ID: aiam5065

"Dear Ms. Schiavo: Special Agent Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. of your staf asked me to provide you with some information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations dealing with certification and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. This information should prove helpful in connection with an investigation of Bus Industries of America by your office in which Mr. Tucker has been involved. Mr. Tucker presented the following facts. A Canadian company (Ontario Bus Industries, Inc.) manufactured some buses at its plant in Canada. It certified these buses as conforming with all U.S. vehicle safety standards and affixed a label to that effect, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. These buses were then imported into the United States bearing the certification label that had been affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. After the vehicles were imported into the United States, the U.S. company that had imported the buses (Bus Industries of America) removed the Canadian manufacturer's certification label and affixed a new certification label that identified the U.S. company as the manufacturer of these buses. With respect to the information other than the name of the manufacturer, the certification label substituted by the importer was identical to the certification label affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. Mr. Tucker asked us to explain this agency's certification regulations as they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and to comment on the assertion that the certification label placed on the buses by the Canadian manufacturer did not meet this agency's certification requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes the following provision at 15 U.S.C. 1403: Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. * * * In the case of a motor vehicle such certification shall be in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such motor vehicle. NHTSA has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 567) specifying the content and location of, and other requirements for, the vehicle certification label or tag required by this statutory provision. That regulation is relatively straightforward with respect to vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The manufacturer must permanently affix a label containing specified information, including the name of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the vehicle identification number, and a certification that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in a specified location on the vehicle. The certification regulation becomes more complex in the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and certified vehicles that are altered before they have been sold to the public for the first time. In those situations, there is more than one manufacturer's input needed for the certification of the finished vehicle. Accordingly, NHTSA has included special provisions in Part 567 specifying the certification requirements for these vehicles and adopted a separate regulation at 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifying the responsibilities of the various manufacturers in ensuring conformity of the completed vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to the Canadian buses described by Mr. Tucker, those vehicles appear to fall into the category of vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The relevant certification requirements for such vehicles are set forth at 49 CFR 567.4. It appears that the Canadian company in this case followed those requirements and affixed a label in accordance with 567.4. Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America had argued that it was required to affix its own certification label for two different reasons. First, for some of these buses, Bus Industries of America had produced various component subassemblies (e.g., frame, drivetrain, etc.) and shipped those component subassemblies to Canada to be used in manufacturing these buses. Because of this, Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify the vehicles in its capacity as the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. It is true that 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 impose responsibilities on incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and even allow incomplete vehicle manufacturers to assume legal responsibility for the completed vehicle. See 567.5(e) and 568.7(a). However, a party that ships various component subassemblies to another party would not be an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of NHTSA's certification regulations. The following definitions appear in 568.3: Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures an incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle. Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as 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. Reading these definitions, it is apparent that a party could not be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer if that party simply produced certain component subsystems and shipped those subsystems off to another party to assemble into a motor vehicle. Based on the facts Mr. Tucker provided this office, the claim that Bus Industries of America should be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer of these buses has no merit. Second, Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify some of these buses because that company had performed minor finishing operations on some buses after it received them from Canada. It may be that Bus Industries of America is suggesting that it should be considered to be a final stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and therefore was responsible for certifying these vehicles per 49 CFR 567 and 568. Alternatively, Bus Industries of America may have been suggesting that it should be considered an alterer of these vehicles, and therefore required to certify them. Neither one of these arguments is supported by the facts. A 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.' The relevant question then is whether these buses were incomplete vehicles. As specified in the definition of 'incomplete vehicle' quoted above, a vehicle that needs only minor finishing operations is not considered an incomplete vehicle. Instead, only those vehicles that need some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function are considered incomplete vehicles. Since the buses in question had been certified by the Canadian manufacturer as completed vehicles and driven over the public roads from the Canadian plant to the U.S., there is no indication that the buses needed some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function. Hence, Bus Industries of America was not a final stage manufacturer of those vehicles. To the extent that Bus Industries of America wishes to be considered an alterer of a previously certified vehicle, 49 CFR 567.6 expressly sets forth requirements for persons that alter vehicles by performing minor finishing operations. That section provides: 'A person ... who alters such a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle.' The sample of the Canadian manufacturer's certification label that Mr. Tucker provided this office conforms to the requirements of Part 567. Hence, even if one accepts the argument by Bus Industries of America that it performed minor finishing operations on previously certified vehicles, it would have still been subject to an express regulatory duty to leave the Canadian manufacturer's certification label in place. The final point I understand Bus Industries of America to be raising was that only a U.S. manufacturer could certify that a vehicle met the U.S. safety standards. This point is incorrect. A vehicle to be imported into the U.S. must be certified as conforming with all U.S. safety standards before it enters the United States. Such a certification is routinely made by manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States. There is no regulation or law administered by this agency that requires the certification to be made only by a U.S. company. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Special Agent Gerard Tucker DOT Office of Inspector General Linpro Center 900 E. 8th Avenue Suite 201 King of Prussia, PA 19406";

