ID: aiam5522

"Dear Mr. Fouts: This responds to your question whether the whip tes specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, can be interpreted to permit a modification to the test apparatus to facilitate your brake hose's meeting the whip test. As explained below, the answer is no. You describe your brake hose as made of 'extruded teflon armored with stainless steel braid.' You state your brake hose can meet all Standard No. 106 test specifications except for the whip test (See S6.3). The whip test specifies fastening the brake hose on a test apparatus at two ends and cycling for 35 hours. You state because of 'aggravated cyclic stress,' your brake hoses fail before 35 hours. To prevent such failures, you wish to add a 'whip dampener,' a movable 'spherical bearing enclosed in a machined housing', to the brake hose. In addition to the two ends, the whip test apparatus will mount the brake hose at the 'whip dampener.' You wish to know whether the whip test can be interpreted to permit mounting the brake hose at the 'whip dampener.' In our opinion, S6.3 cannot be interpreted to permit mounting the brake hose at the 'whip dampener.' S6.3.1 Apparatus specifies a test apparatus that mounts the brake hose at 'capped end fittings' on one end and 'open end fittings' on the other, and specifies no mounting points in between. Thus, a test apparatus that mounts the brake hose at a 'whip dampener,' which is not an end fitting, would not meet Standard No. 106. However, the issues raised in your letter have led us to consider amending the whip test to permit the 'whip dampener' when testing steel braided brake hoses. Accordingly, we will initiate rulemaking to further consider the issues. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4526

Dear Mr. Scully: This is in reply to your letter of April 22, l988 asking for a clarification of a letter that this Office sent Wesbar Corporation on March 16, 1988, with respect to the term 'effective projected luminous area.' Wesbar had asked whether it could include the 'illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens' (Wesbar's language) in its calculation of the l2 square inch minimum effective projected luminous area required by S4.1.1.7 of Safety Standard No. 108. We replied that it could, assuming that the light shines through the reflector. You have pointed out that although a small amount of light escapes through a reflex reflector, the reflector is designed to return light from an outside source, rather than to direct light from a source inside the lamp, and that heretofore agency interpretations (e.g. on October 28, 1970, and October 28, 1979) had expressly excluded reflex reflectors from areas included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. Reflex reflectors are also excluded from the term by SAE J387 Terminology. We appreciate your calling this matter to our attention. Previous interpretations by this Office clearly indicate that a 'reflex reflector' is not to be included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. We also note that the SAE definition (paragraph 2, SAE J594f, January l977) is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, stating that this item of equipment is one that provides an indication of vehicle presence by reflected light (rather than projected light). We are providing a copy of this letter to Wesbar so that it will be apprised of our reevaluation, and our conclusion that the reflex reflector portion of a lens cannot be included in the calculations of the projected luminous lens area. I hope this clarifies the matter for you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5190

"Dear Mr. Kesler: This responds to your follow-up letter to the agenc in which you request further interpretation of the requirements in Standard No. 111 relating to convex mirrors. Specifically, you asked about how section S5.4.1, which limits the radii of curvature's permissible variance, relates to S12, which specifies the procedures for determining a convex mirror's average radius of curvature. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your request. As Marvin Shaw of my staff informed your associate Lawrence Hufstedler in a telephone conversation, section S12 sets forth a detailed multi-step procedure for calculating a convex mirror's average radius of curvature. The first step is to take ten readings on the mirror surface with a 3-point linear spherometer as specified in Figure 1 of the Standard. (See S12.1.) The second step is to convert each of the ten readings to a 'radius of curvature calculation' using Table 1. (See S12.5.) The third step is to calculate the 'average radius of curvature' by adding all 10 radius of curvature calculations and dividing by 10. (See S12.6.) Mr. Hufstedler asked how S5.4.1 affects the calculations. That section states 'none of the radii of curvature readings shall deviate from the average radius of curvature by more than 12.5 percent.' This means that some of the radii of curvature readings may be up to 12.5 percent different than the average radius of curvature. In numerical terms, this means that if a mirror had an average radius of curvature of 36 inches a given radii of curvature reading could be as low as 31.5 inches and as high as 40.5. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5189

