ID: nht91-2.21

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Louis F. Wilson -- Instant Traffic Lights

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA (OCC 5747); Also attached to letter dated 2-20-90 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 9-1-89 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to the acceptability under Federal law of your product, the "Instant Traffic Light. I regret that we do not appear to have a record of your earlier letters to the agency on this subject.

The "Instant Traffic Light" is a four-section unit intended to perform three functions, each indicated by a different color. A green light appears when the accelerator is applied, an amber light when the accelerator is released, and a red light when the brakes are-applied. The lamp's shipping carton shows the unit mounted on the rear parcel shelf behind the rear window. The text on the carton says that the lamp is easy to assemble. You have asked whether the product meets Standard No. 108, whether it would be "legal" in the U.S. "and her territories", and whether the product could replace, or be an option to, the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the center high-mounted stop lamp. Finally, of the 16 states that have responded to your inquiry, an equal number (six) have indicated that the lamp is and is not acceptable to them, while the remaining four "said they will follow the Federal requirement."

Standard No. 108 does not permit the center high-mounted stop lamp to be combined with any other lamp. This means that your product could not be used as original equipment on a passenger car, whether as standard equipment or as an option, or marketed and sold as replacement equipment for a center lamp on a passenger car that was originally equipped with it. However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to the "Instant Traffic Light" if it is marketed or sold exclusively for use on passenger cars that were not originally required to be manufactured with the center stop lamp, i.e., those cars that were manufactured before September 1, 1985. Under this circumstance, the question of the legality of use of the device is to be determined by the laws of the individual States. The "territories" are "States" for purposes of this discussion. Since there is no legal prohibition under Federal law for installation of your lamp only on older passenger cars, we presume that the four States that reserved their decision would permit it on pre - 1985 vehicles registered and/or operating within their borders.

We are aware that, nevertheless, there may be some owner interest in replacing original equipment center stop lamps with your product. We would like to advise that such replacement would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. There is no such restriction upon a vehicle owner who performs the

replacement of the lamp himself.

I hope that this responds to your questions.

ID: nht91-2.22

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ron Marion -- Sales Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from Frank Berndt (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Martin V. Chauvin; Also attached to letter dated 5-12-81 from Frank Berndt to Doris Perlmutter; Also attached to letter dated 6-11-90 from Ron Marion to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 4915); Also attached to letter dated 11-11-77 from James Tydings to Roger Tilton; Also attached to letter dated 12-21-77 from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to James Tydings

TEXT:

This responds to your letter noting that Headstart facilities have been deemed by this agency to be schools for purposes of determining the applicability of this agency's standards for school buses asking whether "privately owned and operated preprimary school type facilities" for children are also considered to be schools. I apologize for the delay in this response. The applicability of these standards is not dependent on whether the ownership of a facility is public or private, but on whether the function of the facility is educational or custodial.

The definition of "schoolbus" set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifically includes buses likely to be significantly used to transport students to or from preprimary schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a number of interpretations concerning whether specific types of facilities are preprimary schools, within the meaning of this definition. These include the December 21, 1977, letter to James Tydings of Thomas Built, a copy of which was attached to your letter, as well as a May 12, 1981, letter to Doris Perlmutter and a May 10, 1982, letter to Martin Chauvin (copies of the latter two are enclosed). The Perlmutter letter explains that nursery schools are considered preprimary schools, while the Chauvin letter draws a distinction between day care centers and preprimary schools. This distinction is based upon the function of the facility. Facilities that are primarily educational in nature are considered schools, while those that are primarily custodial in nature are not considered schools. Hence, day care facilities, being custodial in nature, are not schools, while nursery schools and Head Start programs, which are educational in nature, are considered schools.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-2.23

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: John E. Calow -- Sr. Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Chassis Division, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Chassis Division

TO: Dorothy Nacoma -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Supplying additional VIN tag to Final Stage Manufacturer

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-20-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John E. Calow (A37; Std. 115; Part 568)

TEXT:

Oshkosh Chassis Division "OCD" provides chassis to final stage manufacturers.

The final stage manufacturers are requesting OCD to supply a duplicate VIN tag with each vehicle. The additional VIN tag would be supplied in the "chassis document packet." The additional VIN tag would be affixed by the final stage manufacturer, so that it is readable through the vehicle glazing.

