ID: 8694

Mr. Joseph G. Wilson
President
The Monmouth Corporation
Box 143
Highlands, NJ 07732

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Thank you for your letter informing us of the Blu-Lite system, which your company developed. You stated that the system "protects a vehicle driver from the threat of rear-end collision." You enclosed a brochure for our information, and would like to demonstrate your system to us.

We regret that we cannot accept your offer for a demonstration. In addition, as discussed below, we must advise you that Blu-Lite appears to conflict with both Federal and local laws. Your brochure shows that Blu-Lite is a three compartment lamp, consisting of a center compartment with blue lens (described as "emergency stop") flanked by two "red stop lights". Blue-Lite is shown installed in the rear parcel shelf, apparently as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp. In use, Blu-Lite flashes rapidly.

The center highmounted stop lamp has been required as original equipment on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The effect of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) is to forbid any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the center highmounted stop lamp, and replacing it with any lamp that does not meet the requirements for the center lamp that was original equipment. Blu-Lite does not meet the original equipment specifications in lamp color, which must be red, and in operation, which must be steady-burning. Thus, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who substituted Blu-Lite for an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp would appear to be in violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A).

The Safety Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Blu-Lite, or any other person, including manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, from installing it on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985. However, the legality of its use must be determined under state laws. It is our impression that many states allow the use of blue lamps only on emergency vehicles. Additionally, many states have laws similar to the Federal one as it relates to the performance and use of the center highmounted stop lamp. If you wish to confirm this, we suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/21/93

ID: 8694r

Ron D. Belk, President
Kustom Fit
8990 Atlantic
Box 3004
South Gate, CA 90280

Dear Mr. Belk:

This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993, which is a follow-up to our May 6, 1993, letter in which we explained the self-certification process, "render inoperative," and "due care." You include information from tests you have done to determine whether seats you manufacture can be installed in vehicles that must comply with requirements for dynamically tested manual belts in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes.

You have experienced difficulties because of variability in belt pay-out ranging from 2.25 inches to 4.9 inches and asked whether Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209) allows this much variability. It is unclear from the information you provided what is causing the belt pay-out you are experiencing. I note that S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209 limits the amount of webbing which can extend from an automatic-locking retractor prior to the retractor locking. A similar requirement for webbing-sensitive emergency-locking retractors is included in S4.3(j). Section 4.6 of Standard No. 209 excepts dynamically tested manual belts from the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209, however, these belts must still comply with S4.3. The test for compliance with sections S4.3(i) and S4.3(j) are different from the tests you have been performing. Therefore, your tests would not indicate whether the seat belt assembly complies with these requirements of Standard No. 209.

You also asked for further advice on how to reassure your customers that vehicles will comply with Standard No. 208 with your seat installed. It is possible that you may not be able to do this. As explained in our previous letter, Standard No. 208 is applicable to vehicles and not to individual items of equipment (except for pressure devices and explosive devices used in air bags). Therefore, you, as the seat manufacturer, would have no certification responsibilities under Standard No. 208. The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify compliance with Standard No. 208. This is because compliance with Standard No. 208 is dependent on a variety of factors, including the seat, the seat belts, and the vehicle interior. Because you manufacture only the seat, you cannot control the other factors, and, therefore, probably cannot provide your clients with all the information they need in order to certify their vehicles compliance with Standard No. 208. However, you should be able to provide them with information on your seats that they can use to help determine if their vehicles comply with Standard No. 208.

Finally, you asked whether NHTSA would impose liability on you or the seat belt manufacturer if we discovered an apparent non-compliance with Standard No. 208. Because Standard No. 208 applies to the vehicle, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) imposes liability for non-compliance on the vehicle manufacturer, not the seat or seat belt manufacturer. However, state law may allow the vehicle manufacturer to recover damages from the manufacturer of either the seat or the seat belt.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208#209 d:8/16/93

ID: 8701

Mr. Richard A. Zander
AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds
32104 State Road 2
New Carlisle, IN 46552

Dear Mr. Zander:

This responds to your letter asking about the fade and recovery requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You noted that the standard requires vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to be capable of making a specified number of fade stops "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop." You stated that you are aware of a number of different understandings within the industry of the quoted phrase, and requested an interpretation as to whether vehicles must be capable of maintaining an average deceleration of at least 15 fpsps or a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps. As discussed below, vehicles must be capable of maintaining a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery test requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1. The purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions cause by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Each of the fade and recovery tests consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops, (2) fade stops, and (3) recovery stops. The requirements for the fade stops are set forth in S5.1.4.2(a), which states that:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less shall be capable of making 5 fade stops (10 fade stops on the second test) from 60 mph at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop, followed by 5 fade stops at the maximum deceleration attainable from 5 to 15 fpsps."

