ID: 17321.wkm

Mr. Craig May
Process Machinery, Inc.
1636 Isaac Shelby Drive
Shelbyville, KY 40065

Dear Mr. May:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of this agency, asking whether the equipment your company produces will be required to be equipped with antilock brake systems (ABS). The answer is no.

You explained that your company manufactures various types of equipment for the aggregate industry. Some of that equipment must be portable, permitting movement of the equipment within quarries or to other quarries. The weights of your equipment vary from 17,000 to 100,000 pounds. You also enclosed drawings of a portable rock crushing plant and a portable conveyor.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code (U.S.C.) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S. C. 30102(6).

In analyzing the information you provided, including your drawings, it is our opinion that your portable rock crusher and the portable conveyor are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition. They are primarily designed to be used off-road and although they are portable and therefore capable of being transported on-road from one job site to another, their on-road use is only incidental and not the primary purpose for which the equipment was manufactured. Not being motor vehicles, your portable rock crusher and portable conveyor are not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121), requires

trailers, among other things, equipped with air brake systems to be equipped with ABS. Excluded from that requirement, however, is:

Any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR.

Subparagraph S3(f), 49 CFR 571.121.

Your drawings indicate that the rock crusher and conveyor would also meet this exclusion. Therefore, even if your equipment were considered motor vehicles, they would still be excluded from the ABS requirement under this provision.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:121#VSA
d.5/1/98

ID: 17322.drn

Mr. Gary Hammontree
Director, Physical Plant
Starr Commonwealth
13725 Starr Commonwealth Rd.
Albion, MI 49224

Dear Mr. Hammontree:

This responds to your letter asking for information as to whether your nonprofit organization must use school buses to transport youngsters in your residential treatment program. You also ask about the Alternative Education Program (AEP). As explained below, we do not consider the residential treatment program to constitute a "school" as that term is used in our statute. Thus, new buses sold to you for transporting youngsters in the program are not required to be school buses under Federal law. Your buses used in the AEP may or may not be school buses, depending on how regularly they are used for school transportation. With regard to both programs, you should also keep in mind that the States regulate the registration and use of vehicles in their jurisdictions. You should therefore consult Michigan law to see what requirements, if any, apply to the vehicles.

Your letter explains that Starr Commonwealth provides many social services to children and families. One service offered is transportation for:

youth that have been through the juvenile justice system and placed in our residential treatment program. While they attend school on our campus, their primary reason for being placed with us is not for education, but rather to work toward resolving their emotional and delinquent behavior.

Your letter states that for children in the residential treatment program, transportation is provided to events such as "service projects in the community that assist in the building of self esteem, home visits, and recreational activities."

Your letter also noted that Starr Commonwealth provides an Alternative Education Program. Youngsters in the AEP attend public schools and are transported to and from school in school

buses associated with the public schools. Your letter states that occasionally Starr Commonwealth provides transportation for the youngsters in the AEP.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 (copy enclosed) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125 (copy enclosed). Therefore, large (e.g., 15-passenger) vans that are likely to be used significantly to transport school students are "school buses."

Your letter raises two questions. First is whether Starr Commonwealth's residential treatment program constitutes a "school." This question is one the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the type of services provided by the organization at issue.

The facts you have provided show that Starr Commonwealth primarily provides psychological and therapeutic counseling and other social services for the youngsters. For purposes of NHTSA's safety standards, I have concluded that these services are distinct from the academic instruction associated with a "school," and that therefore, Starr Commonwealth is not a "school." Accordingly, if a dealer were to sell a new bus (e.g., a 15-passenger van) to Starr Commonwealth, that dealer need not sell a new school bus.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses. Although NHTSA does not consider the residential treatment program to be a "school" for purposes of our statute, the State of Michigan may have transportation requirements for such youngsters.

The second issue is whether school buses are required in transporting youngsters in the Alternative Education Program to and from public schools. I would agree with your assessment that the answer is yes, any new bus that is likely to be "used significantly" to transport AEP students "to or from school" is covered by our school bus requirements. This means that any person selling a new bus that is likely to be used significantly for the purpose of carrying AEP students to or from public schools must sell a school bus, or be subject to civil penalties for selling a vehicle that does not comply with applicable safety standards.

