ID: nht88-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NUMBER 106, BRAKE HOSES-REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION; DATED 6-7-88, OCC-2154, FROM WILLIAM SHAPIRO

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the testing of hydraulic brake hose assemblies to the whip resistance requirement (S5.3.3) of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. I regret the delay in responding.

Your question relates to Table II of Standard No. 106, which specifies the amount of slack that should be introduced when mounting brake hose assemblies on the whip test apparatus. (The amount of the hose indicated as "slack" in Table II is the differen ce between the projected length of the hose assembly (when mounted in the whip test machine) and the free length of the hose while maintained in a straight position.) Slack must be present in the hose when mounted on the whip test machine to enable the p roper "whipping" movement of a brake hose assembly. Without slack, an assembly would probably be incapable of withstanding any rotation of the movable header of the whip test apparatus described in Standard No. 106 without rupturing.

Table II specifies the amount of slack for some sizes of assemblies, and not for others. You ask whether a hydraulic brake hose assembly of a size falling in the latter category -- viz., an assembly comprised of a brake hose that is 19 to 24 inches in f ree length, and which is more than one-eighth inch or three millimeters (mm.) in diameter -- "need not be tested to meet or exceed the whip resistance requirement" of the standard.

With regard to NHTSA's Standard No. 106 compliance testing, your understanding is correct that Table II does not specify the amount of slack for testing assemblies of the size you describe. Due to the absence of the slack specification, NHTSA does not r equire testing of such assemblies to the whip resistance requirements of the standard.

With regard to your certification that the brake hose assemblies you manufacture comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 106, you are correct that hydraulic brake hose assemblies of the size you describe are not subject to the whip resist ance requirements. However,

the agency urges manufacturers to ensure that these assemblies perform in a safe manner while subject to environmental conditions of vehicle operations which may result in flexing of the brake hose or brake hose assembly.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ID: nht89-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/89

FROM: STEVEN P. ELLIOT -- CITY OF SPARKS ATTORNEY

TO: HARRY REID -- UNITED STATES SENATOR

TITLE: AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTOMOBILE AIR BAGS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/25/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; REDBOOK A33 [4]; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 03/08/89 FROM PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- DOT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; LETTER DATED 02/23/8 9 FROM HARRY REID -- SENATE TO DOT; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLE CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLAND, JULY 1-5, 1985; RESEARCH NOTES ON C RASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH 03/31/89, FROM VERNON ROBERTS

TEXT: Dear Senator Reid:

The City of Sparks Police Department just received delivery of six Plymouth Grand Fury police patrol vehicles. These automobiles are equipped with air bags and have a sticker on the dashboard stating that it is a violation of federal law to disconnec t the air bag. Since the Police Department is finding it difficult to engage in normal police activities with the air bags installed as they are and the City of Sparks does not want to violate a federal law, we are hoping you will help us obtain permiss ion to disconnect the air bags in our new vehicles.

The Sparks Police Department is finding it difficult to work with the air bags because police cars are often required to push disabled vehicles out of the travel lanes of a street or highway. The air bags are activated when the front bumper of the pa trol car receives a certain amount of pressure. We believe that the pressure threshold will be reached when a patrol car bumper is used to push another vehicle. This is particularly so if the disabled vehicle has been damaged so that its wheels do not turn freely or if the vehicles bump together due to an uneven surface. We have been informed that air bags are not reusable, and the replacement cost for an air bag is approximately $ 700.00.

We believe the United States Department of Transportation can authorize the City of Sparks to disconnect the air bags permanently or temporarily. We would like to receive authorization to disconnect the air bags on our police patrol vehicles so the v ehicles then can be safely and economically used to push disabled vehicles. Any assistance you can provide us in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht90-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

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

TO: MICHAEL S. KMIECIK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-21-89 FROM MICHAEL S. KMIECIK ATTACHED;

(OCC 4169); GRAPHICS OMITTED. TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to vehicle modification kits you wish to purchase, to be used in conversion of Datsun 240-280Z cars from closed to open vehicles. You have asked for the safety standards that apply to 1974-78 convertibles, and whether the conversion kit meets these standards. I regret the delay in responding.

We appreciate your efforts to meet the requirements of the National Traffic and motor Vehicle Safety Act. As you appear to realize, the Act requires, in essence, that vehicle alterations by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business must not render wholly or partially inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a vehicle at the end of its conversion process must continue to meet the standards that applied at the time that it was first manufactured. This does not preclude conversions that render compliance with a standard physically impossible; obviously an open car cannot meet, for example, the standard for roof crush resistance (Standard No. 216), and convertibles, are, in fact, exempt from it. Such a conversion would allow substitution of a two-point (lap belt) restraint system in a convertible for a three-point (lap-shoulder belt) restraint system that may have been installed when it was a closed car (Standard No. 208).

