ID: nht80-3.46

DATE: 09/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 18, 1980, to the Administrator and myself and confirms a telephone conversation between Mr. Devin of your office and Taylor Vinson of ours, on August 5, 1980.

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Does any Federal Regulation address the issue of inter-mixing motorcycle and other motor vehicle parts?"

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a copy of which I enclose, is the authority for Federal regulation of the manufacture of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571) implement the Act.

Neither the Act nor the Standards directly address the issue of the intermixing of parts of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. However, use of one half of a passenger car headlighting system is permitted as a motorcycle headlighting system (See paragraph S4.1.1.34 of 49 CFR 571.108). As a general rule, under the Act and Standards use of motorcycle equipment as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles is not prohibited unless such use creates a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the vehicles or a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any "manufacturer", "distributor", "dealer", or "motor vehicle repair business" from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding anyone but the owner of a vehicle in use from removing and substituting original vehicle equipment if it results in a noncompliance. This prohibition has at least a theoretical application to the intermixing of vehicle parts.

"2. Can NHTSA provide any suggestions, recommendations or guidance on this matter?"

We are unable to be helpful because few instances of intermixing came to mind. We are currently in litigation with an importer of European passenger car headlamps that are purportedly certified only to "motorcycle" requirements but which, in fact, are being sold for use on passenger cars. This would not appear to be a true instance of intermixing since there appears to be little market for them as motorcycle headlamps. Generally, however, it would not appear sound practice to use equipment in an application not intended by its manufacturer.

"3. We would also like to know your position on 'kit cars'".

There are no regulations or standards applicable to "kit cars" per se, nor do we even have a definition of the term. But some general principles apply under the Act nonetheless.

The classic "kit car" operation involves the removal of an old vehicle body from its chassis and its replacement with a new one. The resulting assemblage retains the title of the vehicle's original incarnation. As the Act defines a "manufacturer" to include one who assembles motor vehicles, a person in the business of assembling kit cars bears the manufacturer's statutory responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) for notification and remedy in the event his assembly operations create a safety related defect in the vehicle.

A newly-assembled vehicle using its previous title is considered "used" and does not have to comply with the safety standards that apply to "new" vehicles. However, we interpret Section 108(a)(2)(A), discussed in response to your first question, as requiring the assembler, if it is the party removing the old body, to insure that the vehicle upon completion of reassembly had it been originally manufactured with the new body meet the standards with which it would have complied. For example, if a new fiberglass convertible body is mounted on the chassis of a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle, the vehicle must meet all standards that apply to 1972 convertibles. If it does not, its assembler as a "manufacturer" appears to be obligated under the Act to notify purchasers and remedy the noncompliances.

Some of the safety standards apply to individual equipment items such as tires, lighting equipment, glazing and seat belts. Any item covered by a Federal equipment standard and supplied in the kit must meet such standard.

Outside this framework our position is necessarily determined by the facts of each use but generally, the greater the number of new parts used in a vehicle, the more likely we are to consider it as one which must meet the standards that apply to new vehicles.

If you have any further questions Mr. Vinson will be happy to answer them (202-426-9511).

SINCERELY,

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

July 18, 1980

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: State Vehicle Programs

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is presently reviewing its Vehicle Equipment and Inspection Requlations. As part of this process, a question has arisen as to the origin of Section 483.6(d), "Components - Motorcycle components and components of other motor vehicles are not compatible and shall not be intermixed in a specially constructed or reconstructed vehicle." I request an answer to the following questions:

1. Does any Federal Regulation address the issue of intermixing motorcycle and other motor vehicle parts?

2. Can NHTSA provide any suggestions, recommendations, or guidance on this matter?

3. We would also like to know your position on "kit cars."

Your prompt attention to this request will be greatly appreciated. In order to expedite our resolution of this matter, I would like to request that a member of your staff contact Mr. Maurice Devin at (717) 787-1829, as soon as the above questions can be answered. A follow-up letter confirming the telephone conversation is also requested, so the information can be placed in our files.

