ID: nht90-4.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-90 from S. Nishibori to P.J. Rice (OCC 4943); Attached to drawing (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter dated June 28, 1990 requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, would apply to two vehicle systems Nissan is considering using.

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 th e manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter, and during a discussion between Kazuo Iwasaki of your staff and Mary V ersailles of my staff in our offices on July 13th.

I. Car Phone

Nissan is considering introducing a car phone in certain passenger cars which has five illuminated displays. The first display shows the number being dialed. The display is illuminated whether or not the phone is in use, and the number dialed continues to be displayed while the phone is in use.

The second display illuminates the push buttons. The display becomes illuminated when the first button is pushed, and remains illuminated for 10 seconds.

The remainder of the car phone displays are LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is "in use". The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when cellular phone service is not available. The third indicator (RM) is illumina ted when outside the system's local operating area if the system is able to lock onto an available phone line. It is our understanding that there will be times when none of these three LED's will be illuminated and times when more than one of the LEDS c ould be illuminated (for example, both the IU and RM indicators).

None of the car phone displays can be turned off while the ignition switch is in the "ON" position. The illumination is not variable in any display.

You asked whether the car phone displays are "telltales" or other "sources of illumination," within the meaning of section S5.3.5, and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101.

Based upon our understanding of their functioning, the three LED indicators (IU, NS, and RM) would appear to be telltales. Both the IU and RM displays "indicate the actuation of a device", while the NS display indicates "a failure to function". Because the displays are not listed in the standard, and because they are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5 because they are telltales, they are not subject to any illumination requirements.

The other displays are not telltales. The functions of both the first display ("number dialed") and the second display ("push button") are not among those listed in the definition of a telltale. The "number dialed" display provides information in much the same way as a fuel gauge. The illumination of the push buttons functions to facilitate dialing.

Because these displays are not among those listed in Standard No. 101, and because they are not telltales, they are subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. Therefore, these displays must "have either (1) light intensity which is manually or autom atically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off." Based upon your description, none of these requirements are currently met.

II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light

In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated only if both the air-conditioning operating switch and the ignition switch are in the "ON" position. You indicate that you believe the indicator is a telltale, and that if it is a t elltale "it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions."

Because the indicator light indicates actuation of a device, i.e., the air conditioner, you are correct that it is a telltale. NHTSA would like to clarify that, with the exception of the requirements of section S5.3.5, FMVSS 101 regulates only controls and displays listed in the standard. Since the air-conditioning indicator light you describe is not listed in the standard, and because telltales are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5, there are no illumination requirements.

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

ID: nht90-4.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Nelson Behar -- National Marketing Director, LooPo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to NHTSA information sheet dated 9-85 entitled Where To Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-11-90 from N. Behar to S. Kratzke

TEXT:

This responds to your fax to Steve Kratzke of my staff, in which you asked whether LooPo, which you described as "a seatbelt slacking device," complies with current regulatory and statutory requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide you with the following information.

It is not entirely clear how your company's "slacking device" would work. One type of "slacking device" is the comfort clip, in which a device is attached to the safety belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the safe ty belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken up by the belt's retractor. We have explained how our regulations apply to comfort clips in a February 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Lewis Quetel (copy enclosed). Another type of "slacking device" is one that clips the shoulder belt to the lap belt nearer the middle of the wearer's abdomen. We have explained how our regulations apply to these belt positioning devices in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin (copy enclosed). I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as this product.

As our previous letters explain, aftermarket sales and installation of these devices by individual vehicle owners are not prohibited by any Federal statutory or regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the use of these devices raises some serious safety c oncerns if the devices result in the introduction of excess slack into the shoulder belt or otherwise reduce the safety protection afforded by the safety belts.

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

ID: nht90-4.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1990

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown & Platt

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Fidelity Tire notification

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-6-90 to E.Z. Jones from S.P. Wood (A36; Std.119)

TEXT:

This letter confirms our telephone conversation of today in which you advised me that NHTSA is in receipt of notification dated January 5, 1990 from Fidelity Tire Manufacturing Company of Natchez, Mississippi regarding their manufacture of a tire, size P 155/8ODl3 Load Range C (41 psi and 1047 lb. load carrying capacity), with a specified wheel rim of 4 1/2 JB, 13". You advised me that the notification from Fidelity contains all the information necessary to comply with the notification requirements of Fe deral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 (S.5) for tires and rims not listed in the publication of a recognized tire and rim association.

