ID: nht93-6.38

DATE: September 19, 1993

FROM: Thomas J. Devon

TO: Senator Phil Gramm

TITLE: PRIVACY FORM

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/93 from John Womack to The Honorable Phil Gramm (A41; Std. 117)

TEXT:

I hereby authorize Senator Phil Gramm to request on my behalf, pertinent to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, access to information concerning me in the files of:

Dept. of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Department or Agency)

Senator Phil Gramm is also authorized to see any materials that may be disclosed pertinent to that request.

Name (PRINT) Thomas J. Devon

Address 109 Katy Dr.

(STREET)

Longview, Texas 75601 (CITY, STATE, ZIP

PHONE: 903 - 757-9409

SS NO: 205-36-0742

PLEASE STATE NATURE OF PROBLEM: P.S. Rep. Jim Chapman has sent me some of the federal code regulations on new tires.

Concerns on safety standards of "retredded" or "recapped" tires as used on large tractor trailers. I have documented the deaths of two young ladies brought about by them running over a large section of tire tread causing them to lose control of their vehicle. My concerns are that such retread tires do not meet the standards of new tires in performance on interstate highways in summer heat. Would want to know if there is accident data on accident/death occurrences due to assignable cause of collision with such tread sections left on the roadway. Thank you very much.

ID: nht93-6.39

DATE: September 20, 1993

FROM: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/25/94 from John Womack to Lawrence Henneberger (A42; Std. 105)

TEXT:

I am submitting this request for interpretation on behalf of my client, MICO, Incorporated (MICO), located in North Mankato, Minnesota, concerning the use of a brake lock supplementing the original equipment mechanical parking brake on a motor vehicle which in our opinion, (1) is not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 105, and (2) does not otherwise impair braking operations in compliance with FMVSS 105. (1)

MICO believes that its brake lock will not cause noncompliance with or impairment of compliance with FMVSS 105 since: (a) the MICO brake lock is the type of auxiliary parking brake device which has consistently been determined by NHTSA not to raise compliance problems with respect to FMVSS 105; (b) based upon test results and in-service use of over 30 years, these brake locks have not had any adverse effect upon the hydraulic service brakes of the vehicle involved; (c) there have been no confirmed accidents attributable to the use of the brake locks for the 30 year period; and (d) the brake locks are installed after the vehicle manufacturer has certified the brake system of the vehicle with the requirements of FMVSS 105.

MICO recognizes that NHTSA does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment, and emphasizes that the Company is not here seeking any such approval. Rather MICO requests from the agency an interpretation that FMVSS 105 does not preclude the installation of a MICO hydraulic brake lock as a supplement to the systems installed to comply with the FMVSS 105 requirements.

BACKGROUND

MICO manufactures a hydraulic brake lock which supplements the mechanical parking brake of a motor vehicle by providing supplemental holding capacity for the vehicle. The brake lock is installed by a body builder or owner of a vehicle after the manufacturer of the vehicle has certified its compliance with applicable safety standards. The brake lock consists of a one-way check valve which, when it is in the release position, does not in any way impede or interfere with the use and application of the hydraulic service brakes on the vehicle. The brake lock is installed in the hydraulic brake lines between the master brake cylinder and the foundation brakes.

The brake lock does not render inoperative any device or element of the hydraulic service or parking brakes as originally installed on the motor vehicle but serves only to supplement the existing parking brake in a positive manner. The brake lock is not to be applied during normal driving operations but is only activated after the vehicle has been brought to a stop, the mechanical parking brake applied, and the brake lock armed. When the operator steps on the hydraulic service brake pedal and produces pressure in the brake system, the brake lock is activated. When activated, the brake lock acts as a

one-way check valve which will allow hydraulic system fluid to pass from the master cylinder to the foundation brakes as the brake pedal is applied, but will not allow the brake fluid to travel back to the master cylinder as the operator removes his foot from the brake pedal. (2) When the brake lock is not activated, brake fluid passes freely in both directions of the braking system. The brake lock does not increase brake pressure. It merely locks in pressure generated by applying pressure to the brake pedal when the vehicle is not in motion.

REGULATORY APPLICATION

In the case of a hydraulic brake lock, there is no safety standard which applies to it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. Previous interpretations of NHTSA have indicated that installation of a hydraulic brake lock does not affect compliance with FMVSS 105. See July 10, 1985 Letter of Interpretation from NHTSA Chief Counsel Jeffrey R. Miller to Mr. Bernard Cantleberry.

