ID: usedchas

Dennis T. Snyder, Esquire
7600 Red Road
Suite 200
South Miami, FL 33143

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1995, asking whether a client of yours is a "final stage manufacturer" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and implementing regulations on manufacturer identification and vehicle certification found in 49 CFR Parts 566, 567, and 568. You have described this client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from used chassis-cabs.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. ' 30102(a)(5) (formerly section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) as "a person- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . " (emphasis added). Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the assembly of completed motor vehicles, it would appear to meet this definition. Because the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 apply to "all manufacturers of motor vehicles," as stated in section 566.3 of that Part, your client would be required to submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the identifying information specified in 49 CFR 566.5.

The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." The term "completed vehicle" is in turn defined in section 568.3 as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function . . . ." Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from chassis-cabs, it would qualify as a final stage manufacturer, as that term is defined in section 568.3.

Requirements for final stage manufacturers are specified at 49 CFR 568.6. This section provides that a final stage manufacturer shall complete each vehicle "in such a manner that it conforms to the [Federal motor vehicle safety] standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates," and shall affix a label to the vehicle attesting to that conformance in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5, which specifies certification requirements for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. These certification requirements are in implementation of 49 U.S.C. ' 30115, which requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle to certify to the dealer or distributor at delivery that the vehicle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has long taken the position, however, that a vehicle is used if it is assembled by adding a new body to the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads. As a consequence, your client would not be required to certify the vehicles that it manufactures in this fashion.

Your client would nevertheless be subject to 49 U.S.C. ' 30122(b), which provides that "[a] manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." NHTSA has interpreted this provision as requiring any of the specified entities that remove an old body from a vehicle in order to install a new one to ensure that the newly completed vehicle meets the standards that the vehicle was originally required to meet. For example, a vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1995 mounted on a used 1989 chassis must meet all standards that applied to 1989 vehicles. Your client would be liable for any violation of this requirement on vehicles that it manufactures, regardless of whether it removed the body from the old vehicle itself, or directed another entity to do so.

Additionally, as a vehicle manufacturer, your client would be required under 49 U.S.C. ' 30118 to furnish owners with notification of, and a remedy for, any safety-related defect or any noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is found to exist in a vehicle that it assembles.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366- 5238.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:566#VSA d:6/13/95

ID: vanhool.2

Mr. Wilfried Geens
Compliance and Regulations
Van Hool N.V.
Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58
B-2500 Lier Koningshooikt
Belgium

Dear Mr. Geens:

This responds to your letter of July 23, 2004, in which you sought clarification as to whether certain identified headlamp assembly designs for one of your motor coach models would comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your letter went on to describe four potential headlamp assembly designs containing three horizontally-aligned lamps on each side of the vehicle, which reflect "European styling" that you wish to introduce to the U.S. market. To simplify the discussion, each of these proposed designs is described below, followed by our response.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our laws to your products based upon the facts set forth in your letter.

Before turning to your specific questions, I would like to clarify generally our requirements for headlighting systems of the type described in your letter. Your letter described your existing European headlamp assembly containing three projector lamps on each side, two of which provide an upper beam. These projector lamps are all at the same height, with a center lower beam projector flanked by two upper beam projectors.

An enclosure to your letter depicting one of the headlamp assemblies used in this system leads us to believe that your system uses replaceable light sources. You stated that this design is in compliance with the relevant UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Directive (ECE R48.02).

Vehicles offered for sale in the U.S. must meet all applicable requirements of NHTSAs FMVSSs, and FMVSS No. 108 prohibits a vehicle with a replaceable bulb headlamp system from having more than two upper beams and two lower beams. Specifically, paragraph S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems, subparagraph (a) provides, "The system shall provide only two lower beams and two upper beams and shall incorporate not more than two replaceable light sources in each headlamp."  Based upon your questions, it is apparent that you recognize this limitation and seek to identify lamp arrangements that meet the requirements of the standard. For the sake of analysis, we assume that your motor coaches are 80 inches or more in overall width and that the described upper and lower beams comply with the photometric requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

PROPOSAL 1

"Keep the European look with the 3 lamps at each side, permanently disconnecting the electrical supply of the outer upper beams (See enclosure, position 4)."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1 of the standard discusses the location of required equipment, and that provision states that for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses 80 inches or more in overall width, such equipment must be located as specified in Table II of the standard. In turn, Table II provides related to buses that " each headlamp providing the lower beam [shall be located], at the same height, 1 on each side of the vertical centerline, as far apart as practicable."

