ID: 2665y

Mr. Dean A. Palius
Program Manager
Via Systems
1328 Cimarron Drive
Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Dear Mr. Palius:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the effects of a procedural provision that appears in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, but not in the standard itself. Specifically, you asked whether crash testing under Standard No. 208 must be conducted only with a tow road 500 feet in length. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidelines are called compliance test procedures. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency.

With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 when they are tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in various sections of the standard, including S5, S8, S10, and S11. These sections specify that the vehicle shall be traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 miles per hour (mph). However, these sections do not specify any particular length for a tow road for crash testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 208 may be based on tests using a tow road of any length, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 208 are satisfied.

You correctly noted that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that the tow road should be at least 500 feet in length. This length was chosen for agency compliance testing to ensure the test dummies' positioning would not be affected by the acceleration of the vehicle and that the test dummies' positioning would be stabilized before impact. Tow roads of this length also allow sufficient room to abort the test if needed. Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to use a 500-foot tow road in its certification testing, a shorter tow road that affected the dummies' positioning might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

Please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:9/l4/90

ID: 2666y

Mr. William Shapiro
Volvo Cars of North America
Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter about the built-in child seat Volvo has designed for the center rear seating position. The built-in seat uses the vehicle's lap-shoulder safety belt to restrain the child. I regret the delay in responding.

You indicated in a telephone conversation that Volvo is considering designing the seat solely for children who weigh more than 50 pounds. Such a seat is not subject to the requirements of Standard 213 because the seat is not a "child restraint" as that term is defined in the standard. Paragraph S4 of Standard 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds."

The agency would determine whether your built-in seat is designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds by considering available indications of the manufacturer's design intent, e.g., the physical suitability of the seat for use by children who weigh less than 50 pounds, and the manner in which the seat is labeled and marketed. The agency would look to see whether the seat is clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by the system. We would also consider any indications in Volvo's marketing efforts and point of sale materials regarding the size and age of child that the seat is designed to restrain. Finally, we would consider any size and age information included in the vehicle's owner manual.

You also indicated Volvo may consider designating the seat as suitable for children weighing more than 40 pounds. If the seat were so designated, it would no longer be a seat designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds, and therefore be a child restraint system subject to Standard 213.

You ask whether, if Standard 213 applies to your seat, the standard permits such a seat. You state that the seat would meet the labeling and performance requirements of the standard. You believe that Standard 213 permits the seat because the final rule that amended 213 to set requirements directly applicable to built-in seats (53 FR 1783; January 22, 1988) said that paragraph S5.4.3.3 of the standard allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness system.

You are correct that the standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Paragraph S5.4.3.3 provides, in part, that "each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 (i.e., provide upper and lower torso restraint, and a crotch restraint (for seats for children weighing over 20 pounds), of a specific form). The definition of a "child restraint system" specifically excludes the vehicle's lap/shoulder belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language of S5.4.3.3, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems applies only to seats that have belts, and not to a seat such as yours that uses the vehicle's belt system.

Please note that Standard 213 sets limits on knee excursion for built-in seats (S5.1.3.1(b)). Thus, although your seat is not required to have a crotch strap, the seat must be designed to prevent a child from sliding excessively forward and down, legs first ("submarining").

The agency would like to emphasize its concern that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the lap belt should be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis of a child, the area of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. We cannot determine from your drawing whether the vehicle lap belt would be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. The instructions for the proper use of the built-in seat that are required by S5.6.2 of the standard should inform users how to properly adjust the belt system, so to avoid submarining and imposing impact loads to the child's abdomen.