This position "is consistent with the agency's long-standing view about the (non-preclusive) use of auxiliary parking brake systems." See, e.g., May 6, 1993 Letter of Interpretation from Acting Chief Counsel John Womack to Mr. Bob Brinton (attaching a December 9, 1976 Interpretation from then Acting Chief Counsel Frank H. Berndt to Mr. Leon W. Steenbock); August 5, 1993 Letter of Interpretation from Acting Chief Counsel John Womack to Mr. Richard Muraski.

MICO submits that, in view of the fact that its brake lock demonstrably does not affect the operation of a vehicle's hydraulic brake system and, as long term usage has shown, has had no adverse effect upon the vehicle's hydraulic brake system, the vehicle will not be rendered noncompliant with FMVSS 105 upon the installation of the MICO brake lock.

TEST RESULTS

MICO has performed systematic and continuous testing of its hydraulic brake lock product to determine its effect on the performance of vehicles. MICO has conducted tests on the product in its own facilities under a number of different vehicle applications since the product was introduced in approximately 1960. The results of these tests show that the MICO brake lock does not adversely affect the continued satisfactory and compliant operation of the hydraulic brake system with FMVSS 105.

In addition, MICO also commissioned Bendix Corporation to conduct repetitive cycle tests of the product on a vehicle chassis in 1976, and these test results indicated that the brake lock is not detrimental to the continued satisfactory operation of the brake system. A copy of the May 1976 Bendix test evaluation is attached hereto as Appendix 2.

Several fleets have used and monitored the operation of these brake locks over substantial periods of time. MICO brake locks have operated for these fleets on a trouble-free basis on vehicles which travel between 25,000 to 40,000 miles per year. See, Report on Use of MICO Brake Locks, supra, at 3-4 and attached surveys. The locks have not caused any brake failure of any brake system component and there have been no accidents attributable to the use of the MICO brake lock. The results of this in-service experience have confirmed that the

MICO brake locks do not adversely affect the performance of the original hydraulic service brakes and associated parking brake systems in normal operation with the MICO brake lock released.

Based upon the test and usage data, MICO believes that the addition of the brake lock to a motor vehicle will not affect the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS 105.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, MICO, Inc. respectfully requests an interpretation confirming its view that the addition of a MICO brake lock to a motor vehicle is not precluded by FMVSS 105, and does not impair braking performance in compliance with FMVSS 105.

We appreciate your consideration of our request for interpretation and encourage you to contact the undersigned should questions remain.

1 Copies of MICO's brake lock product catalogs, including materials relating to its newest product, the MICO 690 Series, were provided to representatives of your staff and the Crash Avoidance Division on August 17, 1993.

2 For a detailed discussion of the description, application and usage of MICO brake lock products, see Report on Use of MICO Brake Locks by Messrs. Hall and Vogel (June 29, 1993), attached hereto as Appendix 1.

ID: nht93-6.4

DATE: August 9, 1993

FROM: Thomas Dougherty -- Research and Development, C.A.P.S. Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/12/93 from John Womack to Thomas Dougherty (A41; VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

I would like your opinion concerning any N.H.T.S.A. safety laws that might apply to our product as explained below. This product will be ready to sell to the general public in 30 to 60 days. Also, are there any labeling requirements?

NAME OF PRODUCT: E.A.R.S.

PURPOSE: To alert automobile drivers of an approaching emergency vehicle with siren activated. Our product can be used in all autos as an accessory. Drivers rendered hearing impaired because of sound-proofed autos as well as clinically hearing-impaired drivers will find our product very useful.

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: The E.A.R.S. processor is about the size of a pack of cigarettes. It plugs into the cigarette lighter for its power source. A small LED light and an 82db tone alerts the driver of the approaching emergency vehicle. A weather-proofed microphone plugs into the back of the processor and is placed outside the auto, preferably on the roof or rear windshield.

Our E.A.R.S. processor and microphone will be manufactured and tested in the United States. I would appreciate an answer from you as soon as possible.

ID: nht93-6.40

DATE: September 21, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James N. Doan -- Counsel - Operations, Eaton Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/93 from James N. Doan to John Womack (OCC-8805)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether an automatic vehicle speed control (also known as a cruise control), that you describe as "mounted on the transmission shift lever," must be illuminated. As explained below, the answer is no.

