ID: aiam0856

Dear Professor Zimmer: Thank you for your letter of September 6, 1972, and the suggestions fo improving motor vehicle safety.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is aware of the hor problem described in your letter and recognizes that a driver's inability to quickly locate it can result in accidents, especially during panic situations. We have not issued any standard specifying the location of horn rim buttons or rings at this time, but we have initiated research to determine the best location and type of horn switches. Data from this research will be used for possible future rulemaking action.; We are preparing to issue in the near future a notice of propose rulemaking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 'Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment'. This notice will propose that stop lamps be separate from other rear lamps, and, if the proposal is adopted, simultaneous operation of the stop and hazard warning signals will then be possible.; The four-wheel drive recreational vehicle described in your letter i classified under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, and some of our present safety standards are not applicable to it. We are however monitoring the type and frequencies of all types of accidents and, if it appears the applicability of these standards should be extended to multipurpose passenger vehicles, we will propose such amendments. Enclosed for your review and further information is a summary description of all the safety standards and their applicability, revised as of June 1972.; Most of the late model cars now have a self-cancelling feature on thei turn signals which has eliminated most of the problems described in your letter. Standard No. 108 mandates self- cancelling turn signals on most motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1973. We have no immediate plans to issue requirements for audible alarms in vehicles, but we do appreciate your comments. If future safety conditions should warrant, we will consider issuing such requirements.; Again, thank you for writing to us and, if we can be of any furthe service to you, please let us know.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam3152

Dear Mr. Murakami: This is in confirmation of the discussion with Mr. Schwartz of m office when you met with him on September 10, 1979, as well as further confirmation of the telephone conversation between you and Mr. Schwartz in response to the letter from Mr. Maeda of your company dated February 9, 1979. As you may remember, the questions raised in this letter were substantially answered in the Agency's response of February 13, 1979, to a previous letter from your firm. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the Agency's letter of Volvo on the same subject as requested.; Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicl Identification Number) States that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. 'Line' is defined as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, Chassis or cab type.' 'Series' is defined as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line', denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes.'; Your particular concern relates to the division of a particular Datsu model into several series based on the amount and type of optional equipment with which it is sold.; Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that Datsun models wit different optional equipment packages could each be designated a 'series' if Nissan desired. Nonetheless, the definition of 'series' makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the 'series' designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If the differences between the potential series are superficial and a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality, the agency will not require such a designation.; Examples of series include Chrysler Plymouth Fury I, Fury II and Fur III.; You also wish to know which types of restraint systems need to b distinguished within the VIN. Active belts, passive belts, and air bags must each be separately designated. Please note that if all the vehicles of a particular model utilize one restraint system type, that type must be reported to the Agency, but need not be directly encoded in the VIN itself.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 8517a

Mr. Lawrence Hufstedler
Mr. Raymond Kesler
Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.
5508 Cahuenga Boulevard
North Hollywood, CA 91601

Dear Messrs. Hufstedler and Kesler:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the field-of-view requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111; copy enclosed) applicable to what you refer to as "passenger vehicles" weighing under 10,000 pounds. You requested a written interpretation explaining the Standard's requirements in situations where such vehicles have a left side and an interior mirror that comply with the field-of-view requirement. In particular, you wanted confirmation that in such situations a manufacturer may equip a vehicle's passenger side with any supplemental mirror or no mirror at all. You also asked whether the vehicle owner may equip a vehicle in this manner.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Along with a copy of Standard No. 111, I am enclosing the final rule that states the agency's decision to permit the use of convex mirrors on the exterior passenger side of passenger cars. (47 FR 38698, September 2, 1982). This notice explains the agency's regulations applicable to such convex mirrors in various situations.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA issued Standard No. 111 to establish performance requirements for mirrors installed in each new vehicle. Section S5 of Standard No. 111 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on passenger cars. S5 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification and a driver's side outside rearview mirror of unit magnification that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. If the inside rearview mirror meets the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror on the passenger side is not required. Please be aware that in such a situation a manufacturer could voluntarily install any type of exterior passenger side mirror, which the agency would permit as a supplemental mirror.

If the inside rearview mirror of a passenger car does not meet the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror of unit magnification or a convex mirror must be installed on the passenger side. If a convex mirror is installed on the passenger side to meet the field-of-view requirements, then that convex mirror must meet certain additional requirements that are set forth in section S5.4. These additional requirements address the convex mirror's permissible radius of curvature and an informational message that must be marked onto the mirror.

