ID: nht90-2.54

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 29, 1990

FROM: Ron Boucher -- Energy Savings System

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-27-90 to R. Boucher from P. J. Rice; (A35; VSA 102(4)); also attached to letter dated 5-17-90 to Miss Carnes from R. Boucher; (OCC 4824) TEXT:

I'm writing and requesting approval to market a product. Enclosed is a flyer showing what the product is.

I would like to know for certain if it can be used in a type situation like a car has a flat tire or breaks down along the road, while working on the car the person can either place it on his arm with a strap or it has magnet that can be put on the vehic le while working on it.

Could you please let me know if it's in compliance with the law.

Thank you for help in this matter.

Looking forward to your reply.

ID: nht90-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 29, 1990

FROM: G. Nick Routh -- President, American Energetics

TO: Jere Medlin -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from J.M. Fish to C. Mack (A35; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 5-30-90 from G.N. Routh to C. Mack

TEXT:

We are distributors of solar control window insulation film, selling our product to over 1000 installers across the United States. Over the past six years an increasing percentage of our sales are derived from "auto tint". Currently about 70% of our sa les come from the auto market. Film applied to car windows has become increasingly popular.

Unfortunately several events are putting our livelihood and the livelihoods of our customers in jeopardy. Specifically, the Justice Department has sued a number of film installers in Florida for violation of federal guidelines, at the direction of NHTSA . At the same time, a group of manufacturers in our industry are petitioning NHTSA to revise its guidelines.

We feel that NHTSA, in reviewing the guidelines, and the manufacturers, in petitioning NHTSA, are not heeding some basic points that are key to the argument. We will explain our thoughts here by posing a number of questions.

1. HAS NHTSA SURVEYED THE CONSUMING PUBLIC?

We note that NHTSA, in responding to the original petition of the film manufacturers asking for 35% VLT, cited a number of questions about the safety of film and then asked for commentary from "interested parties". We imagine that the interested parties were law enforcement agencies for the most part who clearly constitute a special interest group. Did NHTSA speak to drivers who have film on their autos?

Did NHTSA survey Florida, Texas or other Sunbelt residents, particularly those of advanced age for whom reduced glare is very important in light of cataracts, glaucoma and the like?

People who are not familar with film inevitably have a jaundiced view of auto tint, seeing it only as black material, not aware of the different light transmission properties available. You would find, if you researched the matter, that consumers vote w ith their dollars where auto tint is concerned and are generally always repeat buyers.

2. WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES?

Following from the last question, we must note that perhaps 70% of auto tint sales are in the Sunbelt. This is no coincidence. It is bright in these states year around. You would no doubt find that the bulk of

sunglasses are sold in these states. Why can't individual states note the differences between each other by having differing laws that recognize their differences? Clearly, there are areas where states have differing statutes on their books regarding a utomobile accesories and aftermarket add-ons. Specifically, we are speaking of radars, the use of head phones while driving, driving lights, studded snow tires and of course, auto emissions restrictions. Of all these, auto tint stands out as an obvious area where concrete climatological factors strongly support the use of film.

We believe that most states that have written their own laws regarding film, have done so, like Florida, in the firm belief that federal guidelines apply to new car manufacture, not to the aftermarket, where a consumer may choose to customize his car, us ing the installer or mechanic as an agent, as long as state standards are adherred to.

3. WHY ARE SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS OPPOSED TO FILM?

This is a very interesting question to us. Any auto tint installer will tell you that law enforcement officers number among his customers. Informal discussions with officers reveal that officers approach an auto with film on it as they would any car the y stop - with caution. Film will not hide weapons; a weapon may be held below the window level on any auto. Further, a van with no windows could conceal more than the darkest film.

There is an annual publication issued by the FBI dealing with the deaths of law enforcement personnel in the US at the local, state and federal level. This is the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted part of the Uniform Crime Report. The statis tics are organized by the nature of the incident resulting in a death. It is our understanding that a study of the last ten years of these reports, together with a reading of the anecdotal information provided, nowhere points to auto tint being a key fa ctor in the demise of an officer. We hear it often repeated that officers are endangered by film on windows, but concrete evidence is not to be had, we believe.

We do think that auto film is an easy target for ignorance. Police who are not familar with the different levels of VLT will react negatively, envisioning the black material. The vast number of states that have adopted the use of 35% VLT film on the dri ver and passenger windows have all had that film reviewed by their law enforcement officers and they have approved the use of the film.

