ID: 2646o

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
380 Alvarado Street
Monterey, CA 93940

Dear Mr. Panetta:

This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Dr. Courtney F. Morgan, a constituent of yours. Dr. Morgan has purchased a 1987 model year Saab. The particular version of the model he saw at the dealership was equipped with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. However, the actual car that was delivered to Dr. Morgan was equipped with automatic safety belts. Dr. Morgan feels that the automatic belts are "hazardous and cumbersome," and asked what he must do in order to remove the automatic belts and have manual safety belts installed in place of the automatic belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passenger vehicles. Although these manual safety belts have shown their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reasons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was "arbitrary and capricious," and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984.

That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the proper use of the manual safety belts that are in most cars on the road today offer our best opportunity to save lives today at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic protection requirements are phased in during the preceding three model years, beginning with 10 percent of each manufacturer's 1987 model year cars. Each manufacturer must equip 25 percent of its 1988 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems, and 40 percent of its 1989 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, l989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded.

The following prohibition appears in section 108 of the Safety Act: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." In this case, the automatic safety belts in Dr. Morgan's Saab are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Saab, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the automatic safety belts from Dr. Morgan's car.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent Dr. Morgan himself from removing the automatic belts from his car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If Dr. Morgan were to remove the automatic belts himself and improperly install manual safety belts, he would be putting himself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

Please thank Dr. Morgan for informing us of his views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important subject and I appreciate this opportunity to advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Americans.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:VSA#208 d:2/5/88

ID: nht88-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Frank S. Perkin -- Assistant General Counsel, The Budd Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 9/22/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Steven R. Taylor; 2/7/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H.J. Lindekugel

TEXT:

Frank. S. Perkin, Esq. Assistant General Counsel The Budd Company Law Department 3155 West Big Beaver Road Box 2601 Troy, Michigan 48084

This responds to your letter expressing concern about a statement in one of our interpretation letters, which you believe could be read as condoning the practice of rebuilding wheels by processes which include heading and welding. As discussed below, our letter's reference to remanufacturing wheels was made only to serve as an illustrative example. and was not intended to address either the safety of such processes or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies.

The interpretation letter in question is one that we sent on September 22, 1986, to Steven R. Taylor, responding to a request concerning regulations that apply to manufacturers of reconditioned brake drums. The letter included the following paragraph:

NHTSA has in the past considered the issue of what types of operation; bake a person a manufacturer with respect to retreaded tire; and remanufactured wheels. A person who retreads tires is considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. Th e retreading process involves significant manufacturing operations, which do not differ substantially from those of manufacturing new tires. By contrast, a person who remanufactures wheels is not considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety A ct. The process of remanufacturing wheels consists of such things as straightening, re-welding parts, and repairing cracks by welding. These types of actions are not significant manufacturing operations, but instead are the type of operations commonly pe rformed in repair shops.

You stated that all of the things mentioned in our letter, i.e., straightening, re-welding parts and repairing cracks by welding, are specifically prohibited by the OSHA standard applicable to truck wheels, both multi and single piece. You also stated th at the "out of service" criteria adopted by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety mandate that a vehicle be placed out of service if welded repairs are found on certain disc wheels. According to your letter, any significant changes made after the manufactur e of a steel truck wheel, especially involving bending, heating or welding, carry a significant risk of rendering the wheel unsafe.

As is indicated from the context of our September 22, 1986 interpretation letter, the reference to remanufacturing wheels was made solely for the purpose of providing an illustrative example and was not intended to address either the safety of such proce sses or their permissibility or impermissibility under the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. I would note that NHTSA has long taken the position that remanufactured wheels are considered to be used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See, for example, our November 28, 1973 letter addressed to Mr. L. Clinton Rich and February 7, 1983 letter to Mr. H. J. Lindekugel (copies enclosed). Again, however, these letters do not purport to address the safety of remanufacturing wheels or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies.

We appreciate your bringing to our attention your concern about the safety of remanufactured wheels. Copies of this correspondence are being placed in the public docket.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington. D.C.

Dear Ms Jones:

Reference is made to a letter you wrote to Steven Taylor dated Sept. 22, 1986, which was distributed by the TTMA to its members. A copy is enclosed for your convenience.

The Budd Company, as a wheel manufacturer. is seriously concerned by a comment in the next to last paragraph of your letter which could be read as condoning the practice of rebuilding wheels by processes which include heating and welding same.

While I am sure that this was not your intent, I believe it is appropriate to note that all of the things mentioned in your letter, i.e. straightening, re-welding parts and repairing cracks by welding, are specifically prohibited by the OSHA standard app licable to truck wheels, both multi and single piece. See 29 CFR 1910. I further note that the "out of service" criteria adopted by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the DOT mandate that a vehicle be placed out of service if welded repairs are found on certain disc wheels.

The basis for all of this is that the manufacture of a steel truck wheel is a complex process involving carefully calculated cold forming of its components to produce the required strength, followed by controlled welding or other joining processes, I fol lowed again by elaborate testing to verify the integrity and efficacy of the final product. Any significant changes made later, especially involving bending, heating or welding carry a significant risk of rendering the wheel unsafe.