Section S6 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), trucks, and buses other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Such vehicles would comply with the standard if they are equipped with mirrors that conform to the requirements (expressed in the previous two paragraphs) that are applicable to passenger cars. Alternatively, MPV's, trucks and buses would comply with the standard if they are equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle.

Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 apply to new, completed vehicles and do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on aftermarket installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business performing the work would have rendered inoperative a device (i.e., the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111, in violation of 108(a)(2)(A).

In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as vehicle mirrors, are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the mirror is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

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

Enclosure ref:111#VSA d:4/27/93

ID: 1984-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; NONE; NHTSA

TO: Jaguar Cars Inc. -- C. Diane Black, Legislation and Compliance

TITLE: NHTSA RESPONSE TO PETITION

TEXT:

February 9, 1984

RE: FMVSS 101 Docket 1-18, Notice 23 7-27 Notice 24

Dear Ms. Steed:

On December 22, 1982, BL Technology Limited submitted a petition to your predecessor regarding a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Controls and Displays.

We are nearing the point of no return with a new model where "substantially resemble" and ISO parking brake symbol become extremely important.

I have attached one copy of our 1982 request and need to know if you and your staff require any other information from us to allow a decision on this request.

Sincerely,

C. Dianne Black Manager-Engineering Legislation & Compliance

CDB:as Attach.

22nd December 1982 Mr. R. Peck, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street SW, WASHINGTON DC 20490, U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Peck

FMVSS 101 Controls & Displays Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Dockets 1-18, Notice 23 70-27; Notice 24)

The following petition is submitted on behalf of BL PLC (Cars Group) manufacturers of Austin, MG, Jaguar, Rover and Triumph cars.

We refer to the NHTSA proposal to update FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, by adding or modifying several symbols to bring the standard into harmony with the latest documents promulgated by the International Standards Organization.

As manufacturers of automobiles for markets throughout the world, we strongly support proposals that lead to the harmonization of vehicle standards. Notwithstanding this principle, we also feel that vehicle standards should not impede the introduction of new technology into the automobile.

The size and shape of symbols for controls, indicators and telltales is constrained by the ISO grid pattern, and in general, the shape of symbols is defined by a template in the display, the shape and continuity of which can be readily controlled. However, with the introduction of Informational Readout Displays and their associated 'dot matrix' character generation system, exact reproduction of smooth continuous curved shapes or lines may not be possible. The drivers recognition of such displays is not adversely affected and the ability to present additional information selectively, whilst not saturating the driver with an array of individual displays, has distinct economic advantages.

In Docket 1/18 Notice 13 the Administration recognized that minor deviations such as we have described should be permitted, provided the symbols so produced substantially resemble those in Table 2. To give effect to the Administration's position we therefore petition that S.5.2.3 be amended by the addition of a final sentence:-

'The provisions of this Section shall be considered to have been met if the symbols displayed substantially resemble those designated in Column 4 of Table 2.'

With regard to the specific NHTSA request for comments on the use of a parking brake symbol, we request that the ISO symbol should be permitted as an alternative to words when a separate parking brake indicator lamp is provided.

Yours sincerely,

M. W. Lewis, Chief Engineer, Admin. & External Affairs

MWL/KD/VLS/A70/2e

C. Dianne Black Manager-Engineering Legislation and Compliance Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in response to your letter in which you request information on the status of your Petition for Rulemaking on Controls and Displays submitted December 22, 1982, and granted on December 12, 1983.

Your petition along with several others is being reviewed by a Task Force set up by the Administrator. Its purpose is to rewrite FMVSS No. 101 to reflect changes in technology which impact the control and display systems planned for future production.

A number of the petitioners have requested modifications to permit various Informational Readout Displays or combinations of telltales and displays which are currently not permitted by one or more sections of the standard. Your petition asks for inclusion in the standard of this statement. "The provision of this section shall be considered to have been met if the symbols displayed substantially resemble those designated in Column 4 of Table 2." While providing manufacturers great latitude for interpretation, this addition would make the standard unenforceable without some design or performance boundaries on the words "substantially resemble."

We do not know how to set these performance limits and thus are retaining the policy established in the preamble to Notice 13 which asked manufacturers to produce symbols which substantially resemble those in the Tables. This approach allows thc agency to treat each symbol noncompliance on a case by case basis by weighing the impact on safety produced by the noncompliance.

To date all symbols have complied with the standard regardless of the technology used to make them visible to the driver. We note that you have not described the limitations of your dot matrix display in quantifiable terms and suspect that, like us, you have not found an easy way to define the relationship between density, color, distance from the driver, etc, vis a vis the perceived shape by the driver.