S5.3.1 sets requirements concerning controls which must be illuminated. S5.3.1 excludes from the illumination requirements hand operated controls that are mounted on the floor, floor console or steering column.

You believe that your proposed control would be considered "mounted on the floor or floor console" and thus excluded from S5.3.1's illumination requirements. We agree that locating the control on the shift lever is similar to locating it on the floor console for the purposes of the illumination requirements. This interpretation is based on agency precedent concerning S5.3.1's exception for controls on steering columns. In the preamble to a final rule of May 4, 1971 (36 FR 8296), NHTSA determined that the exception for controls mounted on the steering column extends to controls mounted on the steering wheel. Since the transmission shift lever bears the same relationship to the floor console as does the steering wheel to the steering column, controls on the transmission shift lever are excepted from S5.3.1's illumination requirements.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-6.41

DATE: September 21, 1993

FROM: Howard M. Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Charles E. Schumer -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/3/93 from Charles E. Schumer to Barry Felrice

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter requesting NHTSA's views on whether Title VI "Theft Prevention" of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., Cost Savings Act) places a limit of $15 on the cost of an antitheft device to be installed in a high theft vehicle pursuant to an exemption from the parts marking standard. You believe the answer is no. As explained below, we agree.

The $15 limitation applies only to the cost of complying with the parts marking standard. The cost limitation appears in S2024(a), which provides that "The standard under section 602 (section 2022) may not (1) impose costs upon any manufacturer of motor vehicles to comply with such standard in excess of $15 per motor vehicle..." (Emphasis added.) Further, S2024(a) makes no reference to S2025 or to the costs of installing antitheft devices pursuant to exemptions issued under that section.

Thus, unless the costs of an antitheft device installed in lieu of compliance with the standard can be regarded as costs imposed by the standard, the $15 maximum does not apply to the costs of those devices. We do not regard the costs of those devices to be costs imposed by the standard. Instead, they are costs which the manufacturer has chosen to bear by voluntarily seeking an exemption from the standard. Further, we note that S2025 does not itself contain any cost limitation.

Although the foregoing analysis of the statutory language is sufficient to answer your question, we note that the legislative history of the 1984 Theft Act speaks directly to that question. Chairman John Dingell of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce commented on concerns that the costs for antitheft devices will be far greater than the costs of parts marking. He believed that manufacturers will not install devices that add a substantial cost to a vehicle and indicated that, regardless of the potential costs, Title VI "does not provide for consideration of costs by DOT." (See, Congressional Record-House October 1, 1984, p. H 10462, at 10472.)

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Cost Savings Act does not limit the cost of an antitheft device that is installed pursuant to the issuance under S2025 of an exemption from the standard. Please note that the passage of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (ACTA) did not amend, in any way relevant to our conclusions, the provisions limiting costs of parts marking and authorizing the installation of antitheft devices in lieu of parts marking.

I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please let us know.

ID: nht93-6.42

DATE: September 21, 1993 Est.

FROM: Greg Biba

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/25/93 from John Womack to Greg Biba (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT:

In talking to Dee Fujita and George Mouchahoir about safety regulation specifications, they suggested I write you for an official confirmation about my questions.

I am developing and interested in patenting an infant observation mirror for car travel. This observation mirror is not attached to the car seat. Ms. Fujita and Mr. Mouchahoir said accessories that are not a part of the car seat have no safety regulations to their knowledge. Are there any regulations that limit what I do, are there any size or material regulations?

To give you a brief description: This infant observation mirror is different than others that have patented, in that it is supported by a stand that sits under the infants car seat as the seat faces to the rear of the car.

Please write at your earliest possible convenience about my questions or if you have any additional comments.

ID: nht93-6.43

DATE: September 21, 1993

FROM: Joe Takacs -- Director of Engineering, Kinedyne Corporation

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Ref: Final rule amending Standard No. 222 School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection FMVSS; Federal Register/Vol. 58, No. 170/Friday/ September 3, 1993/Rules and Regulations; Docket No. 90-05; Notice 5; 49 CFR Part 571

TEXT:

Based on the above referenced document that denied Kinedyne Corporation's petition but clarified the intent of implementing FMVSS 209 requirements for wheelchair securement systems, we would appreciate your comments on our interpretation of the final rule:

1. The webbing used in Kinedyne Corporation's wheelchair strap assemblies is industrial type 1.00 inch or 2.00 inch wide polyester webbing that meet the strength and other requirements of S4.2 of FMVSS No. 209. Therefore, this webbing is acceptable for use on wheelchair securement systems per FMVSS No.222.