4. WHAT IS THE HARM OF IT?

There are no federal guidelines that address themselves to the large market for radar detectors, yet this product is clearly designed to assist motorists in evading speeding tickets. Auto tint is not designed to evade the law. Rather it is beneficial t o the user, protecting the car against UV damage, preventing glass shattering in the case of accidents, and reducing glare. To pursue the latter point, why is film suspect and sunglasses not? Sunglasses are normally sold in much darker shades than the window film that is being applied.

Further, there is some argument to the point that film reduces the load on auto air conditioning, particularly those films that are lightly metallized. The conclusion to be drawn here is that film has got to have some benefit in reducing gas consumption . Evidently, we would regulate something beneficial such as film, but not regulate radar detectors.

With regard to highway safety, which is what is the central issue here, there appears to be a great deal of confusion. Statistics show that the accidents and deaths per passenger mile driven have not changed significantly over the last generation while the use of auto film has grown dramatically. This would certainly indicate that films darker than FMVSS 205 would allow, which are allowed by the Sunbelt state statutes, are not contributing to a reduction in safety on our nation's highways.

5. WHY ARE CAR OWNERS ALLOWED TO DO WHAT FILM INSTALLERS ARE NOT?

If the government has determined to regulate film, we are amazed by the evident loophole that exists. From our readings of NHTSA communications, we understand that individual car owners will be permitted to install any film on their own cars, so long as they adhere to state guidelines which are more permissive than current federal quidelines. However, film installers would have to adhere to the more stringent federal guidelines. We would like to know why the installer can't be considered the agent of the car owner? Why is the installer being singled out to discriminate against?

To speak bluntly, this inequity will allow film manufacturers to sell film in the Do-It-Yourself or retall market and bypass the fllm installers who will not be allowed to install the preferred darker films which will now only be available in the DIY mar ket? In the back of our minds we feel some concern that the manufacturers, in petitioning NHTSA are not acting on our behalf. The inequity will close us out but keep them in business and dark film will still be available.

Conclusion:

If NHTSA takes the position that its guidelines preempt state guidelines it fails to recognize clear regional differences and preferences. If NHTSA leaves an inequity for individual car owners to install darker film than installers can, it discriminates unfairly. If NHTSA solicits input from organized lobby groups either pro or con on the issue and fails to speak to individuals who have film on their cars, it is not geting the full picture.

We feel strongly that the states should regulate this issue. If the federal government sees fit to regulate, it should allow film of at least 35% VLT on the driver passenger windows, which is agreeable to the southern states who use the bulk of the prod uct. Further, if NHTSA regulates, it should not discriminate as to who applies the material.

We feel that we, our fellow distributors numbering perhaps over 30 across the US, and the over 5000 installers across the US are in jeopardy of losing our livelihoods without a hearing. Were we organized into a strong lobby group with resources we might be better able to deal with federal

institutions. We have two allies - plain talk and over half a million car owners a year who have film installed on their car.

ID: nht90-2.56

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 29, 1990

FROM: Edward Kultgen -- Secretary, Bird-Kultgen Ford Volkswagen

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from F. Berndt (Signature by S.P. Wood); Also attached to letter dated 3-27-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr to B. Nanninga (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 8-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J.L. O'Connell (VSA 1 02(14)); Also attached to letter dated 7-12-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J. Thomason (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to E. Kultgen (A36; VSA 108(b)(1); VSA 102(14); Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We have today received from the Ford Motor Company Central Regional Sales Office a copy of your letter to Sen. Gramm dated May 10, 1990, concerning the sale and/or rental of passenger vans to transport students. While your letter clarified most of the i ssues in this matter faced by those of us with dealer-owned rental companies, it brought up a couple of related questions for which we need answers.

First, does Section 108 (b) (1) of the Safety Act, or any other section, apply to the retail sale of used vehicles? For example, we have been approached from time to time by representatives of various small church-related schools seeking to purchase a u sed late-model 15-passenger van, obviously at least in part for the purpose of transporting students on field trips, to extra-cirricular events, etc. Would the sale of such a used vehicle under these circumstances violate the Safety Act?

Second, for this purpose, what is the definition of "student"? Four specific groups come immediately to mind: (a)clients of a local MHMR children's developmental learning program; (b)students enrolled in a local community college; (c)church youth group s; and (d)children enrolled in after-school or summer day care programs. There are other similar groups with whom we deal in the course of business, but an answer for these examples should give us sufficient guidance in following the requirements of the statute.