As you noted, S5.1.4.2(a) must be read in conjunction with S7.11.2.1, which sets forth the procedure for conducting the fade stops. It reads, in relevant part, as follows:

Make 5 stops from 60 mph at 15 fpsps followed by 5 stops at the maximum attainable deceleration between 5 and 15 fpsps for each stop. ... Attain the required deceleration within 1 second and, as a minimum, maintain it for the remainder of the stopping time. Control force readings may be terminated when the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. (Emphasis added.)

The words "required deceleration" in S7.11.2.1 refer to 15 fpsps. (That value is set forth both in S5.1.4.2(a) and the first sentence of S7.11.2.1.) Thus, in conducting fade stops, within one second of beginning a stop, a deceleration of 15 fpsps must be attained. S7.11.2.1 then specifies that, "as a minimum," the required deceleration (15 fpsps) must be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. (The word "it" in the highlighted sentence refers back to the phrase "required deceleration.") Thus, after a deceleration of 15 fpsps is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even momentarily.

You stated that you are aware of the following three understandings within the industry concerning the meaning of this requirement:

1.The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps. The average deceleration is calculated from one second after the stop begins to a vehicle speed of 5 mph.

2.After 1 second the deceleration can not drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. If the deceleration drops below 15 fpsps at any time it is considered a failure even if the average deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps.

3.The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps and the deceleration must be greater than 15 fpsps for at least 75% of the stop excluding the first second of the stop.

Of the three understandings, the first and third are inconsistent with the plain wording of S7.11.2.1 which specifies that, after the required 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), it must, as a minimum, be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. The first and third understandings would, among other things, replace S7.11.2.1's specification that the 15 fpsps deceleration be maintained as a "minimum" with one that it be maintained as an "average."

The second understanding is largely correct. It is correct to state that, in conducting a fade stop, after a 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. However, if the deceleration did drop below 15 fpsps, that would not necessarily indicate a "failure" but might simply be an invalid test. As you note in your letter, a deceleration might fall below 15 fpsps because the driver did not compensate for in-stop fade. However, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

You stated in your letter that the second understanding appears to not consider the intent of the fade procedure, the intent being that a vehicle must be capable of making multiple high deceleration stops in a short period of time without drastic changes in effectiveness. As discussed above, the purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions cause by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. If a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would indicate inadequate stopping capability during conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

You also stated that in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, published by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC), the data sheet for the fade stops requests the following information for the deceleration: "Average Sust Decel." You stated that it therefore appears that NHTSA's interpretation of the phrase "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop" is "the average sustained deceleration."

It is incorrect to interpret the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures as limiting the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I call your attention to the following note which is set forth at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure:

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

I am enclosing a copy of the most recent version of the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, in response to your request. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:105 d:3/23/94

ID: 8731

Mr. Richard J. Dessert
Proprietor, Sun Cycle Company
1550 Armacost Avenue #201
West Los Angeles, CA 90025

Dear Mr. Dessert:

This responds to your petition of May 28, 1993, to the Administrator for a temporary exemption for low emission motor vehicles that you would like to produce. These vehicles would be purchased by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The response deadline for LADWP's Request for Proposal (RFP) was June 1, 1993. You have informed us that

"As part of LADWP requirements for successful bidders, evidence of progress towards obtaining Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards certification may be provided through demonstration that an application was made with NHTSA for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards."

Because this matter affects LADWP as well as Sun Cycle Company, we are sending a copy of this response to the designated LADWP contact, Jeffrey S. Silverstone.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) did not receive your petition until June 8, and therefore had no chance to advise you with respect to it before the RFP deadline of June 1. We must inform you that the petition does not meet our procedural requirements and is not accepted for processing and action.

There are several areas in which the petition is deficient. Most importantly, it appears to be a request for a blanket exemption from compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While the applicable law and regulation do not forbid this, you should know that the Administrator has never entertained a petition of this breadth and in all probability would never grant one. An applicant for a low-emission vehicle exemption must provide sufficient information upon which the Administrator may find that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the motor vehicle, and that the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor

Vehicle Safety Act. We do not believe that the Administrator could make the requisite findings to support a blanket exemption. It is NHTSA's policy to encourage manufacturers to manufacture conforming vehicles to the extent possible, and to narrow the scope of their requests for exemption. Low-emission vehicle petitions generally cover four to 14 standards.