2. The hardware used on Kinedyne Corporation's wheelchair strap assemblies are industrial type 1.00 inch or 2.00 inch overcenter, ratchet or cam buckles; wire hooks; snap hooks and track fittings which meet the strength and other requirements, as specified, in S4.3 of FMVSS No. 209. Therefore, these fittings are acceptable for use on wheelchair securement systems per FMVSS No. 222.

Industrial type webbing and hardware used in our wheelchair securement strap assemblies have been successfully used in wheelchair securement applications for approximately 20 years. We trust that these same assemblies meet the requirements of Amended FMVSS No. 222.

We would appreciate a reply within the next 30 days. Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht93-6.44

DATE: September 23, 1993

FROM: Barry H. Wells -- M.D., Drs. Herzinger, Biles, Zagula & Wells, P.A.

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Atty., NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from John Womack to Barry H. Wells (A41; Std. 121)

TEXT:

Thank you for the information regarding the upcoming NHTSA publication on the problem of jackknifing in tractor-trailers. I look forward to reading the document. As I mentioned, I would welcome the opportunity to either testify or to go on public record in writing as to the existence of a safety device for tractor-trailers that has been tested and proven to eliminate jackknifing and to stop fully-loaded trucks in distances comparable to those of an automobile.

I have enclosed a promotional videotape featuring the brake. As you can see, it has been tested under a variety of driving conditions and with maneuvers that should precipitate a jackknifing of the test vehicle- maneuvers which also anticipate the agency's goal of establishing performance requirements for a braking-in-a-curve test, as well as a lane- change test. These test were all supervised by Dr. Everett C. Carter of the University of Maryland Transportation Studies Department.

In reading the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 110) that you recommended, I was encouraged to discover that NHTSA is "undertaking a comprehensive effort to improve the braking performance of heavy vehicles." It is apparent from my review of the material I requested from the Federal Highway Administration (Accidents Reported by Motor Carriers of Property, 1990, publication no. FHWA/MC-93/011), that the highways are becoming increasingly unsafe as automobiles share the road with more heavy trucks which differ dramatically in their stopping characteristics, especially in inclement conditions. This report cites a 37% increase in the number of accidents in 1990 over the 1986 totals, a 26% increase in the number of fatalities for the same period, and $507 million worth of property damages for 1990. A recent spate of fatal tractor-trailer accidents on the Capitol Beltway has drawn local attention to the problem, and calls have been made for more vigorous safety inspections. However, even doubling the number of inspection teams could not truly make the roads safe, as even under the best road conditions and with properly operating equipment, the fact remains that tractor- trailers require stopping distances that they cannot maintain on the crowded highways, and under inclement weather conditions, they are extremely difficult to stop quickly in a controlled fashion.

Further on in the same ANPRM, it is stated that "...interested persons are requested to provide any relevant factual information on the anticipated safety benefits...of improv(ing) the lateral stability and control performance during braking of heavy trucks," as well as "the type of equipment needed to comply with the new requirements." This relatively simple safety device, which is easy to retrofit on existing equipment or to assemble on original equipment, seems to address directly the problems of lateral stability and increased stopping distances of tractor-

trailers and should save lives if in widespread use.

While I recognize that the agency cannot specifically promote the use of a particular manufacturer's product, it would seem that, from what I have seen of the complexity and cost of the antilock braking systems as well as their performance, the agency would at least be interested in testing the E.B.T. system as extensively as it has the ABS.

Again, I thank you for directing me in obtaining the rulemaking documents, and I look forward to the upcoming NHTSA publication and any opportunity to comment in the Public Docket. If you can offer any further direction, please let me know. I have been told by a friend, who is an aide to Rep. Dan Hamburg of California, that I should inquire as to an opportunity to testify before the House Committee on Public Words and Transportation, or the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. Any guidance such as this is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-6.45

DATE: September 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carolyn H. McDaniel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/1/93 from Carolyn H. McDaniel to Mary Versailles (OCC-9060)

TEXT:

This responds to your September 1, 1993, letter to Mary Versailles of my staff. You are concerned with vehicles used by a company called Extradition Services, Inc. (ESI), to transport prisoners, one of which was involved in an accident in Texas. You describe the vehicle involved in the accident as follows:

...an extended Dodge van, bars over the windows, handles off the doors, one bench in a wire cage, two more bench seats and a bench seat across the back of the van. The aisle ran along the passenger side of the van. The seats appeared to be the original seats and seat belts apparently had been removed because none were present.

