ID: nht80-3.1

DATE: 06/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 7, 1979, letter to Docket No. 79-03; Notice 2 on Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Systems. That letter was in part a comment to the docket and in part a request for an interpretation of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The points raised in your comment to the docket will be considered in our final rule on the issues proposed in Notice 2. This letter responds to your interpretive question whether your trailer emergency valve is permitted in accordance with the requirements of section 5.2.1.1 of the standard. The answer to your question is no.

Section 5.2.1.1 of the standard requires that vehicles be equipped with a reservoir that is capable of releasing the parking brakes when the air in the service brake system fails. The valve that you suggest would not provide such a reservoir but would merely reroute air from the trailer air supply system which would be used to release the parking brakes. The agency does not believe that this complies with the requirement that a reservoir be provided.

Recently, the Berg Manufacturing Company has petitioned the agency to amend the standard in a manner that would permit the type of system that you suggest. The agency is now evaluating that petition and will issue a notice in the near future addressing this issue. We suggest that you closely follow this rulemaking action.

ID: nht80-3.10

DATE: 06/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 22, 1980, asking two questions about Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

your first question concerns whether a display incorporated in the tachometer instrument face that shows which gear position has been selected by the automatic transmission control lever is an "informational readout display." You explained that the display "consists of 5 stacked transparent screens on which are printed 'D', '2', 'N', 'P', 'R' to identify the transmission control lever positions. Each screen is illuminated by an incandescent bulb which is energized selectively through contacts at the control lever."

The display which you have described is not an informational readout display. Section 4 of the standard defines "informational readout display" as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." As explained in the June 26, 1978, preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 101-80, the agency did not want to inhibit the development of electronic "readout" panels which present the driver with specific information concerning vehicle and environmental conditions affecting safety. The preamble further described these devices as displays "capable of exhibiting information and warning with word messages and not with symbols." The device you have described uses symbols instead of words and conventional incandescent bulb technology instead of electronic technology and thus is not an informational readout display.

The display you have described is a guage. Section 4 of the standard defines "guage" as "a display that is listed in S5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale." Section 5.1 and Table 2 do not identify the automatic gear position as a telltale. Likewise, an automatic gear position display does not meet the definition of "telltale." Section 4 of the standard defines "telltale" as "a display that indicates, by means of a light-emitting signal, the actuation of a device, a correct or defective functioning or condition, or failure to function." In this case, the display does not indicate the activation of a device since a transmission is always activated. Likewise, the display does not indicate that the transmission is functioning correctly or improperly or has failed to function, Section 5.3.3 provides that the light intensity of each gauge shall be continuously variable. The display you have described does not comply with section 5.3.3, since it only has two light intensities.

Your second question concerns "a display adjacent to the shift control lever which shows the transmission shift level sequence. The identifying characters 'P', 'R', 'N', '2', 'D', are shown on a transparent screen, the position selected is indicated by a colored panel which moves with the shift control level." You explained that the "colored panel only is illuminated when the headlights are switched on showing which position is selected, the other positions on the display are not illuminated." [Emphasis in the original] You asked whether the display is exempt from the illumination requirements of the standard because it is "a hand-operated control mounted upon a . . . floor console" or because it is a "telltale." Section 5.1 and Table 2 of the standard classify an automatic gear position indicator as a display. Thus, an automatic gear position indicator cannot be a "hand-operated vehicle control."

Further, the display that you have described is not a "telltale." As explained above, an automatic gear position display is a gauge. According to your description, the display "Only is illuminated when the headlights are switched on." Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires the light intensity for gauges to be continuously variable. Since the illumination for the display you have described apparently is not variable, it would not comply with the standard.

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

SINCERELY,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

April 22, 1980

Chief Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation regarding the applicability of certain provisions of FMVSS 101-80 to items of equipment which are intended to be used in 1981 model year Honda automobiles equipped with automatic transmission.

1. Incorporated in the tachometer instrument face is a display to show which gear position has been selected by the automatic transmission control lever. This display consists of 5 stacked transparent screens on which are printed 'D' '2', 'N', 'P', 'R' to identify the transmission control lever positions. Each screen is illuminated by an incandescent bulb which is energized selectively through contacts at the control lever. There are two light intensities for these bulbs; high enough for daylight visibility and reduced when the headlights are switched on. The display is activated whenever the ignition switch is in the "on" position. The display is identified only in the owners manual, not adjacent to the display.

We classify this as an "informational readout display" using an" "other electro illuminating device" and, as such, complying with the requirements of FMVSS 101-80.