Robert P. Spena, D.S.W. Director Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations

ID: nht80-3.47

DATE: 09/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Great Plains Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1980 concerning an evaporative cooler you are considering manufacturing for use on motor vehicles. You explained that the unit would mount just outside the upper portion of the passenger window and would block approximately the upper 3 1/2 inches and protrude to the right of the drip rail approximately 10 inches. The following discussion answers your questions and outlines your responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., a copy of which is enclosed)

You first asked whether your evaporative cooler would violate any Federal safety regulations. The agency has not issued any Federal motor vehicle safety standard directly establishing requirements for evaporative coolers. However, as explained below, installation of your cooler may be affected by the agency's proposed standard on direct fields of view. That proposal would prohibit certain obstructions in the driver's field of view. I have enclosed a copy of that notice of proposed rulemaking. 'The agency does not plan to take final action on this proposal until early next year.)

If the field of direct view standard is adopted, then installation of an evaporative cooler in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's sale to the first purchaser could be affected by section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, and the agency's certification regulation (49 CFR 567, a copy of which is enclosed). If a cooler is installed as an add-on item of motor vehicle equipment by a vehicle dealer prior to the vehicle's delivery to the first purchaser, then section 567.7 of the certification regulation would apply. That section provides that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle prior to its first purchase must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms to all applicable standards. Thus, a new vehicle would have to comply with the fields of view requirements with the cooler installed.

Whether or not your cooler is covered by a Federal safety standard, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you are required to comply with the provisions of the Act pertaining to safety-related defects (sections 151-159, 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). Thus, if your company learns of a defect relating to motor vehicle safety in its evaporative coolers, you would be required to notify this agency, as well as owners, purchasers or dealers of the equipment, concerning the defect and to remedy the defect without charge. Parts 573, 576, 577 and 579 of the agency's regulations (49 CFR 573, 576, 577 and 579) define in detail a manufacturer's defect recordkeeping, reporting notification and remedy responsibilities with regard to safety-related defects. I have enclosed copies of those (Illegible Word).

You also asked whether you must check each state code prior to sale of your evaporative cooler in that state, since some states may have regulations that are more restrictive than the Federal regulations. In the absence of a Federal standard directly affecting evaporative coolers, state regulations would govern the sale of your cooler. If there was a Federal standard affecting the installation of your cooler, then the Federal regulation may preempt conflicting State regulations. Section 103(d) of the Act provides that no State may have a standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance" of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, unless the state standard is "identical to the Federal standard." The Act does authorize State to establish higher standards of performance than the applicable Federal standard for vehicles or equipment procured for its own use. A determination of whether a Federal standard on direct fields of view would preempt a state standard on the same subject can only be made on a case-by-case basis after final action is taken on the field of view proposal and after reviewing the particular State standard.

You also asked whether you could use certain statements on your cooler advising people to check state regulations before installing the cooler. The validity of such statements would be regulated by state law. Finally, you asked how you could obtain copies of state vehicle codes and information about obtaining a wavier or amendment of such codes. A law library may have copies of such codes. Otherwise, you will probably have to write to each State agency regulating motor vehicles to obtain a copy of their codes.

I hope this information is of help to you. Please contact Steve Oesch of my office if you have any further questions about Federal regulations affecting your product at (202-426-2992).

ID: nht80-3.48

DATE: 09/12/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Raphael Musto; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 22, 1980 concerning an inquiry regarding regulations for off-road vehicles, which was referred to us by Kenneth S. Birnbaum, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Department of Transportation. Your constituent, Mr. Steve Schwika, asked about regulations for off-road vehicles (terrane vehicles - 6 wheel).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues both fuel economy standards and Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As explained below, six-wheel terrane vehicles are not subject to fuel economy standards. However, without more detailed information concerning the vehicles, we cannot give a definitive answer as to whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards would be applicable. Nonetheless, we can provide guidelines for use in determining the status of these vehicles.

Pursuant to Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. @ 2001), this agency has promulgated regulations which establish the categories of motor vehicles that are subject to fuel economy standards. The regulations (49 CFR Part 523) state that fuel economy standards are applicable only to automobiles, light trucks, and automobiles capable of off-highway travel. Under the definitions set forth at 15 U.S.C. @ 2001 and in the regulations, fuel economy standards are only issued for four-wheeled vehicles. A six-wheel terrane vehicle would not, therefore, be subject to fuel economy standards.

Our safety standards apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a "motor vehicle" under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 102(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391(3)) defines "motor vehicle" as: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer has reason to expect will use public highways at least part of the time. We are enclosing an information sheet which gives further guidelines on which vehicles are subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as well as an information sheet explaining where copies of the regulations may be obtained.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

August 22, 1980

Kenneth Birnbaum, Acting Director of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation Dear Mr. Birnbaum:

Mr. Steve Schwika of Box 167, Penn Lake, White Haven, Pennsylvania 18661, has asked me to help him obtain formation on the regulations for off-road vehicles (terrane vehicles - 6 wheel).

Please be good enough to favor me with your comments.

RAPHAEL MUSTO, Member of Congress

ID: nht80-3.49

DATE: 09/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Uniroyal Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1980, requesting interpretation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR @ 575.104) with regard to the assignment of treadwear grades. You report that Uniroyal has encountered variations in treadwear test data derived from UTQG tests conducted by different testing organizations. You ask whether a tire manufacturer is obligated under the UTQG treadwear grading procedure to base its grades on those test results which produce the lowest treadwear grade, or may use any available test data as the basis for grade assignment.

Uniform Tire Quality Grading, as with other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations, involves a self-certification process in which manufacturers bear the primary responsibility for assuring that their products conform to required levels of performance, in this case the levels represented by their assigned grades. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) conducts testing to verify that various tires actually provide levels of performance consistent with their grades. When OVSC testing produces results at variance with assigned grades, the manufacturer involved is given an opportunity to provide justification for its grade assignments.

In determing that a product achieves a particular level of performance under the UTQG procedures, a manufacturer may exercise a considerable degree of discretion as to the amount of testing necessary to assure that its conclusions regarding compliance will withstand NHTSA scrutiny. In evaluating the performance of a product, NHTSA does not require that a manufacturer base its judgment on any particular piece of test data or on all available data. In fact, a manufacturer may disregard data from a particular source entirely, if the manufacturer can establish that other data provides a reasonable basis for grading.

However, a manufacturer cannot establish compliance by arbitrarily picking and choosing among available data to select results of that test which happened to produce the most favorable result. Data used to establish compliance must be reliable and consistently reproducible, and cannot have been derived through manipulative devices, e.g., abusive driving, or unexacting test procedures. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to base its conclusions on data demonstrably developed in full conformance with the requirements of the regulation.

NHTSA will provide confidential treatment for your letter of August 14, 1980, and the accompanying data.

ID: nht80-3.5

DATE: 06/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 17, 1980, to Mr. Vladislav Radoich concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You asked if a child restraint has "shoulder straps that attach to a shield or barrier, and these straps in turn are connected to a crotch strap in continuous loop by way of going behind and then coming up from below the shell, would these belts then be considered an integral part of the shield and would attaching the crotch strap to the shield by means of a buckle be allowed?"

Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. The principal misuse involves the failure to attach buckles and latches. To ensure that children using child restraints are afforded protection notwithstanding such misuse, the standard specifies that the belts are to be attached to restraining shield during testing only if they are an integral part of the shield. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines "integral" as meaning "formed as a unit with another part." Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they are intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and thus are not subject to the type of misuse described above. The crotch strap you describe is not an integral part of the movable shield. The movable shield is a complete unit by itself. The crotch strap is a separate device that must be manually connected to the shield every time the unit is used.

You also asked if belts that must be adjusted to fit a child are prohibited by the standard. The standard does not prohibit adjustable belts. Section 5.4.2 of the standard does, however, establish requirements for any belt adjustment hardware used in the restraint.

Finally, you asked whether a surface, which is contactable by the test dummy head, that "is not a rigid surface but instead is a soft flexible part or sling type of surface" would have to be covered with energy absorbing foam. Section 5.2.3.1 provides that each child restraint system, other than a harness, which is recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with the performance requirments of section 5.2.3.2. Section 5.2.3.2 provides that "Each surface, except for protusions that comply with S5.2.4, which is contactable by the dummy head when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1 shall be covered with slow-recovery, energy-absorbing material" of specified characteristics. The requirement for padding applies to any surface contactable by the test dummy's head, regardless of whether the surface is rigid or flexible. If the contactable surface is made of a flexible material that would meet the thickness and performance requirements for energy-absorbing padding set in section 5.2.3.2(a) and (b), the surface would not have to have a separate layer of energy-absorbing padding placed on top of it.

