ID: matsumoto-2.ztv

Mr. Todd Matsumoto
1625 A. Makahuine St.
Honolulu, HI 96817

Dear Mr. Matsumoto:

This responds to your letter concerning your 1964 and 1968 "dune buggy" kit cars. You informed us that the "local government" requires you "to provide the state with a design plan certified by a professional engineer that meets all federal safety standards in order for my car to be legally registered." Subsequently, you faxed us a copy of a letter to you, dated June 30, 2003, from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation, which indicates that your vehicles are considered "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law. You asked whether your cars have to meet any specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS or standards) or other regulations.

I will address the applicability of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to this issue. This law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must meet the FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture.

We have previously provided the following explanation [1] how our regulations apply to 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.

Assuming that the construction of a kit car does not involve the use of so many new parts as to make it a new motor vehicle, we do not consider it to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSSs in effect on the date of completion of the kit car. Based on the information you provided with your letter and in telephone conversations with Taylor Vinson of my staff, it appears that this is the case with your 1964 and 1968 dune buggy kit cars.

However, the States may regulate the reconstruction of vehicles. The letter you provided to us from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation indicates that it considers your vehicles to be "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law, and subject to its requirements for the approval of reconstructed vehicles.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson again (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.7/25/02





---

[1] Letter to Mr. Joel Trim, September 27, 1993.

ID: 22750.ztv.wpd

Mr. Todd Matsumoto
1625 A. Makahuine St.
Honolulu, HI 96817

Dear Mr. Matsumoto:

This responds to your letter concerning your 1964 and 1968 "dune buggy" kit cars. You informed us that the "local government" requires you "to provide the state with a design plan certified by a professional engineer that meets all federal safety standards in order for my car to be legally registered." Subsequently, you faxed us a copy of a letter to you, dated June 30, 2003, from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation, which indicates that your vehicles are considered "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law. You asked whether your cars have to meet any specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS or standards) or other regulations.

I will address the applicability of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to this issue. This law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must meet the FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture.

We have previously provided the following explanation [1] how our regulations apply to 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.

Assuming that the construction of a kit car does not involve the use of so many new parts as to make it a new motor vehicle, we do not consider it to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSSs in effect on the date of completion of the kit car. Based on the information you provided with your letter and in telephone conversations with Taylor Vinson of my staff, it appears that this is the case with your 1964 and 1968 dune buggy kit cars.

However, the States may regulate the reconstruction of vehicles. The letter you provided to us from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation indicates that it considers your vehicles to be "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law, and subject to its requirements for the approval of reconstructed vehicles.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson again (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.7/25/03





---

[1] Letter to Mr. Joel Trim, September 27, 1993.

ID: 08_004614 209

ID: 11345WKM

Mr. Lance Tunick
Manager, Special Projects
Vehicle Science Corporation
Post Office Box 1015
Golden, CO 80402-1015

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter asking whether your rear side door locking system would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (49 CFR 571.206). The answer is a qualified yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

You stated that on your locking system, the first pull of the inside rear door handle unlocks the door but does not release the latch to open the door. The second pull releases the latch to open the door. These features are in addition to a "child safety lock." You asked whether your rear side door locking system would comply with the requirements of S4.1.3 and S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 206.

Paragraph S4.1.3, FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

We have interpreted S4.1.3 to require the following features. Each door must have a locking mechanism, and there must be an interior operating means for engaging the locking mechanism. (See April 10, 1987 letter to Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW, copy enclosed.) In your letter, there is an implication that your system has an interior means for engaging each door lock. Assuming such a means is provided, the requirement of S4.1.3 would appear to be met. Because the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 is that the interior operating means for the door locks be capable only of engaging the door locking mechanism, S4.1.3 does not address what means must be provided to unlock the locking mechanism, and thus does not prohibit unlocking a locking mechanism by means of the "inside rear door handle."

Paragraph S4.1.3.2 of FMVSS No. 206 provides:

Side Rear Door Locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

Your letter did not specifically state that when your locking system is engaged both the inside and outside latch release controls would be inoperative. Assuming that they would be, the question is whether the inside door handle on your system is "inoperative" when the handle can still operate to disengage the locking mechanism. We conclude that the answer is yes. This issue was addressed in an October 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Ziwica of BMW (copy enclosed), concerning a side rear door lock and latch mechanism similar to yours. The BMW system consisted of a door handle that served the dual function of acting as a door locking mechanism and door latch release. When the side door is locked, the door handle would be pulled once to disengage the locking mechanism. The handle would be pulled a second time to open the side rear door.

