ID: 86-4.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: FRANCISCO DEE TAN -- PRESIDENT FRG INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

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 coverd by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 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: 86-4.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/15/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JAMES J. DABROWSKI -- REGULATIONS STATISTICS COORDINATOR JAGUAR CARS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/12/86, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM JAMES J. DABROWSKI, OCC - 0838; RECALL LETTER TO GRAY MARKET VEHICLE OWNERS FROM JAGUAR CARS INC AND RELEASE DOC, DATED 06/12/86 EST

TEXT: Dear Mr. Dabrowski:

This is in reply to your letter of June 12, 1986, asking for confirmation that "Jaguar Cars is not bound by normal NHTSA recall procedures" with reference to cars imported through the Gray Market.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that a manufacturer must provide notification and remedy, when the determines that a vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment "manufactured by him" contains a safety related defact or noncompliance with an applicable standard. (15 U.S.C. 1411). A "manufacturer" is defined under the Act as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles..., including any person importing motor vehicles... for resale." (15 USC 1391(5)).

We understand Jaguar Cars, Inc. to be a corporation incorporated in the United States for the purpose of importing and selling motor vehicles that are made in another country by another legal entity. Because it does not manufacture or assemble motor vehicles, Jaguar Cars, Inc., is responsible as a "manufacturer" for notification and remedy only for the motor vehicles that it has imported.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/16/86

FROM: DALTON G. FEAGLER

TO: ADMINISTRATOR -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/22/86 TO DALTON G. FEAGLER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29 (4); STD 108, VSA 108

TEXT: Dear sir or madam:

Reference is made to 49 CFR 571, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, Docket No. 69-18, revised May 22, 1985. Particular reference is made to paragraph S4.5.4, which is quoted:

"The stoplights on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes."

Living in metropolitan Atanta, Georgia, and its highly congested traffic, I soon learned that rear-end collisons, and resulting whip-lash injuries, are to be avoided. I resolved to decrease those possibilities.

In short, I've come up with a switching device which activates the stoplights of a vehicle the moment pressure is released from the accelerator. This is installed without disconnecting, or altering, any functions or systems; the device merely accelerates, by approximately three-quarters of a second, the warning of deacceleration and stopping. Further, this advanced warning increases the safe stopping distance.

We do not alter any of the vehicle's functions; the stoplamps of the vehicle remain activated upon application of the service brakes. We believe our device, known as the "Dee-Tailer", fully complies with cited Standard 108.

Would your agency desire to road-test our device? Before proceeding further, we desire your asessment and comments.

Awaiting your early reply.

Sincerely,

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,