ID: 15504.drn

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-2247

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

This responds to your association's request that this office review the most recent revisions of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association's (TTMA) Recommended Practice Number 56, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number" and Recommended Practice Number 53, "U. S. Trailer Certification Label." We have reviewed both draft documents as time and resources would allow and offer the following comments. Please note, however, that these comments do not constitute any sort of NHTSA approval or endorsement of the TTMA's Recommended Practices. TTMA is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the documents.

In general, the TTMA Recommended Practice No. 56 appears to be correct about NHTSA's vehicle identification number requirements as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. In general, Recommended Practice No. 53 appears to be correct about NHTSA's labeling requirements in 49 CFR Part 567 Certification and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. (49 CFR 571.120).

However, in several instances, the Recommended Practices go beyond what is required by NHTSA's regulations to recommend one particular means be used to meet the Federal requirement, when NHTSA's regulations leave that matter to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. Examples of the TTMA recommendations going beyond the NHTSA regulations may be found in the directions provided in Recommended Practice No. 56's Part 13.0 on the Vehicle Descriptor (Second) Section Code, and Part 15.0 Vehicle Indicator (Fourth) Section Code. For Recommended Practice No. 53, an example is found in the combined certification and tire-rim information provided in Section 6.0 "Certification Label Requirements."

While TTMA is free to make these recommendations, it may be helpful for your members to recognize the distinction between information or labeling required by NHTSA, and which therefore must follow an exact format according to Federal law, as opposed to matters that are within the discretion of the manufacturer and for which the TTMA provides one suggested means by which the requirement(s) may be fulfilled.

I also note that in Section 12.5 (pages 12-13) in No. 56, TTMA provides recommendations for handling certification and VIN assignment responsibilities for trailers sold in a bankruptcy sale. You correctly note that NHTSA has not yet issued an interpretation on this issue, and in the absence of a specific fact situation to be addressed, we will not comment. However, your members should be advised that if they decide to follow TTMA's advice on the bankruptcy issue, they will be doing so at their own risk, as NHTSA may not agree with TTMA's recommendation. The safest course if this situation should arise, is to write to the Chief Counsel and ask for an interpretation.

We offer the following comments on particular sections of each recommended practice:

COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDED PRACTICE NUMBER 56 "TRAILER VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER"

2.0 Purpose:

An extra sentence should be added to Section 2.1 as follows: "This Recommended Practice references relevant provisions of NHTSA's VIN regulation in parentheses; e.g. (565.3(h)) for the definition of `manufacturer'".

4.4 Trailer Kits:

The citation should be changed from "49 CFR 571.115, S2 and S3" to " 49 CFR 565.2".

9.5 Format

Section 9.5 addresses situations where there are spaces in a VIN, and comments: "The space can, however, be filled with any approved letter or number listed in Section 9.3." This sentence is not necessarily true. In the twelfth through seventeenth positions of the VIN (production sequence), other than characters designated for use by the SAE in the twelfth through fourteenth positions (because the manufacturer makes fewer than 500 vehicles per year), numbers must be used. Section 565.6(d)(3) states that the twelfth through seventeenth positions "shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process if the manufacturer produces 500 or more vehicles of its type annually." (Emphasis added.)

17.0 Interpretations and Questions:

If there are any questions about VINs, the first person TTMA members should contact is the VIN Coordinator at (202) 366-6018.

Requests for legal interpretations may be obtained by writing to:

Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590

Information on legal interpretations may be obtained from:

DOROTHY NAKAMA (202) 366-2992.

Please note that NHTSA attorneys do not provide oral interpretations or other "informal answers to questions."

Excerpts from Legal Interpretations Issued by NHTSA Pertaining to VINs

I suggest the following cautionary language precede the section with excerpts from interpretations:

The following excerpts from NHTSA's Chief Counsel's interpretation letters are provided for the reader's convenience only. NHTSA strongly advises that before deciding to rely on an excerpt, the reader review the entire letter from which the excerpt was taken.

Further, in attempting to use these interpretations to resolve a question, please be aware that they represent the views of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases. If you are aware of a previous interpretation that appears to address your question, please cite that interpretation and present your question to the Chief Counsel. Do not act on the assumption that the interpretation is necessarily applicable to your situation. There may be critical factual differences between your situation and those addressed in previous interpretations. Further, the agency's standards and regulations change from year to year, and past interpretations may no longer be applicable.

Interpretation letters are available from: NHTSA Technical Reference, Room 5108, 400 Seventh St., S. W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Phone number (202) 366-4941. Please be sure to reference 49 CFR part or NHTSA regulation being interpreted.