In NHTSA's response to BMW, the agency stated that S4.1.3.2 is intended, in part, to reduce inadvertent door openings due to impact on or movement of inside or outside door handles. Thus, the agency concluded that "inoperative," as used in S4.1.3.2, refers to the operation of opening the door, rather than that of disengaging the lock. Accordingly, NHTSA determined that the BMW system met the requirement of S4.1.3.2.

The door handle of your system serves the same "dual function" as that of the BMW system, and thus would be permitted. The door handle of your system cannot open the door when the locking mechanism is engaged.

You asked whether the second pull unlatching the door could occur at any time after the first pull, or only within a specific time frame after the first pull. The standard does not specify that a door can only be unlatched after a certain amount of time from disengagement of the door lock. The second pull unlatching the door can thus occur at any time after the first pull.

Finally, you stated that you were concerned about the final rule of April 27, 1968, 33 FR 6465, which promulgated the rear door lock requirements discussed today. You quoted that portion of the preamble to the final rule which stated that the requirement for rear door locks was a child-protection device because it prevents opening the rear door by movement of the inside rear door handle by children. You asked us to "address this issue."

As explained above, your locking system would meet S4.1.3.2 because, when the locking mechanism is engaged, the inside door handle cannot open the door. Since the inside door handle cannot open the door when the door is locked, that aspect of performance serves as a child protection measure. However, we agree with your decision to equip the door with a child safety lock. A child safety lock, when engaged, renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door. The lever deactivating the child safety lock is typically inaccessible to the child passenger. A child safety lock may be appropriate as an added child protection measure.

Notwithstanding the foregoing discussion, the system you describe raises serious safety concerns, in that a child could disengage the lock and then open the door by playing with the handle. The fact that your proposed system would also be equipped with a Atraditional child lock@ reduces but does not eliminate such concerns.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or desire additional information, please feel free to contact this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206 d:3/28/96

The capability of the operating means to engage the required door locks must not be interfered with by any additional door locking device.

ID: Lewis.3

Mr. Walter J. Lewis
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
980 Hammond Drive, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA30328




Dear Mr. Lewis:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You ask: (a) whether Item 4A glazing "may continue to be used in the "C" pillar of vehicles and between the B and D pillars in hearses if those locations meet the criteria for Item 4A glazing"; and (b) if Item 4A glazing may be used in certain locations rearward of the B-pillar on the Porsche Cayman S and Porsche 911 GT2 and GT3 vehicles. As explained below, in answer to both questions, we cannot interpret the standard as permitting Item 4A glazing in side windows in locations other than rearward of the "C" pillar.

S5.5, "Item 4A Glazing," of FMVSS No. 205 states:

Item 4A glazing may be used in all areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used, and also for side windows rearward of the "C" pillar.I.e., Item 4A glazing may be used under Item 4A paragraph (b) of ANSI/SAE Z26.11996 only in side windows rearward of the "C" pillar.

"Item 4A paragraph (b)" of ANSI/SAE Z26.11996 states that Item 4A glazing may be used in the following locations: "In a vehicle whose rearmost designated seating position is forward-facing and cannot be adjusted so that it is side or rear-facing and, the forwardmost point on the visible interior surface of the glazing, is rearward of the vertical transverse plane that passes through the shoulder reference point (as described in Figure 1 of 49 CFR 571.210 Seat belt assembly anchorages) of that rearmost seating position".

