ID: nht87-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Koji Tokunaga

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This letter responds to your inquiry of June 25, 1986, requesting an interpretation of S4.5 of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, regarding the "part of the vehicle" on which the vehicle identification number (VIN) shoul d appear. I regret the delay in replying to your letter.

You ask whether either of two specific locations within the passenger compartment of a vehicle would meet the VIN location requirement, and submit diagrams of these locations. Paragraph S4.5 of Standard No. 115 reads:

"The VIN of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part."

You state in your letter that your concern is whether a VIN or a plate or label with the VIN affixed to it, may be "fitted to a part that is not designed to be removed except for repair but that can be replaced by a new part as a result of the repair."

We interpret S4.5 to require that the VIN be placed on a part that is designed to be removed only for the purpose of repairing (or replacing) that part. Thus, the VIN may not be placed on a part which is designed to be removed to allow the maintenance or repair of other parts.

The first location you describe is the instrument panel front cover. That cover is a plastic strip immediately behind and below the inner surface of the front windshield, and it appears from your diagram that the part is designed to be removed only for i ts repair or replacement. If that is correct, placing the VIN at this location would meet the requirement of S4.5.

The second location is the top of the meter upper hood. On your diagram, this location seems to be on the plastic cover for the speedometer and tachometer. It appears from the diagram that the meter upper hood is designed to be removed to permit the repa ir or maintenance of those meters or other parts of the dash board. If this is the case, then this location would not comply.

As a separate matter, we note from your diagram that the meter hood location may be in a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or light truck. If that is so, you must meet both the S4.5 requirement with respect to placement of the VIN, and the r eadability requirement of S4.6.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 25, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Subject: Confirmation of NHTSA's Interpretation of our Request

The attached letter, DE-85-181, requested your agency's interpretation regarding "a part of the vehicle" where the vehicle identification number (VIN) is required to appear.

We mailed this letter last August. However, we have not received your interpretation. On June 24th and 25th, Mr. Imai or Isuzu Motors America, spoke with your secretary and was informed that you do not have any record of this request. Therefore, we are s ending this letter again. Please check your records and please forward your interpretation.

We would appreciate your response as soon as possible.

If you have any questions, please contact us.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering

August 26. 1985

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Subject: VIN Durability.

The purpose of this letter is to request your agency's interpretation regarding "a part of the vehicle" where the vehicle identification number (VIN) is required to appear.

FMVSS 115. S4.5 requires a VIN to be fitted to "...a part of the vehicle...that is not designed to be removed except for repair Our concern is whether the VIN may be fitted to a part that is not designed to be removed except for repair but that can be re placed by a new part as a result of the repair. In the context of a specific vehicle, we would request you to advise us whether it meets the requirement to affix the VIN or a VIN plate or label to either of the following parts in the locations shown in t he attached fig. 1 and 2:

1. Instrument panel front cover (Fig. 1)

This cover is made of plastics and can be detached from the vehicle by removing a clip on each side and the three screws shown. There is a possibility, although not great, of this cover being replaced by a new cover when damaged or badly stained.

2. Meter upper hood (Fig. 2)

This hood is also made of plastics, and can be detached from the vehicle by removing the four screws shown. The possibility of this hood being replaced is still smaller but not nil.

We would appreciate your prompt confirmation as to whether affixing the VIN to these parts meets the requirements of S4.5 of FMVSS 115.

Sincerely yours.

