Standard No. 222 if someone were to increase the seating capacity of a school bus.

I will now address the issue of adding safety belts to buses other than school buses. A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. Therefore, the additional safety belts which might be added to your vehicles must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards that apply to safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. For buses manufactured prior to September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 required installation of a safety belt at the driver's designated seating position only. Therefore, the safety belts installed at the passenger's designated seating positions in your vehicles were not required for the vehicles to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208. The vehicle was also not required to have seat belt anchorages at any designated seating position other than the driver's. Since safety belts and

anchorages were not required for the passenger seats in your vehicles, any modifications to the voluntarily-installed belts and anchorages at the passenger seats of your vehicles would not result in a violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act.

I note that safety belts and anchorages are now required ton vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991) at every seating position in buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. I would also note, that, if the increase in seating capacity was significant, the modifications you are considering could "render inoperative" compliance with a number of safety standards for your buses by overloading the vehicles. However, your letter indicates that the dealership which may perform the modifications on your vehicles has already considered this and determined that the vehicle would not be overloaded.

In closing, I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage you to give the most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-6.23

DATE: October 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-23-91 from Lawrence A. Beyer to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6507)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 23, 1991, with respect to your representation of clients before this agency.

Specifically, you state that you have been advised "by an office of NHTSA that attorneys cannot submit documentation and make declarations on behalf of clients unless they submit formal power of attorney documentation which authorizes such representation." This representation "includes the preparation and submission of completed documentation on their behalf." You have asked to be advised whether it is NHTSA's policy "that I have to provide proof to NHTSA that my statement that I represent a party is true."

We understand that the Office to which you refer is the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. We further understand that the particular situation that gives rise to your question is your filing of petitions to determine the eligibility of vehicles for importation.

It is not a question of "proof" whether you represent a person, but whether you are purporting to exercise a right or obligation that is not legally yours. By statute, only a manufacturer or registered importer may file petitions for determinations of vehicle eligibility. If a registered importer chooses to have an attorney prepare and submit such a petition, and the importer himself signs the petition, no authorization is required for the attorney to file the petition with NHTSA. We have at hand two petitions you submitted on July 15, 1991, on behalf of G & K Conversions, a registered importer, which meet this criterion; each petition is signed by the president of G & K, and accompanied by your cover letter. This is in accordance with our procedures. If, on the other hand, the importer chooses to have the attorney sign the petition in his place, then a power of attorney is required. Thus, the general rule applicable to a particular situation involving the submission of legal documents to NHTSA is that an attorney may act on behalf of his client without a power of attorney, but he may not assume a legal right or an obligation of the client without the client's explicit authorization.

We find implicit authorization by G & K that you represent them by your filing of documents bearing the signature of its president. By the same token, we find implicit authorization to respond when attorneys reply to the agency's investigatory or civil penalty letters on behalf of companies or persons to which letters have been sent.

ID: nht91-6.24

DATE: October 16, 1991

FROM: D. E. Graham -- Engineering Manager, Regulatory, Test & Service Engineering, ASC Incorporated

TO: Richard Reed -- Office of Crash Avoidance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to D. E. Graham (A38; Std. 118)

TEXT:

I would like to request a formal written response to a question of interpretation of the recently revised FMVSS 118 - Power Operated Window Systems (Docket No. 87-10" Notice 4).

Specifically, the sections in question for interpretation are S5(a) and S5 (b). The question is:

Do these sections in any way apply to the rearward edge of a venting, sliding sunroof as it moves from the vent position to the fully closed position?

Your timely response would be beneficial in ASC Incorporated's ongoing efforts to fully comply with the applicable safety standards for current and new products.

ID: nht91-6.25

DATE: October 16, 1991

FROM: Floyd J. Barkman -- Vice President Sales & Marketing, Collins Bus Corporation

TO: Susan Schruth -- Office of Chief Counsel, U.M.T.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-6-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Floyd J. Barkman (A38; Std. 208)

TEXT:

We have been referred to your office to help us clarify recent laws involving commercial buses. We are manufacturer of both small and medium buses for both private customers and U.M.T.A. funded agencies. The following is a list of questions we would like your office to clarify:

1. Based on a final ruling that went into effect September 1, 1991, all MPV and/or buses with a gross vehicle weight less than 10,000 pounds are required to have Type 1 or Type 2 occupant restraints at all seated positions. Also, all outboard occupants or passengers are required to have three point shoulder harness. We also understand school buses are exempt from the outboard shoulder harness. Are these statements correct and are there any exceptions to these rulings?

