ID: 000182cmc

Mr. Jeremy Karmel
Account Executive
Agar Truck Sales, Inc.
2 Agar Street
Yonkers, NY 10701

Dear Mr. Karmel:

This responds to your letter of August 13, 2002, requesting information on regulations concerning the installation of passenger seats in a van.In yourletter you stated that a customer would like to purchase a van from your company.You indicated that the customer would then like "to install an extra row of seating, himself, using factory equipment, to carry two more passengers." As you further explained in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff, either the customer would perform the installation or a third party repair business would install the extra seating. As explained below, there are different Federal requirements depending on the timing of the installation and the person installing the seating.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.; Vehicle Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised authority to establish five Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), which could be relevant to installation of a seat in a vehicle: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Standard Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to this situation, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacement belts.Thus, if new seat belts are installed on an already certified vehicle, the manufacturer of the seat belts is required to certify that the seat belts comply with standard No. 209.

If additional seats are installed in an already certified vehicle prior to its first retail sale, the person modifying the vehicle would be considered an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be subject to certification requirements.Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified ... other than 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, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale ....

As an alterer, the person installing the seats would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label must also state the name of the alterer, the month and the year in which the alterations were completed, and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR), if changed by the vehicle alteration.

If additional seats are installed after the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale (i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle), a vehicle modifier or repair business could not install additional seats in your customers van if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards.The only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30122(b)).That section 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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard

If, for example, a third party repair facility installs the extra passenger seat, then the "render inoperative" prohibition would mean that it must be done is such a way as to not affect the vehicles compliance with all applicable FMVSS.This would require, among other things, that installation of the new seat be done such that the attachment of the original seats and seat belts to the vehicle must not be compromised.

In addition, the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, if the customer, as an individual vehicle owner, were to install the seats himself in his own vehicle, Federal law would not apply.

While Federal law would not apply to a modification if it were made by your customer to his own vehicle, I would urge him to exercise care in installing the seat bench and to install seat belts on the seats. The seats and seat belts will not provide any protection to occupants if they separate from the vehicle frame in a crash. Additionally, you and your customer should be aware that States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.Also, your customer may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the New York State regarding potential liability in tort for his business in these circumstances.

I hope this information is helpful.If you have any other questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.10/23/02

ID: nht90-4.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 104, Rules and Regulations, (5-30-90 Edition), pages 21868-21876 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-25-90 from S. Nishibori to P.J. Rice (OCC 5027)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). You were uncertain whether your shift lock emergency override system, your emergency key release, and your transmission park lock system comply w ith S4.2 and S4.3, as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). On July 29, 1990, you submitted a petition for reconsideration which the agency is currently considering. Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

"Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent remova l of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key."

As explained below, we have made the following interpretations concerning your systems based on our understanding of them from your petition for reconsideration, your July 25, 1990 letter, and your discussions with agency staff.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not app rove any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 pe r violation up to $800,000.

Shift Lock Emergency Override You explained that your shift lock emergency override system is operable by depressing a button on the lower, rear portion of the shift lever. By depressing the button, the transmission may be shifted out of "park," independent of the ignition key posit ion or the key being in the ignition switch. You expressed your opinion that the transmission remains "locked" "park" until it is "unlocked," either by turning the ignition key to the

"on" position and depressing the brake pedal or by operating the emergency shift release override. This led you to conclude that your emergency shift override would be permissible under S4.2(b).

We disagree with your suggested interpretation. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing th e key. Given the presence of the emergency shift release override, we do not believe the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-lock ing system. Your alternative shift lock system in which the manual override would be operable only after removing a cover over the override lever would also not appear to comply with S4.2 because the presence of a cover would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

Emergency Key Release You explained that your emergency key release system facilitates removal of the ignition key in the event of an electrical system failure. That system permits overriding the ignition key lock, so that the ignition key can be removed from the vehicle and the driver can lock the vehicle. You explained that the emergency key release override is activated by removing a cover over the ignition switch and then using a screw driver to activate a hidden lever located inside the exposed ignition switch compart ment.