"Dear Mr. Kesler: This responds to your follow-up letter to the agenc in which you request further interpretation of the requirements in Standard No. 111 relating to convex mirrors. Specifically, you asked about how section S5.4.1, which limits the radii of curvature's permissible variance, relates to S12, which specifies the procedures for determining a convex mirror's average radius of curvature. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your request. As Marvin Shaw of my staff informed your associate Lawrence Hufstedler in a telephone conversation, section S12 sets forth a detailed multi-step procedure for calculating a convex mirror's average radius of curvature. The first step is to take ten readings on the mirror surface with a 3-point linear spherometer as specified in Figure 1 of the Standard. (See S12.1.) The second step is to convert each of the ten readings to a 'radius of curvature calculation' using Table 1. (See S12.5.) The third step is to calculate the 'average radius of curvature' by adding all 10 radius of curvature calculations and dividing by 10. (See S12.6.) Mr. Hufstedler asked how S5.4.1 affects the calculations. That section states 'none of the radii of curvature readings shall deviate from the average radius of curvature by more than 12.5 percent.' This means that some of the radii of curvature readings may be up to 12.5 percent different than the average radius of curvature. In numerical terms, this means that if a mirror had an average radius of curvature of 36 inches a given radii of curvature reading could be as low as 31.5 inches and as high as 40.5. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht90-2.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1990

FROM: William Waltz -- Wagner Division, Cooper Industries, Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-25-90 to W. Waltz from P. J. Rice; signature by S. P. Wood; (A34; Std. 108) TEXT:

Wagner Lighting Division of Cooper Industries would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a "Determination of Inconsequentiality" for non-compliance. We have been asked to assemble antique-appearing sealed beam headlamps for Lectric Limited.

Lectric Limited, a small manufacturer of parts geared toward the antique automobile industry, perceived a need among automobile collectors and hobbyists for sealed beam headlight bulbs for their cars which cosmetically appeared to be the same as those which were originally supplied with their vehicles. These authentic styled bulbs would enhance the value of their vehicles and also add valuable points to their scores at various shows.

Most of these same auto enthusiasts are acquiring old bulbs from wrecking yards which in most cases are extremely dim due to their age and the fact that they were built to the J579A spec. These old bulbs are also prone to sudden failure which is of no consequence at a car show; but can be hazardous on the occasional drive that these vehicles are sometimes used for. In spite of these risks, auto enthusiasts search the junk yards for these rare bulbs and use them.

After considering this problem, Lectric Limited requested a license from Fisher Guide Division of General Motors to duplicate their original lens design on October 6, 1987. On November 9, 1988, a license was granted to Lectric Limited to produce these bulbs.

On March 4, 1989, Lectric Limited contracted with Corning Glass to produce the lenses in accordance with J579A spec. It should be pointed out, that at the time the order to produce these lenses was given, the J579A spec was still on the books. However, shortly after Corning manufactured the tooling to produce these lenses the J579A spec was taken out of the book.

After the J579A spec was declared obsolete (approximately May, 1989), Lectric Limited requested that Corning attempt to upgrade the lens designed to meet J579C. This change also added to the cost of the project, but since the J579C spec would produce a superior and safer product it appeared that the added expenditure would be justified.

Corning was successful in modifying the design to meet J579C spec without noticeable change to the outward appearance of the bulbs and thereby still allowing these bulbs to be acceptable to the vast majority of antique auto enthusiasts.

Lectric Limited was not aware, at the time, that the markings 1D1 or 2D1 were a part of the spec and were required to be on the top of each bulb

produced. These markings on the face of each bulb would in effect make them useless to the antique auto enthusiasts. With no alternative, the car hobbyist would continue to purchase the unsafe but cosmetically accurate junk yard bulbs.

Lectric Limited is a small company and this waste of funds invested would be devastating to its financial future. This, in turn, would cause layoffs and a curtailment in new investments and projects.

OPTION #1

Wagner is requesting permission to produce these bulbs to 579A spec which would allow the use of the word TOP on #6012 (7") bulbs, #1 on 4001 (5 3/4") bulbs and #2 on 4002 (5 3/4") bulbs. We would also not be using the D.O.T. identification on the bulbs.

OPTION #2

Wagner would produce these bulbs to meet 579C specs and would use the word TOP on #6014 (7") bulb in place of 2C1, use the #1 designation on the 5001 (5 3/4") bulbs in place of the 1C1 designation and use the #2 designation on the 4000 (5 3/4") bulbs in place of the 2C1 designation. We would also not be using the D.O.T. identification on these bulbs.

ADDENDUM TO OPTION #2

Lectric Limited is willing to ink stamp the 1D1 or 2C1 and DOT designation on either the face and or the rear of each bulb, in order to avoid mistaking these bulbs for J579A spec bulbs.

