ID: nht90-4.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe W. Humphrey

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-9-90 to P.J. Rice from J.W. Humphrey

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 9, 1990, with respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp.

You have asked if it is acceptable to add amber turn signal lamps to each side of the center stop lamp. The answer is yes, if the turn signal lamps are separate from the stop lamp. Under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, the center stop lamp cannot be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-4.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Danny Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 to Chief Counsel, NHTSA from Danny Pugh (OCC 5214)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). More specifically, you asked about the requirements for safety belts at the various seating positions in vehicles with a gross vehic le weight rating under 10,000 pounds that you called "van conversions."

You first asked whether a "van conversion" would be classified as a passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle. Vehicles commonly called "vans" may be classed in four different vehicle categories (set forth at 49 CFR S571.3) for the purpose s of our safety standards, depending on the configuration of the particular "van." Most cargo vans are classified as "trucks" under our safety standards, because those vehicles are "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpos e equipment." Most passenger vans are classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles," because they do not meet the definition of a "truck" but are constructed on a truck chassis." Those vans that have eleven or more designated seating positions are cl assified as "buses" because they are "designed for carrying more than 10 persons. Finally, one minivan (the Nissan Axxess) was certified by its manufacturer as a "passenger car" because it was "designed for carrying 10 persons or less."

Additionally, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifica tion before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. If you are interested in the appropriate classification for a particular van conver sion, we will offer our tentative opinion if you will provide us with detailed information on the van conversion in which you are interested.

You next asked on what date safety belts were required in "van conversions," what type of safety belts, and at what locations those belts were required. As explained above, we do not class vehicles as "van conversions" for the purposes of our safety sta ndards. If the vans were classed as passenger cars, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the car. Beginning December 11, 1989, passenger cars were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating p osition. Since September

1, 1989, all passenger cars are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection for outboard front-seat occupants.

Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder o r lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the vehicle. Beginning September 1, 1991, vans classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles or trucks (other than motor homes) must have lap/shoulder belts at both front and rear outboard seati ng positions, with either lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions. Motor homes manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 will continue to be required to have lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulde r or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. In addition, effective September 1, 1991 vans must meet dynamic crash test injury criteria for the front outboard seating positions.

If the vans were classed as buses, buses manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to be equipped with either a lap/shoulder or a lap-only safety belt at the driver's seating position. Beginning September 1, 1991, buses with a gross vehicle we ight rating of 10,000 pounds or less (except school buses) must be equipped, with lap/shoulder belts at all front and rear outboard seating positions, and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position.

Also, the agency has proposed extending the automatic crash protection requirements mentioned above to these other vehicle classifications.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.82

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M.J.P. Ravier -- R&D Director, Valeo

TITLE: Re Your ref 861 M 90

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-90 to P.J. Rice from J.P. Ravier and Guy Dorleans (OCC 5304); Also attached to letter dated 7-30-90 to J.P. Ravier from Kathleen Demeter

TEXT:

This is in further reply to your letter of July 13, 1990, with respect to whether your "Aiming concept for headlamps, Solution 2" is acceptable under paragraph S7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Ms. DeMeter of t his Office has previously addressed your request for confidentiality.

The headlamp aiming concept consists of a spirit level affixed to the reflector, and has its axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Correct vertical aim is accomplished by ensuring that the bubble in the spirit level is centered at zero. Correct horizontal aim is ensured through a coaxial screw and nut with markings which align with markings on the vehicle body. The system bears graduations that accord with those imposed by S7.7.5.2.

As Valeo was informed when the device was demonstrated to members of this agency on June 29, 1990, the concept is an acceptable vehicle headlamp aiming device under S7.7.5.2. It is designed to meet the vertical aim requirements of S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and the horizontal aim requirements of (a)(2). We are pleased to provide a confirmation in writing.

ID: nht90-4.83

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Department, Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from M. Iwase (OCC 5458)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of November 20, 1990 with respect to "interpretation and/or petition" concerning combination headlighting systems.

Koito has asked about the permissibility of two or four lamp headlighting systems in which the upper beam would be provided by integral beam headlamps, and the lower beam by replaceable bulb headlamps.

The systems you describe would not be permissible under Standard No. 108, which allows only the three types of headlighting systems that you mention. Integral beam headlighting systems must be comprised of integral beam headlamps which, by definition, a re headlamps other than sealed beam or replaceable bulb headlamps. Replaceable bulb headlighting systems are those that incorporate the standardized replaceable light sources listed in Standard No. 108.

We are transmitting your request to the Office of Rulemaking, for consideration as a petition for rulemaking.

ID: nht90-4.84

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Roger C. Fairchild -- Shutler and Low

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-5-90 from R.C. Fairchild to P.J. Rice (OCC 5287)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for my opinion of whether a particular vehicle (the Pinzgauer) would be considered a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. When NHTSA previously considered this question, we stated in a March 25, 1982 letter to Mr. Leonard Fink that the Pinzgauer would be considered to be a motor vehicle, based on the information that was available to the agency at that time. However, that letter also stated that the agency would be willing to reconsider this conclusion if additional information were provided regarding the vehicle's marketing, advertising, and actual use. Your recent letter set forth three additional factors that you suggested might lead the agency to change its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer was a motor vehicle. As explained in detail below, this agency reaffirms the previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicl es and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a ma ximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

Vehicles such as the Pinzgauer are not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, the Pinzgauer is obviously designed to have substantial off-road capabilities, as evidenced by high ground clearance, deep water fording capabilit ies, and all-wheel drive. According to its manufacturer, 95 percent of the annual production of Pinzgauers is purchased by armed forces worldwide. These factors suggest that the Pinzgauer should not be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, the available information shows the Pinzgauer is suitable for use on-road. The vehicle has a top speed of nearly 70 miles per hour. Page 4 of Enclosure 1 of your letter shows that the Pinzgauer is equipped with turn signals and states that the power st eering minimizes steering effort "both in difficult terrain and when parking." Page 4 of Enclosure 3 with your letter describes the serviceability of the Pinzgauer "with ordinary on- and off-road usage." These factors suggest that the vehicle is design ed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, which suggests that it should be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether something is a motor vehicle, when the vehicle has both on-road and off-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, NHTSA has ap plied five factors to reach its conclusion. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

When NHTSA previously considered whether the Pinzgauer should be considered a motor vehicle, the available information regarding these factors showed that the manufacturer had equipped the vehicle with side marker lights, the manufacturer expected the ve hicle to be used on-road, and that it would be sold by dealers that also sell vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles.

In your letter, you enclosed some additional information and brochures from the manufacturer that show the manufacturer continues to expect Pinzgauers to be used both on- and off-road. Since the manufacturer does not now expect to sponsor the vehicle's sale in the U.S., no information is available on the anticipated dealers. The additional information enclosed with your letter did not specifically address any factors on

which no information was previously available to NHTSA. Hence, the agency has no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle.

You suggested three reasons that might lead the agency to reverse its previous conclusion. First, you suggested that the 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer has a unique body configuration which distinguishes it from typical, on-road vehicles and makes i t particularly well suited to off-road use. You correctly noted that the agency's 1982 letter addressed both the 4-wheeled and 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. However, for the purposes of this analysis, there is no attribute of the 6-wheeled versio n that would lead the agency to conclude that it should be classified differently than the 4-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. Many vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles have 6 wheels. In all other respects, the 4- and 6-wheeled Pinzgauers have simi lar on-road capabilities, including a top speed of more than 65 miles per hour.

Second, you suggested that NHTSA concluded that the Unimog is not a "motor vehicle" in a February 7, 1984 letter, and that the Unimog and Pinzgauer are comparable vehicles. In the February 7, 1984 letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber to which you refer, NHTSA stated that it had no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Unimog was not a "motor vehicle." NHTSA also noted that this conclusion was based upon the assumptions that Unimog vehicles would continue to be marketed through dealers of farm machinery and heavy equipment and that Unimog vehicles would have a label affixed stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use. In other words, the information available for Unimog (especially regarding factors number 4 and 5 above) was s ufficient to lead the agency to conclude that it was not a motor vehicle, even though Unimogs are operationally capable of on-road use. By way of contrast, either no information is available for Pinzgauer vehicles regarding the five factors identified a bove or, if information is available for a factor, it suggests that the Pinzgauer should be treated as a motor vehicle. Since the Pinzgauer is operationally capable of on-road use, and there is no indication that the manufacturer does not intend for it to spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA reaffirms its previous statement that these vehicles appear to be "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the Safety Act.

Third, you suggested that NHTSA's 1982 conclusion did not include a consideration of the primary design intent of the Pinzgauer for military purposes and the high percentage of its total sales to the military. NHTSA's 1982 conclusion and this reconsidera tion both are addressed only to the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer. The military versions of the Pinzgauer would not be subject to the safety standards if their sales satisfied 49 CFR S571.7(c). In both the 1982 and this examination of whether the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer are motor vehicles, the agency fully considered the substantial off-road capabilities of these vehicles. However, absent indications that the manufacturer does not intend the Pinzgauer to spend substantial peri ods of time on-road, NHTSA concluded in 1982, and reaffirms at this time, that the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer appear to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or

need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.85

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 14, 1990

FROM: William J. Bethurum -- Patent Attorney

TO: Legal Counsel, U.S. National Highway Safety Commission

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-26-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to William J. Bethurum (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

My client, Mr. E. D. Farnsworth of Sweet, Idaho has asked me to write to you concerning the matter of when and how side lights adjacent to the main head lights came to be first used with head lights on automobiles. Mr. Farnsworth has made several new an d useful improvements in the field of automobile head lights and associated side lights, and he has recently filed a United States Patent application for one of his inventions in this field.

However, Mr. Farnsworth submitted one of his earlier ideas in this field to an invention promotion firm on the East Coast under an agreement of confidentiality, and Mr. Farnsworth feels that perhaps this agreement may have been breached in view of the ma ny new side light designs that he has recently seen in national magazines.

In the event we decide to approach prospective licensees about the licensing of our pending patent application, will you please advise us of what assistance your office can give us in the area of transportation regulations which may govern the applicatio n of new head lamp designs for automobiles or other motor driven vehicles.

Any information you may have in this regard will be most appreciated.

ID: nht90-4.86

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 14, 1990

FROM: John M. Marcum -- Chairman and CEO, Electric Vehicles, S.A.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-1-91 from John Marcum to NHTSA Administrator; Also attached to letter dated 4-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John Marcum (A37; VSA Sec. 108(2); Part 591)

TEXT:

Electric Vehicles, S.A. of 1776 I Street, N.W., Suite 850, Washington, D.C. 20006, is applying for a temporary exemption from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the EVSA prototype electric minibus. The firm is incorporated in Geneva, Switzer land and manufactures both electric minibuses and delivery trucks. EVSA has built its first two 16 passenger electric minibus prototypes (13,700 GVWR). They are currently being tested and evaluated in Allentown, Pennsylvania and Hong Kong. Through this testing program, EVSA plans to improve the performance and establish conformity to FMVSS requirements of our production vehicles. However, meeting all of these standards for our prototype would impair the development and field evaluation of this electri c vehicle. The 16 passenger minibus is powered with a Chloride 55 kw traction motor and carries 128 two volt batteries in four battery packs placed on top of the chassis and in sealed compartments under the passenger seats on either side of the the vehi cle. The batteries are accessible through fiberglass doors that run the length of the vehicle on either side. The minibus is a hybrid vehicle in that it is equipped with an optional 7 kw gasoline powered generator or range enhancer which is in a compar tment at the rear of the bus.

If this exemption is granted it will allow the vehicle to be used in a "free" test and evaluation passenger service operated in Allentown in the downtown shopping area. The bus will operate on a 1.7 mile loop that averages 20 stops per loop and where th e average speed is less than 10 mph. EVSA requests that this exemption be for a period of three months. During this time the minibus would be operated on the downtown loop by the Lehigh and Northhampton Transportation Authority (LANTA) as part of a join t test and evaluation program between EVSA, LANTA, the Pennsylvania Energy Office, Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. and others.

The prototype vehicle in Allentown differs in several respects from the FMVSS requirements. The first is that due to the use of thick "show type" fiberglass it is overweight. The vehicle unloaded is approximately 13,200 lbs. This means that when fully loaded to the 16 passenger (17 persons including the driver) capacity it will be about 2,000 lbs. or 15 percent over the GVWR of the chassis.

This vehicle also does not meet fully the requirement for emergency exits. It does not have a roof top emergency exit or the required one exit per three seating positions. However, it does have one side emergency door near the rear on the opposite side from the main entry door which does provide the total emergency exit requirement of 1139 square inches.

EVSA believes this should provide adequate egress in the event of an emergency in this limited operating mode.

The vehicle also fails to meet the standards in other areas including windshield washer, seat belt warning light and so on. These are in the process of being added to the vehicle during the test program. The chassis has passed its brake tests under ful l load at the Bendix proving ground and additional tests of the integrated vehicle are being carried out at the Mack Truck test track in Allentown.

The minibus has already demonstrated the capacity to carry 20 or more persons safely at its first showings in exhibitions in Athens, Greece and Houston, Texas. Moreover the front wheel drive heavy duty rail type chassis is conservatively rated and the m inibus will be driven at very low speeds on flat ground under passenger loads ranging from within the GVWR up to a maximum overload of 15 percent. Consequently, EVSA and its partners in the Allentown project do not believe there is any appreciable risk to the public resulting from the non-conforming aspects of this prototype vehicle. Operating this minibus in the downtown area during this experimental program would allow EVSA and LANTA to acquire valuable data for the designing and fabrication of futu re electric vehicles that would meet all of the applicable standards and would help fulfill the objective of the Alternative Fuels Vehicle Program of UMTA.

ID: nht90-4.87

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Department, Koito Manufacturing Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-13-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from M. Iwase

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1990, with respect to photometric measurement procedures for a L.E.D. center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL).

According to your letter, "photometric output of L.E.D. lighting device decreases as the time passes after activation, as shown in Figure 1." Your Figure 1 demonstrates that L.E.D.s at five minutes have a relative photometric output of slightly more than 70 percent of the output when the lamp is activated. After 20 minutes, it would appear to be only slightly more than 60 percent of initial output. You have asked at what time after activation of the CHMSL its photometrics are to be measured; in your opinion, five minutes is a reasonable time. You support your opinion with three arguments, which I will not summarize here since they are not relevant to my response.

Standard No. 108 does not specify when the CHMSL photometric test is to occur. Neither SAE Recommended Practice J186a, Supplemental High Mounted Stop and Rear Turn Signal Lamps, January 1977, the applicable standard that is incorporated by reference, nor any other section of Standard No. 108, requires the photometric test to be conducted at any particular time. The standard does require that CHMSLs and other lamps be designed to conform to its requirements; therefore, we expect the CHMSL to meet the minimum photometric specifications at whatever point in time it is tested after its activation. If Koito wishes to test at five minutes after activation, it may do so.

The purpose of the CHMSL is to reduce the frequency and severity of rear end collisions. Thus, its initial activation is the one that is most critical to highway safety. Although the short survey of continuous brake application times that Koito conducted, and which is referenced in your letter, showed one continuous brake application that exceeded four minutes, at such a period in time the warning message of the light would have been long delivered to the driver following. Thus, the fact that the L.E.D. diminishes over a continuous period of time would not appear to affect its purpose, as long as the CHMSL conforms to the minimum photometric requirements upon each application of the brake pedal, no matter how long the previous brake application and no matter how short the interval between brake applications.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-4.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mary Rees -- D.C. (USA) Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-9-90 to NHTSA from Mary Rees (OCC 5362; FMVSS 207)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 9, 1990. In your letter you ask the following questions concerning testing and certification.

(1) If a manufacturer has developed an item that he feels does meet all federal safety regulations, and it is ready to be tested, how would he get it tested? Are there any forms to be filed?

First, please be aware that the United States does not have an approval process. In the United States, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must certify that its products will comply with all applicable safety standards. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the 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. The National Highway Traffic S afety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however , that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 56 7.

If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, comput er simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. While an element of "due care" could be the u se of appropriate testing laboratories, there is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. In addition, NHTSA does not approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend any particular testing center be utiliz ed.

Finally, manufacturers are not required to file any forms beyond the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566. This regulation requires a

manufacturer to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures, there is no requirement to submit test data or any other forms to support certification. However, manufacturers would be well advised to retain such data as evidence of their due care in certifying compliance with the safety standards.

(2) We propose to manufacture an automobile seat frame. Since this is only a component of the actual seat, does the firm who puts together the finished seat apply for approval and testing?

As explained previously, neither you nor the firm who puts together the finished seat has to apply for approval and testing. However, your question indicates some confusion regarding the party who is responsible for certifying that the seat complies wit h federal standards. The answer will vary depending upon the situation in which the seat is installed in a vehicle.

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, is considered a vehicle standard, because it applies only to new vehicles. Therefore, if a seat which incorporates your seat frame is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible f or certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 207. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alte rer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any federal standards. However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall 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 comp liance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

Therefore, none of these entities could install a seat containing your seat frame if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with standard No. 207 or any other standard.

In all of these situations, you, as the manufacturer of the seat frame, have no certification requirements. However, the manufacturer of the seat or the vehicle it is to be installed in will probably require information from you in order to make the nec essary certification.

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

ID: nht90-4.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 21, 1990

FROM: Carol Zeitlow -- Manager, Engineering Services, Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TO: Taylor Vincon -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-16-91 from Paul J. Rice to Carol Zeitlow (A37; Std. 101; Std. 104; Std. 108; Std. 201

TEXT:

As you may recall, I spoke with you on the phone regarding the following subjects. You had suggested I write you with my questions.

1. In my August 1st letter I asked the question, "When a hazard warning light (four-way flasher) and a rear stop light are together on a vehicle, which should be the over-riding feature?". Your reply of August 27, 1990 stated that the hazard light shoul d always be over-riding. You also stated that you thought the regulations had previously stated either option was acceptable. If this is the case, when did the regulation change and in which section of the regulations can I find the ruling? Possibly, w e have had a misunderstanding since we have noticed that passenger cars are not all designed in this way. Your comments will be appreciated.

Additional questions I asked during an Oct. 9th phone conversation:

2. Question: Is a sun visor was required by FMVSS. Your answer was no.

3. Question: Are there any regulations regarding the type, or quantity of horns required on a vehicle? The answer you gave was no, only a horn was required.

4. Question: According to CFR 49, Section 571.104, there are no regulations regarding the percentage of area of the windshield that the windshield wiper must wipe, only the frequency of the wipers is egulated? You agreed.

Will you please confirm these answers in writing? Thank you.