As part of your argument, you must set forth each individual standard from which you request exemption, and provide a detailed description of how your vehicle differs from a conforming one. You must also provide reasons why an exemption from each standard for which request is made would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle, something more than the general statement you have made that the first prototypes will "substantially comply with all the safety standards." Finally, you must present your views why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act. When we have received a petition from you that fulfills these requirements, we shall be pleased to accept it for consideration and public comment. As the vehicle you intend to manufacture is completely unknown to NHTSA, your new petition should also contain photographs or descriptive literature illustrating it.

Our closing comment is that you or the LADWP may be unclear about vehicle certification. A manufacturer does not "obtain" certification from NHTSA. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which the manufacturer certifies its vehicles after satisfying itself that it conforms to the standards, aside from those from which it may have been exempted. It does not have to have permission from NHTSA to do so. You intend to test the vehicles, and such testing could provide substantiation for your certification of compliance, or, alternatively, substantiation to NHTSA that an exemption would not unduly degrade the vehicle's safety.

If you have any questions about this matter, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366- 5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Jeffrey S. Silverstone

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Attn: Electric Vehicle RFP P.O. Box 111 Los Angeles, CA 90051-0100

ref:555 d:1/11/94

ID: 8744

Mr. Richard Glover
Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Co.
1801 Commerce Dr.
Piqua, OH 45356

Dear Mr. Glover:

This responds to your letter and telephone calls about the child seat registration form you are considering. The form is required by S5.8 of Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and is depicted in figures 9a and 9b of the standard.

You ask whether S5.8(c) permits you to place certain additional information in the shaded area on the form. The information is a bar code that you said on the telephone contains information on "date of manufacture, shift, location and serial number for the product that the card represents." You explain that the bar code is desired because it can be automatically scanned, which would avoid possible "mis-keying" of the information into the data record. Further, you state that the bar code has to be surrounded by a slightly larger unshaded "quiet zone" to enable the scanner to record the bar code information. You are concerned whether NHTSA would conclude that the quiet zone renders a part of the shaded area unshaded.

It is our opinion that a bar code that contains the information you described is permitted in the shaded area (the area outside of the space for the consumer to fill in). S5.8(c) of Standard 213 specifies the information that must be provided on the form and states the following:

No other information shall appear on the postcard, except identifying information that distinguishes a particular child restraint system from other systems of that model name or number may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a.

The bar code, printed in the shaded area, is permitted by S5.8(c). The information provided by the bar code distinguishes a particular child seat from another of the same model name or number. We consider the quiet zone as part of the bar code since it is needed for the bar code to be

reliably read. The quiet zone therefore need not be shaded, since the printed bar code (or any other identifying information permitted by S5.8(c)) itself is not.

Please note that, while the bar code is permitted, the information on the model name or number and date of manufacture must still be in English under S5.8(c). This information must be in English so that a consumer can see that this information has been provided and that only minimal effort is needed to fill out the registration form.

We also wish to note another feature of the form you faxed. Your form has the words "please print" after the instructions to the consumer "just fill in your name and address." "Please print" is not on the form depicted in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213. In an earlier letter, NHTSA decided that a minor variation in the wording of a warning expressly specified by Standard 213 was permitted when the change clarified the warning and did not make any substantive change to the warning's meaning. (Letter to Mr. McGuigan, December 18, 1980.) Similarly, "please print" is a minor variation to the wording of the instructions that clarifies the instructions and does not substantively change them. Thus, it is permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:10/20/93

ID: 8745

Mr. David Degenstein
Manager, Product Safety & Compliance
Kenworth Truck Company
P. O. Box 1000
Kirkland, WA 98083-1000

Dear Mr. Degenstein:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether a control for an automatic vehicle speed system (also known as a cruise control) would meet the location requirement of Standard No. 101, and whether the control must be illuminated. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

Your letter explained that your company is developing a vehicle that "will locate a cruise control switch in a console that is attached to the manual transmission shift lever, adjacent to the shift knob." You state that the switches on the console will be "operable by the driver." You believe that because the cruise control console's location is similar to that of a switch located on the vehicle floor console, illumination of the cruise control is not necessary.