NHTSA's interpretation letters are available for viewing on the Internet at: "http:\\www.nhtsa.dot.gov". On the home page, click on "Table of Contents", then on "Regulations and Standards" under "NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search". Letters may be searched by "key words" such as date, name of addressee, or subject matter.

Finally, I note that in a June 29, 1993 letter to TTMA, I advised you that the "Anti Car Theft Act of 1992" resulted in adding Section 511, Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers, to Title 18 of the United States Code. Section 511 provides that whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, for purposes other than repair, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. It may be helpful to your members if Section 511 was mentioned somewhere in the recommended practice, perhaps in the section containing excerpts from NHTSA's legal interpretations.

COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDED PRACTICE NUMBER 53 "U. S. TRAILER CERTIFICATION LABEL"

3.1 References:

The correct title for Standard No. 120 is Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars and the correct title for Part 568 is Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

4.2 Certification Label ... Specifications:

4.2 should read as follows:

"The label must be affixed to a location on the forward half of the left side of the trailer such that it is easily readable from outside the trailer without moving any part of the trailer."

6.0 Certification Label Examples:

6.2 The example shown in S6.2 (certification label not combined with Std. 120 labeling requirements) provides the correct information in the correct order specified in Part 567. However, in the S6.2 example, the "Date of Manufacture" should read "Month and Year of Manufacturer", as specified at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(2). The information "All Axles 19,000 with 10.00-20(F) Tires" should be preceded by "Gross Axle Weight Rating [GAWR]".

6.8 In the example shown in S6.8, "Date of Manufacture" should read "Month and Year of Manufacture."

Excerpts from Rulemaking and Interpretations

On excerpts from interpretation letters, my earlier comments provided for Recommended Practice Number 56 also apply to this discussion.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:565#567#120

d.9/11/97

ID: nht93-9.10

DATE: December 10, 1993

FROM: Joe Miller -- Product Support Manager, Load King

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

TEXT:

Load King manufactures trailers in Elk Point, South Dakota. We sell our trailers to a dealer in Minneapolis, Minnesota who in turn sells these trailers to customer/users. The dealer does not use these trailers other than to set them in their yard for resale.

We want this dealer to do some finish manufacturing for us. One item specifically is to paint the trailers, install operational decals and place the conspicuity striping. Can primed trailers be moved without conspicuity striping in this case?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

ID: nht79-4.35

DATE: 05/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 12, 1979, requesting an interpretation of the term "production process" as used in 49 CFR 571.115, S4.5.3.3. We are sorry for the delay in responding.

The production practice you describe on page 2 of your letter would satisfy S4.5.3.3. In the preamble to the final rule published on August 17, 1978 (43 FR 36451), the agency stated:

The NPRM proposed that the last six characters represent the sequential number of a vehicle when the manufacturer produced more than 500 vehicles annually of that type.

A number of comments pointed out that for various reasons a vehicle might be taken from a production line, thereby having an actual sequential number which differs from the production sequence number originally assigned by the manufacturer. The proposal is amended to indicate that the production sequence number is required.

Thus, Pullman Trailmobile should indicate the sequential number originally assigned by the manufacturer, not the number reflecting exact order in which the vehicle is produced.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 12, 1979

Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

RE: FMVSS No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number Request for Interpretation

Dear Sirs:

FMVSS No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115, was recently amended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") in part as follows:

S4.5.3.3 The third through the eighth characters of the third section shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process . . .

The Pullman Trailmobile Division of Pullman Incorporated ("Pullman Trailmobile") requests an interpretation of the term "production process" from the Administrator.

Pullman Trailmobile is a manufacturer of highway truck trailers. Pullman Trailmobile's present production practice is that, upon acceptance of a customer's order for trailers, serial numbers for the trailers are immediately assigned and the order is thereupon placed with the appropriate Pullman Trailmobile plant for manufacture. Upon effectiveness of FMVSS No. 115, the number assigned in this fashion will be the vehicle identification number ("VIN"). The VIN plate or label will be affixed to each trailer when manufacture of the trailer is complete. Several situations could arise during manufacture which would cause trailers to be produced in a sequence different from that of the VIN sequence.

If the NHTSA intends the VIN to identify a vehicle's maker, attributes, age, etc., Pullman Trailmobile's practice will fulfill that purpose. If the NHTSA intends the VIN, among other things, to identify the exact order in which a given group of vehicles was produced, Pullman Trailmobile's practice will not fulfill that purpose.

