ID: nht93-6.50

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS #108 INTERPRETATION REQUEST

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Dennis G. Moore (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am requesting an Interpretation of the term "at the same height" used in FMVSS #108 when referring to the mounting position of the three I.D. Lights required on Vehicles over 80" in width.

At least on two occasions in the past 20+ years, NHTSA has allowed the slight misalignment of I.D. lights because of "Practical" circumstances. I didn't copy these cases from the Federal Register or from NHTSA's Docket Files so unfortunately I haven't them to refer to.

I'm requesting copies of these Interpretative allowances or better yet, an entirely new Interpretation hopefully allowing the "Practical Misalignment" of I.D. lights used specifically on Boat Trailers.

We are trying to improve the widespread visibility (conspicuousness) and breakage problems associated with mounting "Sizeable" yet Submersible I.D. Lights on a Boat Trailer's rear cross member. To do this, we are offering an I.D. Light Bar that is slightly bendable which corrects the problems outlined in the sketches below.

When slightly staggered, the Vulnerability and Covering problems shown in the sketches are eliminated yet still guaranteeing a protected, longer lasting yet Conspicuous I.D. Light Cluster.

"Conspicuous" is the requirement term used in Section S2. "PURPOSE" of FMVSS #108 and I believe represents the original objective for mandating 3 I.D. Lights. The "Conspicuous" objective is better accomplished even if the three lights are allowed to be somewhat staggered. Also, safety is better served when these lights are protected from damage and/or from being knocked off.

It seems to us that "at the same height" could be defined as where the Top of the middle light is no higher than the Bottoms of the Outboard Lights... or where at least one portion of the three lights are "at the same height".

We hope you concur with our interpretation of this term so that this safety improvement is allowed to be made on Boat Trailers.

TYPICAL BOAT TRAILER I.D. MOUNT AREA Problem 1: Typical Roller or "AT THE SAME HEIGHT" Protective Pad Requirement makes OUTBOARD LIGHTS hang below the Frame Typical V making them "VULNERABLE" to Shaped Cross Frame being DAMAGED or KNOCKED OFF

Typical Roller or Problem 2: Protective Pad "AT THE SAME HEIGHT" Requirement Typical V also encourages the "COVERING" of Shaped Cross Frame the MIDDLE LIGHT

Solution: Typical Roller or ALLOWING SLIGHT STAGGERING Protective Pad yields a PROTECTED yet Typical V "CONSPICUOUS" 3 I.D. Shaped Cross Frame Light Cluster

I would appreciate a response as soon as possible.

ID: nht93-6.51

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: Timothy McQuiston -- Vice-President Sales, California Dream

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/94 from John Womack to Timothy McQuiston (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Our company, California Dream, Inc. provides an auto aftermarket product, a spoiler, to new car dealers. Some of our spoilers are installed at dealer locations and others are installed at port of entry.

Our spoiler incorporates a 15" wide high mount third brakelight that complies with the SAE standards (please see attached). During installation our brakelight wire is connected to the existing 3rd brakelight wire in the rear window. In some cases the original window brakelight is left on and in other cases the fixture remains intact, however the light is not connected and therefore does not light. The choice of connection is made by the dealer.

Recently, we had a request from a New England auto dealer for a statement which they would provide their state inspectors. This statement would verify that our spoiler is in compliance with existing regulations regardless of whether the third brakelight is functional (engaged) or not.

We would greatly appreciate it if you would compose a position statement which we could provide our affected dealers. Roughly, the statement would affirm that when the dealer installs a spoiler containing a high mount third brakelight meeting/exceeding SAE standards, they are, in fact providing an equivalent light source, thereby allowing them (dealers) to remain in compliance with federal regulations.

Thank you for your assistance. I can be reached at 800-788-2484 if you have questions.

ID: nht93-6.6

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Richard Horian -- President, Woodleaf Corporation

TO: Michael Perel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/1/93 (est) from John Womack to Richard Horian (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Last December, after preliminary conversations with you, Mr. Paul Rice wrote to us regarding the "Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light." We now have progressed in our research to the point of actually prototyping a working unit for further research and study.

One of the operating techniques of this hazard light is for it to flash. Question: What is the fastest flash rate or range of flash rates expressed in "flashes per minute" that are allowed by Federal law?

Please FAX the answer back at your earliest convenience so we may proceed with our experimentation. Thank you for your continued cooperation.