We do not concur with your suggested interpretation of S4.2. That requirement provides that "the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park." The regulatory text does not r efer to alternative methods of key removal such as the procedure you describe. While you state that virtually any key locking system can be overriden through some form of lock disassembly and associated procedures, we do not consider the simple override you describe to be similar to lock disassembly. Therefore, an emergency key release system in which the key could be removed in a position other than "park" would not comply with S4.2, regardless how the key could be removed. Nevertheless, such an eme rgency key release would be permissible if it were operable only while the "transmission or transmission shift lever were locked in the "park" position. You should be aware that we are evaluating such systems in our review of the petitions for reconside ration to the final rule.

Park Lock System You explained that your park lock system prevents drivers from inadvertently depressing the accelerator pedal rather than the brake pedal when shifting out of "park". This is accomplished by permitting the transmission lever to be moved out of "park" on ly if the ignition key is in the "on" position and the brake pedal is depressed. You further explained that if the transmission is placed in "park," the shift lever locks in that position when the ignition key is turned to the "off" position. You expre ssed your belief that your park lock system complies with S4.3, as amended.

I agree that your park lock system appears to comply with S4.3. That provision requires that the prime means for deactivating the vehicle's engine or motor, typically the ignition key, shall not activate the key-locking system described in S4.2(b). Bas ed on our understanding of your key-locking system, it appears to comply with S4.3 because that provision refers to the key-locking system and not a transmission shift lock. As you correctly note, the purpose of S4.3 is to prevent the potentially danger ous situation in which the ignition key of a moving vehicle is turned to the "off" position causing the steering column to lock.

You asked that we continue to consider your petition for reconsideration, if, as we have done, we concluded that some of your suggested interpretations were incorrect. We will notify you of our response to that petition as soon as we complete our review of it.

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: aiam1029

Dear Mr. Cooley: This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1973, requestin information concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 212 and replacement of motor vehicle windshields.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 212 applies only up to th point where a vehicle is first sold to a user. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration currently has no standards that apply to vehicles in use. A program for the development of standards that would apply to vehicles other than new vehicles is being considered by the Administration for implementation in the future.; Thank you for your inquiry. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: 2792y

Ms. Mary Rees
D.C. (USA) Inc.
1249 Route 22 East
Mountainside, NJ 07092

Dear Ms. Rees:

This responds to your letter of October 9, 1990. In your letter you ask the following questions concerning testing and certification.

(1) If a manufacturer has developed an item that he feels does meet all federal safety regulations, and it is ready to be tested, how would he get it tested? Are there any forms to be filed?

First, please be aware that the United States does not have an approval process. In the United States, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must certify that its products will comply with all applicable safety standards. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567.

If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. While an element of "due care" could be the use of appropriate testing laboratories, there is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. In addition, NHTSA does not approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend any particular testing center be utilized.

Finally, manufacturers are not required to file any forms beyond the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566. This regulation requires a manufacturer to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures, there is no requirement to submit test data or any other forms to support certification. However, manufacturers would be well advised to retain such data as evidence of their due care in certifying compliance with the safety standards.

(2) We propose to manufacture an automobile seat frame. Since this is only a component of the actual seat, does the firm who puts together the finished seat apply for approval and testing?

As explained previously, neither you nor the firm who puts together the finished seat has to apply for approval and testing. However, your question indicates some confusion regarding the party who is responsible for certifying that the seat complies with federal standards. The answer will vary depending upon the situation in which the seat is installed in a vehicle.

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, is considered a vehicle standard, because it applies only to new vehicles. Therefore, if a seat which incorporates your seat frame is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 207. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any federal standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

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...

Therefore, none of these entities could install a seat containing your seat frame if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 207 or any other standard.

In all of these situations, you, as the manufacturer of the seat frame, have no certification requirements. However, the manufacturer of the seat or the vehicle it is to be installed in will probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref: Part 567, Std. 207 ref:l2/l8/90

ID: 1984-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelle S. Benjamin -- Siegel; Mandell & Davidson; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Michelle S. Benjamin, Esq. Siegel, Mandell & Davidson, P.C. One Whitehall Street New York, N.Y. 10004

This is in reply to your letter of July 13, 1984, seeking an interpretation that certain chassis manufactured abroad may be imported into the United States by your client providing that they will be exported upon their completion. This interpretation is sought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5) and 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iv).

