ID: nht92-5.35

DATE: June 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Puentes -- President, Sacramento Registration Service

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/2/92 from Jeffrey Puentes to NHTSA Chief Council (OCC 7403)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 2, 1992, asking several questions with respect to kit cars.

Your questions, and our answers, are:

"What is your definition of a Kit Car?"

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted a definition of a kit car. The regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are issued and enforced by this agency refer to manufacturers, motor vehicles, and motor vehicle equipment, and it is in this context that we answer questions about kits of motor vehicle equipment and the vehicles that may be assembled from them.

"How far into the manufacturing process can a party assemble a kit before it is classified as an automobile?"

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a motor vehicle is defined, in part, as one that is "driven by mechanical power." Generally, until the power source is added, the unit is considered an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle. However, if the assemblage is shipped with all parts necessary for its completion, including the power source, the agency will consider it a motor vehicle for purposes of its regulations regardless of its state of completion.

"What definitions and/or rules (laws) must he follow in order to begin selling kits for kit cars to the retail public?"

There are no specific regulations that a seller of kits must follow in order to begin sales. However, if the seller is the fabricator of an item of motor vehicle equipment that is directly regulated by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the seller must ensure that the equipment item is properly certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These equipment items include brake hose assemblies, brake fluid, lamps and reflex reflectors, tires, wheel covers, or hubcaps, glazing materials, and seat belt assemblies.

Further, if the assemblage is shipped with all parts necessary for its completion, including the power source, and the parts are all new, the seller must provide certification that the vehicle, when assembled, will conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper standards.

For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers, which identifies relevant NHTSA standards and regulations and explains how to get copies of those standards and regulations, and a brochure that gives a summary description of our standards and regulations.

ID: 1982-2.37

DATE: 08/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kamlot Marketing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Terry W. Braden President Kamlo Marketing Inc. 4311 East 104th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136

Dear Mr. Braden:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the type of seat belts which must be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. Your company is apparently converting these vehicles by adding "plush" seats and a rear sofa.

Paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR Part 571) specifies that trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the same requirements of the standard that are specified for passenger cars. This would include the Ford van to which you refer. Paragraph S4.1.2.3 of the standard specifies that passenger cars must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly (non-detachable lap and shoulder belt) at each front outboard designated seating position. At all other seating positions, either a Type 1 belt assembly (lap belt only) or a Type 2 assembly must be used. Therefore, the vans that you are converting must have Type 2 belts in the two front seating positions and must have either Type 2 or 1 belts in the rear seating positions. The only exception to this requirement is that a forward control van manufactured prior to September 1, 1981, was permitted to have either Type 1 or Type 2 belts in front outboard seating positions. I gather from your letter that the vans you are converting were manufactured after that date and would not qualify under this exception.

You should also note that the sofa you are installing in the rear of the van would likely qualify as having three designated seating positions and would have to have three sets of seat belts (Type 1/lap belts). I assume the sofa has three seating positions since your letter states the van is a 7-passenger vehicle.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of the Chief Counsel 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Would you please send me a letter regarding the proper seat belts to be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. The vans are being remanufactured with plush seats (4), a rear sofa, bay windows, and carpeted. When finished they are a 7-passenger vehicle, under 10,000 lbs. GVW.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely, Terry W. Braden President

ID: nht88-4.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: GARRY GALLAGHER -- VICE PRESIDENT METZELER MOTORCYCLE TIRE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/22/88 FROM GARRY GALLAGHER TO LARRY COOK -- NHTSA, OCC 2372

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gallagher:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.119). More specifically, you asked whether the letter "B" must appear as part of the size designati on of a motorcycle tire if that tire is of bias belted construction. The answer to your question is no.

