ID: 86-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/16/86

FROM: DONALD E. STEPHENS JR.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/22/86, TO Donald E. Stephens to Erika Z. Jones

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you very much for your letter dated June 20, 1986. And the interpretation of Kit car.

I will explain more what I had in mind so you canunderstand my particular case. What I mean with homebuilt is that purchase the plans from a CO. like Home Mechanics and I build my own car. In this case what I do it purchase a chasis of a Spitfire and take of it's body and engine. I will manufacture my own body out of fiberglass and urethane foam. Then I will put a Kubota garden tractor diesel engine and that's it.

The reason I will like to build this car because of the exitement of building my own car and learn more about cars. Also it's very good on gas mileage going 35 m.p.h. it gets 128 miles per gallon, but it can go lot faster than that. Diesel is better on gas mileage than gasoline engine. And the diesel does not need the maintenance of gasoline engine needs. If more people thought like me maybe we will not have worry about an Arab oil ambargo and this can be a lot safer than a motorcycle.

I do not know all the fuss of the D.O.T. in Washington about safety when motorcycles are a lot more dangerous than these kinds of cars. I cannot believe the laws of Kansas if you are older than 18 yrs. old you do not have to ware a helmet while riding a motorcycle thats ridicoulus. Also I was interested in making that auto for sale to the public, too. The Puerto Rican agency that deals with autos said it had to meet D.O.T. standards before I can register it and license it. So that means that P.R. because it's an U.S. Commonwealth they go by our federal laws.

Are all Kit cars mfrs. D.O.T. certified? Are all CO. That sell plans to build home builts cars certified and meet D.O.T. standards. What do I need to know if I decide to by plans for building a homebuilt car or buying Kit cars?

How good are the cars brought from europe with Eurepean specifications and then converted to meet U.S. specifications called Gray Market cars?

Some of this homebuilts plans from Home Mechanics are tree wheelers with a motorcycle engine made out of fiberglass a KU student has one. Some are electric cars and others are a combination of both.

I believe the homebuilt I plan to build is cheap transportation for work and doing something good for our country saving oil. We Americans waste to much oil we need to conserve energy. Do you think I could receive a grant from the goverment for my work? My last question how good does the third brake light helps prevennt rear end collisions?

Thank you very much for your time reading my letters and my many questions.

Sincerly Yours,

ID: 86-4.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/86

FROM: Z. TAYLOR VINSON -- SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY NHTSA

TO: INTERPS. - STD. NO. 108 REDBOOK (3)

TITLE: CHMSL INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On July 16, 1986, a mechanic phoned with the following question: if a customer wishes to have a deck lid luggage rack installed, and that rack incorporates a center high-mounted stop lamp that is mounted between the rack and the deck lid, and the original interior mounted center stop lamp remains in place, would Standard No. 108 prohibit such an arrangement?

I replied that it wouldn't, assuming that the rack itself in an unloaded condition prevented the lamp from full compliance with photometric and/or visibility requirements; paragraph S4.3.1.1. requires a supplementary or auxiliary lamp meeting Standard No. 108's requirements whenever motor vehicle equipment prevents compliance by a required item of lighting equipment.

ID: 86-4.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/86

FROM: ERIKA R. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROGER WILLIAMS -- PRESIDENT TECHNICAL HALLMARK ENTERPRISES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER FROM ROGER WILLIAMS TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your letter asking about regulations applicable to the "new lights that are now being seen on the trunk lids, and the rear windows of new automobiles".

The specific legal name for this light is "center high-mounted stop lamp". It was optional for use as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured between August 1, 1984 and September 1, 1985. It has been mandatory original equipment since then. The Federal regulation that requires it is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation. This standard specifies color, minimum illuminated lens area, mode of operation, etc. for original equipment, and for equipment intended to replace that original equipment. The standard does not cover center high-mounted stop lamps intended for use on cars that never had them, and a manufacturer of such aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is subject only to State laws on their design, installation, and use. We encourage aftermarket manufacturers to follow the Federal standard so that the full potential of the lamp may be realized. This means that the lamp should be steady-burning rather than pulsating, and that the lens not have logos, trademarks, or other markings on it to interrupt the transmission of light from the lamp. The standard does not specify the shape of the lamp but virtually all to date have been rectangular (photos of the 1987 Cadil ac Allante show a circular one), and some have exceeded the minimum requirement of a lens area of at least 4 1/2 square inches.

