ID: ntea2.ztv

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 2003, asking 20 questions relating to the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations issued by this agency (Subpart C, 49 CFR Part 579). By letter dated April 11, 2003, we previously answered several other questions you asked about these regulations. Your questions, and our responses, are as follows:

"1) For manufacturers of fewer than 500 vehicles per year, is NHTSA requiring a report for each quarter when there are no fatalities?"

No.

"A) If not, are low volume and equipment manufacturers still required to submit a request for an m [User] ID and password when they have no fatalities to report?"

No.

"B) Is it true that low volume and equipment manufacturers can submit reports for fatalities in writing to NHTSA?"

No. "Low volume" and equipment manufacturers eligible to report under Section 579.27 must submit reports of claims and notices involving deaths in one of the two ways specified under Section 579.29(a)(2), either by submitting them to the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) early warning repository through the use of templates available through NHTSAs internet home page, or by filling out an interactive form on ODIs early warning website.

"2) Is there another method for requesting and receiving a [User] ID and password, and also the designation of manufacturer's contacts, besides writing to the Director or [sic] ODI, as required under Part 579.29?"

No.

"A) If [a request for] an ID and password is submitted in writing within the required period, and it is not received prior to the due date for the reports, what should a manufacturer do?"

ODI will attempt to provide user IDs and passwords well before the due dates for reporting. If a manufacturer does not receive that information by the due date, it should notify ODI which will take appropriate action. We would then expect reports to be submitted within 10 working days after the manufacturer receives the User ID and password.

"B) Also, if a low volume or equipment manufacturer has no fatalities to report, are they still required to submit a request for an ID and password and the designation of the manufacturer's contacts?"

No.

"3) Part 579.29 - Manner of Reporting, indicates that the required reports must be submitted to NHTSA's early warning data repository identified on NHTSA's Internet home page (www.nhtsa.dot.gov). As of April 21, 2003, there does not appear to be any reference to the repository or to early warning reporting in general, including the Excel templates on the home page. When will the repository, Excel templates and any other information be listed on the home page?"

The NHTSA home page contains a link to "Early Warning Reporting (EWR) Requirements" under the list of "Popular Information."That link will take the viewer to templates and other information which are available now for downloading. Templates may be updated, as necessary. Manufacturers are encouraged to check the website periodically for any such updates.

"A) Also, Part 579.29 indicates that manufacturers of fewer than 500 vehicles per year and equipment manufacturers can either submit reports to the data repository "or by manually filling out an interactive form on NHTSA's early warning web site." Where is this located, and are there instructions/examples for using this interactive form? (See question 1 regarding low volume/equipment mfg.)"

There will be a link from the NHTSA website. We will also provide an information manual on how manufacturers are to report to ODI.

4) [Answered by the Final Rule published April 15, 2003, 68 FR 18136]

"5) For manufacturers that have production of 500 or more vehicles for the first time in the 2003 calendar year or after, but not in any prior year, what would be their reporting obligations?"

"A) If such a manufacturer reaches a production level of 500 for the very first time in the 4th quarter of a given calendar year, are they then responsible for submitting reports for the 4th quarter and each of the prior 3 quarters of that calendar year?"

In this situation, a manufacturer would submit reports under Section 579.27 for the first three calendar quarters, and, for the fourth quarter, reports under Sections 579.21-24, according to the type of vehicle manufactured.

"B) If so, would such a manufacturer also be required to submit a one-time historical report?"

The one-time historical report is due only on the date specified in Section 579.28(c), and would not be required from a manufacturer that begins to submit reports under sections 579.21-.24 at a subsequent date.

C) [Moot]

"D) How are the reporting obligations for the quarterly reporting and one-time historic report determined for manufacturers whose production fluctuates above and below 500 vehicles per year for the previous 2 or more years?"

The EWR regulations provide that if a manufacturers aggregate production of a vehicle type "during the calendar year of the reporting period or during each of the prior two calendar years is 500 or more," the manufacturer is not eligible to report under Section 579.27 for that type, and must provide quarterly reports and a one-time historical report in accordance with Section 579.28(c). See, e.g. the introductory text of Section 579.22.

