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: nht79-1.39

DATE: 03/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 16 1979

Mr. Charles D. Hylton, III Director, Editorial Services National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc. 1343 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Hylton:

This is in response to your letter of February 27, 1979, asking whether tire dealers are responsible for supplying point-of-sale information concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQG) (49 CFR 575.104) to prospective tire purchasers.

Subpart A of Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations, provides in section 575.6(c) (49 CFR 575.6(c)) that,

"Each manufacturer of motor vehicles, each brand name owner of tires, and each manufacturer of tires for which there is no brand name owner shall provide for examination by prospective purchasers, at each location where its vehicles or tires are offered for sale by a person with whom the manufacturer or brand name owner has a contractual, proprietary, or other legal relationship, or by a person who has such a relationship with a distributor of the manufacturer or brand name owner concerning the vehicle or tire in question, the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to each of the vehicles or tires offered for sale at that location ..."

The UTQG Standards, contained in Subpart B of Part 575, specify the information which must be furnished to prospective purchasers by vehicle manufacturers, tire manufacturers, and tire brand name owners (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii)).

Thus, the Consumer Information Regulations place the responsibility for providing UTQG point-of-sale information to prospective tire purchasers on manufacturers and brand name owners rather than directly on tire dealers. The means by which tire manufacturers and brand name owners assure that UTQG information is provided for examination will be determined between these suppliers and their dealers and distributors.

You should also note that, in light of the 30-day stay granted by the U.S. Court of appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case of B.B. Goodrich Co. v. Department of Transportation, the effective dates for all requirements of the UTQG regulation, with the exception of paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(1)(iii) (49 CFR 575.104(d)(i)(A) and (d)(1)(iii), are now March 31, 1979 for bias-ply tires and October 1, 1979 for bias-belted tires. Paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A), the sidewall molding requirement, and paragraph (d)(1)(iii), the first purchaser requirement, now become effective October 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires and March 31, 1980 for bias-belted tires.

Sincerely,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-3.24

DATE: 09/22/78

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

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 21, 1978, letter asking whether you are permitted under Standard No. 217, to place the emergency exit sign at the bottom of a rear emergency window exit.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has permitted the use of the emergency exit sign to be on the top half of rear emergency doors. This has permitted the sign to be located just below the glass on the rear emergency door. Although your location of the exit sign is not on top of the rear emergency window exit, its location is similar to the location of the exit sign on a rear emergency door. Since the location of the sign is on the emergency window exit and is within the top half of the bus, the agency has determined that this location complies with the requirements.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 21, 1978

Office of the Chief U. S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton

Subject: MVSS - 217. Section S5.5.3 - School Bus

Reference is made to our conversation relative to the above.

In that conversation, we discussed the location of the sign "Emergency Exit".

We are enclosing a photo of what we were describing the location of the sign. According to the writer, the location as depicted in the photo is permissable. As we pointed out, this location, in our opinion more closely covers the intent of the section.

On this point, we understand you concurred. We would appreciate confirmation of this concurrance for the record.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam4780

Dear Mr. Cepeda: This is in reply to your letter of July 24, l990, t Frank Berndt, the former Chief Counsel of this agency. You wish to import 8 to 12 stainless steel parts. After importation, the parts would be put together to form a Jeep body. Ultimately, an engine, chassis, and all other parts, which are from Guam, would be added to form a completed motor vehicle. You have asked for confirmation that 'the stainless steel jeep body is not a motor vehicle and is not required to meet any provision of the U.S. 49 CFR Part 400 to 999.' Apparently, you are having a misunderstanding with Guam Customs on this point. We are pleased to provide confirmation of your interpretation. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the stainless steel body parts that you describe. This means that you may import them, as individual body parts, into Guam without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Under 49 CFR 591.5(i)(2), the appropriate declaration for entry is that they were manufactured on a date when no Federal motor vehicle safety standards were in effect that applied to them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1767