There is a possibility of the final stage manufacturer misrepresenting the vehicle by placing the incorrect VIN tag under the vehicle glazing. OCD would have no control of the final stage manufacturer correctly identifying the vehicle.

I would appreciate an answer in writing to the following questions:

-Is it legal for an Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer to supply the Final Stage Manufacturer with an additional "loose VIN tag"? -What are the legal responsibilities of the Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer if the incorrect VIN tag is affixed to the vehicle by the Final Stage Manufacturer?

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

ID: nht91-2.24

DATE: March 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Anne Lombardi -- Acting Director, Office of Passenger Enforcement and Facilitation, Department of the Treasury

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-14-91 from Anne Lombardi to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5710)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1991, asking for an opinion on kit cars.

Specifically, military and DOD civilian employees stationed on the Philippines

"frequently purchase automobiles which are composites of old chassis and engines, of U.S. manufacture, and new bodies and interiors, fabricated and attached to the chassis by local Filipino car shops.

Normally, the chassis and engines were not taken abroad by the importers, but were purchased in the Philippines from other sources.

In most cases the chassis are said to have been manufactured prior to January 1, 1969."

You have asked which DOT regulations apply to these automobiles, those applicable to the year the chassis was manufactured, or those applicable to the year the body was attached.

This is a question of first impression with us. Under the opinions of this Office relating to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if a person meeting the definition of a "manufacturer", "distributor", "dealer", or motor vehicle repair business" removes a body from the chassis of a motor vehicle and installs a new one, the resulting vehicle must continue to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that were in effect at the time that the vehicle was originally manufactured. If a person other than the above installs the new body, the vehicle is simply a used vehicle to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable (but which must meet State standards for vehicle registration). However, these interpretations apply only to modifications that occur within a "State" as defined by the Act. The Philippines is not included in the definition of "State."

Where such modifications have occurred outside a "State", and the modified vehicle is offered for importation into the United States, the vehicle is treated under the importation regulations (49 CFR Part 591) as a used vehicle which must be brought into conformity with Federal safety and bumper standards in effect at the time of its manufacture. We regard the date of manufacture of the original vehicle (i.e., chassis) as the appropriate date, because it may not be feasible to conform the assemblage to vehicle standards in effect at the later date on which the body was manufactured. If the original vehicle were manufactured before January 1, 1968 (the effective date of the original safety standards), then no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to the vehicle.

I must add an important caveat here. There are two types of Federal motor vehicle safety standards: those that apply to the vehicles as a whole (such as the so-called crash standards), and those that apply to individual equipment items. The equipment standards apply regardless of the date of manufacture of the vehicle. Thus, the tires, brake fluid, brake hoses, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and lamps and reflectors on any modified vehicle imported into the United States must meet the standards in effect at the time the items were manufactured, regardless of whether the modified vehicle must meet the Federal safety standards applicable to vehicles.

I must also add two other caveats. The Imported Vehicle Safety Act of 1988, which has been implemented by 49 CFR Parts 591-594, forbids the importation of a vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (e.g., this would apply to an assemblage of a new body placed upon a chassis manufactured on or after January 1, 1968) unless this agency has determined that the vehicle is capable of modification to comply with all applicable safety standards. This determination is made pursuant to a petition submitted by a "Registered Importer," who will undertake to conform the vehicle if a favorable determination is made. The second caveat is that the owner can import the vehicle only if (s)he has a contract with a Registered Importer to perform conformance work.

However, there is a limited exception to the two caveats of the preceding paragraph. They do not apply to any vehicle that will be imported into the United States on or before October 31, 1992, if its importer owned the vehicle (or had a contract to acquire it) before October 31, 1988, was employed outside the United States at all times between those two dates, and had never before imported a nonconforming motor vehicle. Under this exception, the owner may import the vehicle without the necessity of a determination or the intervention of a Registered Importer. (S)he must then bring the vehicle into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper standards, and present evidence of conformance to this agency. Under any circumstances of importation of a noncomplying vehicle to be conformed, its owner must acquire a performance bond to ensure that the work is, in fact, completed.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht91-2.25

DATE: March 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

COPYEE: Thomas Rabago -- Highway Safety Coordinator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden; Also attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of December 11, 1990, and January 22, 1991, to Clive Van Orden of this agency, enclosing copies of your letters to Representative Blaz, dated July 6 and October 11, 1990, and to our Office of Enforcement dated July 5, 1990. You have also enclosed a copy of a letter that Governor Guerrero of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) wrote on your behalf on October 11, 1990, to Representative Blaz.

