ID: nht89-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/26/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: FREDERICK H. DAMBACH -- EXECULINE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/10/89 FROM FREDERICK H. DAMBACH TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Dambach:

This is in response to your July 10, 1989 letter, and your July 12, 1989 telephone conversation with David Greenburg of my staff. Your letter requested an interpretation concerning transit bus (as distinguished from school bus) emergency exits. You ask ed whether emergency exits located on the roof of a transit bus could be considered side exits for purposes of complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. As is explained below, the answer is " no".

Your concern has arisen because of difficulties you have encountered in obtaining approval from the New Jersey Department of Transportation to operate two used 1985 Van Hool buses. You indicated to Mr. Greenburg that the original importer had certified that the buses were in compliance with the applicable FMVSS. Nonetheless, NJDOT claims that the buses lack adequate side emergency exit space and are therefore not in compliance with Standard 217. Your letter indicated that if the roof mounted exists w ere counted as side exits, your buses would be in compliance with Standard 217.

Manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles sold in the U.S. are required to certify that those vehicles comply with the applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA does not require states to adopt or enforce the FMVSS's; states are, however, free to do so. You have indicated that New Jersey has incorporated FMVSS 217 by reference as a matter of State law. Of course NHTSA may not interpret state law; the agency may only interpret federal requirements. The following discussion therefore represents only an int erpretation of Federal law, and specifically FMVSS 217.

As is set out in S5.2 of Standard No. 217, transit buses must provide unobstructed emergency exit openings that total, in square inches, 67 times the number of seating positions on the bus. At least 40% of the total area required must be on the left sid e of the bus, and at least another 40% must be on the right side. To provide further assurance that there are multiple exits, no single exit may be credited with more than 336 square inches.

A roof exit may not be counted toward the amount of unobstructed opening required to be on a side of the bus since such an exit is not located on the side. The term "side," as used in Standard 217, refers to that part of the bus which is approximately p erpendicular to the floor and the front and rear ends of the bus. It does not include the ends or the roof of the bus. The standard follows that definition in clearly drawing distinctions between the sides, the rear and the roof of a bus. See S5.2.1 a nd S5.3.3(a). Further, if a rear or roof exit could be considered as a side exit for purposes of Standard 217, it would be unnecessary for the standard to provide detailed requirements relating to rear and roof exits.

I hope you have found this discussion informative. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

3. IMPLICATIONS TO CANADIANS

[PARAGRAPHS ILLEGIBLE]

3.1 MANUFACTURERD

[PARAGRAPHS ILLEGIBLE]

3.2 EXPORTERS OF CANADIAN SPECIFICATION VEHICLES

[PARAGRAPHS ILLEGIBLE]

3.3 TOURISTS AND COMMERCIAL TRUCKING

[PARAGRAPHS ILLEGIBLE]

ID: nht89-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/27/89

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

TO: ROBERT V. POTTER -- SPALDING & EVENFLO COMPANIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/31/86 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO K.A. ZIOMEK -- TRW; LETTER DATED 03/17/89 FROM ROBERT V. POTTER TO NHTSA; OCC ILLEGIBLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Potter:

This responds to your March 17, 1989, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires child restraint manufacturers to make spare parts available for their products for a specified amount of time. I regret the d elay in responding.

NHTSA has addressed the availability issue you raise in a July 31, 1986, letter to Ms. Ziomek of Washington, Michigan, a copy of which is enclosed. As explained in that letter, NHTSA does not specifically require child restraint manufacturers to make re placement parts available for any child restraint. However, manufacturers must be prepared to meet their recall obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That law requires that, in the event of a safety-related defect or non-c ompliance with a safety standard, manufacturers provide a remedy without charge to consumers for eight years after purchase.