"6) When acting as an intermediate stage manufacturer, how are vehicles that are modified treated? Are they counted for production?"

As we explained in our letter of April 11, 2003 to you, for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, only the manufacturer of the completed vehicle is required to report as a vehicle manufacturer. Incomplete vehicles, including vehicles produced by intermediate manufacturers, are deemed to be equipment, and information about them need not be reported under Sections 579.21-.24. However, we recognize that some light vehicle manufacturers may choose to include information about their incomplete chassis along with their other vehicles for which they report under Section 579.21. The final rules definition of "type" includes "incomplete vehicle" as a category of "light vehicle." Therefore, such a manufacturer would report production numbers and other data for incomplete vehicles that will be light vehicles when completed.

"A) Are intermediate stage manufacturers considered to be equipment manufacturers, since they are not completing the incomplete vehicle?"

See prior answer.

"7) Production Number reporting - do manufacturers of vehicles built in 2 or more stages count both the vehicles that they complete from incomplete chassis and the number of vehicles that they alter? The OEM of the completed vehicles that are altered, such as a pickup truck with the box removed and a new body added, would already have counted the completed pickup in their production numbers, so would the alterer need to count it as well after their manufacturing operations?"

Yes. A manufacturer must include in its production numbers any vehicle to which it attaches, or should attach, a certification under Part 567, either as its original manufacturer or as its alterer.

"A) Are used vehicles that are modified counted toward production, warranty claims, etc. since the company performing this is technically not a "manufacturer" at this point, but a repair facility? Ex. a used chassis that has a new body installed on it."

As a general rule, a used chassis with a new body installed is not considered a new vehicle, and no reporting is required under the EWR regulations. In addition, modifications of used vehicles, with two exceptions, are insufficient to create a new vehicle subject to NHSTA regulations that apply to new vehicles. Those two exceptions are based upon the extent of the modifications. See Sections 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, and 571.7(f), Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. These provisions may be relevant to the operations of some NTEA members.

"If so, what model year is used for reporting, the original model year of the vehicle or the year in which it was modified?"

If a truck or trailer is considered newly manufactured under Sections 571.7(e) or (f), the model year would be that of the year of the vehicles modification, and reporting would be required under the EWR regulations in the same manner as other new motor vehicles. If a truck or trailer is not considered newly manufactured under these sections, no reporting is required. This moots your remaining questions under "A."

"B) Along the same lines, under Part 571.7(e) and (f), since certain vehicles are excluded from Subpart B, does it make a difference whether a vehicle that is modified after the first retail sale is considered newly manufactured or not with regard to being counted toward production. For example, if it is not newly manufactured is it

accounted for, and if so how? If it is considered newly manufactured is it accounted for, and if so, how? If not, what about when a new VIN is issued? If so, for a vehicle with a new VIN, what model year would be used to designate it?"

See our answers to questions 7 and 7 A) above.

"C) Also under Part 571.7(c), since military vehicles are excluded from Subpart B, are vehicles and/or equipment produced and sold to the US Armed Forces counted toward production and included in reporting of warranty claims, consumer complaints, field reports, etc.?"

The exclusion of Section 571.7(c) is limited to compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and does not extend to other NHTSA regulations applicable to motor vehicles. We would expect manufacturers of vehicles that they would otherwise be required to certify, such as staff (passenger) cars and some trucks, to submit reports under the EWR regulations in the same manner as manufacturers of non-military motor vehicles certified by their manufacturers.

"D) Vehicles modified for mobility of the disabled are allowed to use the exemption from the make inoperative prohibition under which the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail is defined as the point at which the seller and the end user enter into a sales contract that identifies a specific vehicle to be delivered in the Final Rule of February 27, 2001. Are vehicles that are modified under this provision counted for production purposes?"

Part 595 only applies to modifications made after first sale. Therefore, they will be counted for EWR purposes by their original manufacturers, and not by the modifier.

