ID: 2890o

Glenn L. Duncan, Esq.
Thorne, Grodnik & Ransel
228 West High Street
Elkhart, IN 46516-3176

Dear Mr. Duncan:

This responds to your letter concerning situations in which seats tested for compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, bend or deform when subjected to the required test forces specified in the standard. You asked whether NHTSA would consider a seat as passing Standard No. 207 if the seat "gives," but does not separate or break free from the floor. I regret the delay in responding.

The requirements with which you are concerned are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 207. That section provides in pertinent part:

S4.2 General performance requirements. When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces.

(a) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a forward longitudinal direction;

(b) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a rearward longitudinal direction;

* * * * *

(d) In its rearmost position--a force that produces a 3,300 inch-pound moment about the seating reference point for each designated seating position that the seat provides, applied to the upper cross-member of the seat back or the upper seat back, in a rearward longitudinal direction for forward-facing seats and in a forward longitudinal direction for rearward-facing seats.

The agency answered similar questions in letters dated April 28, 1977 and August 30, 1979 to Mr. Gordon P. Cress and to Mr.Robert Wahls, respectively. (Copies enclosed.) In these letters, the agency stated that NHTSA allows some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that "structural integrity of the seats is maintained." The structural integrity of a seat is determined by the extent to which permanent deformation or separation of seat components and/or seat to floor attachments result from the applied test forces. Examples of possible noncompliances include the following occurring during the application of a forward or rearward load:

(a) the seat frame releases from its adjusted position;

(b) the seat frame or seat adjusters detach from the test vehicle floorpan;

(c) the seat frame detaches from the seat adjuster mechanism;

(d) the seat adjuster mechanism separates; or,

(e) the hinged seat restraining device disengages, or detaches from the seat frame.

Other examples of possible noncompliances are the rear seat back or cushion frame detaching from the test vehicle structure during the application of the specified load, or the folding seat back restraining device releasing from its preset position during application of a forward load.

Further, as stated in the two enclosed letters, it has been the longstanding position of the agency that seats which displace to an extent that NHTSA determines occupant safety is threatened would not be in compliance with Standard No. 207.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:207 d:8/26/88

ID: 2891o

Mr. J. Mark Smith
Lynco Products
815 Kelli Drive
Yuba City, CA 95991

Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your letter concerning the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of a "storage console-armrest." I regret the delay in responding. The illustration you included in your letter shows that the console apparatus is designed to be placed on a bench seat and is not attached in any manner to the seat structure. The console-armrest has a wood frame, is entirely covered with fabric, and has a hinged, padded top which can be flipped open for access to the storage area.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a removable console-armrest sold directly to a consumer as an item of "aftermarket" equipment. However, under Federal law you are considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, and are therefore subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your products contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, apply to new completed motor vehicles and set performance requirements for consoles and armrests installed on new motor vehicles prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. While these standards do not apply directly to a console-armrest sold only as aftermarket equipment, installation of your product on both new and used vehicles may give rise to certain responsibilities on the part of any commercial business making the installation.

A manufacturer of a new vehicle installing your product on the vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 201. Paragraph S3.3 of the standard requires interior compartment door assemblies located in a console assembly to remain closed under certain test conditions. The purpose of the requirement is to prevent a door from flying open and striking an occupant in a crash. The door in your console would have to meet this requirement if your product is installed on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale. Your product would also have to comply with Standard No. 201's requirements for armrests specified in paragraph S3.5 of the standard if your console-armrest is installed in a new motor vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer.

Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including arm rests and compartment shelves. A vehicle manufacturer installing your product on a new vehicle would also have to ensure that the fabric on your console-armrest burns at a rate within the limits specified in the standard. I have enclosed copies of both Standards No. 302 and No. 201 for your information.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that 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. This means that none of the persons mentioned could install your product in a new or used vehicle if the installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not install a console-armrest that does not comply with Standard No. 302 in a new or used motor vehicle since to do so would render inoperative that element of design, and thus violate 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

In summary, your console-armrests that are sold to motor vehicle owners as items of aftermarket equipment are not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The console-armrest could be subject to Federal standards for occupant interior and flammability protection if it is installed on new vehicles prior to the vehicle's first sale. Commercial businesses are prohibited from installing the console-armrest on new or used vehicles if the result renders inoperative the compliance of requisite safety components or designs with Federal safety standards. Individual owners, however, are not covered by 108(a)(2)(A) and may themselves install your product in their vehicles without regard to the rendering inoperative prohibition of the Safety Act. To repeat, you as the equipment manufacturer would be obligated to recall and remedy your products that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, even if the console-armrest were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