Koji Tokunaga Manager. Engineering

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

ID: nht94-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary Klingaman -- Engineer, Inter Pipe, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 3/16/94 From Gary Klingaman To NHTSA Office Of Chief Counsel (OCC - 9833)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Klingaman:

This responds to your March 16, 1994, letter inquiring about the applicability of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to the alteration of used motor vehicles. You stated that your company manufactures water trucks and lub e/fuel service trucks by adding water tanks and various other apparatus to incomplete vehicles. Your question is whether you are required to add a certification label (as required in 49 C.F.R. @ 571.115) even if you use a "pre-owned" (I assume you mean "used") truck chassis.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seg.; Safety Act), to issue safety s tandards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-cer tification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Whether Inter Pipe, Inc. would have to apply a certification label depends upon whether the vehicles your company modifies are new (that is, the vehicles have not yet been sold to the first retail purchaser) or used (vehicles that have already been sold to and used by the first retail purchaser). With respect to your company's modifications of new vehicles, your company would be a "final stage manufacturer" for the purposes of NHTSA's laws and regulations. 49 C.F.R. @ 568.6 requires a final stage manu facturer of a new vehicle to affix a certification label in accordance with 49 C.F.R. @ 567.5.

The requirements of 49 C.F.R. Parts 567-568 do not apply if you modify used vehicles. Hence, your company is not

2

required to affix a manufacturer's label to those used vehicles you convert into water trucks or fuel/lube trucks. However, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowing ly "render inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, you must be careful wh en adding your equipment not to degrade the truck's ability to meet the safety standards.

For your information, I have enclosed a general information sheet for manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of the relevant NHTSA regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact our office at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosures

ID: nht90-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: BILL WALTZ -- WAGNER DIVISION, COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-13-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM BILL WALTZ ATTACHED; (OCC 4056). TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter requesting permission for deviations from marking requirements for round sealed beam headlamps.

Wagner has been asked to assemble some Headlamps designed to appear as closely as possible to those produced by Guide Lamp in the 1950's. The lamps would be marked "1" and "2" in accordance with the nomenclature of the day, rather than "2D1", "1C1", and "2C1", as required by Standard No. 108. The DOT symbol would not be provided, "since this obviously was not on the original lamps." You have informed us that the lamps will be made to today's photometric standards" and "subjected to all the tests curren tly required of the round headlights." Finally, "they will be distributed on a limited basis through antique parts dealers."

I am sorry, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment from any requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our temporary exemption authority under 15 U.S.C. 1410 extends only to motor vehicles. Further, we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of either vehicles or equipment from their statutory obligation to certify through use of the DOT symbol that their products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the motor vehicle lamps which you have identified, and for which you ask an exemption are designated Type C and Type D sealed beam headlamps. As su ch, they must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c, December 1978, which are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. They are considered replacement equipment, and must conform to all requirements of standa rd No. 108, including marking and certification.

Standard No. 108 covers both original and replacement vehicle equipment. Depending on the vehicle category, it became effective for original equipment on January 1, 1968, and January 1, 1969. On January 1, 1972, it became effective for equipment intende d to replace original equipment on all motor vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, 1972. Therefore, it might appear that the standard would not apply in any event to replacement equipment for 1950's vehicles. However, the headlamps you describe are designed to conform to all contemporary requirements, except marking and certification. Even though intended for use on 1950's vehicles, these circular headlamps are interchangeable with circular headlamps installed on any vehicle manufactured after the effective dates of Standard No. 108. Therefore, they must be designed to conform with Standard No. 108, and marked and certified accordingly.

The intended markings "1" and "2" would signify mistakenly that the headlamps were designed to conform to SAE standard J579a, October 1965 (which also did not require the OT symbol on the lens). Until June 1989, SAE J579a was incorporated in Standard No. 108 as a permissible option to SAE J579c, but the agency deleted it as the lamps appeared to be out of production. However, even had J579a been retained, we could not have allowed the lenses of headlamps manufactured to J579c to be marked according to J579a.

ID: 2400y

Mr. Bill Waltz
Wagner Division
Cooper Industries, Inc.
155 Algonquin Parkway
Whippany, NJ 07981

Dear Mr. Waltz:

This is in reply to your letter requesting permission for deviations from marking requirements for round sealed beam headlamps.