Pullman Trailmobile believes that its production practice of assigning the VIN at the time of acceptance of a customer's order for trailers falls within the scope of assigning the VIN in the "production process", as that term is used by the NHTSA. This is, in fact, the first step in Pullman Trailmobile's production processes even though the physical production of vehicles has not yet begun.

It is requested that the NHTSA confirm Pullman Trailmobile's interpretation of "production process". Because of the considerable time, effort and expense involved in establishing its computerized VIN coding system, Pullman Trailmobile desires assurance from NHTSA that the aforementioned aspect of its production practice conforms with the regulations. Your prompt response will be appreciated.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID L. KELLY -- Attorney, PULLMAN TRAILMOBILE DIVISION OF PULLMAN INCORPORATED

ID: aiam3404

Dear Mr. Miskowicz: This responds to your letter of March 2, 1981, to Vladislav Radovic concerning Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. Your letter was forwarded to this office for reply.; You asked whether a child restraint belt buckle must meet the buckl force release requirements when tested in an unloaded condition. In addition, you asked whether section 4.3(a) and 4.3(b) of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, are the only requirements of that standard which apply to buckles in child restraint systems. The answer is yes.; Section 5.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 provides that each child restrain belt buckle, when tested in accordance with S6.2, must not release when a force of not more than 12 pounds is applied before the dynamic sled specified in S6.1 is conducted. The buckle must release when a force of 20 pounds is applied after the dynamic sled test. Section 6.2 provides that in conducting the belt buckle release force test, the appropriate test dummy is placed in the restraint and either a pull force of 20 pounds is applied, in the case of 6-month-old test dummy, or a 45 pound pull force is applied, in the case of the three-year-old test dummy. Thus, the buckle is not tested in an unloaded state.; Section 5.4.2 of the standard provides that each belt buckle has t conform to the 'requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209.' No other provisions of Standard No. 209 apply to belt buckles used in child restraints.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 6, 1988

FROM: AMIT REIZES

TO: DIANE STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR - NHTSA

TITLE: PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE CAR MANUFACTURERS TO INSTALL AIR BAG RESTRAINTS IN ALL CARS SOLD IN AMERICA.

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 19, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO REIZES AND SEPTEMBER 1987 ISSUE OF "CONSUMER INFORMATION"

TEXT: As you well know, automobile car crashes claim close to 50,000 American lives and cause over 250,000 serious injuries each year. Most of these serious injuries and fatalities are cause by high speed frontal collisions. Independent surveys have indicate d that installation of air bags can reduce the above mentioned figures by as much as fifty percent as reported by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Special Report, dated July 3, 1987. Since your administration is responsible for rules that car manu facturers must abide by. I implore you to pass a law that would require them to install them in all vehicles sold to the U.S. public.

Air bags have been installed in vehicles as early as 1973, in an effort to increase highway safety and have proven to save the lives of those safety conscious individuals who requested to have them installed in their cars. However, since only individu al consumers have requested them, their cost has been too high for most consumers. Car manufacturers who have picked up on these safety oriented consumers offer air bags as an optional feature. The cost to the perspective buyer may vary between $ 800.0 0 to $ 1800.00 on most luxury models such as Cadillacs and Mercedes Benz and may not even be featured on most common economy cars that are sold today. Richard Haayen wrote an article titled "The airtight case for air bags" in the November 1988 issue of the Saturday Evening Post, in which he states, that having air bags installed in all cars would reduce the selling cost to as little as $ 28.75 per vehicle.

I must applaud the two leading Automobile Insurance Companies U.S.A.A. and GEICO who announced last Wednesday that they will reduce their premium rates by fifty percent to their customers who install air bags in their automobiles. However, I still ins ist that this should be put into legislation. Some may argue that the consumer has a right to decide whether to install air bags or not in his vehicles.

To this I strongly disagree, since we do not have the right to decide about seatbelts. They come with the cars by law and they may not be removed by law.

I think seatbelts are good and have proven to be the best overall protection to the occupant of a vehicle who wear them. Unfortunately, as cited by Helen Kahn in the February 28, 1987 issue of Automotive News, a recent survey indicates that consumers prefer air bags over belts. Moreover, legislation which has been passed in several states requiring seatbelt usage has shown the best response in the State of Maryland at thirty-five percent, as was reported last Monday, April 2, 1988, on the eleven o' clock Eye Witness News on Channel nine. Air bags on the other hand, once installed will be one hundred percent effective in the reduction of injury from frontal crashes. The smart traveler will continue to buckle up as before and will have the best pro tection available, and the careless travelers will also be protected from misfortunes.

