ID: nht87-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger M. Cox -- R & R Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to J. Mike Callahan (A32; Std. 108); 4/14/87 letter from J. Mike Callahan to Taylor Vinson (occ 409); 9/3/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to David M. Romansky

TEXT: Mr. Roger M. Cox R & R Lighting, Inc. Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, AL 35901

Dear Mr. Cox:

This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1987, with respect to whether a lighting product you intend to market is "in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle." You describe your product as a "lighted decal" which can be mounted in the rear window of any car or pick-up truck, and the photographs you enclosed show it mounted in the center of the rear window of a pre-1980 model Seville. The decal will be wired int o the brake system and when activated by the brake "only the letters in the decal will be lighted." You state further that although the letters will appear red to an observer this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or a tail light.

In our opinion, your product may or may not be in violation of Federal requirements depending upon the following uses. The product does not appear to be intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that has been standard equipment on pas senger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Indeed, it could not be so used unless it met all requirements for such a lamp. The principal requirements are that such lamps have a minimum of 4 1/2 square inches of illuminated lens area, that it meet specified photometrics at 13 test points, ad that it produce a signal visible from 45 degrees from the right to the left and from five degrees up to five degrees down. If your device does not meet these requirements, removal of the lamp and replace ment with your device would violate a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in this case Safety Standard No. 108, Lam ps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. However, a dealer could install it on a new pick-up truck, or to one side of the center lamp in a new passenger car before their initial sale, provided the device did not impair the effectiveness of the r ear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and the device could be installed on some vehicles in use (cars built before September 1, 1984, and any pick-up) provided that it did not render inoperative in whole or in part other required rear ligh ting equipment.

By this we mean that the device appears allowable for these vehicles under Federal law provided that wiring it into the brake system does not reduce the stop lamp output or otherwise affect the operation or the effectiveness of the stop lamp system. You should also ensure that your product is acceptable under State and local laws as well. Because there are no Federal requirements for your product, each State may regulate it as it deems proper.

I am enclosing the samples that you enclosed, and hope that we have answered your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

R & R Lighting, Incorporated Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, Alabama 35901

July 8, 1987

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Jones

Dear Mrs. Jones:

I am in the final planning stage before marketing/manufacturing a new product. After having exhausted all efforts at state and national levels, I talked with Mr. Brooks in the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. It was Mr. Brooks' opinion that we are no t in violation of any federal laps, but he suggested I correspond with you to get an appropriate legal opinion as to whether my product in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle.

My product. the "#1-American Team Light", is a lighted decal. It is designed to be mounted in the rear window. My product can be mounted onany car or pick-up truck. It will be wired into the brake system and when activated by the brake, only the letters in the decal will be lighted. The letters will appear the same color as automobile manufacturers use in brake lights and tail lights; however, this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or tail light. We have targeted the sport s enthusiast at high school and college level as our market group. We also feel we have a smaller market at local and state levels with a lighted decal that reads "Police" and "State Trooper".

In order to effectively market my product at its peak season, which would be September, time is of the essence. I have enclosed a sample lens and photographs.

Please review my information and sample and let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. If further information is needed, please call me collect at (205) 442-1642 or (205) 442-8436.

Very truly yours,

R & R LIGHTING INCORPORATED

Roger M. Cox

RMC/lc

Enclosures

ID: nht89-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: J. JAMES EXON -- UNITED STATES SENATOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/09/89 FROM J. JAMES EXON -- SENATE, TO NHTSA; LETTER DATED 01/26/89 FROM RON MOXHAM TO J. JAMES -- EXON; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM RON MOXHAM TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Senator Exon:

Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1989, in which you inquired about the status of a letter to this office from Mr. Ron Moxham, one of your constituents. I apologize for the delay in responding to Mr. Moxham.

In his inquiry, Mr. Moxham asked about the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations to an add-on-trunk for mini vans, pickup trucks, Blazers, and other vehicles. He described his product as a detachable box that could be attached to the liftgate, bumper, or frame at the rear of a vehicle and extend 16 to 20 inches beyond the bumper. Your constituent asked whether there are any regulations applicable to this product, especially in relation to the vehic le's tail lights and other lighting components. He also asked whether his product would be required to have its own separate lighting equipment and its own separate bumper.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in Mr. Moxham's letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an add-on trunk. However, the addition of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, an add-on trunk could affect a vehicle's compliance with Stand ard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, by obscuring the vehicle's rear lights from some angles of view. This adverse effect could be offset by the addition of supplementary lighting devices to the trunk. See S4.3.1.1 of Standa rd No. 108. (Copy enclosed.)

