ID: aiam4279

Dear Mr. Spence: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from you constituent, Mr. George Seaborn of the South Carolina Association of School Superintendents, concerning Federal regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.; In his letter to you, Mr. Seaborn expresses his concern about a Federa regulation that 'excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than 10 persons from use by schools.' Mr. Seaborn explains that it would be difficult for school districts to comply with a restriction on van use since large vans are extensively used for pupil transportation. He believes that schools should be permitted to use vans since those vehicles are safe for transporting passengers other than school children.; I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our school bus regulations. A explained below, there is no Federal prohibition directed against schools or school districts which prevents them from using vans carrying 11 or more persons. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all 'school buses.' The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date.; The parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act are the manufacturers an sellers of new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act requires each person selling a new 'school bus' to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a van designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) is a 'bus,' and is a 'school bus' if intended for transporting students to and from school or related events.; A person may sell a new bus (including a van designed to carry 10 o more persons) to a school or school district provided that the vehicle meets our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.; Because our regulations apply only to the manufacture and sale of ne motor vehicles, we do not prohibit school districts from using their large vans to transport school children even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. Matters relating to motor vehicle use are determined by state law. However, in the event a South Carolina school district decides to buy a new school bus, we would like the district to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under the Vehicle Safety Act to sell complying school buses. The seller should know that he or she risks substantial penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold as a school bus.; Since Mr. Seaborn is interested in transporting students in vans, would like to clarify a few additional matters concerning our school bus regulations. In his letter to you, your constituent expresses a belief that large vans (i.e., buses) should be safe for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the Schoolbus Amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that special measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportation. Fifteen-passenger vans (i.e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent performance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency exits, windows and windshields and seating systems.; New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may b sold to school districts to transport their pupils to school related events. School districts may also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, because such vans are considered 'multipurpose passenger vehicles' (MPV's) and not 'buses' or 'school buses' under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require them to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Instead, they must meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's which also provide high levels of passenger safety.; I hope this information is helpful. We have provided similar letters t Representatives Robin Tallon and Butler Derrick who contacted us on behalf of Mr. Seaborn. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance to you and your constituents.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2236

Dear Mr. Greiner: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, concernin procedures for the certification of trucks on which your member companies mount tanks for the transportation of food and dairy products. The letter requested our review of six procedures agreed to by your members for compliance with the Federal certification requirements. The procedures are restated below along with our comments.; >>>1. 'Member companies agree to assume the responsibility fo notification and instruction of customers to select a truck chassis with a loaded and axle capacity rating equal to or exceeding the total weight of the completed truck chassis, i.e., chassis, tank, and payload, in order to comply with Federal safety standards.'<<<; We encourage this practice. Please note, however, that the custome himself has no duty under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended ('the Act'), the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or applicable regulations, to select a chassis with sufficient load ratings. The duty is your member companies', when presented with chassis of insufficient load ratings, to refrain from mounting tanks.; >>>2. 'Member companies agree to assume the responsibility fo notification and instruction of a customer when his new vehicle is received to obtain an incomplete vehicle certification supplied by the truck manufacturer, and to retain this certification in the truck cab until his tank is mounted as a complete unit.'<<<; Assuming that by 'incomplete vehicle certification supplied by th truck manufacturer' you mean the document referred to in S 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, we encourage this practice as well. Please note once again, however, that the customer has no duty under applicable law to obtain or retain this document. Provision of the document is the duty of the chassis manufacturer. While your members are free to require of their customers the obtaining and retention of the document, this would be a solely contractual requirement.; >>>3. 'In the event that the customer has the chassis altered by a intermediate party such as lengthening the frame, adding an axle, or changing tire size and/or specifications, member companies agree to advise the customer of his responsibility for obtaining from the intermediate shop a certificate stating the new gross vehicle weight rating and new gross axle weight rating, and that the vehicle complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards.'<<<; This does not correctly state the applicable law, for the reason discussed in no. 2 above. Pursuant to S 568.5, it is the duty of the intermediate manufacturer to pass on the incomplete vehicle document. The customer's duty is a matter of private contract. Further, the incomplete vehicle document need not certify that the chassis complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It must simply provide the statements and information set out in S 568.4(a), with such addendum as may be necessary.; >>>4. 'The member company, as a transportation tank manufacturer, a the time of mounting the customer's tank on the new truck chassis at his plant, will be responsible to certify through the preparation of a completed vehicle certification that the unit complies with requirements set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.'<<<; That is correct. >>>5. 'When a new truck chassis is received at a member company's plan for mounting with no or improper 'incomplete vehicle certification' documents, the vehicle will be certified for 'no load' carrying capacity.'<<<; This practice is improper. A vehicle may not be certified for 'no load carrying capacity. S 567.5 of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, requires that Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWR's) be stated. S 567.5(a)(5) explicitly provides that the GVWR:; >>>shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rate cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity...<<<; Further, where your member company mounts a tank that is designed t carry a particular commodity, the rated cargo load on which he bases the ratings should not be less than what he can reasonably expect the user to consider a 'full load' of that commodity. The incomplete vehicle document is designed to protect the final stage manufacturer in his certification of the completed vehicle.; >>>6. 'When the gross vehicle weight ratings or gross vehicle axl ratings are less than the required rating for the capacity of the tank, the member company will state the limited carrying capacity to meet Federal standards on the certification document.'<<<; For the reasons discussed in no. 5 above, this practice is no necessarily proper. In particular, if it is reasonable to expect that the user will load the vehicle to its full volumetric capacity despite your member company's specification on the certification plate of a 'limited carrying capacity', then the vehicle would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect, subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the Act.; If you have any further questions, please feel free to write. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht71-4.28