Lectric Limited would produce an instruction sheet for insertion in each bulb package or print instructions on each box explaining the variations to the end user. This would also help to avoid confusion.

Lectric Limited is also willing to assure that these bulbs will only be marketed through antique auto specialty retailers and not through major chain stores and retail outlets. This, in addition to the added cost of the bulb which will be necessitated by the small production volume, and the need to amortize the tooling cost over a limited run will help to assure that these bulbs will not be in wide use in everyday transportation vehicles.

In short, Lectric Limited is willing to do whatever is necessary to satisfy the NHTSA requirements in order to obtain a reasonable variation to the 579C spec in regard to the 1D1 and 2C1 designation issue.

We believe that this product will, in effect, enhance the safety of antique automotive enthusiasts and a variation should be granted on these grounds as well as the others stated in this request.

ID: aiam4946

"Dear Mr. Gerke: This responds to your December 23, 1991 lette concerning Safety Standard 107, Reflecting Surfaces. You asked us to confirm the interpretation of the standard set forth in my September 3, 1991 letter to Mr. Thomas Steinhagen. The interpretation is correct. My letter to Mr. Steinhagen was about the applicability of Standard 107 to a replacement windshield wiper arm and blade, a type of motor vehicle equipment that your client, Rally Manufacturing, seeks to sell. You state that Rally ceased producing certain windshield wiper arms and blades after NHTSA's Enforcement office notified Rally that it appeared the products did not meet the requirements of Standard 107. My letter to Mr. Steinhagen clarified the requirements of Standard 107 and the Vehicle Safety Act. I emphasized the following points in the letter: 1. Standard 107 applies to new motor vehicles, and not to items of motor vehicle equipment, such as a replacement wiper arm and blade. Replacement wiper arms and blades may be sold to consumers without violating Federal law, even if the component does not conform to the requirements of Standard 107. 2. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If a person in the aforementioned categories installed a wiper arm and blade that did not conform to the requirements of Standard 107, the person would violate 108(a)(2)(A). 3. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. 4. Regardless of whether Standard 107 applies to the replacement arm and blade, the device is subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists either in an arm and blade that conforms to Standard 107 or in one that does not, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge. In your letter, you specifically ask about the sale of a replacement wiper blade 'by a wholesaler/distributor to retail stores and other similar customers without any installation service by the wholesaler/distributor.' The sale is not prohibited by Standard 107 or 108(a)(2)(A). However, the retail store or 'other similar customer' would be considered a dealer under 102(7) of the Safety Act, and thus subject to the 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A). While the dealer may sell the replacement blade, the dealer would be prohibited from installing it on a motor vehicle. I regret any confusion resulting from NHTSA's letters to your client. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4401

Dear Ms. Cottle: This letter responds to your inquiry of June 30, 1987, where you as for information 'regarding any federal regulation that may apply to or restrict the use of items which might be suspended from the centered rear view mirror in an automobile or truck.' In your letter, you refer specifically to 'decorations' such as hanging dice and air fresheners, and express your company's wish 'to avoid liability for any obstruction of vision which might occur as the result of the use of such items.' Your letter does not say whether you manufacture the kinds of products you list, or install these kinds of products in motor vehicles.; First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.; A product would fall under our agency's jurisdiction if it is an ite of 'motor vehicle equipment' as that term is defined in S102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(4) defines 'motor vehicle equipment' in relevant part as follows:; >>>...any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originall manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any *accessory*, or addition to the motor vehicle...(Emphasis added.)<<<; In determining whether an item of equipment is an 'accessory,' th agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. The kinds of products you list do not fall within this framework, and therefore NHTSA does not regard them as items of motor vehicle equipment subject to our regulation.; There is one section of the Safety Act that I would call to you attention. Among other things, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai 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...<<<; If your company is among the persons or performs the kinds o operations in S108(a)(2)(A), then it may not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. For example, you could not install any item in a motor vehicle that would render inoperative Standard 111 (Rearview Mirrors) 'field-of-view' specifications. (I enclose a copy of that Standard.); However, S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to vehicle owners. Therefore owners may install items in their own cars, even if doing so involves removal, disconnection or degradation of safety equipment or designs, without violating S108(a)(2)(A). Further, neither the manufacture of such items nor their sale to vehicle owners violates that prohibition.; Please note that a violation of S108 or of any regulation issued unde it is punishable by a civil fine of up to $1000 for a related series of violations.; Finally, you may wish to consult the laws of the various States t determine whether there are any limitations in their laws on the hanging of objects from inside rearview mirrors.; I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1622