Noting your interest as a prospective manufacturer of these devices, I enclose a copy of Standard No. 108. Sections 4.1.1.41 (page 218), Section 4.3.18 (page 227) and Table III (page 256) provide the relevant requirements for center high-mounted stoplamps. Should you proceed to

manufacture aftermarket lamps, you would be subject to the agency's notification and remedy procedures should a safety related defect occur in them. Otherwise, you would appear to be subject only to State laws.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 86-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/21/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: TAKESHI TANUMA -- NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/19/85 TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM TAKESHI TANUMA, OCC-0023, RE W-139-H

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tanuma:

This responds to your letter of December 19, 1985, asking whether an antitheft device installed in all but a few cars of a particular car line would be considered "standard equipment" under Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

You describe a situation in which 99.9% of "A" model vehicles were equipped with an antitheft device in Model Year 1985. Specifically, your letter states that total sales in the United States for that model year were 101,854 vehicles. Of these, 101,758 vehicles were equipped with an antitheft device; the rest or 96 vehicles, which were shipped to Hawii, Guam, and Saipan as rental cars, were not equipped with an antitheft device. You state that you expect 99.9% of "A" model cars to be equipped with an antitheft device in Model Year 1987 and ask if, under these circumstances, the antitheft device can be considered standard equipment.

Under section 605(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, any manufacturer may petition this agency for an exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard for any "line or lines of passenger motor vehicle which are equipped as standard equipment with an antitheft device" which the agency determines is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the standard. This section also defines "standard equipment" as that installed at the time the vehicle is delivered from the manufacturer and which is not an accessory or other item which the first purchaser customarily has the option to have installed.

As interpreted by this agency, "standard equipment" refers to antitheft devices that are provided without extra charge on all vehicles of a particular line which are introduced into the commerce of the United States or imported and which are not intended solely for export and exported. Since the antitheft device in your example would not be installed in all model "A" cars imported into the United States, the agency concludes that the device would not be standard equipment within the meaning of section 605.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/23/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: BENJAMIN R. JACKSON -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS COMPLIANCE ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/07/86 TO BRIAN MCLAUGHLIN, FROM BENJAMIN R JACKSON

TEXT: Dear Mr. Jackson:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Brian McLaughlin of our Rulemaking division, in which you requested an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you asked for a written confirmation of Mr. McLaughlin's statement that only lines listed in Appendix A of Part 541 must be marked in compliance with Part 541. Mr. McLaughlin's statement was correct.

Your concern appears to arise from the fact that direct importers sometimes import car lines not offered for sale in the United States by the original manufacturer. Such lines may have a majority of major parts interchangeable with the major parts of a car line offered for sale in the United States and listed in Appendix A of Part 541 as a high theft line subject to the theft prevention standard. Section 603(a)(1)(C) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act; 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(1)(C) specifies that lines that have a majority of major parts interchangeable with the major parts of a high theft line are themselves high theft lines for the purposes of the theft prevention standard. Accordingly, you were concerned that the direct importers might be statutorily required to make determinations of interchangeability with the listed in Appendix A, and mark those lines that had a majority of major parts interchangeable with those of a listed high theft line. This is not the case.

Section 603(a)(2) of the Cost Savings Act specifies: "The specific lines ... which are to be subject to the standard may be selected by agreement between that manufacturer and [NHTSA]. If the manufacturer and [NHTSA] disagree as to such selection, [NHTSA] shall select such lines ..." The agency followed these procedures and arrived at the selections of high

theft lines listed in Appendix A. All lines not listed in Appendix A are not required to be marked in accordance with Part 541, because they have not been selected as high theft lines in accordance with section 603(a)(2) of the Cost Savings Act.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald L. Anglin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald L. Anglin Consulting Editor McGraw-Hill Book Company 706 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22901

Dear Mr. Anglin:

Your May 1, 1986 letter to Administrator Steed requesting information on Federal regulations applying to removal of motor vehicle safety equipment has been referred to this office for reply. Unfortunately, we never received the previous letter you sent to NHTSA in December 1985. We regret any inconvenience to you.