DATE: 10/22/71

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

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of October 14 you ask whether reflex reflectors on the tail gate of a pick-up truck, as shown in Figure 1 of the drawings you enclosed, meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Standard No. 108 requires, in part, that reflex reflectors be mounted "on the rear" of a vehicle. Compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 is judged with the vehicle in its normal road operating condition. In our view, a pick-up truck is normally operated with the tail gate in a closed position, and the reflex reflectors mounted as shown in Figure 1 appear to meet the rear reflector location requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht75-5.42

DATE: 09/23/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. and Mrs. Sten Keinzler

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 8, 1975, concerning apparent alteration of the odometer on the 1971 Pontiac Ventura II you traded in to Mosher Motor Sales.

The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) prohibits disconnection, resetting, or alteration of a vehicle odometer with intent to change the number of miles indicated thereon. It also requires the execution of a written disclosure of a vehicle's mileage at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. A false statement on the disclosure form, knowingly made by the transferor, is considered a violation of the Act.

Violation of any of these requirements, committed with the intent to defraud, makes available to the buyer a civil remedy in the amount of $ 1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal court.

The situation you describe in your letter indicates that there have been at least two violations of the Act by the dealer to whom you traded your car. If the person who purchased the vehicle from him becomes aware of the violations they will be able to sue according to the procedure described above. The only danger that exists for you relates to the absence of an odometer disclosure statement executed by you at the time you gave up possession of the car. If an eventual owner of the car discovers that the mileage has been altered he may sue everyone who ever owned the vehicle.

I would therefore suggest that you now execute an odometer disclosure statement indicating what the mileage was on the car at the time you turned it over to Mosher. I have enclosed the odometer disclosure regulation promulgated pursuant to the Act which contains a sample disclosure form. You may want to state somewhere on the document the reasons for your not having provided the statement at the time you sold your car. You can then send the document to the dealer by certified mail and retain your receipt as evidence that he received it. You may also find it a good idea to retain a copy of the odometer disclosure you complete.

Mosher Motor Sales is in violation of the law if it does not provide you with an odometer disclosure statement for the vehicle you purchased. A letter will be sent from this office informing the dealership of its noncompliance. You should demand that you be given a statement that conforms to the one required by law since it will serve as protection for you should that vehicle's mileage every be questioned.