If an add-on trunk is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device

installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards.

If such a device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an "alterer" under 49 CFR Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of t he add-on trunk either altered the vehicle's stated weight ratings or constituted the installation of something that is not a "readily attachable" component. To ascertain whether the installation involves attachable components such factors as the intric acy of installation, and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. More information regarding the method of installation is necessary before we could determine whether the installation of the add-on trunk was the installation of a readily attachable component.

A person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale is also affected by other Federal requirements, whether or not that person is considered an "alterer." Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act generally provides th at no person may "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States," any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In addition, under section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design inst alled on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If an add-on trunk is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would be subject to the "render inoperative" requirement cited above. Thus, the installer would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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 st andard.

I note that in a letter dated September 25, 1987, NHTSA indicated that a person who installs a lift platform on the rear of a car, thereby blocking a lamp required by Standard No. 108, could avoid violating the prohibition against rendering inoperative b y installing an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's photometric requirements. Since that situation may have similarities to the one faced by Mr. Moxham, I am enclosing a copy of the letter.

Mr. Moxham did not specifically indicate whether his product would be sold for passenger cars. NHTSA has a bumper standard which sets forth requirements for the impact resistance of passenger cars in low speed front and rear collisions. The addition of an add-on trunk could affect a passenger car's compliance with the bumper standard.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Mr. Moxham should also be aware that state laws may apply to his device.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 16, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MGR., REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTERS DATED 4-18-89 AND 7-11-88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM SHAPIRO ATTACHED; (OCC-3422).

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. Specifically, you indicated that Volvo is currently designing a Type 2 seat belt assembly (lap/shoulder belt) that has an anchorage for the upper end of the shoulder belt located within the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. Volvo also would like to install an additional anchorage for the upper end of the shoulder belt outside of the area specified in S4.3.2. The purpose of this additional anchorage was said to be to "increase the stability of the mounting." You stated your belief that this additional anchorage would be permitted even though it does not satisfy the location requirements specified in S4.3.2, because the additional anchorage "is not required for the seat belt assembly to comply with the strength requirements" of Standard No. 210. The answer to your question depends upon whether the lap/shoulder safety belt is required to be installed at the particular seating position.

My response assumes that this additional anchorage is not an anchorage for an automatic or dynamically tested manual safety belt that meets the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Anchorages for those belts are explicitly exempted from the anchorage location requirements by S4.3 of Standard No. 210.

If the seating position in question is one that is required by Standard No. 208 to be equipped with a lap/shoulder belt, the additional anchorage described in your letter would appear not to comply with Standard No. 210. Section S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." As I understand your letter, both the anchorage that satisfies the location requirements of Standard No. 210 and the addi- tional anchorage would transfer seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure. Therefore, both of these points would be the "seat belt anchorage," per S3 of Standard No. 210, and both points would have to comply with the location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210.

Since your letter states that the additional anchorage would not comply with the anchorage location requirements of standard No. 210, each vehicle that used this additional anchorage point at seating positions required to be equipped with a lap/shoulder safety belt would appear not to comply with Standard No. 210.

On the other hand, if the seating position is one that is not required by

Standard No. 208 to be equipped with a lap/shoulder safety belt (such as the rear center seating position in passenger cars), Standard No. 210 might not prohibit the use of an additional anchorage point that did not comply with the location requirements of the standard. At seating positions where a lap/shoulder safety belt is not required, section S4.1.2 of standard No. 210 gives manufacturers the option of installing either anchorages for a Type I (lap-only) or Type 2 seat belt assembly. Hence, at these seating positions, Volvo could satisfy all requirements of the safety standards by installing lap-only belts at these seating positions. Accordingly, Volvo's decision to install lap/shoulder belts and an additional anchorage point at these seating positions would be purely voluntary, not a response to any regulatory requirement.

NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis, this agency stated that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorages for voluntarily installed lap-only belts outside of the area specified in Standard No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap-only belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, if Standard No. 208 does not require a lap/shoulder belt to be installed at a seating position, the upper anchorage for a shoulder belt (in Volvo's case, both anchorage points for the upper end of the shoulder belt) may be located outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed anchorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages for lap-only belts and the lap-only belts themselves to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. I would like to note, however, that NHTSA believes that shoulder belt anchorages located within the area specified in S4.3.2 of standard No. 210 offer the greatest safety benefits, even though the anchorages of voluntarily-installed shoulder belts are not required to be located within that area.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions or need further information, please let me know.

ID: 2351y

Mr. Satoshi Nishibori
Nissan Research & Development, Inc.
750 17th Street N.W., Suite 902
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Nishibori:

This responds to your January 16, 1990 letter to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, the Director of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120). Specifically, S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 provides that when a passenger car tire is used on vehicles other than passenger cars, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing it by 1.10 before calculating the sum of the load ratings of all of the original equipment tires on the vehicle. S5.3.2 through S5.3.5 establish requirements for certain information about the tires and rims to be labeled on the vehicle. S5.3.2 sets forth lettering size and format requirements for the labeling. S5.3.3 through S5.3.5 require the labeling to provide the following information: the "size designation of tires....appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR" be given on the label; the size and type designation of rims "appropriate for those tires", and the "cold inflation pressure for those tires".

Your question was whether the cold inflation pressure set forth on the label in response to S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must reflect the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 for passenger car tires. You suggested in your letter, and in your January 18, 1990 meeting with agency staff, that S5.3.5 does not require the 1.1 reduction factor to be taken into account when determining the cold inflation pressure to be specified. Instead, you suggested that Standard No. 120 requires the vehicle manufacturer to specify an inflation pressure that is adequate to support the tire's share of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR), without regard to the 1.1 reduction factor. I cannot agree with your suggested interpretation.

You asserted that S5.3.5 merely requires the label to include the "cold inflation pressure for those tires," without referring to S5.1.2 and its 1.1 reduction factor. You contrasted this requirement with that in S5.3.3, which expressly refers to S5.1.2 and the 1.1 reduction factor. You asserted that this difference in wording showed that the 1.1 reduction factor need not be considered when specifying the cold inflation pressure on the label in response to S5.3.5. This argument is not persuasive.

The load-carrying capability of a tire generally varies with the inflation pressure of that tire; i.e., a tire can carry a greater load at a higher inflation pressure and a lesser load at a lower inflation pressure. Hence, a reference to inflation pressure alone, without any corresponding load-carrying capability to which that inflation pressure applies would be meaningless. If S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 were interpreted to require the manufacturer to specify some inflation pressure, without regard to any load that must be borne by the tire at that inflation pressure, the vehicle manufacturer could specify an extremely high or low inflation pressure. Such a specification would be useless or even dangerous for the consumer, and contrary to the purposes of the labeling requirements.

You implicitly recognize that such an interpretation is unacceptable when you argue on page 1 of your January 16, 1990 that S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must be interpreted to require the manufacturer to recommend an inflation pressure "that will permit the tires to safely carry Gross Axle Weight Rating loads and will provide good vehicle ride characteristics." In other words, Nissan agrees that the inflation pressure specified in response to S5.3.5 cannot be an extreme value such as 1 psi; instead, it must be determined with reference to some load that the tires will carry.

The question then becomes what loading must be considered to determine if the specified inflation pressure complies with S5.3.5. This question is answered by reading the labeling requirement of S5.3.5 in connection with the other labeling requirements in S5.3, instead of considering S5.3.5 in a vacuum. S5.3.2 sets forth the format and lettering size for the labels to be placed on all vehicles manufactured on or after December 1, 1984. The information that must appear on such labels is set forth in S5.3.3, S5.3.4, and S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120. S5.3.3 specifies that the label shall include information on "the size designation of tires (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR." (Emphasis added). On any reading of this emphasized language, it is beyond dispute that the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered when specifying the appropriate tire size designation pursuant to S5.3.3. Following this, S5.3.4 requires information on the size and type designation of rims "appropriate for those tires" to appear on the label. The reference to "those" tires in S5.3.4 indicates that the tires are the tires previously specified in S5.3.3. Similarly, when S5.3.5 requires the cold inflation pressure for those tires to appear on the information label, the language is referring back to the tires specified in S5.3.3. Since NHTSA agrees with your statements that S5.3.3 incorporates the 1.1 reduction factor of S5.1.2 to determine compliance with S5.3.3, and since S5.3.5 refers to the tires specified in S5.3.3, the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered to determine ocmpliance with S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:120 d:3/l5/90

ID: 20288.ztv

Mr. Evan W. Johnson
Administrator
Division of Consumer Affairs
Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Montgomery County
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This is in reply to your letter of July 9, 1999, with respect to the "Safe-T-Stop" lighting device. We appreciate your enclosing some materials to help us in answering your question whether the device is permitted under Federal law and regulations.