The agency is also concerned that the sitting height of some children who may occupy the seat might not be high enough for the shoulder belt to be properly positioned when attached. Instead, the belt might pass in front of the child's neck or face. For those cases, if no other option is available, NHTSA believes that the shoulder belt should be placed behind the child's back. We recommend that you include information in the printed instructions about such adjusting of the shoulder belt for small children. As a reminder, NHTSA will use these adjustment instructions per S6.1.2.3.1 to position the three year old dummy in the seat if the agency tests the seat in its compliance program.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:213 d:9/l4/90

ID: 2667y

Mr. Robert Roden
Roden & Hayes
2015 First Avenue No., Suite 400
Birmingham, AL 35203

Dear Mr. Roden:

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 rule 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 transmission 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 aftermarket 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 inoperative," 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 notify all product purchasers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge. See 15 U.S.C. 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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:VSA#ll4 d:9/l9/90

ID: 2668y

Mr. Hiroshi Kato
Vice President
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
Suite 1960
3000 Town Center
Southfield MI 48075

Dear Mr. Kato:

This is in reply to your letter of September 4, l990, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. l08 with respect to two of Mitsubishi's contemplated rear lighting plans.

In the first plan, the rear garnish panel located between the lamps that are mounted at the right and left extremities of the car would be dark but the word "Mitsubishi" in the center would be illuminated. In the second plan, the panel would be illuminated as a supplemental taillamp, and the word would not. You ask if either plan would create an "impairment" of the required lighting equipment, within the prohibition of S5.1.3.

Judging by the photograph of the Pontiac Fiero that you enclosed, which featured a design similar to your first plan, it does not appear that this plan would create an impairment.

We note that the backup lamp is located in the garnish panel, approximately l5 mm from the word "Mitsubishi", and this raises a question with respect to the second plan. When the taillamps are illuminated, so that there is a broad sweep of red light across the rear of the car, we would be concerned that the backup lamps in the garnish panel might not be readily perceived when activated. We would also be concerned that the illuminated panel might detract from the effectiveness of the stop lamps when they are activated. To ensure that the lighted panel creates no impairment of either the stop lamps or the backup lamps, it might be advisable to design it with an intensity that is lower than that of the adjacent taillamps.

The determination of impairment is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer in its certification that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:9/26/90

ID: 2669o

Ms. Beth Whitman
Marketing Services Manager
Ken-Tool
768 East North Street
Akron, Ohio 44305

Dear Ms. Whitman:

This responds to your letter of September 25, l987, concerning the use of "steel duck-billed hammers" to change farm and truck tires. You expressed concern that a competitor is using a safety chart produced by NHTSA to support its claim that the use of these tools is prohibited.

The NHTSA safety chart, "Safety Precautions for Mounting and Demounting Tube Type Truck/Bus Tires," includes two specific references to hammers/hammering. Under the heading "Deflation and Assembly," the chart states: "Never use a steel hammer to assemble or disassemble rim components--Use a lead, brass, or plastic type mallet. Proper tools are available through rim/wheel distributors." Under the heading "Assembly and Inflation," the chart states: "Never hammer on components of an inflated or partially inflated assembly." These precautions apply to steel hammers and hammering in general, and the chart does not state that steel duck billed hammers should not be used for other applications in changing tires.

We note that you enclosed a copy of a July l3, l987 letter from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), stating the following:

[OSHA] does not prohibit the proper use of a steel duck billed hammer for servicing wheels used on large vehicles such as trucks, tractors, trailers, buses and off-road machines.

Under the OSHA regulations at 29 CFR l9l0.l77(d)(6), employers are required to furnish and assure that only tools recommended in the rim manual for the type of wheel being serviced are used to service rim wheels. Further, under 29 CFR l9l0.l77(f)(8), the regulations specify that: No attempt shall be made to correct the seating of side and lock rings by hammering, striking or forcing the components while the tire is pressurized.

You state that you are concerned that your competitor's tool may not meet OSHA regulations and may be less than safe to use. We suggest that you contact OSHA about this concern. You may also wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning your belief that your competitor's advertising is misleading.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:110#120 d:2/ll/88

ID: 2669rbm

Mr. Charlie Steffens
Director, Systems Engineering
TRW Automotive
Occupant Safety Systems
4505 W. 26 Mile Road
Washington, MI 48094

Dear Mr. Steffens:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less. The phase-in for these new requirements begins September 1, 2003. That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-size adults. The requirements in S19, S21, and S23 are designed to minimize the risk that air bags pose to infants and small children. S19 provides manufacturers with two different options for complying with the standard (low risk deployment or automatic suppression), while S21 and S23 provide three options (low risk deployment, automatic suppression, or dynamic automatic suppression). Your first question is related to the infant low risk deployment option while your three other questions are related to the interrelationship between the compliance options. I am pleased to provide a response.