With regard to your statement about an existing Federal regulation requiring automobile manufacturers to make replacement parts available for 10 years, NHTSA does not have such a requirement. However, automobile manufacturers have the same recall respon sibilities described above for safety-related defects and non-compliances. Further, we understand manufacturers commonly follow a voluntary practice of making replacement parts available for vehicle parts likely to become worn or damaged for a 10-year p eriod, which to the best of our knowledge has usually proven adequate to meet general consumer demand.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/27/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: MARTIN M. GINSBURG -- PROLINE DESIGNS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/08/88 FROM MARTIN M. GINSBURG TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2027; LETTER DATED 11/24/88 FROM MARTIN M. GINSBURG TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ginsburg:

This responds to your letters asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR @ 571.302), applies to the "interior window coverings" that you manufacture for "pick up truck shells." In your letters, you briefly explain that the "shell," which is sold as an aftermarket product, "is placed directly over the bed of a truck." The answer to your question is no, Standard No. 302 does not apply to your product. I regret the delay in responding t o your letter.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the m anufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the facts provided in your letter.

There are two factors which lead us to conclude that Standard No. 302 does not apply to your window coverings. First, you manufacture an aftermarket item of equipment -- i.e., an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle sold to owners of used vehicles. Standard No. 302 regulates the flammability resistance of curtains and shades in new completed vehicles only.

Second, even if the shell and its window coverings were installed on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, Standard No. 302 applies only to components in the "occupant compartment air space" (S4), which the agency has indicated i s the area in which persons are likely to use to ride. Assuming that we are correct in believing that people do not typically ride in the enclosed bed of the truck, we conclude that the area enclosed by the shell would not be an occupant compartment. Th is accords with the agency's February 15, 1983 letter to Mr. Nakaya in which NHTSA stated that, with regard to vans, the space to

the rear of the rearmost seat was not part of the occupant compartment. Accordingly, since the window coverings in question are not located in the occupant compartment, we conclude that they are not subject to Standard No. 302.

Nevertheless, there are two matters that you ought to consider when manufacturing your window coverings. First is the possibility of liability under State and common law if the coverings were to catch fire in a situation where a window covering meeting Standard No. 302's flammability resistance requirements would not have caught fire, or if the coverings burn much more rapidly than coverings meeting those requirements.

Second is the possibility of a finding of a safety-related defect in your products. While Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to your product, you should be aware that the window coverings you manufacture are considered to be items of motor vehicle equipment. As the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are thereby subject to the provisions set forth in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of equipment with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I f you or this agency determined that your product had a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, you would have to notify all known purchasers of the defect and either repair your product so that the defect is removed, or replace the window coverings wit h an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not contain a defect.

Your letter did not indicate whether you also manufacture the truck shell to which you refer. If you are the shell manufacturer, and if your product contains glazing material, Standard No. 205 (49 CFR @ 571.205, Glazing Materials) directly applies to yo ur product. Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new and used motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of motor vehicle equipment, including glazing used in truck shells. The standard establishes both performance requirements, including those regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing, and labeling requirements applicable to the glazing used in your product.

We note also that, since your description of the "shell" was very brief, we were not certain whether the term "shell" as you use it includes what our regulations refer to as a "slide-in camper." Under Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading (49 CFR @ 571. 126), a "slide-in camper" is a structure having a roof, floor, and sides, designed for the purpose of providing shelter for persons and to be mounted on and removed from the cargo area of a truck by the user. (See, also, 49 CFR @ 575.103 for NHTSA's con sumer information requirements for trucks that are capable of accommodating slide-in campers.) In light of the possibility that the structures to which you refer are slide-in campers, and that you might be the manufacturer of the campers, we would like t o mention our regulations that apply to slide-in campers.

Briefly, each slide-in camper must meet Standard No. 205 for any glazing materials used in the camper. In addition, Standard No. 126 requires each slide-in camper to be permanently labeled with information including its maximum loaded weight. This stan dard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that includes information on total camper weight, proper matching of a truck and slide-in camper, appropriate methods of camper loading, and how to determine the camper's center of gra vity (cg) and where the cg should be placed in the truck cargo area. All campers must also be certified in accordance with section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Each camper manufac turer must submit certain information concerning its company pursuant to Part 566 of our regulations, Manufacturer Identification. However, Standard No. 302 does not apply to slide-in campers, even if the slide-in camper is installed on a new pickup tru ck.