According to a document by SafeLite of America, Inc., that you enclosed, its product Safe-T-Stop "will pulse [the center high mounted brake light] for approximately 6 seconds and reactivate if the brakes are reapplied." You read S5.5.10(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as requiring "that the third brake light must be wired to be steady-burning," and that you believe that Safe-T-Stop "contravenes this requirement of the standard by varying the brightness of the light."

We confirm your interpretation. S5.5.10(a), (b), and (c) list the motor vehicle lamps that may flash when they are operated. No stop lamp is among the lamps listed. S5.5.10(d) requires all other lamps to be wired to be steady burning, thus including all stop lamps. Standard No. 108 does not allow a stop lamp that pulses, and a vehicle with a stop lamp that pulses does not meet Federal requirements.

The installation of the circuitry that transforms a steady burning stop lamp into one that pulses may violate Federal law. You wrote that Safe-t-Stop is being marketed to consumers by new car dealers in their new car sales. For example, Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30112(a))prohibits a dealer from selling a new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus a dealer who sells a new car with Safe-T-Stop installed has sold a vehicle that does not comply with Standard No. 108. Our statute provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,100 upon a dealer for each violation of Sec. 30112(a). A dealer who allows a test drive without sale is also in violation of Sec. 30112(a) which prohibits any person from offering for sale a nonconforming motor vehicle.

The letter of May 11, 1999, from Steven D. Kohn to Maryland's Motor Vehicle Administrator, Anne S. Ferro, which you enclosed, is incorrect in stating that Safe-T-Stop is permitted by S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 as an "enhancement for existing vehicular brake lights." This provision of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. However, when installation of equipment creates a noncompliance per se, as Safe-T-Stop does with S5.5.10(d), S5.1.3 is not applicable.

You state that Mr. Kohn has clarified that, instead of S5.1.3, he is relying on our interpretation of July 24, 1989, to Robert Knauff, and that you do not view this interpretation as supporting his claim that Safe-T-Stop is consistent with Standard No. 108. The 1989 interpretation dealt with a single pulse of light approximately 40 millionths of a second in length which acted through the center high mounted stop lamp as an advance warning of braking before the brakes were applied. We read Standard No. 108's prohibition against combining the center lamp with any other lamp as applying to the collision avoidance pulse, and stated that it could not be furnished as part of a center lamp system. We did say that if the device met the test of S5.1.3, it would be an acceptable addition to any motor vehicle not originally required by Standard No. 108 to be equipped with one (i.e., in 1989, passenger cars manufactured before

September 1, 1985, and all other motor vehicles). Since our 1989 interpretation, vans and light trucks have been required as of September 1, 1993, to be manufactured with the steady burning center stop lamp. Therefore, dealer installation of Safe-T-Stop on new vehicles of these types is subject to the same prohibition as on passenger cars, and to the same civil penalties of up to $1,100 for each violation.

We note Administrator Ferro's reply of June 8, 1999, to Mr. Kohn in which she states that Safe-T-Stop can be accepted in Maryland if "the device is installed as a supplement to, not a replacement of, any center high-mounted stop lamp already installed, consistent with" Standard No. 108 and our 1989 letter.

This letter to you makes clear that Safe-T-Stop cannot be installed in an existing center lamp. To the extent that Ms. Ferro's letter can be read as an approval of a second center lamp incorporating the pulse, this is inconsistent with S5.1.3, as we believe a flashing stop lamp could create confusion and thereby impair the effectiveness of the steady burning stop lamps. Under the U.S. Constitution and 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Federal law would govern.

Please note that Federal law also prohibits a dealer from installation of Safe-T-Stop on a vehicle after it is sold. Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business is forbidden from making inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Because installation of the Safe-T-Stop would create a noncompliance with S5.1.3 by creating confusion and impairing the effectiveness of the steady burning stop lamps, we regard this as a "making inoperative" within the meaning of the statute.

We are furnishing copies of this letter to Administrator Ferro, SafeLite of America (the manufacturer of Safe-T-Stop), Mr. Kohn, and Paul Jackson Rice whom Mr. Kohn represents is his counsel. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Administrator Anne S. Ferro Safelite of America, Inc.
Steven Kohn
Paul Jackson Rice, Esq. Ref:108
d.8/27/99

ID: 3147o

The Honorable Beverly B. Byron
Member of Congress
U.S. House of Representatives
Westminster District Office
6 North Court Street
Westminster, MD 21157

Dear Ms. Byron:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr., who received a citation from the Maryland State Police, Automotive Safety Enforcement Division, for noncomplying window tinting. You asked us to review Mr. Ciampa's letter and provide you with our comments and appropriate information. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ciampa suffers from diabetes, which makes his eyes extremely sensitive to sunlight. Because of this, the side windows on his passenger automobile apparently were tinted such that the tinted glazing no longer complied with State of Maryland requirements. There is no indication whether Mr. Ciampa did the tinting on his own or had an aftermarket business do it. According to Mr. Ciampa's letter, he was previously given a medical exemption by the State of Maryland that permitted him to drive with windows tinted differently than Maryland law permits. However, Mr. Ciampa stated that Maryland officials have now told him that the Federal government will not allow Maryland to grant any more medical exemptions. This information is inaccurate.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including the tinting performed on the side windows of Mr. Ciampa's car, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Again, Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Thus, the State of Maryland does not have any authority to permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses to install tinting on the side windows of passenger cars if such tinting causes those windows to have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on Mr. Ciampa's side windows would be liable for the civil penalty discussed above.

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows.

However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Maryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, not the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Washington Office Constituent's Correspondence

ref:VSA#205 d:l0/27/88

ID: nht95-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Hindson

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/15/94 LETTER FROM TOM HINDSON TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10619)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hindson:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your letter, you described your product as a car cover that stows beneath the rear bumper of an automobile. When used, the cover is propelled from its casing by an electric motor as the driver guides the cover over the car with a handle, which then attaches to the front bumper. In a February 14, 1995 telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you described the product in more detail and said that vehicle owners will not be installing your product. Instead, you plan to market this either as a dealer-installed option on new cars or by having a business approved by you retrofitting used cars.

The short answer to your question is that there are no regulations that apply specifically to your car cover. However, there are some safety concerns and Federal requirements that you should know about.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any standards for car covers. However, the cover is an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in secti ons 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Since your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, you should know that section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a devi ce or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator (i.e., the installer) to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. Because your product is not "readily attachable," if the car cover is installed on a new vehicle prior to sale, the installer would be considered an "alterer" under section 567.7 of Title 49 o f the Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, the installer would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all the standards affected by the modification.

There do not appear to be any definite problems with your system, as it was described to us. However, allow me to reiterate our concern in a few areas that Mr. Atelsek described to you over the phone. These are safety related areas that you want to be careful of.

Our regulations are in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 581 describes the bumper standard, which basically requires that there be no damage in collision at 2.5 mph. The housing of the car cover unit bolts both to the bumper and to the trunk pan, thus bridging the area between the bumper and the vehicle chassis. Although you said the polyurethane housing "gives" and did not degrade performance even in a 5 mph collision you conducted, this is a standard you should consider for all vehi cles on which your device is installed.

Standard 301 is the fuel system integrity standard. It restricts fuel system spillage in collisions from many angles. Although you told Mr. Atelsek there were no pieces that could pierce the gas tank in a rear end collision, the illustrations you sent him seem to show some kind of rod-like support structure running longitudinally on either side of the cover housing. These structures run the entire length of the housing and even extend slightly beyond it. You told him that the housing was approximate ly 40 to 44 inches in the longitudinal direction. In a rear end collision (the test we use is described in S6.2 of Standard 301) these structures must not be driven into the gas tank to cause an unsafe fuel leakage problem.

A related area of concern is the electrical conduit that runs from the battery lead to the electrical motor on the rear bumper which deploys the car cover. We suggest that you consider constructing and routing the conduit so that it will not be damaged in an accident, possibly causing a short and increasing the likelihood of ignition if there is fuel spillage.

Finally, you should be cautious when mounting your unit near hot exhaust system components. You stated that you may mount the housing within 3/4 of an inch underneath the muffler, in which case you would use heat resistant aluminum sheet materials. You appeared to be very conscious of this potential danger, and we agree the flammability of components attached to a vehicle is an important safety concern.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a general fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please fee l free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-16-90 TO ROBERT F. HELLMUTH, NHTSA, FROM SATOSHI NISHIBORI, NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC., ATTACHED

TEXT: This responds to your January 16, 1990 letter to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, the Director of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars ( 49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 provides that when a passenger car tire is used on vehicles other than passenger cars, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing it by 1.10 before calculating the sum of the load rati ngs of all of the original equipment tires on the vehicle. S5.3.2 through S5.3.5 establish requirements for certain information about the tires and rims to be labeled on the vehicle. S5.3.2 sets forth lettering size and format requirements for the labe ling. S5.3.3 through S5.3.5 require the labeling to provide the following information: the "size designation of tires . . . . appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR" be given on the label; the size and type designation of rims "appropriate fo r those tires", and the "cold inflation pressure for those tires".

Your question was whether the cold inflation pressure set forth on the label in response to S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must reflect the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 for passenger car tires. You suggested in your letter, and in your January 1 8, 1990 meeting with agency staff, that S5.3.5 does not require the 1.1 reduction factor to be taken into account when determining the cold inflation pressure to be specified. Instead, you suggested that Standard No. 120 requires the vehicle manufacture r to specify an inflation pressure that is adequate to support the tire's share of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR), without regard to the 1.1 reduction factor. I cannot agree with your suggested interpretation.

You asserted that S5.3.5 merely requires the label to include the "cold inflation pressure for those tires," without referring to S5.1.2 and its 1.1 reduction factor. You contrasted this requirement with that in S5.3.3, which expressly refers to S5.1.2 and the 1.1 reduction factor. You asserted that this difference in wording showed that the 1.1

reduction factor need not be considered when specifying the cold inflation pressure on the label in response to S5.3.5. This argument is not persuasive.

The load-carrying capability of a tire generally varies with the inflation pressure of that tire; i.e., a tire can carry a greater load at a higher inflation pressure and a lesser load at a lower inflation pressure. Hence, a reference to inflation press ure alone, without any corresponding load-carrying capability to which that inflation pressure applies would be meaningless. If S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 were interpreted to require the manufacturer to specify some inflation pressure, without regard to any load that must be borne by the tire at that inflation pressure, the vehicle manufacturer could specify an extremely high or low inflation pressure. Such a specification would be useless or even dangerous for the consumer, and contrary to the purpos es of the labeling requirements.

You implicitly recognize that such an interpretation is unacceptable when you argue on page 1 of your January 16, 1990 that S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must be interpreted to require the manufacturer to recommend an inflation pressure "that will permit th e tires to safely carry Gross Axle Weight Rating loads and will provide good vehicle ride characteristics." In other words, Nissan agrees that the inflation pressure specified in response to S5.3.5 cannot be an extreme value such as 1 psi; instead, it mu st be determined with reference to some load that the tires will carry.

The question then becomes what loading must be considered to determine if the specified inflation pressure complies with S5.3.5. This question is answered by reading the labeling requirement of S5.3.5 in connection with the other labeling requirements i n S5.3, instead of considering S5.3.5 in a vacuum. S5.3.2 sets forth the format and lettering size for the labels to be placed on all vehicles manufactured on or after December 1, 1984. The information that must appear on such labels is set forth in S5 .3.3, S5.3.4, and S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120. S5.3.3 specifies that the label shall include information on "the size designation of tires (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR." (Emphasis added). On any reading of this emphasized language, it is beyond dispute that the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered when specifying the appropriate tire size designation pursuant to S5.3.3. Following this, S5.3.4 requires information on the size and type designation of rims "appropriate for those tires" to appear on the label. The reference to "those" tires in S5.3.4 indicates that the tires are the tires previously specified in S5.3.3. Similarly, when S5.3.5 requires the cold inflation p ressure for those tires to appear on the information label, the language is referring back to the tires specified in S5.3.3. Since NHTSA agrees with your statements that S5.3.3 incorporates the 1.1 reduction factor of S5.1.2 to

determine compliance with S5.3.3, and since S5.3.5 refers to the tires specified in S5.3.3, the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered to determine ocmpliance with S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120.

ID: 1982-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transamerica Transportation Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which you requested information on any requirements concerning the use of imported casings for regrooving and imported casings for retreading. When retreaded or regrooved, these tires would be used on your company's trailers ("intermodel piggyback equipment"). Following are the answers to the four questions in your letter.

(1) May tires be imported for regrooving and, if so, are there any conditions necessary, such as DOT number or "regroovable tire" parking on the casing? To answer your question about importing tires for regrooving, it is necessary to explain the conditions under which tires may be imported for retreading. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a June 18, 1981 letter I sent to the National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, which sets forth the conditions under which used casings may legally be imported into the United States for purposes of retreading. The letter explains that tires with less than 2/32 inch of remaining tread which are imported solely so that they can be retreaded are not considered "items of motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Therefore, the DOT certification symbol need not appear on the sidewall of these casings.

Further, there is no NHTSA standard applicable to retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Hence, there are not requirements which the imported tires must meet in order to be retreaded or after they are retreaded.

The same reasoning set forth above regarding casings to be retreaded would apply to casings imported for regrooving. Thus, no DOT certification symbol would be required to appear on the sidewall of the casings in order for the tires to be imported.

There is, however, an important distinction between retreaded tires (not for use on a passenger car) and regrooved tires. While the former are not subject to any NHTSA regulations, the latter are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 569, Regrooved Tires (copy enclosed). That regulation specifies that the only tires which may be regrooved are those which are marked "regroovable" on both sidewalls by the manufacturer (or retreader) (@ 569.9), and sets forth certain requirements which the tire must meet after regrooving (@ 569.7(a)(2)). Any tire not marked with the word "regroovable" on both sidewalls cannot legally be regrooved, so all casings imported for regrooving are required to have this marking.

Hence, there are three conditions which must be met by all casings imported for regrooving. These are: (a) the actual tread pattern remaining on the casing must be less than 2/32 of an inch deep;

(b) the casing must be imported solely for regrooving, and will not be used or sold "as is"; and

(c) the word "regroovable" must be marked on both sidewalls of each casing.

If you require further information on the actual mechanics of clearing these casings through customs, and the applicable duties, I suggest you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U. S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229. Mr. Feese's telephone number is (202) 566-8651.

(2) If regroovable imported tires are legal, are there any limitations on the types of trailers they may be put on, that is, original or used equipment? Yes, there are limitations on the installation of regrooved tires. This agency's regulations apply only to new vehicles, so they are applicable to the use of regrooved tires as original equipment on new trailers. Specifically, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.120), (copy enclosed) applies to all new trailers. Section S5.1 of that standard sets forth the tire and rim selection requirements applicable to new trailers equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service. For the manufacturer to install regrooved tires on a new trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that three conditions must be satisfied. These are:

(a) the regrooved tires to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser;

(b) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle; and

(c) the regrooved tires must have a DOT certification symbol on the sidewall to show that the tire, when new, was certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. This third condition arises because regrooved tires are considered "used tires" within the meaning of section S5.1.3.

The third condition just mentioned makes it unlikely that regrooved tires produced from imported casings could be mounted by a trailer manufacturer on a new trailer, because those casings are unlikely to have a DOT certification symbol on the sidewall. Please note, however, that Standard No. 120 applies only to trailers which are equipped with tires for highway service. Your company, as a purchaser, is free to order the new trailer delivered to you without any tires installed. The purchaser is then free to install any tires he may choose, without violating this agency's requirements.

Regarding your question about limitations on the use of regrooved tires on used trailers, that area is not regulated by this agency. However, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration has issued an applicable regulation for equipment used in interstate commerce. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR @ 393.75, which sets forth the requirements for tires used in interstate commerce. This regulation prohibits the use of regrooved tires above a certain load-carrying capacity on the front wheels of trucks and truck tractors, but it does not appear to prohibit the use of regrooved tires on trailers. You may want to check with Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, to confirm that regrooved tires may be mounted on trailers to be used in interstate commerce.

(3) Are there any restrictions on the type of equipment capped foreign casings can be put on? The same provisions set forth above regulating the use of regrooved tires on new and used equipment are applicable for determining whether retreaded tires may be mounted on new and used equipment. For the manufacturer to install retreaded tires on a new trailer, section S5.1.3 sets forth two conditions which must be satisfied. These are:

(a) the retreaded tires to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser; and

(b) The sum of the maximum load ratings of the retreaded tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle.

You will notice that retreaded tires to be used on new equipment do not have to meet the third condition specified above for the use of regrooved tires, i.e., retreaded tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on the sidewall. The reason retreaded tires are not required to meet this condition is that NHTSA has interpreted the term "used tires" in section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 as not including retreaded tires.

Regarding the use of retreaded tires on used equipment to be employed in interstate commerce, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety does not appear to have any restrictions on the use of retreaded tires on trailers. The general restrictions that the sum of the load ratings of the tires mounted on an axle be at least equal to the load on the axle applies regardless of whether the tires are new, retreaded, or regrooved (49 CFR @ 393.75(f)(2)). Again, you may want to confirm this with that agency.

(4) Are there structural or physical (marking) requirements on foreign casings imported for recapping? As noted in response to your first question, there is no requirement that casings imported for retreading have a DOT symbol on the sidewall. Further, since there is no NHTSA standard applicable to the retreading of these tires, there are no structural requirements which the casings must satisfy. I would, however, urge your company to take all reasonable steps to assure the structural integrity of any casings which are imported for retreading for your company.

After the casing has been retreaded, 49 CFR Part 574.5 (copy enclosed) requires that the retreader of the imported casing put its identification number on the sidewall of each tire it retreads. This permits the agency to identify the retreader of the tire should that be necessary. The identification number need not appear on tires which are retreaded solely for the retreader's own use, since it is obvious who retreaded those tires.

You should note that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety prohibits retreaded tires without load markings from being mounted on the front wheels of trucks used in interstate commerce, except for two particular types of vehicles. Again, if you have any further questions as to that agency's regulations concerning the use of retreaded tires, you should contact that agency directly.

I would be happy to help if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

ENCLS.

Transamerica Transportation Services Inc

November 8, 1982

Stephen Kratzke U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Transamerica Transportation Services is the largest lessor of intermodal piggyback equipment and, as such, purchases a large number of tires for the equipment.

We have been recently looking into the feasibility of using recapped Japanese casings and regrooved Japanese casings on our equipment and it seems the more people we talk to concerning the legality of these tires, the more varied opinions we receive. Specifically, we are looking for the answers to the following questions and we would appreciate your opinions, be they legal or otherwise, and any pertinent DOT laws:

1. May tires be imported for regrooving and, if so, are there any conditions necessary such as DOT number or "regroovable tire" marking on the casing?

2. If regroovable imported tires are legal, are there any limitations on the type of trailers they may be put on, that is, original or used equipment?

3. Are there any restrictions on the type of equipment capped foreign casings can be put on?

4. Are there structural or physical (marking) requirements on foreign casings imported for capping?

Any information on these questions would be greatly appreciated.

Neil Mark Manager, Technical Services

ID: aiam4637

"Dear Mr. Blackman: This responds to your letter asking for informatio about the application of Federal safety standards to a head restraint that attaches to the rear window of pickup trucks. I hope the following information is helpful. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraint device sold as an item of 'aftermarket' equipment for pickup trucks. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed), would also affect your head restraint if your product were installed by a commercial business on either new or used vehicles. A manufacturer installing your head restraint device on a new truck prior to certifying the truck as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as required by the Safety Act, has certain responsibilities relating to that obligation to certify. Standard No. 302 establishes flammability resistance requirements for trucks that must be met by certain vehicle components, including head restraints. The new vehicle manufacturer that installs your product on the new vehicle would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the head restraint device conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. A commercial business wishing to install the head restraint on new or used vehicles would be subject to statutory considerations that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle without violating the Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. In addition to the materials described above, I am also enclosing a Federal Register notice (53 FR 50047) that NHTSA issued on December 13, 1988, proposing to extend the applicability of Standard No. 202 to light trucks and vans. NHTSA has proposed to make this extension effective September 1, 1991. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding by this fall. We are also returning herewith the sketch you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information which you asked us not to publicly disclose. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";