2. There is a display adjacent to the shift control lever which shows the transmission shift lever sequence. The identifying characters 'P', 'R', 'N', '2', 'D' are shown on a transparent screen, the position selected is indicated by a colored panel which moves with the shift control lever. The colored panel only is illuminated when the headlights are switched on showing which position is selected, the other positions on the display are not illuminated.

We believe that, either this display is exempted from the requirements of FMVSS 101-80 under section S5.3.1 as a "hand-operated control mounted upon a . . . . floor console", or that the display and colored panel constitute a "telltale". As such, they comply with the requirement of S5.3.3 in that the light intensity of the telltale is not variable and the telltale and display are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions.

We would appreciate your earliest attention and response in this matter. Please call me at (213) 327-8280 if you have any questions.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

ID: nht80-3.11

DATE: 06/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vetter Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1980, with respect to your proposals for lighting requirements for a motorcycle sidecar currently under development. Your letter does not state so, but you indicated in your telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office that the sidecar is detachable.

It has been the position of this agency that a detachable sidecar is an item of motor vehicle equipment to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply. Conformance of the motorcycle therefore is judged without the sidecar attached. Therefore, the front turn signal configuration in Figure F2 would appear to meet Standard No. 108 but the asymmetrical one in Figures F1 and F3 would not. Similarly, the rear turn signal and stop lamp configurations in Figure R2 appear to comply, but those of Figures R1 and R3 do not. The configuration of Figure R4 is not prohibited by S4.1.2 since it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. As for Figure R5, the reflective material required by the standard must be on the motorcycle itself and its appearance solely on the sidecar, as indicated on your drawing, is improper. Finally, your Figure S1 depicts front and rear reflex reflectors mounted on the right side of the sidecar. This is not acceptable as a substitute for the required front and rear reflectors on the right side of the motor as you indicate but we believe it would enhance safety if you incorporated this idea into production.

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

SINCERELY,

Vetter Corporation

May 28, 1980

Frank Berndt NHTSA Dept. of Transportation

Dear Frank:

Per a phone conversation with Taylor Vincent on May 19, 1980, we are enclosing our proposals for lighting requirements for a motorcycle sidecar currently under development.

The drawings are numbered in our order of preference. Listed below are explanations of each lighting arrangement. We would like specific information as to which proposals are acceptable. Please note that a complete view of the lighting proposal consists of front, back, and side views (F1, R1, S1).

FRONT VIEWS

Figure F1 (First Choice):

Standard left turnsignal/running light on motorcycle. Amber turnsignal/running light on sidecar. (NOTE: The motorcycle may or may not have a running light function in its turnsignal assembly. If not, the sidecar would not have a running light.)

Also, note the difference in the horizontal position of the turnsignals. (The left turnsignal is located on the left side of the fairing - see side view on F1).

The motorcycle's right turnsignal would remain attached but would be electrically disconnected.

Figure F2 (2nd Choice):

Standard right and left turnsignal/running lights on the motorcycle. No front lights on sidecar.

Figure F3 (3rd Choice):

Standard left turnsignal/running light on motorcycle. Right turnsignal/running light mounted on sidecar as shown.

Right turnsignal on motorcycle remains attached but is electrically disconnected.

Note the differences in horizontal and vertical placement of the right and left turnsignals.

REAR VIEWS

Figure R1 (1st Choice):

Left turnsignal on motorcycle. Right turnsignal/running light on sidecar. The right turnsignal on the motorcycle will remain attached but will be electrically disconnected. Does the sidecar need a running light where shown? Can it be red or amber? Note that the motorcycle's running light is red.

Figure R2 (2nd Choice):

Standard lighting on motorcycle as shown. No lighting on sidecar.

Figure R3 (3rd Choice):

Left turnsignal on motorcycle. Right turnsignal on sidecar. Stop/running light on motorcycle and sidecar.

Which color running light would have to be used on the sidecar in this case? We feel it should be red to match the red running light on the motorcycle.

Again, the right turnsignal on the motorcycle will remain attach but will be electrically disconnected.

Figure R4 (4th Choice): Standard right/left turnsignals and stop/running light on motorcycle. Red stop/running light on sidecar.

Figure R5 (Option):

3 1/2" x 16" reflective material on back of sidecar. Is this legal with any or all of the preceeding lighting arrangements?

SIDE VIEW

Figure S1 (1st Choice):

Reflex reflector at front and rear of sidecar as shown. Note differences in height. Standard approved reflectors will remain on left side of motorcycle.

Both reflectors on sidecar meet all requirements of SAE J594e of Federal Standard 108.