For the above reasons I hope you will consider advising anyone who may have received the referenced or any similar letter from your agency that such practices are not condoned and may be unlawful. Very truly yours

Frank S. Perkin Asst. General Counsel

cc: Truck Trailer Mfgrs Assn 1020 Princess St Alexandria Va 22314

ID: 8902

Mr. Joel Trim
Manager
Mechanical Service Department
Neal & Massy Motors
P.O. Box 1298
Port of Spain
Trinidad, West Indies

Dear Mr. Trim:

We have received your letter of July 7, 1993, asking the Secretary of Transportation for assistance in obtaining copies of any regulations and standards that govern the certification and operation of modified vehicles (stretch limousines), kit cars, and homemade vehicles. Your country, Trinidad, has no such regulations.

Under the dual Federal-State system of government in the United States, the registration, inspection, and operation of motor vehicles is a State function. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, but you may find assistance by writing the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Federal regulation of motor vehicles is primarily concerned with establishing and enforcing standards to be met when the vehicle is manufactured, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). With one minor exception the United States has no laws or regulations that apply specifically to the types of vehicles you have named. I am pleased, however, to explain how we have treated them over the years in the interpretive letters we have written.

A. Modified vehicles As you may know, each vehicle manufactured for sale in the United States must bear its manufacturer's label certifying that it complies with all FMVSS. If a vehicle is modified after it has left the factory and before it is sold, the modifier is required to affix its own label stating that the vehicle as modified complies with all FMVSS affected by the alteration. However, this label is not required if the modifications are minor changes affecting readily attachable equipment items. Further, under our law, no label is required if the vehicle is modified after it has been sold. I enclose a copy of our certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567 and call your attention to Section 567.7 Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

We have discovered instances in which modified vehicles (stretch limos) failed to conform to the FMVSS on braking and passenger protection. In accordance with our procedures, the modifiers were required to correct the noncompliances and to pay civil penalties for their violations.

B. Kit cars We have no definition of "kit cars" but we understand them to be passenger cars consisting of a mixture of old and new parts, assembled into vehicle form by either the supplier or purchaser of a kit of motor vehicle equipment. Some of the FMVSS apply to individual equipment items (for example, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies), and if these items are new and furnished with the kit, they will have been certified by their manufacturers. If the vehicle is assembled entirely from new parts, the kit supplier must furnish certification with the kit that, when assembled, the vehicle will comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if the vehicle is manufactured incorporating a number of previously used parts, particularly involving the chassis and/or drive train, we generally have considered the vehicle to be a used one, and none of the FMVSS that apply to new completed vehicles (as contrasted with those that apply to equipment items) apply to it.

In order to be registered for use, a kit car must meet the requirements of the State of licensing.

C. Homemade cars We have no definition of a "homemade car" but we understand such a vehicle to be a "one-off" and not intended for production. The FMVSS apply to every newly manufactured vehicle without exception, so that a vehicle built in a series of one must conform to the FMVSS if it is constructed entirely from new parts, and if the agency has not exempted it from compliance.

A homemade car must meet the requirements of the State where it is to be licensed.

For your information, I am also enclosing a booklet containing a brief description of each FMVSS, and an order blank for "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999" which contains the complete text of the FMVSS. If you have any further questions on this subject, we will be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567 d:9/27/93

ID: nht93-6.46

DATE: September 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joel Trim -- Manager, Mechnical Service Department, Neal and Massy Motors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from Joel Trim to The Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (OCC-8902)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of July 7, 1993, asking the Secretary of Transportation for assistance in obtaining copies of any regulations and standards that govern the certification and operation of modified vehicles (stretch limousines), kit cars, and homemade vehicles. Your country, Trinidad, has no such regulations.

Under the dual Federal-State system of government in the United States, the registration, inspection, and operation of motor vehicles is a State function. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, but you may find assistance by writing the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Federal regulation of motor vehicles is primarily concerned with establishing and enforcing standards to be met when the vehicle is manufactured, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). With one minor exception the United States has no laws or regulations that apply specifically to the types of vehicles you have named. I am pleased, however, to explain how we have treated them over the years in the interpretive letters we have written.

A. Modified vehicles As you may know, each vehicle manufactured for sale in the United States must bear its manufacturer's label certifying that it complies with all FMVSS. If a vehicle is modified after it has left the factory and before it is sold, the modifier is required to affix its own label stating that the vehicle as modified complies with all FMVSS affected by the alteration. However, this label is not required if the modifications are minor changes affecting readily attachable equipment items. Further, under our law, no label is required if the vehicle is modified after it has been sold. I enclose a copy of our certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567 and call your attention to Section 567.7 Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

We have discovered instances in which modified vehicles (stretch limos) failed to conform to the FMVSS on braking and passenger protection. In accordance with our procedures, the modifiers were required to correct the noncompliances and to pay civil penalties for their violations.