Dear Mr. Hildebrandt:#This responds to your letter of January 17, 1975 requesting confirmation if a telephone discussion between Mr. R.J. Clifford of Bendix and Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates and labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*. Your letter posed several questions and suggested their answers. The answers which you have presented represent correct interpretations of Standard No. 106-74.#Please Forgive our delay in responding to your request of October 1, 1974, for an interpretation of the term 'manufacturer of the hose assembly' as used in S5.2.4(b) of the standard. The NHTSA is aware of the problems which you have pointed out, and the issue will be dealt with in a forthcoming notice in the Federal Register.#Your truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: 86-6.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JEFFREY S. JENSEN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/10/86 EST, TO NHTSA FROM JEFFREY S. JENSEN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Jensen:

Your letter of September 10, 1986, has been forwarded to this office for reply. You have devised a way "to inscribe lettering on the inside of car & truck tail lights so that when the brakes are applied the lettering is seen." You asked if there are any laws that apply to this concept.

Because you wish to produce this concept we shall consider it as both original equipment installed by the vehicle manufacturer, and as equipment available in the aftermarket, for purchase by a vehicle owner. The Federal regulation governing vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. It requires a manufacturer to produce vehicles with certain specified lighting devices meeting specific requirements. Further, under it, additional lighting devices and other motor vehicle equipment are permissible provided they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The requirements for stop lamps (you called them "tail lights", but taillamps are the rear lights that are on when the headlamps are on, and are not brake activated) are those of SAE Standard J586c, August 1970. It specifies photometric requirements to be met at specific test points, and a minimum effective projected luminous lens area for lamps.

With respect to compliance with the stop lamp requirements of Standard No. 108, the lettering must not prevent the lamp from meeting photometrics at the applicable test points, or from complying with the minimum area requirements. As to whether the concept would nevertheless impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps, this is a decision to be made by the vehicle manufacturer, though it is subject to review by this agency. Anything that distracts the observer of a stop lamp from instantaneously perceiving its message could be considered an impairment.

As an aftermarket device, it is not subject to Standard No. 108, but only to the restriction imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that manufacturers, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses must not render inoperative in whole or in part devices such as stop lamps that are installed as original safety equipment. If your

device created a noncompliance in the stop lamp, or impaired the effectiveness of it, we would consider this the equivalent of rendering the stop lamp partially inoperative.

Your concept would also be subject to the laws of any State in which a device embodying it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you as to these laws, but you must consider them as well.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht81-3.30

DATE: 11/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter regarding the use of flexible nylon tubes in vacuum braking systems. You ask whether such plastic hoses would qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors" for purposes of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses.

We recently received a letter asking this identical question from Tokai Rubber Industries of Japan. I am enclosing a copy of that letter for your information. I believe that it will answer all of your questions. You will see from the letter that these nylon tubes cannot qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors" and must comply with the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106.

Sincerely,

ENC.

TOKAI RUBBER INDUSTRIES, LTD.

April 20, 1981

Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Subject: Questionnaire Concerning the Application of All Plastic Vacuum Brake Hoses

Dear Sirs,

Our company, Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. is supplying vacuum brake hoses to Japanese automotive industries, which have both met the requirements of the standards of FMVSS-106(1974), S9 and been approved by your department.

As you know, it has began to make use of the variety of vacuum brake hose instead of conventional rubber vacuum hose in application to brake systems.

Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. has been developing and making plans for the supply of several kinds of plastic vacuum brake hoses which are composed of a single material and are molded in an exact, set shape for the specific application. We are intending to utilize two(2) flexible nylon tubes for a vacuum braking system, and our concept of assemblies is the following:

(Graphics omitted)

We have found, however, that these plastic vacuum brake hose does not meet several requirements of the FMVSS-106, S-9 due to the feat that their characteristics are different from the conventional type vacuum brake hoses, and therefore we would like to clarify the following points: (1) The molded plastic vacuum brake hose apparently does not meet the above mentioned requirements, such as Bend (S9.-2.7.) and Deformation (S9.2.10) of the FMVSS-106, S9. Is there any alternative standard or requirement?