Finally, we must decline your request that we review "California Health and Safety Code Standard No. 19" to inform you whether window coverings that meet the California standard can meet Standard No. 302. NHTSA determines whether a vehicle or item of mo tor vehicle equipment complies with an applicable safety standard by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them under strict conditions according to the procedures specified in the standards. Thus, we determine whether a product subject to our s tandards complies with those standards by assessing the actual performance of the product in our tests. Since your window coverings are not subject to Standard No. 302, they will not be part of our compliance testing. Further, even if the coverings were subject to Standard No. 302, we have already noted that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment -- and not NHTSA -- to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable FMVSS's.

I have enclosed copies of all of the safety standards and regulations mentioned above, and an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations for your future reference. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht87-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/21/87

FROM: DALLAS MCCLAIN -- PRO TOUR, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: CLARIFICATION/INTERPRETATION OF SEATING STANDARDS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/12/88 FROM ERICK Z. JONES TO DALLAS MCCLAIN; REDBOOK A-32, STANDARD 207

TEXT: Dear Sir,

Upon the recommendation of your technical reference division, I have formulated my inquiries to your office for interpretation and clarification. This company is a manufacturer of bus seating (NON-School bus) and we believe we surpass all applicable Fed eral Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. There are some points which we would like a legal opinion on for our customers as well as ourselves. Below are several questions which your office will hopefully be able to answer for us. Thank you.

A. What is the legal determination of a 'bus' as opposed to a 'multipurpose vehicle'? Is this definition based on number of passengers, or gross vehicle weight? Or both?

B. In the first paragraph of S4.2 of MVSS 207, there is reference to side-facing seats or passenger seat on a bus, which appear to be exceptions. Following this paragraph are the performance requirements. Are side-facing seats and passenger seats on a bus exempted from these performance requirements? Are these two items covered under another safety standard? If so, which one?

C. Keeping in mind we are assuming NON-School Bus applications, is perimeter seating a 'side-facing seat' such as mentioned above and does MVSS 207 testing apply to these seating configurations? Are there any existing requirements for cushions which are removeable such as perimeter seating arrangements? Or it is just the frame structure which must meet test specifications?

D. While seats not designated for use while the vehicle is moving (MVSS 207, S4.4) must be labeled, must other occupant seating subject to MVSS 207 and MVSS 302 be labeled with a 'law label' indicating the seat has met these standards?

Thank you very much for your help in resolving these questions. If further information is needed to render a finding, please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht87-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1987

FROM: JAN PETER KRYGER -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUICKWHEEL

TO: DEIRDE HOM -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/22/87 (EST) LETTER TO JAN PETER KRYGER, FROM ERIKA 2. JONES

TEXT: The information you gave me over the phone, on September 18th, was very helpful.

Let me give you some information about Quickwheel. Imagine it as a "roller skate", that can be placed under a flat tire in just a few seconds. The driver can go on to the nearest service station or even go home. Since it takes just a few seconds, Quic kwheel promotes traffic safety.

Quickwheel has been thoroughly tested by T.U.V. (THE authority in Germany) on the road and in traffic. In a letter to the "Bundesminister fur Verkehr" (the Secretary of Transportation in Germany) T.U.V. makes the following statement: the car equiped wit h Quickwheel handled speeds up to 45 miles flawlessly, even if the car had to come to a sudden stop or swerve to avoid an object.

Quickwheel, INC, has taken out a patent and is going to market Quickwheel in the U.S.A.

I have the following questions:

-What safety standards do apply to Quickwheel and its three little wheels?

-Do we need approval from the Department of Transportation and if so, what is the procedure?

-Could you explain the Code of Federal Regulations?

I am looking forward to your answer. Should you have any questions or suggestions, please let me know.

ID: nht87-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/87

FROM: ANDREW E. WOOLNER -- GENERAL MANAGER AUSTIN ROVER

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 101, CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS, SECTION S 5.3.5.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/23/88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, TO ANDREW E. WOLLNER -- AUSTIN ROVER, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 101; BROCHURE FROM AUSTIN ROVER, UNDATED (RE CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS)

TEXT: Austin Rover Ltd. (ARG), the mamufacturer of the Sterling passenger car seeks an interpretation of FMVSS NO 101, Controls and Displays as of September, 1989.

1. All Sterling 825 vehicles have a fuel gauge and a speedodometer/odometer located in the instrument panel immediately in front of the driver as illustrated in Fig. 1.