You indicate that typically school buses associated with the public schools are in fact used to carry your youngsters to school. However, you also indicate that Starr Commonwealth "occasionally" transports them to school-related events (you did not specify the extent of the "occasional" use.) We consider any bus that is likely to be "used significantly" to transport students to or from school or related events a "school bus." If your buses are only occasionally used for school-related events, such use would not be significant. However, if your vehicles are used on a regular basis to transport students to school-related events, the buses would be school buses. Any person selling a new bus for regular use transporting students to school-related events would be required to sell a certified school bus.

I hope this information is helpful. Please accept my apologies for the earlier letter on air bags that was inadvertently sent to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/8/98

ID: 17323.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co.
2-9-13, Nakameguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Re: Headlamp light source arrangement

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1998, asking about the relationship of a planned replaceable light source headlamp system to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S7.5(e)(2)(i)(A) specifies that the lower beam in a headlighting system may be provided "by the outboard light source (or the uppermost if arranged vertically) . . . ." In the system of interest to Stanley, the lower beam light source is placed above the upper beam light source but is also closer to the vehicle centerline than the upper beam light source. You have asked, in essence, whether this arrangement would comply with paragraph S7.5(e)(2)(i)(A).

This requirement originated with four-lamp headlamp sealed beam lighting systems in which headlamps were initially located side by side, with an identical horizontal centerline. Thus, the outboard specification was the one that was initially deemed most critical in drafting an amendment to Standard No. 108. However, when it was brought to the attention of the drafters that manufacturers intended to adopt four-lamp systems in which one lamp was mounted over the other, with an identical vertical centerline, the specification was proposed that the lower beam be provided by the upper lamp. The specification was applied to headlamp systems with replaceable light sources when these systems became permissible under Standard No. 108.

In Stanley's design, the two light sources do not have a common horizontal or vertical centerline. The horizontal centerline of the lower beam light source is 110 mm above that of the upper beam light source. Thus, the lower beam is clearly provided by the upper light source, in accordance with Standard No. 108. However, the vertical centerline of the lower beam light source is 20 mm inboard of that of the upper beam light source. That does not comport with the original intent of Standard No. 108 that the lower beam be provided by either the outermost lamp or by one with an identical vertical centerline to the upper beam lamp. In short, the lower beam light source must not only be the uppermost of the two light sources but, also, its vertical centerline must not be inboard of the vertical centerline of the upper beam light source. This means that Stanley's design does not comply with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:108
d.3/25/98

ID: 17324.drn

Mr. Willis Ayres III
Chuck Hutton Chevrolet Co.
2471 Mt. Moriah Rd.
Memphis, TN 38115

Dear Mr. Ayres:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the use of 15-passenger vans by a potential customer, the Briarcrest Christian School (BCS), to transport school children. In a letter to your dealership, BCS wrote that the "primary usage of this [15-passenger] van will be to provide transportation for Briarcrest personnel who will attend seminars and take other school-related trips." The van will also be used "for various licensed personnel to transport small groups of students to and from select school activities." Because we believe the vehicle will be "used significantly" to transport school children for school activities, if you sell the Briarwood Christian School a new bus, you must sell a bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125(a)(1). Therefore, a 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

The question of whether the buses are likely to be "used significantly" to transport the students is one that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle. Addressing the situation you have raised, although the letter from BCS states the primary use of the vehicle would be to transport adult BCS personnel, it is clear that BCS intends to use the vehicle on a regular and recurring basis to transport school children for different school events. In our view, such regular use of the vehicle to transport school children for school events would constitute a "significant" use of the vehicle. Therefore, under the facts you have provided, if Chuck Hutton Chevrolet Co. sells the Briarwood Christian School a new bus, it must sell a bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Dealers' Questions about Federal School Bus Safety Requirements," and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/8/98

ID: 17325.ztv

Mr. F.G.M. Bol
Car Innovations
P.O. Box 143
2665 ZJ Bleiswijk (Holland)
Netherlands

Dear Mr. Bol:

This is in reply to your January 1998 letter to the Department informing us of your V.E.B. System, and stating that "it remains to you the decision to commercialize this product in co-operation with us."

