ID: nht88-3.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: ERNIE J. BUNNELL -- VICE PRESIDENT/GENERAL MANAGER PACIFIC T-TOP, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 08/30/88 LETTER FROM ERNIE J. BUNNELL TO TAYLOR VINSON; OCC 2485

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bunnell:

This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1988, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have provided diagrams of two types of deck lid spoiler installations, intended as either OEM or aftermarket equipment, and have asked how these relate to requireme nts for the center highmounted stop lamp. You understand that the spoiler itself does not have to meet the lighting standard, but would like to comply if possible.

You are correct that the spoiler itself is not subject to the lighting standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108); however, its installation has the potential for creating a noncompliance with that standard. The basic requirements for the lamp is that it must meet the photometric intensities at each of the test points specified in Figure 10 of the standard, and the visibility (and other) requirements of paragraph S4.1.1.41. Photometric testing is conducted according to SAE Recommended Pr actice J186a, with the photometer at a distance of at least 10 feet from the lamp. Test points lie above and below the horizontal axis of the lamp, and to the left and right of the vertical axis.

According to your first design, the spoiler is "at or below the rear brake light using the 5 degree measurement as a guide." You are correct in taking into account the necessity of meeting the 5 degree down test points. But compliance will be affected b y the location of the lamp and slope of the deck lid as well as the shape of the spoiler. The second spoiler is designed "to go over the horizontal intensity of the light." We interpret this as recognition of the need to meet the test points lying 5 and 10 degrees above the horizontal. Our comments are the same as for the first spoiler. In short, if a spoiler design is not vehicle specific there may be no practicable way for you, as the manufacturer of the spoiler, to determine whether its installati on would create a noncompliance. If your design is vehicle specific, the SAE photometric test could be conducted with the spoiler installed.

The responsibility for compliance with Standard No. 108 is initially that of the vehicle manufacturer. If the spoiler is installed as part of the vehicle manufacturing process, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable Federal m otor vehicle safety standards would cover the center lamp with the spoiler in place. But the dealer also must ensure that a certified vehicle remains in conformance at the time it is delivered to its first purchaser. Therefore, a dealer could be reluct ant to install a spoiler that is not vehicle specific in the absence of some showing that it does not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Once the vehicle is sold, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in effect forbids the dealer, or any motor vehicle repair business, from modifications that affect compliance of equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. This p rohibition, however, does not extend to the vehicle owner, who may modify the vehicle as (s)he wishes, subject to State laws. We are not aware of any State laws that would forbid spoilers of the designs indicated.

We have enclosed a copy of paragraph S4.1.1.41 and Figure 10 for your information, and appreciate your interest in learning more about Standard No. 108.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-3.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 12/15/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2812; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKO LL TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mikoll:

This responds to your recent request for confirmation of your understanding that school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less would comply with the existing requirements of the safety standards if those buses were equip ped with a new occupant protection device your company is considering producing. As explained below, this device could not be installed in small school buses as a substitute for safety belts at those seating positions. Assuming those seating positions are equipped with safety belts, the seating positions could also be equipped with this device if the addition of the device does not prevent the safety belts from complying with the requirements of the safety standards.

The new device you are considering producing is a "safety bar." This bar consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. These curved poles are joined by three cross members that are pa rallel to the seat and covered with padding. The padded surface is angled at the top slightly back from the vertical. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants will be protected by the "safety b ar," so that the padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is designed to protect. When the seat whose occupants are to be protected by this "safety bar" is unoccupied, the padded surface rests approximately on the lati tudinal centerline of the seat. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the "safety bar" and then sit down. The "safety bar" will then rest on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap that resembles a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash.

The crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222). That section provides that these school buses must be capable of meeting the

requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) as it applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.

The requirements of Standard No. 208 that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements specified for passenger cars in either S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208. Each of these three subsections of S4.1.2 requires each rear designated seating position to be equipped with a safety b elt. S4.1.2 gives manufactures the option of substituting a protection system "that requires no action by vehicle occupants" for a safety belt at any or all rear designated seating positions.