(2) Based on the notice for amendment to the definition in the Standard No.106-74, a definition for 'vacuum tubing connector' is added. is our nylon flexible tube and assembly indicated above in a category of 'vacuum tubing connector'?

(3) If so, there is no federal rule concerning vacuum brake hoses to use in a vacuum brake booster system. Can we design a vacuum brake hose and assembly only based on manufacturer's performance standards ?

I thank you very much for your help and consideration in this matter and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Very truly yours,

John Y. Yonezana -- Engineer - Development

cc: Mr. Sugimoto, Tokai

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

April 2, 1981

John Y. Yonezawa -- Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd.

Dear Mr. Yonezawa:

Reference is made to your letter of February 20, 1981 in which you have requested our interpretation of the FMVSS-106 as it addresses brake hose and vacuum tubing connectors.

We have reviewed your questions and have tried to interpret the standard as it applies to your application and have contacted Mr. Vern Bloom at NHTSA for his interpretation of the 106 standard. Mr. Bloom (Illegible Words) your questions directly - the Office of Chief Counsel at NHTSA for a formal interpretation of the standard. This would preclude any misinterpretation which could be very costly to your firm.

AAMVA, as agent of the states and provinces, must use the FMVSS-106 for the certification of brake hose. If it is determined by NHTSA that the hose or device is not subject to the FMVSS-106, then it is not necessary to have it certified by us.

When NHTSA gives Tokai Rubber Industries their interpretation, we would appreciate receiving a copy for our reference.

We are sorry that we were not able to answer your questions in this matter.

Sincerely yours, George E. Walton -- Associate Director, Safety Equipment Services MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

September 30, 1981 Our Ref. T-859/TT/tm

Messrs. Office of Chief Council

Dear sirs

RE: Inquiry to your interpretation on our plastic made vacuum brake hose through AAMVA

We are one of leading automobile hoses manufacturers in Japan, and developing new material's vacuum brake hose which made from Poly-amide resin to replace from conventional rubber hose.

However, you specify that vacuum brake hose must be conformed to all items of requirement in FMVSS 106, our nlyon made vacuum hose (not reinforced with any fiber, so we call it as "tube") don't satisfy S9.2.10 Deformation test and S10.6 Bend test.

This is the common problem of plastic made vacuum brake hose which developed by several manufacturers, we've asked the interpretation of yours against the adoption of this new material's hose to AAMVA.

Mr. George Walton Associate Director of AAMVA might request your interpretation to our inquiry that whether Nylon vacuum brake hose has a possibility of acceptance as vacuum brake hose which connect between rigid points or not.

We are awaiting your interpretation of Nylon vacuum brake hose, please inform us.

Enclosed please find the copies of our letter to Mr. Walton. Although we were asking him in our letter, it was also the question to you.

We must excuse our sudden request, but if you kindly inform us your interpretation or advise, it would be much appreciated for us.

We are looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience, we remain,

Yours sincerely

T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept.

Encl: Copies of our inquiry letter addressed to Mr. Walton AAMVA

c.c. to Mr. Walton

June 3, 1981 Our Ref. T-809/TT/tm

George E. Walton -- Assistant Director Safety Equipment Service, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

Dear Mr. Walton Much appreciated for your kind reply in your letter dated April 7 to our question on plastic made Vacuum brake hose.

You've kindly enclosed latest FMVSS-106-74 and suggested us to carry the test in compliance with the standard out.

As the result, we have found that our plastic vacuum tube (not reinforced with any fiber, so we call this "tube") is conformed to the requirements such as High temperature resistance, Low temperature resistance, Ozone resistance, Burst strength, Vacuum and Swell test, but not conformed to Bend and Deformation tests.

Since we use Polyamide 11 material (fewer plasticizer contained), Kink phenomenon was happened when our vacuum tube was bent as way of bend test as specified. It was more than the collapse, completely yielded at the A point. In the Deformation test, our 3/8 inch I.D. tube was only conformed to the specification, but larger I. D. tubes 1/2 inch were not conformed.

Our technicals insist that so far as we use polyamide material to make the tube, it is inevitable to ocurr Kink phenomenon and inferior deformation restorative rate compared to rubber tube.