Dear Mr. Weller: This is in reply to your letter of September 4, 1974, in which you as several questions regarding the possible manufacture of semitrailers designed to transport people. You state the semitrailers would be pulled by conventional tractors, would have air-operated bus-type side doors, a rear door for emergency exit, seats, handrails for passengers who stand, and windows that open and close. Communication between the passenger compartment and driver would be limited to a horn that the driver can blow and a blinking red light operable by either a passenger or the driver. You ask whether this type of vehicle is legal, whether it is legal to transport passengers in this fashion, and what specific requirements would be required to be built into the trailer.; We would consider the vehicles in question to be trailers under th Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and consequently subject to the standards applicable to trailers. These standards are Standard No. 108, 'Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,' Standard No. 106, 'Brake hoses' (eff. as to trailers on September 1, 1975), and Standard No. 121, 'Air brake systems' (eff. as to trailers on January 1, 1975), at this time. The trailers would, of course, have to be certified as conforming to all applicable standards, in accordance with the Certification Regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568).; Many States prohibit the transportation of passengers in trailers, an as a consequence NHTSA requirements for crashworthiness and occupant protection have not been made applicable to trailers. These requirements include those for restraint and seating systems, glazing materials, head restraints, and emergency exits. Whether or not State laws prohibiting the transportation of passengers in trailers would apply to semitrailers of this type would depend upon each State's interpretation of its law, and that information should be obtained from the various states. However, should it become a commonly permitted practice for persons to be transported in trailers, this agency would very likely expand its occupant protection and crashworthiness requirements through rulemaking to apply to these vehicles.; The transportation in interstate commerce of passengers for hire als falls within the regulatory authority of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, in the Federal Highway Administration. We have forwarded your letter to that agency, requesting that it respond directly to you regarding the effect of regulations it administers on vehicles of this type.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4412

Dear Mr. Cox: This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1987, with respect t whether a lighting product you intend to market is 'in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle.'; You describe your product as a 'lighted decal' which can be mounted i the rear window of any car or pick-up truck, and the photographs you enclosed show it mounted in the center of the rear window of a pre-1980 model Seville.; The decal will be wired into the brake system and when activated by th brake 'only the letters in the decal will be lighted.' You state further that although the letters will appear red to an observer 'this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or a tail light.'; In our opinion, your product may or may not be in violation of Federa requirements depending upon the following uses. The product does not appear to be intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that has been standard equipment on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Indeed, it could not be so used unless it met all requirements for such a lamp. The principal requirements are that such lamps have a minimum of 4 1/2 square inches of illuminated lens area, that it meet specified photometrics at 13 test points, and that it produce a signal visible from 45 degrees from the right to the left and from five degrees up to five degrees down. If your device does not meet these requirements, removal of the lamp and replacement with your device would violate a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in this case Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. However, a dealer could install it on a new pick-up truck, or to one side of the center lamp in a new passenger car before their initial sale, provided the device did not impair the effectiveness of the rear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and the device could be installed on some vehicles in use (cars built before September 1, 1987, and any pick-up) provided that it did not render inoperative in whole or in part other required rear lighting equipment.; By this we mean that the device appears allowable for these vehicle under Federal law provided that wiring it into the brake system does not reduce the stop lamp output or otherwise affect the operation or the effectiveness of the stop lamp system.; You should also ensure that your product is acceptable under State an local laws as well. Because there are no Federal requirements for your product, each State may regulate it as it deems proper.; I am enclosing the samples that you enclosed, and hope that we hav answered your questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0179

Dear Mr. Tydings: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1969, in which you reques approval of an alternative to the label locations specified in section 367.4(c) of the Certification Regulations that are effective as to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1969.; The location you have selected is not considered to be in the sam general area, left side of the vehicle, as specified. In view of the fact that interested parties will be looking for the label in the general area, to the left of the vehicle, we are approving a label location to the left of the access panel instead of the right as you have shown in your drawing No. 2507-2369.; If there is any reason why you cannot attach your label in the area w have suggested, please advise. It is assumed that our alternative should not impose undue hardship. In the interest of avoiding unnecessary correspondence, no response from you will be interpreted as your acceptance of the above.; Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director