Your proposed "safety bar" requires two specific actions by vehicle occupants; i.e., lifting the bar so that the seat can be occupied and buckling the strap to hold the bar in place. Therefore, the "safety bar" could not be considered a protection syste m that "requires no action by vehicle occupants," for the purpose of S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, each rear designated seating position in small school buses equipped with this "safety bar" must also be equipped with safety belts.

Assuming that these seating positions were equipped with safety belts, the installation of "safety bar" in small school buses would be a voluntary action on the part of the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA has said in several prior interpretation letters that the systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided that the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the safety belts in this case) to comply with the Federal safety standards. If this is the case, the "safety bar" could be provided as a supplement to safety belts on small school buses.

To install these "safety bars" in any new school bus, the manufacturer would have to certify that a bus with the "safety bars" installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. Thus, if any part of the "safety b ar" was within the head protection zone or leg protection zone, the "safety bar" would have to be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of S5.3. Additionally, the manufacturer would have to certify that the school buses with these "saf ety bars" installed complied with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with emergency exits of a minimum size. This means the "safety bars" could not obstruct emerg ency exits located adjacent to seats.

If you decide to manufacture these "safety bar," your company will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). As such, you will have several responsibili ties, including the responsibility specified in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if your company or the agency determines either that the safety bar contains a defect

related to motor vehicle safety or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet is enclosed, which describes briefly this and other statutory and regulatory responsibilities of manufacturers and explains how to obtain copies of our regulations.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-4.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BRIAN HALL -- PRESIDENT, VS TECHNOLOGY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER UNDATED FROM BRIAN HALL TO VINSON, OCC 2576

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hall:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter to Mr. Vinson of this Office. You have described a safety apparatus and have requested "approval" from the Department. The apparatus is a red light that is worn on the back of a rider on small open vehicles such as motorcycles. The light connects to the stop lamp system on the vehicle and is activated at the same time as the vehicle's stop lamp.

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" specific concepts or equipment. However, it can advise whether such is permissible or impermissible under Federal statutes or Departmental regulations. Yours is a unique device, and there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to it. Our primary concern is whether its operation would in any way interfere with the effectiveness of the vehicle's stop lamp, such as a power drain that would make that light less bright. Becaus e the apparatus is "apparel not a system part...which is intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers...from risk of accident, injury, or death", it meets the statutory definition of "motor vehicle equipment." This means that the apparatus is subject to Federal notification and remedy provisions in the event a determination is made that it incorporates a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety.

Because the Department has no authority to regulate how a vehicle is used on the public roads, you may wish to investigate whether the apparatus is acceptable under the laws of the individual States. The American

Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators may be able to provide you with an answer. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We appreciate your interest in improving safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/88

FROM: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARDS 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 12/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

On November 3, 1988 your office responded to our correspondence of August 11, 1988. A copy of both these letters are included for your convenience. In our letter we requested an opinion that our "Impact Control System" or safety-bar did not infringe on any existing standard for installation in school buses. Your reply details a number of conditions that must be complied with if we choose to install our system in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less; however, it is n ot clear to us from your letter that the device does not infringe on standards for installation in the larger school buses. While we are prepared to certify compliance with Federal safety standards for large bus installation, we do not wish to go forwar d on the assumption of not conflicting with those standards. In this regard, we would appreciate clarification on the following:

1) that your letter of November 3, 1988 addresses both the large and smaller school buses.

2) that your letter addresses only those vehicles with (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds and under.

If your letter addresses only the smaller vehicles, we wish at this time to request an opinion that our device does not conflict with any standard for large school bus installation. In that your office has recently reviewed this matter you should refer to the supporting documents previously submitted. Should you need any additional information, please let us know.

Thank you.

Cordially,

ID: nht88-4.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/16/88

FROM: TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMIBILES INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: 49CFR 567, CERTIFICATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES; REDBOOK A34 B; PART 567; PART 568; LETTER DATED 05/06/85 FROM JOFFREY R. MILLER CHIEF COUNSEL TO HAYLEY ALEXANDER

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

LAFORZA Automobiles (formerly Rayton Fissore North America) has acquired the US rights to manufacture and sell a MPV designed and manufactured by Rayton Fissore of Cherasco, Italy. LAFORZA Automobiles is incorporated in the state of California.