I hope this information has been helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:201#302 d:8/26/88

ID: 2892o

Mr. Jim Schuld
Mill Supply Inc.
3241 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114

Dear Mr. Schuld:

This responds to your letter asking for information concerning the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of a jump seat that you said would be "removable and able to be transferred from one truck to another." I apologize for the delay in responding. Generally, Federal motor vehicle seating standards apply to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase by a consumer, and not to "aftermarket" seating components added to a vehicle after such purchase. However, several of our safety standards could apply to your product if the seat is installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. Federal law would also affect your installation of the jump seat in new or used vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a removable jump seat sold directly to a consumer. Federal seating standards generally apply only to completed new motor vehicles and not to items of equipment such as a removable jump seat. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your jump seats contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If your product will be installed on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, then the manufacturer of the vehicle will have certain responsibilities relating to its obligation under the Safety Act to certify the new vehicle as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Federal standards for seating systems (Standard No. 207) and crash protection (Standard No. 208) apply to designated seating positions in new vehicles. While these standards do not apply to auxiliary seating accommodations (e.g., temporary or folding jump seats), the determination must be made whether your apparatus falls into this latter category and is thus excluded from coverage. Unfortunately, information provided in your letter did not describe your jump seat in sufficient detail for us to offer an opinion as to whether your particular seat is an auxiliary seating accommodation. Photographs or engineering diagrams of your product would assist us in determining whether the seat would be considered an auxiliary seating accommodation, and thus excluded from coverage under Standard Nos. 207 and 208 if installed on new vehicles.

Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard establishes flammability requirements that must be met by certain vehicle components including seat cushions and seat backs on any occupant seat installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. A manufacturer installing your jump seat on a new vehicle would thus be required to ensure that any seat cushion or seat back on your product conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard.

You should also be aware that there are statutory considerations that affect the installation of your jump seats in new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies: "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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing the jump seat to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the jump seat does not degrade from the safety of existing seating or occupant protection systems on the vehicle. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

In summary, removable jump seats sold to motor vehicle owners as items of aftermarket equipment are not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The seat could be subject to Federal standards for seating performance and occupant crash and flammability protection if it is installed on new vehicles prior to the vehicle's first sale. Commercial businesses are prohibited from installing the jump seat if the result renders inoperative the compliance of requisite safety components or designs with Federal safety standards. Individual owners, however, are not covered by 108(a)(2)(A) and may themselves install the jump seat in their vehicles without regard to the rendering inoperative prohibition of the Safety Act. To repeat, you as the equipment manufacturer would be obligated to recall and remedy seats that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, even if the seats were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:207#302 d:8/26/88

ID: 2893o

Mr. Frank Reynolds
F.E. Reynolds Associates
P.O. Box 703
Marysville, OH 43040

Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This is in response to your telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, seeking a clarification of my June 16, 1988 letter concerning school bus mirrors under Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17. Specifically, you asked about the meaning of the phrase, "area in front of the bus," as used in section S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). In your telephone conversation, you stated that a NHTSA staff person told you in a previous telephone conversation that NHTSA had defined this phrase to mean "the area three feet in front of the bus." NHTSA has never so interpreted this phrase in Standard No. 111.

For your information, I am enclosing a June 20, 1980 letter to James Tydings that sets forth the agency's interpretation of S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111. This letter notes that the area of concern in S9.2(b) is the region in front of the bus where a driver is not able to see directly a school age child. As explained in the letter and an earlier notice (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975), the purpose of a crossview mirror is to "address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transportation," and this type of mirror "allows the bus driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there before moving the bus." This letter then explains: "The agency used the word 'view' in its ordinary, dictionary sense to mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus." This is still an accurate expression of the agency's interpretation of the purpose of a crossview mirror and this phrase.

In your telephone conversation, you also expressed concern about the "legal effect" of Standard No. 111. You should be aware of 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which states that No person shall manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any additional questions, or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:111 d:8/26/88

ID: 2894o

Mr. Earl Dahl
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Akron, OH 44316-0001

Dear Mr. Dahl:

This responds to your letter of June 1, 1988, seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether Goodyear could engrave its mold for the Tire Identification Number with a style of characters that was not specifically authorized in the Notes following Figure 1 of 574.5.