We have decided to terminate rulemaking on this subject at this time and, thus, will not be placing the words you recommended in the text of the standard. However, although the specific words are not included in the standard, the agency's intent should be clear from Notice 13 and this letter.

ID: 1985-03.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Richard H. Lucki -- Peugeot, U. S. Technical Research Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard H. Lucki U.S. Factory Representative PEUGEOT U.S. Technical Research Company 33 Garland Way Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1985, concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response. You noted that sections S4.1.2.71(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) of the standard require a seat belt warning system that conforms to S7.3 of the standard to be installed at each front outboard seating position of automatic restraint-equipped cars that have manual belts also at those positions. You pointed out that S7.3, however, only sets requirements for a warning system for the driver's seating position. You asked whether the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) can be met by providing a warning system conforming to S7.3 at only the driver's seating position. The answer is that those requirements can be met by a warning system for the driver only.

In December 1974 (39 FR 42692), the agency amended Standard No. 208 to establish new safety belt warning system requirements for vehicles manufactured after February 24, 1975. As discussed in the preamble, the agency decided against requiring a warning system at both the driver's seating position and the right front passenger's position. Instead, the agency adopted a requirement in S7.3(a) for a warning system at only the driver's seating position. (In July 1977 (42 FR 34299), the agency renumbered S7.3(a) to become the current S7.3).

In July 1976 (41 FR 29715), the agency proposed language concerning the safety belt warning system in automatic restraint-equipped cars. The proposed language was subsequently adopted, an July 5, 1977 (49 FR 34299), in S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The agency explained in the preamble of the July 1976 notice that the proposed safety belt warning system was to parallel the existing requirements for passenger cars. Thus, the intent was to require a warning system for only the driver's position. Requiring a warning system for the driver's position only is also consistent with the separate warning system requirement set in S4.5.3.3(b) for automatic belts. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a warning system only for the driver's position.

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

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

March 7, 1985

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Paragraphs 4.1.2.1(c)(2) and 4.1.2.2(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 requires a seat belt warning system which conforms to paragraph 7.3 at each front outboard seating position.

Paragraph 7.3 requires that a seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position shall be equipped with a warning system and conditions activation of the audible signal to use of the driver's belt.

We request confirmation that the requirements of S.4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S.4.1.2.2(d) are met by providing a warning system conforming to S.7.3 at the driver's seating position only.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, Richard H. Lucki U.S. Factory Representative PEUGEOT

USTR/RHL/jg/070

ID: 77-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/77

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

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking who must mark a rim in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, in those cases where the rim is manufactured by one manufacturer and then supplied to a wheel manufacturer who welds the rim to a disc making a completed wheel.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that the rim marking must be undertaken by the rim manufacturer. The rim manufacturer is best able to supply the required rim information and undertake the certification required by S5.2 of the standard. The subsequent addition of the disc to the rim should not alter the information marked on the rim.

SINCERELY,

JUNE 7, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: FMVSS 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars

We are writing to request an interpretation of the rim marking requirement of FMVSS 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle other than Passenger Cars.

We are interested in the case where a rim manufacturer supplies rims to a wheel manufacturer who then welds these rims to discs thus producing wheels. In such a situation, is the rim manufacturer or the wheel manufacturer responsible for the markings required by FMVSS 120?

Your prompt reply to this inquiry would be appreciated.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGE

NAME OF AGENCY:

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. PRECEDENCE Action P (Illegible Word) DATE PREPARED: 8/16/77

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

TYPE OF (Illegible Word): [x] (Illegible Word) [] BOOK [] MULTIPLE-ADDRESS

NAME: Fred Koch PHONE NUMBER: 202-426-2800

THIS SPACE FOR USE OF COMMUNICATION UNIT: #26417

TO: ROBERT STEVENSON TECHNICAL SALES MANAGER, WHEEL DIVISION GKN SANKEY, LIMITED

PURSUANT TO YOUR TELEPHONE CALL OF AUGUST 15, 1977, TO FRED KOCH REGARDING FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 120, OUR ANSWERS TO YOUR TWO QUESTIONS FOLLOW.

1. REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF MOLDED LETTERING ON RIM SURFACES IDENTIFYING MILL SOURCE OF MATERIAL NOT SPECIFIED IN THE STANDARD, THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO SUCH MARKING APPEARING ON THE FINISHED RIM PROVIDED IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH UNDERSTANDING AND CLARITY OF SEPARATE MARKINGS REQUIRED BY THE STANDARD.