Notwithstanding such weak point, plastic tubes (mainly it is consisted with Nylon material) are available to automobile use. We hear Nylon made vacuum tube has been adopted to European vehicles before long and we can find particular specification of plastic tubing for its nominal diameter, end fittings and its assembly way in S9, Requirement-Vacuum brake hose of FMVSS 106.

In case of the appearance of developed products made by new material, it is usual to adapt the specification to new material, we believe.

Therefore we would like to ask you followings,

1. When your country import the vehicles which are installed Nylon made vacuum brake hose from Europe, you can accept them or not, we wonder. Because, European Nylon tube may also have inferior property against severe bend compared to conventional rubber made hose, we are afraid.

If you have special treatment for them, please inform us.

2. As FMVSS specifies particularly for plastic tube or assembly, we expect, you AAMVA or NHTSA might have some adaptation to introduce these new developed plastic vacuum brake tube, or your administrators may be planning to adapt existent specification or requirement to such a plastic made tube.

If so, could you please inform us such a tendency?

We are sorry to trouble you again, but if you would inform us your situation or tendency, it would be much helpful for us.

Yours sincerely

T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept., MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

July 7, 1981 Our Ref. T-826/TT/tm

George E. Walton -- Associate Director, Safety Equipment Services, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

Dear Mr. Walton

Thank you so much for your kind answer and exertion to our question.

At the moment, we don't yet receive any interpretation from NHTSA, unfortunately.

One of our manufacturers of these sort of tube interprets that vacuum brake hose is not fixed between swinging part as like as hydraulic brake hose, only for connecting between stationary parts such as engine to cleaner. Therefore vacuum brake hose can be regarded as rigid piping. If so, Nylon vacuum brake hose is not required severe flexibility and severe bending.

We are not sure that his interpretation is acceptable with you or not, but we think, there is some truth in what he says as far as Nylon vacuum hose connect between stationary parts.

Sorry to trouble you so often, but could you please address his interpretation to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?

Enclosed pleased find a piece of V. W. Golf GII Vacuum hose with plastic made check value for your reference.

We are looking forward to hearing from you and are always appreciating for your favour.

Yours sincerely

T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept. MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

Encl: a piece of sample

ID: aiam3417

Dear Mr. Keshav: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1981 with regard to tur signal pilot indicators on motorcycles.; You noted that the front turn signal lamps are directly in front of th operator and are fully visible. You therefore believe that a separate pilot indicator is unnecessary. You are correct. Pursuant to SAE Standard J588e *Turn Signal Lamps*, September 1970, incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, no separate pilot indicator is required for Turn Signal Lamps that are 'readily visible to the driver.'; You have also pointed out that the motorcycle controls and display standards, No. 123, 'does not indicate the provisions and locations of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator.' That is correct. Standard No. 108 and J588e establish the requirements for this item of vehicle equipment. I enclose a copy for your information.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1417

Dear Mr. Little:#This responds to your January 30, 1974, request fo inclusion in Standard 106, *Brake Hoses*, of J1402 type A and B hose and J844 (nylon type 3) hose.#Standard 106 has already been amended by addition of 3/8-in and 1/2-in special sizes to the list of hose sizes which may be used with reusable fittings, and this addition permits continues use of commonly utilized types of A and B hose.#The nylon 3 hose to which you refer is not excluded from use under the Standard. Several of its manufacturers have indicated that it does conform to the requirements of the standard, which have been modified to reflect the lower tensile strength valves needed when used at non-articulating points in the system.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3403

Dear Mr. Gregory: This is in reply to your letter of April 13, 1981, with respect t placement of identification lamps on the boat trailer you wish to manufacture.; You have informed us that the trailers are not built for transportin boats on the highways and your sales sheet reiterates that point: 'These trailers are for in marina use only. Not for over the road use.' Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a vehicle that is not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads is not a vehicle subject to our regulations. From your letter and advertising enclosure, it appears that your intent is to build a vehicle that will be used primarily on private property. Therefore, our lighting requirements would not apply to it.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel