ID: nht90-2.94

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 22, 1990

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

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to Ford Bulletin number 10 dated 12-15-89 entitled Splicing Into The Stop Lamp Electrical Circuit, signature by R.R. Chestnut; Also attached to memo dated 6-6-90 from Tekonsha Engineering Company; Also attached to letter dated 8-31-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 5-2-84 from F. Berndt to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 11-30-81 from F. Berndt to K.G. Moyer (A23; Std. 108; Redbook 3); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to L.F. Henneberger (A36; VSA Sec. 103 (d); Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am submitting this request for interpretation on behalf of my client, Echlin Inc. and more specifically Tekonsha Engineering Company, a subsidiary of Echlin, concerning a California Vehicle Code lighting provision which, in our view, conflicts with and is preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108.

The respective NHTSA and California requirements at issue are subparagraph S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 and subparagraph 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code. These provisions are reproduced in juxtaposition at Attachment A to this letter. Essentially, the conflict arises from the California Highway Patrol's (CHP) interpretation of 24603(f) as requiring the activation of a vehicle's stop lamps upon the application of the manual emergency override for use in controlling trailer sway.

Tekonsha believes that the California provision is at odds with S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 since its hand controlled emergency device (a) is not intended to and in the usual case, does not result in diminished vehicle speeds; (b) does not involve application of the vehicle's service brakes; (c) if connected to the stop lamps, would provide an unsafe, false braking signal; and (d) by not being connected to the stop lamps, eliminates other unsafe conditions caused by electrical interference.

BACKGROUND

Tekonsha has recently developed and introduced into the market a new generation, "state of the art" product known as the Commander Electronic Brake Control specifically designed to avoid splicing into the stop lamp switch circuit. This new development eliminates electrical interference including interference which causes serious safety problems. Electrical interference can, for example, prevent the speed control from disengaging upon braking, or deactivate antilock brake system operation. See Ford Motor Company Bulletin No. 10 (December 15, 1989) and Tekonsha product memorandum (June 6, 1990), both enclosed, respectively, as Attachments B-1 and B-2.

The Commander brake control permits the driver of a vehicle to use the hand control to override the trailer brakes in an emergency mode to

control swaying. In this emergency condition, the Commander brake control does not send out false signals because it is not connected into the stop lamp switch circuit. It is not the intention of the driver in controlling sway to stop or diminish speed. Therefore, by definition, the stop lamps should not be activated.

REGULATORY APPLICATION

Subparagraph S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 provides that the "stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." A review of the applicable SAE Standard, SAE J586 FEB84 (currently referenced by FMVSS 108), provides, at S2.1 of the SAE standard, a definition of "stop lamps" as "lamps giving a steady light to the rear of a vehicle to indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking."

Indeed, previous interpretations of NHTSA have restricted stop lamp activation to vehicle functions which involve deceleration of the vehicle. See, e.g., the agency's two interpretations to the undersigned on behalf of Jacobs Manufacturing Company, by letters dated August 31, 1978 (Attachment C-1), and May 2, 1984 (Attachment C-2).

Subparagraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS 108 provides, in part, that "no additional ... motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." In a November 30, 1981, letter of interpretation issued by NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Mr. Kenneth Moyer, the agency emphasized that a motor vehicle device which activated the stop lamps "under a condition indicating an intent other than (to stop or diminish speed by braking) ... could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps." The 1981 interpretation letter went on to state that NHTSA considered "any use of required lighting equipment for a purpose other than as defined, as an 'impairment'" precluded by what is presently subparagraph S5.1.3 of Standard 108 in the case of original equipment, and as a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as a device which would "render ineffective in whole or in part" required lighting equipment, in the case of an aftermarket device.

In strong language which we believe is directly applicable to CHP's attempted stop lamp indication requirement here, NHTSA, in its November 1981 interpretation letter, underscored its position that a stop lamp, under FMVSS 108, must operate in such a way as to indicate the intention of the vehicle operator to stop or diminish speed by braking.

"We are especially concerned that a high rate of 'false alarms' may lead to a decrease in the overall warning value of the stop lamp signal itself, i.e., the 'cry wolf' phenomenon. This could lead to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of any proposed system."

The November 30, 1981, interpretation letter is included in our submission as Attachment D.