Note 1 to Figure 1 of Part 574 specifies only four different print types which may be used for the DOT symbol and tire identification number. The style of print that you wish to use is not one of these designated styles. Nevertheless, Note 4 to Figure 1 states that other print types will be permitted if approved by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). The agency has examined the print type shown in the diagram attached to your letter and has no objections to your company printing the required information in the print type you submitted.

You should be aware that in the final rule establishing Part 574 (35 FR 17257, November 10, 1970), NHTSA explained that the reason for specifying only four print types which would be acceptable without advance agency approval was to ensure that the information would be easily readable by all persons. The print type that you submitted is easily readable and thus satisfies our concerns in that regard. Accordingly, NHTSA approves your print type.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:574 d:8/26/88

ID: 2897yy

Mr. Leonard M. Anderson
Vice President, Engineering
Miller Trailers, Inc.
P. O. Box 511
Bradenton, Florida 34206

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. More specifically, you asked whether a world manufacturer identifier (WMI) that was assigned to one manufacturer may continue to be used by a different manufacturer when it purchases the assets of the manufacturer to which the WMI was assigned. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

Your letter set forth the following information. Miller Trailer, Inc. (Miller) is a trailer manufacturer that has been assigned a unique WMI, in accordance with 49 CFR 565.5(c). Oshkosh Truck Corporation (Oshkosh) is a manufacturer of primarily trucks and some specialized trailers. Oshkosh has also been assigned a unique WMI in accordance with 49 CFR 565.5(c). Oshkosh is purchasing Miller. Your question is whether Oshkosh can continue to use Miller's WMI to identify trailers Oshkosh produces at the facilities that were formerly used by Miller.

To answer this question, we must apply the regulatory provision of 49 CFR 565.4(a). That section provides that the WMI "shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if the manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." NHTSA has previously interpreted the requirement that the WMI "uniquely identify the manufacturer" as precluding the use of a WMI assigned to one manufacturer by any other manufacturer. For your information, I have enclosed a December 24, 1984 letter to Mr. Richard Bond, in which the agency explained that a newly-formed, wholly-owned subsidiary could not use the parent corporation's WMI to identify trailers formerly manufactured by the parent corporation.

With respect to your situation, this regulatory requirement means that the VIN assigned to each trailer manufactured by Oshkosh must identify Oshkosh as the manufacturer. This identification will facilitate the quick and accurate identification of the actual vehicle manufacturer in the event there is a need to do so.

Please note also that Oshkosh, upon manufacturing trailers that formerly were manufactured by Miller, has a responsibility to report any new types of motor vehicles that it produces. 49 CFR Part 566 requires manufacturers that have previously submitted identification information to keep their entries current by submitting revised information not later than 30 days after the relevant changes occur. A copy of this part is also enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref: Part 565 d:3/l9/9l

ID: 2898yy

Liam J. Moran, Esq.
Hagans, Brown, Gibbs & Moran
310 K Street, Suite 704
Anchorage, Alaska 99501

RE: Brey v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc. Your File No.: 3571

Dear Mr. Moran:

This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke, our Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). More specifically, you noted that S5.5.2(g) requires add-on child restraint systems to be permanently labeled with the following:

WARNING! Failure to follow each of the following instructions can result in your child striking the vehicle's interior during a sudden stop or crash. Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt as specified in the manufacturer's instructions located [Insert the location of the instruction booklet].

You also noted that Standard No. 213 requires the installation instruction booklet to "explain the primary consequences of not following the warnings required to be labeled on the child restraint system." Parenthetically, I note that your letter erroneously identified S5.6.3 as the source of this requirement. You told Mr. Kratzke in your telephone conversation that your litigation involves an add-on child restraint system. S5.6.3 applies solely to built-in child restraint systems. However, the identical requirement is set forth for add-on child restraint systems in S5.6.1.3 of Standard No. 213.

You asked whether the explanation in the instruction booklet of the primary consequences of not following the warnings labeled on the child restraint system (per S5.6.1.3) is required to be something more than the statement required to be labeled on the child restraint system (per S5.5.2(g)). The answer is no.

