ID: 77-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Miller Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 6, 1977, concerning a vehicle manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to overloading.

You make reference to several recent interpretations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which stated that manufacturers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicles they produce will not be overloaded by their users. Although we acknowledge that a manufacturer does not have direct control over the actual use of its vehicles, it does exercise indirect control over use through the vehicle's design.

The NHTSA has stated in the past that a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is determined by the sum of its unloaded vehicle weight, 150 pounds for each designated seating position, and its rated cargo load. It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.

The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it comes to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.

A manufacturer's responsibility for any subsequent overloading of the vehicles it manufactures would be determined by the reasonableness of its GVWR's and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), given the size and configuration of its vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. In the case of flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) a manufacturer would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent overloading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings specified appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads the manufacturer anticipates will be carried, its responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to it.

SINCERELY,

SPECIAL PRODUCTS DIVISION MILLER TRAILERS, INC.

May 6, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I have recently read with interest and concern several legal interpretations from NHTSA regarding GVW and GAW Ratings assigned by vehicle manufacturers and that relationship to the actual operation by the end user in which these ratings may or could be exceeded.

I'm sure you are well aware that general purpose freight trailers as well as specialized commodity trailers are designed to a maximum payload rating. The payload carried, however, can consist of a wide range of product densities. Insulation, for example, would be light and bulky where cartons of canned paint would be very heavy. In both these examples, the same trailer could be used. Using the total cubic capacity of a normal van trailer with a high density load, could very well overload both GVWR and GAWR. I believe that any trailer rated with a normal GVWR which is exceeded would also exceed the legal highway weight limits. Trailer manufacturers certainly have no control over an operator who decides to operate illegally.

Another popular specification used in trailers is a sliding running gear which is used by operators to distribute their loads between the axle(s) and the upper coupler assembly. By sliding the running gear forward, load is transferred from the upper coupler to the axle(s) with the opposite taking place by sliding the running gear rearward. If the operator elects to ignore using this feature to control the amount of axle load, it is certainly probable that the GAWR would be exceeded in specific cases. The trailer manufacturers have no control over this situation.

Flatbed trailers may be used for any number of commodities. A very popular use is the hauling of steel products such as plate, sheet, bar, rod, pipe, coil, etc. In the case of coil, this product is not only very dense in weight but takes little space resulting in a concentrated load rather than evenly distributed. Here again, the placement and quantity of the coil(s) loaded at the steel mill may result in overloading the stated GVWR and/or GAWR of the vehicle. The trailer manufacturer has no control over this condition.

Miller Trailers, Inc. manufacturers bulk fruit trailers for the citrus industry in Florida. If a severe freeze occurs such as happened in January 1977, the fruit must be picked and processed within several days. The Governor degrees a state of emergency and lifts all highway weight limits. This results in exceeding the GVW and GAW Ratings of the vehicles being used. The trailer manufacturer has no control over this condition.

Each of the circumstances stated above are not intended usage as far as the design and ratings of the manufacturer. They are, however, all forseeable conditions, reasonable or not, because manufacturers have seen this usage occur in the past and it will undoubtedly occur in the future. Manufacturers have no way of knowing if or when any of these conditions will occur and couldn't prevent them if they did know. It doesn't seem reasonable that a manufacturer could be charged with a safety related defect under these circumstances.

Mr. Berndt, I sincerely believe that most, if not all, trailer manufacturers make every effort to manufacture vehicles that are safe to operate on the public highways. We just can't afford not too. Possible I have misinterpreted the meaning of the legal interpretations from NHTSA on this subject.

I would appreciate hearing from you on this serious matter.

L. M. Anderson, Vice President Engineering

CC: D. VIERIMAA -- TTMA

ID: 77-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Great Dane Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 5, 1977, concerning a vehicle manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to overloading.

You make reference to a November 10, 1976, letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which stated that manufacturers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicles they produce will not be overloaded by their users. Although we acknowledge that a manufacturer does not have direct control over the actual use of its vehicles, it does exercise indirect control over use through the vehicle's design.

The NHTSA has stated in the past that a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is determined by the sum of its unloaded vehicle weight, 150 pounds for each designated seating position, and its rated cargo load. It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.

The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it comes to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.