You have informed us that your client wishes to import "various chassis" which "will not conform to Federal motor vehicle safety requirements, and they will be labelled or tagged to indicate that they are intended for export." These chassis "will be sold to various special equipment motor vehicle manufacturers in this country who will use the chassis for production of dump trucks, fire engines, and other special purpose vehicles:..(which) will not be manufactured in conformity with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as the vehicles are to be exported by the American manufacturers or their customers, and we have been advised that at no time will they be sold for use on the roads or highways of the United States." You have enclosed a chart with your letter depicting the products your client wishes to import. They appear to be "incomplete motor vehicles" as defined in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

The fact situation that you present has not arisen before, and is not directly covered by the importation regulations. Two provisions of those regulations, however, appear relevant to your client's problem. Subparagraph (iv) of 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(1) permits the temporary importation of noncomplying motor vehicles and equipment items pursuant to the declaration of the importer that "the vehicle or equipment item is intended solely for export, and the vehicle or equipment item, and the outside of the container of the equipment item, if any, bears a label or tag to that effect." Subparagraph (ix) would permit permanent importation pursuant to the declaration that "the vehicle is an 'incomplete vehicle ' as defined in 49 CFR Part 568."

Subparagraph (iv) is not squarely on point as the chassis are not imported "solely" for export, but for sale to final-stage manufacturers for completion of manufacturing operations before export. Subparagraph (ix) is on point, but is intended to cover incomplete vehicles that will be completed for sale in the United States. Accordingly, these vehicles must be labelled as required by 49 CFR 567.5( a) and supplied with the document required by 49 CFR 568.4. These requirements are not relevant for vehicles that will not be operated in the United States, and may be viewed as burdensome to your client. Further, the agency requires compliance of equipment items on imported incomplete vehicles that are themselves the subject of Federal motor vehicle safety standards for equipment, such as tires, glazing, lighting, and brake fluid. Under subparagraph (iv) your client could be considered in violation of the importation regulations if, by chance, a noncomplying vehicle were not exported after its completion. Under subparagraph (ix), however, your client's responsibilities would end at importation (assuming the requirements outlined above were met), and the final-stage manufacturer could affix the label for export as specified in 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5) upon completion. Alternatively, if circumstances changed, he could complete the vehicle in a conforming manner, certify it, and sell it in the United States.

Although not squarely on point, the agency would have no objection to importation pursuant to subparagraph (iv) if each declaration (Form HS-7) also contains the notation that the vehicle is being imported solely for completion for export purposes, and provides the name and address of the final-stage manufacturer to whom it will be sold. Alternatively, your client may import the incomplete vehicles pursuant to subparagraph (ix) if it chooses to meet the requirements outlined above.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 13, 1984

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Re: Importation of Chassis Which Do Not Conform To Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Requirements

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are writing at the suggestion of Mr. Vinson, of your office, who we spoke with approximately three weeks ago concerning our client's contemplated importation into the United States of certain chassis and proper completion of the Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's HS Form 7. We believe that the facts and pertinent law discussed below require that our client affirm paragraph 4 of the HS Form 7, which provides that a motor vehicle or equipment item offered for importation under 19 CFR S12.80 "is intended solely for export and such merchandise and the outside of its container, if any, are so labeled". HS Form 7, 14, citing 19 CFR S12.80(b)(1)(iv).

By this letter, we hereby request that a binding ruling be issued as to whether paragraph 4 of the HS Form 7 is applicable under the circumstances set forth below.

F A C T S

Our client will purchase and import various chassis from a related company, beginning in August or September, 1984. In their condition as imported, the chassis will not conform to federal motor vehicle safety requirements, and they will be labeled or tagged to indicate that they are intended for export.

The imported chassis will be sold to various special equipment motor vehicle manufacturers in this country who will use the chassis for production of dump trucks, fire engines and other special purpose vehicles, some of which are more specifically outlined in the attached chart. *1 These vehicles will not be manufactured in conformity with federal motor vehicle safety standards, as the vehicles are to be exported by the American manufacturers or their customers, and we have been advised that at no time will they be sold for use on the roads or high-ways of the United States.