Based upon your diagram showing a "disconnected" upper beam headlamp at the outboard-most position, we believe that it would clearly be practicable to locate the lower beam in that position. As a result the lower beams would not be located as far apart as practicable, so it appears that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108.

PROPOSAL 2

"Replace the outer upper beams (Position 4) by an amber reflex reflector, in addition to the reflex reflectors allready [sic] fitted on the front bumper."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. In this case, the amber reflex reflector would be an item of supplemental lighting equipment not required under the standard. Consequently, its incorporation into the headlamp assembly, as described, again would impermissibly prevent the lower beams from being located as far apart as practicable. (See discussion in response to Proposal 1 immediately above.)

PROPOSAL 3

"Replace the outer upper beams (Position 4) by turn signal lamps, in addition to the turn signal lamps at the top of the front lighting clusters (Position 3)."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. Table II provides that turn signal lamps in buses shall be located as follows: "At or near the front 1 amber on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable. On the rear 1 red or amber on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable." As noted above, Table II also requires lower beam headlamps (again, items of required equipment) to be as far apart as practicable.

However, for required lamps that are required to be as far apart as practicable, we have not established a hierarchy regarding which of those items should take precedence in terms of placement location. If the only turn signal lamp on the front of the vehicle were located at the outboard-most position as a substitute for that upper beam headlamp (position 4 of your diagram), such configuration might be permissible.

Nevertheless, Proposal 3 clearly demonstrates that it is practicable to include a turn signal at position 3 (already present directly above the outboard-most headlamp) and that it is practicable to include a headlamp at position 4 (currently a high beam). Thus, your current design demonstrates that it would be practicable to move the lower beam headlamp to the most outboard position (position 4). Such location would meet the standards requirement for the lower beam headlamps to be as far apart as practicable. As a result, it appears that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108.

PROPOSAL 4

"Replace the outer upper beams by any other device in compliance with FMVSS No. 108, S5.5.11 (e.g. daytime running lamps) without changing the European look."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. In this case, the daytime running lights would be an item of supplemental lighting equipment not required under the standard. Consequently, their incorporation into the headlamp assemblies, as described, would again prevent the lower beams from being located as far apart as practicable. (See discussion in response to Proposal 1 above.)

If you have any questions, you may contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.9/7/04

ID: vastatepat.ztv

Col. W. Gerald Massengill
Superintendent
Department of State Police
Commonwealth of Virginia
P.O. Box 27472
Richmond, VA 23261-7472





Dear Col. Massengill:

This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding undercover or "hide-a-way" lights on Virginia state police patrol vehicles. You would like to equip unmarked patrol cars with a certain lighting system for use on Interstate highways within the Commonwealth if the lights comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked two specific questions.

For the reasons discussed below, our answer is that you may equip your vehicles with this system without violating Federal law.

You write that "Ford Motor Company engaged a consulting firm, Crown North America, to install the Whelan lights in the taillight, four side marker lights, and possibly the parking lights of a new Crown Victoria for evaluation." The "Whelan lights" are apparently strobe lights. These appear to be part of a "Police Prep and Visibility Package" which forms the basis of a "Police Interceptor Police Package" marketed by Ford Motor Company. Under Ford's "Visibility Package," a strobe power supply is installed in the trunk of a vehicle "capable of controlling all strobe light heads."

You have asked:

"First, is whether the modification of the tail and marker lights to allow insertion of the strobe unit impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by FMVSS 108, renders the equipment non-compliant or compromises the integrity of the original lighting devices?"

With respect to new vehicles, Standard No. 108 requires parking lamps, side marker lamps, and optional lighting to be steady burning in use (S5.5.10(d)). When parking lamps and side marker lamps are flashed by the strobe device, a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 would occur. Standard No. 108 also prohibits the installation of "other motor vehicle equipment . . . that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard" (S5.1.3). Strobe lights are "other motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of this phrase. We read the term "installation" to include use of the other vehicle equipment. Impairment of parking and side marker lamps will result if they are activated for a purpose other than to serve as parking and side marker lamps.