Subparagraph 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code provides that "stoplamps shall be activated on application of the service (foot) brake and the hand control head for air, vacuum, or electric brakes." The

ambiguous drafting and resulting difficulties of interpreting a conjunctive provision such as the foregoing notwithstanding, CHP has taken the position that the cited clause mandates application of the stop lamps when the Commander Electronic Brake Control manual emergency override is used, even though the service brakes are not applied at the time. Besides the potential safety hazards presented by stop lamp circuit connection with the override as outlined above, this condition, which is typically intended to control trailer sway and not "to stop or diminish speed by braking," presents a false braking signal to following vehicles. By logical extension, the CHP position could require stop lamp indication for any of a myriad of vehicle activities and functions, none of which is related to vehicular braking or deceleration.

Tekonsha submits that the CHP position frustrates and is totally at odds with the plain wording and underlying intent of subparagraph S5.5.4. In the situation under review, the service brakes are not in the applied position and the vehicle is not in a stopping mode because it is not subject to any decelerating mechanism of the braking system. Under these circumstances, Tekonsha believes that the CHP position with respect to California vehicle Code subsection 24603(f) results in the California standard's being substantively dissimilar to FMVSS 108 on the same aspect of motor vehicle equipment performance and as such, preempted by the application of Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1392(d).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons as set forth, Tekonsha respectfully requests an interpretation confirming its view that subparagraph 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code is preempted by S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 to the extent that the former mandates stop lamp activation for a vehicular function such as the Commander Electronic Brake Control manual emergency override, which is unrelated to stopping activity and intended to assist in controlling a swaying trailer under emergency conditions without application of the service brakes.

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

FMVSS 108 S S5.5.4

The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The highmounted stop lamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes.

California Vehicle Code S 24603(f)

Stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the service (foot) brake and the hand control head for air, vacuum, or electric brakes....

ID: nht90-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/26/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MANUEL R. GARCIA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/02/90 FROM MANUEL R. GARCIA; OCC 4654

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1990, to Ms. DeMeter of this Office, with respect to importation requirements for motor vehicles. You have recently bought a 1974 BMW 1602 made "overseas", and would like information on Federal safety (and EPA ) requirements the car must conform to before it is shipped, or, alternatively, whether it is permissible to make the necessary repairs after the car arrives in the United States.

Changes in the law affecting importation of cars subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which were effective Janaury 31, 1990, have made the process of importing nonconforming vehicles much more difficult than before. In brief, your car can be imported only if this agency has made a determination that it is capable of conversion to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an affirmative determination has been made, you may import the vehicle only if you have a contract with an importer who has registered with this agency to undertake to conform the vehicle to meet Federal requirements. If the conversion work has been performed abroad, the registered importer is nevertheless responsible for submitting verification that the w ork has been done. At this early date in implementing the law, the agency has made no determinations of vehicle eligibility, and has appointed only a handful of registered importers. I believe that the regulations of the EPA are similar; importation is accomplished through an "independent commercial importer" (ICI). We are forwarding a copy of your letter to that agency for its response.

You haven't indicated when you anticipate importing the BMW. I suggest, as the time approaches, you write our Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. He can then provide you with the latest list of registered importers, and vehicles for which affirmative importation determinations

2

have been made. If your car is not among them, you may persuade a registered importer to petition the agency on your behalf. However, there is a fee imposed for consideration of petitions (either $ 1,560 or $ 2,150, depending on the car). This is paya ble in advance, and is non-refundable if a petition is denied. Further, a vehicle owner is not eligible to submit such a petition.

You didn't say how "recently" you bought your car. However, if it was before October 31, 1988, and you were stationed outside the U.S. at that time and have never before imported a nonconforming vehicle, the law allows you, until October 31, 1992, to im port the car personally, without a registered importer and without an importation determination, and to have conversion work done by anyone you choose.

You also asked for "the publication that covers the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register." I am not sure what you mean, but I am enclosing our new vehicle importation form, Form HS-7, which all importers of motor vehicles must execute upo n arrival of their vehicles. It is, in essence, a concise form of the new importation regulation. I am also enclosing copies of that regulation, and the ones on registered importers, vehicle eligibility determinations, and fees.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-2.96

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 27, 1990

FROM: Olivier M. Sprangers -- A.T. Kearney, Inc.

TO: James T. Brooks -- Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Traffic Operations HTO-21

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-8-91 from Paul J. Rice to Olivier M. Sprangers (A37; Std. 125); Also attached to letter dated 8-20-90 from Harry B. Skinner to Olivier M. Sprangers (OCC 5444)

TEXT:

With reference to our telephone conversation of Monday 25th of June, we'd like to ask your help in preparing the best advice for our customer. There are in fact two major concerns, for which we'd appreciate your written comments.