A R G U M E N T

THE NON-CONFORMING CHASSIS MAY BE IMPORTED BY VIRTUE OF 15 USC S1397(b)(5), AND THE IMPORTER MAY PROPERLY AFFIRM PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE HS FORM 7 IN SEEKING TO OBTAIN ENTRY OF THE CHASSIS INTO THE UNITED STATES.

As the chassis will be labeled accordingly, are intended to be exported from the United States and, after being sold and manufactured into complete, non-conforming vehicles, the finished vehicles will in fact be exported, it is our opinion that paragraph 4 of the HS Form 7 is the appropriate paragraph to be completed when making the declaration upon entry of the chassis into this country. As demonstrated below, this interpretation is supported by 15 USC S1397, the statute under which the HS

* We have been advised that the attached chart is a representative sampling of the types of vehicles which will be manufactured. Our client has further advised that manufacture of the buses depicted on the chart is not contemplated.

Form 7 is required to be filed to obtain entry of imported nonconforming vehicles or equipment items into the United States.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, P.L. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (Sept. 9, 1966), codified at 15 USC S1397 (1982), provides in pertinent part:

(a)(1) No person shall

(A) manufacture for sale, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor Vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section;....

(b)(5) Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply in the case of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported. Id.

Construed together, these provisions establish that by virtue of S1397(b)(5), importation of non-conforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment which are intended for export and appropriately labeled or tagged to that effect fall squarely outside the general prohibition against manufacture, sale, importation, etc., of non-conforming motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment set forth in S1397(a)(1)(A). This is because the statute, designed to "provide for a coordinated national safety program and establishment of safety standards for motor vehicles in interstate commerce", (1966 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2709 (emphasis supplied)) was not intended to have any regulatory effect over the manufacture, sale, importation, etc., of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment intended to be exported for use on the roads or highways of other nations.

The domestic orientation of the statute makes clear that the statute was not intended to have extraterritorial effects, but to provide a legislative response to the soaring casualty and injury levels caused by accidents occurring on our nation's highways. See id. at 2709-10. In this connection, it is important to note that prohibition of the manufacture, sale, importation, etc., of non-conforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment which are intended to be exported for use on the roads of other countries would adversely affect the United States auto industry's ability to design and manufacture vehicles to the specifications of companies doing business in such countries having their own laws and vehicle standards. This, in turn, would hamper commercial relations with other nations, and simultaneously deprive a segment of our already declining motor vehicle manufacturing industry of the opportunity to remain productive and competitive in the marketplace. Clearly, the statute does not reasonably admit of such an interpretation which would give rise to results injurious to both our domestic and international interests.

Moreover, the legislative history plainly reveals that the statute was not meant to provide the administrating authorities with the power to usurp the design and manufacturing functions of private industry, which is made clear in the following statement:

The Committee ... recognizes that the broad powers conferred upon the Secretary, while essential to achieve improved traffic safety, could be abused in such a manner as to have serious adverse effects on the automotive manufacturing industry. The Committee is not empowering the Secretary to take over the design and manufacturing functions of private industry. Id. at 2712.

Certainly, were S1397 construed to prohibit the importation of non-conforming vehicles or equipment intended for export as completed non-conforming vehicles, then the government will have achieved the very take-over it sought to avoid, by requiring that all vehicles and equipment imported into the United States and subjected to manufacturing operations in this country must conform to federal motor vehicle safety standards even if the vehicles are never intended to be sold for use in the United States.

In view of the foregoing, it is clear that S1397(b)(5) was intended to lift the prohibition against manufacture, importation, sale, etc., of non-conforming vehicles or motor vehicle equipment intended for export, which are appropriately tagged to that effect, and in fact, exported. Any other interpretation would harm a United States industry already beset with the problems of grave unemployment and declining productivity, and run afoul of the statute's underlying scope and purposes.

C O N C L U S I O N

For these reasons, it is claimed that importation of non-conforming chassis which are: 1) intended to be exported after being manufactured into complete non-conforming vehicles; 2) labeled or tagged to that effect; and 3) in fact, exported, is permitted by virtue of S1397(b)(5). Accordingly, we request that a binding ruling be issued confirming that the importer seeking entry of non-conforming chassis into the United States under the circumstances described in this application may properly affirm paragraph 4 on the Department of Transportation's HS Form 7, indicating that the imported non-conforming merchandise is intended solely for export and such merchandise and the outside of its container, if any, are so labeled.