2. REGARDING THE SPACING OF NUMBERS ON THE RIM REPRESENTING DATE OF MANUFACTURER, THE INTENT IS TO MINIMIZE AREA OCCUPIED AND TO AVOID IRREGULAR OR INCONSISTENT SPACING AND OPENINGS IN WHICH INFORMATION MIGHT BE LOST OR UNDETECTED. HOWEVER, THE USE OF VERY SHORT SPACING BETWEEN MONTH, DAY, AND YEAR IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE STANDARD.

E. T. DRIVER, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF CRASH AVOIDANCE MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS NMV-30 PAGE NO.: 2 NO. OF PGS.: 2

ID: 1984-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Standards Attache; The French Embassy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. Chambord Standards Attache The French Embassy Suite 715 2000 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Chambord:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Katzke of my staff, asking for information on requirements applicable to tire rims for vans. The three points set forth in your letter are correct statements of the requirements, but I will reiterate them to be certain that you provide accurate information.

(1) Vans are considered "motor vehicles other than passenger cars" for the purposes of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.120), and Standard No. 120 sets forth requirements which must be met by all new rims for use on vans. No other standard contains requirements applicable to those rims.

(2) Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 requires the rim manufacturer to permanently label each of its van rims with the letters "DOT" as a certification that the rim satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 120. The manufacturer is expected to exercise due care before making such a certification. No outside inspector, either governmental or privately employed, need be consulted by a manufacturer before certifying the compliance of its rims.

(3) Rims entering into the United States are not individually inspected, provided that the package containing the rims or the van on which the rims are installed bears an appropriate certification label. The only inspections at the port of entry are checks to see that a certification label is attached to the package of rims or the van.

Should you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 10, 1988

Mr. Steve Kratzke Legal Department Vehicle Systems Group Crash Avoidance Division NHTSA (NRM 11) 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Our reference: NOTEL 273 (NOREX/LNE)

Subject: Tire rims for vans

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Mr. Arturo Casanova referred me to you for help with NHTSA regulations. In order to ascertain my understanding, would you please send me written confirmation of the following points:

1) Vans are considered "Motor vehicles other than passenger cars" and the only standard applying to van rims is FMVSS No. 120;

2) Certification of compliance to FMVSS No. 120 is conducted by the manufacturer of the rims. No outside inspector, either governmental or privately employed, is required;

3) Rims entering into the United States are not individually inspected, provided the package or the van on which they are installed bears an appropriate certifications label. Are there any inspections at the port of entry?

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

A. CHAMBORD Standards Attache

ID: nht73-6.24

DATE: November 26, 1973

FROM: Robert R. Aronson -- President, Electric Fuel Propulsion Corp.

TO: Lawrence Schneider -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/10/73 from Richard B. Dyson to Robert R. Aronson

TEXT:

In reference to FMVSS 301, our electric cars are equipped with a 2-quart gasoline tank which powers a Stewart Warner Water Heater for heating and defrosting cars. The location of the gas tank and heater is in the rear of the car.

Please let us know if Standard 301 applies to this gas tank.

ID: 1984-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kazuhiko Ohkochi, Manager, Quality Assurance Dept., Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kazuhiko Ohkochi, Manager Quality Assurance Department Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. 1550 Northwest Highway, Suite 200 Parkridge, Illinois 60068

This responds to your letter dated February 17, 1984, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. In your letter, you asked several questions regarding the construction and labeling of hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars. In a subsequent telephone call to this office, your associate, Mr. Kitayama, informed us that your brake hoses would be used in motorcycles as well as passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

FMVSS No. 106 applies to brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose and fittings used in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. The requirements of the standard are the same regardless of whether your hoses are used in passenger cars or motorcycles.

Your first question asked whether a hydraulic brake hose may be constructed out of nylon. The answer to your question is yes. Nylon may be used to manufacture hydraulic brake hose, as long as the hose can meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 106.

Your second question asked whether the standard prohibits labeling hydraulic brake hoses which have inside diameters between 0.110 and 0.118 inches as "1/8." The answer to your question is no. S5.2.2(d) of FMVSSS No. 106 requires that a hose's nominal inside diameter be expressed in inches or fractions of inches.

We note that the constriction requirement for hydraulic brake hoses in section 5.3.1 of Standard No. 106 is, of course, applicable to your hoses. That section states that:

Except for that part of an end fitting which does not contain hose, every inside diameter of any section of a hydraulic brake hose assembly shall be not less than 64 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose.