If you have any additional questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

COSCO

Vladislav. Radovich Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

April 17, 1980

Dear Mr. Radovich:

We are in the process of evaluating various new concepts for future car seats we may produce. In this evaluation, we find that we are uncertain what will or will not be allowed when attaching fixed or movable surfaces directly forward of the child.

In the 213-80 Juvenile Car Seat Standard, under Section S6.1.2.3.1(c), it says "For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2.2 which is being tested under the conditions of test configuration II, do not attach any of the child restraint belt unless they are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface." Would you more clearly define what would be considered as "belts . . . (that) are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface."

If there are shoulder straps that attach to a shield or barrier, and these straps in turn are connected to a crotch strap in a continuous loop by way of going behind and then coming up from below the shell, would these belts then be considered an integral part of the shield and would attaching the crotch strap to the shield by means of a buckle be allowed? Further, would it be considered within the Standard if these belts required adjusting to fit the child? I am attaching a sketch of the type of car seat I am describing.

Another clarification is needed concerning areas that are contactable by the head requiring energy absorbing foam. Under Section S5.2.3.2, it says, "Each system surface which is contactable by the dummy's head when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1 shall be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material . . ." if the area that is contactable is not a rigid surface but instead is a soft flexible part or even a sling type of surface, would such surfaces also require being covered with energy absorbing foam?

Now that we have a Standard that gives us a starting point, we are eager to develop a new generation of car seats that will be even safer and easier to use. To do such innovative development takes considerable time. The earlier we can get your official answers to our questions to unclear parts of the Standard, the earlier we can get better car seats on the market. We hope you will be able to give these questions and those we have submitted to you earlier your immediate attention.

Roy Knoedler Senior Industrial Designer

ENC.

Crotch strap is a continuous loop attached to the shoulder straps. The crotch strap detaches by means of a buckle.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-3.50

DATE: 09/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 24 1980 NOA-30

Mr. H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Miyazawa:

This responds to your August 4, 1980, letter asking whether several vehicle components would be required to comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. In particular you ask whether a headlining lamp, a courtesy lamp installed on a door panel, or various pilot indicator lamps and meters installed in the front panel must comply with the requirements.

As you stated in your letter, Section S4.1 of the standard lists the components required to comply with the standard. Further, that section states that materials designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants must comply with the standard. Since the components that you mention are not listed in S4.1 and since they do not appear to be designed to absorb energy on contact by an occupant, we conclude that they are not required to comply with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 4, 1980

Att.: Mr. James B. Gregory Administrator

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator Washington, D. C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re.: The Components to which FMVSS No.302 is Applied

Dear Mr. Gregory,

In FMVSS No.302 S4.1., the following is prescribed and the components to which this standard applies are mentioned.

S4.1 The portions described in S4.2 of the following components of vehicle occupant compartments shall meet the requirements of S4.3: Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

We would like to ask you whether the following components are applied to by this standard.

1. Room lamp installed on the headlining

2. Courtesy lamp installed on the door panel

3. Various pilot indicator lamps and various meters installed on the front panel

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Yours faithfully,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ha/ha

ID: nht80-3.6

DATE: 06/20/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses - James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/26/88 letter from Erika Jones to Frank Reynolds (Std. 111; A32)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 28, 1980, concerning Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Your letter refers to section 9.1 of the standard, but the questions themselves are concerned with section 9.2 of the standard.

You asked whether the standard requires the use of more than one outside crossview convex mirror on a schoolbus. Section 9.2 provides, in part, "Each schoolbus, except those that are forward control vehicles, shall have a convex mirror . . . ." The use of the singular noun "mirror" means that only one convex mirror can be used to meet the requirements of section 9.2.