B. Kit cars We have no definition of "kit cars" but we understand them to be passenger cars consisting of a mixture of old and new parts, assembled into vehicle form by either the supplier or purchaser of a kit of motor vehicle equipment. Some of the FMVSS apply to individual equipment items (for example, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies), and if these items are new and furnished with the kit,

they will have been certified by their manufacturers. If the vehicle is assembled entirely from new parts, the kit supplier must furnish certification with the kit that, when assembled, the vehicle will comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if the vehicle is manufactured incorporating a number of previously used parts, particularly involving the chassis and/or drive train, we generally have considered the vehicle to be a used one, and none of the FMVSS that apply to new completed vehicles (as contrasted with those that apply to equipment items) apply to it.

In order to be registered for use, a kit car must meet the requirements of the State of licensing.

C. Homemade cars We have no definition of a "homemade car" but we understand such a vehicle to be a "one-off" and not intended for production. The FMVSS apply to every newly manufactured vehicle without exception, so that a vehicle built in a series of one must conform to the FMVSS if it is constructed entirely from new parts, and if the agency has not exempted it from compliance.

A homemade car must meet the requirements of the State where it is to be licensed.

For your information, I am also enclosing a booklet containing a brief description of each FMVSS, and an order blank for "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999" which contains the complete text of the FMVSS. If you have any further questions on this subject, we will be happy to answer them.

ID: 86-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Messrs. Waimey and Hansell:

This responds to your letter asking two questions about Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. First you asked if the 17-character vehicle identification number (VIN) required on original equipment engines and transmissions had to appear in a single line. You stated that your Client would like to mark the engines and transmissions by splitting the VIN into two groups, with the second group of characters directly below the first. Such markings could comply with Part 541. Second, you asked if your client could use a trademark that has less than one centimeter high for marking replacement parts. Markings less than one centimeter high would not comply with the requirements of Part 541 applicable to replacement parts. These conclusions are explained in detail below.

If a vehicle manufacturer was not identifying its engines and/of transmissions with at least an 8-Character VIN derivative as of October 24, 1984, S541.5(b)(1) requires the engine and transmission to be marked with the full 17-character VIN. That section does not require that the 17 Characters appear on the same line. However, the preamble to the final rule establishing Part 541 explained the-policy reasons for requiring the full 17-Character VIN as follows:

One of the primary purposes of the Theft not is to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to establish that a vehicle or a major part is stolen. ... If this purpose is to be promoted,this standard must ensure that police officers learning of suspicious, potentially stolen vehicle parts can quickly verify whether those parts are stolen. 50 FR 43168, October 24, 1985.

In the agency's view, S511.5(b)(1) requires that the full 17-character VIN be marked in such a way that police can easily determine what VIN is marked on the part, and then check to see if that part is stolen. If a VIN is divided into segments, the proper sequence of those segments must be readily determinable. If the VIN here placed on the lines, beginning on the first line with the remainder of the VIN directly below the first line, as suggested in your letter, we do not believe it would be confusing or difficult for law enforcement officers to easily read the marking in the correct order. Accordingly, we conclude that marking the VIN on two separate lines, with the second directly below the first, would not violate any of the requirements of Part 541.

Your second question Has whether your Client could mark replacement parts by using a trademark that was one centimeter wide but less than one centimeter high. You explained that your client's trademark is wider than it is tall. After noting that the one centimeter height requirement was adopted so that the logo would be more clearly identifiable and more difficult to counterfeit (50 FR 43177), you stated your opinion that a one centimeter wide trademark would serve these purposes as effectively as a one centimeter high trademark.

Section 541.6(c) reads as follows: "The trademark and the letter "R" required by paragraph (a) of this section must be at least one centimeter high." Any marking of the trademark which is less than one Centimeter high would not comply with this requirement, regardless of how wide the marking is.

However, the stated reasons for promulgating the minimum height requirement for trademarks were to ensure that they would be both clearly legible for investigators and more difficult for thieves to counterfeit. See 50 FR 43177, 43178, October 24, 1985. The agency did not specifically consider the situation where a trademark is wider than it is high. When a trademark is wider than it is high, it would be as clearly legible and as difficult to Counterfeit as a trademark that is higher than it is wide. However, the wider trademark might not comply with the standard while the higher trademark would. It does not appear that any purpose of the theft prevention standard is served by this anomalous result.

Accordingly, we have treated your letter as a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552, and it is hereby granted. We will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on this topic shortly. Please note that, unless and until an amendment becomes effective as a final rule, S541.6(c) requires the trademark on replacement parts to be one centimeter high.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 7, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Regulatory Interpretation 49 CFR Parts 541 and 556 Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Dear Ms. Jones:

Porsche has two questions concerning the final rule implementing the Motor Vehicle Theft Enforcement Act of 1984 (49 CFR Parts 541 and 567).

First, may the seventeen digit Vehicle Identification Number marking to be placed on the engine and on the transmission be affixed on two lines rather than on a single line, assuming that the second line is directly below the first? Securing a flat surface on the transmission and on the engine with sufficient length to place a seventeen digit number on a single line is extremely difficult, and Could tend to impair the legibility of the number. Allowing the marking to be placed on two lines, one directly below the other, would afford is substantially greater flexibility and would improve its readability. There is no prohibition we could find in the rules to placing the VIN number on two lines, with the second line directly below the first. (See 49 CFR Sections 541.5 and 567.4(g)).