Your first question asks whether the proposed location of the cruise control would meet Standard No. 101. S5.1 of Standard No. 101 specifies that each control listed in S5.1 "that is furnished" must be operable by the driver. S5.1 lists, under the heading of "hand operated control," the automatic vehicle speed system (i.e., the cruise control). Thus, under S5.1, a furnished hand operated cruise control must be operable by the driver.

It appears from your letter that the switches on the cruise control console are operable by the driver. Two photographs you enclosed show the cruise control as mounted on the manual transmission shift lever, and as located so close to the driver's seat as to be almost touching it. Accordingly, the proposed location of the cruise control console would be permitted by Standard No. 101.

Your second question asks whether your proposed cruise control would be subject to the illumination requirements of S5.3 of

Standard No. 101. S5.3.1 sets requirements concerning controls which must be illuminated. It provides that (except for hand operated controls mounted on the floor), any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, "Illumination," shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. The automatic vehicle speed control is listed in column 1 of Table 1 and is accompanied by "yes" in column 4. Therefore, Standard No. 101 specifies that the cruise control must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated, unless it is otherwise excepted in S5.3.1. As explained below, your cruise control would not be excepted.

You believe that the control is akin to being "mounted on the floor console" and thus excluded from S5.3.1's illumination requirements. We disagree. The dictionary definitions of "mount" include "to place on something raised," and "to place, fix, or fasten on or in the proper support, backing, etc. for the required purpose." (See Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition.) Both definitions support the view that the cruise control console is "mounted" on the transmission shift lever, not the floor. The console is placed on the transmission shift lever (i.e., "something raised"), and is "place(d), fix(ed) or fasten(ed)" on the transmission shift lever for the "required purpose" of being operable by hand. The console with the cruise control would not be operable by hand if the console were "mounted" on the floor. Since the cruise control console is mounted on the manual transmission shift lever, not on the floor, it is not excluded by S5.3.1 from the illumination requirements.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101 d:9/7/93

ID: 8746

Mr. William C. Longo
Chief Executive Officer
Ram Off Road Accessories
P.O. Box 63915
Los Angeles, CA 90063

Dear Mr. Longo:

This responds to your letter concerning possible liability involved with marketing a product you manufacture, particularly with respect to installation of the product on vehicles equipped with Supplemental Restraint Systems (SRS), also known as air bags. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. In a June 16, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, Troy Wood explained that the products are aftermarket decorative sheet metal accessories that attached to the exterior of vehicles. Your company also makes replacement bumpers for vehicles. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, this letter will discuss Federal laws which might be affected by the addition of your products on vehicles equipped with air bags. Potential liability questions should be addressed to a private attorney who is familiar with tort law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. '1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR '571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a

vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles; therefore, if your products are installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with your product installed. However, as explained in the phone conversation with Ms. Versailles of my staff, we understand your products are intended as items of after-market equipment.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing your product on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. For example, the installer would have to be careful not to activate a sensor while attaching your product, causing the air bag to deploy.

Please note that the "render inoperative" prohibition would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your product on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref: 208 d:9/29/93

ID: 8746_59

Mr. Donnell W. Morrison
1005 Drinnon Drive
Morristown, TN 37814

Dear Mr. Morrison:

We have received your letter of March 14, 1995 and its attached copy of a letter dated February 14. I am sorry to say that your earlier letter never reached us.

You asked whether the mounting height requirements for clearance and identification lamps (Table II of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108) have been amended to allow their mounting in locations other than "as high as practicable."

The requirements have not changed since you were at DOT. The primary requirement is that identification lamps are to be mounted "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable", and that clearance lamps are mounted "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . as near the top thereof as practicable." The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, to be made in its certification that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

However, when the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, paragraph S5.3.1.4 states that the rear clearance lamps need not be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. Further, if it is necessary to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear and need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard (paragraph S5.3.1.1.1).

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/10/95

ID: 8753

The Honorable Tillie K. Fowler
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
4452 Hendricks Avenue
Jacksonville, FL 32207

Your Reference: 95-0167-J

Dear Congresswoman Fowler:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dail Taylor of St. Augustine, Florida. Mr. Taylor requested assistance, stating that his company would have to stop manufacturing passenger motor vehicles if the vehicles must meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). I appreciate the concerns of Mr. Taylor as a small businessman and offer the following information.