NHTSA explicitly addressed this question in the rulemaking that established the current labeling requirements. A notice of proposed rulemaking was published on May 18, 1978 (43 FR 21470). This proposal did not include any proposed regulatory text to require a label on the child restraint system warning users about the failure to follow the instructions provided by the manufacturer. However, the preamble did have the following discussion:

Comments are also requested on whether a brief explanation should be given of the primary consequences of not following the warnings and instructions provided by the manufacturer on the restraint. An example of such an explanation is that failure to attach the tether on systems having top tethers may result in the top part of the system bending forward during a crash and striking the dashboard or back of the front seat, depending on where the restraint is installed. Another example would be to explain that failure to adjust belts snugly may result in the child coming entirely out of the restraint during a crash or in crash forces being placed on the wrong portions of the child's body. (Emphasis added).

43 Fed. Reg. 21476. This request for comments was addressed solely to information that should be labeled on the restaint itself. There is no indication in the proposal that the agency sought comments on or otherwise considered requiring information in addition to this to be provided in the instuction booklet.

A final rule implementing this proposal was published on December 13, 1979 (44 FR 72131). That rule included the following discussion:

Many commenters (citation omitted) supported the proposed requirement that manufacturers inform consumers about the primary consequences of not following the manufacturer's warning about the correct use of the restraint. Therefore, the visible label must state the primary consequence of misusing the restraint. The same information would also have to be included in the instruction manual accompanying the restraint. (Emphasis added).

44 Fed. Reg. 72137. The regulatory language that was added to the labeling requirement for child restraints in the final rule to "state the primary consequence of misusing the restraint" was the warning now in S5.5.2(g) of Standard No. 213. The last sentence in the above-quoted section of the preamble expressly states that the instruction booklet that accompanies the child restraint must include the same warning that is required to be labeled on the child restraint. There is, therefore, no basis for the assertion that the instruction booklet must include some warning in addition to the warning required to be labeled on the child restraint system.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:213 d:3/l9/9l

ID: 2899yy

Mr. Jerry Tassan
177 Airport Blvd
San Francisco, CA 94080

Dear Mr. Tassan:

This responds to a telephone inquiry in which you explained to Mr. Stephen Wood, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, that your truck rental company is considering lowering the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of some of its used trucks so that a renter need not have a commercial driver's license to operate them. You asked how the regulations of this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), would apply to such an action. As explained below, because only a manufacturer can assign a GVWR, any modification of a vehicle's GVWR by parties that are not manufacturers would have no legal effect.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The Certification requirements in 49 CFR Part 567 require each manufacturer to affix to the vehicle a label containing, among other things, the vehicle's GVWR. Under Part 567, the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the original manufacturer (567.4(g)(3)), a final stage manufacturer (567.5(c)(5)), or an alterer (567.7(b)). Modifications of GVWR by any other parties would have no legal effect under Part 567. Accordingly, a vehicle owner that performs no manufacturing operations on a vehicle cannot modify the GVWR of the vehicle.

You should also be aware that another Federal authority - the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Office of Motor Carrier Standards - may regulate your attempts to lower a vehicle's GVWR. The FHWA regulates the licensing of operators of "commercial motor vehicles" under the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. I recommend you contact Mr. James Scapellato, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, HCS-1, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590 if you have any further questions about driver licensing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about the GVWR assigned to vehicles, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref: 567 d:3/l9/9l

ID: 2900yy

Mr. Chris Lawrence
Chang & Lawrence
P.O. Box 105-55
Taipei
Taiwan R.O.C.

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency. Though dated January 5, 1991, we did not receive it until March 7.

With respect to your wish to produce an electronic sign board for installation in the rear window area, or on the rear, of a passenger car, I enclose a copy of an interpretation of this Office dated August 17, l989, regarding such a device. Although the interpretation is restricted to an interior-mounted electronic sign board, our conclusion would not be changed were the device to be mounted on the outside of the rear of the vehicle. In that location, and as an item of original equipment, we believe that it would impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting equipment by its potential to distract following drivers from the signals sent by the rear lamps when they and the sign board are operated simultaneously. Although the considerations for aftermarket devices are expressed differently, as explained in the August l989 letter, the potential for distraction would appear to create a partial inoperability of the rear lamps within the meaning of the prohibition.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l08#VSA d:3/2l/9l

ID: 2901yy

Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki
2303 N. 44th Street, #14-237
Phoenix, AZ 80058

Dear Mr. Dembecki:

This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991, asking for an "evaluation" of your "Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: "complete" one and two bulb units "for l984 and older vehicles", and one and two "electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991." In your opinion, "since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed."

We understand that your "complete" unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the "electronic module" intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer.

Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. l08 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. l08 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard.

With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. l08 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps.

Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:3/25/9l