Your letter asked whether it is a violation of Federal law for a mechanic or vehicle owner to remove or otherwise tamper with any item of motor vehicle safety equipment. As explained below, there would be a violation with respect to commercial businesses "tampering" with used vehicles or altering new vehicles if the modification affected negatively the vehicle's compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. On the other hand, no Federal requirements apply to individual vehicle owners who tamper with safety equipment on or in their own vehicles.

In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on motor vehicles by adding section 108(a)(21(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, that:

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

Thus, Federal law prohibits the aforementioned commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard by either removing, disconnecting or degrading the performance of the safety equipment. For example, none of the commercial businesses referenced in section 108(a)(2)(A) could remove the safety belts in a motor vehicle if by doing so they would "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle or the safety belt system with Safety Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Violations of section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

The second part of your question asked about individual vehicle owners. Since section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to owners, an owner could remove the safety belts from his or her vehicle without violating Federal law. Of course, such removals or alterations could be affected by State law and the agency encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with safety equipment.

Persons tampering with safety equipment on new motor vehicles prior to their first sale to consumers could be considered vehicle "alterers" under our certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). Part 567.7 requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, a vehicle alterer could not remove am item of safety equipment from a new vehicle if this would prevent him or her from certifying that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.

I have enclosed copies of the Vehicle Safety Act and Part 567.7, for your information. I have enclosed also an information sheet entitled "Federal Auto Safety Laws and Motor Vehicle Window Tinting" which discuss section 108(a)(2)(A) and Part 567.7 as they apply to persons modifying motor vehicle window glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

May 1, 1986

Diane K. Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Attached is a copy of a letter I sent to the public Affairs Director of your organization on December 18, 1985.

As yet, I have received no answer.

Would you please forward the copy of my December letter to someone knowledgeable in these areas.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

DONALD L. ANGLIN

December 18, 1985

Public Affairs Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Tampering seems to be defined generally as pertaining to emission control devices and odometers. But the issue of the car owner or mechanic tampering with safety equipment is not so clear.

Is it a violation of Federal law for a mechanic or a car owner to remove any piece of safety equipment designed into an automobile?

For example, is it illegal for a car owner to remove the seat belts from a new car, or for a mechanic to remove the self-adjusters from drum brakes or to disconnect the parking brake?

Would you please send me copies of the current or proposed laws or regulations that apply to tampering with safety equipment, and copies of any pamphlets or articles on the subject.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

DONALD L. ANGLIN

ID: 86-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/23/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: FRANCISCO DEE TAN -- PRESIDENT FRG INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/15/86 RE HS7 FORM APPLICATION APPROVAL FOR REAR WINDOW 3RD STOP LIGHT, TO NHTSA FROM FRANCISCO DEETAN, OCC-0606

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tan:

This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1986, asking for our approval of different types of rear stop lamps you wish to import.

The lighting devices depicted in the brochures that you enclosed are not intended as original or replacement motor vehicle equipment, and therefore are not covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If you are required to execute a Form HS-7 at the time of entry, the proper declaration is that provided by Box 1: the equipment was manufactured on a date when no Federal standards applied to it. In any event, this agency has no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for self-certification by manufacturers of their products subject to Federal standards.