Wagner has been asked to assemble some headlamps designed to appear as closely as possible to those produced by Guide Lamp in the l950's. The lamps would be marked "l" and "2" in accordance with the nomenclature of the day, rather than "2Dl", "1C1", and "2C1", as required by Standard No. l08. The DOT symbol would not be provided, "since this obviously was not on the original lamps." You have informed us that the lamps "will be made to today's photometric standards" and "subjected to all the tests currently required of the round headlights." Finally, "they will be distributed on a limited basis through antique parts dealers."

I am sorry, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment from any requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our temporary exemption authority under l5 U.S.C. 1410 extends only to motor vehicles. Further, we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of either vehicles or equipment from their statutory obligation to certify through use of the DOT symbol that their products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the motor vehicle lamps which you have identified, and for which you ask an exemption are designated Type C and Type D sealed beam headlamps. As such, they must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c, December l978, which are incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08. They are considered replacement equipment, and must conform to all requirements of Standard No. 108, including marking and certification.

Standard No. l08 covers both original and replacement vehicle equipment. Depending on the vehicle category, it became effective for original equipment on January 1, l968, and January 1, l969. On January 1, l972, it became effective for equipment intended to replace original equipment on all motor vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, l972. Therefore, it might appear that the standard would not apply in any event to replacement equipment for l950's vehicles. However, the headlamps you describe are designed to conform to all contemporary requirements, except marking and certification. Even though intended for use on l950's vehicles, these circular headlamps are interchangeable with circular headlamps installed on any vehicle manufactured after the effective dates of Standard No. l08. Therefore, they must be designed to conform with Standard No. l08, and marked and certified accordingly.

The intended markings "l" and "2" would signify mistakenly that the headlamps were designed to conform to SAE Standard J579a, October l965 (which also did not require the DOT symbol on the lens). Until June l989, SAE J579a was incorporated in Standard No. l08 as a permissible option to SAE J579c, but the agency deleted it as the lamps appeared to be out of production. However, even had J579a been retained, we could not have allowed the lenses of headlamps manufactured to J579c to be marked according to J579a.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:4/8/90

ID: nht90-2.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1990

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Ref: W-007-F

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-21-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Satoshi Nishibori (A37; CSA 501(9))

TEXT:

Enclosed for your consideration is a copy of a letter that we have sent to EPA regarding the regarding the procedure specified in its regulations for calculating light truck CAFEs. As you will note, in that letter we request clarification of how EPA's c alculation regulations should be interpreted in light of NHTSA's vehicle classification regulations, with regard to calculating light truck CAFEs. We would appreciate receiving any comments that you may have regarding this matter and, in particular, on our understanding of NHTSA's policy regarding the treatment of imported light trucks.

We also would like to confirm our understanding of the scope of the "captive import" definition in 49 CFR 533.4 (b)(2). As we interpret that definition it applies only to light trucks that are imported by a manufacturer whose "principal place of busines s is in the United States." Our question relates to how this definition would apply to Nissan, given its corporate organization.

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (NML), the parent corporation, is based in Japan. Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A. (NMC) is a wholly-owned, U.S. corporate subsidiary of NML that imports and distributes vehicles that are produced by NML. Nissan Motor Manufactur ing Corp. U.S.A. (NMM) is another corporate subsidiary and is owned jointly by NML and NMC. NMM is responsible for operating Nissan's facility in Smyrna, Tennessee, where certain passenger automobile and light truck models are produced. It is our under standing that this type of corporate structure is typical for most (if not all) foreign manufacturers that produce vehicles in the U.S.

In our opinion, neither light trucks that are imported by NMC nor those that are produced at the NMM facility shoud be considered to be "captive imports," even though their domestic content levels are currently below 75 percent. It is our understanding that, at the time that NHTSA developed the "captive import" definition, it was aware of concerns that fuel economy domestic content requirements for passenger automobiles operated in a perverse manner for foreign manufacturers, by discouraging them from increasing domestic content levels. These concerns led NHTSA in 1979 to seek legislation to exclude foreign manufacturers from the "separate fleet" requirement. If the "captive import" definition were interpreted to treat Nissan as having its principal place of business in the United States, then the perverse impact of the separate fleet requirement would remain for Nissan and any foreign manufacturer that set up U.S. subsidiaries to import or produce light trucks.