You first request an interpretation of the requirement set forth in S19 and the test procedure provided in S20.4, relating to the low risk deployment option for infants. Specifically, you characterize the requirements of S20.4 as follows. "For S20.4.9, if the subject vehicle were equipped with any type of occupant sensing system that was
(1) able to recognize that the passenger seat was occupied by any infant restraint from Appendices A, B, or C of the regulation,
(2) secured into the positions and orientations described in sections S20.4.1 through S20.4.8, and a 49 CFR Part 572 subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy positioned according to S20.4 and
(3) the occupant sensing system and airbag control system were designed to control the output of the air bag system in a discrete manner, such as "low output", that the S20.4.9 testing would be conducted at the same discrete output determined by the occupant sensing system. Further, no additional tests to show compliance to S19, such as "high output" testing corresponding to that for a vehicle which does not have an occupant sensing system to meet S20.4.9 would be necessary."

The requirements for the infant low risk deployment option are found at S19.3, which states that "each vehicle shall meet the injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this standard when the passenger air bag is deployed in accordance with the procedures specified in S20.4." The low risk deployment option is designed to address injuries that can result when an infant is placed very close to the air bag. The risk of being directly above or adjacent to the air bag is particularly high for infants because child restraints, when placed in their rear-facing mode, will always place an infant's head close to the dashboard. A poorly installed forward-facing child seat also creates a risk, because the restraint can slide or flip forward during a crash.

S20.4 specifies several conditions for testing the deploying air bag. First, the manufacturer must assure compliance to S19.3 using any child restraint listed in subparts B and C of Appendix A to the standard. Restraints listed in subpart A (car beds) need not be tested because these restraints are not designed to be rear facing. For purposes of S19.3, the air bag is only tested with the child restraints in their rear-facing condition. This represents the worst case injury scenario. Under the specified test conditions, the vehicle seat is moved as far forward as possible, while avoiding contact with the vehicle interior. This is done to ensure that the dummy's head is placed as close to the deploying air bag as possible. The air bag is only tested with the child restraint in a belted condition.

The air bag is deployed at whatever level of force and combination of stages that would deploy in any rigid barrier crash up to 64 km/h (40 mph) when a child or test dummy is positioned in a restraint as specified in the test procedure, except that the vehicle seat may be at any seat track position. This level is determined by running an indicant test, as described in S20.4.9, at impact speeds up to 40 mph with a dummy-occupied restraint installed in the passenger seat. [1]

When NHTSA runs a compliance test on a vehicle certified to S19.3, it will only deploy the air bag at the level and, if equipped with a multi-stage inflator, with the combination of stages, that would deploy in the specified indicant test. Accordingly, vehicle manufacturers that certify to the low risk deployment option will need to ensure that their sensing systems are sufficiently robust to detect the presence of an infant in any one of the child restraints listed in subparts B or C of Appendix A.

If only a "low output" air bag deploys in the indicant test, NHTSA will not deploy a "high output" air bag simply because the "high output" air bag is placed in the vehicle for other occupants who may be seated in the passenger seat. Such an approach would have the effect of preventing vehicle manufacturers from using sensing technology to identify the presence of an infant at higher speeds.

Your next two questions relate to how the different compliance options relate to one another. Specifically, you ask if "the intent of the regulation... mean[s] that at compliance strategy needs to be chosen for each occupant size [i.e., the 1-year-old, the 3-yer-old, and the 6-year-old], but that a different strategy can be employed for each." You then ask if it is "possible to comply with ... the regulation using multiple compliance methods within an occupant size grouping using a logical subgrouping. For instance, could a system use deployment suppression for certifying the 3 and 6-year-old children in child seats and low risk deployment for the 3 and 6-year-old children not in child restraints?"