ID: nht72-1.14

DATE: 06/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Frank and Frank

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your most recent inquiry regarding hood latch systems, dated May 26, 1972.

Examination of the 1964 Chevrolet hood latch system reveals that this system does meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 113, which was effective on January 1, 1969. While, as stated in our correspondence of February 16, 1972, we favor a system in which two complete operations are necessary, a system which employs two latches having a single operation will meet the requirements of the standard.

A current review of our Office of Defects Investigation files reveals that no information relative to 1964 Chevrolet hood latching systems has been added since our last communication.

Thank you for your inquiry.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

01/01/72 EST.

Irving Frank -- Frank and Frank

Dear Mr. Frank:

Thank you for your letter of December 22, 1971, in which you requested safety information pertaining to 1964 Chevrolet hood latching mechansims.

Our Offices of Defects Investigation and Accident Investigation and Data Analysis have made a search of their files, and have found no specific information relating to defects in 1964 Chevrolet hood latching. I should like to point out that, inasmuch as Federal motor vehicle safety standards first became effective on January 1, 1968, we have not in all cases received information pertaining to defects which may have affected earlier vehicles. We have, however, monitored a recall campaign affecting potentially defective hood latch mechanisms on 1969 Mercury Cougars, wherein the possibility of binding components could cause the hood to open while the vehicle is in motion. In this connection, we are enclosing a copy of a report, Motor Vehicle Safety Defect Recall Campaigns, covering calendar year 1969. Your attention is invited to page 13 of the report for a brief summary of the action, and to page 1 for instructions for obtaining further detailed information relative to this campaign. We are, of course, continuing to be alert for further problems in this area.

Regarding designs of hood latch systems, we favor the type system you describe in which two complete operations are necessary before the hood can be opened completely. I am enclosing a copy of Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 113, entitled Hood Latch Systems, which has required secondary latch positions or secondary hood latch systems on most vehicles since January 1, 1969.

Thank you for your inquiry. Do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, J. E. FORESTER FOR Robert L. Carter -- Acting Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs

Enclosures

ATTACH.

FRANK AND FRANK

December 22, 1971

Office of Compliance, National Safety Bureau

Re: Pettiford v. Hassell and Rhodes Our File No. 70-45

Gentlemen:

We represent a Mr. Dennle Pettiford of Brooklyn, New York who was seriously injured in an automobile accident in October, 1970.

On his behalf we are writing to you to determine whether or not there is any information available concerning the design, construction and maintenance of a hood or hood mechanism used in the 1964 Chevrolet station wagon. We would also be interested in knowing whether there are any statistics or other reports available concerning prior accidents arising in the same manner as the one in which our client was involved.

In September 1970, my client was driving a 1964 Chevrolet station wagon. While the car was in motion, after it had been traveling for some time, with no sign of any impending danger, the hood suddenly opened. Because his vision was completely obstructed, the driver immediately applied his brakes. At this time, there was traveling behind him a large trailer truck. Apparently, it was unable to stop. The truck collided with the rear of the station wagon ramming the station wagon against the side of the bridge and dragging it for a considerable distance. A serious fire ensued. Four people were killed and two others severely burned.