We would appreciate your acting on the enclosed request for a binding ruling at your earliest opportunity. Naturally, should you require any additional information prior to reaching a decision, kindly contact the undersigned.

Very truly yours, SIEGEL, MANDELL & DAVIDSON, P.C.

Michelle S. Benjamin MSB:ek

ID: 11233

Mr. James J. Gregorio
6704 Forsythia St.
Springfield, VA 22150

Dear Mr. Gregorio:

This responds to your letter of September 23, 1995, requesting "authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim." Your letter states:

Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviates a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand controls. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the car seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees.

You enclosed a letter from your physician stating that recovery could take several years.

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor

vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter does not provide any information regarding why the modification to your seat cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition.

However, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#207#208 d:11/7/95

ID: aiam0486

Dear Mr. Humphreys: As we have advised Ed Bernett of your office from time to time durin the fall, a response to your letter on the treatment of removable foam seat cushions under Standard No. 207 has been under review for some time.; Standard No. 207 is essentially a test of the strength of the sea structure. As such it does not prohibit the use of removable seat cushions of the type described in your letter.; We consider it to be the intent of the standard, however, that when th momentum of a cushion is transferred in any way to the seat structure during the course of an acceleration in a given direction, the weight of the cushion must be added to the weight of the seat structure in calculating the force to be applied in that direction under S4.2 and S4.3.2.; Please advise us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-4.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James J. Gregorio

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9.23.95 letter from James J. Gregorio to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gregorio:

This responds to your letter of September 23, 1995, requesting" authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim." Your letter states:

Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviates a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand c ontrols. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the car seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees.

You enclosed a letter from your physician stating that recovery could take several years.

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accomodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situati ons, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since y our situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safe ty standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an appl icable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standart No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter does not provide any information regarding why the modification to your seat cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition.

However, in situations such as your where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public nee d. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modi fier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the sa fety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James J. Gregorio

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9.23.95 letter from James J. Gregorio to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gregorio:

This responds to your letter of September 23, 1995, requesting" authorization to modify the car seat in my 1992 Plymouth Acclaim." Your letter states:

Presently, my car is equipped with hand controls which alleviates a condition of chronic tendinitis in my right ankle. Unfortunately, there is practically no room between the hand controls and my knees. My knees constantly bang up against the hand controls. The resulting consequence is that I now have tendinitis in both knees. Modifying the car seat will allow me to push the car seat back far enough to give space to my injured knees.

You enclosed a letter from your physician stating that recovery could take several years.

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accomodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standart No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter does not provide any information regarding why the modification to your seat cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition.

However, in situations such as your where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht80-1.2

DATE: 01/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Haynsworth

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telephone conversation with Kathy DeMeter of my staff on Friday, December 21, 1979. You asked for the status of section 580.5(a)(1) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. That section exempts from the odometer disclosure requirements anyone transferring a vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 16,000 pounds. That exemption is part of the regulation, originally issued in January 1973, which prescribes rules requiring a transferor of a motor vehicle to make a written disclosure to the transferee concerning the odometer reading and its accuracy.

In January 1977, the exemption was declared void by the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on the grounds that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has exceeded its authority in fashioning the exemption. Notwithstanding the court's decision, the NHTSA believes that it has the authority to create exemptions for vehicles for which the odometer reading is not relevant. The exemption, consequently, remains a part of the odometer disclosure regulations.

For your information, I have enclosed copies of the statements submitted by Freightliner, White, and the National Association of Motor Bus Operators, which support the exemption for larger vehicles.

SINCERELY,

ENC.

FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION

January 8, 1973

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: Docket No. 72-31; Notice 1 Odometer Disclosure Requirements

Gentlemen:

Freightliner Corporation manufactures the White-Freightliner truck which is a cab-over vehicle generally used in over-the-road transportation. This vehicle is marketed by the White Motor Corporation. We represent 10% of the Class 8 diesel vehicles and over 25% of the Class 8 cab-over vehicles. 94% of our vehicles pull a semi-trailer; an additional 5% plus are full trucks pulling a pull trailer.