Please advise me as soon as possible if my understanding of our conversation is not correct, as our client who has purchased these tires from Fidelity, will be proceeding to offer for sale a product employing these tires in reliance on our understanding that the notification requirements have been satisfied.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

ID: nht90-4.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Martin E. Simms -- Chartered Consulting Engineer

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to instruction sheet dated 9-85 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Standards and Regulations (text omitted)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter on behalf of an Australian client who is proposing to construct, in conjunction with an American company, vehicles for sale in both Australia and the United States. You asked a number of questions about the substantive and procedural requirements of the safety standards. I will answer your questions in order.

1. What standards currently apply in America to 4 wheel drive vehicles (of about the same size as your Ford F350)? Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards still the current standards?

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are still the applicable standards. The FMVSS may be found in Part 571 of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR Part 571). Each standard states the classes of motor vehicles to which it applies. Examples of classes of vehicles are passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Definitions of those terms may be found in the definitions section of the FMVSS (49 CFR S571.3).

2. Where can those standards be purchased and at what cost?

The FMVSS may be obtained from: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Phone: (202) 783-3238 Prices must be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents since they are subject to periodic change. For further information, please refer to the information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" that is encl osed with this letter.

3. What is the procedure for proving compliance with American Federal standards and how long does it take to obtain approval (from time of application) to be able to market a vehicle?

The United States does not have an approval process similar to that of some other nations. In the United States, a manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certificati on need not be based on actual tests, but may, in appropriate situations, be based on engineering judgment or computer simulations. The manufacturer is required to exercise due care in making the certification. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567.

4. What government costs/fees are associated with seeking approval to

market a vehicle in America?

As explained above, the United States does not have an approval system.

5. Is there a classification system for vehicle types under U.S. Federal standards?

There is a classification system for motor vehicle types. Examples of classifications are passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. These terms are defined at 49 CFR S571.3.

6. In instances where our Australian design rule standards are based on FMVSS rules, would testing done in Australia to FMVSS standards be acceptable in America?

As discussed above, there is no requirement in the United States that manufacturers submit test data for approval. Instead, manufacturers must exercise due care in certifying their compliance with the FMVSS. In appropriate cases, manufacturers may be a ble to rely on testing done in Australia to certify compliance with some United States safety standards.

7. Is there any requirement for testing laboratories to meet specific standards for compliance with FMVSS standards?

There is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. However, an element of the due care that manufacturers must exercise in certifying compliance with FMVSS would be to use appropriate testing laboratories.

8. What requirements exist for the retention and/or submission of test data to American Federal agencies?

As mentioned above, manufacturers are not required to submit test data to have their vehicles approved. However, manufacturers would be well advised to retain such data as evidence of their due care in certifying compliance with the FMVSS. In addition, manufacturers must retain records concerning nonconformity with the FMVSS and possible defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Requirements concerning record retention may be found at 49 CFR Part 576.

9. In Australia, compliance with certain FMVSS standards will be accepted as compliance with Australian standards in some instances (subject to actual test data being submitted to the Australian authorities). Does such an arrangement exist in America?

As discussed above, manufacturers are not required to submit test data as part of any vehicle approval process. Manufacturers, in their exercise of due care in certifying compliance with the FMVSS, may rely on compliance with Australian standards in app ropriate instances. This would be most appropriate when the Australian standard is identical to the FMVSS requirement.

You also asked if there is other information about which your client should be aware. Your client should know that all manufacturers

headquartered outside of the United States must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders, and decisions. This designation is to be mailed to the Chief Counsel of NHTSA. In accordance with 49 CFR S551.45, the designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

7. The signature of one with authority to appoint the agency. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

I have enclosed, for your review, a designation letter which has been accepted by the agency.

In addition, your client should know that the Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers concerning safety-related defects and failures to comply with the FMVSS and to remedy such defects and noncompliances without charge. Please ref er to 49 CFR Parts 573, 577, and 579 for further details.