In order to protect motorists and their passengers, a Federal statute requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs regulating motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Mr. Taylor's company, Goodlife Motor Company, wrote to NHTSA asking whether their "super golf cars" were motor vehicles and therefore subject to the FMVSSs. NHTSA's Chief Counsel responded by letter that the answer was "yes".

We were informed that the "super golf cars" are intended for use on public roads. NHTSA has two criteria for determining whether a vehicle that regularly uses the public roads is considered to be a "motor vehicle." A vehicle is not a motor vehicle if it meets both of the following criteria: the vehicle has an abnormal configuration distinguishing it from other vehicles; and the vehicle cannot attain speeds over 20 miles per hour (mph).

The "super golf cars" do not meet either criterion. We have determined that because the vehicles resemble passenger cars, they do not have an abnormal configuration. As to speed, we note that the top speed of the vehicles, 29 mph, is approximately the speed at which NHTSA conducts crash tests to see whether vehicles meet certain safety standards. It is also a speed at which vehicle occupants can readily suffer serious or even fatal injuries in a crash. We note further that older adults are more susceptible than younger adults to injury in motor vehicle crashes. This is particularly important since we understand that one of the primary expected uses of the "super golf car" is in retirement communities.

As motor vehicles, the "super golf cars" must meet the FMVSS. As the president of a small business, Mr. Taylor has a number of compliance options. First, he can comply with the current safety standards. I appreciate that the costs of compliance would be significant. Second, Mr. Taylor may petition NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to amend the current safety standards to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. NHTSA has authority to establish different levels of requirements for vehicles of different sizes. However, it lacks the authority to vary the stringency of requirements based on the size of a vehicle manufacturer.

Third, NHTSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to small manufacturers. Mr. Taylor may petition for a temporary exemption from one or more of the safety standards. However, as we explained to Mr. Taylor, temporary exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. Further, the exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across- the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted.

Mr. Taylor may himself prepare and submit any petition. We have enclosed copies of our regulations regarding petitions for rulemaking and petitions for exemption. If Mr. Taylor has any questions or needs further information on how to proceed under any of the three options discussed above, we will gladly provide assistance. Please ask him to contact Taylor Vinson at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,

Carol Stroebel, Director Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosures

ref:VSA d:4/19/95

ID: 8758

Mr. James G. O'Neill
107 Newcastle Lane
Willingboro, NJ 08046

Dear Mr. O'Neill:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that would apply to a plastic toy holder you wish to manufacture for child car seats. You indicate on a sketch provided with your letter that the toy holder would fit into a mounting bracket that is attached by screws to the car seat.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA issued Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for new child seats used in motor vehicles and aircraft. A new child seat that is sold with your toy holder attached to must be certified by the seat manufacturer as meeting Standard 213. NHTSA would determine the compliance of the new child seat with Standard 213 by, among other things, testing it with a test dummy in a 30 mph dynamic test.

Based on the information in your letter, it appears that a new child seat with your toy holder might not meet Standard 213. S5.2.2.2 of the standard specifies, among other things, that each child seat must not have any fixed or movable surface (other than restraining devices) in front of the test dummy restrained in the child seat. This requirement is to prevent items that could injure a child in a crash from being installed where they could be impacted by a child. While your sketch is unclear, it appears that the toy holder could be located in front of the dummy. If so, the toy holder could be impacted by a child in a crash.

Also, a new child seat with the toy holder attached to it might not comply with S5.2.4 of Standard 213. S5.2.4 requires any rigid part of the child seat that can be contacted by the head or torso of the dummy in the dynamic test to have a height of not more than 3/8 inch above any adjacent surface, and have no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. A restrained dummy could impact a toy holder attached to the side of the child seat if the dummy twisted during the dynamic test.

If your product will be sold to consumers as an aftermarket item, Standard 213 does not apply to it, since the standard only applies to new child seats and not to accessory items. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to the toy holder.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are subject to the defect provisions of the Safety Act. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your toy holder contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. If data indicated that a child seat accessory exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, such as a toy holder installed where it was impacted by children, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "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 ...." It appears unlikely that your product would be attached to a child seat by persons in the aforementioned categories. However, if such a person were to attach the toy holder, he or she could violate 108(a)(2)(A) if the child seat's compliance with S5.2.2.2 and S5.2.4 were compromised. Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, child seat owners could attach the toy holder without having to meet Standard 213. We reiterate, however, that in the interest of safety, a plastic toy holder should not be installed where a child could impact it in a crash.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed an information sheet that provides additional information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:8/5/93