"8) What are the model years of production volumes that need to be reported for the one-time historic and on-going quarterly reports? The July 10, 2002 (sic) indicates that production volumes from 1994 to the present must be reported for each year of the one-time report and then a moving window of the current model year plus the past 9 model years for the quarterly reports (i.e. is it provided for every year starting with 1994 and carries forward so there are always 9 years plus the current year shown on the quarterly reports?)."

For the quarterly reports, the reports must cover all vehicles "manufactured during the reporting period and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period." See, e.g., the introductory text of Section 579.22. For the one-time historic report, each of the twelve reports must cover claims and field reports applicable to vehicles back to model year 1994.

"A) Can you please give examples of what production information should be submitted for both the one-time historical report and the quarterly reports?"

The production information that is required for quarterly reports and the one-time historical report by manufacturers is described in the introductory text of Sections 579.21- 579.24, and subsection (a) of each of these sections. See the production template at NHTSAs EWR website for an example of the information that is to be submitted.

"B) Also, are the one-time historical reports to be produced utilizing the quarterly spreadsheet templates?"

Manufacturers should use the templates for the production numbers and the number of warranty claims and field reports for their one-time historical report.

"If so, what would be the file name strategy vs. the quarterly reports?"

ODI is developing a "naming convention" which will be covered in an early warning reporting manual that will be issued in the near future.

"9) Can the one-time historical report for warranty claims, warranty adjustments and field reports be submitted electronically?"

The one-time historical report should be filed electronically in the same manner as quarterly reports under Section 579.29(a).

"10) The Final Rule published on January 28, 2003 indicates that NHTSA would allow electronic submission of foreign defect reports under Part 579.11, so that they may be transferred by email or fax. Does this apply to other documents required under Part 579.11, specifically the annual list of substantially similar vehicles?"

Yes. Moreover, NHTSA is developing a template for these submissions.

"11) Clarification - are manufacturers responsible for reporting warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc. for equipment that was installed after the first retail sale by someone or themselves?"

We assume that the last phrase of this question meant to say "by someone other than themselves." Vehicle manufacturers need not report warranty claims, etc. under those circumstances. However, they would have to report a claim or notice about a death or injury regarding their product, even if they believe the claim arose out of the performance of an aftermarket addition.

"12) Are manufacturers responsible for reporting warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc. for altered vehicles? If they don't count toward the alterer's production count, it would seem then that they should be excluded from reporting in any of the other categories not involving deaths or injuries."

Alterers are responsible for reporting on the vehicles they alter. If an alterer has certified, or was required to certify, 500 or more vehicles per year within a specific vehicle category, it is required to submit production numbers, the number of warranty claims, consumer reports, etc.

"13) What are the rules for forwarding information that is received from other manufacturers in regards to external communications? Do engineering bulletins that are produced by another manufacturer and sent to more than one other manufacturer, dealer, customer, etc. and then redistributed by one of the recipients who also happens to be a manufacturer, have to be sent to NHTSA by the manufacturer recipient who re-distributes the bulletin/communication?"

Yes, they must do so under Section 579.5, even though the information may also be submitted by the original issuer of the document.

"14) Is there a hierarchy of reporting categories for incidents that fit more than one reporting category? E.g. how would an incident that starts as a consumer complaint that turns into a warranty claim be logged? Both as a consumer complaint and warranty claim or just one of them?"

The incident would be reported both as a consumer complaint and as a warranty claim.

"15) Make - Is it acceptable to use the chassis manufacturer's designation for the make and model?"

No. Our system will not accept submissions that attempt to specify multiple, unrelated manufacturers producing the same make, model, and model year vehicle. For EWR purposes, a final stage manufacturer can create a pseudo make by combining the final stage manufacturers name with the chassis make, such as Widget Ford, Widget Dodge, Widget Volvo, etc., used in conjunction with the appropriate model application. If a single body is installed on various chassis of a single manufacturer, the model designation would be modified to reflect the chassis. From the example above, Widget Ford becomes Widget Ford 150, Widget Ford 250, etc.

Whichever way a final stage manufacturer identifies a product in its production data, that product identification must be applied throughout each quarterly report (i.e., Death, Injury, Warranty, Consumer Complaints, etc.) as well as in all future quarterly reports.

"16) What constitutes structure"?

For purposes of the EWR regulations, "Structure" is defined in Section 579.4(b).

"A) If truck bodies are considered structures, are all components of the truck body considered to be part of the structure for warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc.?"

Yes.

"B) If yes, what about latch mechanisms on the body compartments-would they be categorized under latch-17?"

Yes. "Latch," as defined in Section 579.4(b), applies to latching devices on "doors" of all exterior body compartments.

"C) Further, are there any components of truck body that would not be reportable for warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc.?"

A manufacturer that has certified a completed truck is not required to report the number of property damage claims, consumer complaints, warranty claims, and field reports, involving a body component that is not considered "structure." However, the manufacturer would be required to report incidents involving death or injury with respect to such a component, using Code 98.

"i Clarification - are paint runs or dents or scratches reportable as warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc.?"

No. These do not relate to any systems or components of a vehicle specified in the regulations.

"ii What about equipment that is attached to or stored within a body? How would they be classified? Examples: ladder racks, generators, welding equipment, cranes, tool boxes, liquid storage tanks, sprayers, etc."

Equipment attached to the exterior of a body could create a safety problem if it detaches from the body while the trailer is in motion should be classified as "structure." Please note that the definition of "structure" includes mounting elements such as brackets and fasteners. On the other hand, equipment stored within a trailer is normally related to the structure of the vehicle. However, an incident that occurs that is due in whole or in part to the equipment, such as a fire or an incident involving a death, would be reportable.

"(a) And, would it make a difference if the vehicle to which the equipment is attached was completed from an incomplete vehicle vs. an altered vehicle with the same equipment?"

No.

"17) Would the definition of latch include locking/latching mechanisms that are located internally to a vehicle, such as on the inside of a second unit body of a truck or the interior of a trailer?"

No. The definition of "latch" relates only to a vehicles exterior doors.

"18) Would power take-off (PTO) issues be classified?"

"A) If so, how?"

"B) What about transmission mounted vs. engine mounted PTO's? Would the mounting location change the classification?"

Claims and other items involving PTOs would be reportable in the context of how they affect the vehicle or roadway safety; e.g., if a PTO failure causes the engine to seize, then it would be reported in the "Engine and Engine Cooling" category; if a hydraulic line to a PTO ruptures causing a fire, it would be reported under "Fire;" if there is an electrical problem as a result of a failure or problem with a PTO, then it would be reported under "Electrical System."

"19) In regards to the one-time historical report, the Production Information of Part 579.22 indicates that "[i]f the service brake system in a vehicle is not readily characterized as either hydraulic or air, the vehicle shall be considered to have hydraulic service brakes." Brake system information is not readily accessible in the records of many final-stage manufacturers, however, GVWR information typically is available. Given this, could manufacturers base their brake system designations on GVWR for the lack of any records to indicate otherwise? Some companies manufacture vehicles that are primarily under 20,000 Lbs. GVWR while others primarily manufacture Class 8 (over 33,000 Lbs. GVWR) vehicles. The guidance provided would be proper for assuming a hydraulic brake system for vehicles that are under 20,000 Lbs. GVWR, but not for vehicles that are over 33,000 Lbs. as they are predominately equipped with air brakes."

With respect to the service brake issues in the one-time historic report, the manufacturer should provide the warranty claim counts, as they are available. If the counts are not divided by type of service brake system, the approach suggested by NTEA is acceptable except that to prevent any gaps, vehicles with a gross vehicle weight less than 30,000 lbs. GVWR should be filed in Service Brake System, Hydraulic, and all others in Service Brake System Air.

"20) Part 573.5(a) states that [e]ach manufacturer of a motor vehicle shall be responsible for any safety-related defect or any noncompliance determined to exist in the vehicle or in any item of original equipment. Does this mean that a final-stage manufacturer would be required to perform a recall on vehicles that it completes where the defect or noncompliance lies within the incomplete chassis upon which the completed vehicle is based?"

Recall responsibility rests primarily with the manufacturer that certified the completed vehicle. See Sections 568.7, 571.3, 573.5. If the final stage manufacturer certified the vehicle, then it is primarily responsible for remedying any safety-related defect or noncompliance in the vehicle, including the portion of the vehicle manufactured by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. If an incomplete vehicle manufacturer or intermediate manufacturer certified the vehicle, then it is responsible for remedying the safety defect or noncompliance regardless of the manufacturer of the part or system that is the subject of the recall. Of course, the final stage manufacturer could seek indemnification or other redress from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

"A) Further, are incomplete vehicles considered to be "original equipment" for reporting purposes?"

See answer to Question 6.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.5/14/03

ID: TurtleTop

Janet L. Kercher-Dudley
Standards Engineer
TurtleTOP
67819 State Road 15
New Paris, Indiana 46553

Dear Ms. Kercher-Dudley:

This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 2003, which was received in this office on October 1, 2003 relating to the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 49 CFR Part 579.

In your letter you reported that TurtleTOP manufactures a volume of transit buses that places it into the "larger group of manufacturers required to report under TREAD Act provisions into the category of medium-heavy vehicles and all buses." You also reported that TurtleTOP manufactures vans that fall into the light vehicle category, but that this production is substantially less than 500 units per year.

As to the vans, you stated that it was TurtleTOPs understanding that, no matter what the volume level, TurtleTOP is required to submit quarterly early warning information about all claims or notices it receives involving fatalities within the United States on those vans.You further requested that we confirm the companys understanding that, due to production levels below 500 units per year and the regulatory classification of the vans into the category of light vehicles (as opposed to medium-heavy trucks or buses), TurtleTOP is not required to report the information required under "the other EWR quarterly reporting provisions of the TREAD Act" for those vans.You referenced information relative to injuries, consumer complaints, property damage claims, warranty claims, and field reports as examples of information TurtleTOP would not be required to report as to its vans.

TurtleTOPs understanding that its vans are subject to the limited reporting requirements of 49 CFR 579.27 (including information about claims involving fatalities outside the United States), is correct assuming the information you provided as to the classification type (i.e., light vehicle) and annual production of those vans is accurate. See 49 C.F.R. 579.27 and 66 Fed. Reg. 18136, 18139 (April 15, 2003).

If you have any further questions, please refer them to Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.11/3/03

ID: Unassembled_motorcycles

Mr. Kevin Alsop
Big Bear Choppers, Inc.
P.O. Box 3021
Big Bear City, CA 92314




Dear Mr. Alsop:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would apply to the manufacture of complete, unassembled motorcycles. As explained below, the agency would treat such a vehicle, regardless of the state of assembly, as a motorcycle for the purpose of our regulations.

In your letter and in a telephone conversation with Mr. Eric Stas of my staff, you stated that your company, Big Bear Choppers Inc. (Big Bear), manufactures and sells motorcycle frames and complete, unassembled motorcycles. You further stated that the complete, unassembled motorcycles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You also stated that the frame of each complete, unassembled motorcycle is assigned a VIN, presumably that complies with our regulations. You then asked if we require the assignment of a VIN to complete, unassembled motorcycles such as those manufactured by Big Bear.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to establish regulations for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). The statutory definition of "motor vehicle" states, in part, that a "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that is "driven by mechanical power" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)).

If an unassembled vehicle were sold with all of the parts needed to produce a completed vehicle, including the power source, we would treat the unassembled vehicle as a motor vehicle for the purpose of our regulations. See letters to Christopher Banner, dated July 9, 1993, and Ron Dawson, dated March 29, 1999 (copies enclosed).

Part 565 of our regulations specifies the format, content and physical requirements for a VIN and its installation to simplify vehicle identification information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns (49 CFR Part 565). This Part is applicable to motorcycles. Therefore, the complete, unassembled motorcycle would be required to comply with vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements.

We also note that under 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1)(ii):

If a vehicle is fabricated and delivered in complete but unassembled form, such that it is designed to be assembled without special machinery or tools, the fabricator of the vehicle may affix the [certification] label and name itself as the manufacturer[.](Emphasis added. )

Finally, your letter asked a series of questions regarding the issuance of manufacturer statements of origin (MSO), the legality of registering an unassembled vehicle, and the issuance of a bill of sale. MSO, vehicle registration, and bills of sale are matters of State law. Our regulations do not govern these issues.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:571.3#565
d.2/16/05

ID: Underwood.1

Mr. Glenn Underwood
AGC Automotive-Americas
Quality Assurance, CQE
1 Auto Glass Drive (P.O. Box 5000)
Elizabethtown, KY 42702-5000




Dear Mr. Underwood:

This responds to your September 29, 2004, letter in which you requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked about the requirements for marking glazing with an AS1 symbol, which signifies the point above or below which the glazing has light transmissibility greater than or equal to 70 percent. We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to our regulations.

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. One of those standards is FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways Standard ANSI Z26.1. Accordingly, prior to sale, a manufacturer must certify compliance of its product with the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, including those requirements incorporated from ANSI Z26.1.

However, as your letter points out, NHTSA is in the process of modifying the regulatory requirements under FMVSS No. 205, by shifting from the currently referenced 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 (supplemented by Z26.1a-1980) to the 1996 version of that ANSI standard. A final rule to effect this change was issued on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964). However, subsequent notices were issued extending the compliance date for the final rule, most recently to September 1, 2006 (see 69 FR 51188 (August 18, 2004)). As part of the final rule, the paragraph S3.1, Application, was modified to make the standard apply to both vehicles and equipment; accordingly, once in effect, both vehicle manufacturers and glazing manufacturers will be required to certify that their products meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 205.

As your letter correctly points out, the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1 requires a slightly different symbol for marking AS1 glazing than did the earlier versions. Under the earlier versions, that glazing would be marked as A↓S1, but under the 1996 version, that glazing would

be marked as AS↓1. (Some glazing also may have portions requiring a similar mark with an arrow turned upwards, but the change in sequencing of the letters and symbol would be the same. )

Beginning on the compliance date of September 1, 2006, glazing manufacturers must mark glazing covered by the above-discussed requirement with the AS1 symbol that meets the specifications of the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1. However, prior to that time, glazing manufacturers may produce and certify glazing with the AS1 symbol that meets the specifications of the 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 (supplemented by Z26.1a-1980). Similarly, on September 1, 2006, vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles, including installed glazing, meet the new requirements.

As a practical matter, during the period immediately preceding September 1, 2006, glazing could be manufactured and certified by the glazing manufacturer under the older version of ANSI Z26.1 but be held in inventory beyond that date, and as a result, a vehicle manufacturer would not be able to install such glazing in a vehicle because the newer versions of ANSI Z26.1 then would be in effect. We expect that this would be a one-time problem of brief duration. However, the agency will consider this issue in our response to petitions for reconsideration of the July 25, 2003 final rule, since several petitions raised the issue of the effective date of the final rule.

Nevertheless, we believe that the final rule itself provides a solution to the concern you have identified. As noted in the July 25, 2003 final rule (see 68 FR 43964, 43970) and in paragraph S3.1 of the August 18, 2004 final rule (see 60 FR 51188, 51191), for motor vehicles and glazing equipment manufactured before September 1, 2006, a manufacturer may, at its option, comply with the revised standard (i.e. , using the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1) instead of the current version of FMVSS No. 205 (i.e. , using the 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 supplemented by Z26.1a-1980). We believe that this provision for voluntary early compliance would allow you to resolve any concerns you or your customers might have regarding appropriate marking with the AS1 symbol during this period of transition.

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

ref:205
12/1/04

ID: unimog.ztv

Mr. James Osse
Senior Ocean Engineer
Applied Physics Laboratory
University of Washington
1013 NE 40^th St
Seattle, WA 98105
FAX 206-543-6785

Dear Mr. Osse:

This is in reply to your letter of January 19, 1999, regarding your wish to import a 1981 Mercedes-Benz Unimog U1300L truck.