Traditionally, we defer to the judgment of States as to the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on its vehicles. In this instance, the strobe lights will be used on unmarked Ford Crown Victoria passenger cars, virtually identical to Ford Crown Victoria passenger cars available to the general public. We want to allow States to install and use strobe lights on unmarked vehicles yet we do not think it in the interest of safety to allow the general public to do the same on virtually identical vehicles.

We would distinguish police and private vehicles in this manner. The drivers that operate police vehicles will be instructed to use the strobe equipment only when it is required to alert a motorist to pull to the side of the road and thereafter to alert other motorists of the presence of stopped vehicles and law enforcement personnel at the side of the road. In all other circumstances, the parking lamps and side marker lamps will operate as they normally do. Thus, the noncompliance and impairment are temporary in nature and are necessary for the missions of the State police. We believe, then, that the strobe equipment is permissible because of the circumstances which are unique to law enforcement. This would not be the case for vehicles that are not specified by state or local laws to be emergency vehicles that may be required to have special, additional lighting.

"Second, once installed, if the strobes are removed and the hole plugged prior to auctioning the vehicle, would these modifications render the light noncompliant with FMVSS 108?"

We assume that you mean the tail and marker lamps to which you referred in your first question. If the strobes are removed from the tail and side marker lamps, and those lamps continue to perform as they originally did when the vehicle was certified by Ford Motor Company, then the removal of the strobes would not of themselves appear to render the light noncompliant with Standard No. 108. Care should be taken in plugging the holes to minimize the chance of environmental degradation (e.g., dust, moisture) of lighting performance.

Under Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122), the State, as the owner of a vehicle, may itself modify the vehicle after its purchase even if this modification results in a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Further, there is no Federal requirement that the owner return the vehicle to compliance before selling it. However, we ask that the State Patrol ensure that lamps on vehicles it sells at auctions are properly wired and have the proper bulbs if these were affected by the installation or removal of the lamps used in undercover lighting schemes.

If you have further questions you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.7/3/01

ID: VICK

Mr. Greg Vickers
Truck Mixer Manufacturers Bureau
900 Spring Street
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Dear Mr. Vickers:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You were particularly interested in the antilock braking system requirements which become effective on March 1, 1998.

You explain that Truck Mixer Manufacturers Bureau (TMMB) member companies are final stage manufacturers. They usually purchase new chassis and "finish" them by mounting bodies, i.e., concrete mixers.  You ask:

The question arises when you consider that TMMB members will potentially receive non-ABS-equipped chassis prior to March 1, 1998 and will subsequently complete manufacture of the vehicle after March 1. Please confirm that our members' trucks will be in compliance in such a case.

Our standards apply to any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of the standard. However, special provisions apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. If your members purchase "incomplete vehicles," the vehicles may be completed to the standards in effect on the date of the manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates.⁽¹⁾ In the example you provide, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle would be prior to the effective date of the ABS requirements. Thus, the use of ABS would be optional for the final stage manufacturers.

You also ask about "another ABS related matter." You state:

Final stage manufacture of truck mixers frequently entails adding a liftable boost-a-load axle. Non-ABS brakes for the wheels on the added axle are tied into the air system of the chassis. The brake assemblies of the truck chassis are otherwise unaltered by the installer of the mixer body. TMMB would like verification that such addition of a liftable axle does not decertify the braking system of the chassis, provided the provisions for an additional certification label affixed to the completed vehicles are met.

Given that you are concerned whether the addition of a liftable axle would "decertify" the braking system of the chassis, we assume that you are asking about chassis-cabs.⁽²⁾ As discussed below, the answer would depend on the type and nature of the certification statement made by the chassis-cab manufacturer. I note, however, that this agency cannot provide verification that the addition of a liftable axle would not affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121.

Under 49 CFR Part 567.5(a), the chassis-cab manufacturer is required to make a certification statement, with respect to each Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in one of three categories:

(1) The vehicle conforms to the standard,

(2) The vehicle will conform to the standard if it is completed in accordance with the instructions contained in the incomplete vehicle document (this statement is made with respect to standards conformity to which is substantially affected by the design of the chassis-cab and the manner in which the vehicle is completed), or

(3) Conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the chassis-cab.