ID: nht93-6.7

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Dennis G. Moore (A41; FMVSS 108)

TEXT:

The International Marine Trade & Conference Show will be held in Chicago September 9 through September 12 and I would like to use this timely opportunity to clarify to its members the meaning of "to represent the width" used in FMVSS #108 to tell Vehicle Manufacturers where to locate Clearance lights. If at all possible, could you please clarify what this term means in time for this Show using terminology that are clear to all concerned.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION REQUEST

In a June 23, 1992 letter I came across in the files at the D.O.T., you recently used the term "as nearly as possible to indicate the overall width" in response to the same question I am posing. I feel answers like this are leading the Vehicle Industry to continue what is already a wide spread problem....misplaced Clearance lights.

Obviously there exists extreme confusion as to the term "to represent the width" when referring to where Clearance lights should be mounted on Vehicles over 80" in width.

Inadvertently, you have encouraged the rear and front mounting surfaces of large vehicles to be used for Clearance lights by using the "near as possible" term, further propagating the misunderstanding of the original intent of this Law.

From SAE and NHTSA archives, the original purpose of Clearance Lights was "to mark the extreme sides of the vehicle" (1947 SAE Handbook, Page 713, copy attached). Old photographs of trucks in this era show Commercial Trucks and Trailer Manufacturers always mounted the lights to indicate at least the extreme width of the vehicle.

Additionally, as you should know, Federal and State laws put into affect many years ago, have made specific allowances for Clearance Lights to protrude up to 20" (10" on each side) beyond the vehicle's maximum width (96" then...102" today).

In times when NHTSA is trying to improve "conspicuousness" of large vehicles to decrease accidents in which these type vehicles are involved, it is preposterous that the present term, "to represent the width" has come to mean....to represent "somewhere near" the width. Simply observing large vehicles, RV's, etc. on any highway clearly demonstrates this misunderstanding. It only takes a fraction of an inch of interference for one vehicle to "sideswipe" another, thereby causing what can result in a catastrophic accident. Yet, it is not uncommon to see Clearance lights

mounted as much as 6" to 8" "inside" the side extremities of huge vehicles.

I have heard of industry "hearsay" arguments that it is best to mount Clearance Lights so that they're protected from being "knocked off." I ask!....wasn't and isn't it the purpose of these lights to get knocked off instead of allowing "sideswiping" which results in hard contact of two vehicles. Isn't the intent of the 10" Government side "stick out" allowance (on each side) to deliberately sacrifice these lights to avoid accidents?

I've also heard of "hearsay" arguments from "Leaders" in the Boat Trailer and Boat Trailer Lighting Industry say that somewhere "it is written in the law that it's allowable to mount Clearance Lights to "split" the protruding area represented by fenders," whereas I know of no such allowances in the law and I don't believe you do either.

I think widespread deviations from the initial intent of the Law has occurred and Clearance Lights have become decorative rather than functional. The detailed Lighting Rules initiated in 1969 required that a Clearance Light cover both "Outboard" and "Inboard" line of sight areas and that the Vehicle couldn't obstruct the Inboard line of sight.

As a result, it became immediately apparent to Vehicle Manufacturers they couldn't continue to mount a Clearance light on the side of a vehicle as they had been doing to this point and still maintain an "inboard" line of sight. Thus, this 1969 "Inboard" requirement started Vehicle Manufacturers mounting Clearance Lights on the Front and Rears of Vehicles because of corner radiuses, etc. Since they couldn't represent the extreme width easily, they started an "in the ballpark" compromise. This was never challenged by NHTSA and has been unchallenged to this day.

Fortunately, in 1974, the "inboard" visual requirement for Clearance lights was rescinded, but unfortunately, the practice of mounting Clearance Lights on the rear and front well inside of the true width still carried on.

Presently, there are a number of lights in the marketplace specifically designed to be mounted on the sides of Large Vehicles. They are designed to represent slightly beyond the extreme width of the vehicle. In many cases, these lights can second as Sidemarker lights as well and were designed to be used to indeed represent the extreme width (and slightly beyond) of a large vehicle. These lights are used by some Large Vehicle Manufacturers but many other Vehicle Manufacturers still avoid their use because of the confusion in the term "to represent the width."

Any of these lights cost only one to three dollars; therefore if they're ruined in "sideswipe contact," little is lost; however, a possible "bounce off," "cross lane" type "multi-vehicle" accident is avoided. This is the type of accident where inherently no one seems to know what started it, so misplaced Clearance Lights are rarely blamed nor reported nor recorded in government files. I feel common sense would indicate these types of accidents are taking place.