I appreciate your attention to these questions, and I hope to hear from you or a member of your staff in the near future.

ID: nht90-2.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/90

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

TO: MICHAEL S. KMIECIK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM MICHAEL S. KMIECIK TO NHTSA, DATED 11/21/89

TEXT: This responds to your letter with respect to vehicle modification kits you wish to purchase and use in the conversion of used Datsun cars. You asked about the Part 581 Bumper Standard and Safety Standard No. 215 with respect to using Datsuns produced be fore September 1, 1978. You asked whether the kit would meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 215. I regret the delay in responding. (I note that you sent a separate letter asking about the safety standards that apply to 1974-78 convertibles, an d whether the conversion kit meets those standards. I am responding to that letter separately).

We appreciate your efforts to meet the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A provision of the Act requires, in essence, that vehicle alterations by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business must not render wholly or partially inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a vehicle at the end of its conversion process must continue to meet the sta ndards that applied at the time that it was first manufactured.

As you may know, the Part 581 Bumper Standard became applicable to passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1978. It replaced Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, which applied to passenger cars manufactured from September 1, 1972 t o August 30, 1978.

In converting a car to which Standard No. 215 originally applied, care must be taken to ensure that the changes do not affect the ability to conform to the applicable performance requirements of that standard (copy enclosed). We regret that we are unabl e to advise you of the effect that any specific modifications would have on the performance of the vehicle as converted. The manufacturer of the kit may be able to provide information on this subject.

2

You also requested a copy of Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. I have enclosed a copy of that standard revised as of October 1, 1989. I have also enclosed an information sheet which provides information for n ew manufacturers, and includes information concerning how to obtain copies of safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/90

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

TO: TIMOTHY A. KELLY -- PRESIDENT SALEM VENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/29/90, FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217; OCC 4382; LETTER DATED 01/29/90 FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR / ESCAP E HATCH - FMVSS 217

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release as it applies to roof exits. You asked four specific questions which I have addressed below.

First, you asked for confirmation that the only specification in Standard No. 217 concerning the size of roof exits is the requirement that the exit be able to accommodate an ellipsoid with a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches pushed h orizontally through the exit opening. Your understanding is not entirely correct. The ellipsoid requirement to which you refer, set forth in S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, is the only provision in the standard that specifies a minimum size requirement for roof exit opening. Although there is no maximum size limit, you should be aware that S5.2 of Standard No. 217 provides that, in determining the total unobstructed openings for emergency exit provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. Thus, if a roof exit is larger than 536 square inches, only 536 square inches will be counted for the exit in determining whether the bus complies with the unobstructed op enings requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 217.

Second, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 does not permit the use of escape hatches or ventilators in the roof of school buses as a substitute for any of the emergency exits required on school buses by S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. This und erstanding is correct. Additionally, you should be aware that the agency has a longstanding position that any emergency exits, including any roof exits, installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by S5.2.3 must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 217 for emergency exits installed on buses other than school buses. See the enclosed July 6, 1979 interpretation to Robert Kurre on this issue.

Third, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 permits the use of roof exits as a substitute for the rear exit door on buses other than school buses. This statement is not entirely correct. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 requires the use of a rear exit door on all non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., except where the configuration of the bus precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. In that case, S5.2.1 requires the installation of a roof exit in the rear half of th e bus in lieu of the rear exit. This substitution of a roof exit for a rear exit door is allowed only where the bus design precludes the use of a rear exit (such as on rear-engine buses). It is not an option allowing the substitution of a roof exit for the rear door in any design.

Fourth, you asked whether the addition of more than one roof exit on a non-school bus would allow a manufacturer to delete any other required exits in addition to the rear door. It is possible that increasing the total exit space on the bus by adding ro of exits could enable a manufacturer to reduce the number or size of other emergency exits on the bus and still comply with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2. You should be aware that exit space provided by roof exits is not counted in deter mining compliance with the requirement in S5.2 that 40 percent of the total unobstructed openings be located on each side of the bus. Whether this substitution of additional roof exits could be made on any particular non-school bus would depend upon whe ther the bus complied with the exit space and location requirements of S5.2.1 (if the bus has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and the applicable requirements of S5.2.2 (if the bus has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/90

FROM: NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS

TO: J. SMITH -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35, VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/25/90 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDA TED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US C RACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR-WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TEXT: Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

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

TO: JOSEPH PERRY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-7-89 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM JOSEPH PERRY ATTACHED; (OCC-4134) TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to the rules and regulations pertaining to the importation of a kit car. Your letter indicates that the vehicle will utilize both new and used components, some of them imported from England, and the remainder supplied in the United States. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, the components you wish to import from England are described as "the body chassis unit, possibly two boxes of used and reconditioned suspension parts and interior seats and trim in other boxes." You would like to know "if it is acceptable to have all window glass and doors fitted to the body unit before shipping to best assure its arrival in one piece; at this point "the interior, suspension, dash, wiring and steering and wheels will not be installed.

Under the fact situation you outline, it is immaterial under our regulations whether or not you install the window glass and doors before shipping, or after importation into the United States. If you prefer to install these components before shipping, t hat is acceptable to us. Those components, such as windshield glazing, that are covered by an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with such standard upon importation, whether or not they are attached to a larger assemblage of mo tor vehicle equipment. With respect to windshield glazing, the manufacturer's marking of "AS1" and "DOT" Will provide the necessary assurance to a Customs inspector that the glazing conforms.

Although you mention no other covered equipment except lighting, if you are importing as part of the kit brake hoses, brake fluid, tires, seat belt assemblies, or other glazing for use in the vehicle, these must also be marked as conforming with DOT requ irements.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

ID: nht90-2.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 30, 1990

FROM: G. Nick Routh -- President, American Energetics

TO: Connie Mack -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from J.M. Fish to C. Mack (A35; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from G.N. Routh to NHTSA c/o J. Medlin

TEXT:

I have a small business that is engaged in the selling and distribution of solar control films throughout the United States. These films are designed to reduce radiant heat gain through windows thereby lowering the energy costs. Over the past ten years or so, the market for auto window film has grown significantly. The demand for these films has increased year after year due to the features they provide for automobiles. As you are aware, the design of cars has changed dramatically due to fuel use co nsiderations and other factors. Cars have become smaller with smaller engines and more glass has been added to give a more spacious feeling. The additional glass and smaller engines have placed a greater load on the air conditioners in automobiles. Th e use of film on auto windows helps reduce the heat gain through the glass area and allows the cars to be more efficient and more comfortable for the occupants. It also reduces the effects of ultra-violet rays on the interior, reduces glare, and makes t he glass more shatter-resistant.

The purpose of this letter is enlist your assistance in a very serious matter that could gravely affect our industry. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), through the U.S. Justice Department, has filed suits against six companies involved in the installation of film on autos in the state of Florida. The six companies named in the suits are all in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area. The basis for the suits is that these companies have violated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Statute # 2 05 (FMVSS #205). This statute states that there must be a minimum of 70% visible light transmission through driver and passenger windows of new automobiles and cannot be tampered with even after first sale of the automobile since these windows are consi dered a safety aspect of the vehicle. The problem is that the State of Florida has a law on the books which allows companies to install film on automobiles as long as the film has a visible light transmission of 35% on the driver and passenger windows. Various other Sunbelt states have adopted laws similar to Florida's with no increase in accidents or additional problems with law enforcement officers. Our problem appears to be one of a "jurisdictional" nature in that NHTSA allowed the states to write laws that allowed these six companies and some 5,000 other businesses throughout the United States to be engaged in the business of applying films to automobiles and they are now saying that their statute preempts the state laws that are different from t he statute. I have enclosed a copy of a letter that I have sent to the people at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which will hopefully shed more light on the situation.

Basically, the suits that NHTSA have filed endanger the livelihoods of some 5,000 installers across the country along with some 30 distributors

and 7 manufacturers. We feel that this is an issue that is best left to the discretion of the individual states with regard to the use of film in the automotive aftermarket. In the states that allow darker film than FMVSS #205 would allow, there is no evidence that traffic safety has suffered or law enforcement personnel have been placed in any greater danger than they normally face in the pursuit of their duties. What has happened is that some half-million consumers per year are enjoying the benefit s of a product that is sorely needed in the automotive aftermarket.

Our industry has petitioned NHTSA to change their standard to more correctly reflect what is going on in many states which is the allowance of 35% visible light transmission film on the driver/passenger windows. While this may be one way to address the p roblem we currently face, it would seem to me that the simplest way to address this problem would be for NHTSA to address itself to the standards necessary for the manufacture of new automobiles and let the individual states legislate the requirements of items that are going to be added to automobiles after the car has been purchased and registered in a state.