The final stage manufacturer's certification responsibilities (49 CFR 567.5(c)) for a particular vehicle are dependent on the type and nature of the certification statements made by the chassis-cab manufacturer, and on the specific manufacturing operations performed by the final stage manufacturer. In the case of Standard No. 121, we assume the chassis-cab manufacturer would make a certification statement in the second category set forth above, i.e., a conditional statement. The final stage manufacturer could rely on this conditional statement only if it completed the vehicle in accordance with the chassis-cab manufacturer's instructions. See 49 CFR Part 567.5(c). If the final stage manufacturer did not complete the vehicle in accordance with those instructions, it would be responsible for ensuring compliance of the vehicle to Standard No. 121, and certifying such compliance. I also note that the addition of a liftable axle could affect compliance of a vehicle with other safety standards, including Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:568
d.10/7/97

1. See 49 CFR 567 and 568. Note that 568.6 also specifies that this provision shall, however, be superseded by any conflicting provisions of a standard that applies by its terms to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. The ABS requirements include no such provision.

2. While incomplete vehicle manufacturers are required under 49 CFR Part 568 to provide information with all their vehicles concerning conformity to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, only chassis-cabs are required to be certified. See 49 CFR Part 567.

ID: VINs

Mr. Dale Kardos
Dale Kardos & Associates
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 715
Washington, DC 20036-4104





Dear Mr. Kardos:

This responds to your letter requesting information on Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirements as they pertain to a forthcoming Porsche sport utility vehicle (SUV). You state that the Porsche SUV will be produced in two stages and in two different Porsche plants. The first stage will occur at the Porsche plant in Bratislava, Slovakia, where the body structure will be produced, and the front windshield and VIN will be installed. This basic structure then will be transported to the Porsche plant in Leipzig, Germany, where it will be combined with the rest of the vehicle (i.e., engine, transmission, wheels, tires, brakes, etc.).

You ask whether it is acceptable to use the letter "L" as the eleventh character of the VIN, which would indicate the plant of manufacture as the Leipzig plant rather than the Bratislava plant. Under the circumstances described above, this is acceptable.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) VIN requirements are contained in 49 CFR Part 565. Each VIN must be made up of seventeen characters consisting of Arabic numbers and Roman letters. Under 565.6(d)(2), the eleventh character must represent the "plant of manufacture," which is defined as the plant where the manufacturer affixes the VIN. Since the VINs of the Porsche SUVs will be affixed at the Bratislava plant, it would appear that the eleventh character in the Porsche SUV VINs should indicate the Bratislava plant, not the Leipzig plant.

However, the requirements of Part 565 do not apply until the structure at a minimum meets the definition of an "incomplete vehicle." Section 565.4(a) requires a vehicle manufactured in more than one stage to have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined as:

an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Since the Porsche SUV unit which will be produced at the plant in Bratislava will consist only of the body structure, front windshield, and VIN, it does not meet the definition of an "incomplete vehicle." Thus, the requirements of Part 565 do not apply to the Porsche SUV until the unit produced at the Bratislava plant is married with the power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system. Since this will take place at the Leipzig plant, NHTSA considers the Leipzig plant to be the plant of manufacture for purposes of 49 CFR Part 565. Consequently, Porsche should use the letter "L" as the eleventh character in Porsche SUV VINs to indicate the Leipzig plant as the plant of manufacture.

I hope this answers your question. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565
d.2/20/01

ID: visor21836

Mr. Richard Larson
55 South Smith Street
Palatine, IL 60067-2636



Dear Mr. Larson:




This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a sun visor attachment. As you state, the attachment "is roughly 2 inches in diameter and can be attached to the visor wherever the driver prefers" and "is translucent and can be tinted as well." You do not mention, however, the purpose of the attachment, or provide a more thorough description of the product. Further, you ask for information regarding 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30122, the "make inoperative" provision of our statute (formally codified at 15 U.S.C. 108(a)(2)(A).) ⁽¹⁾

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle 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, 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 new vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

As far as we can tell from your letter, your product appears to be an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment," in relevant part, as any system, part, or component "sold ... as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

a.   A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b.   It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Your sun visor attachment is an accessory because it was presumably designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. (We make this assumption because you designed the product to attach to a vehicle's sun visor, "wherever the driver prefers.") Further, the attachment is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

There is currently no FMVSS that is directly applicable to a sun visor attachment sold directly to a consumer. The FMVSSs that regulate aspects of sun visors, FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, apply only to new, completed motor vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale) and not to items of aftermarket equipment, such as a sun visor attachment. However, a manufacturer of aftermarket equipment, whether you or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 (copy enclosed) which set forth the notification and remedy (recall) requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer of the product determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. The installation of the sun visor attachment by a commercial entity is also subject to certain restrictions, as discussed below.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (the section of which you inquire in your letter), provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the sun visor attachment could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the compliance of a vehicle with any FMVSS, including but not limited to those identified above.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

I note that the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You should contact that agency at (202) 366-4012 for information about any requirements that may apply to your product.