After the vehicle alterations are complete, the vehicle must conform to the barrier tests specified in several standards. We note that the items that comprise the kit are intended to add rigidity to the body and frame after removal of the top, but are unable to advise you of the effect these modifications would have upon the safety performance of the vehicle as converted.

There are no Federal safety standards that apply to the individual items in your kit. The standards that apply to motor vehicles, including convertibles, manufactured from October 1, 1973, through September 30, 1978, will be found at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. Specifically, the standards appear in volumes titled 49 CFR Parts 200 to 999, revised as of October 1, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977. Originally, these volumes were available through the U.S. Government Printing office (which may have an Omaha outlet). If they are no longer available through the GPO, we recommend that you consult a local law library.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht88-3.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/88

FROM: BYUNG M. SOH -- TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS INC

TO: TAYLOR VINRON -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/25/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BYUNG M. SOH, REDBOOK A33(6); VSA 108(A)2(A); STANDARD 108; STANDARD 211

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We would like to have your opinion on the enclosed Hub Cap, whether it violates any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

It is structured to meet FMVSS No. 571.211. We, however, feel that incorporation of LED's on the hub cap need to be clarified from your office. As described in our press release, the intensity of the LED is maximum 40mmAmp, and it is designed solely fo r cosmetic purpose, not for illuminating purpose.

Your immediate reply would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Enc.: 1. our press release 2. color photo of product in motion

STARRACE Self-Lighting Hub Cap

What is STARRACE Self-lighting Hub Cap?

A Hub Cap that has a self-contained motion activating generator in the core of the Hub Cap, and made of durable, rust-proof, virgin ABS. Maintenance Free and requires NO special tools or knowledge for installation. This innovative concept is patented i n 18 countries including the U.S.A. Requires NO wiring and can be installed/replaced just a easily as replacing a regular Hub Cap.

How will STARRACE Self-Lighting Hub Cap Work?

STARRACE has 14 LED lights aligned on a linear plane of a hub cap diameter, and self-motion activation generator which could generate a minimum 20 to a maximum 40 mmAmps/LED's depending on the RPM's. Intensity of the LED lights proportionate to the spee d of the vehicle, as it triggers ON/OFF automatically by motion.

Target Market of the STARRACE Self-lighting Hub Caps?

According to our survey, major demographic target market falls in those ages between 18 to 35, male and female, nationwide: People who spend a considerable amount of money for automotive accessories should be a primary target group. The secondary target group could be those who drive major or rural highways daily. An excellent Safety device by enhancing visibility to other driver in addition to its unique cosmetic purpose. Another substantial potential market is a segment of car owners who like to dec orate their cars to distinguish them from others. STARRACE will certainly satisfy ego's of those sectors.

ID: 23499.ztv

Mr. Galen Chen
Marketing Department
Maxzone Vehicle Lighting Corp.
5100 Walnut Grove Avenue
San Gabriel, CA 91776





Dear Mr. Chen:

This is in reply to your email of August 6, 2001. You wrote:

Some of the performance type corner lamps installed on cars are not street legal because of the white and clear color on them. Another word, they are lacking the amber color reflector. If these corner lamps are packaged with a reflector to be installed on the 2 side of the front bumper, can they be sold as street legal lamps?

We are uncertain what you mean by a "corner lamp;" no such lighting device is required or defined by Federal law. We surmise that the lamp to which you refer is one that is intended to replace a lamp that is original equipment on a motor vehicle, and that the original lamp incorporated an amber reflex reflector intended as a side reflex reflector mounted at the front side of a motor vehicle. The replacement lamp you refer to would not incorporate an amber reflex reflector but the package would include a separate amber reflector.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, establishes requirements for motor vehicle lighting and for replacement lighting equipment. All motor vehicles are required to be equipped with an amber reflex reflector located on the front side of a vehicle. For purposes of this interpretation, we shall assume that the reflex reflector pictured in the attachment to your email is one that is certified as conforming to Standard No. 108. The question your letter presents, then, is whether, whether a replacement lamp must incorporate all the functions of the original equipment lamp it is intended to replace..

Paragraph S5.8 of Standard No. 108, Replacement equipment, requires that "each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which [Standard No. 108] applies, shall be designed to conform to [Standard No. 108]. (S5.8.1).