The first one concerns the process of approval of a new triangle. Basically, the company has designed the product such that it fits within the regulations you have supplied us, namely 49 CFR Ch. III par. 393.95 and 49 CFR Ch V 571.125. The company inten ds to have this verified by a neutral testing organisation. Is this a required or advisable step, and are there any other steps which have to be taken in order to be allowed to start selling the product in the US market?

The second concern is about the term "collapsible" in said regulations. Most traffic triangles are collapsible in the sense that the two sides ("legs") pointing upwards can be flapped down, and the supporting feet can be turned resulting in a flat and th in, long package. This company's product, allows only for the supporting feet to be turned and brought into the same flat surface as the triangular, resulting in a flat, triangle shaped thin package. Would this structure still be within the meaning of the term "collapsible"?

Next to these two concerns, we'd highly appreciate your advice concerning other official government people to contact, who could offer valuable advice in the application of this product.

We highly appreciate your time and efforts in this matter, also on behalf of our client.

We'd kindly welcome your answer within two weeks, if possible.

ID: nht90-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MR. BRAD G. MAGOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/01/90 FROM BRAD MAGOR TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; OCC 4766

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 1, 1990, to the Department of Transportation with respect to your intended purchase of a Canadian truck or van which you will eventually import into the United States. You asked for information on the features requi red to meet the U.S. safety standards, and whether Canadian vehicles generally have these items.

There is a great similarity, but not identicality, between the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS), and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Manufacturers in both countries are required to affix a label to their vehicles certi fying compliance with all applicable safety standards. We understand that some Canadian manufacturers may have certified compliance of their vehicles with both the CMVSS and the FMVSS. If dual certification has occurred, it will be evident from reading the certification label on the vehicle (usually located in the driver door post area). If the vehicle bears a certification of compliance that includes the FMVSS, you should encounter no problems in importing, registering, and selling it in the United States.

However, if the vehicle is certified only to the CMVSS, you will encounter some difficulty in importing it, notwithstanding the substantial similarity of the CMVSS and FMVSS. By direction of Congress, a vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the FMVSS may not be admitted into the U.S. unless two things have occurred. The vehicle must be on a list of vehicles that the Department has approved for conversion to the FMVSS. If this has occurred, then the vehicle can only be imported by a "regis tered importer" (i.e. converter), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to perform the conversion work. A bond equal to 150% of the entered value of the vehicle must be given to secure performance of the conversion work, which is cancelle d upon satisfactory evidence that the work has been performed.

The new directives of Congress were only effective on January 31, 1990, and we are still working to implement them. We have tentatively proposed an approved general list of vehicles that would include all Canadian trucks and vans manufactured since Janu ary 1, 1968, that were certified as meeting the CMVSS, and which are of the same make, model, and model year of any truck or van originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, or originally manufactured in the United States, and that were certified as meeting the FMVSS. For example, a 1990 Chevrolet truck manufactured in Canada to the CMVSS with a U.S. manufactured and certified counterpart would be covered by this general list. We have received no objections to treating C anadian vehicles in this fashion. A final determination should be published in the near future. We have also accorded registered importer status to a number of applicants. If you choose to buy a vehicle certified to the CMVSS for importation into the United States, we will be pleased to provide the latest list of registered importers as the time draws near for your departure.

The minor differences in the standards that may effect you are principally those regarding speedometer/odometers and lighting. The former must indicate miles and miles per hour (and may indicate kilometers and kilometers per hour). Vehicles must be equi pped with headlamps that meet the FMVSS and not those of the ECE. Thus, once a CMVSS-certified vehicle is imported, we do not anticipate that the conversion work should be lengthy or costly. Once the work has been satisfactorily performed and the conve rter's label attached, you should encounter no difficulties in registering the vehicle or in selling it.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht90-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MICHAEL S. KMIECIK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-21-89 FROM MICHAEL S. KMIECIK ATTACHED;

(OCC 4169); GRAPHICS OMITTED. TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to vehicle modification kits you wish to purchase, to be used in conversion of Datsun 240-280Z cars from closed to open vehicles. You have asked for the safety standards that apply to 1974-78 convertibles, and whether the conversion kit meets these standards. I regret the delay in responding.