The vehicle will be built in two stages. Pininfarina will build the vehicle complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.) transmission and transfer case in Italy. These items along with some of the lighting fixtures will be installed by Cars and Concepts in Brighton, Michigan to complete the vehicle. These operations both will be performed by the respective firms under contract to LAFORZA Automobiles. Thus LAFORZA Automobiles will ha ve complete control of the manufacturing process at all times.

It is our understanding that under these circumstances, LAFORZA Automobiles is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle. They therefore must apply the certification label required under 49CFR Part 567, Certification, upon completion of the vehic le at Cars and Concepts Inc.

Please provide us with a verification of our interpretation of this matter with a copy to our Safety Consultant, Haus W. Metzger, 6323 E. Turquoise Ave., Scottsdale, Arizona 85253.

We would appreciate a prompt reply. Thank you for your coorperation in this matter.

Yours truly

ID: nht88-4.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CLAIRE HAVEN -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUADWEST

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03-28-88 TO ERIKA JONES, NHTSA, FROM CLAIRE HAVEN, V. P., QUADWEST; OCC-1874; LETTER DATED 03-15-88 TO CLAIRE HAVEN FROM CARL C. CLARK; NRD-12-CC-88048

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking further agency assurances that installation of one of your company's products will not take the safety belt system out of compliance with applicable Federal standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. You r product is a nylon covered foam pad intended to be attached to the shoulder belt portion of a safety belt to enhance the comfort of the occupant. In keeping with our statutory responsibilities, this agency does not offer any such assurances.

If this pad is installed as original equipment on any new vehicle, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the vehicle manufacturer to certify that the vehicle complies with standard No. 208, Occupant Cr ash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208), that the safety belt system complies with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies(49 CFR @ 571.209), and that certain vehicle components, including the safety belts, comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR @ 571.302). Each of these certifications must be valid with the pad installed on the safety belts. Since the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to make this certification, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, such as your shoulder belt pad.

If the pad is sold as an aftermarket item, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, an y device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The safety belt systems installed in vehicle are generally an element of design installed in compliance with Standards No. 208, 209, and 302. If the installation of your shoulder belt pad results in the vehicle no longer complying with any or all of these standards, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or

repair business that installed the belt pads would have violated this section of the law. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), and each installation of a sh oulder belt pad that rendered inoperative compliance with Standard No. 208 would be a separate violation. Please note that the prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual consumers. Thus, under Federal law, individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherwise modify existing equipment without violating the "render inoperative" provision.

As noted above for aftermarket items, the Safety Act obliges manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses not to knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design in vehicles installed in compliance with applicable safety standard s. As with new vehicles and items of equipment, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, not this agency, to determine in the first instance that the use of its product will not result in a "render inoperative" violation of Federal law. Because of this statutory scheme, NHTSA makes determinations of whether the installation of products results in a "render inoperative" violation only in the context of enforcement proceedings, when it reexamines the initial finding made by the manufacture, dealer, distributor, or repair business. In an earlier letter to you about this product, Dr. Clark, the invent or contact for NHTSA, advised you that the installation of this pad prevents the retractor from reeling up the belt completely or in part. This agen cy would be very likely to find a "render inoperative" violation with respect to a device whose installation prevented the retractor from functioning as designed.

Assuming this pad will be marketed as an aftermarket item, you could comply with your legal obligations as the manufacturer of this pad by examining the requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 302, to determine if the installation of your shoulder be lt pad would result in a noncompliance with these standards. If the installation would not do so, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses can install these pads without violating any provisions of Federal law.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that explains how to obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-4.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. J. BROWN, GENERAL MANAGER, PRODUCT SERVICES, MOHAWK TIRE COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-20-87 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA, FROM T. J. BROWN, MOHAWK TIRE COMPANY; OCC1178

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an opinion concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. According to your letter, you are considering purchasing for resale a group of metric size tires from a foreign manufacture r. The maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls of the tires are indicated in kilograms and kilopascals only, without any indication of the maximum pounds and PSI pressure. The actual stamping on the tires is as follows: Maximum Load 530kgs 165SR15 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA Maximum Load 600kgs 185SR14 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA Maximum Load 560kgs 175SR14 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA Maximum Load 475kgs 165SR13 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA Maximum Load 420kgs 155SR13 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 220 KPA

You stated that you question whether the omission of the load designation and pressure in pounds prohibits the tires from being sold in the United States and requested our opinion on the matter. As discussed below, it is our opinion that tires without t he maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls in English units do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 and therefore cannot be imported into the United States for use on passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

All tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The standard specifies performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed, and resistance to be ad unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire

and rim matching information requirements which must be satisfied by each tire sold in the United States.