We understand that both vehicles were traveling on a very narrow bridge. A fast-moving vehicle traveling in the opposite direction may have created a vacumm-like effect as it passed our driver's vehicle. The vacuum-like effect in some fashion created pressure on

the hood causing it to fly upward and open.

We understand that at this time other vehicles had not only a latch to control the hood but also an additional safety catch. Thus the 1964 Ford automobile was equipped with a hood-release mechanism and also a secondary safety catch. Two complete operations were necessary before the hood could be opened completely.

The first device was released by compressing a lever located below the grillwork. This allowed for a partial opening of the hood; then a second device above the grillwork and below the hood was compressed to release a "hook" or "safety catch". Thus, assuming that a Ford vehicle was involved and mechanism was operating properly, the passing truck creating a vacuum-like effect, might have allowed the hood-release mechanism to become disengaged. However, the safety hook or catch would still have caught the hood before it could obstruct the driver's vision.

Any information that you may have concerning the hood release mechanism and/or safety catch on vehicles manufactured by General Motors in 1964, or for any other manufacturers that might have a bearing on this particular kind of accident would be greatly appreciated. If there's any additional information you require from us, please do not hesitate to ask.

Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Very truly yours, IRVING FRANK

FRANK AND FRANK

May 26, 1972

Robert L. Carter -- Acting Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs, U.S. Dept. of Transportation

Re: Pettiford vs. Hassell and Rhodes Our File No. 70-45

Your reference: 41-42

Dear Mr. Carter:

You were good enough to write to us on February 16, 1972. This was in reply to our inquiry concerning the hood-latch systems on the 1964 Chevrolet.

We have recently been able to obtain a diagram from a publication known as "Gleen Mitchell Collision Estimator Inc." which is prepared for automotive mechanics. I am enclosing a copy of the same. You will notice that in the lower right-hand corner of this page 2-7, there is a small diagram of the hood and the locking mechanism.

As near as I can make out, it would appear that there is but one latch, consisting of an upper and lower assembly.

Would you be good enough to have your office indicate to us whether or not this assembly for the hood-latch system complies with the regulations which came into effect through your office on January 1, 1969.

We would also like to know whether or not since our last inquiry, there has been any further information obtained by your office with respect to the 1964 Chevrolet hood-latching mechanism.

Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Very truly yours, IRVING FRANK

Enclosure

ID: 86-6.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Barbara J. Kelleher -- CRS Research

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/3/85 letter from Jeffrey A. Miller to Frederick B. Locker (Std. 213)

TEXT:

Ms. Barbara J. Kelleher CRS Research Buffalo, NY 14226

This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that a client planned to produce two child restraint models whose harness and crotch straps would be integral parts of a movable shield. You stated your belief that these straps were an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213. Accordingly, you asked that this agency permit these straps to be attached during the Configuration II testing required by section S6.1.2.1.2. You stated that a similar request for harness attachment was "granted" to the Collier-Keyworth Company.

First, I would like to make clear that this agency does not grant requests by manufacturers to avoid following the compliance test procedures specified in Standard No. 213. He interpret the requirements of Standard No. 213 as they apply to particular factual situations. When those same factual situations arise again, our interpretation of the requirements is the same, regardless of which manufacturer is involved.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a July 3, 1985, letter this agency sent to Mr. Frederick Locker, addressing whether a proposed Collier-Keyworth child restraint could attach its belts during the Configuration II testing. We concluded that belts that are attached to and not easily removed from a movable shield are integral parts of/the shield, within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3(c). This conclusion means that these belts may be attached during the Configuration II testing.