Second, may Porsche use a trademark which is at least one centimeter wide but less than one centimeter tall on the replacement parts? Replacement parts must be marked with the manufacturer's register trademark. 49 CFR 541.6. However, Porsche has an implementation problem in that its trademark is longer than it is tall.

A trademark is to have a minimum height of one centimeter. 49 CFR 541 6(c). The rationale for the minimum size for the trademark is to insure its visibility and to make it more difficult to counterfeit. As the Statement of Consideration for the final rule provides:

"NHTSA proposed the one cm minimum height for these markings so that the logo would be more clearly identifiable and more difficult to counterfeit."

50 Fed. Reg. 43,177(1985) Porsche completely agrees with NHTSA's two interests but believes they would be equally well met with a trademark that was at least one centimeter in length as with a trademark that was at least one centimeter in height. Such an alternative standard would permit Porsche to position the trademark in the optimal location.

We would appreciate your early response to these issues.

Your truly,

Dean Hansell

cc: Stephen P. Wood, Esq., Associate Chief Counsel for Rule Making

Stephen R. Kratzke Esq., Office of General Counsel

Brian McLaughlin, Office of Market Incentives

ID: nht91-3.22

DATE: April 16, 1991

FROM: Keith Salsman -- Independent Inventor

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsul, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert York

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Keith Salsman (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am an independent inventor seeking a Letter of Interpretation concerning a type of brake light which I have spent several years working on and currently have patent pending status. During that time I have been in contact with Dr. Carl Clark, inventor contact for NHTSA, and more recently Mr. Dick Stromboten who replaced him due to his retirement. I have also talked briefly with Kevin Cavey.

The brake light device, which I call the Braking Intensity Array, is a high mount brake light designed to effectively alert a following car as to the braking status of the forward car. The light is an array of lights that light up first in the center, exactly as the current high mount brake lights, in response to any pressure on the brake pedal. However, if any actual braking occurs then the lights on either side of the center lights will respond appropriately with the adjacent lights lighting under mild braking force, the lights next to them under a stronger braking force, the next lights under an even stronger braking force, and the outer most lights lighting only under a very strong braking force such as emergency braking. Thus the light lights in both directions from the center. Research has indicated that this is very easily interpreted by someone completely unfamiliar with the device.

During the developmental process I have tried to insure absolute compliance with any rule, regulation, or past safety concern. The center lights of the array are wired directly to the current brake light switch and will comply with the regulations on high mount brake lights in the Code of Federal Regulations 571 section 108. The rest of the array is controlled by a separate device which is also connected to the brake switch and will not operate independently. There are fail safe measures to insure that the light will always operate the same regardless of vehicle incline or speed. In addition, as per Dr. Clark's suggestions, the light's response time to various braking forces will be very close to 3 milliseconds which is quick enough to give the light "Real Value" and not just "Perceived Value".

In the past year I have approached several companies with my idea. Most are interested but unwilling to pursue anything because of what they called "too much government involvement" to overcome. Recently NAPA Auto Parts has expressed a keen interest, as well as TRUCK-LITE. Mr. Robert York of TRUCK-LITE has sent me an honest non-disclosure agreement and has given a favorable response. He told me that he will send a Request for a Letter of Interpretation as well. However, since he has signed a non-disclosure it is difficult for him to be specific. Therefore, I have submitted this request in addition to his.

The General Estimates System of the Department of Transportation has on record in 1988 a total of 6,875,500 Police Reported Roadway Accidents. A total of 1,622,000 were reported as Rear End Collisions. Many more of these roadway accidents could be of a secondary nature to a Rear End Collision, for example, a vehicle swerved to avoid a rear end collision and struck another object. Approximately 500,000 of the Rear End Collisions involved minor or moderate injury and 1,962 involved fatalities. The most common injury involved spinal trauma or whiplash. This injury usually persists long after the accident. High-mount headrests are installed as a safety feature now to avoid this.

A great majority of these Rear End Collisions occurred in our cities during periods of heavy traffic causing traffic jams and lost working hours. As the traffic continues to increase in the cities and urban areas, we can expect the number of such rear end collisions to increase substantially.

The following articles of the Department of Transportation Code of Federal Regulations on lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment are concerned with high-mount brake lights. In S2, article 571.08, it states:

Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents, by providing adequate illumination of the roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility.

In S5.1.1.27 of the same article, it states:

Each passenger car manufacture on or after September 1,1985, shall be equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp which: a) Shall have an effective projected luminous area not less than 4 1/2 square inches.

b) Shall have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

c) Shall have a the minimum photometric values in the amount and location listed in Figure 10.

d) Need not meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.1.6 Moisture, 3.1.7 Dust Test and 3.1.8 Corrosion Test of SAE Recommended Practice J186a if it is mounted inside the vehicle. e) Shall provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools.