In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions and may prohibit sun visor attachments. Therefore, in response to your question regarding who you should contact regarding the standards of each state, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used. In further response to your question, we regret that we do not have the internet addresses for each state.

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:201#302
d..8/30/00

---

1. Our statute, formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, was recodified in 1994 without substantive change. It is now codified at Title 49 of the U.S. Code in Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety.)

ID: volvo.crs

Mr. William Shapiro
Director, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter of March 11, 1998, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on vehicles within a new car line, currently designated as "P23," that Volvo plans to introduce into North America beginning in model year 1999. Although you requested confidential treatment of the information contained in the March 11, 1998 letter and in its enclosure, you subsequently withdrew that request. Accordingly, this letter makes reference to certain of that information.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(c) prescribe specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provide that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for the agency's approval. As identified in your letter, and in an accompanying drawing, the alternate location for which you have requested approval is on the vehicle's B-pillar, facing the door opening of the rear door on the driver's side. In a subsequent letter, dated March 23, 1998, you state that it is not possible for the certification label to be placed in any of the locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4(c) owing to the size of the label, the corresponding surface geometry of each of those locations, and adhesion difficulties owing to the surface properties at some of those locations.

In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for vehicles in the P23 new car line would meet this objective. NHTSA therefore approves your request.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:567
d.4/29/98

ID: volvov70.crs

Mr. William Shapiro
Director, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter of January 6, 2000, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on vehicles within a new, early 2001 model year passenger car line, to be designated as the "Volvo V70," that Volvo plans to begin offering for sale on or about March 15, 2000.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(c) prescribe specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provide that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for the agency's approval. As identified in your letter, and in an accompanying drawing, the alternate location for which you have requested approval is on the vehicle's B-pillar, facing the door opening of the rear door on the driver's side. You note that by letter dated April 29, 1998, NHTSA approved this same location for the placement of the certification label on vehicles within the Volvo S80 line. You state that the new Volvo V70 shares with the S80 many safety features that involve structural design, and has the same basic vehicle platform as the S80.

Your letter states that it is not possible for the certification label to be placed in any of the locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4(c) owing to the size of the label, the corresponding surface geometry of each of those locations, and adhesion difficulties owing to the surface properties at some of those locations. You state that the alternate location that Volvo has proposed will meet the requirements of 49 CFR 567.4(c) because it is in "the same general area" as the locations specified in that section, and because a label in the proposed location will be "easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except an outer door."

In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for vehicles in the new V70 passenger car line would meet this objective. NHTSA therefore approves your request.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.2/22/2000

ID: vondale.ztv

Mr. James P. Vondale
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental & Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company, Fairlane Plaza South
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126-2738

Dear Mr. Vondale:

This is in response to your letter of April 22, 2003, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue an interpretation that the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations (Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579) "were not intended to capture data generated by two non-typical data sources. These data sources are from subsidiaries of Ford Motor Company that are a rental car company (Hertz), and "a company that administers external, supplemental third party extended warranty programs that can be purchased for both Ford and competitive vehicles (Automobile Protection Corporation or APCO).

For purposes of the EWR regulations, we have defined "manufacturer to specify that "This term includes any . . . subsidiary . . . . See Section 579.4(b). Therefore, the question is whether it is appropriate to require Ford to provide data that these subsidiaries may generate that would be reportable under the EWR regulations if it were generated by a vehicle producer itself.

You pointed out that Hertz is "an authorized vehicle service center, and that "warranty repair information on Ford vehicles operated by Hertz is contained in our warranty information system and will be included in the EWR warranty count information, as well as "any consumer complaints that were directed to Ford from renters of Hertz Ford products. We understand, then, that Ford will include in its EWR reports relating to the number of warranty claims and consumer complaints such claims and complaints as are reported to it by Hertz.