Judging by the pictures enclosed with your letter, it appears that of the two child restraint models designed by your client also has belts that are attached to and not easily removed from the movable shield. If our belief is correct, those belts could be attached during the Configuration II testing.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 346-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 1, 1986

Mr. Stephen R. Kratzke, NOA-32 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

I have been retained by Century Products Inc, to request an interpretation of section S5.1.2.3.1.(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213 (FMVSS 213) - Child Restraint Systems (48 CFR 571.213) with regard to Century's Model 3000 and Model 400-XL child restraint systems. Since the harness and crotch strap belts of the Model 3000, and the harness belts and the crotch restraint mechanism of the Model 400 XL are integral parts of a movable surface as described in section S5.2.2.2, we request that the belts of these models be attached during Configuration II sled testing. As similar test for harness attachment during Configuration II testing was granted to the Collier-Keyworth Company on July 3, 1985 for a comparable restraint system with an integral harness/shield/crotch strap design. Photographs of Century's Model 400XL restrain systems are enclosed as figures 1 through 5.

The Model 3000 restraint system, figure 1, utilizes harness straps over each shoulder for upper torso restraint and a webbing and buckle crotch strap for lower torso and extremity restraint. Both are integrated with the movable shield in a continuous loop harness and cannot be easily removed. When the shield is lowered the harness straps over each shoulder of the child occupant and the crotch strap must be attached to the seat belt base between the child's legs. Although it is obvious that the crotch strap must be buckled (as a permanent part of the shield) we have also attached a warning label to the crotch strap webbing, figure 2, explaining the need to buckle the crotch strap to preclude any misinterpretation by the consumer.

The Model 400-XL, figure 3, has an integral harness design with straps passing over each shoulder of the child when the shield is lowered. Lower torso protection is provided by a combination shield/crotch restraint design that buckles into the seat base. The crotch restraint mechanism of the Model 400-XL and the shield that provides the lower torso and extremity restraint for the child are one piece and therefore cannot be separated. This shield cannot be properly positioned for a child unless the crotch portion is buckled into the seat base. In order to misuse this design a consumer would have to deliberately remove the harness straps which are threaded through the shield and secured with plastic tips, figure 4. The latching mechanism of the shield has a red label permanently attached to indicate when the shield is not properly latched, figure 5.

We would appreciate a reply to this request at your earliest convenience. If you require more information, please call me at (716) 674-48822.

Sincerely,

Barbara J. Kelleher

See 6/3/85 letter from Jeffrey A. Miller to Frederick B. Locker

ID: 07-005414--13 Feb 08--sa

ID: aiam1727

Dear Mr. Ayers: This responds to your August 27, 1975, question whether Standard No 121, *Air Brake Systems*, applies to trucks that operate within one state in a short-haul operation from a mine site to a processing plant.; Standard No. 121 applies to air-braked trucks, buses, and trailers with only a few exceptions that do not appear to include the truck you describe. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers vehicles that operate on the highway, even for short distances, to be motor vehicles operating in the stream of interstate commerce that are subject to our requirements. Therefore, the vehicle you describe would be a motor vehicle under our definition, and it is classified as a truck that must comply with Standard No. 121.; I would like to point out that the standard applies to th newly-manufactured vehicle, and that after its sale to your company, you are entitled to modify the system as necessary to ensure the safety of the vehicle in your specialized operations. I have enclosed a copy of a letter on this subject pointing out, however, that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business is prohibited from disconnecting the antilock device for you.; I would emphasize that this discussion does not address separat responsibilities you may have under State, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations for the operation of your vehicles.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Rod Nash, P.E. -- Corporate Engineering, Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rod Nash, P.E. Corporate Engineering Collins Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 58 Hutchinson, KS 67504-0058

This responds to your May 20, 1985 letter to Mr. Francis Armstrong of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

You asked whether you are correct in certifying a van as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) if the van carries less than 10 passengers but has the lighting and identifying marks of a school bus. The answer to your question is yes.

I would like you to keep in mind that NHTSA has two sets of regulations, issued under different acts of Congress, which have a bearing on your situation. The first of these is the regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, issued by us under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The second set of regulations is the highway safety program standards issued by us under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The highway safety program standards cover a wide range of subjects and are considered for Federal funding of state highway safety programs. The yellow paint and black markings of school buses are features of school bus safety covered by the program standard for pupil transportation safety.