SUMMARY

We urge you to seriously consider our first proposal, which we feel is the simplest, safest approach. Your speed and cooperation on returning documented answers to these questions is extremely important in order for us to remain current on our development schedule. Per Taylor Vincent, we hope to have a reply within three weeks.

If I can be of any assistance, please don't hesitate to call me at (805) 541-2900.

Rick Golde, Project Engineer

cc: DUANE ANDERSON; STEVE BERN

ID: nht80-3.12

DATE: 06/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kansas Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 2, 1980, letter asking whether a school bus that is to be sold to a school district in your State will meet the Federal minimum requirements applicable to gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) and gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR).

To the best of my knowledge, the Federal government has no minimum specifications for GAWR or GVWR. Certainly, this agency does not specify minimum weight ratings. Our only requirement is that the GAWR and GVWR be appropriate for the size and weight of a vehicle taking into consideration the type of equipment installed on it. From the information that you have provided us, we cannot say that the vehicle in question would or would not comply with that requirement. It is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the Federal safety standards. No school bus manufacturer can sell you a school bus that they know will not comply with the requirements.

ID: nht80-3.13

DATE: 06/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION

Mr. Craig Jones Mercedes-Benz One Mercedes Drive Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Jones:

This responds to the questions you raised with Stephen Oesch and John Carson on May 8, 1980, about Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. your question concerned a heating and windshield defrosting and defogging system developed by Mercedes. As requested, I have enclosed the originals of the drawing and photoqraph of the system you left with the agency.

The system consists of five controls: three rotating knobs, one of which controls the heat for the left side of the vehicle, one to control the heat on the right side, and one to control a fan. The other two controls are sliding levers, one of which directs the air flow to the windshield and the other directs air toward the floor. Your first question concerned the use of a green dot and the symbol specified by column 3 of Table 1 for identifying the defrosting and defogging system. You wish to place the symbol adjacent to the slide lever that controls air flow to the windshield and to place the green dot immediately below the symbol. The green dot would be used to identify the position on each of the other four controls that would provide the maximum defrosting or defogging of the windshield.

Section 5.2.1 provides that the identifying symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1 "shall be placed on or adjacent to the control." The section also provides that "additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity." In this case, Mercedes has properly identified the control used to defrost or defog the windshield (the slide that directs air to the windshield) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1 and placed it adjacent to the control. In addition, Mercedes has used the green dot to identify the positions on the heating system needed to obtain maximum defrosting and defogging. Since the additional symbols clarify the use of the heating controls, the use of the green dot is permissible.

Your second question concerned the identification required for the heating system. Section 5.2.2 specifies that "Identification shall be provided for each function of any ...heating and air conditioning control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range." Section 5.2.2 further provides that "If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue." The rotary knobs Mercedes uses for the heating system control a single function over a quantitative range, from no heat to maximum heat and thus the extreme positions require identification. The rotary knob shown in your drawing does not comply with section 5.2.2 because it does not identify the extreme positions of the control either in words or in the color coding system required for temperature controls.

Your final question concerned the identification necessary for the slide levers that control the air flow to the windshield or the floor. As mentioned above, section 5.2.2 specifies that "Identification shall be provided for each function of any...heating and air conditioning control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range." Section 5.2.2 further specifies that "If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used." The slide lever Mercedes uses for the air flow controls a single function over a quantitative range, from no air to maximum air, and thus the extreme positions require identification. Mercedes has used a series of geometric shapes-which are highlighted by a color (white) to indicate which direction to move the slide lever to obtain more air. That color in and of itself has no meaning and therefore, it is not part of a color coding system. Those geometric shapes must be accompanied by or replaced by words in order to identify the positions for minimum and maximum air or an appropriate color coding system should be used.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: nht80-3.14

DATE: 06/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Eugene Victor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent mailgram asking whether it is necessary to obtain DOT approval for compressed gas tanks that are to be used as part of an automobile fuel system.

The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. However, the agency does not pass approval on any vehicle or piece of equipment prior to its introduction in the market place. It is up to the manufacturer to certify, on the basis of due care, that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency's enforcement program is based on compliance testing of vehicles or equipment that have already been certified by the manufacturer.

I am enclosing for your information a discussion which sets forth the implications under Federal law of converting gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas, as well as a general discussion of auxiliary fuel tanks. From that discussion, you will see that there are no safety standards directly applicable to propane fuel tanks as pieces of automobile equipment. There are, however, specifications under the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations relating to propane fuel systems on commercial vehicles or to tanks used for shipment of propane gas in interstate commerce. If your tanks will be used on other than private vehicles, these regulations may be of interest to you. For further information, you may contact Mr. W. R. Fiste of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (202-426-0033).