In your particular case, your responsibility for any subsequent overloading of the vehicles you manufacture would be determined by the reasonableness of your GVWR's and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), given the size and configuration of your vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. Since some of your vehicles are flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) you would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent overloading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings you specify appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads you anticipate will be carried, your responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to you.

SINCERELY,

Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

May 5, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In reference to your letter of November 10, 1976, you made some interpretations which we feel are unreasonable and find that it is impractical to meet compliance.

You indicated that "A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably foreseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety related defect." You further stated "The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading."

We, as a manufacturer, construct flat platform trailers and van type trailers. When these units are manufactured we certify both a GVWR and GAWR. We however, in most cases, have no way of knowing what products or mix of products will be carried on or in these vehicles.

We do know that most users of this type equipment will carry the maximum allowable payload by State and/or Federal laws. If we construct a vehicle with 10:00 X 20 tires our GAWR will be 19,040# per axle. The present Federal law will allow up to 20,000# per axle and states up to 22,000# per axle. From this we could conclude that many axles could be overloaded as compared to our GAWR. However, we have no real knowledge that this condition does exist but have strong suspicions that it may. We furthermore have no means of controlling how the vehicle is used during its lifetime.

It is definitely unreasonable for NHTSA to expect a vehicle manufacturer to be responsible for the actions and operations of truck lines and other trucking operations.

We feel that placing a specific GVWR and GAWR on the vehicle by the manufacturer is warning enough and that problems of overload is the responsibility of the user and should be controlled by Federal and State weight limits and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.

John Storz Director of Engineering

CC: DON VIERIMAA -- TTMA

ID: 77-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Transportation Testing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your conversation with Karen Dyson of my staff in which you asked whether you could resell course monitoring tires after having used them to conduct tire tests.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration furnishes these tires to enable you to test for compliance with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. After you purchase course monitoring tires from the agency, they become your property to do with as you wish. There is no prohibition against the resale of the tires after you have completed your testing.

ID: 8599

Mr. Frank Millar
1841 Shady Brook Drive
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362

Dear Mr. Millar:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J201. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the significance of the two documents for manufacturers and consumers. You also asked whether you are correct in interpreting section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 as requiring the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard (stick shift) transmission to hold the car stationary on a hill with a 30 percent grade in both forward and reverse directions for five minutes. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 105 is one of the safety standards issued by NHTSA. The standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake systems and associated parking brake systems, for the purpose of ensuring safe braking performance under both normal and emergency situations. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems. Manufacturers must ensure that each new vehicle complies with each applicable requirement of the standard. The standard specifies the specific test conditions under which each performance requirement must be met.

You asked the agency to confirm your understanding that section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 requires the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard transmission to hold the car stationary on a 30 percent grade for five minutes in both forward and reverse directions. Section S5.2.1 reads as follows:

Except as provided in S5.2.2, the parking brake system on a passenger car . . . shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the limit of traction on the braked wheels) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade.

Section S5.2.1 thus applies to all passenger cars, except as provided in S5.2.2. The alternative requirement set forth in S5.2.2 is only available for certain vehicles with a transmission or transmission control which incorporates a parking mechanism. Vehicles with standard transmissions do not typically have such a parking mechanism. Assuming that a Toyota Camry does not have a parking mechanism, it would be required to meet the requirements of S5.2.1.

I note that, even assuming that a vehicle meets the requirements of S5.2.1, it would not follow that the parking brake system would hold the vehicle stationary on a 30 percent grade under all real world driving conditions. As indicated above, Standard No. 105 specifies specific test conditions under which its performance requirements must be met. In the case of the standard's parking brake requirements, the specified test conditions include such things as control force and test surface. Also, the requirement only applies to the limit of traction on the braked wheels. Thus, if a 30 percent grade has a slippery surface, the vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system held the wheels locked. Finally, the requirement applies only to new vehicles and not used ones.

You also asked the significance of SAE J201 to manufacturers and consumers. The Society of Automotive Engineers is an independent, non-governmental group. In some cases, NHTSA has incorporated portions of that organization's recommended practices into its safety standards. Since the agency has not done so with SAE J201, that recommended practice does not have any significance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA can only comment on the significance of its own standards and regulations and not on ones issued by other organizations or agencies. Therefore, we suggest that you contact SAE concerning the significance of SAE J201.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:105 d:9/l/93

ID: 86-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/86 EST

FROM: MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NHTSA

TO: CHARLES SCHAMBLIN

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schamblin:

Your letter to Elizabeth Hanford Dale. Secretary of Transportation, was forwarded to me for response.