Based upon the information you have provided it appears that Mosher Motor Sales may be violating the Federal odometer law. If you question the accuracy of the mileage currently indicated on the odometer of the car you purchased from them there are several means by which you may be able to establish that there has been an alteration. First, you may be able to obtain copies of prior odometer disclosure statements that certify the mileage on the vehicle at various points in the past. If these statements are unavailable, you may want to question prior owners of the vehicle as to what they recall the mileage being when they gave up possession. Your State Department of Motor Vehicles should be able to tell you how to trace back the chain of title. Some States record the mileage on vehicles at the time they are inspected and others enter mileage directly on the title document which is often filed with the State. These would be possible leads to finding out whether the mileage is accurate. Finally, an experienced mechanic may be able to determine if an odometer has been disconnected or altered.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority under the Cost Savings Act to conduct investigations to determine if there has been a violation of the odometer provisions. For this reason, we must rely on private individuals such as yourselves to notify us of violations. We will alert Mosher to the fact that we have received a complaint concerning them and inform them of the penalties for noncompliance.

Thank you very much for your letter.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

Sept 8, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 900 7th Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir:

On July 30, 1975, we bought a used 1971 Mercury Cougar. We used as trade-in a 1971 Pontiac Ventura II, D.#209750. We were not given a written "Odometer Disclosure Statement" nor did we sign one for our Pontiac that we trade-in.

Later (Illegible Words) stopped to see our old Pontiac that was out on the lot to be sold. My husband noticed the odometer reading. It read that there were only a couple of hundred miles over 38,000. I know that when we traded in the cougar over 58,000 miles. We do have proof that the mileage was in the 50,000.

When we found out that it was against the law not to get an odometer disclosure statement for the used car we bought sign one for the car we traded in, and saw that the mileage had been changed in the Pontiac, we even (Illegible Word) to the dealer to take care of it. They say they didn't know the mileage on the Cougar and the Pontiac was read.

The dealer (Illegible Word) got the Cougar from is Mosher Motor Sales, 310 West State Blvd., Fort Wayne, Indiana.

The other day I read an article in the (Illegible Words) Journal that says whom to write to regarding this matter. So we are turning the matter over to you.

Sincerely,

Steven & (Illegible Word) Kiengler 205 S. Liberty St. (Illegible Words), Indiana 46701

Copy also sent to Attorney General State of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

ID: 12137.ZTV

Mr. Dennis G. Moore
Sierra Products
1113 Greenville Road
Livermore, CA 94550

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of June 26, 1996, to the Administrator asking whether a provision of the California Vehicle Code is preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that clearance lamps be located "on the front and rear." However, paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 allows them to "be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45

degrees inboard." California Vehicle Code Sec. 25100(e) requires that "Clearance lamps shall be visible from all distances between 500 feet and 50 feet to the front or rear of the vehicle."

We see no conflict between Standard No. 108 and CVC Sec. 25100(e). Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps", July 1972. Table I specifies photometric minimum candela requirements that these lamps must meet at test points 45 degrees Left, Center, and 45 degrees Right. Thus, even if a clearance lamp is not visible at 45 degrees inboard, it is required to be visible directly to the rear and at 45 degrees outboard. We assume that at that location a clearance lamp would be "visible . . . to the rear of the vehicle" within the meaning of the California requirement.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d:7/29/96

ID: aiam4314

Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to your letter, in which you sought this agency' 'recommendation' on one of your new products. The product in question is a sun visor intended to be used on rear-facing toddler seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.; This agency has promulgated the Federal motor vehicle safety standard under the authority granted by Congress in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.). In the case of your sun visor, the only safety standard with which you would be concerned is Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213), a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Please note that the Safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, including Standard No. 213, do not apply to the child restraint system after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule then is that aftermarket accessories, such as your sun visor, may be added to child restraint systems without violating Standard No. 213.; This general rule is, however, limited by the provision of sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies, 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ...'; There are two elements of design incorporated in child restraints i compliance with Standard No. 213 that might be affected by adding your sun visor. First, all child restraints are required to incorporate resistance to flammability. Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213 specifies, 'Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302.' I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information. Second, child restraints recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That section requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your sun visor would impair either the flammability resistance or the head impact protection designed into a child restraint to which the visor is attached, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing the visor would be rendering inoperative a Federally required element of design, thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each child restraint on which a Federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation of section 108.; Since child restraint owners are not among the parties listed i section 108(a)(2)(A), they are not required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design provided under either the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 213 or the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, this agency would urge you to voluntarily ensure that your sun visor would not render any such elements inoperative.; Additionally, you should be aware that you will be a manufacturer o motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture the child restraint sun visor for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your sun visor had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either:; >>>1. repair the visor so that the defect is removed, or<<< >>>2. replace the visor with an identical or reasonably equivalen product that does not have the defect.<<<; Whichever of these options were chosen, you as the manufacturer woul have to bear the full expense of the notification and remedy. This means you could not charge owners of the visor for the remedy if the visor were first purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.; I would also like to make clear that this explanation is not an agenc 'recommendation'. NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When we are presented with questions from potential manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment, we only explain how our statute and regulations would apply to such products. It is up to the potential manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please feel free to contract Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 3061yy