You also expressed concerns related to the way these vehicles were operated.

By way of background information, 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.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. The regulations administered by this agency only address the way in which the vehicle is manufactured, not the use of the vehicle.

Based on your description of the vehicle, there may be a question as to whether the vehicle was required to have seat belts. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. In addition, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which the prisoners were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and GVWR of the vehicle.

Your letter states that you believe the seat belts were removed from the vehicle after manufacture. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

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

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from removing seat belts from a vehicle. Please note, however, that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications owners make to their own vehicles.

Your concerns about ESI's use of the vehicle are not addressed by the Federal law administered by this agency, which addresses only the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, not their use. It is possible that there may be an issue associated with commercial driver regulations, and we have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration. In addition, because your questions concern the safety of vehicles used to transport prisoners and an accident in Texas, you may wish to contact the Governor's Office, the head of the Texas prison system, or your state representative.

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

ID: nht93-6.46

DATE: September 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joel Trim -- Manager, Mechnical Service Department, Neal and Massy Motors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from Joel Trim to The Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (OCC-8902)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of July 7, 1993, asking the Secretary of Transportation for assistance in obtaining copies of any regulations and standards that govern the certification and operation of modified vehicles (stretch limousines), kit cars, and homemade vehicles. Your country, Trinidad, has no such regulations.

Under the dual Federal-State system of government in the United States, the registration, inspection, and operation of motor vehicles is a State function. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, but you may find assistance by writing the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Federal regulation of motor vehicles is primarily concerned with establishing and enforcing standards to be met when the vehicle is manufactured, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). With one minor exception the United States has no laws or regulations that apply specifically to the types of vehicles you have named. I am pleased, however, to explain how we have treated them over the years in the interpretive letters we have written.

A. Modified vehicles As you may know, each vehicle manufactured for sale in the United States must bear its manufacturer's label certifying that it complies with all FMVSS. If a vehicle is modified after it has left the factory and before it is sold, the modifier is required to affix its own label stating that the vehicle as modified complies with all FMVSS affected by the alteration. However, this label is not required if the modifications are minor changes affecting readily attachable equipment items. Further, under our law, no label is required if the vehicle is modified after it has been sold. I enclose a copy of our certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567 and call your attention to Section 567.7 Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

We have discovered instances in which modified vehicles (stretch limos) failed to conform to the FMVSS on braking and passenger protection. In accordance with our procedures, the modifiers were required to correct the noncompliances and to pay civil penalties for their violations.

B. Kit cars We have no definition of "kit cars" but we understand them to be passenger cars consisting of a mixture of old and new parts, assembled into vehicle form by either the supplier or purchaser of a kit of motor vehicle equipment. Some of the FMVSS apply to individual equipment items (for example, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies), and if these items are new and furnished with the kit,

they will have been certified by their manufacturers. If the vehicle is assembled entirely from new parts, the kit supplier must furnish certification with the kit that, when assembled, the vehicle will comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if the vehicle is manufactured incorporating a number of previously used parts, particularly involving the chassis and/or drive train, we generally have considered the vehicle to be a used one, and none of the FMVSS that apply to new completed vehicles (as contrasted with those that apply to equipment items) apply to it.

In order to be registered for use, a kit car must meet the requirements of the State of licensing.

C. Homemade cars We have no definition of a "homemade car" but we understand such a vehicle to be a "one-off" and not intended for production. The FMVSS apply to every newly manufactured vehicle without exception, so that a vehicle built in a series of one must conform to the FMVSS if it is constructed entirely from new parts, and if the agency has not exempted it from compliance.

A homemade car must meet the requirements of the State where it is to be licensed.

For your information, I am also enclosing a booklet containing a brief description of each FMVSS, and an order blank for "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999" which contains the complete text of the FMVSS. If you have any further questions on this subject, we will be happy to answer them.