Thank you for sending the sample of the Flag-It Fluorescent Safety Signaling Device and the information that it is being manufactured in the United States. We share your concern with the problem of school bus safety and appreciate your efforts to develop a device to reduce the problem. However, as I am sure you can understand, government agencies cannot endorse commercial products.

Thank you, again, for your interest in improving highway safety.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert Juckett -- Transglobal Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert Juckett Transglobal Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 98 Whitehall, New York 12887

This responds to your letter of September 9, 1985, regarding the applicability of Standard No. 121 to a partially used and partially new trailer. You asked whether your customer, who plans to purchase a trailer frame, air tank, and air valve from you, is responsible for compliance with Safety Standard 121. Your customer plans to mount on his newly purchased frame his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

If your customer intends to use the trailer which he is assembling for his own use, then he is not governed by the Federal motor vehicles safety standards. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:

(a) No person shall:

(1) Manufacture for sale, sell or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this rule unless it is in conformity with such standard,

Section 102(5) of that Act defines "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles...for resale." Your customer is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless he is assembling the vehicle you mention for sale.

In the event that your customer is a manufacturer within the meaning of the Act, he may still be excepted from the requirements of Standard No. 121. You noted that your customer will mount a new trailer frame, air tank and air valve on his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles. 49 CFR Part 571.7(f) excludes from Standard No. 121 partly new and partly used trailers when the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new and was taken from an existing trailer. In addition, the reassembled vehicle must use the same vehicle identification number as the original trailer and the original trailer must be owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

09-09-85

Mr. Jeffery Miller Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. 400 - 7th Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller,

We are a new trailer manufacturer and have a question reguarding F.M.V.S.S. 121. I recently spoke to Mr. Edward Glancy of your office and he suggested writing.

We have a customer requesting to purchase a trailer frame, air tank, and air valve from us. He has told us that he is going to mount his own old suspension, wheels, brakes, and axles on this frame.

Please inform me if my interpretation is correct.

As the owner is using his existing undercarriage, he is responsible for any F.M.V.S.S. 121 compliance, as with using his existing undercarriage the trailer retains its original Vehicle Identification Number.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours.

Robert Juckett Engineering

ID: 86-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: G. F. Kirchoff -- Special Project Manager, Morton Thiokol, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

G. F. Kirchoff Special Project Manager Morton Thiokol, Inc. 3350 Airport Road Ogden, UT 84405

Thank you for your letter of November 13, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff asking how our standards would affect a diagnostic and sensor warning light for a self-contained airbag system you arc developing. You explained that the system would be mounted in the steering wheel and would have the diagnostic and sensor light located on the steering wheel horn pad.

Your warning light would be affected by Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, S4.5.2 of the standard requires crash-deployed restraint systems, such as airbag systems, to have an indicator that monitors the readiness of the system, In addition, the indicator must be clearly visible from the driver's seat. Placing your diagnostic and sensor warning light in the center of the horn pad should ensure that it is visible to the driver.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

13 November,1985 U200-FY86-060

Mr. Steve Oesch, NOA-32 U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Subject: Diagnostic and Sensor Light in Horn Pad

Morton Thiokol, Inc. is presently developing a self-contained airbag system for the automobile driver. As such, this system is planned to have a warning light in the steering wheel horn pad. It is an electrical system with the sensor and diagnostics, and capacitor power supply located in the driver module. The warning light for the diagnostics is planned to be either red or green. It would also appear to be desirable from an occupant attention standpoint to locate it on the horn pad.

We wish to insure that the placement of the warning light is in compliance with all NHTSA regulatory requirements and would appreciate your review and position on this. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