You are interested in marketing this system "with an auto-manufacturer." Therefore, you intend the V.E.B. system to be installed as original equipment on motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. The system may be best described as a center highmounted stop lamp that displays a vehicle's registration number under ordinary circumstances and the word "stolen" when the vehicle is being operated without the owner's authority.

The center highmounted stop lamp must comply with all requirements of United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. One of these requirements is that the lamp comply with the requirements of Figure 10. This Figure prescribes minimum and maximum candela to be measured at 18 individual test points. If any one of these test points is obscured by the vehicle's registration number or the word "stolen," then it is not legal to install the lamp on a motor vehicle. We believe that it might be difficult to design a lamp that both displays the information you anticipate and meets Standard No. 108. I enclose a copy of Figure 10 so that you may determine whether any of the 18 test points may be obscured by the V.E.B. system. A second requirement is that the lens area must be at least 4.5 square inches. Any obstruction would affect this, too.

Standard No. 108 also prohibits the installation of any device that impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment such as the center stoplamp. Even if the candela and lens area requirements are met, the clarity and meaning of the stop signal may be undermined by letters or numbers appearing when the lamp is lit that have no relation to the stop lamp function.

The Department has no authority to engage in commercial promotions with manufacturers, and we cannot help you with this product.

Finally, we would like to call your attention to a typographical error on the cover and interior of your sales folder. The verb indicating theft in English is "to steal," not "to steel."

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d:5/6/98

ID: 1732y

Peter J. Yanowitch, Esq.
Messrs. Davis, Markel, & Edwards
66 West Flagler Street, SUite 608
Miami, FL 33130
Re: Importation of Porsche 959

Dear Mr. Yanowitch:

This is in reply to your letter of February 27, l989, requesting a response by March l0 as to whether the Department would permit the importation of a Porsche 959 pursuant to l9 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(v).

Specifically, you represent a non-resident of the United States who wishes to import such a vehicle, and operate it on the public roads of this country during the l-year period. You have asked for confirmation in writing that if the vehicle is imported on this basis that "the Department of Transportation would not have jurisdiction to impound, confiscate, destroy, require a bond, or otherwise take any action with respect to the vehicle, so long as the non-resident fully complies with the provisions" of 12.80(b)(l)(v), and, further, that the Department "would not object to the non-resident driving this vehicle on the road" while it is in the United States. You also state that your client is prepared to submit "sworn testimony that he will comply with the requirements of the United States Customs Regulations."

Under l9 CFR 12.80(b)(l), each vehicle offered for introduction into the Customs territory of the United States shall be denied entry unless the importer files a declaration which declares that "(v) The importer...is a non-resident of the United States, is importing the vehicle...primarily for personal use for a period not exceeding l year from the date of entry, will not sell it in the United States during that period, and has stated his passport number and country of issue...in the declaration." This provision was adopted in recognition of international treaties to which the United States is a party, which are intended to assure the free flow of international road traffic. However, this agency does not construe either the regulation or the treaties as conferring an absolute right upon any non-resident to import a non-conforming vehicle if considerations of policy dictate a determination that such entry would not be in the interests of the United States. Chief among these considerations is whether the importer has previously imported a motor vehicle in violation of the importation regulations. Accordingly, we wish to review your client's declaration before the time the vehicle arrives at the port of entry. I enclose a copy of our Form HS-7 for its completion and return to us. We request that a photocopy of the title or other certificate of ownership be enclosed as well. We also ask that a statement be attached to the declaration, so that it becomes a part of it and subject to penalties in the event that it is false or misleading, in which your client discloses whether he has ever imported into the United States any motor vehicle manufactured on or after January l, l968, and, if the answer is affirmative, to provide the make, model, and port and approximate date of entry, and the name of the importer or consignee as it appeared on the declaration. Finally, we also request an affirmation from your client that he will not sell the vehicle, or offer it for sale, either before or during its stay in the United States, and that he will export it at the end of the l-year period.