2. We build under 10,000 GVW buses for the day care industry that use school bus safety seats and lap belts at all locations. The exterior of the bus is commercial. Would these buses require the outboard shoulder harness?

We would appreciate your earliest reply as we have new buses in production that will be effected by this law.

ID: nht91-6.26

DATE: October 16, 1991

FROM: Frank Vestergaard -- M-CO Denmark

TO: NHTSA -- Department of Transport

TITLE: Request fore statement.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Frank Vestergaard (A38; Std. 125)

TEXT:

When we in your country as well as in the rest of the world, in 1992 are planing to sell a new - patentet warning triangle, fore the precence of halted vehicles, under the name Warn-Mill.

The means with this request, is to get establish, if there is some lawful legal obstructions - fore the use of Warn-Mill.

Warn-Mill is intended at this stage, as supplements to the stateutory warning triangle.

As shown on the enclosed pictures,the mill is a strong reflecting triangle,mounted at a magnetfoot.

To improve the visibility there is bild-in a bearing,so that the triangle rotates, even with weak winds.

The strongness at the magnet is adapted, so that the mill falls of if the vehicle drives without dismount.

In case of further questions, i would be at your services.

Further vocher: Copy of the Danish authorities approval in Denmark.

Attachments

Warn-Mill. Description:

(Picture omitted)

Strong reflecting white triangle, surrounded by red frame, monted at a magnetfoot, to be placed at the roof of a halted vehicle. The warning sign rotates with even weak winds, which in daylights means that the warning sign is presented from all angles. And in the elucidate the sign.

Letter dated 4-23-91.

Photos of the Warn-Mill.

Letter from Henrik Waaben dated 5-23-90.

(Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-6.27

DATE: October 16, 1991

FROM: S. Suzuki -- Managing Director, Suzusho Trading Co.

TO: Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, NHTSA

TITLE: Ref. No. ST-9015/91

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/31/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to S. Suzuki (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

RE: NEW TYPE OF HIGH-MOUNTED STOP & FLASHER LAMPS.

We have already learned the Merit of High Mounted Stop Lamp, therefore, the late models are coming with it from the factory, then we improved this High-Mounted Stop Lamp which is attached Flasher Lamps to give driver's informations to behind drivers quickly.

We introduced our High-Mounted Stop & Flahser Lamps to CHRYSLER CORPORATION then, Mr. Michael M. Fischer introduced us to contact to you about rear lighting because rear lighting on highway vehicles is regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards administered by NHTSA.

We made some hand-made samples and did the market research, then we could have so much requests to introduce. Everybody said that it was simple but it will convey driver's informations to behind drivers and help us not to be involved crash.

RE: MERITS FOR HIGH-MOUNTED STOP & FLASHER LAMPS

1). If drivers use it and stepped on brake pedal, the Normal Brake Lamps and High-Mounted Stop Lamp will be put on, in case, the behind driver's eye will watch High-Mounted Stop Lamp more than Normal Brake Lamps becuase it is on the eye-line. Therefore, the Flasher Lamps should be together with Stop Lamp not to make any delayed. 2). If we use our High-Mounted Stop & Flasher Lamp, the Normal Stop and Flasher Lamps will work normaly which means working together with. It will work as assistant Flasher Lamps. 3). From this reason, if drivers use our High-Mounted Stop & Flasher lamps, they can see Flasher Lamps easily without moving their eyes from High-Mounted Stop Lamp to the Normal Flasher Lamp. Our "Safety Shot" will give driver's informations of STOPPING and CHANINGING LANE/DIRECTIONS to behind drivers quickly not to be involved crashes. 4). The Snow countries, a lot of snow on the roof, bonnet, trunk etc., and snow melted roads, the rear side of cars should be dirty and it will be difficult to see. All drivers will remove snow on the Front/Rear and both side of Glasses to see before they start driving. In case, if drivers use our "SAFETY SHOT" High-Mounted Stop & Flasher lamps, behind drivers will be able to see it easily and we will be able to avoid crashes etc.,

5). There is a lot of clouds of spray when we drive high speed on the Highway in the rain day, in case this clouds of spray will disturb Normal Stop and Flasher Lamps, however, the Center of Rear Glass scheild should be the ravine from the both side clouds of spray and we can see

High-Mounted Stop Lamp well, therefore, we should put Flasher Lamps together with Stop Lamp.