Moreover, vehicles that are imported through NMC would not be considered to be "captive imports" as that phrase is normally used. The phrase is usually applied to vehicles that are imported by domestic manufacturers but which are produced by foreign man ufacturers in which the domestic company has an ownership interest. In contrast to this, NMC has no ownership interest in NML. Vehicles that are produced at the NMM facility are not imported, even though their domestic content is currently less than 75 percent, and they therefore cannot be considered to be captive imports.

NML's name appears on the certification labels for all Nissan trucks, as the manufacturer of the vehicles. NML's principal place of business is in Japan.

NHTSA should consider the Nissan organization in its entirety to have its principal place of business outside the U.S., consistent with the above- mentioned considerations. This approach would also be consistent with section 503 (c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, under which the activities of closely related corporations are combined for fuel economy calculation purposes.

Please confirm whether our interpretation regarding this matter is correct. If you have any questions on this letter, please contact Mr. Noboru Fujii of my staff, at (202) 466-5284.

ID: 2067y

Mr. Douglas Shoner
S.E.M. Co.
12244 Truro Avenue
Hawthorne, CA 90250

Dear Mr. Shoner:

This responds to your letter asking about NHTSA's regulation of foam-filled tires. Specifically, you asked what criteria must be satisfied in order for a foam-filled tire to be approved by this Department, and whether any foam-filled tires have satisfied these criteria. As explained below, NHTSA does not "approve" any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the manufacturer itself must certify that the vehicle or item of equipment complies with any and all applicable safety standards.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of equipment unless the vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standard.

A manufacturer is not required to get "approval" or "recognition" from this agency before selling its motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. In fact, NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards.

I note that, following a telephone conversation with you, Marvin Shaw of my staff sent you a copy of our September 2, 1986 letter to Mr. Andrew Kroll explaining how NHTSA's regulations apply to foam-filled tires. That letter remains an accurate expression of this agency's regulation of foam-filled tires. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l09 d:l0/5/89

ID: nht75-3.43

DATE: 10/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 8, 1975, question whether trucks that carry specialized equipment (such as emergency medical equipment, fire fighting apparatus, or mobile power generator equipment), would qualify for exclusion from Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if they are geared down or governed so that their speeds attainable in two miles are not more than 45 mph. You state that each vehicle's empty weight is more than 95 percent of its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

The section of Standard No. 121 that lists the vehicles to which the standard applies reads as follows:

S3. Applicability. * * * In addition, the standard does not apply to any trailer whose unloaded vehicle weight is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR, or any vehicle that meets any one of criteria (a) through (d) as follows:

(d) (1) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 45 mph; and

(2) An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR; and

(3) No passenger-carrying capacity.

From your description, it would appear that these vehicles would qualify for exclusion under category (d) of Section S3. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration assumes that your description of emergency medical vehicles does not include an ambulance equipped with air brakes.

Sincerely,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

September 8, 1975

Richard Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The recent amendment to FMVSS 121 relieving vehicles with an empty weight greater than 95% of the GVWR, no passenger or cargo carrying capacity and incapable of speeds in excess of 45 mph, from standard compliance has caused a number of questions from the truck body industry.

The questions center around a number of special duty vehicles designed and built to transport their self contained equipment rather than cargo. Examples of these vehicles would include: 1. Emergency communication vehicles

2. Emergency medical vehicles

3. Emergency electrical supply vehicles

4. Fire apparatus

Each of these vehicle types is generally completed on a commercial truck chassis with a piece or pieces of permanent equipment and its associated enclosures, i.e. large output generator sets, aerial ladder or elevating platform, mobile medical equipment. The chassis portion serves only as a means for transporting these pieces of equipment to the job site.

Where these vehicles are not designed or equipped to carry passengers or cargo, and their empty weight is always above 95% of the GVWR, are we correct in assuming that if the subject vehicles are physically restricted (governed, geared etc.) to speeds less than 45 mph then FMVSS 121 does not apply.

Byran A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: 07-003932as

ID: 2840yy

Mr. Samuel Yk Lau
Kenwo Industries Ltd.
Unit 20, 10/F, Block A,
Hi-Tech Ind. Center,
5 Pak Tin Par Street, Tsuen Wan
Hong Kong

Dear Mr. Lau:

This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1991, asking the agency for an opinion with respect to an "additional brake lamp" that you manufacture and intend to export to the United States. You ask "if there are any regulations, standards, or approval for this kind of product", and, further, "does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, has required the additional stop lamp on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l985. The Standard specifies performance and minimum lens area requirements for the lamp, and these requirements must be met by any lamp that is used as original equipment on passenger cars, and by any lamp that is intended to replace a lamp orignally installed on a car manufactured on and after September 1, l985. If the lamp is intended as replacement equipment, its manufacturer must provide certification to the distributor or dealer of the lamp that the lamp meets Standard No. l08. For lighting equipment this certification may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product, or a written statement on the packaging that the lamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or such other written certification as the lamp manufacturer may choose (e.g., an invoice). In addition, the lamp manufacturer must file an Identification Statement with the agency, and a foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States upon which the agency may serve legal process should that be required. However, there is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain approval from the agency before exporting its certified product to the United States and selling it here.

However, Standard No. l08 does not apply to an additional stop lamp that is intended for use in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, and there is no requirement that it be certified as meeting Standard No. l08. Under this circumstance, we advise that the packaging for any such lamp should clearly state that it is not intended to replace an original equipment center lamp so that legal questions regarding its conformity with Federal requirements do not arise. Even though the lamp is not subject to Standard No. l08, its foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

An additional stop lamp for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, is also subject to the laws of the individual States in which the lamp is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of MOtor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, USA.

We enclose a copy of Standard No. l08 and of the SAE standard on supplementary stop lamps that is incorporated by reference. We are also enclosing copies of the Manufacturer Identification and Designation of Agent regulations, and of other materials that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance provides in response to inquiries of this nature. Questions on these materials should be addressed to that Office.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:556#551#l08 d:2/22/9l

ID: nht87-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 7, 1987

FROM: EAST, MORRIS -- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR-LOUISIANA BUREAU OF SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MARCH 16, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO EAST

TEXT: This request for an opinion concerns the interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to school buses.

One of our local school systems has requested an opinion with respect to the changing of a school bus body from one chassis frame to another chassis frame. As we understand it, they intent to remove the bus body from an existing chassis and and place tha t body onto a new chassis. The work would be performed by the local school system's school bus maintenance shop. The shop has the facilities to perform most bus body repairs. We fully understand that Congress has placed the responsibility for overseei ng the manufacture of school buses with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Therefore, we are asking for an opinion from your office concerning this matter. Specifically we need an answer to the following questions:

1. Is is permissible under the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 for a local school board to remove the body from one school bus chassis and place that body on another school bu s chassis? Would this action violate bus body integrity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (specifically FMVSS 208, 220 and 221)?

2. If permitted, can the work described in 1. above be performed in the school board's maintenance shop? Can it be contracted to an automobile dealer capable of performing such work? Can the work be contracted to other motor vehicle repair shops su ch as bus body dealers or private motor vehicle repair shops?

3. If the changeover is allowed, must the new unit (new chassis with used body) be re-certified to meet FMVSS requirements? If it must be re-certified, who may provide the inspection and re-certification?

Your timely answer to the above questions will assist us in expediting our response to the local school board and will be greatly appreciated.