When we have received and reviewed the declaration and statement we shall be pleased to consider this matter further, and we shall answer your questions at that time.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:MIS d:3/20/89

ID: 17331.ztv

Angela Dyer, Company Secretary
Broomstick Cars Limited
Willow Farm
Ivinghoe
Aston Leighton Buzzard
Bedfordshire LU7 9DG
England

Dear Ms Dyer:

Forgive my delay in replying to your letter of 4th February 1998, regarding the possible importation into the United States of a Jaguar XK120 replica "as a vehicle over 25 years old."

According to your letter, the car has "a new chassis and GRP body panels, but most of the parts are from the original car. These include engine, gear box, suspension, steering, transmission and axles." You have explained that the original car is a "Jaguar S type over 25 years old."

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(9), "a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old" may be imported into the United States without having to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Although the Jaguar XK 120 replica is composed partly of parts that may be over 25 years old, the car's age is computed as of its date of its manufacture. Thus, a replica assembled in 1998 is not "a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old" and it cannot be imported into the United States under Sec. 30112(b)(9).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.5/13/98

ID: 17332.nhf

Mr. Bud White
Honcho Products Company
3821 County Road 255-D
Henderson, TX 75652

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter requesting information on regulations applicable to the sale and installation of a flatbed conversion package manufactured for small ton pick-up trucks. I apologize for the delay in my response.

You state that you plan to manufacture a 6'-6" wide, 8' long steel flatbed that is designed to replace the standard bed on a small pick-up such as the standard cab, long wheelbase models of the Chevy S-10, Ford Ranger, and Dodge Dakota pickups. According to your letter, the conversion is intended to increase the bulk level load carrying capability of the trucks without increasing the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) load capacity. You also state that you intend to offer additional accessories such as steel boxes, side rails, replacement dual steel rear wheels, overload springs/shock absorbers, and cab and bed clearance lights. You explain that you intend to import some of these components. I appreciate the opportunity to explain the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) governing statutes and regulations to you.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA's certification requirements are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567.

You state that the truck bed will be offered as a replacement for existing truck beds. The statutes and regulations applicable to the installation of the conversion truck bed will differ depending on whether the truck bed is installed before or after the first retail sale of the vehicle. A business that replaced the original truck bed with the truck bed you manufacture prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle, would be considered an alterer and would be required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7.

A business that replaced the original truck bed with the truck bed you manufacture after the first retail sale of the vehicle would not have not to certify that the vehicle, as converted, continues to comply with the standards. However, the business would have to comply with NHTSA's statutory make inoperative prohibition. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify or convert motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

You should be aware that the conversion could affect the truck's compliance with several of NHTSA's safety standards. For example, replacing the original truck bed with the conversion truck bed could affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. This standard sets performance requirements for fuel systems in crashes to preserve the integrity of the fuel system in a crash to prevent occupant exposure to fire. As another example, the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, would be compromised if the conversion bed somehow obscured the center highmounted lamp required by the standard. Any business that installs the conversion bed must ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. The installation of dual wheels may widen the vehicle to greater than 80 inches. Should this occur, clearance and identification lamps must be installed.

In response to your question as to whether there are any regulations that apply to steel wheels and clearance lights, Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, apply to dual steel rear wheels, and Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment applies to the clearance lights. The installation of dual wheels may widen the vehicle to greater than 80 inches. Should this occur, clearance and identification lamps must be installed.

You should also be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are responsible for any safety-related defects in their products. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge. Thus, as a manufacturer, you are responsible for notification and remedy of safety related defects or noncompliances that are discovered in the kit either before or after its installation on motor vehicles. The defect requirement applies to all motor vehicle equipment, even in the absence of a safety standard. See 49 CFR Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, and 49 CFR Part 579, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility.