We think that it will be important very much to save drivers if we had an accident such as Airbag System, Door Side Beem etc., but if we can have somethings not to cause accidents or to avoid accidents, it will be much valuable for drivers. Drivers will not hesitate to pay extra expenses to save themselves but they expect these devices are not expensive.

We need High-Mounted Stop Lamp on the busy Highway. If the highway is very empty, we do not need it at all. All big cities in the world, many cars are on the road, therefore, all drivers would like to know the former driver's informations, STOPPING, CHANGING DIRECTIONS, etc., and if we can know tow or three former driver's informations, we can change our lane soon and we can avoid the trafic jam, too.

Of course, there are many differnt countries and different way of thinking and different people, therefore, everybody will not agree the above suggestions, however, if we have to reply which is more safety, to use our High-Mounted Stop & Flasher Lamp or not to use it. In case, everybody will reply, it will be more safety if the "SAFETY SHOT" is built-in rear window.

We are pleased to enclose our hand-made samples (pictures) for your study as under:

* " Safety SHOT - Type I" : L.E.D. Use.

* " Safety SHOT - Type II" : L.E.D. Use.

* " Safety SHOT - Type III" : General Electric Bulb Use.

We will produce goods and introduce them in our domestic market, therefore, is it possible to use it in the U.S.A. or not.

We are much appreciated if we can received your comments on this matters.

Thanking you for your best co-operations and looking forward to hearing from you soon, we remain, yours very truly.

ID: nht91-6.28

DATE: October 17, 1991

FROM: Carl Miller -- O.E. Sales Manager, DICO Tire, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-15-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Carl Miller (A38; Part 574)

TEXT:

This is a request for an interpretation of a regulation.

At DICO Tire, we manufacture high speed boat trailer tires. Presently we provide a warranty along with a recall information card to the original equipment manufacturers to be issued to the customer at the time of purchase. We also provide warranty and recall information cards to dealers for the replacement males market. It has been my understanding that we were to provide recall information cards on any tire with a D.O.T. stamp on it whether it was sold in the original equipment market or sold in the replacement market. A comment was made that there was a new ruling which stated the recall information cards were no longer required in the replacement market.

Could you please clarify this point?

ID: nht91-6.29

DATE: October 17, 1991

FROM: Matthew J. Plache -- Gardner, Carton & Douglas

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: John Rigby Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Matthew J. Plache (A38; VSA 102(3); VSA 108(a)(1)(A))

TEXT:

I am writing to request an interpretation of whether Daihatsu America, Inc. would be in violation of federal law, including specifically section 1397(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("NTMVSA"), 15 U.S.C. S1397 (a) (1), if it were to sell Daihatsu HIJET vehicles in accordance with specifications such as those contained in the Request for Bid issued by the City of Los Angeles Department of General Services on September 9, 1991 (Bid Number F5995), a copy of which is attached hereto.

BACKGROUND

Daihatsu America, Inc. ("Daihatsu") is the exclusive distributor of of Daihatsu HIJET vehicles ("HIJET") in the United States. HIJETs are manufactured in Japan by Daihatsu Motor" Co. Ltd.

HIJETs are general purpose off-road utility vehicles. They are not intended for use on the public roads, streets or highways. As such, HIJETs do not comply with certain of the federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "motor vehicles" under the NTMVSA.

HIJETs are powered by a 550cc gasoline-powered engine and are unable, as manufactured for the United States market and as sold in the United States, to exceed a speed of 25 mph. Since HIJETs are not intended for on-road use, they are not affixed with a certification of conformity, as described in S1403 of the NTMVSA, 15 U.S.C. S1403. HIJETs were first marketed and sold in the United States in 1977. Since that time, they have always been advertised, promoted and sold as off-road vehicles. They are affixed with a warning label indicating that they are for off-road use only. HIJETs are sold by dealers that do not also sell vehicles that are classified as "motor vehicles" under the NTMVSA.