Your letter to us of July 5, 1990, expresses your understanding that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply in the CNMI, and that you, as an importer, have imported only vehicles that are certified as conforming to the FMVSS; however, certain of your competitors have not. You asked "Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?" To similar effect is your letter of the next day to Representative Blaz. Governor Guerrero's letter to Mr. Blaz expresses his opinion that the FMVSS do not apply in the CNMI.

The Governor explains:

By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except (NHTSA believes he means "accept") federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since 1966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979 (sic).

It looks like we get the law. But that is not the end of the analysis.

We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for self-government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI.

These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI; it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands.

(I)t is our position that the FMVSS does (sic) apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration.

We cannot agree with the Governor's conclusion. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), does apply in the CNMI, as do all regulations such as the FMVSS that are issued under the authority of that law.

The Governor believes that "automobile safety is an internal affair". For the most part we agree, but not with respect to the primacy of the FMVSS. We agree that vehicle registration, taxation, and use of the roads in the CNMI are matters properly under the jurisdiction of the CNMI. Further, the Act permits local jurisdictions to enact or continue in effect their own vehicle safety standards provided that they do not differ from the FMVSS (except as may apply to their own official vehicles). The FMVSS are manufacturing standards that apply when the vehicles are built, imported, and sold.

We are sorry that your observance of the law may have put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you have specific information regarding possible violations of the importation provisions of the Act in the CNMI including the names and addresses of specific businesses or individuals, please communicate that information to Mr. Van Orden. Our sources of information are kept confidential.

Although the FMVSS apply in the CNMI, it is obvious that enforcement of them by this agency is made more difficult by the absence of agency staff in the CNMI. If local government would "move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law", then they may be enforced locally. I cannot think of a single one of the FMVSS that would not be of benefit. Although speeds may be low on the roads of the CNMI, many of the FMVSS are intended to provide crash protection at 30 m.p.h. Obviously, FMVSS that pertain to vehicle lighting, windshield wiping and washing, etc. provide protection at any speed.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

ID: nht91-2.26

DATE: March 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hiroshi Ozeki -- Executive Vice President, Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-90 from Hiroshi Ozeki to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5108)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1990 requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that one of Mazda's future models has a door design in which the door moulding extends below the door itself by approximately 15 millimeters. You asked whether, for purposes of positioning the loading device used in the quasi-static test of side door strength, the "lowest point of the door" referred to in S4(c)(2) of the standard would be the bottom of the door moulding or the bottom of the door itself when the moulding extends lower than the door itself.

For the quasi-static test of side door strength under Standard No. 214, S4(c)(2) currently provides that the loading device must be positioned so that ". . . (2) Its longitudinal axis is laterally opposite the midpoint of a horizontal line drawn across the outer surface of the door 5 inches above the lowest point of the door." Under the current standard, we believe that door moulding should be considered part of the door. Therefore, the "lowest part of the door" would be the lowest part of an attached door moulding. Under the current standard, that would be the reference point to be used in making the five-inch measurement. For your further information, the agency is considering proposing for public comment a possible amendment to the standard concerning the positioning of the test device.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992.

ID: nht91-2.27

DATE: March 12, 1991

FROM: Rueben K. Brown -- Product Engineer, Crane Carrier Company

TO: Chief Counsel -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Rueben K. Brown (A37; Std. 105)

TEXT:

I am employed as a product engineer with Crane Carrier and am currently involved in FMVSS 105 testing of our school bus chassis. I am unclear on the applicability of the spike stop requirement for school buses greater than 10,000 lb. GVWR. There appears to be some confusion in the industry on this subject. (I have previously spoken with Zack Fraser, of NHTSA, who referred me to your office for an expert opinion.)

Please provide an interpretation of FMVSS 105 regarding spike stops on school buses greater than 10,000 lb. GVWR.

You can reach me at the Bendix Automotive Proving Grounds, New Carlisle, Indiana 46552 (219-654-7400) for approximately the next 2-3 weeks. After that I can be reached at the address shown above for Crane Carrier.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht91-2.28

DATE: March 12, 1991

FROM: David A. White -- Manager, Reliability, Grumman Olson

TO: Associated Administrator For Enforcement, NHTSA

COPYEE: A. Charney; K. Sexton

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David A. White (A37; Part 556)

TEXT:

Enclosed is a notification of a noncompliance to 49 CFR (567.4(g)(6) requiring the vehicle identification number be located on the vehicle certification tag. Grumman Olson is petitioning to have the noncompliance be deemed inconsequential and is seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility.