Finally, your letter indicates that you may import some of the motor vehicle equipment for the conversion package. As a general rule, all motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must conform (and be certified by their manufacturer to conform) to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency in order to be imported into the United States and sold here.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.6/30/98

ID: 17338.ztv

Mr. Michael Krumholz
2301 N.W. 33rd Court, Unit 104
Pompano Beach, FL 33069

Dear Mr. Krumholz:

This is in reply to your fax of February 11, 1998, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

With respect to "the standards for blue and yellow fog and driving lamps under Federal law," you ask us to confirm your understanding that "these lights are allowed as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment for motor vehicles."

We are happy to confirm your understanding. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe specifications for fog lamps or driving lamps, either as standard or optional equipment. This means that the individual states have the authority to regulate the performance of these lamps, and even to forbid them. Most if not all states regulate the color of auxiliary lamps, either directly or through reference to standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Those standards prescribe white to yellow as the permitted color and state how to measure it. Also, most states prohibit lamps from emitting blue light because that color is often reserved for police and emergency vehicles. I am sorry that we cannot advise you on the laws of the individual states. You will have to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in each state for an answer.

Standard No. 108 prohibits supplementary original lighting equipment such as fog lamps or driving lamps if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. One example of impairment would be if a fog lamp were installed so close to a turn signal lamp (required by Standard No. 108) that its brightness masked the turn signal. To prevent this, front fog lamps must be located either more than 100 mm from a front turn signal lamp, or the turn signal must be up to 2.5 times more intense than otherwise required, depending on its distance from the fog lamp. See paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE Standard J588NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/8/98

ID: 1733y

The Honorable J. James Exon
United States Senator
287 Federal Building
l00 Centennial Mall North
Lincoln, NE 68508

Dear Senator Exon:

Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1989, in which you inquired about the status of a letter to this office from Mr. Ron Moxham, one of your constituents. I apologize for the delay in responding to Mr. Moxham.

In his inquiry, Mr. Moxham asked about the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations to an add-on-trunk for mini vans, pickup trucks, Blazers, and other vehicles. He described his product as a detachable box that could be attached to the liftgate, bumper, or frame at the rear of a vehicle and extend 16 to 20 inches beyond the bumper. Your constituent asked whether there are any regulations applicable to this product, especially in relation to the vehicle's tail lights and other lighting components. He also asked whether his product would be required to have its own separate lighting equipment and its own separate bumper.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in Mr. Moxham's letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an add-on trunk. However, the addition of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, an add-on trunk could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, by obscuring the vehicle's rear lights from some angles of view. This adverse effect could be offset by the addition of supplementary lighting devices to the trunk. See S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108. (Copy enclosed.)

If an add-on trunk is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards.

If such a device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an "alterer" under 49 CFR Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the add-on trunk either altered the vehicle's stated weight ratings or constituted the installation of something that is not a "readily attachable" component. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. More information regarding the method of installation is necessary before we could determine whether the installation of the add-on trunk was the installation of a readily attachable component.

A person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale is also affected by other Federal requirements, whether or not that person is considered an "alterer." Section l08(a)(l)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act generally provides that no person may "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States," any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In addition, under section l08(a)(2)(A) of the Act, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in 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.

If an add-on trunk is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would be subject to the "render inoperative" requirement cited above. Thus, the installer would have to make sure that it did not 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.

I note that in a letter dated September 25, l987, NHTSA indicated that a person who installs a lift platform on the rear of a car, thereby blocking a lamp required by Standard No. l08, could avoid violating the prohibition against rendering inoperative by installing an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's photometric requirements. Since that situation may have similarities to the one faced by Mr. Moxham, I am enclosing a copy of the letter.

Mr. Moxham did not specifically indicate whether his product would be sold for passenger cars. NHTSA has a bumper standard which sets forth requirements for the impact resistance of passenger cars in low speed front and rear collisions. The addition of an add-on trunk could affect a passenger car's compliance with the bumper standard. Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Mr. Moxham should also be aware that state laws may apply to his device.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

cc: Washington Office /

ref:567#571#108# d:3/l7/89