We are enclosing an information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." This document highlights the major regulatory provisions that may be applicable to your client.

I hope that you find this information useful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: nht90-4.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Roden -- Roden & Hayes

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your questions about the requirements for key-locking systems in section S4.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). As explained below, the enclosed copy of the agency's recent final rul e amending this provision may be relevant to your inquiry (55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990).

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

One such Federal safety standard is Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

Your first question asked whether section S4.2(b) requires key locking systems to prevent removal of the ignition key except when the transmission is in the "park" position. Section S4.2(b) currently requires such vehicles to have a "key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent...(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both." However, the agency has recently amended section S4.2(b) to read as follows:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

You should be aware that this amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) merely requires that when the key is removed, the key-locking system must prevent steering or forward self-mobility, or both. This provision does not address the issue of the transmission's position at the time of key removal. In contrast, under the recent amendment applicable to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) requires automatic transmissi on vehicles to prevent removal of the key unless the

transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

Your second question asked whether a replacement key-locking system is required to comply with Standard No. 114. Because Standard No. 114 applies to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment, the standard does not in itself require aftermark et replacement systems to comply with its requirements. However, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly "rendering inopera tive," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard.

Your third question asked how long the key locking system is required to perform under S4.2(b) of the standard. The Vehicle Safety Act only requires manufacturers to assure that vehicles and equipment comply with applicable safety standards at the time of the first consumer purchase.

However, please note that if at any time a manufacturer or the agency determines that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, which could result from the failure of a system to operate properly, the manufacturer is required to no tify all product purchasers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge. See 15 U.S.C. SS 1411-1414.

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

(Attached is a copy of 55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990 (text omitted))

ID: nht90-4.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marc J. Fink -- Esq., Dow, Lohnes & Albertson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-25-90 from M.J. Fink and S.C. Crampton (Signature by S.C. Crampton) to R.F. Hellmuth (OCC 4866)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 25, 1990, to Robert F. Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, on behalf of your client, John A. Rosatti. Mr. Rosatti would like to import a nonconforming Porsche 959 into the United States as a "demo nstration" car. He intends to promote business by displaying it in his automobile dealerships and does not intend to drive it on the roads. Specifically, he would like to display it in his Acura dealership to build showroom traffic. He has offered to remove the engine, and to declare that, if the car is transferred by sale or inheritance, "the new owner will be bound to keep the engine and body of the car separate."

In support of your request, you argue that entry into the United States is permissible pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(j), which implements 15 U.S.C. 1397(j). This section provides that the agency may exempt any person from the prohibitions in sections 1397(a) (1)(A) and (c)(1) "upon such terms and conditions as (NHTSA) may find necessary for the purpose of research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training, or competitive racing events."

We are unable to agree with your interpretation and arguments. The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, which added 15 U.S.C. 1397(c) through (j), responded to a report of the General Accounting Office which indicated that a large number of n onconforming vehicles were being imported into the United States without sufficient assurances or evidence that they were being brought into compliance with all applicable Federal safety standards. The provisions that were enacted by Congress represent a significant, and, we believe, restrictive change from the regulations previously in force, and a clear directive to the agency to proceed in accordance with the new statutory language.

The agency's previous position is represented by language that you cite in the preamble of the final rule (which you term Supplemental Information) adopting Part 591:

"Importation for this class of noncomplying motor vehicles (i.e., demonstration vehicles) has been permitted pursuant to the assumption that motor vehicle safety would not be affected by the temporary importation of noncomplying motor vehicles not generally used on the public roads, and whose appearance on them would be limited." (54 FR 40076).

Under the previous regulation, vehicles could be imported for purposes of "show, test, experiment, competition, repair, or alterations" (19 CFR

12.80(b)(1)(vii)). You will note that, contrary to your parenthetical statement, the demonstration exception did not exist in the old regulation. The most appropriate exception in the old regulation for what your client contemplates was the one for "sh ow." Under 591.5(j) of the new regulation, which follows the language of the statute, a vehicle may be imported for the purposes outlined in the second paragraph of this letter, none of which include "show." We interpreted "show" to mean "to cause to b e seen," such as in a static display. We do not interpret the word "demonstrations" as encompassing static display; a vehicle is "demonstrated" to a prospective purchaser, for example, by allowing him or her to drive it on the public roads. However, wi th respect to the new regulation, we have interpreted the word "demonstration" only in the context of allowing importation of nonconforming vehicles by registered importers who wish to prove, or demonstrate, that the vehicle is capable of conformance mod ification under one of the provisions of 1397(c)(3)(A)(i). This, of course, is not the situation with your client, and we decline to provide the interpretation you suggest, as we do not believe that an importation under that circumstance accords with th e intent of Congress.

ID: nht90-4.18

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 21, 1990

FROM: Julie Gonzalez -- Keiper Recaro

TO: Paul J. Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-90 from P.J. Rice to J. Gonzalez (A36; VSA 108(a)(2); Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Our company Keiper Recaro is a manufacturer of automobile seats. We install the seats into vehicles on an aftermarket basis. To complete the installation we use an adapter bracket to mount our seat into the vehicle. In some vehicles we mount our seat o nto our adapter bracket and then mount that assembly onto the original equipment manufacture's seat track. In some of these cases the seat belt buckle is attached to the OEM seat. We would like to remove the OEM belt buckle from the OEM seat and attach it to our adapter bracket. Please send us a list and description of the tests and safety standards we must meet.

In other vehicles we must remove the OEM seat track and use a Recaro seat track. In these cases the Recaro Seat is mounted onto the Recaro seat tracks which mount onto a Recaro adapter bracket that mounts onto the floor. In this situation we would like to mount the OEM seat belt buckle to the adapter bracket which bolts to the floor. Please send a list and description of the tests and safety standards we must meet.

Enclosed is a print of a typical bracket we design at Recaro. The drawing shows the belt buckle mounting location in relation to the occupants hip point.

If you need more information or have any questions, please call at 1-800-873-2276.

ID: nht90-4.19

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 24, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ricky Bass -- Q.C. Manager, Terminal Service Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from R. Bass to P.J. Rice (OCC 5072); Also attached to design drawing of lamp (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1990. You have asked us whether it would be permissible to use a triple lamp cluster, each lamp containing a dual filament bulb, to perform identification and stop lamp functions on cargo tank trucks. The cl uster would be mounted not less than 10 feet 6 inches above the road surface. You believe that with this design, the function of the identification lamp "will be intact."

In telephone conversations with agency personnel on September 11, 1990, you clarified that you would like to have this device installed on all new tank trucks, and installed on vehicles in use when they are returned for extensive repairs. The device is intended to supplement the vehicle's conventional stop lamps.

With respect to new tank trucks, Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard. The determination of impairment is to be made initially by the truck manufacturer in its certification of compliance with all applicable standards, and if the decision appears to be clearly erroneous, NHTSA will so inform the manufacturer. In the present case, the required lighting devices that concern us are the i dentification lamps, and the conventional stop lamps. As the triple cluster will continue to be illuminated, though with a somewhat greater intensity in the stop lamp mode, we do not consider that the device would impair the effectiveness of the identifi cation lamps.

As for whether the device would impair the effectiveness of the conventional stop lamps, we note that the triple lamp cluster will be located from 126 inches to 156 inches above the road surface. Under Standard No. 108, the conventional stop lamps canno t be located more than 72 inches from the road surface. We judge from the configuration of the tank truck that, in actuality, the lamps will be mounted substantially lower than 72 inches. We raise the possibility that the activation of the supplementar y lamps, which are located at such a distance from the conventional ones, could create momentary confusion in a driver immediately following a truck equipped with the device.

You also wish to install the device on trucks in use, when they are due for major repairs. The sole Federal restraint upon modifications of this nature is that, when performed by vehicle or equipment manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair busine sses, they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As we understand it, your company would perform these modifications on its own vehicles. Th erefore, the prohibition would not come into play. Even

if the modifications were done by, for example, a motor vehicle repair business, it would be substituting one type of identification lamp for another. We see no problem with the substitution by itself. However, to the extent that the supplementary stop lamps might impair the effectiveness of the conventional stop lamps on new trucks, their installation by the repair business could be considered as rendering the conventional stop lamps partially inoperative, within the meaning of the statutory prohibit ion for vehicles in use.