Enclosure

DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE REPORT 49 CFR PART 573

573.5(c)(1) Manufacturer name - Grumman Olson

(2) Identification of vehicles involved 1990 and 1991 walk in vans - Models Kurbmaster and Route Star

(3) Quantity - Approximately 380

(4) Percentage estimated to contain the defect - 100%

(5) Description of defect/noncompliance The certification tags of these vehicles listed the Grumman Olson body identification number in place of the vehicle identification number specified in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(6)

(6) N/A

(7) Bases on which the manufacturer determined the existence of the noncompliance Quality Control found the incorrect information during the normal inspection process.

(8) Description of manufacturers program to remedy the noncompliance.

Grumman Olson wishes to petition to have the noncompliance considered inconsequential. This request is based on the following information. 1) The vehicle identification is located on the VIN tag required by 49 CFR 571.115.4.6 even though this tag is required only on vehicles with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, Grumman Olson installs the tag regardless of GVWR.

2) Grumman's records are based primarlly on the body identification number and not the vehicle identification number. Vehicles involved in recalls are tracked by the body I.D. Since Grumman Olson manufacturers a body and installs it on a stripped chassis provided by another manufacturer the body I.D. is the only number Grumman Olson assigns and is more useful to Grumman than the VIN.

(9) Representative copy of communications None

ID: nht91-2.29

DATE: March 13, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James W. Lawrence -- Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-15-90 from James W. Lawrence to Stephen P. Wood (OCC 4912); Also attached to letter dated 4-9-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Mehdi Rowghani (A35; Std. 214; Part 541)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 15, 1990 concerning replacement doors. I apologize for the delay in our response. You quote an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter to Mr. Rowghani concerning Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength. You note that the letter states that "there is no requirement that the replacement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214." You requested a clarification of this statement as you believe that the "render inoperative" provision of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would require "installation of parts meeting the same performance requirements as OEM parts."

The "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) would prohibit any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from removing and replacing an undamaged side door, unless the vehicle continued to comply with Standard No. 214. However, that section does not require a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if it has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. The sentence you quote begins, "if damage to a vehicle is such that its original door must be replaced." The interpretation was intended to be limited to situations where damage is so extensive that the vehicle would no longer comply with Standard No. 214.

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

ID: nht91-2.3

DATE: February 26, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gene Schlanger -- President, ROC Capital, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from Gene Schlanger to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of January 3, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking about the permissibility under Federal and State regulations of a lighted sign" on which messages could be scrolled from left to right. Such a sign "is designed to be mounted inside the car, either on a rear or side window." However, "if that is deemed legally inappropriate, the sign can be designed to be placed outside on the roof of the auto." The sign would incorporate LEDs and would not project a beam or flash. You intend to sell it "to the general public."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no specific Federal motor vehicle safety standard that addresses your device, nor any prohibition against your selling it. The question arises, however, as to whether and under what circumstances Federal law may allow its use.

As a general rule, aftermarket equipment such as this is acceptable under Federal law provided that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, does not entail removal of, or otherwise rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that removal by any of the persons just mentioned of the high-mounted stop lamp that has been required on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, in order to substitute your lighted sign, would be a violation of Federal law.

The question arises of whether the lighted sign may be installed in the rear window of any other vehicle, or in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, or on the top of any vehicle, situations where there is no direct removal of safety equipment. The agency regards any impairment of the effectiveness of rear lighting equipment as tantamount to rendering it partially inoperative. Thus, if aftermarket equipment is likely to create confusion or distraction in a following motorist, we regard it as likely to impair the messages that required lighting equipment is supposed to impart. A lighted sign with a changing message is likely to create a distraction, diverting attention from signals sent by stop lamps or turn signal lamps. Thus, we believe that this device has the potential of rendering those lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. Even when installed in a side window, where it may not be visible directly to the rear, the device has the potential of distraction when the vehicle carrying it is approached in other lanes, i.e., at an angle from the rear. We are unable to tell you whether the device is illegal under the laws of each of the 50 States. If you are interested in pursuing this question, we recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle

Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.