We promulgated the following definition of a MPV, as found in 49 CFR S571.3, under the authority of the Vehicle Safety Act:

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.

You are thus correct in certifying a van as a MPV if it carries less than 11 persons, including the driver. This is the case even if the MPV has the yellow paint and black trim of a school bus. You must certify your MPV as meeting all motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's. You may also voluntarily manufacture the MPV in compliance with the requirements of our school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.

New vans carrying 11 or more persons (i.e., 10 or more passengers) are "buses" under NHTSA's definition of a "bus." We define "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons" (49 CFR 5571.3). Regardless of how they are painted or marked, new buses that are sold for purposes that include carrying school children must be certified as meeting our school bus safety standards.

You should also note that the color and other identifying features of a school bus are aspects of school bus safety covered by Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the highway safety program standards issued by NHTSA for their own highway safety programs. A state's implementation of HSPS No. 17 would affect the operation and identification of school vehicles to the extent of its implementation of the standard's recommendations. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your information.

Please contact me if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Francis Armstrong, Administrator National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

I am writing to request a letter of interpretation on the National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration position regarding the appropriate vehicle classification for a yellow van with warning lights but set up to carry less than 10 passengers. In Public Law 89-563, a school bus is defined as:

A passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, pre-primary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.

Part 571 says a school bus means:

A bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying student to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Since a bus is defined as a vehicle to carry 10 passengers, I understand the two definitions to be talking about the same type vehicle.

From time to time, we receive orders for our small school bus equipped with a handicapped lift and floor planning for 5 to 10 passengers. We have been calling this type vehicle a multipurpose passenger vehicle on its certification sticker. The yearly production of vehicles with this type seating is small. Typically, our small school buses have seating capacities from 12 to 20 passengers and are clearly school buses.

We would appreciate your referring this letter to the office of Chief Counsel for the correct interpretation. Specifically, the question centers on a vehicle that is painted yellow, has black horizontal stripes, red and yellow warning lights on each end, and has designated seating positions for 6 to 10 passengers.

Thank you for your attention to these questions.

Sincerely, Rod Nash, P.E. Corporate Engineering COLLINS INDUSTRIES, INC. /mw

ID: nht79-3.4

DATE: 10/04/79

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Stratos Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office on July 12, 1979, about your company's plans to manufacture auxiliary gasoline tanks for passenger cars. You noted that the tanks will be designed for placement in the trunk above the existing fuel tank and that your company will act primarily as a manufacturer of these tanks but may do some installation. Specifically, you asked what Federal regulations or standards would apply to the manufacturer, as well as the placement and installation, of auxiliary gasoline tanks in motor vehicles. You also asked whether we have testing facilities for such tanks and, if so, whether the agency would be able to test one of your company's tanks.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (copy enclosed) is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components and thus is inapplicable to the manufacture of auxiliary fuel tanks.

Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to their manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. As a manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, you would be subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151 et seq., copy enclosed). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or yourself, you would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.

If you installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle, prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, you would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, you would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, you would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.

If you installed an auxiliary gasoline tank in a used passenger vehicle, you would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:

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

Thus, if you added an auxiliary tank to a used passenger vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, you would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

I would like to point out that in addition to the Federal law discussed above there may be State product liability laws applicable to your company's proposed activities. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before your company begins manufacturing and installing auxiliary gasoline tanks.

At the present time, NHTSA is not testing auxiliary gasoline tanks, but the agency is involved in testing vehicles to determine their compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75.