You asserted that other data Hertz collects should not have to be reported. We do not expect Ford to report on non-Ford vehicles that Hertz rents or leases. As to Ford vehicles that Hertz rents or leases, while it is possible that some valuable EWR information might be in the possession of Hertz, inclusion of that data would skew the Ford reports, since no other vehicle manufacturer would have a similar data source. Moreover, we expect that ordinarily claims involving death or injury, based on alleged problems with Ford vehicles, received by Hertz would also be asserted against and received by Ford. On the other hand, we would expect that if Hertz were required to report all claims involving death or injury, we would receive information on numerous claims based on Hertzs ownership of the vehicle, as opposed to a potential problem with the Ford vehicle. Similar considerations apply to property damage claims. Therefore, we will not require reporting of claims for death, injury or property damage, or consumer complaints, received only by Hertz (on Ford vehicles or other vehicles).

With respect to field reports, you asserted that you did not believe that "non-warranty data from Hertz would be valuable as field reports as "Hertz data does not come directly from employees of a vehicle manufacturing company. However, a field report need not be a communication that originates with an employee of a manufacturer. The term "field report also includes a communication from "an authorized service facility, or an entity known to the manufacturer as owning or operating a fleet to a manufacturer. See the revised definition of "field report at 68 FR 18142. A "fleet is defined as "more than ten motor vehicles of the same make, model, and model year. See 49 CFR 579.4(b). Thus, a communication from Hertz to Ford relating to failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem in a vehicle manufactured by Ford, would be reportable by Ford. (We note, parenthetically, that a similar communication from Hertz to a vehicle manufacturer other than Ford would be reportable as a "field report by that manufacturer assuming that Hertz is an authorized service facility of that manufacturer, or owns and operates a fleet of vehicles produced by that manufacturer). However, we agree that a report by a Hertz employee to Hertz that was not forwarded to Ford in its capacity as a vehicle manufacturer would not have to be reported to NHTSA by Ford in its EWR submissions.

With respect to APCO, you related that this "subsidiary administers a third party supplemental extended warranty program, and that "the warranties are available to customers directly through [Ford] dealers [and] are also available through other, non-Ford dealers.

You also advised that Ford has an "internal ESP extended warranty system, which is contained in our warranty information system [and] will be included in the TREAD EWR warranty count information . In the preamble to the final rule (67 FR 45822, 45851), we observed that "in our view, the proposed definition [of warranty] already excludes third-party insurance-type contracts. However, we also noted that the proposed (and adopted) definition of warranty included "any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale or lease of a motor vehicle . . . by a manufacturer to a buyer or lessee . . . . Thus, claims under an APCO extended warranty that was sold by a Ford dealer in connection with the sale of a motor vehicle would be reportable by Ford under the EWR regulations. However, if the APCO extended warranty was purchased from a Ford dealer other than in connection with the sale of lease of the vehicle, or if the APCO extended warranty was purchased from other than a Ford dealer, each of these transactions would not be included in the definition of "warranty, and a claim filed under these APCO extended warranties would not have to be reported by Ford, even if the APCO contract covered a Ford-manufactured vehicle.

We recognize that this may create a reporting obligation, especially if APCO does not currently segregate its information in the manner we have described. However, the approach suggested in your letter would encourage Ford, and other vehicle manufacturers, to sell all extended warranties through subsidiaries to avoid reporting requirements, and would lead to a loss of potentially valuable EWR data.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:579
d.5/14/03

ID: Wagar.1

Mr. Terry W. Wagar
Vehicle Safety Technical Analyst III
NYS Department of Motor Vehicles
6 Empire State Plaza, Room 111
Albany, NY 12228

Dear Mr. Wagar:

This responds to your e-mail of June 2, 2003, asking whether a proposed New York State bill (A5226) would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Your correspondence attached a version of the bill and expressed concern regarding an amendment to existing State law that would require motor vehicles sold in New York (except motorcycles) to be equipped with a blind spot mirror.

I would note that except for a change in dates, it is our understanding that the New York Assembly sought to pass a nearly identical provision in 1996 (A9376, March 5, 1996). In the enclosed interpretation letter to Mr. R. Karbowski, we stated that the proposed State requirement would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). Because the State legislative provision and the applicable Federal laws have remained essentially unchanged in relation to this matter, NYS bill A5226 would be similarly preempted for the reasons set forth in our earlier interpretation letter.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:111
d.6/30/03