In S5.3.1.8: Each high-mounted stop lamp shall be mounted with its center on the vertical centerline of the passenger car as the car is viewed from the

rear. The lamp may be mounted at any position on the centerline, including the glazing. If the lamp is mounted inside the vehicle, means shall be provided to minimize reflections from the light of the lamp upon the rear window glazing that might be visible to the driver when viewed directly or indirectly in the rearview mirror. If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars.

In S5.4.1:

Two or more lamps, reflective devices or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device and item of associated equipment are met, except that no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp or identification lamp and no high-mounted stop shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

In S5.5.4:

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

In S5.5.10:

b) High-mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, but before September 1, 1986, may flash when the hazard warning system is activated.

These are all references to high-mounted brake lights in the Code of Federal Regulations.

I respectfully submit that my Braking Intensity Array can be manufactured according to the regulations on high-mounted brake lights, and if so manufactured would not violate any of those rules or regulations nor would it deviate from the spirit, intent, or purpose of the Federal Code of Regulations.

In conclusion the brake light described above should help to reduce rear end collisions by alerting the car behind as to the braking condition of the vehicle. Also in congested areas of traffic it will help to keep traffic flowing more smoothly. This is due to the overreaction of many drivers to the brake lights of the car ahead. In many cases a driver may rest his foot on the brake with no braking pressure, however the car following sees the brake light come on and applies some braking force. The next car applies even more force, and so on until traffic is forced to stop. As traffic continues to increase this problem will become greater. This has been recognized and there has been some work done to install computers in cars to alert the computer in the following car as to the braking condition. Why not give the driver the information first?

ID: nht94-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Gianfranco Venturelli -- Director General, Automobile Lamborghini

TO: Christopher A Hart -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Standard Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/94 from John Womack to John E. Gillick (Std. 214 and Part 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini) hereby petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for the purpose of compliance with t he side impact standard's phase-in calculation. n1 In the alternative, Lamborghini petitions NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption from the side impact standard requirements until September 1, 1996, pursuant to its authority under 49 C.F.R. @ 555.

n1 Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., 40019 Sant'Agata Bolognese (BO)-via Modena, 12-Italy, is a joint stock company organized under the laws of Italy. Chrysler Corporation, on January 31, 1994, sold Lamborghini to a group of investors led by MegaTech Lt d., a Bermuda corporation.

Background

On October 30, 1990, NHTSA promulgated revisions to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 regarding side

2

impact protection. See 55 Fed. Reg. 45,722 (Oct. 30, 1990) (codified at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214). Standard 214 specified vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified streng th requirements for side doors. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214(b). The standard included the following phase-in schedule: (1) at least 10% of a manufacturer's passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1994, must comply; (2) at least 25% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1995, must comply; and (3) at least 40% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, and before September 1, 1996, must comply. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214 S8. In promulgating the rule, NHTSA recognized that it could take single-line manufacturers up to three years to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to comply with the standard. 55 Fed. Reg. at 45,749. Accordingly, Standard 214 provides an alternative to the phase-in option. The standard permits manufacturers to delay implementation of the side impact protection standard for one year (until September 1, 1994) if after that date all vehicles produced meet the standard's re quirements. 49 C.F.R. @ 5711.214 S1(d).

As noted supra, Lamborghini was sold by Chrysler on January 31, 1994. Chrysler, as the corporate parent of Lamborghini, had included Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for side impact protection compliance purposes. Due to the number of differe nt Chrysler models that required modifications to meet Standard 214, Chrysler elected to comply through the phase-in alternative. Lamborghini vehicles were scheduled to be modified during the last year of the phase-in period because

3

of the relatively low number of vehicles the subsidiary produced and the lead time necessary for engineering and tooling modifications.

Discussion

Chrysler's sale of Lamborghini has placed Lamborghini in a difficult position regarding compliance with the side impact safety standard. Prior to the sale, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing that it would not need to meet the requiremen ts of Standard 214 until the production year beginning September 1, 1996 due to its status as part of Chrysler's vehicle fleet. Now that Lamborghini is not part of the Chrysler fleet, the company cannot utilize this flexibility. While the first segment of the phase-in requirement (10% compliance for all passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993) has already passed, Lamborghini still could elect Standard 214's alternative compliance date that requires full compliance by September 1, 1994. However, Lamborghini does not now have sufficient lead time to complete the engineering analysis and implement the tooling changes to comply with the standard for the production year beginning either September 1, 1994 or September 1, 1995. In addition, since Lamborghini only produces one model, it cannot phase in compliance even if this were technically possible and the first year of the phase-in period had not already begun. Accordingly, Lamborghini respectfully requests NHTSA to grant this petition to enable Chrysler to count Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's fleet for purposes of side impact compliance, or in the alternative, grant Lamborghini a temporary exemption from the requirements of Standard 214. Granting either request would be in the

4

public interest as it will not affect overall motor vehicle safety because Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance, thereby ensuring that, consistent with the objectives of the Nati onal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the total number of vehicles meeting the side impact requirements will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its Lamborghini subsidiary.

I. FLEET AVERAGE CALCULATION.

As part of the contract with MegaTech, Ltd. for the sale of Lamborghini, Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance. This action will ensure that the overall number of vehicles com plying with the standard through the phase-in period will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its subsidiary. This approach gives Lamborghini, a single line manufacturer, the three-year lead time needed to develop and implement the engineering chang es necessary to satisfy the standard's requirement envisioned in the preamble to the final rule. All Lamborghini vehicles produced after September 1, 1996, will satisfy Standard 214.

II. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION.

In the alternative, Lamborghini requests NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption to Standard 214 through August 31, 1996, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. @ 555.6(a). In the meantime, as noted above, Chrysler will include, for purposes of production vo lume compliance, all Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's phase-in calculations. Beginning September 1, 1996, all Lamborghini vehicles produced will fully comply with the standard.

5

The application of Standard 214 to Lamborghini without adequate leadtime would subject the company to substantial economic hardship. In order to comply with this standard, Lamborghini must modify the door structure and redesign the aperture and door for its automobiles. In view of the extremely short lead time between now and the beginning of production for next year's model, it is simply not possible to complete the necessary engineering and related retooling necessary to meet the September 1, 199 4, target date in the regulations.

Lamborghini is confident, however, that it will be able to comply with the standard by September 1, 1996, but not sooner, in accordance with the following schedule:

1. May 1994 - 1995

- engineering, drawing and development of preliminary prototypes.

2. June 1995 - May 1996

- final tune-up tests, and modification of production tooling.

3. July 1996

- begin production of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

4. September 1996

- delivery of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

The estimated cost of the research and development and the tooling changes necessary to meet the new standards is estimated to be between

6

We would reiterate that the financial hardship this action would cause is primarily due to the absence of sufficient leadtime to implement this standard. Lamborghini had only recently begun analysis of the engineering changes necessary to meet the sta ndard and has not yet begun to implement the necessary tooling changes and purchasing because, until the sale occurred, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing it would not have to meet the standard until September 1, 1996.

* * *

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please contact Michael J. Grossman, our designated agent for U.S. certification and regulatory liaison (516-829-8694) or John Gillick of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, our legal counsel (202-775- 9870), if you have any questions about this petition.

Enclosures

ID: nht94-5.34

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Gianfranco Venturelli -- Director General, Automobile Lamborghini

TO: Christopher A Hart -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

COPYEE: J. Womack

TITLE: FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Standard Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/94 from John Womack to John E. Gillick (Std. 214 and Part 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini) hereby petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for the purpose of compliance with the side impact standard's phase-in calculation. n1 In the alternative, Lamborghini petitions NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption from the side impact standard requirements until September 1, 1996, pursuant to its authority under 49 C.F.R. @ 555.

n1 Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., 40019 Sant'Agata Bolognese (BO)-via Modena, 12-Italy, is a joint stock company organized under the laws of Italy. Chrysler Corporation, on January 31, 1994, sold Lamborghini to a group of investors led by MegaTech Ltd., a Bermuda corporation.

Background

On October 30, 1990, NHTSA promulgated revisions to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 regarding side

2

impact protection. See 55 Fed. Reg. 45,722 (Oct. 30, 1990) (codified at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214). Standard 214 specified vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified strength requirements for side doors. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214(b). The standard included the following phase-in schedule: (1) at least 10% of a manufacturer's passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1994, must comply; (2) at least 25% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1995, must comply; and (3) at least 40% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, and before September 1, 1996, must comply. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214 S8. In promulgating the rule, NHTSA recognized that it could take single-line manufacturers up to three years to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to comply with the standard. 55 Fed. Reg. at 45,749. Accordingly, Standard 214 provides an alternative to the phase-in option. The standard permits manufacturers to delay implementation of the side impact protection standard for one year (until September 1, 1994) if after that date all vehicles produced meet the standard's requirements. 49 C.F.R. @ 5711.214 S1(d).

As noted supra, Lamborghini was sold by Chrysler on January 31, 1994. Chrysler, as the corporate parent of Lamborghini, had included Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for side impact protection compliance purposes. Due to the number of different Chrysler models that required modifications to meet Standard 214, Chrysler elected to comply through the phase-in alternative. Lamborghini vehicles were scheduled to be modified during the last year of the phase-in period because

3

of the relatively low number of vehicles the subsidiary produced and the lead time necessary for engineering and tooling modifications.

Discussion

Chrysler's sale of Lamborghini has placed Lamborghini in a difficult position regarding compliance with the side impact safety standard. Prior to the sale, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing that it would not need to meet the requirements of Standard 214 until the production year beginning September 1, 1996 due to its status as part of Chrysler's vehicle fleet. Now that Lamborghini is not part of the Chrysler fleet, the company cannot utilize this flexibility. While the first segment of the phase-in requirement (10% compliance for all passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993) has already passed, Lamborghini still could elect Standard 214's alternative compliance date that requires full compliance by September 1, 1994. However, Lamborghini does not now have sufficient lead time to complete the engineering analysis and implement the tooling changes to comply with the standard for the production year beginning either September 1, 1994 or September 1, 1995. In addition, since Lamborghini only produces one model, it cannot phase in compliance even if this were technically possible and the first year of the phase-in period had not already begun. Accordingly, Lamborghini respectfully requests NHTSA to grant this petition to enable Chrysler to count Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's fleet for purposes of side impact compliance, or in the alternative, grant Lamborghini a temporary exemption from the requirements of Standard 214. Granting either request would be in the

4

public interest as it will not affect overall motor vehicle safety because Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance, thereby ensuring that, consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the total number of vehicles meeting the side impact requirements will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its Lamborghini subsidiary.