You believe that FMVSS No. 205 permits the use of Item 4A glazing in side windows anywhere in the vehicle as long as the provisions of "Item 4A paragraph (b)," above, are met. You state that the preamble to an August 12, 1996 final rule permitting Item 4A glazing adopted criteria (in former S5.1.2.11) equivalent to those of Item 4A paragraph (b), above, and that the preamble allowed for a wide application of the glazing.You quote the following from the preamble adopting S5.1.2.11:

Since the adopted criteria do not limit Item 4A installation to locations between the "C" and "D" pillars in station wagons and hatchbacks, they permit Item 4A glazing installation in any vehicle location that can meet that approach. Thus, Item 4A glazing could be installed in the "C" pillar of vehicles and between the "B" and "D" pillars in hearses (funeral coaches) if those locations met the criteria. (61 FR 41739)

Discussion

We cannot agree that S5.5 permits Item 4A glazing in side windows in locations other than rearward of the C pillar. The wording of S5.5 is clear that Item 4A glazing may be used only in side windows rearward of the C pillar. The regulatory history of S5.5 also illustrates that the reference to the C pillar was not inadvertent, as explained below.

FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes (ANSI) Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26.1). In July 2003, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 205 to update the reference from the then-referenced 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 to the 1996 ANSI standard (July 25, 2003; 68 FR 43964). At the time, the agency believed that the requirements for Item 4A glazing were adequately presented in the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1, and accordingly deleted S5.1.2.11 that had specified the locations in which Item 4A glazing may be used. The agency subsequently realized that the 1996 ANSI standard does not contain the location restriction for Item 4A glazing that the agency sought to have. NHTSA published a correction to the final rule (68 FR 55544; September 26, 2003) to add S5.5 to the standard "to make clear that Item 4A glazing is only permitted for use in side windows rearward of the C pillar." The September 26, 2003 final rule takes precedence over the preamble of the August 12, 1996 final rule. In light of the 2003 correction, which reflected the agencys view of the standard as permitting Item 4A glazing only in side windows rearward of the C pillar, ^[1] we cannot interpret S5.5 as you suggest.

We note further that even the August 12, 1996 final rule whose preamble you quote placed the regulatory text permitting Item 4A glazing under the heading, "S5.1.2.11 Test procedures for Item 4ARigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows Rearward of the "C" pillar" (emphasis added). Thus, even S5.1.2.11 did not permit Item 4A glazing to be used forward of the C pillar.

In your letter (with accompanying photographs), you discussed the Porsche Cayman S and Porsche 911 GT2 and GT3 vehicles. The vehicles do not have rear designated seating positions. You ask if Item 4A glazing is permitted for side windows forward of the C pillar "[u]sing the same logic applied to the hearse case discussed in the 1996 final rule (i.e., that there is no opportunity for head contact with this piece of glazing) ." Interpreting S5.5 as you suggest would render meaningless the agencys statements in the September 26, 2003 document, discussed above, that made clear that Item 4A glazing is only permitted for use in side windows rearward of the C pillar. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we cannot interpret the standard as permitting Item 4A glazing in side windows in locations other than rearward of the C pillar.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref.205
d.4/25/06





---

^[1] In a July 12, 2005 document further correcting S5.5, the agency reiterated that it had corrected the standard after discovering that the incorporation of the 1996 version of ANSI/AE Z26.1 "inadvertently permitted item 4A glazing to be used in side windows rearward of the B pillar".

ID: 571-111 - Driver Mirror Flat or Convex - Magna Mirrors - 13-001216

ID: nht89-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/89

FROM: T. CHIKADA -- MGR., AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING, ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

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

TITLE: INSTALLATION OF DECORATIVE EXTRA LIGHTING DEVICES ON MOTORCYCLES, WHICH ARE NOT SPECIFIED IN FMVSS NO. 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-20-90 TO T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; STD. 108]

TEXT: We have an idea of producing two decorative extra lighting devices which are not specified in FMVSS No. 108.

As shown in the attached sheet, these decorative devices will be installed on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively. The distance between center of light source of device A and B is 290 mm.

The light source of device B is incandescent bulb, and that of device A is LED. Color of emitted light of both devices (A and B) is red. Both devices (A and B) are energized when tail lamp is on. And they (A and B) are so designed as to have the maximu m intensity less than that minimum intensity of tail lamp C. (It is a matter of course that the minimum and maximum intensities of tail lamp C satisfy the requirement of FMVSS No. 108.)

Please let us have your answers for the following questions.

Q.1 Is it permitted to equip a motorcycle with the above mentioned accessory lamps?

Q.2 If the answer to the above question is "YES",

1) is it acknowledged to use LED as the light source of device B?