Vehicles in use are also subject to the laws of the States in which they are registered and operated. Since we are not conversant with State laws, we suggest that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevar d, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

ID: nht90-4.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jonathan P. Reynolds -- Esq., Cosco Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-28-89 from J.P. Reynolds to S. Kratzke (OCC 4213); Also attached to Cosco child restraint labels and instruction sheets (graphics and text omitted)

TEXT:

You sent us a letter describing various aspects of the Cosco "Dream Ride" convertible infant restraint/car bed, including the labeling and printed instructions for the bed. You said in your letter that Cosco previously sent the labels and instructions t o NHTSA's enforcement office. I regret we have been unable to find them.

Your description of the instructions indicates that Cosco informs the user that the bed should be installed in the right-rear or the right-front seating position only. You state that Cosco believes the bed should not be installed in the center rear seat ing position, because a child lying in the bed in that seating position might strike the left-rear door or body panel in a side impact on the driver's side. Standard 213 requires the bed to meet the requirements of the standard when installed at the cen ter seating position of the seat assembly used for child seat testing (S6.1.2.1.1). If a manufacturer can meet the requirements with the seat in that position, the manufacturer may specify the types of seating positions in which the child restraint syst em can or cannot be used (S5.6.1.2) for adequate protection to the child. Thus, Cosco's limiting instruction is permitted.

Please note that Standard 213's requirements for installation instructions (S5.6.1) require the instructions to state also that, according to accident statistics, children are safer when restrained in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions. (S5.6.1.1) The installation instructions you provide must include the statement required by S5.6.1.1.

You request our comments on your product's "compliance with FMVSS 213." NHTSA does not certify or approve in advance motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and does not comment on a product's compliance with the FMVSS's outside the context of the age ncy's compliance testing. We therefore are unable to confirm whether your product complies with Standard 213.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht90-4.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 25, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. and Mrs. Albert J. Fasel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-24-90 from Mr. and Mrs. A.J. Fasel to A.H. Neill, Jr. (OCC 5149); Also attached to drawing entitled "Eye-Level Turn Signal" (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1990, to Arthur H. Neill of this agency. You have asked for an interpretation that Federal law or regulations do not prohibit "turn signals being amber and is no way an impairment to the function of the cent er high mounted red stop lamp."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, allows the use of amber turn signals. However, since you have enclosed a drawing of a device consisting of a center highmounted stop flanked by right and left amber turn signals, your actual question appears to be whether this device is legally acceptable under Federal law.

The "Abstract" you enclosed states that the stop function "is used in conjunction with the rear bumper signal lights", indicating that the intent of the device is to provide a supplementary turn signal to a vehicle's original turn signal system. Two dif ferent models are proposed: "One model for use with an already existing rear window light or without one." The device would be available through parts stores and mail order catalogues.

With respect to aftermarket sales of motor vehicle equipment such as yours, there is only one Federal restriction: if the equipment is installed on a vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, it must not "render i noperative, in whole or in part", any element of design, or device, installed by the vehicle's manufacturer in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If a passenger car already has a center highmounted stop lamp, the model of your device that does not incorporate a center lamp (i.e., consisting only of the turn signal portion) will "straddle" it. As long as the installation of your device does not af fect the performance of the existing center highmounted lamp that has been installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 (for example, such as being wired in a way that reduces the light output of the center lamp) it appears permissible.

If a vehicle was manufactured before Standard No. 108 required it to have a center lamp, it does not appear that installation of the model of your device that incorporates a center highmounted stop lamp could in any way "render inoperative" any of the ot her rear lighting devices required by Standard No. 108.

However, in either event, you should ensure that the size of the device is such that it does not interfere with the field of view requirements of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, in order that compliance with this standard may be maintained after installation of your device. I include a copy of Standard No. 111 for your information.

Finally, even if your device is acceptable under the conditions I have discussed above, it must not violate the laws of any State where it is used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but suggest that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Enclosure

(Attached is a copy of Standard No. 111 (text omitted))