ENC.

EUGENE VICTOR

06/09/80

MGM TDMT NEW YORK NY

FRANK BERNDT CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HWY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION ATTN MR OATES

WITH REFERENCE TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF JUNE 6 1980 WE WISH TO KNOW WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE DOT APPROVAL FOR COMPRESSED GAS TANKS USED AS PART OF AN AUTOMOBILE CNG FUEL SYSTEM

FOR GAS ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS INC 65 RUGBY RD BROOKLYN NY 11226 ADAM VICTOR PRESIDENT

14:35 EST MGMCOMP MGM

ID: nht80-3.15

DATE: 07/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1980, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the spacing required between headlamps and turn signal lamps on motorcycles.

You cited Table IV of Standard No. 108 which requires that the "minimum edge to edge separation distance between [turn signal] lamp and [headlamp] is 4 inches." You also cited paragraph 4.2 of the referenced SAE standard on turn signal lamps, J588e, which mandates that "the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." Finally, you have cited an agency interpretation of November 5, 1979, to Bajaj Auto Limited as support that the provisions of 4.2 prevail, and you asked for confirmation of this opinion.

The Bajaj letter does not provide the support you seek. The interpretation it provides is that the separation distance must be not less than the minimum under all motorcycle operating conditions.

We view Table IV as controlling in this instance as it contains a specific locational requirement for motorcycles. Since that specific requirement is lacking in Table IV for other motor vehicle, paragraph 4.2 of J588e would then apply with respect to separation distance for lamps on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles.

SINCERELY,

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

June 9, 1980

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

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

Dear Sir

We request interpretation of the interlamp spacing requirements specified for motorcycles in Table IV of FMVSS 108.

A four-inch spacing is required between turn signal lamps and the edge of the headlamp in front, and between turn signal lamps in the rear. However, while subject table uses the words, "edge to edge", SAE J588e, referenced in Table III, specifies measuring turn signal distance from the filament center.

Acceptance of the filament center of a turn signal lamp as the measuring point is underscored by your letter of November 5, 1979 to Mr. Keshav of Bajaj Auto Limited.

A closely related question concerns the method of measurement, i.e., whether the required four-inch separation dimension is a physical measurement between lamps or a distance between lamp projections. This is questioned because the measurement method is not specified in Table IV, and because S4.3.1.1 of the standard, and section 4.3 of SAE J588e otherwise require unobstructed photometric compliance.

In view of the above, we interpret the standard to mean that the four-inch dimension is a physical measurement to a turn signal's filament.

We would appreciate receiving your interpretation as soon as convenient.

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

ID: nht80-3.16

DATE: 07/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Niles Parts Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION JUL 10, 1980

NOA-30

Mr. Y. Koyama Chief of Technical Service Section Niles Parts Co-, Ltd. 4-9-16 Higashikojiya Ota-ku(44) Tokyo JAPAN Dear Mr. Koyama:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1980, which was forwarded to this office for reply about the identification required by Standard No. 101-80 Controls and Displays, for the rear window defogger switch. This office never received a copy of your earlier letter.

Section 5.2.1 of the standard requires that "any hand operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol". Based on the drawing submitted with your letter, Niles has used the identifying symbol specified in Table 1 for the rear window defrosting and defogging system switch. As we understand your letter, the identification will include the full outline of the required symbol colored in orange. However, due to the injection moulding procedure used for the switch, "about 1 mmm of outline of the symbol will be less colored in orange. " In other words, that area of the outline will be colored a dimmer shade of orange than that used on the rest of the outline. This is permissible since the standard does not require, uniformity in the coloring of the required identification symbol.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Motor Vehicle Programs, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington D. C. U. S.

Att: Mr. JOhn Carson Re: Symbol Mark on the Rear Defog Switch for Identification stipulated by FMVSS No. 101-80

Dear Sirs:

We wish to refer again to our letter dated April 10, 1980. We regret that we have not yet received your answer for this letter.

We herewith enclose once again the explanatory drawing.

Owing to Injection molding procedure of this product, in dark place, about 1 mm of outline of the symbol will be less colored in orange.

May we ask you whether the symbol mark will satisfy the require-ment of identification of FMVSS No. 101-80 or not.

Please let us have your answer by return, otherwise our engineer is too much nervous to proceed on his work further.

Thanking you for your good support and cooperation, we are.