At some point the agency will probably begin testing auxiliary tanks that have been installed in vehicles, but such testing will be done only as part of our enforcement efforts. It is not a policy of the NHTSA to test and approve the products of particular manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

In conclusion, please note that, in general, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration discourages the use of auxiliary fuel tanks of any kind because of the grave dangers of fire and explosion posed by their improper manufacturer or installation. In the near future, this agency will be making a press release warning consumers of these hazards and discouraging them from using auxiliary fuel tanks.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

ID: aiam0215

Dear Mr. Siwac: I regret our delay in responding to your letter of December 2, 1969 which evidently became lost after it reached us.; In your letter you ask three questions. The questions, and our answer to them, are as follows:; >>>1. If a European concern manufactures seat belts for installation i vehicles imported into the United States, is the vehicle manufacturer or the seat belt manufacturer responsible for compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 with respect to those seat belts? It is our view that both manufacturers are responsible for compliance with the standard. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale in the United States of a nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. A seat belt manufactured for installation on a motor vehicle to be sold in the United States is itself manufactured for sale in the United States. The manufacturer of the motor vehicle in which the nonconforming seat belt is installed would be in violation of section 108(a) because Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires certain motor vehicles to be equipped with seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard No. 209.; 2. Is a foreign manufacturer of seat belts which will be imported int the United States required to test the belts at approved facilities in the United States to demonstrate that they conform to Standard No. 209? The answer is no. There is no requirement in the law or the standard that seat belts must be subjected to approved tests before they can be imported and sold. The manufacturer must certify that the belts conform to the standard. In order to do so, a manufacturer would ordinarily make tests of his products. This is particularly the case because compliance with some of the standard's requirements can be ascertained only by actual tests of seat belts. However, there is no requirement that any particular test be made at any specific test facility.; 3. Must a European seat belt manufacturer designate an agent fo service of administrative process under section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if he is merely supplying the belts for installation as original equipment in motor vehicles to be imported into the United States. It is our view that a foreign manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment who knows or has reason to know that his products will be imported into the United States, whether as original equipment on motor vehicles or otherwise, is obligated under section 110(e) to designate an agent for service of process in accordance with that section. Section 110(e) is not limited in its scope to manufacturers who actually import their products, it also applies to manufacturers who are 'offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States'. The quoted language seems broad enough to cover suppliers of motor vehicle equipment who know or should know that the vehicles in which their products are installed will be imported for sale into the United States.<<<; Again, let me express my apologies for the delay in responding to you inquiry. If you have any further questions about your obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Very truly yours, Lawrence R. Schneider, Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations;

ID: aiam0217

Dear Mr. Siwac: I regret our delay in responding to your letter of December 2, 1969 which evidently became lost after it reached us.; In your letter you ask three questions. The questions, and our answer to them, are as follows:; >>>1. If a European concern manufactures seat belts for installation i vehicles imported into the United States, is the vehicle manufacturer or the seat belt manufacturer responsible for compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 with respect to those seat belts? It is our view that both manufacturers are responsible for compliance with the standard. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale in the United States of a nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. A seat belt manufactured for installation on a motor vehicle to be sold in the United States is itself manufactured for sale in the United States. The manufacturer of the motor vehicle in which the nonconforming seat belt is installed would be in violation of section 108(a) because Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires certain motor vehicles to be equipped with seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard No. 209.; 2. Is a foreign manufacturer of seat belts which will be imported int the United States required to test the belts at approved facilities in the United States to demonstrate that they conform to Standard No. 209? The answer is no. There is no requirement in the law or the standard that seat belts must be subjected to approved tests before they can be imported and sold. The manufacturer must certify that the belts conform to the standard. In order to do so, a manufacturer would ordinarily make tests of his products. This is particularly the case because compliance with some of the standard's requirements can be ascertained only by actual tests of seat belts. However, there is no requirement that any particular test be made at any specific test facility.; 3. Must a European seat belt manufacturer designate an agent fo service of administrative process under section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if he is merely supplying the belts for installation as original equipment in motor vehicles to be imported into the United States. It is our view that a foreign manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment who knows or has reason to know that his products will be imported into the United States, whether as original equipment on motor vehicles or otherwise, is obligated under section 110(e) to designate an agent for service of process in accordance with that section. Section 110(e) is not limited in its scope to manufacturers who actually import their products, it also applies to manufacturers who are 'offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States'. The quoted language seems broad enough to cover suppliers of motor vehicle equipment who know or should know that the vehicles in which their products are installed will be imported for sale into the United States.<<<; Again, let me express my apologies for the delay in responding to you inquiry. If you have any further questions about your obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Very truly yours, Lawrence R. Schneider, Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations;

ID: nht75-5.43

DATE: 08/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carlton; Fields; Ward; Emmanuel; Smith & Cutter; P.A.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1975, commenting on several aspects of the odometer disclosure regulation (49 CFR Part 580, Odometer Disclosure Requirements).