As you noted in your letter, section @ 6.5 of Standard No. 119 sets forth the marking requirements for tires used on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, including tires for use on motorcycles. Subsection S6.5(c) states that each such tire shall be marked with "The tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Section S5.1, in turn, specifies tire and rim matching information that must be provided to the public. Generally speaking, the size designation of a tire shows only the physical dimensions of that tire, not necessarily its construction. Thus, the common meaning of the term "size designation" does not necessarily include an indication of the tire's construction type. Further, no provision of Standa rd No. 119 requires a tire's size designation to indicate the tire's construction type. The only reference in section S6.5 of Standard's No. 119 to a tire's construction type is in subsection S6.5(i), which requires the word "radial" to appear on the ti re's sidewall if the tire is of radial construction. Therefore, in response to your question, Standard No. 119 does not require the letter "B" to be included in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires.

You noted that your company sometimes adds the letter "B" to the size designation of these tires as an internal code. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to include additional information on the sidewall of their tires, provided that the add itional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information. In this case, the addition of the letter "B" to the size designation would not appear to confuse or obs cure the meaning of the size designation. Hence, there would be no

apparent violation of Standard No. 119 by including the letter "B" in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht76-1.25

DATE: 11/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Universal Imports;

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 13, 1976, letter concerning "a line of racing/rally tires that are not Department of Transportation marked."

I understand from your recent telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of my staff that the tires with which you are concerned are of the following size designations: 165/70 HR 10 ; 225/60 HR 14 ; 225/60 HR 13 ; and 195/70 HR 13.

Section S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, reads as follows:

S6. Nonconforming tires. No tire of a type and size designation specified in Table I of Appendix A that is designed for use on passenger cars and manufactured on or after October 1, 1972, but does not conform to all the requirements of this standard, shall be sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into the United States, for any purpose. (emphasis added)

because the size designations of the tires in question all appear in Table I of Appendix A, these tires are subject to the prohibitions of S6 unless they were manufactured before October 1, 1972. "All the requirements of the standard" include both performance and labeling requirements.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Universal Imports

FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, National Highway Traffic Safety Association

September 13, 1976/Letter #7725

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Universal Tire and it's affiliates are involved in practically every aspect of the tire industry except retreading. The import aspect of our business has just been offered a line of racing/rally tires that are not Department Of Transportation marked.

As you are probably aware there exists today an ever growing extremely viable market for off road racing and rally oriented products.

It is our desire to approach this new market from retail, wholesale and mail order standpoints. We are especially concerned with our responsibilities with regard to selling these race/rally tires since they are not Department Of Transportation marked. Please keep in mind that we wish not only to adhere to the letter of the law but to the spirit of the law as well. Any guidance you can offer us regarding the sale of these tires would be greatly appreciated.

Again, as we see it we have three separate sets of selling circumstances: retail, wholesale and mail order (retail), and would like guidelines from you for all three.

Thanking you in advance for any assistance you might furnish, we remain

Most cordially,

William G. Mathews, III -- Division Manager

ID: 86-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dave Trowbridge

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dave Trowbridge Aftermarket Sale Creation Windows of Indiana, Inc. P.O. Box 1046 Elkhart, Indiana 46515

Dear Mr. Trowbridge:

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1986, with reference to a design for a center high-mounted stop lamp intended for pickup covers or shells. You have asked for our advice regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The center high-mounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars, and its specifications apply only to original or replacement equipment on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. There are no requirements for aftermarket applications such as you envision. The legality of your device would be determined under the laws of a State where the lamp is installed or used.

We would recommend, however, that you attempt to conform your device as closely as possible to Federal requirements, such as an illuminated lens area of not less than 4 square inches, and mounted in such a manner as to minimize reflections in the rear glass. A copy of the Federal standard is enclosed.

I hope that this answers your questions. We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 25, 1986 Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Assn. 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of custom windows and doors for the recreational vehicle market, automotive aftermarket and second party vehicle manufacturers. Of particular concern is our production and design of the "3rd stop light" to our door assemblies for pickup cover doors (see attached).

Our doors are supplied to manufacturers of these covers or shells and will be supplied with this added safety feature.

Your assistance, at your earliest possible convenience, is appreciated in advance regarding those pertinent and applicable NHTSA, FMVSS or other specifications that may apply to the mounting of this light assembly to the inside of the door assemblies we manufacture for our customers. The light assembly itself will be either sourced or manufactured with concern for those specifications that may apply to the light and its visibility, wiring, etc.