I am requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted.

ID: nht93-6.8

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Joe de Sousa -- President, Safety Pro's International, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from John Womack to Joe de Sousa (A42; Std. 108) and letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to Richard Van Iderstine

TEXT:

We are a company marketing automotive lighting products operating nationwide.

In order to provide quality service to our customers, it is very important for us to assure proper application of these products according to state and federal laws.

It is suggested by Mr. Richard Van Iderstine of your administration to request in writing an interpretation of Ruling #108 as amended earlier this year. We would appreciate your assistance in this regard so that we might represent our products properly and make any changes as deemed necessary.

We thank you in advance for your consideration.

ID: nht93-6.9

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Joe de Sousa -- President, Safety Pro's International, Inc.

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from John Womack to Joe de Sousa (A42; Std. 108) and letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-8998)

TEXT:

It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday and we really appreciate the time you devoted in answering our questions and concerns on Regulation 108.

As we discussed in our conversation, the systems we market operate strictly on low beam headlamps. They are connected in parallel to the existing vehicle's lighting and no wires are required to be cut. This preserves the full integrity of the vehicle's system and keeps it fully operational.

The manufacturer of these products believes there is no compromise when dealing with safety and has designed our units for dependability and to eliminate any possibility of malfunction which might cause a safety hazard.

Available is a basic Daytime Running Lights unit which provides for intensity reduction down to 77% of full low beam. It turns on and off with the ignition and is deactivated when all vehicle lights are turned on by the vehicle light switch. A four second delay is featured when turning the engine on to provide maximum energy to the starter. A parking brake cut off can be connected, if desired, to deactivate daytime running lights when the vehicle is idle at night with the engine running and lights are not needed.

Our completely automated system utilizes all the features of our basic unit. Additionally, it incorporates a light sensor and interlocks with the vehicle's windshield wipers to provide complete automatic operation of all vehicle lights with no driver intervention. Like our other unit, the vehicle's original system remains fully operational as a back-up and overrides our unit when activated.

As you will notice in the enclosed information, we've tried to provide a quality line of products designed for safety, durability and convenience.

The installation can be done by anyone with mechanical aptitude or any technician. The average installation time for the basic unit is about 20 minutes while our fully automated system requires about one hour to install. Currently, we are forming a national network of dealers to facilitate installations.

If you would like to see a demonstration on these units, we would be glad to schedule our representative in the Washington D.C. area to stop by and show you how they actually work on a vehicle.

Again, thank you for all your help. If we can ever be of service to your administration, please do not hesitate to call us.

ID: nht93-7.1

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: Nicholas S. Copass -- Sales Manager, Titeflex Industrial Americas

TO: David Elias -- Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/12/94 from John Womack to Nicholas S. Copass (A42; Std. 106), letter dated 3/6/91 from Anthony Lalikos to Vernon G. Bloom, and letter dated 3/18/91 from Arthur H. Neill, Jr. to Anthony J. Lalikos

TEXT:

Enclosed per our phone conversation on September 29th, is the information discussed pertaining to our licensed assembler of, Department of Transportation qualified break hoses, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard MVSS 106.

Titeflex is the manufacturer of he referenced Teflon break line assembly that has been recognized and accepted by the Department of Transportation, Arthur H. Neill, Jr. Chief Crash Avoidance Division, Vehicle Safety Standards.

Reference: "stylized logo" (=T with hose tail). T

Titeflex has a licensed agreement with Russell Performance to provide fabrication of the said Teflon break line assemblies with the required Titeflex components. At time of agreement Russell Performance provided completed assemblies to Titeflex for verification of compliance to the Department of Transportation Standard MVSS 106. Compliance verification has since been completed and documented.

License will use the Titeflex "stylized logo" on all assemblies and on all packaging in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Transportation, MVSS 106.

The essence of the above information is to receive a written response in regards to our licensed fabricator having to register their logo or become registered by the Department of Transportation.

Titeflex understands the nature of being the manufacture of the above product and claims its responsibility.

Copies of Titeflex logo and acceptance are included for your convenience. Again, thank you for your considerable time and cooperation.

ID: nht93-7.10

DATE: October 5, 1993

FROM: Mark Archer -- Orbital Engine Company Pty. Ltd.