You suggested that the term "transferor," defined in @ 580.3 of the odometer regulation, poses a potential problem for a person who transfers ownership of a motor vehicle by gift to a member of his family and fails to execute an odometer disclosure statement. In your opinion, the attractive civil penalty available for noncompliance with the disclosure requirements might expose such a transferor to suit by his transferee despite the need to demonstrate intent to defraud as a prerequisite to recovery.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not agree with your comment. Section 402(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) defines the term "transfer" as a change of ownership by purchase, gift, or any other means (emphasis added). Section 408 of the Act orders the Department of Transportation to prescribe rules requiring any transferor to give an odometer disclosure statement to the transferee in connection with the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. Thus, the law mandates the execution of an odometer disclosure statement even when the transfer of ownership is by gift.

Since intent to defraud must be shown in order to obtain recovery under the Act, it is doubtful that someone who innocently fails to provide a disclosure form would suffer the consequences imposed by the Act. It is important that disclosure statements be executed at each point a vehicle changes hands as a means of protecting individuals in the chain of ownership. Once it is discovered that an odometer has been altered, the owner of the vehicle may name all prior owners as defendants in this suit and the disclosure form may be the only absolute evidence of one's innocence. Thus, the Act's requirement that a disclosure statement be provided, even in the case of an intra-family gift, has a definite basis. The "intent to defraud" aspect of the penalty section serves as a safeguard against abuse.

You commented in your letter that a loophole exists in section 580.5(b) making it possible for new car dealers to transfer vehicles without executing a disclosure statement. Your understanding of the section is incorrect. A new car dealer is required to complete an odometer disclosure statement whenever he transfers ownership of a vehicle to a person for purposes other than resale. This means that the only time a disclosure form is unnecessary (under @ 580.5(b)) is when the vehicle is transferred between parties for the purpose of resale. An example of this type of transfer is between a distributor and a dealer.

In your letter you cite possible problems involving the point at which the disclosure statement must be executed, the conspicuousness of the statement, and the effect of the statement that the mileage indicated on the odometer differs from the true number of miles the vehicle has traveled. @ 580.4 requires that the disclosure statement be furnished to the transferee of a vehicle before any transfer of ownership document is executed. In the preamble to the regulation, the agency explained this to mean that the disclosure must be made as part of the transfer, and not at some later time. This assures that the transferee will be made aware of the odometer mileage and its accuracy before he obtains ownership of the vehicle.

Although there is no requirement that the odometer statement be provided as a separate document, it is necessary that all of the required information be contained on some form which is provided to the transferee. There is, of course, no way of assuring that a transferee will examine all of the papers handed to him when he takes ownership of a vehicle. However, since the disclosure document must include a considerable amount of current information on the vehicle, it is likely that transferee will be aware of the filling out of the form.

The statement included on the form relating to the accuracy of the odometer mileage is phrased in positive terms and states that the mileage indicated on the odometer is incorrect, not that it may be incorrect. The odometer disclosure requirements are intended to assure that a transferee is aware of the accuracy of his vehicle's odometer mileage. If the transferor indicates that the mileage is incorrect, he has put the purchaser on notice and the purchaser from that point assumes the risk of owning a vehicle whose mileage is uncertain. It seems unlikely that a certification that the mileage is incorrect would be overlooked as might happen with "fine print" since the transferor must make a mark by the statement showing its applicability. This, it would seem, would draw one's attention to the warning.

Thank you for your comments.