Cordially, Dave Trowbridge Aftermarket Sales

DT/jb

Attachment

ID: 2706y

Mr. Dennis T. Johnston
Senior Executive Engineer
Product Engineering and
Regulatory Affairs
Sterling Motor Cars
8953 N.W. 23rd Street
Miami, Florida 33172

Dear Mr. Johnston:

This responds to your letter reporting a change in the locking system to be installed on the MY 1991 British Sterling car line. Although your letter does not explicitly request the agency determine that the change is of a de minimis nature and that therefore the Sterling vehicles containing the change would be fully covered by the previously granted exemption for Sterling vehicles, we are treating the letter as making such a request. The alternative to making such a request is to submit a modification petition under 49 CFR 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

As you are aware, the Sterling car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Austin Rover showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on July 16, 1986, and appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 1986 (51 FR 26332).

In your letter, you stated that beginning with the start of MY 1991, Sterling Motor Cars (Sterling) plans an improvement in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Sterling vehicle. The change involves the consequence of opening of the trunk when the system is armed. Currently, the system, once armed, activates when the trunk is opened, even if it is opened with the key. In order to avoid this, the antitheft device must first be disarmed before the trunk is opened. It is our understanding that Sterling plans to change the system by allowing the system to be disarmed by opening the trunk with a key and rearmed by closing the trunk lid. However, if the trunk were to be forced open without a key, the alarm would still be activated.

After reviewing the planned change to the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the change is de minimis. While the change means that opening the trunk with a key will no longer activate the alarm, the agency does not believe that activating the alarm under those circumstances contributes to theft prevention. The agency concludes that the antitheft device, as modified, will continue to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Sterling to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 543.9(b) and (c)(2).

If Sterling does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Sterling notify the agency of such decisions.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:543 d:l0/5/90

ID: 3165yy

Mr. Ken Hanna
Lectric Limited, Inc.
7322 S. Archer Road
Justice, Illinois 60458

Dear Mr. Hanna:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. l08 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. l08, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref.# Std. 108 D. 7/29/91

ID: 3108yy

Mr. Ken Hanna
Lectric Limited, Inc.
7322 S. Archer Road
Justice, Illinois 60458

Dear Mr. Hanna:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. l08 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. l08, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref.# Std. 108 D. 7/29/91

ID: 3111yy

Mr. Ken Hanna
Lectric Limited, Inc.
7322 S. Archer Road
Justice, Illinois 60458

Dear Mr. Hanna:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. l08 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. l08, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:7/29/9l

ID: 77-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Video Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 15, 1977, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, as it relates to a device you wish to market called "Remote Auto-Start."

Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, requires that when the key is removed, normal activation of the car's engine and either steering or forward self-mobility of the car is prevented (49 CFR 571.114, S4.1(a) and (b)). According to the material which you forwarded, your device results in the following characteristics which differ from what we consider to be normal activation:

1. The engine deactivates when a door is opened.

2. The steering column and gear shift remains locked until the actual key is inserted.

3. The logic circuitry deactivates the engine after 15 minutes.

Consequently, we have determined that your device does not result in a "normal" activation of the car's engine.

Thus, it appears that the characteristics of the "Remote Auto-Start" system are not in conflict with Standard No. 114.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VIDEO RESEARCH CORPORATION

March 15, 1977

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Last week I had the opportunity of talking to Mr. Tilton in regards to interpretating a law which covers various states, as well as federal, concerning cars left unattended with the motors running.

Sometime back, the American Medical Association contacted me in regards to heart patients that have to use a motor vehicle in extremely hot or cold weather. Since it is a stress on the heart when temperatures vary greatly, they felt if possible we could make an item that would heat or cool the vehicle for 15 to 20 minutes before entering same.

We came up with a tentative item called Remote Auto-Start. By reading the enclosed sheets covering this item which was written by our Director of Engineering, you will note that at no time can the vehicle be operated without the ignition key.

We would appreciate it, after you read the enclosed specifications, if you would let us know whether any federal or state laws will affect us.

Looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible so we can continue with this particular product.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely yours, Martin Fleischman -- Chairman

[Enclosure Omitted]