I would humbly request that you look into this matter at your earliest convenience to see if you can determine what would be the best solution to this problem that is fair to all concerned.

ID: nht90-2.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

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

TO: VIRVE AIROLA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/26/72 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO K. NAKAJIMA -- TOYOTA; LETTER AND BROCHURE DATED 04/14/89 FROM VIRVE AIROLA OF OY TUPPI AB TO NHTSA CONCERNING ITS FINLAND COMPANY'S RANGE OF PLASTIC TUBES AND HOSE S PARTICULAR ITS AIR BRAKE TUBING

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. We understand that you are interested in supplying your products to a vehicle manufacturer (Saab-Scania), who specifies that you must "register" with this agency as a brake hose manufacturer. You request information that would enable you to meet this product specification. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported i nto this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires eac h manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil pen alty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Saab-Scania's product specification appears to relate to the labeling requirements of Standard No. 106. Under S7.2.1(b) of Standard No. 106, air brake hose manufacturers must label their hose with a designation (consisting of block capital letters, nume rals or a symbol) that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturers of noncomplying or defective brake

hoses. There is no NHTSA application form for the designation; instead, the manufacturer simply files the designation in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division, at the address provided in S7.2.1(b) of the standard.

From your letter, it appears that Saab-Scania also specifies that your brake hoses must meet all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake h ose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies must m eet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If they don't comply, the manufacturers are subject to civil penalties of $ 1000 per violation, and the notification and remedy provisions of the Safety Act. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information, photocopied from the October 1, 1989 edition of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR @ 571.106).

In addition to the requirements described above, please note that your manufacture of brake hoses may also be affected by NHTSA's longstanding interpretation of our regulation on manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566; copy enclosed), if Saab-Scani a sells vehicles equipped with your brake hoses in this country. This rule requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ("covered equipment" -- e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equ ipment it manufacturers to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which the equipment manufacturer supplies its products. NHTSA has interpreted this regulation to require the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment supplyi ng their products to a foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the United States. (Enclosed is a copy of the agency's January 26, 1972 letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota Motor Company on this issue.)

Please note that Oy Toppi is not required to designate an agent for service of process under 49 CFR Part 551 (Subpart D), if Oy Toppi supplies its products only to a foreign vehicle manufacturer. This is the case even if the foreign vehicle manufacturer installs Oy Toppi's products on vehicles that will be sold in the United States. However, please keep in mind that Oy Toppi must designate an agent under Part 551 if Oy Toppi decides to offer its equipment for importation into the United States. I hav e enclosed a copy of this regulation for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

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

TO: MARCIA M. AVIS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/03/89 FROM MARCIA M. AVIS -- M. AVIS CO TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, OCC 3509

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this agency asking about Federal regulations that apply to "an accessory seat pad" for booster seats and child restraint systems. I regret the delay in responding.

Your letter describes your product as a fabric seat cushion which is intended to provide comfort and head support to a child when the child is sleeping in the restraint system. You state that the cushion would be "held in place" on the seat with "the st rap system inherent to the booster seat along with the weight of the child on the seat."

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 child restraint systems (Standard No. 213) applies only to new systems and not to aftermarket compo nents of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket seat-pad.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the seat-pad. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of m otor 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 tho se responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your seat-pads contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If your product would be installed by commercial businesses instead of child seat owners, those businesses would have to do so in a manner consistent with section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The provision states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or m otor 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 . . ." Thus , this provision prohibits 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) from installing your seat-pad if the addition of your product would neg atively affect the compliance of a child restraint with Standard 213 and if the installing business were aware of that effect.

There are elements of design incorporated in a child restraint system pursuant to Standard 213 that may be affected by installation of a seat-pad. For example, Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child rest raint system. (See paragraph S5.7 of Standard 213, referencing Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed).) Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with FMVSS No. 213. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 108.

In addition, Standard 213 sets crash protection requirements for all new child restraint systems. It is unclear from your letter whether the seat-pad has provision for passing the belt systems of a child restraint around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would likely be regarded as having knowingly r endered inoperative a Federally required element of design in child restraint systems, in violation of @ 108 (a)(2)(A).

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 or motor vehicle equipment. Nevertheless, this agency urges you to voluntarily ensure that your seat-pad would not r ender inoperative the crash protection and flammability resistance of any child restraint.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Enclosure