Section S4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 109 requires that the maximum permissible inflation pressure of each tire "shall be either 32, 36, 40 or 60 psi, or 240, 280, 300 or 340 kPa." Thus, no value other than those listed may be used for the maximum permissibl e inflation pressure of a passenger car tire. Sections S4.3(b) and (c) of the standard specify that each tire shall have permanently molded onto the sidewalls the maximum permissible inflation pressure and the maximum load rating for the tire.

Section S4.2.1(b) originally listed only three permissible maximum inflation pressures, all in English units (32, 36 and 40 psi). The agency interpreted sections S4.3(b) and (c) to require that the maximum permissible inflation pressure and maximum load rating be in English units, since this is the system of measurement which will be used and understood by most consumers.

The first permissible metric maximum inflation pressures, 240 and 280 kPa, were added to Standard No. 109 in 1977. 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. In permitting metric-series tires, the agency established a requirement that the metric unit inflation pressu re and load rating be supplemented by English system equivalents on the tire sidewall. That requirement, set forth in section S4.3.4, now reads as follows:

S4.3.4 If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300 or 340 kPa, then:

(a) Each marking of that inflation pressure pursuant to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next whole number; and

(b) Each marking of the tire's maximum load rating pursuant to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Thus, each tire must have a maximum inflation pressure of either 32 psi, 36 psi, 40 psi, 60 psi, 240 kPa, 280 kPa, 300 or 340 kPa. If the maximum inflation pressure is 32 psi, 36 psi, 40 psi, or 60 psi, the maximum permissible inflation pressure and max imum load rating provided pursuant to sections S4.3(b) and (c) must be in English units. I would note that so long as the information appears in English units, there is no reason that it cannot also be expressed in equivalent metric units, if the presen tation of the additional information does not cause confusion about the required information. If the maximum permissible inflation pressure is 240 kPa, 280 kPa, 300 or 340 kPa, the maximum permissible inflation pressure in kPa provided pursuant to secti on S4.3(b) must be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number, and the maximum load rating provided pursuant to section S4.3(c) in kilograms must be followed in parenthesis by the equivale nt load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Since the tires you are considering purchasing do not have the maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls in English units, they do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 and may not be imported into the United States for use on pa ssenger cars. I have also enclosed for your information a copy of a December 12, 1985, letter, addressed to Mutual Trading Corporation, which provides a general discussion of issues related to the importation and sale of tires in the United States.

Enclosures

ID: nht88-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ANDREW E. WOOLNER -- GENERAL MANAGER AUST IN ROVER U.S. LIAISON OFFICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/07/87 FROM ANDREW E WOOLNER TO ERIKA JONES; RE INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 101, CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS, SECTION S 5.3.5

TEXT: Dear Mr. Woolner:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked about the illumination requirements applicable to a trip computer display. According to your letter, the trip c omputer display is provided in addition to a fuel gauge and a speedometer/odometer. The trip computer is able, among other functions, to display supplemental information concerning fuel consumption, fuel used, average speed, trip distance and distance t o arrival. As discussed below, this letter confirms your understanding that illumination is not required for the trip computer display, but, if illumination is provided, it is subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5 of the standard. This letter a lso addresses the illumination requirements applicable to a vehicle condition monitor.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufa cturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 101 requires that vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. See section S5. Among the displays listed in Standard No. 101 are the fu el level telltale, fuel level gauge, speedometer and odometer. See section S5.1 and column 1 of Table 2.

It is our opinion that a trip computer provided in addition to a fuel gauge and speedometer/odometer is not considered a fuel level guage,

speedometer or odometer within the meaning of Standard No. 101. Moreover, a trip computer is not otherwise included among the displays listed in the standard. Since Standard No. 101's illumination requirements other than those of section S5.3.5 onl y apply to displays listed in the standard, they are not applicable to the trip computer.