G. F. Kirchoff Special Project Manager

ID: 86-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Alan K. Simpson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 27, 1986 The Honorable Alan K. Simpson United-States Senate Washington, D.C. Dear Senator Simpson: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. W. S. Beaver, Superintendent of Schools for Sheridan County, concerning our requirements for school buses. We contacted your constituent to find out more about his concerns regarding the standard we issued for the identification of school buses. Mr. Beaver explained that he believed some allowance should be made in our regulation to permit a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) that does not have school bus warning lights to be identified as a school vehicle when the vehicle travels on hazardous mountain routes. He further informed us that, although he has recently become aware that the issue he raises primarily involves State requirements, he would appreciate a clarification of our school bus regulations. We appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations for school buses which we issued under different Acts of Congress. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and requires sellers of new school buses to ensure that the vehicle they sell complies with our school bus safety standards. While new school buses must be equipped with a system of signal lamps under Safety Standard No. 108, there is no comparable Federal requirement for MPV's. Mr. Beaver understands that this is the case for MPV's and he has no argument with the nature of those requirements. The second set to regulations applicable to school vehicles was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, and applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Under the Act, we issued a series of highway safety program standards for State highway safety program standards for State highway safety programs, one of which is Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This "standard" is more in the nature of a guideline for State school vehicle usage laws, and it is with this standard that you constituent is most concerned. HSPS No. 17 contains recommendation for the manner in which school vehicles should be identified, such as the yellow color and "School Bus" signs. It recommends that MPV's used as school vehicles should either have the warning lights, yellow color and signing of a school bus or have none of those identifying features. Mr. Beaver was concerned that this was a Federal requirement which prohibited his MPV's from being identified as school vehicles since they do not have the school bus signal lights. As your constituent now knows, this was not an accurate understanding of HSPS No. 17's recommendations. The effect of HSPS No. 17's recommendation for school bus identification is dependent on State adoption. NHTSA does not require States to adopt each aspect of our highway safety program standards, and Wyoming has discretion in adopting some or all of HSPS No. 17's recommendations. Thus, the decision whether to permit an MPV to have a school bus sign alone, without the other identifying features of school buses, is within Wyoming's discretion. Mr. Beaver informed us that he is pursuing the matter with Wyoming State officials. I hope that this information is helpful, and that you or your constituent will not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Commander, Naval Safety Center, Naval Air Station, Norfold, VA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Commander Naval Safety Center Naval Air Station Norfolk, VA 23511-5796 Ref: 5100 Ser 42/5064

Thank you for your letter of December 5, 1985, following up on a number of phone conversations between your staff and mine, concerning the effective dates of the Federal standard requiring the installation of safety belts in motor vehicles. As requested by your staff, we have prepared the enclosed information sheet to be used as a guide by your security personnel in enforcing the safety belt use requirements on naval installations. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 86-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Russ L. Bomhoff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 31, 1986 Mr. Russ L. Bomhoff Special Projects Director Precision Pattern Inc. 1643 S. Maize Road Wichita, Kansas 67209 Dear Mr. Bomhoff: Thank you for your letter of October 30, 1985, asking about the effect of our regulations on several components you wish to install in the interior of a passenger car. I hope the following discussion answers your questions. All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you are installing the components described in your letter in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, then you would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since you are modifying the interior of the passenger car, you must ensure that the vehicle will still comply with Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, a copy of which is enclosed. If you are making these alterations to a used vehicle, then you, as a commercial business, would be covered by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with Federal safety standards. Thus, in installing the components you described, you cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201 or any of our other standards. The potential effect of Standard No. 201 on each of the components you asked about is discussed below. Front and rear cooler consoles. S3.1 of the standard sets performance requirements for the instrument panel. S3.1.1(a) of the standard specifically provides that the instrument panel requirements do not apply to console assemblies. We would consider both the front and rear seat coolers to be console assemblies and thus exempt from the requirements of S3.1. S3.3 of the standard requires interior compartment door assemblies located in an instrument panel, a console assembly, a seat back, or a side panel adjacent to a designated seating position to remain closed under certain test conditions. The purpose of the requirement is to prevent a door from flying open and striking an occupant in a crash. The doors in the front and rear consoles would have to meet this requirement. Seat back fold-down tables. S3.2 of the standard sets performance requirements to limit injuries caused when rear seat occupants strike the seat backs in front of them. You would have to ensure that the seat backs would still comply with S3.2 when the fold-down tables are installed. The fold-down tables mounted in the seat back and the door do not have to meet the requirement in S3.3 for interior compartment doors. However, since both those items are hinged surfaces which could fly open in a crash and pose a hazard to an occupant in a crash, we urge you to ensure that the tables will be adequately secured in a crash. S3.5 of the standard sets requirements for armrests. You would have to ensure that the vehicle will still comply with S3.5 when the fold-down table is installed in the door. TV/VCR Cabinet There are no requirements that apply to the TV/VCR cabinet. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel