ID: nht90-3.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jack E. Eanes -- Chief, Vehicle services, State of Delaware, Department of Public Safety, Division of motor Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 10-20-89 to T. Vinson from J. E. Eanes (OCC 3822)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter asking whether very darkly tinted rear windows that obscure the center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) required in passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 would violate any Federal laws or regulations. Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue two safety standards that are relevant to your question. The first of these is standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR S571.108), which applies to all new vehicles and new replacement equipment for motor vehicles. Among the requirement s set forth in this Standard is a requirement for all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 to be equipped with a CHMSL of specified minimum size, brightness, and visibility from the range of locations set forth in the standard. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). This standard applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing for use in motor vehicles, and includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance of the glaz ing (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. A new passenger car with a rear window tinted so darkly that th e CHMSL was not easily visible would probably not be in conformity with Standards No. 108 and 205, and so could not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States. However, this prohibition on the manufacture or sale of a nonconforming vehicle doe s not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer.

Both before and after the first sale of a vehicle, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." If any of the listed commercial entities were to install tint film or otherwise darken the rear windows on passenger cars so that the light transmittance of that window plus the darkening material was below 70 percent, those entities would be "rendering inoperative" the light transmittance of the rear window of the car, in violation of Federal law.

This same prohibition in Federal law makes it unlawful for a service station to permanently remove the safety belts or permanently disconnect the brake lines on a car.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle no longer complies with the safety standards aft er such alterations. Hence, no provision of the Safety Act or our safety standards makes it unlawful for vehicle owners themselves to tint or otherwise darken the rear window of their car so that its light transmittance is below 70 percent and/or its CH MSL is obscured.

The individual States, however, do have authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. The States also have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that Stake.

You indicated in your letter that the State of Delaware "allows vehicle rear windows to be tinted as dark as the owner desires." While I am not familiar with Delaware law, I assume that this statute, and similar statutes adopted by other States, does no t purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing and CHMSLs by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, any commercial firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittanc e of less than 70 percent and/or reduces the required brightness of the CHMSL would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Delaware permits individual owners to make such modifications themselves and to register and oper ate vehicles with rear windows and CHMSLs that would not comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards for new vehicles. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifi cations commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Delaware from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in t he State of Delaware.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and Delaware law, and Delaware would be free to enforce the provisions of its law. We would, however, urge the State of Delaware to carefully consider the adverse safety consequenc es that will result from the provision of its law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety, and that the CHMSL on passenger cars enhances motor vehicle s afety. It is not clear why the State of Delaware would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance and CHMSLs in new passenger cars is satisfied by allowing far lower light transmittance levels and lower-brightness CHMSLs in passenger cars to be operated in the State.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202)

366-2992.

ID: 2636y

Mr. Jack E. Eanes
Chief, Vehicle Services
State of Delaware
Department of Public Safety
Division of Motor Vehicles
P. O. Box 698
Dover, Delaware, 19903

Dear Mr. Eanes:

This is in response to your letter asking whether very darkly tinted rear windows that obscure the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL) required in passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 would violate any Federal laws or regulations. Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue two safety standards that are relevant to your question. The first of these is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), which applies to all new vehicles and new replacement equipment for motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in this Standard is a requirement for all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 to be equipped with a CHMSL of specified minimum size, brightness, and visibility from the range of locations set forth in the standard. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). This standard applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing for use in motor vehicles, and includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance of the glazing (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. A new passenger car with a rear window tinted so darkly that the CHMSL was not easily visible would probably not be in conformity with Standards No. 108 and 205, and so could not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States. However, this prohibition on the manufacture or sale of a nonconforming vehicle does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer.

Both before and after the first sale of a vehicle, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." If any of the listed commercial entities were to install tint film or otherwise darken the rear windows on passenger cars so that the light transmittance of that window plus the darkening material was below 70 percent, those entities would be "rendering inoperative" the light transmittance of the rear window of the car, in violation of Federal law. This same prohibition in Federal law makes it unlawful for a service station to permanently remove the safety belts or permanently disconnect the brake lines on a car.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle no longer complies with the safety standards after such alterations. Hence, no provision of the Safety Act or our safety standards makes it unlawful for vehicle owners themselves to tint or otherwise darken the rear window of their car so that its light transmittance is below 70 percent and/or its CHMSL is obscured.