Very truly yours,

NILES PARTS CO., LTD.,

Y. Koyama, Chief of Technical Service Section

ID: nht80-3.17

DATE: 07/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Systemteknik AB

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your letter of April 17, 1980, concerning a servo system that Systemteknik AB has developed to allow physically disabled persons to drive motor vehicles. You explained that the "electro-hydraulical system allows the driver to control the steering, throttle and brake mechanisms of the car by small movements on two (or in special cases only one) 'joystick' controllers".

You asked "on what conditions may a vehicle with a servo system as described above be used by a physically disabled person in general traffic." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment sold in the United States. The agency has not issued any standards establishing requirements for controls for disabled drivers.

Installation of such controls for disabled drivers in a new vehicle prior to vehicle's delivery to the first purchaser could be affected by section 108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(C), a copy of which is enclosed) and the agency's certification regulation (49 CFR 567, a copy of which is enclosed) if their installation affects the ability of a vehicle system, such as the brakes, to comply with applicable standards. If the controls are installed by the vehicle's manufacturer, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle with the controls installed conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the controls are to be installed as an add-on item of motor vehicle equipment by an automobile dealer prior to the vehicle's delivery to the first purchaser, then section 567.7 of the certification regulation would apply. That section provides that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms to all applicable standards.

Although it is impossible to determine which standards might be affected by your system without actually seeing it in operation, your system might have an effect on the following standards: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, and Standard No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System. So that you may be aware of all the vehicle systems that are currently covered by Federal motor vehicle safety standards, I have enclosed a sheet explaining how to obtain additional information on the standards.

The agency does have a procedure for granting temporary exemptions from Federal safety standards to facilitate the development of new motor vehicle safety features or to allow the sale of a motor vehicle whose overall level of safety is equivalent to or exceeding the overall safety of non-exempted vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of that regulation (49 CFR Part 555).

Installation of such controls in used vehicles could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which in relevant part provides:

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

Modification of a device or an element of design on a vehicle during the installation of the servo system so that the device or element of design no longer complies with all applicable safety standards would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

The agency is not aware of any states that have established regulations governing the uses of assistance devices by disabled drivers. We would suggest that you contact the Veterans Administration concerning the regulations it has established for driver assistance devices purchased with their fund. Information about those regulations can be obtained from:

Anthony Staros Director Veterans Administration Prostetics Center 252 7th Avenue New York, New York 10001

I hope this information will be of assistance.

ID: nht80-3.18

DATE: 07/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: George D. Lordi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether there are any Federal requirements applicable to the manufacture of center arm rests that are to be installed between bucket seats in passenger cars, as aftermarket equipment.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, pursuant to authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Currently, Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201), specifies requirements for arm rests that are installed on new passenger cars. Although this standard does not apply directly to arm rests sold only as aftermarket does not apply directly to arm rests sold only as aftermarket equipment, installation of arm rests on both new and used cars may give rise to certain responsibilities on the part of the person making the installation.

Any person who alters a completed vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, must place an additional label or tag on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). A person who installs a center arm rest on a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase would be considered an alterer under this provision, and would have to certify that the passenger car was in compliance with Standard No. 201.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative in whole or part any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that none of the persons mentioned could install a center arm rest in a passenger car if the installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with the Federal safety Standards. For example, if it were necessary to permanently remove the vehicle's seat belts in order to install the arm rest, the installation would be prohibited since seat belts are required by Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. It is up to the person making the installation to determine if any safety standards would be affected, and you should so advise your client.

Finally, in addition to the Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are responsible for any defects in their products which affect motor vehicle safety. Under 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 579.5, each manufacturer of an item of aftermarket equipment is responsible for safety-related defects in that equipment. This means that a manufacturer of aftermarket arm rests would have to recall the equipment and remedy free of charge any defect that is determined to exist (15 U.S.C. 1414). For example, arm rests constructed of highly flammable material could be determined to be defective.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you require any further information (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

LORDI & IMPERIAL

COUNSELLORS AT LAW

June 18, 1980

Frank A. Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Please be advised that I represent a company which is about to commence production of a center arm rest which will be installed in automobiles with bucket seats which do not offer this type of option.

In reviewing the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, I have been unable to find any standard relating to the manufacture and installation of arm rests. In fact, I am of the opinion that there are not any such standards.

My opinion was confirmed by a telephone call to your office and a conversation with one of the attorneys at your office.

Would you kindly provide me with the position of the National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration in regards to the manufacture and installation of center arm rests in automobiles containing bucket seats and advise whether there are any applicable safety standards.

Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated as my clients are a small company who are totally dependent upon a steady cash flow in order to remain competitive.

GEORGE D. LORDI