You ask permission to import it as an off-road vehicle, citing agency interpretation letters to support your request.

Under the laws that we administer, a "motor vehicle" that must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is one that has been "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)). The determination of whether a specific vehicle is a "motor vehicle" is initially made by a manufacturer wishing to sell its vehicle in the American market, who may seek advice from us in making its determination. In 1972, Mercedes-Benz asked us our views regarding a line of Unimogs that it wished to import for agricultural use. We informed it on March 9, 1972, that its Unimog was not a "motor vehicle," and, on February 7, 1984, confirmed that interpretation to the company on the presumption "that the Unimog would still be marketed, as in the past, principally through farm machinery and heavy equipment dealers."

This interpretation was intended to cover only Unimogs that Mercedes-Benz manufactured for sale in the United States through farm machinery and heavy equipment dealers. It was not intended as a decision that Unimogs other than these were not "motor vehicles" and to exempt them also from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Indeed, your manifest intent is to convert the Unimog truck to a motor home and then use it on the roads to drive from the United States to other countries. We therefore cannot permit you to import the Unimog truck under Box 8 of the HS-7 Declaration Form as a vehicle that was not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

Under our regulations, the proper course to follow is to obtain the services of a "registered importer," who would petition the agency for a decision that the 1981 Unimog truck is capable of conversion to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied to trucks in 1981. If the decision is affirmative, the registered importer would convert the Unimog to meet the 1981 truck standards after you had imported it, and certify to this agency that the modifications had been performed. I enclose a list of registered importers who are conversant with European vehicles.

We understand that you wish to convert the truck to a motor home. We consider a motor home built on a truck chassis to be a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV). After the registered importer has certified the Unimog as meeting 1981 truck standards, any conversion work afterwards by the registered importer or by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the truck standards. However, conversion of a used 1981 truck to an MPV does not impose a new obligation to further convert the vehicle to meet 1981 MPV standards.

You also raise the possibility of removing the truck box before importation and importing the Unimog as a chassis only. This does not appear feasible under our regulations. Box 9 of the HS-7 Declaration Form permits the entry of vehicles requiring further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function, but the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle (Mercedes-Benz) must provide a statement that accompanies the Form which meets the requirements of 49 CFR 568.4, indicating the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards with which the incomplete vehicle does not comply and describing the further manufacturing operations required to conform it.

If you have further questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:591
d.2/26/99

ID: used_carseats

Ms. Shauna Sloan
Kid to Kid Franchise System
452 East 500 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111




Dear Ms. Sloan:

This responds to your letter asking whether there are Federal regulations applying to "the resale of used car seats or child restraint systems". Our use of the term "child restraint system" includes "car seats" and other types of child restraints.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child restraint systems," applies to new child restraint systems. The requirement under Federal law to manufacture and sell products that meet all applicable FMVSSs does not apply to the sale of a vehicle or item of equipment after the first purchase of the item in good faith other than for resale ("first retail sale").

Thus, the answer to your question is no, Federal law does not apply to the resale of used child restraint systems. However, while the FMVSSs apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, several of our programs affect used vehicles or equipment.

The "make inoperative" provision of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. ) states: "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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). This provision applies to new and used motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Thus, manufacturers, distributor, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses are not permitted to make inoperative a device or design installed on or in a new or used child restraint in compliance with FMVSS No. 213.

Also, under our statute, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment (including child restraint systems) must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. NHTSAs investigations of safety-related defects often originate from reports of problems from owners of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

Finally, under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[. ]" This compliance requirement includes child restraint systems, which are subject to the provisions of FMVSS No. 213.

You asked if states regulate the resale of used child restraint systems. States could regulate the sale and use of used child restraints. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide information of any such regulation state-by-state, as you requested.

For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes responsibilities of new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed information on NHTSAs policy regarding the re-use of child restraints after minor crashes. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:213
d.10/28/05

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.