We appreciate your efforts to meet the requirements of the National Traffic and motor Vehicle Safety Act. As you appear to realize, the Act requires, in essence, that vehicle alterations by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business must not render wholly or partially inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a vehicle at the end of its conversion process must continue to meet the standards that applied at the time that it was first manufactured. This does not preclude conversions that render compliance with a standard physically impossible; obviously an open car cannot meet, for example, the standard for roof crush resistance (Standard No. 216), and convertibles, are, in fact, exempt from it. Such a conversion would allow substitution of a two-point (lap belt) restraint system in a convertible for a three-point (lap-shoulder belt) restraint system that may have been installed when it was a closed car (Standard No. 208).

After the vehicle alterations are complete, the vehicle must conform to the barrier tests specified in several standards. We note that the items that comprise the kit are intended to add rigidity to the body and frame after removal of the top, but are unable to advise you of the effect these modifications would have upon the safety performance of the vehicle as converted.

There are no Federal safety standards that apply to the individual items in your kit. The standards that apply to motor vehicles, including convertibles, manufactured from October 1, 1973, through September 30, 1978, will be found at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. Specifically, the standards appear in volumes titled 49 CFR Parts 200 to 999, revised as of October 1, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977. Originally, these volumes were available through the U.S. Government Printing office (which may have an Omaha outlet). If they are no longer available through the GPO, we recommend that you consult a local law library.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht90-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 16, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MGR., REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTERS DATED 4-18-89 AND 7-11-88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM SHAPIRO ATTACHED; (OCC-3422).

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. Specifically, you indicated that Volvo is currently designing a Type 2 seat belt assembly (lap/shoulder belt) that has an anchorage for the upper end of the shoulder belt located within the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. Volvo also would like to install an additional anchorage for the upper end of the shoulder belt outside of the area specified in S4.3.2. The purpose of this additional anchorage was said to be to "increase the stability of the mounting." You stated your belief that this additional anchorage would be permitted even though it does not satisfy the location requirements specified in S4.3.2, because the additional anchorage "is not required for the seat belt assembly to comply with the strength requirements" of Standard No. 210. The answer to your question depends upon whether the lap/shoulder safety belt is required to be installed at the particular seating position.

My response assumes that this additional anchorage is not an anchorage for an automatic or dynamically tested manual safety belt that meets the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Anchorages for those belts are explicitly exempted from the anchorage location requirements by S4.3 of Standard No. 210.

If the seating position in question is one that is required by Standard No. 208 to be equipped with a lap/shoulder belt, the additional anchorage described in your letter would appear not to comply with Standard No. 210. Section S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." As I understand your letter, both the anchorage that satisfies the location requirements of Standard No. 210 and the addi- tional anchorage would transfer seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure. Therefore, both of these points would be the "seat belt anchorage," per S3 of Standard No. 210, and both points would have to comply with the location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210.

Since your letter states that the additional anchorage would not comply with the anchorage location requirements of standard No. 210, each vehicle that used this additional anchorage point at seating positions required to be equipped with a lap/shoulder safety belt would appear not to comply with Standard No. 210.

On the other hand, if the seating position is one that is not required by

Standard No. 208 to be equipped with a lap/shoulder safety belt (such as the rear center seating position in passenger cars), Standard No. 210 might not prohibit the use of an additional anchorage point that did not comply with the location requirements of the standard. At seating positions where a lap/shoulder safety belt is not required, section S4.1.2 of standard No. 210 gives manufacturers the option of installing either anchorages for a Type I (lap-only) or Type 2 seat belt assembly. Hence, at these seating positions, Volvo could satisfy all requirements of the safety standards by installing lap-only belts at these seating positions. Accordingly, Volvo's decision to install lap/shoulder belts and an additional anchorage point at these seating positions would be purely voluntary, not a response to any regulatory requirement.

NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis, this agency stated that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorages for voluntarily installed lap-only belts outside of the area specified in Standard No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap-only belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, if Standard No. 208 does not require a lap/shoulder belt to be installed at a seating position, the upper anchorage for a shoulder belt (in Volvo's case, both anchorage points for the upper end of the shoulder belt) may be located outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed anchorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages for lap-only belts and the lap-only belts themselves to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. I would like to note, however, that NHTSA believes that shoulder belt anchorages located within the area specified in S4.3.2 of standard No. 210 offer the greatest safety benefits, even though the anchorages of voluntarily-installed shoulder belts are not required to be located within that area.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions or need further information, please let me know.