2) should maximum intensity of each lamp (A or B) separately be less than the minimum intensity of tail lamp C? or should combined maximum intensity of both lamps (A and B) be less than the minimum intensity of tail lamp C?

We are looking forward to your advice.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-3.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 4, 1990

FROM: Hiroshi Kato -- Vice President, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.

TO: Jack Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing of proposed illumination on rear panel garnish and photo of 1988 Pontiac Fiero (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to H. Kato (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter serves to request an interpretation of FMVSS 108, Lights and Relectors. S.5.1.3 of Standard 108 states that "no additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lightin g equipment required by this standard."

We are considering lighting the rear panel garnish of a vehicle to illuminate the word "MITSUBISHI" at 0.1 cd (0.02 cd/in) when the vehicle headlamp system is turned on. This illumination would not be lighting required by FMVSS 108. The enclosed page s hows the proposed illumination and specifications. A similar illumination on the 1988 model year Pontiac Fiero is also shown.

We would like your determination as to whether the illumination described above would be considered impairment of the effectiveness of required lighting as described in S.5.1.3.

If the described illumination is considered an impairment due to the candela power, we would like to know what candela would be acceptable.

Also, we would like to confirm that if the center of the rear panel garnish was illuminated as a supplemental tail lamp and the word "MITSUBISHI" was not illuminated, this type of lighting would be allowed under FMVSS 108.

Your prompt response would be appreciated.

Enclosure

Drawing of proposed illumination on rear panel garnish and photo of 1988 Pontiac Fiero (graphics omitted).

ID: nht74-2.25

DATE: 05/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge receipt of Kelsey-Hayes' petition to add "after-stop" to the description of temperature range in S6.1.8.1 of Standard No. 121 and S7.4.2.1.2 of Standard No. 105a.

The temperature range is in fact intended to describe the after stop temperature of the brakes, and the language of the sections will be clarified in the future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

April 25, 1974

U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel

RE: Requests for Interpretation -- FMVSS 105 (9/1/75) S7.4.2.1.2; FMVSS 121 S6.1.8.1; Your file numbers N40-30 (ZTV) and (TWH); Brake Burnish Procedure

Dear Mr. Dyson:

You have responded to our requests for interpretation on identical language in these subsections of these standards and advised that the word maximum would be deleted in the sentence ending in ". . . maintain a maximum temperature of 500 degrees F +/- 50 degrees F."

We recommend one further clarification to eliminate ambiguity, namely, that the phrase "after-stop temperature" be added to the sentence, as follows:

"If during any of the brake applications specified in , the hottest brake reaches 500 degrees F, make the remainder of the 500 applications from that speed except that a higher or lower speed shall be used as necessary to maintain an after-stop temperature of 500 degrees F +/- 50 degrees F."

We further suggest that a notice be issued proposing this clarification.

Very truly yours,

John F. McCuen -- Attorney, KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

cc: W. T. Birge; D. Renner

ID: nht79-1.12

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Essex Group

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Daniel I. Borovik Director of Development and Planning Essex Group Wire Assembly Division 6233 Concord Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48211

Dear Mr. Borovik:

This is in reply to your letter of August 7, 1979, asking whether "trailer warning lamps should flash or be steady-burning" when the towing vehicle's hazard warning system is actuated and the service brakes are applied.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require trailers to be equipped with hazard warning signal lamps, and you may design your trailer tow electrical package without reference to it. Lack of Federal regulation in this area, however, means that each State may set its own requirements, and you should ascertain whether such exist before finalizing your design.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ESSEX GROUP WIRE ASSEMBLY DIVISION 6233 Concord Ave. Detroit, Michigan 48211

August 7, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Gentlemen:

Reference is made to FMVSS 108, paragraphs 4.1.1.32, 4.5.4 and 4.6.

We are developing a trailer tow electrical package for passenger cars and light trucks. Critical to the design is the logic for the signalling functions of optically (and electrically) combined lamps on trailers. Specifically, when the hazard warning system is actuated and the service brakes are applied, should the trailer warning lamps flash or be steady-burning? FMVSS 108 does not provide explicit direction.

We request a position from the DOT whether the lamps should flash or be steady burning in the above situation.

Very truly yours,

Daniel I. Borovik Director of Development and Planning

DIB/lg