The basic intent of this proposed rule is to provide the purchaser with an accurate measure of the life already expended in a given vehicle so that he may judge the potential remaining life against the dollar value asked for the vehicle. It is apparent from the writing of this proposed rule that it is aimed primarily at the passenger car industry although there are no exclusions of vehicles of over 10,000 pounds weight rating.

There is a unique situation, however, involved in the original sale of this class of vehicle in that it is not normally handled by truck or train transport. The majority of vehicles, particularly in the Class 8 category, are delivered via driveaway and over 25% of our vehicles travel 2,000 or more miles before they reach the hands of the first purchaser. 2,000 miles may be significant mileage for a passenger car requiring reporting; however, in a commercial vehicle which will operate well in excess of 100,000 miles per year, the 2,000 delivery miles are insignificant, particularly since they are under a no-load condition or under a light load condition if a piggy back operation is used in delivery.

In our operation we have two title changes prior to the vehicle reaching the customer and this proposed regulation would put an undue burden on us as a manufacturer. Freightliner Corporation sells its vehicles to the White Motor Corporation who in turn sell them to the individual White Motor dealer who then sells the vehicle to the customer. The vehicle is given a road test by Freightliner which may be anywhere from 10 to 100 or more miles. The White-Freightliner Division of White Motor, in delivering the vehicle to the dealer, may put as much as 3,000 miles on the vehicle, for instance from Portland to Florida. The receiving dealer may put another 10 to 100 miles on the vehicle-in pre-delivery road testing, and then another 100 or so miles in making the actual delivery to the customer. The paperwork in keeping track of all of these incremental mileages in the normal process of delivering a vehicle seems burdensome and unnecessary, and certainly does nothing to influence the customer in deciding whether or not to purchase the vehicle. The customer has consumated the purchase with a downpayment or other financial arrangements prior to its manufacture (as is customary in this custom building industry) and fully recognizes the mileage difference between the point of manufacture and his planned point of use.

Even in dealing with the used truck, there is a serious question as to the need of this certified mileage since it refers to the chassis as a total and the engine and other major components of the vehicle are normally changed and serviced during the time of first ownership. It is more important for the potential used truck buyer to know when the engine was changed and overhauled and what work was done to the axles, transmissions and other major components rather than knowing how many miles were actually on the chassis.

Thus, we believe the total exclusion of vehicles over 10,000 pounds is warranted and that it be imperative to exclude this requirement on any vehicles to the first customer.

Norman B. Chew

WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

January 5, 1979

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Docket No. 72-11, Notice 1 Odometer Disclosure Requirements

Gentlemen:

In response to the subject Notice, White Motor Corporation is (Illegible Words) submit its comments on the proposed requirements dealing with odometer disclosure. Since White manufactures and/or distributes heavy motor trucks with a gross vehicle weight of more than 24,000 pounds only, our comments are necessarily limited in their application to such vehicles.

Our comments on specific sections of the proposed requirements are as follows:

680.4 Disclosure of Odometer Mileage

(b) In many cases the transferer may not know that the odometer reading differs from the number of miles that the vehicles has actually traveled, but may have some reason to believe it is incorrect. It is believed that it would be desirable, therefore, to change the word "knows" to "has reason to believe".

(c) In the case of heavy trucks, many such vehicles are used in fleet operations and transferred from terminal to terminal. When traded (Illegible Word) they are often turned over to the vehicle manufacturer, distributor (Illegible Words) dealer at various locations. The (Illegible Words) kept at a central location and as a result a serious problem would be involved in obtaining the mileage (Illegible Word) shown on the vehicle odometer and adding this information to the (Illegible Words) (Illegible Lines)

Exactly the same problem as discussed under (Illegible Word) with respect to Certificate of Title would be encountered in requiring that the vehicle odometer reading be shown on the document transferring ownership to the transferee where no Certificate of Title is in effect for a motor vehicle.