I. FLEET AVERAGE CALCULATION.

As part of the contract with MegaTech, Ltd. for the sale of Lamborghini, Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance. This action will ensure that the overall number of vehicles complying with the standard through the phase-in period will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its subsidiary. This approach gives Lamborghini, a single line manufacturer, the three-year lead time needed to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to satisfy the standard's requirement envisioned in the preamble to the final rule. All Lamborghini vehicles produced after September 1, 1996, will satisfy Standard 214.

II. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION.

In the alternative, Lamborghini requests NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption to Standard 214 through August 31, 1996, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. @ 555.6(a). In the meantime, as noted above, Chrysler will include, for purposes of production volume compliance, all Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's phase-in calculations. Beginning September 1, 1996, all Lamborghini vehicles produced will fully comply with the standard.

5

The application of Standard 214 to Lamborghini without adequate leadtime would subject the company to substantial economic hardship. In order to comply with this standard, Lamborghini must modify the door structure and redesign the aperture and door for its automobiles. In view of the extremely short lead time between now and the beginning of production for next year's model, it is simply not possible to complete the necessary engineering and related retooling necessary to meet the September 1, 1994, target date in the regulations.

Lamborghini is confident, however, that it will be able to comply with the standard by September 1, 1996, but not sooner, in accordance with the following schedule:

1. May 1994 - 1995

- engineering, drawing and development of preliminary prototypes.

2. June 1995 - May 1996

- final tune-up tests, and modification of production tooling.

3. July 1996

- begin production of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

4. September 1996

- delivery of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

The estimated cost of the research and development and the tooling changes necessary to meet the new standards is estimated to be between

6

We would reiterate that the financial hardship this action would cause is primarily due to the absence of sufficient leadtime to implement this standard. Lamborghini had only recently begun analysis of the engineering changes necessary to meet the standard and has not yet begun to implement the necessary tooling changes and purchasing because, until the sale occurred, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing it would not have to meet the standard until September 1, 1996.

* * *

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please contact Michael J. Grossman, our designated agent for U.S. certification and regulatory liaison (516-829-8694) or John Gillick of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, our legal counsel (202-775-9870), if you have any questions about this petition.

Enclosures

ID: nht73-5.35

DATE: 10/31/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, requesting that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release," be amended to include buses of the same design as school buses within the exemption from the emergency exit requirements specified for "school buses" in S5.2.3 of the standard.

The NHTSA takes the position that buses of the same design as buses specifically designed as school buses, regardless of their intended use, are school buses for purposes of Standard No. 217. They are, therefore, exempt from the emergency exit requirements of the standard as specified in S5.2.3. No amendment of the standard is necessary.

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION

October 11, 1973

Mr. Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard - 217 - Bus Window Retention & Release

Sheller-Globe Corporation Divisions in Lima, Ohio and Kosciusko, Mississippi, manufacturers of school bus bodies, respectfully petitions the Department of Transportation for a revision in the wording of reference standard, specifically Paragraph S5.2.3 - School Buses.

We petition that the wording in this paragraph be modified to read as follows:

"The emergency exit requirements do not apply to school buses or buses of like design, such as Activity Buses, adapted for use for other than transportation of children to and from school, but if such buses do contain any push-out windows or other emergency exits, these exits shall conform to Paragraphs S5.3 through S.5.5".

This petition is based on the fact that as body manufacturers do offer our base body design for other uses, i.e., Activity Buses for Church Organizations, YMCA Groups, Boy Scout Troops, Community Charity Organizations, etc. The Activity Buses as referred to are constructed of the same base design as what is termed a school bus. The Activity Buses may vary as to color and may be without specific school bus safety warning systems.

Presently the referenced standard, as worded, is a double standard in that it states the standard applies not to school buses but to those same buses if used for reasons other than the transportation of children to and from school. It is of our strong opinion that the standard should apply to neither school buses or buses of like design used by other organizations or that the standard should apply to all buses to include school buses.

We respectfully request your expeditious ruling on this petition. If additional information is required in support of this petition, please advise.

Respectfully,

George R. Semark Safety Engineer - Vehicles Planning & Development Center

ID: Colman

Mr. Earl Colman
Colman Equipment Co.
901 Foster Drive
Casper, WY 82601

Dear Mr. Colman:

This is in response to your letter of January 21, 2002, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. You state that you run a full line truck equipment company that qualifies as a final stage truck manufacturer, and that you ensure that the vehicles your company manufactures comply with all applicable safety requirements. You express concern, however, that other companies conducting similar operations in your area are less conscientious than your company. As a consequence, you suspect that the number of small commercial trucks being operated in your area that are not properly certified is greater than the number that are. This had led you to ask what the agencys enforcement position would be in three distinct scenarios.