The individual States, however, do have authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. The States also have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State.

You indicated in your letter that the State of Delaware "allows vehicle rear windows to be tinted as dark as the owner desires." While I am not familiar with Delaware law, I assume that this statute, and similar statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing and CHMSLs by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, any commercial firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent and/or reduces the required brightness of the CHMSL would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Delaware permits individual owners to make such modifications themselves and to register and operate vehicles with rear windows and CHMSLs that would not comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards for new vehicles. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Delaware from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in the State of Delaware.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and Delaware law, and Delaware would be free to enforce the provisions of its law. We would, however, urge the State of Delaware to carefully consider the adverse safety consequences that will result from the provision of its law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety, and that the CHMSL on passenger cars enhances motor vehicle safety. It is not clear why the State of Delaware would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance and CHMSLs in new passenger cars is satisfied by allowing far lower light transmittance levels and lower-brightness CHMSLs in passenger cars to be operated in the State.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:108#205#VSA d:7/3l/90

ID: 08-007784drn-2

ID: nht68-1.32

DATE: 04/24/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Carrington; Johnson & Stephens

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 16 which asked several questions concerning the applicability of present Federal motor vehicle safety standards to equipment installed, either at the factory or afterwards, "in pickup trucks and other light trucks."

You have asked:

"(1) Does a standard applicable only to passenger cars apply to a vehicle coming within both the definitions of 'truck' and the definition of 'passenger car' as defined in the Standards?"

(2) Does your answer to the foregoing apply to pickup trucks and other light trucks sometimes used for family purposes?

(3) Are these considered to be 'multipurpose passenger vehicles' and therefore specifically excluded from the definition of 'passenger cars'?"

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards define a "truck" as a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment". This includes pickup trucks used occasionally for family purposes. The answer to your questions therefore is that vehicles are not both trucks and passenger cars and a standard applicable only to passenger cars is not applicable to pickup and other light trucks. The distinction between passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles is that the latter are vehicles constructed either on a track chausis or with special features, such as 4-wheel drive, for occasional off-road operation. The Ford Bronco and International Harvester Scout are two examples of multipurpose passenger vehicles.

With regard to your question regarding applicability of standards to dealer-installed equipment, the standards, at this time, do not apply to installation or removal of equipment after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale. They do apply prior to sale and dealers should be warned against making modifications which might interfere with the compliance that has been certified by the vehicle manufacturer.

The meaning of your last question is unclear to me. Certification is required by the Act between a manufacturer and a dealer or distributor and then only if there is an applicable standard. Many vehicle manufacturers routinely require by a contract that equipment manufacturer "certify" that equipment supplied meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. These clauses are a matter of contract between the parties.

Regardless of the end use of the equipment supplied, and even though no certification is required because the sale is to a vehicle manufacturer and not a dealer or distributor, if there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applicable to the equipment manufactured the equipment manufacturer is subject to civil penalty for violation of section 108(a)(1) of the Act (15 USC 1397 (a)(1)) if the equipment does not comply with applicable standards.

Sincerely,

CARRINGTON, JOHNSON & STEPHENS

March 16, 1968

Robert M. O'Mahoney, Esq. Assistant General Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration National Highway Safety Bureau

Dear Mr. O'Mahoney:

We represent a firm which is a "manufacturer" as defined in Sec. 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act"), of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined in Sec. 102(4) of the Act. Such firm is the same concern concerning which you and I had correspondence last summer, culminating in your letter of August 1, 1967 wherein you kindly furnished us with guidance in the interpretation of a possibly ambiguous aspect of the Act concerning sale of such equipment in the passenger car after-market, in order that we might in turn be guided in advice to our client.

Now our client proposes to sell such equipment to a concern which is a "manufacturer" of "motor vehicles" under Sec. 102(3) of the Act, which equipment is to be used in pickup trucks and other light truckscoming within the definition of "truck" in the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards @ 255.3(b). In some cases the equipment will be factory-installed, and in some cases it will be installed by factory-franchised truck dealers as optional equipment specified by the purchaser of the truck.