You also asked the agency to define the word, "view" as that word is used in the portion of section 9.2 that requires the outside crossview convex mirror to be "mounted so as to provide the driver a view of the front bumper. . . ." As explained in the notice proposing the use of crossview mirrors, the purpose of the requirement is to "address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transportation." The agency explained that "to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children it is necessary that the school bus driver have the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle, including the front" (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975). Use of a crossview mirror allows the driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there, before moving the bus.

The agency used the word "view" in its ordinary, dictionary sense to mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus.

Please note that the agency's November 6, 1978, proposal (43 FR 51657) to upgrade the standard would establish new field of view requirements for the crossview mirror. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

April 28, 1980

Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: FMVSS #111-76 Rearview Mirrors

Dear Mr. Chief Counsel: The subject standard states in Section S9.1 that each school bus shall have a convex mirror.

Since the singular tense is used, a school bus having one (1) convex mirror would be deemed to be in compliance, is this correct?

Further on in this section, the Standard speaks. . . . "And mounted so as to provide the driver a view of the front bumper . . ."

We would appreciate it if you would furnish us a definition of the word "view" as used in this standard.

Thanking you in advance, we remain

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

James Tydings Specifications Engineer

ID: nht80-3.7

DATE: 06/23/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Tierney

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of June 10, 1980, with Stephen Oesch of this office concerning the Federal requirements applicable to the installation of auxiliary fuel tanks in passenger cars.

I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency issued last August which discussed the general implication of such installations under Federal law. If after reviewing this material you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Oesch.

ID: nht80-3.8

DATE: 06/23/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flair Interiors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether an assembler of automotive seating would be responsible for defects in the metal frames used in the seats. Apparently, you purchase metal frames from a supplier and then pad and cover them as vehicle seats.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment pursuant to authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.). There are two safety standards directly applicable to vehicle seating, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. However, both of these standards apply only to completed vehicles and are, therefore, the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, not a supplier such as your company.

In addition to the Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are responsible for any defects in their products which affect motor vehicle safety. Under 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 579.5, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for any safety-related defect determined to exist in the vehicle or in any item of original equipment, including the original seats. Each manufacturer of an item of replacement equipment is responsible for any safety-related defect in that equipment. Therefore, if you are selling your seats to a vehicle manufacturer, that manufacturer would be responsible for the seats. If, however, you are selling the seats as aftermarket equipment, you would be responsible for their safety.

This means you would have to recall the equipment and remedy free of charge any defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If the defect resulted from faulty frames, you could still be held responsible for the seat under Federal law, since you would be considered the manufacturer. You will have to contact a private attorney to determine whether you would then have a right of action against the manufacturer of the seat frames.

SINCERELY,

Flair Interiors, Inc.

May 14, 1980

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir,

We are a sewing room that assembles automotive seating. We purchase metal frames and cover them with poly foam and fabrics in various styles. I have had a telephone conversation with Mr. Vince Querrils from the Office of Safety Standards, and I understand from him that we would not be held liable for the metal frames since we do not manufacture them. Is this correct? We need to know what our responsibilities are concerning the safety codes on this type of product.

Thank you for any information you can give us in regards to this.

SINCERELY,

Ms. Frances Zinn

President

ID: nht80-3.9

DATE: 06/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the questions you raised with Stephen Oesch of my office on May 1, 1980, concerning Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

You asked if the clearance lamp system symbol shown in Table I of the standard can be used on a rotary switch to identify a position that activates only the parking and side marker lights. You also asked whether the low beam symbol can be used to indicate the headlamp position on the same rotary lighting switch. Such a use of the clearance lamp symbol and low beam symbol is permissible.

Under S5.2.1 and footnote 2 to Table I, the switch which controls not only the headlamps, but also the clearance, identification, parking and/or side marker lamps must have the Table I symbol for headlamps and tail lamps either on or adjacent to it. It appears from the drawing you left with us that the required headlamp and tail lamp symbol would indeed be adjacent to the switch. S5.2.1 also provides that a manufacturer may use additional symbols for the purpose of clarity. Since the additional symbols you contemplate using would inform the driver about the particular lights which are operated by the different positions of the switch, they would serve the purpose of added clarity.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

ENC.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)