Mr. Samuel Albury
President
Three Wolves and Associates, Inc.
7124 Temple Hills Road
Suite 169
Camp Springs, Maryland 20748

Dear Mr. Albury:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1991 concerning whether your company would be considered the manufacturer of certain vehicles. Your company is planning to use jeep conversion kits on Chrysler Corporation jeeps. Under one approach, your company would purchase the basic stripped down model jeep from Chrysler and add the body, stereo, air conditioning, tires, running lights, carpeting, and high visibility seats. You state that the body would be one solid piece and that your company would add wheel wells, doors, a solid or canvas top, and a windshield. Alternatively, your company would purchase the chassis, with engine and transmission, from Chrysler and add the above items.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

I will address the responsibilities of your company under the Safety Act in each of the situations you described. First, if your company purchased a stripped down vehicle from Chrysler and made the modifications described, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. 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, your company would be required to certify compliance of its vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567. The only exception would be if:

1. The modifications consisted solely of "readily attachable components;" or

2. The modifications were only "minor finishing operations."

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. In the past, the agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise. Without extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve "readily attachable" components.

If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label would state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. Alterers also are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Second, as an alternative, your company is considering buying a chassis from Chrysler. In that case, your company would likely be considered a final-stage manufacturer. Under 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, a final-stage manufacturer is defined as:

A person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.

Under the regulation, incomplete vehicle is defined as

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

As a final-stage manufacturer, your company's certification responsibilities would depend on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer;

3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

After receiving this document from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, your company would be required to certify compliance with the safety standards. In addition to these certification requirements, a final-stage manufacturer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means a final-stage manufacturer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. In addition, final-stage manufacturers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:567#568 d:7/l2/9l

ID: nht91-4.48

DATE: July 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Ken Weinstein)

TO: Samuel Albury -- President, Three Wolves and Associates, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-91 from Samuel Albury to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6112)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1991 concerning whether your company would be considered the manufacturer of certain vehicles. Your company is planning to use jeep conversion kits on Chrysler Corporation jeeps. Under one approach, your company would purchase the basic stripped down model jeep from Chrysler and add the body, stereo, air conditioning, tires, running lights, carpeting, and high visibility seats. You state that the body would be one solid piece and that your company would add wheel wells, doors, a solid or canvas top, and a windshield. Alternatively, your company would purchase the chassis, with engine and transmission, from Chrysler and add the above items.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., the Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I will address the responsibilities of your company under the Safety Act in each of the situations you described. First, if your company purchased a stripped down vehicle from Chrysler and made the modifications described, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. 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, your company would be required to certify compliance of its vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567. The only exception would be if:

1. The modifications consisted solely of "readily attachable components;" or

2. The modifications were only "minor finishing operations."

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. In the past, the agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise. Without extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve "readily attachable" components.

If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR S567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label would state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. Alterers also are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Second, as an alternative, your company is considering buying a chassis from Chrysler. In that case, your company would likely be considered a final-stage manufacturer. Under 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, a final-stage manufacturer is defined as:

A person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.

Under the regulation, incomplete vehicle is defined as

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

As a final-stage manufacturer, your company's certification responsibilities would depend on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer;

3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

After receiving this document from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, your company would be required to certify compliance with the safety standards. In addition to these certification requirements, a final-stage manufacturer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means a final-stage manufacturer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. In addition, final-stage manufacturers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992.

ID: 24365-2.rbm

Ms. Kimberly Boucher
Spartan Motor Chassis, Inc.
1165 Reynolds Road
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Ms. Boucher:

This responds to your letter asking whether fire trucks are required to have side door locks that meet the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (FMVSS No. 206). Your question is addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. FMVSS No. 206, which generally regulates door latches, hinges and locks, applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks.