A vehicle manufacturer must certify to one of the compliance options in S19, S21, and S23. You first ask whether a different compliance option may be used for each group of children addressed by the regulation. The answer is yes. Each set of compliance options specified for a particular group of children is unique to that group. Accordingly, a manufacturer could choose to use automatic suppression to meet the infant and three year old requirements, but low risk deployment or dynamic automatic suppression for the six year old requirements. [2] However, within a given age group, a manufacturer may not choose to certify some portion of the population to one option and another portion of the population to another option. This would result in a unique compliance option that may fail to address all conditions contemplated by each option. For example, it is not acceptable to claim certification by meeting only one of the two low risk deployment positions for the three year old and 50 percent of the suppression positions. A system needs to meet one of the two options in its entirety. A customized compliance option, where the manufacturer used part of different options, but not all of any option, would create a unique compliance scheme that was never contemplated by the agency in determining how best to meet the need for safety without imposing unreasonable constraints on vehicle manufacturers. We note that in the example you provided in your letter, whereby a manufacturer would "use deployment suppression for certifying the 3 and 6-year-old children in child seats and low risk deployment for the 3 and 6-year-old children not in restraints" would be a compliant system that could be fully certified to the low risk deployment option, but not to the suppression option. Nothing in the rule prohibits manufacturers from using such a design philosophy. The deployment strategies related to children restrained in child restraints would remain within the manufacturer's discretion.

Your final question asks whether a manufacturer could use both low risk deployment and automatic suppression systems as a system redundancy. You state: "Assume that a sensing system met all of the conditions... for the RFIS low risk requirement. Suppose the sensing system also had the further capability to classify and suppress for certain tested situations. The system would be certified to meet all the low risk deployment requirements, however under certain conditions the system would suppress the airbag instead of deploying at low level because of this redundant capability. TRW believes a system of this type would comply with FMVSS 208 based upon similar NHTSA interpretations using additional or redundant safety equipment."

Your understanding is correct. Manufacturers may choose to use multiple technologies to address real world risk, without certifying to more than one compliance option. NHTSA specifically addressed this possibility in the May 2000 final rule (65 FR 30680, 30710). For example, a manufacturer may decide to use both low risk deployment and occupant sensing technologies for the six year old because it has concerns that the occupant sensing technology is insufficiently robust for all real world conditions, even though it may meet all the conditions specified in the test procedure. In such an instance, the manufacturer could certify to S23 using either the low risk deployment option or the automatic suppression option, even though in actual driving conditions, the air bag may sometimes deploy when an occupant the size of a 6-year-old is seated in the passenger seat. However, the manufacturer must choose one of the options for certification. Once it decides which option to certify to, it cannot change its position, even though the vehicle may fully meet the requirements of the other options. See S4.8. We require manufacturers to choose a particular option so that we can conduct compliance testing in an effective and productive manner.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.7/8/03





---

[1] The preamble to the May 2000 final rule states that an indicant test is not required. The statement was made in response to a comment that an indicant test would be required for every child restraint on Appendix A. Multiple indicant tests are not required. It may also be possible that a manufacturer could otherwise ascertain that only a very benign air bag will deploy in the presence of a belted child restraint at any speed. However, NHTSA may choose to run an indicant test to verify that only a benign deployment was possible.

[2] Currently dynamic automatic suppression cannot be used to certify to the infant requirements.

ID: 2669y

Mr. Ricky Bass
Q. C. Manager
Terminal Service Co.
P.O. Box 1200
Tallahassee, FL 32302

Dear Mr. Bass:

This is in reply to your letter of August 1, l990. You have asked 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 cluster would be mounted not less than l0 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 ll, l990, 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. l08 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 identification 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 identification 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 cannot 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 supplementary 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 businesses, 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. Therefore, 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 prohibition 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 Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:l08 d:9/24/90

ID: 2670o

Mr. Jan Peter Kryger
Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Quickwheel, Inc.
P.O. Box 39l
Cos Cob, Connecticut 06830

Dear Mr. Kryger:

This responds to your letter asking whether any Federal safety standards apply to your product called "Quickwheel" and whether you need approval from the Department of Transportation to market the product. You indicated that Quickwheel is similar to a roller skate and can be placed under a flat tire in a few seconds, enabling the driver to go on to a service station. You stated that the device has three little wheels and has been "thoroughly tested" in Germany.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards covering a roller-skate-like device intended to be placed under a flat tire in order to enable the driver to continue driving. However, should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required by the Safety Act to notify purchasers and provide a remedy for the defect.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to Quickwheel, we note that the performance of the device is relevant to safety in many of the same respects as tires, which are covered by safety standards. Given this potential safety significance, we urge you to carefully review whether the testing conducted in Germany covered the full range of real-world driving conditions and experiences that may be encountered by Quickwheel, and if not, to conduct such additional testing and/or analysis as may be necessary to ensure that the product will perform in a safe manner.

You also asked for an explanation of the Code of Federal Regulations. You will find such an explanation on the last page of an enclosed information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." You may also find other parts of the information sheet to be of interest.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:2/ll/88

ID: 2670y

Mr. and Mrs. Albert J. Fasel
97 W. Silver Lake Road N.
Traverse City, MI 49684

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fasel:

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 center high mounted red stop lamp."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, 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 different 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 inoperative, 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 affect the performance of the existing center highmounted lamp that has been installed in accordance with Standard No. l08 (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. l08 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 other rear lighting devices required by Standard No. l08.

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. lll, Rearview Mirrors, in order that compliance with this standard may be maintained after installation of your device. I include a copy of Standard No. lll 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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l08 d:9/25/90

ID: 2671o

Mr. William B. Huber
Senior Vice President
Nuvatec/Inc.
3ll0 Woodcreek Drive
Downers Grove, Illinois 605l5

Dear Mr. Huber:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You stated that you manufacture an electronic instrument cluster for use with van conversions and class "A" motorhomes and other vehicles. The gauges are of a bar graph type, and associated with each graph is an icon or symbol to indicate the graph function. During normal operation, the icons are illuminated to the same light intensity as the graphs. You stated that as an added feature, the icons blink when, and only when, that function becomes critical or dangerous, such as for low fuel, high temperature, low oil pressure, and low battery. You stated that some of your customers have expressed concern about using your instrument cluster because it may not comply with Standard No. 101, and you requested a formal opinion. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

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 (Vehicle Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements.

The Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with Part 567, Certification. Persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers, distributers, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly rendering 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.

Standard No. 101 (49 CFR Part 571.101) specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. The standard's requirements for displays are applicable only to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds. See section S5. For these vehicles, the gauges identified in your letter (fuel, temperature, oil pressure, and electrical charge) are displays regulated by the standard.

The primary issue raised by your letter is whether the identification of gauges may flash. As discussed below, Standard No. l0l does not prohibit such flashing.

Section S5.3.3 states:

S5.3.3(a) Means shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions.

(b) The means for providing the required visibility--

(l) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in S5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adopted to dark ambient roadway conditions.

(2) May be operable manually or automatically, and

(3) May have levels of brightness at which those items and their identification are not visible.

(c) Effective September l, l989, if the level of brightness is adjusted by automatic means to a point where those items or their identification are not visible to the driver, a means shall be provided to enable the driver to restore visibility.

(d) For a vehicle manufactured before September l, l989, the requirements of S5.3.3(b)(l) shall not apply to any gauge during the actuation of a telltale which shares a common light source with the gauge.

Under section S5.3.3(a), means must be provided for making the identification of gauges, i.e., the icons or symbols in your design, visible to the driver under all driving conditions. The on-and-off cycling of the identification occurring during flashing would create momentary periods of time when the identification is not visible. However, it is our opinion that a flashing identification or other item is considered visible so long as it is visible during the on part of the cycle.

This opinion is limited to the specific issue addressed above and does not constitute an opinion as to whether your electronic instrument cluster complies with Standard No. l0l.

As you may know, several amendments were made to Standard No. l0l during l987. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the current standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ ref:101 d:2/23/88