I therefore urge you to push forward legislation to require installation of air bags in cars sold in the U.S. I thank you as do the thousands of lives which will be saved.

ID: aiam3621

Dear Mr. Peck: This is in response to your letter of September 30, 1982, enclosing 'petition for exemption...on behalf of Capps and Lancaster Service Center'. The petition concerns a single motor vehicle consisting of the body of a 1974 Dodge school bus which has been removed from its original chassis and attached to a new 1981 International Harvester chassis.; This agency does not regulate the use of motor vehicles. That is matter for State governments. We do enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and grant exemptions as appropriate consistent with our authority.; I regret that the exemption process is not available in your case. Par 555 is intended to cover the future vehicle production of bona fide motor vehicle manufacturers, and not a single conversion, performed in the past, by what appears to be a service garage. Under our regulations, the combination of an old body upon a new chassis results in a new motor vehicle required to meet the motor vehicle safety standards in effect when the chassis was manufactured. Compliance is especially important in this instance because of all the school bus safety standards that have become effective since the bus body was manufactured in 1974, and which affect its structure and that of its seats.; This means that Capps and Lancaster are technically in violation of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for which a penalty of up to $1000 may be imposed. We do not intend to pursue this, however, unless other violations come to our attention. However, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting Capps and Lancaster to make them aware of their responsibilities in order to prevent further violations by that company.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3622

Dear Mr. Peck: This is in response to your letter of September 30, 1982, enclosing 'petition for exemption...on behalf of Capps and Lancaster Service Center'. The petition concerns a single motor vehicle consisting of the body of a 1974 Dodge school bus which has been removed from its original chassis and attached to a new 1981 International Harvester chassis.; This agency does not regulate the use of motor vehicles. That is matter for State governments. We do enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and grant exemptions as appropriate consistent with our authority.; I regret that the exemption process is not available in your case. Par 555 is intended to cover the future vehicle production of bona fide motor vehicle manufacturers, and not a single conversion, performed in the past, by what appears to be a service garage. Under our regulations, the combination of an old body upon a new chassis results in a new motor vehicle required to meet the motor vehicle safety standards in effect when the chassis was manufactured. Compliance is especially important in this instance because of all the school bus safety standards that have become effective since the bus body was manufactured in 1974, and which affect its structure and that of its seats.; This means that Capps and Lancaster are technically in violation of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for which a penalty of up to $1000 may be imposed. We do not intend to pursue this, however, unless other violations come to our attention. However, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting Capps and Lancaster to make them aware of their responsibilities in order to prevent further violations by that company.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-5.56

DATE: 12/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michael E. Bufkin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 12, 1976, question whether a tire brand name owner is required by @ 574.7(b) of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, to establish and maintain specified purchaser information on its tires if the distributor or dealer fails to provide that information as specified by @ 574.8 of the regulation. You also ask whether a tire registration form with dimensions other than those specified in Figure 3 of the regulation may be provided to tire distributors and dealers.

Section 158(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1418(b)) mandates the tire manufacturer's (including brand name owner's) responsibility to establish and maintain the purchaser information, independent of the distributor's or dealer's cooperation:

@ 158(a)(1)

(b) Every manufacturer of motor vehicle or tires shall cause the establishment and maintenance of records of the name and address of the first purchaser of each motor vehicle and tire produced by such manufacturer

Thus, the brand name owner's responsibility is a statutory one, independent of any interpretation of Part 574.

With regard to the size of the tire registration form, @ 574.7(a) permits the use of any size form unless a dealer requests forms that conform to the universal format set forth in Figure 3. The agency has interpreted the requirement for provision of the universal format to not apply in the case of a dealer that sells only one brand of tire.

SINCERELY,

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. BUFKIN

November 12, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Compliance Division

I represent a tire brand name owner who has sought my advice on a number of questions under Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping - of your Regulations published in 36 F.R. 1197 on January 26, 1971, and as amended thereafter. Although these Regulations appear to be well written and clear on their face, there are a couple of points on which I desire clarification. My client sells passenger and truck tires to independent businessmen (dealers) who resell them to the consuming public (customer).

1. Does Section 574.7(b) impose upon a brand name owner the obligation to obtain the customer's name, address and tire identification number in those cases where the dealer fails to procure this information? If such a duty is imposed upon the brand name owner, how does he comply? It would be virtually impossible for him to comply where the dealer does not provide this information. My own interpretation of the Regulations is that the brand name owner does not have this duty but simply has a duty to maintain whatever records are forwarded to him from his dealers.