The first scenario involves a new truck dealer who delivers an incomplete vehicle, such as a chassis cab, to a private customer, such as a farmer or rancher, but makes no mention of the vehicle certification requirements. You state that in this circumstance, the purchaser will often complete the vehicle himself or have a local machine shop do the necessary work. Under the statutes and regulations that this agency administers, there is nothing that would restrict a dealer from directly selling an incomplete vehicle to a consumer. In this circumstance, the party who completes the vehicle by adding components that are necessary for the vehicle to perform its intended function would be considered the final stage manufacturer, regardless of whether that party is the purchaser himself or a commercial entity such as a local machine shop.

If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer must certify that the vehicle, as finally manufactured, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). To assist the final stage manufacturer in carrying out this responsibility, the certification regulations at 49 CFR 568.4 require an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the vehicle a document (referred to as the incomplete vehicle document, or IVD, or, more commonly, as the build book) that specifies, among other things, the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) to be assigned to the vehicle once it is completed, a listing of the vehicle types (e.g., truck, multi-purpose passenger vehicle, bus, trailer) into which the incomplete vehicle can be manufactured, and a listing of all FMVSS that apply to each of those vehicle types. The IVD must also specify, with respect to each of those standards, either (1) that the vehicle will conform to the standard upon completion if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, (2) the conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform to the standard, or (3) that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle. In order to assure that the final stage manufacturer understands what further steps are needed to complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS, the dealer must ensure that the applicable incomplete vehicle document is either furnished with the vehicle or is forwarded immediately after the purchase to the party who is to complete the vehicle.

As provided in the certification regulations at 49 CFR 568.6, the final stage manufacturer of a vehicle built in two or more stages must complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates. The final stage manufacturer must also affix a label to the completed vehicle certifying such conformance. It is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for any person to introduce into interstate commerce a motor vehicle manufactured after the date an applicable FMVSS takes effect unless the vehicle complies with the standard and is so certified. The agencys Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) investigates suspected violations of section 30112(a), and where a probable violation is found, will refer the matter to this Office with a recommendation for civil penalties. Under 49 U.S.C.

30165(a)(1), a civil penalty of up to $5,000 can be imposed for each violation of section 30112(a). A separate violation exists for each vehicle introduced into interstate commerce in violation of that provision. See 49 U.S.C. 30165(a).

In the second scenario described in your letter, the new truck dealer removes a pickup box from a certified vehicle and sells the vehicle as a chassis cab. If this is done prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle, under our regulations the dealer would be considered a vehicle alterer. The certification regulations at 49 CFR 567.7 provide that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, must allow the original certification label to remain on the vehicle, and must affix an additional label stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable FMVSS affected by the alteration. Section 567.7 additionally provides that [i]f the gross vehicle weight rating or any of the gross axle weight rating of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label, the modified values must be specified on the alterers certification label. See 49 CFR 567.7(b).

It is unlikely that the dealer could certify the vehicle as conforming to all applicable FMVSS once it has removed the pickup box, because removal of the box could bring the vehicle out of compliance with certain FMVSS, such as Standard

No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. In addition, by eliminating substantial weight from the vehicle, the removal could affect the vehicles compliance with other FMVSS, such as Standard No. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems. It would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for the dealer to sell such a nonconforming vehicle. As previously noted a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per vehicle can be imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165(a) for a violation of this nature.

If the dealer removes the pickup box after the vehicles first retail sale, the removal of the box would not constitute an alteration under our regulations and the dealer would not have the certification responsibilities described above. However, in this circumstance the dealer would be subject to the statutory prohibition in 49 U.S.C.

30122(b) against knowingly [making] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable [FMVSS]. As previously noted, removal of the pickup box could bring the vehicle out of compliance with certain FMVSS, such as Standard No. 108, and, by virtue of removing substantial weight from the vehicle, could affect its compliance with other FMVSS, such as Standard No. 105. By the terms of Section 30122(b), the making inoperative prohibition does not apply in circumstances where the dealer reasonably believes the vehicle . . . will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative. Unless it could establish that it had such a reasonable belief, a dealer who violates the making inoperative prohibition is subject to civil penalties of up to $5,000 per vehicle under 49 U.S.C. 30165(a).

The third scenario described in your letter involves ranch supply stores in small distant communities that stock and sell ranch and contractor bodies for pickup trucks. You state that in selling these components, the stores often advise the customer not to be concerned about the need to certify the vehicle once it is completed and that the component manufacturers are often aware of this practice. Under the statutes and regulations that we administer, there is nothing that would require a party selling the components you have described to alert the purchaser to the need to certify its vehicle after the components are installed.

I hope this explanation of our statutory and regulatory authorities is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

NCC-10:CSachs:crs:5-1-02:65238:cyt(5/1/02)
revised per KWeinstein 6-7-02
revised 7/5/02
Doc. 24173; NHTSA # CC2002033445
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron
NCC-10 Csachs, cyt
NPS-01; NSA-01
Redbooks(2), Part 567