We do not read this requirement as allowing a package containing a lamp and a separate conforming reflector, when the original equipment lamp and reflector comprised an integrated unit. If the original equipment lamp incorporated a reflex reflector designed to conform to Standard No. 108, then the replacement lamp must also incorporate a conforming reflex reflector in order to satisfy S5.8.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.12/14/01

ID: 2398y

Mr. Michael S. Kmiecik
5601 Western Avenue
Omaha, Nebraska 68132

Dear Mr. Kmiecik:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to vehicle modification kits you wish to purchase, to be used in conversion of Datsun 240-280Z cars from closed to open vehicles. You have asked for the safety standards that apply to l974-78 convertibles, and whether the conversion kit meets these standards. I regret the delay in responding.

We appreciate your efforts to meet the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As you appear to realize, the Act requires, in essence, that vehicle alterations by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business must not render wholly or partially inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a vehicle at the end of its conversion process must continue to meet the standards that applied at the time that it was first manufactured. This does not preclude conversions that render compliance with a standard physically impossible; obviously an open car cannot meet, for example, the standard for roof crush resistance (Standard No. 216), and convertibles, are, in fact, exempt from it. Such a conversion would allow substitution of a two-point (lap belt) restraint system in a convertible for a three-point (lap-shoulder belt) restraint system that may have been installed when it was a closed car (Standard No. 208).

After the vehicle alterations are complete, the vehicle must conform to the barrier tests specified in several standards. We note that the items that comprise the kit are intended to add rigidity to the body and frame after removal of the top, but are unable to advise you of the effect these modifications would have upon the safety performance of the vehicle as converted.

There are no Federal safety standards that apply to the individual items in your kit. The standards that apply to motor vehicles, including convertibles, manufactured from October 1, l973, through September 30, l978, will be found at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. Specifically, the standards appear in volumes titled 49 CFR Parts 200 to 999, revised as of October 1, l973, l974, l975, l976, and l977. Originally, these volumes were available through the U.S. Government Printing Office (which may have an Omaha outlet). If they are no longer available through the GPO, we recommend that you consult a local law library.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:4/8/90

ID: 8589

Dr. Thomas Lckemeyer
Dept VER/LB
SWF Auto-Electric GmbH

FAX 07142/73 28 95

Dear Dr. Lckemeyer:

As you have requested, we are responding by FAX to your letter of April 28, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked two questions with respect to the acceptability of a multiple rear turn signal lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and have enclosed a sketch of the lamp.

Your first question is:

"Is it allowed to split the turn signal lamp in two parts with the dimensions given in the sketch . . . where the bigger part (4.5 sq. in.) is on the body of the car. The distance does not exceed 22 in."

Your question indicates that the turn signal lamp array of two lamps that is illustrated in the sketch is intended for installation on passenger cars or other vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference the SAE standard applicable to such vehicles, J588 NOV84. Paragraph 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 NOV84 permits the use of multiple rear turn signal lamps to meet the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108.

When multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal lamp, paragraph 5.3.3 of SAE J588 NOV84 requires that the functional lighted lens area of each lamp shall be at least 22 sq. cm, provided the combined area is at least 37.5 sq. cm. Your sketch shows that the functional lighted lens area of one lamp is 23 sq. cm, and of the other, 30 sq. cm, with a combined area of 53 sq. cm. Therefore, Standard No. 108 permits you to use the turn signal lamp array shown in your sketch. Your second question is:

"Is it allowed to use the combination of the two lamps to meet the photometric requirements."

Because the distance between the two adjacent light sources in the array does not exceed 560 mm (the sketch indicates that it is less than 550 mm), paragraph 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 NOV84 requires that the combination of the lamps be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections, two in this case. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

NCC-20:ZTVinson:mar:5/19/93:OCC 8589:62992 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron Interps. Std. 108; redbook (3) w/sketch 8589; ztv; U:\ncc20\interp\108\8589.ztv

ID: 86-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Vincent H. Rose -- President, HI-Q Technology, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Vincent H. Rose President HI-Q Technology, Inc. Box 4836 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94596

This will confirm your understanding, as expressed in your letter of June 3, 1986, that Federal requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, do not apply to an aftermarket lamp that "will not replace parts originally governed by regulations".

It is not quite correct, however, to say that "no regulations apply"; a manufacturer of aftermarket lighting equipment to which no standard applies is nevertheless subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if either it or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists in the product.

Finally, even though Standard No. 108 does not cover an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp such as you propose to market, we encourage manufacturers to design their products as closely as possible to Federal specifications so that the full benefit of the device may be realized.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 3, 1986 Ref: 20nhtsa3

Ms Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th St. SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Ms Jones:

We are planning to market a lighting product for passenger cars in the United States and wish to comply with pertinent regulations and safety standards.