This letter is to request your advice concerning the applicability of the Initial Standards (and I especially have in mind Standard 201) to this equipment.

Section 255.3(b) of the Initial Standards defines truck as follows:

"Truck' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

The same general section of definitions at the same time defines "passenger car" as follows:

"'Passenger car' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less."

The same general section also defines "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as follows:

"'Multipurpose passenger vehicle' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

The structuring and thrust of the Initial Standards and of the Act appear clearly to contemplate that standards applicable to trucks as above-defined are intended to be limited in applicability to trucks, and that standards applicable to passenger cars as above-defined are intended to be limited in applicability to passenger cars. Yet, if literally and superficially read, without the illumination of such purpose and intent, the definition in @ 255.3(b) of "passenger car" would literally cover a pickup truck, or possibly even a large truck, so long as it was "designed for carrying 10 persons or less" unless as to a particular kind of truck it would be said to be a "multipurpose passenger vehicle." An interpretation which includes trucks of any kind under the definition "passenger car" would, in my opinion, be strained and would not further the results desired to be accomplished by the Initial Standards or the Act, but the language used has led us to request your advice with respect to the following:

(1) Does a standard applicable only to "passenger cars" apply to a vehicle coming within both the definition of "truck" and the definition of "passenger car" as defined in the Standards?

(2) Does your answer to the foregoing apply to pickup trucks and other light trucks sometimes used for family purposes?

(3) Are these considered to be "multipurpose passenger vehicles" and therefore specifically excluded from the definition of "passenger cars"?

(4) If your answer to either of the first three questions is that the "passenger car" standards do cover such a vehicle, would the applicability of such standards to equipment installed in such a vehicle be governed to any extent by the fact of installation of such equipment by a dealer, rather than at the factory --

(a) before delivery of the vehicle to the customer?

(b) after delivery of the vehicle to the customer?

(5) If the equipment involves were in noncompliance with the standards if factory-installed in "passenger car" but the Vehicle manufacturer contractually represents that the equipment is purchased for use only on vehicles to which "passenger car" standards do not apply, can the equipment manufacturer rely on such representation so as not to certify the equipment as being in compliance with the standards?

We shall appreciate your assistance to us with respect to these questions.

Sincerely yours,

MARVIN S. SLOMAN

ID: 05-008127drn

Herr Franz Horneffer
ZF Getriebe GmbH
Postfach 25 67
D-88015 Friedrichshafen
GERMANY




Dear Herr Horneffer:

This responds to your request for our legal opinion whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) require that passenger cars with automatic transmissions must have a parking brake. The answer is that all passenger cars must have a parking brake. Thus, passenger cars with automatic transmissions must have a parking brake.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs, which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America. (See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.)NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

The answer to your question is found in FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems. FMVSS No. 135 applies to passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 2000. (See S3. Application.)Equipment requirements are specified at S5. of FMVSS No. 135. Parking brake systems are addressed at S5.2, which states:

Each vehicle shall be equipped with a parking brake system of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement.

The requirement for "each vehicle to be equipped with a parking brake system" means that passenger cars with automatic transmissions must have a parking brake.

I hope this information is helpful. 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,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:102#135
d.11/3/05

ID: 86-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/16/86

FROM: DONALD E. STEPHENS JR.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/22/86, TO Donald E. Stephens to Erika Z. Jones

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you very much for your letter dated June 20, 1986. And the interpretation of Kit car.

I will explain more what I had in mind so you canunderstand my particular case. What I mean with homebuilt is that purchase the plans from a CO. like Home Mechanics and I build my own car. In this case what I do it purchase a chasis of a Spitfire and take of it's body and engine. I will manufacture my own body out of fiberglass and urethane foam. Then I will put a Kubota garden tractor diesel engine and that's it.

The reason I will like to build this car because of the exitement of building my own car and learn more about cars. Also it's very good on gas mileage going 35 m.p.h. it gets 128 miles per gallon, but it can go lot faster than that. Diesel is better on gas mileage than gasoline engine. And the diesel does not need the maintenance of gasoline engine needs. If more people thought like me maybe we will not have worry about an Arab oil ambargo and this can be a lot safer than a motorcycle.

I do not know all the fuss of the D.O.T. in Washington about safety when motorcycles are a lot more dangerous than these kinds of cars. I cannot believe the laws of Kansas if you are older than 18 yrs. old you do not have to ware a helmet while riding a motorcycle thats ridicoulus. Also I was interested in making that auto for sale to the public, too. The Puerto Rican agency that deals with autos said it had to meet D.O.T. standards before I can register it and license it. So that means that P.R. because it's an U.S. Commonwealth they go by our federal laws.

Are all Kit cars mfrs. D.O.T. certified? Are all CO. That sell plans to build home builts cars certified and meet D.O.T. standards. What do I need to know if I decide to by plans for building a homebuilt car or buying Kit cars?

How good are the cars brought from europe with Eurepean specifications and then converted to meet U.S. specifications called Gray Market cars?

Some of this homebuilts plans from Home Mechanics are tree wheelers with a motorcycle engine made out of fiberglass a KU student has one. Some are electric cars and others are a combination of both.

I believe the homebuilt I plan to build is cheap transportation for work and doing something good for our country saving oil. We Americans waste to much oil we need to conserve energy. Do you think I could receive a grant from the goverment for my work? My last question how good does the third brake light helps prevennt rear end collisions?

Thank you very much for your time reading my letters and my many questions.

Sincerly Yours,

ID: nht87-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable John P. Murtha

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable John P. Murtha Member of Congress Post Office Box Johnstown, PA 15907

Dear Mr. Murtha:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Office of Congressional Affairs, which has been referred to me for a response. In an addendum enclosed with your letter, you note that one of your constituents, Mr. Gene Bird, would like inf ormation on the Federal regulations addressing "completing the finishing work on automobiles." Apparently, another manufacturer would send small sports cars to Mr. Bird's business. Your addendum states that these sports cars "will need the following type of work done: installation of the engine, components, radiators, interiors, and the cars will finally have to be tested." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safet y Act also specifies that the manufacturer itself must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not "approve" any vehicle s or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.

Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all. The Safety Act only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manuf acturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the safety standards. We would certainly recommend that a new manufacturer test some of its vehicles for compliance with the applicable safety standards.

It is not entirely clear from your addendum whether Mr. Bird would be classified as an "alterer" or a "final stage manufacturer" under our regulations. His company would be considered an "alterer" of motor vehicles, if the second company referred to in y our addendum furnishes completed and certified sports cars to Mr. Bird's company, and Mr. Bird's company changes the engine and other components on those vehicles. If this is the contemplated action, Mr. Bird's company would be treated as an alterer unde r our regulations.

The certification requirements for alterers are set forth in 49 CFR S567.7 (copy enclosed). Generally speaking, that section requires a person who alters a vehicle before its first purchase to supplement the certification label affixed by the original ma nufacturer with its own certification label. The alterer's certification label must include all of the information set forth in Part 567, including a statement that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date t he vehicle was altered. In the case of sports cars, an alterer must certify that the altered car complies with all of the following:

49 CFR S571.101 Controls and Displays; 49 CFR S571.102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence; 49 CFR S571.103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems; 49 CFR S571.104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems; 49 CFR S571.105 Hydraulic Brake Systems; 49 CFR S571.106 Brake Hoses; 49 CFR S571.107 Reflecting Surfaces: 49 CFR S571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; 49 CFR S571.110 Tire Selection and Rims; 49 CFR S571.111 Rearview Mirrors; 49 CFR S571.112 Headlamp Concealment Devices; 49 CFR S571.113 Hood Latch System; 49 CFR S571.114 Theft Protection; 49 CFR S571.115 Vehicle Identification Number; 49 CFR S571.116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids; 49 CFR S571.118 Power-operated Window Systems; 49 CFR S571.124 Accelerator Control Systems; 49 CFR S571.201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts; 49 CFR S571.202 Head Restraints; 49 CFR S571.203 Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Column; 49 CFR S571.204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement; 49 CFR S571.205 Glazing Materials; 49 CFR S571.206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 49 CFR S571.207 Seating Systems; 49 CFR S571.208 Occupant Crash Protection; 49 CFR S571.209 Seat Belt Assemblies; 49 CFR S571.210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; 49 CFR S571.211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps; 49 CFR S571.212 Windshield Mounting; 49 CFR S571.214 Side Door Strength; 49 CFR S571.216 Roof Crush Resistance; 49 CFR S571.219 Windshield Zone Intrusion; 49 CFR S571.301 Fuel System Integrity; and 49 CFR S571.302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

Alternatively, Mr. Bird's company may be treated as a "final stage manufacturer," as that term is defined at 49 CFR S568.4. A final stage manufacturer means a person who finishes the manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle. Thus, if the second company referred to in your addendum is planning to furnish Mr. Bird's company with sports cars that have no engine, radiator, and so forth, the vehicles provided to Mr. Bird's company would be considered "incomplete vehicles" and Mr. Bird's company woul d be considered a "final stage manufacturer."

If this is the case, Mr. Bird's certification responsibilities depend on the information he is provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle; i.e., the second company referred to in your addendum. Part 568 (copy enclosed) requires the manufactur er of the incomplete vehicle to furnish Mr. Bird's company with a document that states one of three things for the incomplete vehicle. These are:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

If Mr. Bird receives such a document and does not make any of the specified alterations, his company could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(c)(7). Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final stage manufacturer.

If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his situation will be very similar to that described above. That is, if his company follows the specific conditions, it could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(c)(7). Again, Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.

3. Conformity with some or all of the standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his company would be required to certify compliance with the standards identified in the document on its own. This type of document would put Mr. Bird's company in the same position as an alterer for the listed standards.

I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and the National highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations that may apply and explains how to get copies of our regulations. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please contact this office.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

JUNE 19 1987 The Honorable John P. Murtha Member, U.S. House of Representatives Post Office Box 180 Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15907

Dear Mr. Murtha:

Thank you for your letter concerning an inquiry from your constituent, Mr. Gene Bird.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely, Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

Mr. David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Affairs U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

The attached communication from my constituent is submitted for your earnest consideration.

Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward to me information on which I may base a proper reply.

Your early action and advice will be appreciated.

With every good wish,

Sincerely, JOHN P. MURTHA Member of Congress JPM/jm Enclosure

P.S. Please send reply to:

The Honorable John P. Murtha Member of Congress Post Office Box 780 Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15907

ATTN: Jean McAleer

Phone no. (814) 535-2642, FTS 723-9241 or 9370

Inquiry made by phone personal visit TIME: DATE: 6-05-87 Name Gene Bird Classic Motor Works Address 100 Station Street Town Johnstown, PA Zip 15905 Telephone number 814 288-6911 Social Security number Veterans Claim Number COMMENTS: (Please explain only)

Mr. Bird would appreciate the federal stipulations governing completing the finishing work on automobiles.

He said another company would like to do business with him. They will send small sports cars to his business which will need the following type of work done: installation of the engine, components, radiators, interiors, and the cars will finally have to be tested.

ID: nht88-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 6, 1988

FROM: AMIT REIZES

TO: DIANE STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR - NHTSA

TITLE: PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE CAR MANUFACTURERS TO INSTALL AIR BAG RESTRAINTS IN ALL CARS SOLD IN AMERICA.

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 19, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO REIZES AND SEPTEMBER 1987 ISSUE OF "CONSUMER INFORMATION"

TEXT: As you well know, automobile car crashes claim close to 50,000 American lives and cause over 250,000 serious injuries each year. Most of these serious injuries and fatalities are cause by high speed frontal collisions. Independent surveys have indicate d that installation of air bags can reduce the above mentioned figures by as much as fifty percent as reported by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Special Report, dated July 3, 1987. Since your administration is responsible for rules that car manu facturers must abide by. I implore you to pass a law that would require them to install them in all vehicles sold to the U.S. public.