THE LOS ANGELES BID REQUEST

The attached bid request solicits bids for vehicles being purchased for use by the Recreation and Parks Equipment Division of the City of Los Angeles. The bid request describes the vehicles being solicited as the "Daihatsu full cab 'HIJET' without glass," the "Mitsubishi flow thru SH27F 1/," or equivalent vehicle. The specifications included with the bid request are almost an exact description of the Daihatsu HIJET. See last two pages of the attachment hereto.

Two aspects of the specifications are troublesome to Daihatsu. First, they require that the "vehicle must be capable of being registered for street use in California." In essence, this language, which appears in the third sentence of the first paragraph of the specifications, indicates that the vehicles being solicited are for use on the public roads, streets and highways. In other words, the solicitation is for vehicles that would be classified as "motor vehicles" under the NTMVSA.

The second troublesome aspect of the specifications is the requirement, set forth in the last paragraph thereof, that the contractor must apply to register the vehicles and obtain for them "Exempt Special Equipment 'SE' license plates." This is a special type of California license plate used on government-owned vehicles. Most importantly, "SE" license plates are established for use with "on-road" vehicles; they are not generally available for exclusively off-road vehicles. Once again, this requirement

----------

1/ The Mitsubishi vehicle is similar in design to the Daihatsu HIJET. In October, 1988, NHTSA's Chief Counsel issued an interpretive ruling in connection with the Mitsubishi vehicle, concluding that "the Mitsubishi SH27 lightweight truck does not appear to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act." Letter from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Mr. Hiroshi Kato, MMC Services, Inc., page 3 (October 31, 1988).

indicates that the solicitation is for vehicles that would be classified as "motor vehicles" under the NTMVSA.

Daihatsu is not certain that it could comply with these two aspects of the solicitation without running afoul of federal law, including certain strictures set forth in the NTMVSA. As stated above, HIJETs do not conform to all of the federal safety standards applicable to motor vehicles, nor are they affixed with a certificate of conformity as described in 15 U.S.C. S1403. Thus, Daihatsu is concerned that if it were to deliver HIJET vehicles, or even to offer to deliver such vehicles, in accordance with these specifications, it might violate certain of the prohibitions set forth in section 1397 (a) (1) of the NTMVSA, 15 U.S.C. S1397 (a)(1).

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETIVE LETTER

As noted above, I am seeking an interpretive ruling indicating whether Daihatsu would violate federal law if it were to deliver, or offer to deliver, HIJET vehicles in accordance with specifications such as those contained in the Los Angeles bid request. Daihatsu is especially concerned about this matter because it has recently received a number of similar solicitations for "HIJET-like" vehicles which, although not as problematic as the Los Angeles bid request, could be interpreted as solicitations for "on-road" vehicles.

Please note that because of its concerns about potential violations of federal law, Daihatsu has refrained from submitting a bid in accordance

with the Los Angeles specifications. Other suppliers of similar vehicles, however, apparently do not share Daihatsu's concerns.2/ Thus, until the issues raised in this letter are resolved, Daihatsu will be at a competitive disadvantage in similar bidding situations.

For these reasons, I request that you expedite your response to this letter. Please note that I recently spoke about this

----------

2/ Indeed, the Los Angeles contract was recently awarded to a supplier of the Mitsubishi vehicle. As noted in footnote 1, above, this vehicle is the subject of a NHTSA exemption letter. As with the HIJET, the Mitsubishi vehicle also fails to comply with certain of the Federal safety standards applicable to "on-road" vehicles.

matter with John Rigby of your office; he suggested I submit a request in writing for an interpretive ruling.

Please let me know if you require any further information.

ID: nht91-6.3

DATE: September 18, 1991

FROM: Al Lipinski -- President, Mini-Max

TO: Hall, Jackson, Rice -- NATSA (NHTSA), Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Al Lipinski (A38; Std. 108; Part 567)

TEXT:

I talked with Steve Kratzke on September 18, 1991 regarding the Dynamic Testing requirements for alterers of certified vehicles.

We are a small conversion company of walk in van type light trucks located in Escanaba, MI. Our projected production for 1992 is 75 vehicles. We do not alter anything forward of the B pillar of a certified vehicle, thus the crash protection system installed by the original manufacturer is not disturbed. We afix an additional label stating the vehicle alterations conform to all applicable FMVSS.

I would appreciate a letter stating what the dynamic testing requirements are for an alterer of a certified vehicle for my files in case this question arises in the future.