In your letter, you requested NHTSA to make a determination that a fire truck is an incomplete truck rather than a multi-passenger vehicle. You also asked whether it is permissible to have the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) assign a unique vehicle identifier for an incomplete truck,^[1] and whether such an identifier would exempt the vehicle from the side door lock requirements of FMVSS No. 206. In a follow-up conversation with a member of my staff, you clarified that your concern was whether the incomplete vehicles manufactured by your company are trucks or multipurpose passenger vehicles, not whether the vehicle was incomplete or finally manufactured.

NHTSA defines vehicle types according to their particular attributes in 49 CFR 571.3. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A truck is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

The Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may examine the appropriateness of the manufacturer's classification in the context of an enforcement action.

While we can provide opinions about vehicle classification, you do not provide sufficient information in your letter to offer a specific opinion. I note, however, that we would generally expect vehicles commonly referred to as fire trucks to be considered trucks under our regulations, since they are designed primarily for the transportation of firefighting equipment. It is possible that a vehicle operated by a fire department that is designed primarily to transport passengers rather than specialized equipment could be characterized as a multi-purpose vehicle.

As to your question regarding the requirements for side door locks on trucks, I note that the response depends on what type of door the truck is equipped with. FMVSS No. 206 applies to all doors other than folding doors, roll-up doors, doors designed to be easily attached to or detached from the vehicle, and doors equipped with a wheelchair lift that is attached to an alarm system. These doors are excluded from the standard pursuant to S4(c). Additionally, FMVSS No. 206 only regulates the components on side doors that do not fit into one of these excluded categories if the doors lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations (see S4(a)). The standard also specifies requirements for back doors (S4.4). However, these requirements only apply to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles.

FMVSS No. 206 requires categories of side doors to meet differing requirements depending on where the door is located and how it is attached to the vehicle. The requirements for hinged side doors other than cargo doors are found in S4.1, while the requirements for cargo doors are found in S4.2. Sliding side doors are addressed by S4.3. Of these categories of side doors, only hinged side doors are required to have door locks.

Under S4.1.3, door locks, all hinged side doors covered by the standard must be equipped with a locking mechanism that can be operated from the interior of the vehicle. Additionally, S4.1.3.1, side front door locks, requires all side front doors to have a lock that prevents the door from being opened from the outside of the vehicle when the door lock is engaged.

S4.1.3.2, side rear door locks, requires side rear doors that when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release mechanisms be inoperative. However, S4.1.3.2 does not apply to trucks; it only applies to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Thus, if the vehicle in question is a truck, it does not need to meet this particular requirement.

I note that under S4.4.2, door locks, each back door system covered by the standard that is equipped with interior door handles, or that leads directly into a compartment with one or more seating accommodations must have a locking mechanism that can be operated from both the inside and the outside of the vehicle. Additionally, when the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles must be inoperative. However, as noted earlier, FMVSS No. 206's requirements for back doors apply only to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles and not to trucks.

As a final note, our records indicate that your company already has a vehicle identifier for trucks. Accordingly, there is no need to request the SAE to come up with a unique identifier for any fire trucks that you manufacture.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

ref:206

d.8/2/02

^[1] The first 3-6 characters (depending on the size of the vehicle manufacturer) of a vehicle's vehicle identification number (VIN) are assigned by the SAE and identify the vehicle manufacturer and type. For more detailed information on VINs, please refer to 49 CFR 565.

ID: avi.ztv

Mr. John M. Dowd
Mr. James C. Osborne, Jr.
Ms. Elizabeth C. Peterson
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036

Re: American Vehicle Importers, Inc.

Dear Messrs. Dowd and Osborne, and Ms. Peterson:

We are replying to your letter of December 23, 1999, addressed to myself, and to Messrs. Guerci, Vinson, and Entwistle of this agency submitting a proposal to resolve the matters discussed at your meeting with us on December 21. This meeting concerned the practices of your client, American Vehicle Importers, Inc. ("AVI") with respect to statutes and regulations enforced by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance ("OVSC").