Air bags have been installed in vehicles as early as 1973, in an effort to increase highway safety and have proven to save the lives of those safety conscious individuals who requested to have them installed in their cars. However, since only individu al consumers have requested them, their cost has been too high for most consumers. Car manufacturers who have picked up on these safety oriented consumers offer air bags as an optional feature. The cost to the perspective buyer may vary between $ 800.0 0 to $ 1800.00 on most luxury models such as Cadillacs and Mercedes Benz and may not even be featured on most common economy cars that are sold today. Richard Haayen wrote an article titled "The airtight case for air bags" in the November 1988 issue of the Saturday Evening Post, in which he states, that having air bags installed in all cars would reduce the selling cost to as little as $ 28.75 per vehicle.

I must applaud the two leading Automobile Insurance Companies U.S.A.A. and GEICO who announced last Wednesday that they will reduce their premium rates by fifty percent to their customers who install air bags in their automobiles. However, I still ins ist that this should be put into legislation. Some may argue that the consumer has a right to decide whether to install air bags or not in his vehicles.

To this I strongly disagree, since we do not have the right to decide about seatbelts. They come with the cars by law and they may not be removed by law.

I think seatbelts are good and have proven to be the best overall protection to the occupant of a vehicle who wear them. Unfortunately, as cited by Helen Kahn in the February 28, 1987 issue of Automotive News, a recent survey indicates that consumers prefer air bags over belts. Moreover, legislation which has been passed in several states requiring seatbelt usage has shown the best response in the State of Maryland at thirty-five percent, as was reported last Monday, April 2, 1988, on the eleven o' clock Eye Witness News on Channel nine. Air bags on the other hand, once installed will be one hundred percent effective in the reduction of injury from frontal crashes. The smart traveler will continue to buckle up as before and will have the best pro tection available, and the careless travelers will also be protected from misfortunes.

I therefore urge you to push forward legislation to require installation of air bags in cars sold in the U.S. I thank you as do the thousands of lives which will be saved.

ID: aiam4158

Dear Mr. Williams: This is in reply to your letter asking about regulations applicable t the 'new lights that are now being seen on the trunk lids, and the rear windows of new automobiles'.; The specific legal name for this light is 'center high-mounted sto lamp.' It was optional for use as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured between August 1, 1984 and September 1, 1985. It has been mandatory original equipment since them. The Federal regulation that requires it is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation. This standard specifies color, minimum illuminated lens area, mode of operation, etc. for original equipment, and for equipment intended to replace that original equipment. The standard does not cover center high-mounted stop lamps intended for use on cars that never had them, and a manufacturer of such aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is subject only to State laws on their design, installation, and use. We encourage aftermarket manufacturers to follow the Federal standard so that the full potential of the lamp may be realized. This means that the lamp should be steady- burning rather than pulsating, and that the lens not have logos, trademarks, or other markings on it to interrupt the transmission of light from the lamp. The standard does not specify the shape of the lamp but virtually all to date have been rectangular (photos of the 1984 Cadillac Allante show a circular one), and some have exceeded the minimum requirement of a lens area of at least 4 1/2 square inches.; Noting your interest as a prospective manufacturer of these devices, enclose a copy of Standard No. 108. Sections 4.1.1.41 (page 218), Section 4.3.1.8 (page 227) and Table III (page 256) provide the relevant requirements for center high-mounted stoplamps. Should you proceed to manufacture aftermarket lamps, you would be subject to the agency's notification and remedy procedures should a safety related defect occur in them. Otherwise, you would appear to be subject only to State laws.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5022

"Dear Mr. Balzak: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you have received a copy of this standard and would like clarification of two issues. Your questions are addressed below. Your first question asked whether Standard No. 201 applied to passenger cars manufactured between January 1, 1968 and September 1, 1981. The answer to this question is yes, the standard applied to all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. Your second question asked whether Standard No. 201 applies to instrument panels manufactured for replacement of damaged units. The answer to this question is that, by its own terms, Standard No. 201 applies only to new motor vehicles. This means that the standard applies to original equipment components, including instrument panels, but not to replacements for those components. However, you should be aware of an important provision in Federal law. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that '(n)o manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall 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. . . .' This provision applies to both new and used vehicles. You specifically asked about the replacement of damaged instrument panels. I note that the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been 'rendered inoperative' by another agent, such as a crash. The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with the safety equipment installed on their vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";