1.5 Recommended Form for Disclosure

is our recommendation that consideration be given to a separate meter disclosure form at least in the case of heavy trucks. We commend that the wording "the odometer reading shown above is known to differ from the actual mileage" be changed to reflect the comments made above under Section 580.4 (b).

other problem that is presented is the determination of the "Transferor's present address" due to the fact that the odometer reading (Illegible Words) have to be added to the disclosure form at the truck's location rather than at the main address for the fleet operation. Therefore an indication would be given as to which address should be shown on the disclosure form.

our opinion, the proposed regulation is completely impractical for (Illegible Word) trucks. Many of these vehicles operate between 100.000 to (Illegible Word) les per year and the reliability of the highest quality odometers and odometer drive cables is such that failures are often experienced at (Illegible Word) substantially below the annual mileage operated. Our estimate that not more than 25% of the heavy trucks which we receive in trace (Illegible Word) the true vehicle mileage on the odometer. In fact, a retail buyer rely assumes that the odometer reading is the correct mileage, since in many cases a typical vehicle runs for months without a working odometer (Illegible Word) time during its useful life.

(Illegible Word) many cases, heavy trucks are equipped with hubodometers, particularly on vehicles are used in fleet operations. However, most such instruments are removed from the vehicle prior to trade in, and therefore cannot be (Illegible Word) to show the vehicle odometer reading, particularly when subsequently transferred.

(Illegible Words) our recommendation that the odometer disclosure requirements do not (Illegible Words) such vehicles due to the extremely high mileage (Illegible Word) (Illegible Words) by a very large percentage of such vehicles, which (Illegible Word) the (Illegible Words) of little value due to the fact that it probably (Illegible Words) indicate that there would be a greater variation (Illegible Lines)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

January 10, 1973 (Illegible Text)

BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[49 CFR Part 580]

[Docket No. 72-31: Notice No. 1]

Odometer Disclosure Requirements

Notice of Proposed (Illegible Words)

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF (Illegible Words)

This statement is filed by the National Association of Motor (Illegible Words) (Illegible Words) (Illegible Lines) city motor bus industry (Illegible Words) all companies affiliated with the National Trailways Bus System and more than 400 other carriers not affiliated with either system. Collectively, these members of NAMBO provide more than 90 percent of the intercity motor bus transportation in the United States. In addition to its operator members, NAMBO has numerous associate members engaged in the manufacture of buses and other bus equipment.

For the reasons hereinafter stated, NAMBO is convinced that Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, does not apply to transfers of ownership of intercity coaches. Accordingly, intercity bus operators, in our opinion, would not be affected by the proposed odometer disclosure regulations even though transferors of intercity coaches are not specifically exempted.

Many motor carriers of passengers do not have odometers on their buses. Such carriers use an electronic speedometer which they feel has greater accuracy and durability. Obviously, Title IV of the Act and any odometer disclosure regulations issued thereunder would not apply to intercity bus operators who do not use odometers.

With respect to intercity bus operators who have odometers on their buses, such odometers are set to record mileage up to 99,999 miles. However, the typical intercity coach is operated more than one million miles prior to its sale as used equipment. When such buses are equipped with an odometer, the odometer would have made ten complete cycles. Obviously, purchasers of intercity buses are not entitled, in the language of Section 401 of the Act, "to rely on the odometer reading as an accurate reflection of the mileage actually travelled by the vehicle . . .". When the Congress found in Section 401 of the act that "an accurate [odometer] indication of the mileage travelled by motor vehicles assists the purchaser in determining its safety and reliability . . .", it could not have been thinking about purchasers of used buses who know that the odometer readings are usually at least ten times less than the actual mileage of the vehicles. Since the purpose of Title IV of the Act, as stated in Section 401, is "to establish certain safeguards for the protection of purchasers with respect to the sale of motor vehicles having altered or reset odometers . . .", and since that purpose is clearly inapplicable to transactions between buyers and sellers of intercity coaches, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should make clear in its proposed regulations that buyers and sellers of intercity coaches are not covered.

A further reason for excluding intercity buses from the proposed regulations is that the Congress did not intend to impose on the intercity bus industry requirements which it would be literally impossible to satisfy. For example, Section 407 of the Act provides that odometers which have been repaired or replaced --

"shall be adjusted to read zero and a notice in writing shall be attached to the left door frame of the vehicle by the owner or his agent specifying the mileage prior to repair or replacement of the odometer and the date on which it was repaired or replaced."