I will address the items in your letter in the order you have raised them. Your initial remark ascribes to us the acknowledgment that "the current regulations do not prohibit a Registered Importer ('RI') from moving an imported vehicle to an auction lot prior to receipt of a Bond Release for a vehicle." This is coupled with your realization that we may need to know the location of the vehicle during the period before the bond is released in order to be able to inspect it for conformance, and you state that AVI will inform OVSC of the location where the vehicles may be inspected. We agree that the current regulations do not specifically prohibit a RI from placing bonded vehicles on an auction lot, and that AVI's informing us of the location of bonded vehicles should facilitate our ability to inspect them. However, AVI must also ensure that we have unfettered access to these vehicles on an auction lot in the same manner as we would were they retained on AVI's property, at all times until receipt of the bond release. That is to say, we must be admitted to inspect bonded vehicles stored on an auction lot during all business hours. We will require the same information location from all RIs that do not store bonded vehicles on the lots identified in their registration application.

You contend "that the regulation, which prohibits an RI from licensing or registering the vehicle or 'releas[ing] custody of the vehicle to any person for license or registration for use on public streets . . .' prior to receipt of a Bond Release, do not preclude the vehicle's sale at a wholesale auction prior to receipt of the Bond Release." We disagree with you on this point. One of the conditions of the bond is that the vehicle it covers be exported or abandoned to the United States in the event that an insufficient showing of conformity is made and the bond and the vehicle are not released (49 U.S.C. 30141(d)(1) as implemented by 49 CFR 591.8(e) and Appendices A and B, and 49 CFR 592.6(a)). If a bonded vehicle has been sold at auction, wholesale or otherwise, before the bond has been released, we could not be certain that the RI could fulfill its duty to export or abandon the nonconforming vehicle because it would no longer own the vehicle. In that instance, NHTSA's sole remedy would be to foreclose on the bond. This is insufficient to fulfill the safety purpose of the statute and the bond, which is to ensure that imported noncomplying vehicles be brought into compliance before being licensed for use, and used, on the public roads. We note, however, your statement that "AVI will agree to await receipt of a Bond Release before selling its imported vehicles at a wholesale auction," and your opinion that all RI s should be preluded from selling their vehicles before receiving a bond release. To address your concern, we do intend to enforce the law equally, and we have informed RIs that they must not sell bonded vehicles while the bond is in effect, whether at auctions, to dealers, or to individuals.

Your final concern regards titling of bonded vehicles. You assert that we acknowledged that "the current regulations do not prohibit the titling of an imported vehicle prior to release of the bond on the vehicle." You refer to the letter of November 11, 1999, by Philip Trupiano, the president of Auto Enterprises, Inc. (and a principal of AVI), requesting an interpretation whether a RI may obtain a title for re-sale purposes before this agency has released the applicable performance bond. I enclose a copy of the Chief Counsel's recent response to Mr. Trupiano. As he advised Mr. Trupiano, we do not interpret 49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1) as precluding a RI from obtaining a title to a bonded vehicle in its own name before the bond is released. However, for the reasons explained in that letter, we have concluded that a RI may not have a vehicle retitled to another entity pending bond release.

With respect to other issues, you ask that OVSC commit to release the bond on a vehicle no more than seven days after receipt of conformance certification. While OVSC will not make such a "commitment," which, in any event, would not be enforceable, our policy has been, and will be, to process conformance certification packages expeditiously and in the order in which they are received. During the past three months, the average period between receipt of a RI's conformance package and bond release has been reduced to five days.

You also ask that OVSC engage in further discussions regarding implementation of a software program presented to OVSC by AVI and Avalon Risk Management. OVSC is willing to consider any software program, provided that the developer of the program agrees to waive all proprietary rights if the program is implemented. With regard to AVI's proposal to work with OVSC "to develop a procedure by which Vehicle Identification Numbers are inspected and verified prior to entry into the U.S," we believe that the U.S. Customs Service would be a more appropriate Federal agency to work with, particularly regarding procedures intended to identify stolen vehicles before their entry into the U.S.

Finally, we agree with you that fundamental fairness requires us to interpret and enforce the law equally against all RIs. To assure that RIs understand their duties and responsibilities, we will discuss these matters in Newsletter No. 16, currently being prepared to be sent to the RI community.

Sincerely,
Kenneth N. Weinstein
Associate Administrator
for Safety Assurance
Enclosure
ref:592
d.4/19/2000