TO: NHTSA, U.S. DOT

TITLE: Regulations concerning vehicles at idle

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/5/94 from John Womack to Mark Archer (A42; Std. 102)

TEXT:

The VW Golf Ecomatic recently released in Europe automatically cuts its engine during extended periods at idle for the purpose of reducing exhaust emissions and fuel consumption.

We would like to know if there are any regulations which affect a vehicle of this nature being sold in the US.

ID: nht93-7.11

DATE: October 6, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bernhard Peer -- President, Peer Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from Bernhard Peer to John Womack (OCC 8968)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you request "Federal approval and certification" for the "TWIP," the product you plan to import into the United States. You state that this product is a battery driven, two-wheeled electric scooter with a maximum top speed of about 9 miles per hour. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the TWIP will be used in warehouses and for recreational purposes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Based on statements in your letter and in your telephone conversation that the TWIP would be used in warehouses and for off-road recreational purposes, it appears that the TWIP is manufactured primarily for off-road purposes rather than for use on the public streets. Therefore, your product would not be a motor vehicle and thus would not be subject to any of this agency's safety standards.

Even if your product is manufactured for on-road use a substantial amount of the time, it appears that the TWIP would still not be a motor vehicle under this agency's statutory definitions. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. These criteria are met by the TWIP. In your letter, you stated that the TWIP has a top speed of approximately 9 miles per hour. The sales material you enclosed show that the TWIP's steering mechanism and driver's seat are attached to elongated bars that fold down apparently to make the scooter more portable. This configuration readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and, other two-wheeled vehicles.

I wish to clarify this agency's authority to provide "federal approval and certification." As noted above, under the Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each

manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, even if the TWIP had been found to be a motor vehicle, the agency would not have approved or certified it. Rather, you, as its manufacturer, would be responsible for certification.

Because your vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," under the Safety Act, none of this agency's standards or regulations applies to it. You may wish to contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply. Their address is:

Office of Chief Counsel 5401 Westbard Avenue Bethesda, MD 20207 Telephone: (301) 504-0980

You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of motor Vehicle Administrators at:

4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 522-4200

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any, other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-7.12

DATE: October 6, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joey Ferrari -- Director Technical Sales, Grant Products

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/93 from Joey Ferrari to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8568)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993, concerning aftermarket steering wheels. Your questions concerned replacement of the steering wheel in a vehicle equipped with an air bag with an aftermarket steering wheel manufactured by your company. The steering wheel you manufacture is not equipped with an air bag.

Before answering your questions, some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that passenger cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Your specific questions are addressed below. Where more than one question concerns a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. The responses to your questions explain: (1) FEDERAL law does prevent a repair shop from removing an operating air bag; (2) FEDERAL law does not require a vehicle to have a usable air bag for its life, prevent a private individual from removing the air bag in the vehicle, require a usable air bag before a used vehicle can be sold, or require replacement of an air bag deployed in an accident; (3) STATE law may address these issues; and (4) our agency strongly discourages owners from removing or modifying the safety systems in their vehicles, and urges the replacement of these systems when they are not functional, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants.

1. If a vehicle is originally equipped with an air bag, must it have an operable air bag system for its entire useful life?

2. If a repair shop removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal?

B. If illegal which party is liable?

3. If a private individual removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal?

B. If illegal which party is liable?

6. Upon resale of a vehicle from the first owner (individual) to a second or subsequent owner, must the vehicle have an operable air bag system as originally equipped?

The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. However, the Safety Act also provides that once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the safety standards. However, States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning for the vehicles to be registered or sold.

After the first retail purchase of a vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act which provides that:

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

In the case of a vehicle equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the air bags. Any violation of this "render inoperative" provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their vehicles.

I would like to caution anyone considering removal of an air bag to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Improper removal of an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the person.

4. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, MUST a repair shop or individual replace the air bag and/or system so that it is again operable as originally equipped?

5. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, can a repair shop or individual replace the air bag with a Grant product not having an air bag?

The "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on repair shops to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, a repair shop could replace the steering wheel after an accident that deployed the air bag with a steering wheel that was not equipped with an air bag. However, despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, repair shops may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so.

7. If we have a potential liability exposure for someone using our products to replace an original air bag, what do we need to do to limit this exposure?

We suggest that you consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for an answer to this question. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy that air bags not be removed, and that air bags always be replaced following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. While air bags are in some respects "supplemental" to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Air bags provide some protection, even if the safety belt is not worn; and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to a subsequent purchaser of the vehicle would identify it as one equipped with air bags. The purchaser may well expect a used car to include the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.