Intercity coaches, unlike passenger automobiles and trucks, have no left door frame to which the required notice could be attached.

Section 408(a) of the Act, pursuant to which the proposed odometer disclosure requirements would be issued, provides that the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe rules requiring any transferor to give the following written disclosure to the transferee in connection with the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle:

"(1) Disclosure of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer;

(2) Disclosure that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is known to the transferor to be different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually travelled."

Section 580.4(b) of the proposed regulations would implement Section 408(a) of the Act by requiring the transferor, if he knows that the odometer reading differs from the number of miles the vehicle has actually travelled, to inform the transferee by a notation on the document transferring ownership that the actual vehicle mileage is unknown. It is impossible for transferors of intercity coaches to comply with that provision of the statute and the implementing regulations, which is a further reason for concluding that intercity bus operators were not intended to be covered by the Act.

Compliance by intercity bus operators is impossible because in most instances the transferor of an intercity coach knows that the odometer reading differs from the number of miles the bus has actually travelled and because he also knows from his accounting and maintenance records the actual mileage the vehicle has accumulated. Thus, for an intercity bus operator to state that the odometer reading does not correspond with the actual mileage of the bus and that such actual vehicle mileage is unknown would be a false statement of a material fact.

Intercity bus operators maintain accurate records respecting accumulated mileage on vehicles. An operator's accounting department or bookkeeper collects and retains such information because of its importance in developing cost and other statistical data and also because the mileage data, which is derived from the trip reports of bus drivers, is the basis on which drivers are paid. Therefore, purchasers of used buses have no interest whatever in odometer readings but they are interested in the accounting and other records of the vendor which show the accumulated mileage on used vehicles.

In addition, intercity bus operators are required by Part 396 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety to systematically inspect and systematically maintain buses and to keep records on such systematic inspection and maintenance. Accordingly, the maintenance departments or shop foremen of intercity bus operators also have accurate information respecting the actual miles travelled by a used bus.

"Motor vehicle," as used in Title IV of the Act, is defined in Section 2(15) thereof to include any vehicle "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways . . .". Of course, intercity coaches are included within that definition of "motor vehicle." However, the term "odometer" as used in Title IV of the Act does not include odometers used on buses. Section 402(1) of the Act defines the term "odometer as an instrument for measuring and recording the actual distance a motor vehicle travels while in operation . . .". Congress' obvious intent was to require disclosure of the readings of odometers which are installed in vehicles for the purpose of informing owners, prospective purchasers, and others concerned about the accumulated mileage of the vehicle. Since odometers installed in intercity coaches are not intended to serve that purpose, they are not within the definition set forth in Section 402(1) of the Act.

Purchasers of intercity buses are sophisticated buyers and do not need the protection accorded by the Act to purchasers of automobiles and pick-up trucks. Accordingly, we believe the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should amend its proposed regulations to state, in effect, that buses used in intercity service are not covered in the proposed regulations because such coverage clearly was neither authorized nor intended by the Congress.

On the other hand, if the Administration believes that the Congress intended to protect purchasers of intercity motor coaches and that such purchasers should be provided with information concerning the actual mileage of used buses, we suggest that such disclosure be the subject of a separate regulation. Intercity bus operators would be willing, if the Administration believes it necessary or desirable, to provide every purchaser of a used intercity bus with a statement of the actual accumulated mileage of the bus to be sold. Such information would be derived from accounting and maintenance records of the transferor. If for any reason, the transferor does not have accurate accounting or maintenance records concerning actual vehicle mileage, he could be required to advise the transferee that such records do not exist and that the actual mileage of the vehicle offered for sale is unknown.

In conclusion, we would be happy to consult with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in regard to the language of a proposed regulation applicable to sales of used intercity coaches if the Administration concludes that such a regulation is necessary or desirable

For the reasons set forth above, we do not believe Congress included intercity bus operators within the scope of Title IV of the Act and that any regulation on the subject which the Administration might adopt would not give purchasers of used buses any more information than they already receive from sellers of used buses.

CHARLES A. WEBB, President National Association of Motor Bus Owners

Due date: January 11, 1973