2. The Sterling SL has in addition to the above-mentioned displays, a trip computer fitted in the center console (Fig. 2). This trip computer is able, among other functions to display supplemental information in relation to fuel consumption, (instan taneous and average), fuel used, average speed, trip distance and distance to arrival. The attachment shows the method of operation and the functions.

ARG interprets the illumination requirements of standard 101 as applicable to the trip computer display as being:

a. The illumination requirement not mandatory.

b. The illumination provided at the choice of the manufacturer is subject to the requirements of section S 5.3.5. and not section S 5.3.3.

The reasons for our interpretation are as follows:

a. The fuel section of the trip computer does not show the fuel level in the fuel tank.

b. The distance and speed functions cannot be considered as "speedodometer" because it does not indicate actual vehicle speed at any instant. Also there is no need to illuminate an odometer even if the distance function could be so considered.

Would you please confirm that ARG's interpretation for 1 and 2 above are correct. That is, that such displays contained in our trip computer which offer "supplemental information" to other gauges and displays that are clearly regulated by FMVSS NO. 101 will categorically fall under S 5.3.5 requirements for illumination.

Sincerely,

Enc.

ID: nht87-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/87

FROM: RICHARD J. STROHM

TO: CHEVROLET DIVISION

TITLE: 1987 CHEVROLET CAPRICE 1G1BL51HOHX163146 9000 MILES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO RICHARD J. STROHM. REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 207; VSA 108 [A] [2] [4] LETTER DATED 11/09/87 FROM RICHARD J. STROHM TO EDWARD JETTNER -- NHTSA; FMVSS 207; OCC 1362

TEXT: Gentlemen:

It appears that the front bench seat in my 1987 Caprice has been mounted closer to the front of the passenger compartment than the Impales I have driven over the past 10 years. Less leg room was evident when I first drove the new car and I have been una ble to move the seat back for enough to provide the past comfort I enjoyed.

By my measurement the seat is 3/4 of an inch closer to the dash and floorboard, and the same distance farther from the back seat than in my 1983 Impale. I use this car for business travel and would like to have the seat position adjusted back, to where I feel it was for many years. The delivering dealer (Horizon Chevrolet) is unable to do anything for me and I ask that you give them direction and authorization to make the seat adjustment under warranty.

I can bring the car by for examination if it would help.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht87-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1987

FROM: WES SPRUNK -- SAF-TEE SIPING & GROOVING INC.

TO: ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: I have had a phone conversation with Ed Clancy concerning some problems that have arisen in reference to my product - with clarification from the National Highway Traffic Association.

I spoke, first of all, with Neil Thomas of the Federal Highway Administration and, later, with Jim Birtell, Head Engineer; they informed me that there was no problem with their department concerning siping tires in reference to the Federal Highway Admini stration. But, there was some question with a possible customer of mine with D.O.T.

For that reason, I would like to explain siping because, at this point, it is referred to in the D.O.T. Regulations in the same reference as grooving. We manufacturer and distribute both siping and grooving machines and I would like to clarify our posit ion and the difference in the two operations.

Grooving is a process of removing rubber from the tire to give it an additional space for water release. We sell grooving machines mainly to the metro bus companies who lease their tires and have considerable undertread.

Siping is a process of cross cutting the tread, never deeper than the original tread depth of the tire; and in most cases, 1/32" less, with a fine knife-either four of five cuts to the inch-that does not remove rubber. We have people siping tires on tru cks, buses, and passenger with excellent results. But, we have had some government agencies that want more clarification from your department.

I have enclosed for you a brochure on our siping machine and several testimonials from customers concerning their experience with siping so that you can better understand the process and the benefits derived thereform. In the cross cutting of the tread, the benefits are that it allows the tread to interact with the road and have the edges grap the road for better traction. It also allows for the tread components to open up enough to allow air to get into the tread and this helps with the increase in w ear by cooling the tread of the tire.

What I need to know from you is if there is any possible problem with the siping of new, used, truck, passenger, or light duty tires, assuming the siping is done as I stated above, with D.O.T. Regulations

Enc.