As you suggest in your letter, if illumination is provided for the trip computer display, the illumination is subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. That section specifies requirements for any source of illumination within the passenger compartme nt which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by the standard, which is not a telltale, an d which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, Mr. Marx Elliott advised that you are also interested in what illumination requirements may be applicable to a vehicle condition monitor. According to the information provided with your letter, the vehicle condition monitor indicates the following: door or trunk lid not shut, low outside air temperature, lamp failure, low washer fluid, and low engine coolant.

Each of the displays included in the vehicle condition monitor is a telltale. However, none of the telltales are among the displays listed in the standard. We note that the information provided with your letter indicates that the vehicle condition monito r illustrates, using a vehicle map, the operation of several lamps. If a lamp fails, the vehicle condition monitor causes the appropriate segment in the vehicle map to extinguish. While the headlamp high beam is among the lamps for which the vehicle co ndition monitor provides information, Mr. Elliott has advised us that this information is supplemental to the traditional high beam telltale provided on the instrument panel. It is our opinion based on these facts, that such a supplemental display is no t considered a high beam telltale within the meaning of Standard No. 101.

The telltales included in the vehicle condition monitor are not subject to any illumination requirements. Since none of the telltales included on the vehicle condition monitor are listed in Standard No. 101, they need not meet the illumination requireme nts specified by that standard for telltales. Moreover, as indicated by the language of section S5.3.5, quoted above, the illumination requirements of that section do not apply to telltales.

ID: nht88-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/24/88

FROM: MARTIN M. GINSBURG -- PROLINE DESIGNS

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/27/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MARTIN M. GINSBURG -- PROLINE DESIGNS; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 126; STANDARD 302 LETTER DATED 05/08/88 FROM MARTIN M. GINSBURG TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2027

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I am requesting a legal interpretation concerning Motor Vehicle Standard No. 302 and whether or not my product must comply.

The product consists of interior window coverings for pick up truck shells. The shell is a segregated area from the cab. It is placed directly over the bed of the truck. There are no seats in the bed, and the shell is installed as an after market prod uct. The window coverings are made out of an apparel type material.

Am I required to comply with this regulation? Alternatively, if I have the product treated with California Health and Safety Code Standard No. 19, and if I send you a copy of the Standard, could you determine if I have met the No. 302 Standard.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KAREN WHITEHEAD

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-9-88, TO NHTSA, FROM KAREN WHITEHEAD, OCC2019

TEXT: This is in response to your letter in which you sought information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213; copy enclosed). You provided a diagram of your back and head rest attachment which would a ccompany a child's car toddler seat. You noted that your device will allow a child's head and shoulders to be supported in an up-right position and that the back rest is anchored by slipping the motor vehicle's seat belt through elastic loops by the bac k rest and around the toddler seat. I apologize for the delay in my response.

You should be aware that your device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, and you would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, including Standard No. 213, apply to the child restraint system before its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule is that aftermarket accessories, s uch as your back and head rest, may be added to a child restraint system after its first sale.

This general rule is, however, limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any devi se 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 . . ."

You should be aware that some elements of design incorporated in child restraint systems in compliance with Standard No. 213 might be affected by adding your headrest. For example, under section S5.7, all child restraints are required to incorporate the flammability resistance requirements under standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your letter indicates that you are aware of these requirements and that your product would be in compliance with these requirements. Also, child restraint s recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds

must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That paragraph requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your back and head rest by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business would impair features provided in compliance with these or any other provision in the standard, then these entities would be rendering inoperative a Federally required element of design in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of t he Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108. Each child restraint on which a Federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a seperate violation of section 108.

Since an owner of a child restraint is not among the parties listed in section 108(a)(2)(A), he or she is not required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design specified in the safety standards. Nevertheless, this agency urges you to voluntaril y ensure that your back and head restraint would not render any such elements inoperative.

You should also be aware that as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, you would be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor ve hicle safety. If you as manufacturer or the agency determined that your product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either:

1. repair the visor so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the visor with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

Whichever of these options was chosen, you as the manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notification and remedy. Therefore, you could not charge owners of the back and head restraint for remedy if the device were first purchased less t han eight years before the notification campaign.

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

ENCLOSURE