2. My client desires to use a tire registration form which is smaller than the prescribed 7-3/8" x 3-1/4" Universal Format shown in your Figure 3. He would like to use a 5" x 3-1/4" size which will fit easily into a credit card imprinter, thereby enabling the dealer to imprint his name and address without having to write it out in longhand. Do you have any objection to use of a size smaller than the one specified in Figure 3?

3. If you do object to the smaller size registration form, can the brand name owner nevertheless provide the smaller form to his dealers and still not be in violation of the Regulations? A careful reading of Section 574.7(a) imposes a duty on the brand name owner to provide the Universal Format size only to "those dealers who request them". (Emphasis supplied). I gather then that the brand name owner may supply any size to dealers who do not request a form.

Your guidance will be most appreciated. Thanking you in advance for your help, I am,

Michael E. Bufkin

ID: 2507y

Mr. Mike Love
Manager, Safety Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
100 West Liberty Street
P. O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new feature added to the antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 911 and 928 Porsche car lines, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for those car lines beginning in MY 1990, and that therefore Porsche 911's and 928's containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Porsche 911 and 928 car lines were granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Porsche showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on these car lines was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on May 25, 1989, and appeared in the Federal Register on June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23727).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Porsche plans to modify the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Porsche 911 and 928, as follows: integrate the alarm control unit with the central locking and interior light control units; incorporate a feature that will also monitor the glove box for unauthorized opening; improve diagnostic capability in order to enhance serviceability; and install a capability to accept other features (such as motion sensors) if they are desired in the future.

In addition, it was stated that the changes in the system will be virtually unnoticeable to the operator, and that the system will still be armed passively by locking either door with the key. Further, with the addition of the glovebox, all the same points of entry, such as the doors, hood, and hatch, will be monitored by the system and the engine disabling and alarm features will be the same. Porsche further stated that the system "will be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system."

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Porsche to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Porsche does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Porsche notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in an April 13, 1990, telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, you stated that Porsche was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:Part 543 d:5/3l/90

ID: aiam5562

"Dear Mr. Snyder: This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1995 asking whether a client of yours is a 'final stage manufacturer' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and implementing regulations on manufacturer identification and vehicle certification found in 49 CFR Parts 566, 567, and 568. You have described this client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from used chassis-cabs. The term 'manufacturer' is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) (formerly section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) as 'a person- (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment . . . ' (emphasis added). Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the assembly of completed motor vehicles, it would appear to meet this definition. Because the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566 apply to 'all manufacturers of motor vehicles,' as stated in section 566.3 of that Part, your client would be required to submit to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the identifying information specified in 49 CFR 566.5. The term 'final stage manufacturer' is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as 'a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.' An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined in that section as 'an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle.' The term 'completed vehicle' is in turn defined in section 568.3 as 'a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function . . . .' Based on your description of your client as being engaged in the manufacture of completed heavy duty dump trucks, vans, and road tractors from chassis-cabs, it would qualify as a final stage manufacturer, as that term is defined in section 568.3. Requirements for final stage manufacturers are specified at 49 CFR 568.6. This section provides that a final stage manufacturer shall complete each vehicle 'in such a manner that it conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates,' and shall affix a label to the vehicle attesting to that conformance in accordance with 49 CFR 567.5, which specifies certification requirements for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. These certification requirements are in implementation of 49 U.S.C. 30115, which requires the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle to certify to the dealer or distributor at delivery that the vehicle complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA has long taken the position, however, that a vehicle is used if it is assembled by adding a new body to the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads. As a consequence, your client would not be required to certify the vehicles that it manufactures in this fashion. Your client would nevertheless be subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which provides that ' a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' NHTSA has interpreted this provision as requiring any of the specified entities that remove an old body from a vehicle in order to install a new one to ensure that the newly completed vehicle meets the standards that the vehicle was originally required to meet. For example, a vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1995 mounted on a used 1989 chassis must meet all standards that applied to 1989 vehicles. Your client would be liable for any violation of this requirement on vehicles that it manufactures, regardless of whether it removed the body from the old vehicle itself, or directed another entity to do so. Additionally, as a vehicle manufacturer, your client would be required under 49 U.S.C. 30118 to furnish owners with notification of, and a remedy for, any safety-related defect or any noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is found to exist in a vehicle that it assembles. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366- 5238. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";