In the absence of Federal requirements, whether the devices you wish to import are legal for installation and use would be determinable under the laws of the individual States where the devices will be sold and installed.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WILLA BLACK KENNEDY -- JOINT INTERIM COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH ARKANSAS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/01/86, TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLA BLACK KENNEDY, OCC - 0441

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kennedy:

This responds to your April 1, 1986, letter asking whether our regulations for school buses and transit buses apply to used school buses acquired to transport members of nonprofit organizations and churches. As I understand your letter, the Joint Interim Committee is especially interested in regulations pertaining to maintenance of used school buses and driver licensing. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

As explained below, while NHTSA has a statutory provision relating to the repair and modification of used vehicles, our statutory provisions and standards generally apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Our requirements do not apply to the use of motor vehicles and we have no regulations directly applying to vehicle maintenance and driver licensing for buses other than school buses. However, we have issued recommendations for state pupil transportation programs that include guidelines for school bus maintenance and driver qualifications. I have enclosed a copy of those for your information.

For purposes of this discussion, it is helpful to distinguish between two separate sets of regulations we issued for buses. The first set consists of the motor vehicle safety standards we issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of new motor vehicles are required to certify that their new vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and sellers and lessors of new motor vehicles are required to sell or lease only complying vehicles.

Since NHTSA's standards do not apply to used motor vehicles--i.e., motor vehicles that have been purchased for the first time in good faith for purposes other than resale--or to the use of motor vehicles, sales transactions involving used school buses are not covered by Vehicle Safety Act requirements. Thus, the used school buses you asked about are not required by Federal law to comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards when they are sold to subsequent purchasers.

While the sale or use of used motor vehicles is not directly regulated by NHTSA, modifications of used motor vehicles are subject to Vehicle Safety Act limitations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides, in 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 . . . ." Thus, the repair or modification of used buses is subject to Federal regulation if commercial businesses are involved. Such persons are prohibited from modifying used vehicles in such a way that would negatively affect the safety provided by the Federally required safety features.

The second set of regulations applying to buses and school buses was issued by NHTSA under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The Highway Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to make grants to the States. Each State administers its grants according to a highway safety program which is reviewed and approved by NHTSA each year.

Regulations implementing the Highway Safety Act include a number of "program standards" issued for states to adopt in their highway safety programs. These standards, which are more in the nature of guidelines, are recommendations for ideal or model safety programs. I have enclosed a copy of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, because it suggests requirements for school bus maintenance and driver qualifications which you might find helpful. Also, Standard No. 17 recommends that States not allow school buses that have been converted to be used for purposes other than transporting school students to be signed, painted, and equipped as school buses. A review of state law would determine which of the standard's recommendations have been adopted by Arkansas as part of its highway safety program.

In addition, the National Standards Division of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety will be able to provide you with information on regulations for the use of interstate motor carriers and driver licensing. You can contact them at 202-366-2981 or in Room 3404 at the address given above.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: GEORGE W. KEELEY, -- HALFPENNY, HAHN & ROCHE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/04/86 TO DIANE K STEED, FROM GEORGE W KEELEY; LETTER DATED 02/25/86 EST, TO RICHARD F HAHN FROM DIANE K STEED

TEXT: Dear Mr. Keeley:

Thank you for your letter of March 4, 1986, to Administrator Steed, which was referred to my office for reply. As stated in the Administrator's letter of February 25, 1986, to Mr. Hahn, the interpretation letter to Mr. Pennells should not be interpreted as a departure from our long-standing policy on the application of our standards to construction equipment. Therefore, the Pennells letter, when read together with the Administrator's letter of February 25, 1986, represents the agency's advisory opinion on this issue.

As to your request for a copy of any future request for interpretation from Mr. Pennells, please be advised that all the requests for interpretations and agency advisory letters are publicly available from our docket section which is located at room 5109, at the above address. You may wish to contact, periodically, the docket section to obtain a copy of any interpretation letter issued by the agency.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: M. ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPARTMENT STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/18/86 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. ARISAKA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1986, in which you ask whether it is permissible to leave an inoperative center high-mounted stop lamp installed in a vehicle when an operative one is mounted on a spoiler at the rear of the car.

We assume that the new lamp fully complies with the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for center high-mounted stop lamps. Our answer is that it is permissible to leave the inoperative lamp in place since its function has been assumed by a conforming lamp. We have no regulations that would either prohibit or require the removal of an inoperative lamp.

Sincerely,