The product is a high-mounted stoplamp. It will be sold in the aftermarket and is intended to be added by the consumer to older automobiles not originally equipped with this device. It is not intended for replacement of high-mounted stoplamps installed by the vehicle manufacturer in newer automobiles.

We need your advice regarding U.S. Government regulations, if any, that must be complied with. It is our understanding that perhaps no regulations apply because this product is an add-on and will not replace parts originally governed by regulations.

Your comments will be most helpful and appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Vincent H. Rose President HI-Q Technology, Inc.

ID: GF007944

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4904

Dear Senator Feingold:

Thank you for your October 7, 2004, letter on behalf of your constituent regarding bumper and lighting regulations. Specifically, your constituent is concerned about vehicle compatibility and the height of bumpers and lamps on certain vehicles. I appreciate the opportunity to address your constituents concerns.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues standards and regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA regulates bumpers on passenger cars (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 581), but not on multipurpose passenger vehicles (sport utility vehicles), because such regulation could significantly reduce their utility. For vehicles subject to our bumper standards, the bumper must be located at the height of not more than 20 inches above ground.

We note that the agency is very concerned with vehicle compatibility in multi-vehicle crashes. Bumper height is one of the factors affecting vehicle compatibility. In June of 2003, NHTSA published a report describing the scope of the safety problem represented by vehicle incompatibility and outlined strategies the agency plans to pursue in improving vehicle compatibility. See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/aggressivity/IPTVehicleCompatibilityReport/. We have enclosed a copy of the report for your information. Currently, NHTSA and its global partners are conducting research to determine the best regulatory approaches in the area of vehicle compatibility. NHTSA is also working with vehicle manufacturers to minimize the effects of vehicle incompatibility and to develop consumer information related to this issue.

With respect to headlamp location, the Federal lighting standard (49 CFR 571.108) requires that the headlamps for all new vehicles be located between 22 inches and 54 inches above the road surface. Subsequent reinstallation of headlamps at a different height by a dealer or a repair business is also prohibited.

We note that the bumper and headlamp height issues raised by your constituent may not be the product of improper installation of those items, but instead may stem from raising or otherwise altering the vehicle suspension system. While this agency does not regulate suspension alterations, some states may do so. Accordingly, we suggest that your constituent contact the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Office of General Counsel at (608) 266-8810 or ogc.exec@dot.state.wi.us to ascertain Wisconsin regulations pertaining to vehicles suspension systems, bumper height, and lighting.

If you or your constituent have any further questions regarding this issue, you may contact Scott Brenner, Associate Administrator for External Affairs, at (202) 366-2566.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:581#108
d.11/19/04

ID: 21937.drn

Jiri Misik, Chief
Type Approval Tests and Technical Regulations
SKODA, automobilov a.s.
Vslava Klementa 869

293 60 Mlad Boleslav
Cesk Republika (Czech Republic)

Dear Mr. Misik:

This responds to your request for information about "US field of vision" requirements for motor vehicle windshields for passenger cars and light duty vehicles. As explained below, the United States has no forward field of view standard for these vehicles.

In your letter, you noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, describes Areas "A," "B" and "C" to be cleared in motor vehicle windshields. In contrast you noted that in Europe:

In our case the edge of area "A" and "B" ... is not placed on the windshield but on the steel structure or even on the side window. This case is not mentioned in any US legislation which is related directly to wipe, wash and forward vision, anyway. Forward field of vision is only clearly defined in European Directive 77/649 and Australian ADR 8, clause 8.3.

With this background, you ask whether "there is a mandatory US provision to place the edge of 'A' area on the windscreen with regard to forward field of vision."

In response to your question, no provision in the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards specifies forward field of view requirements for vehicles other than school buses. As you note, we have Standard No. 104, which establishes requirements for motor vehicle windshield wiping and washing systems. Since Standard No. 104 regulates windshield wiper performance, it defines each of Areas "A," "B" and "C" so that only the part of each Area that is within the glazing 25 millimeters inboard of the daylight opening is counted for the computation of the minimum cleared percentage. Please note that these are requirements for areas of the motor vehicle windshield to be cleared of water or other liquids. We have no standard analogous to EU Directive 77/649 which would use Areas "A," "B" and "C" to specify areas of mandatory forward fields of view.

Another indication that Standard No. 104 does not specify forward fields of vision is seen in the fact that there is no requirement that Area "A," as bounded by the angles specified in Tables I, II, III or IV, must be completely included on the windshield glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.10/5/00