ID: nht87-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: American Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Head, Administration Government Relations Department American Suzuki Motor Corporation P.O. Box 1100 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea, CA 92622-1100

Dear Mr. Petler:

This letter responds to your letter of June 12, 1987, stating that your company wishes to and the following additional language to the Part 567 certification label:

"This vehicle equipped for 800 lb./360kg payload. See owner's manual for additional information.

You further state your understanding that NHTSA has permitted manufacturers to put information on the certification label beyond what Part 567 requires. You include two samples (-A- and -a-) representing certification labels, showing alternative location s on the label for your statement. The sample you designate as -A- shows your statement just above the required vehicle identification number, and just below the statement that your vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standa rd. The sample you designate as -B- shows your statement just below all of the information 5567.4 requires a manufacturer to put on the certification label. You ask which sample the agency would find acceptable.

You are correct that the agency his permitted manufacturers to include information on the certification label beyond that which Part 567 requires. There NHTSA has acquiesced in this practice, the additional information appeared after that required under 5567.4(g). Sample B shows the placement of your additional statement after the required Part 567 information. NHTSA finds that Sample B is acceptable so long as your label otherwise complies with Part 567. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Part 561 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., of Japan, we are requesting an interpretation of Part 567-Certification, 567.1, as it applies to the placement of additional wording in the form of a statement addressing vehicle payload on the vehicle certification l abel. The additional statement reads:

"This vehicle equipped for 800 lb./360kg payload.

See owner's manual for additional information."

I have attached a drawing showing the statement placed in two different locations as illustrated in samples A and B. Suzuki's preference is sample A with the added statement being placed between the vehicle conformity statement and the VIN. If sample A p lacement is not acceptable to NHTSA. Suzuki would use sample B placement with the added statement appearing below the vehicle type description.

It is our understanding that NHTSA has permitted the use of additional wording or information on certification labels in response to requests like ours from other manufacturers. Suzuki also believes the addition of payload information for this particular vehicle would be of value to the vehicle owner.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. We look forward to your prompt response to our request for interpretation. Sincerely,

AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION

Frederick M. Petler Head, Administration Government Relations Department

FMP:bf

ID: nht87-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/15/87 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHRISTINE COTTLE -- OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR, CLASSIC AUTO ACCESSORIES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 6-30-87, FROM CHRISTINE COTTLE, TO ERIKA JONES-NHTSA

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry of June 30, 1987, where you ask for information "regarding any federal regulation that may apply to or restrict the use of items which might be suspended from the centered rear view mirror in an automobile or truck." In your letter, you refer specifically to "decorations" such as hanging dice and air fresheners, and express your company's wish "to avoid liability for any obstruction of vision which might occur as the result of the use of such items." Your letter does not say whether you manufacture the kinds of products you list, or install these kinds of products in motor vehicles.

First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment, n or does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applic able standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

A product would fall under our agency's jurisdiction if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in @102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle equipment" in relevant part as follows:

. . . any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor v ehicle . . . (Emphasis added.)

In determining whether an item of equipment is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordi nary users of motor vehicles. The kinds of products you list do not fall within this framework, and therefore NHTSA does not regard them as items of motor vehicle equipment subject to our regulations.

There is one section of the Safety Act that I would call to your attention. Among other things, @108 (a)(2)(A) of the Act states that:

"No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a n applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..."

If your company is among the persons or performs the kinds of operations in @ 108 (a) (2) (A), then it may not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standar d. For example, you could not install any item in a motor vehicle that would render inoperative Standard 111 (Rearview Mirrors) "field-of-view" specifications. (I enclose a copy of that Standard.)

However, @108 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to vehicle owners. Therefore, owners may install items in their own cars, even if doing so involves removal, disconnection or degradation of safety equipment or designs, without violating @ 108 (a) (2) (A). Furt her, neither the manufacture of such items nor their sale to vehicle owners violates that prohibition.

Please note that a violation of @108 or of any regulation issued under it is punishable by a civil fine of up to $ 1000 per violation, subject to a maximum fine of $ 800,000 for a related series of violations.

Finally, you may wish to consult the laws of the various States to determine whether there are any limitations in their laws on the hanging of objects from inside rearview mirrors.

I hope you find this information helpful. ENCLOSURE