ID: nht90-3.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1990

FROM: John Durant -- Commercial Rulings Division, Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-1-90 from J. Laderberg to J.H. Heinrich; Also attached to letter dated 9-14-90 from P.J. Rice to J. Durant (A36; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated June 26, 1989 from S.P. Wood to M. Turner

TEXT:

On June 26, 1990, Marvin Amernick of my staff spoke to Dorothy Nakama of your staff concerning the markings which appear on automotive glass. She was extremely helpful. Mr. Amernick explained that this office issued a ruling letter on May 1, 1990, to t he Customs office in Los Angeles, in which we determined that the automobile owner who needs to replace automotive glass is the ultimate purchaser of the replacement glass. As such, in accordance with section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S. C. 1304), and Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134), if the automative glass is imported, the automobile owner must be made aware of the country of origin of the imported glass. Noting that automotive glass is already required by the Departmen t of Transportation to be permanently marked with certain information, we referred to 19 CFR 134.41(a) which states that generally, the country of origin marking is best met by marking worked into articles at the time of manufacture. In the ruling we di d not prescribe any particular method of marking automotive glass. However, we stated that the marking must be permanent enough to insure that in any reasonably foreseeable circumstance, the marking shall remain on the article until it reaches the ultima te purchaser, unless it is deliberately removed. A copy of the ruling is enclosed for your information.

We have now been asked to reconsider the ruling. Various issues are being raised as part of this request and we are looking into several on our own initiative. One of these is the marking requirements imposed on manufacturers of automotive glass by the Department of Transportation. We would appreciate your views on whether a Customs requirement that all imported automotive glass for the replacement market be permanently marked with the name of the country of origin would in any way impact on the mark ing requirements of your agency.

Your prompt review of this issue and response would be appreciated inasmuch as we need to advise the affected industry and our field staff as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please call me on 566-5868 or Mr. Amernick on 566-5765.

ID: nht90-3.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1990

FROM: John D. Dingell -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-9-90 from Mehdi Rowghani to Taylor Vinson; Also attached to letter dated 4-9-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Mehdi Rowghani; Also attached to letter dated 2-15-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John D. Dingell (A37; Std. 214)

TEXT:

Enclosed are two letters provided to the Subcommittee regarding the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214. If the reply of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is accurate, it is troubling. I request your review. Does the law now prohibit or prevent its application to replacement parts of foreign and domestic vehicles? If not, could it be interpreted to apply? Please explain.

I request your reply within 30 days after receipt of this letter.

ID: nht90-3.100

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1990

FROM: George C. Shifflett -- Safety Compliance Specialist, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TO: Oscar W. Harell (Harrell) Jr. -- Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Facilities Management, Department of Mental Retardation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-86 from Erika Z. Jones to Vincent Foster; Also attached to letter dated 11-26-79 from Frank Berndt to W.G. Milby; Also attached to letter dated 1-4-91 from Paul J. Rice to Richard Cahalan (A37; Part 567); Also attached to 49 CFR Chapter V (10-1-89 Edition) Part 567 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 8-2-90 from O.W. Harrell, Jr. to Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC 5073)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1990 in which you ask for a note of edification regarding two letters prepared by our legal staff that I sent to you having to do with transportation of the handicapped.

Regretfully I am not authorized to provide edification in this regard. Request for interpretations or edification should be sent to:

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Best of luck in your field of aiding the handicapped.

ID: nht90-3.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 11, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-10-90 to Z. Taylor Vinson and Stephen P. Wood from Lawrence A. Beyer TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 10, 1990, on behalf of your client, Cantab Motors, requesting "official notification" by DOT that Cantab "is considered to be a manufacturer by your agency", and stating that counsel for Isis Imports received such a letter from us on July 10, 1986.

A review of our letter to Isis discloses that that company sought to import Morgans as "incomplete motor vehicles", and we informed it that it could not do so. However, we stated that a Morgan lacking major components of the fuel system such as fuel tan k, fuel lines, and carburetor could be imported as an "assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, with the package or container labelled as equipment items", and that individual items of equipment covered by the safety standards would have to bear the certif ication of their manufacturer. The result of this interpretation, that is to say, subsequent events occurring outside the letter, is that Isis has imported the assemblage pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(ii), as equipment, rather than as a vehicle under 1 2.80(b)(1)(iii), and has added the propane fuel system components in the United States. The completed motor vehicle has then been certified by Isis as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

It appears from the petition for temporary exemption that you submitted on behalf of Cantab, that the facts are essentially similar to those of the Isis case. To the extent that Cantab's actions duplicate those of Isis, it, too, would appear eligible to import its assemblages of Morgans under the equipment conformance declaration. Although conforming and certified equipment items are no longer imported pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(ii), the corresponding provision of the new regulation that allows im portation of such equipment is 49 CFR 591.5(b).

I hope that this is responsive to your request.