Since the standard does not include tolerances for the labeling requirements for hydraulic brake hose, the standard does not prohibit you from labeling your hose "1/8." You should consider, however, how your brake hoses will be used in the industry and determine whether a safety problem might result from labeling your hose "1/8" when in fact they are smaller than 1/8 inch. One safety concern that you should consider is whether the tolerances you selected would result in the problem of mismatched hoses and end fittings. Another safety concern relates to the effect that cold weather has on the flow of fluid through the brake hose. Cold weather may thicken the fluid and restrict the flow through the hose. The thickened fluid and restricted flow through the hose may result in an increase in the time required for the brakes to respond.

Regardless of whether labeling your brake hose "1/8" is regulated by FMVSS No. 106, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act imposes general responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151 et seq., manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 of the Act imposes a civil penalty of $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Further, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, you should consider also the possibility for liability in tort should your products prove to be unsafe in operation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 17, 1984

Office of Crash Avoidance Handling and Stability Div. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sirs:

Re. Questionnaire of Hydraulic brake hose for automobiles.

We are a manufacturer of automotive parts including hydraulic brake hose assembly to Toyota Motor Corporation and other Japanese auto makers. Our company name is registered in your file as follows:

I.D. Mark as hydraulic brake hose maker

I.D. Mark as hydraulic brake hose assembler

We have been developing new type of hydraulic brake hose for automobiles shown as attached, and making sales promotions. And regarding such a new type, please let us have the attached information.

We would like to ask you to answer to us by March 15, 1984.

Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.

Very truly yours,

TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.

Kazuhiko Ohkochi Manager Quality Assurance Dept. KO/kk Encl. 2. QUESTIONNAIRE

2.1 The above structure shows that a tube is made of Nylon, and meets performance requirements of FMVSS 106. As FMVSS 106 does not stipulate that a tube shall not be made of Nylon, we think that such a Nylon hose is also included among hydraulic brake hose for automobiles. We would like to have your comments on this matter (such a hose can be certified as a hydraulic brake hose).

2.2 If such a Nylon hose is certified, the hose's inside diameter is between 0.110 and 0.118 inch, and a little smaller than 1/8 inch (0.125 inch). We are now scheduled to use the hose as 1/8 inch hose and to subscribe "1/8" to the hose surface. We would like to know as to whether this subscription has any problem.

ID: nht93-3.25

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence Hufstedler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.; Raymond Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-93 from Lawrence Hufstedler and Raymond Kesler to John Womack (OCC 8517)

TEXT: This responds to your letter inquiring about the field-of-view requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, REARVIEW MIRRORS; (49 CFR S571.111; copy enclosed) applicable to what you refer to as "passenger vehicles" weighing under 10,000 pounds. You requested a written interpretation explaining the Standard's requirements in situations where such vehicles have a left side and an interior mirror that comply with the field-of-view requirement. In particular, you wanted confirmation that in such situations a manufacturer may equip a vehicle's passenger side with any supplemental mirror or no mirror at all. You also asked whether the vehicle owner may equip a vehicle in this manner.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Along with a copy of Standard No. 111, I am enclosing the final rule that states the agency's decision to permit the use of convex mirrors on the exterior passenger side of passenger cars. (47 FR 38698, September 2, 1982). This notice explains the agency's regulations applicable to such convex mirrors in various situations.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA issued Standard No. 111 to establish performance requirements for mirrors installed in each new vehicle. Section S5 of Standard No. 111 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on passenger cars. S5 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification and a driver's side outside rearview mirror of unit magnification that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. If the inside rearview mirror meets the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror on the passenger side is not required. Please be aware that in such a situation a manufacturer could voluntarily install any type of exterior passenger side mirror, which the agency would permit as a supplemental mirror.

If the inside rearview mirror of a passenger car does not meet the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror of unit magnification or a convex mirror must be installed on the passenger side. If a convex mirror is installed on the passenger side to meet the field-of-view requirements, then that convex mirror must meet certain additional requirements that are set forth

in section S5.4. These additional requirements address the convex mirror's permissible radius of curvature and an informational message that must be marked onto the mirror.

Section S6 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), trucks, and buses other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Such vehicles would comply with the standard if they are equipped with mirrors that conform to the requirements (expressed in the previous two paragraphs) that are applicable to passenger cars. Alternatively, MPV's, trucks and buses would comply with the standard if they are equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle.

Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 apply to new, completed vehicles and do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on aftermarket installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business performing the work would have rendered inoperative a device (i.e., the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111, in violation of 108(a)(2)(A).

In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as vehicle mirrors, are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the mirror is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

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.

Attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR, Part 571, re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Rearview Mirror Systems, Final Rule, dated September 2, 1982.

(Text omitted.)