ID: nht90-3.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 16, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Delbert N. Pier -- Legislation and Compliance Coordinator, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 2-27-90 to Stephen Wood from Delbert N. Pier; (OCC-4526) TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces. (49 CFR 571.107). I apologize for the delay in our response.

You explained that Hyundai is planning to test the surface of a windshield wiper blade rail spring by using several rail springs gathered together because one spring would have a limited amount of area to reflect the light source. You asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to confirm your view that this method of compliance testing is a satisfactory method of complying with section S4 of Standard No. 107.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") makes manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your l etter.

Each safety standard specifies performance requirements and test procedures used by the agency in its compliance testing to evaluate a vehicle or item of equipment. For instance, section S4 of Standard No. 107 specifies specular gloss requirements for c ertain vehicle components, including windshield wiper arms and blades. That provision requires that the specular gloss of the specified components must not exceed 40 units when measured by the 20 degree method of ASTM Standard D523-62T.

While the agency would follow ASTM Standard D523-62T for purposes of compliance testing, the Vehicle Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products in the manner specified in a motor vehicle safety standard or even to test the product at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of that standard, provided, however, that the manufacturer exercises due care in ensuring that the vehicle or equipment will comply with Federal requirements when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. In other words, the manufacturer must show that its chosen means of evaluating compliance is a reasonable surroga te for the test procedure specified by the standard.

In the event that the agency determines an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment tested in the agency's compliance program, the manufacturer must show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies. Th e manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised due care in its designing and manufacturing of the product and in its checking (through actual testing, computer simulation or otherwise) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply. Of course, notwithstanding the exercise of due care, the manufacturer would still be subject to the recall responsibilities of the Vehicle Safety Act for any noncomplying vehicles or equipment.

With these considerations in mind, you appear, based on the statements in your letter, merely to be testing a group of identical components with identical specular gloss levels at one time rather than separately. If this is the case, it appears that you r intended method of testing is consistent with the testing procedures in Standard No. 107.

I hope this informaiton answers your questions. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992, if you have further questions.

ID: nht90-3.21

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael O'Donnell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-18-90 to Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA from Michael O'Donnell; (OCC 4690) TEXT:

This is in response to your letter to this office asking whether NHTSA's safety standards apply to vehicles in service on the public roads. Specifically, you were interested in the applicability of NHTSA requirements to a 1977 school bus that was convert ed to a "recreational vehicle/house coach" that is now only for personal and family use.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) promulgated by this agency apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The requirement that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment compl y with all applicable FMVSS applies only until the product is first sold to a consumer. Both before and after a vehicle or item of equipment is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to that product are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Natio nal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which states:

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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in co mpliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

If any of the commercial entities identified in section 108(a)(2)(A) were to make modifications that resulted in a "render inoperative" violation, the violating commercial entity would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Pl ease note that this "render inoperative" provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance w ith a safety standard.

Please note also that the individual States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles within their borders.

Additionally, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to a vehicle by its owner. You may wish to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles for the State of New York to learn if the State has established any requirements applicable to your use or registration of this vehicle in New York.

I hope you have found this information helpful.

ID: nht90-3.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 19, 1990

FROM: T. Spingler, Robert Bosch, GmbH

TO: Rich v. Iderstine -- Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108, S.3. Definitions

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 to T. Spingler from P. J. Rice; (A35; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Five weeks ago (06/14/90) I discussed the word "bonded lens" with Larry Ayers, ETL, regarding headlamps with movable reflector and "VHAD". Usually we in Europe use rubber-seal and clips to fix the lens to the housing. To meet the requirements of FMVSS 108, Larry proposed to fix the lens of those headlamps by adding e.g. silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent the removal of the lens. Jerry Medlin, whom we called that day, agreed to that interpretation. To get an official int erpretation, I ask you to write me a letter regarding this "problem".

ID: nht90-3.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 19, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Susan Birenbaum -- Acting General Counsel, United States Consumer Product Safety Commission

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 10-26-89 to S. Wood from S. Birenbaum; (OCC 4092); and photos (text omitted); and undated Consumer Product Incident Report for D.Jaeger

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether a product would be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). I apologize for the delay in this response. The pr oduct in question is called "kwik kool" and is intended to improve the performance of motor vehicles' air conditioning systems. The packaging and labeling for this product that were enclosed with your letter indicate that "kwik kool" is intended exclusi vely for use with a motor vehicle and by ordinary users of motor vehicles. We conclude that this product is "motor vehicle equipment."

As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally 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 . . .

"Kwik kool" is an aerosol component that appears to be manufactured and sold for the improvement of motor vehicle air conditioning systems. As such, it is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act.

You noted in your letter that the Consumer Product Safety Act excludes items of "motor vehicle equipment" from those "consumer products" subject to the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission under that Act. This agency, on the other hand, ha s express statutory authority to investigate allegations that an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. Pursuant to the request in your letter, we have forwarded the complaint enclosed with your letter to our Office of Defects Investigation.

If you have any questions or would like some additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.24

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 19, 1990

FROM: Guy Dorleans -- Manager, Regulatory Affairs Department Division Eclairage-France

TO: P. J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Ref: gd 862 M90

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-12-90 from P.J. Rice to M.G. Dorleans (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Valeo Lighting, manufacturer of car headlamps, hereby submits this request for an interpretation relating to the replaceable bulb headlamp aiming provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108," Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment ."

In its edition of May 9th 1989, the Federal Register Vol. 54 N 88 allows the use of lamps with moving reflectors. This possibility is an important step in the direction of world harmonization, since this concept is widely used in Europe and in Japan. V aleo lighting is determined to use this possibility as soon as possible, and in this purpose has studied the:

"Aiming concept for headlamps. Solution 3." The attached documents explain how our engineers have solved the problems of providing the aiming feature on each lamp, and summarize the instructions which will be written in the maintenance book of each car. These instructions will emphasize on the nov elty in using SAE J602 headlamp external aimers.

We would greatly appreciate if you would kindly treat all the drawings as confidential, because they involve our own idea for development of on-vehicle aiming which has something related to a patent application.

We would ask you to provide us with your confirmation of our interpretation of the Standard 108 in this matter. We are ready to demonstrate NHTSA a working prototype if you deem it necessary.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your promptly reply would be greatly appreciated.

Enclosure

July 19th, 1990

Aiming concept for headlamps. Solution 3. 1) Description of the headlamp.

The lens has 3 aiming pads on which can be attached a mechanical aiming device as per SAE J602 Oct 80. The housing contains a movable reflector, a horizontal aiming feature and a vertical aiming feature. These parts and the fixed point are designed so that there is no possibility to modify

the horizontal aim when aiming vertically, and vice versa.

The vertical aiming feature consists in two combined coaxial screw and nut, hereafter referred to as AV and BV:

AV is used on the assembly lines of the lamp manufacturer and also on the assembly lines of the car manufacturer. While the aiming plane is placed in its designed position, the low beam is photometrically aimed and the fiducial mark of BV is set to zero . The rotation of AV achieves this initial aim, while BV can not move. Then the cap is inserted. This cap can not be removed using simple tools. The repair shops and the dealers have the necessary equipment to remove the cap. AV is also the aiming f eature which must be used to repair the vehicle after accident damage.

BH is the aiming nut which must be used during normal reaim operations

The horizontal aiming feature is so designed that when a torque is applied to BV, AV rotates with the same angle. In other terms, the friction torque between BV and AV is far bigger than the friction torque between AV and the housing.

The horizontal aiming feature, consisting of a screw AH and a nut BH, uses basically the same principle as its vertical counterpart.

Both vertical and horizontal reaim features are permanently attached to the headlamp.

2) Vertical reaim.

A commonly available mechanical aimer must be used. This kind of aimer has been used in the US since the early '50s, and are available in each repair shop or dealers. Among them, the Hopkins B4A is a good example of easy-to-use external aimer, with aer odynamic headlamps capability thanks to its articulated vacuum cup and universal extender.

The ground surface must be substentially flat. The car must fulfill the requirements of SAE J 599 May '81.

2 1) Set to zero the fiducial mark on BV

2 2) Attach calibration fixtures to the aimers, place aimers at the centerline of each wheel on one side of the vehicle. Level each unit by adjusting screw on each calibration fixture.

2 3) Transfer the reading indicated on the horizontal dial to the floor level dial on each aimer. Set the "vertical" dial of each aimer at zero.

2 4) Remove calibration fixture

2 5) Check that universal extenders are set to the values engraved on the lens, and attach each mechanical aimer to its designated lamp. Check the sight openings face each other.

2 6) Rotate the "vertical" dial of each aimer intil the bubble is centered

in the vial. Tranfer to BV the value the "vertical" dials indicate for each side of the car.

3) Horizontal reaim.

3 1) The horizontal dials and the BH nuts must be set to zero.

3 2) Rotate each "horizontal" dials until the the split image of each aimer are aligned.

3 3) Respective of the side, transfer the readings of the aimers to the BH nuts.

4) After accident damage.

This procedure is not part of the normal maintenance of the car. It involves tools which are normally owned by dealers or repair shops. The floor must be rigid, flat and horizontal The special tools allow to remove the cap, thus giving access to the A H and AV screws. The BH and BV nuts being securely maintained in zero position, the operator:

4 1) Checks the angles of the aiming plane 4 2) Uses a screen at 7.6 m, or a fractional balance aiming machine, or a pair of string aimers.

Guy Dorleans Valeo Lighting.

Enclosure: 1

(Drawing attached, graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-3.25

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 19, 1990

FROM: Robert B. Roden -- Roden & Hayes

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re 15 USCS Section 1403

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to L.J. Strobel (VSA 114); Also attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to R.B. Roden (A36; Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing to request your opinion regarding 15 USCS Section 1403. I am specifically interested in your opinion regarding whether the federal law requires some form of certification on every replacement item of motor vehicle equipment. It appears fro m the statutory language that such is the case.

We appreciate your opinions with respect to this matter.

ID: nht90-3.26

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 23, 1990

FROM: Timothy Murphy -- Chairman Engineering Committee - Lights, Transportation Safety Equipment Institute, Peterson Manufacturing Company

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated August 31, 1990 from P.J. Rice to T. Murphy (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

The Engineering Committee of the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI) has reviewed your letter of February 26, 1990 to the Bargman Company. This specific letter was in response to a question from Bargman dated December 13, 1989 in which they specifically asked if an amber reflex reflector was permitted as an additional reflector on the rear of vehicles covered by FMVSS108.

Your conclusion was that the installation of an amber tail lamp lens with an amber reflector would not constitute a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. We respectfully disagree for the reasons stated below.

You are correct in your statement that no additional reflective device may be installed that impairs the effectiveness of reflective equipment required by Standard No. 108. You then state, "It does not appear to us that an amber tail lamp lens with an a mber reflector would create an impairment."

While amber is a permissible color for rear turn signal lamps, the referenced rear turn signal lamp is a flashing device. We are unaware of any state law or federal law which permits a steady burning amber signal to the rear and, therefore, your interpr etation is a distinct departure from past practice.

We respectfully suggest that a steady burning lamp or reflector to the rear clearly would create confusion for following drivers. For example, on vehicles under 80 inches wide, the only devices required on the rear are two tail lamps and two rear red re flectors which are, in effect, operable at all times. That is, they are steady burning and represent a continuous signal.

If one now introduces two additional amber reflectors, following motorists would then see the two required red tail lamps and two amber reflectors which would be about 2 1/2 times brighter than the required red reflectors if we consider the luminous tran smission difference between the red and amber colors. In short, the amber auxiliary add-on reflectors would normally be much brighter (by a factor of 2 1/2 times) than the required red reflector. It is our strong and unanimous conclusion that this woul d certainly represent an impairment of a required device.

The states of California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and many other

states, clearly specify that reflectors, visible from the rear of a vehicle, shall be red. We know of no instance where amber rear reflex is specifically permitted by any state.

The last sentence in your February 26th letter to the Bargman Company states, "This agency presently has no plans to specify yellow as an alternate color for rear reflex reflectors." We suggest that an agency interpretation letter which permits yellow o r amber reflex reflectors on the rear of a vehicle could be the source of considerable confusion. For example, a manufacturer might elect to install an auxiliary amber reflex on the rear of a vehicle manufactured in a state where the law is silent on th e subject of rear reflex color. However, when the user then travels to one of the many states which clearly prohibit steady burning amber lamps or reflex to the rear, they may find themselves subject to violations of specific state laws. You should als o consider that if amber rear reflex is permitted as an auxiliary add-on device, the next logical step might well be a steady burning amber auxiliary lamp on the rear of vehicles. We submit that such color to the rear would create an obvious impairment of the required devices. For the reasons outlined above, we would ask that you review the February 6, 1990 interpretation.

ID: nht90-3.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 23, 1990

FROM: C.D. Black -- Manager, Product Legislation and Compliance, Jaguar Cars Inc.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Request for Reconsideration of an Interpretation FMVSS 114 Docket 1-21 Notice 9

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-12-90 from P.J. Rice (Signature by K.M. Weinstein) to C.D. Black (A36; Std. 114); Also attached to a copy of 49 CFR Part 571.114 and 55 FR 21868 (May 30, 1990) (text omitted)

TEXT:

Jaguar Cars Ltd of Coventry, England (herein after referred to as Jaguar) request that NHTSA review their interpretation on pages 21872/73 of the Federal Register of the conditions under which a mechanical emergency release may be installed on a transmis sion shift lever interlock.

Jaguar regards the objective of the amendment as fair and reasonable, however, because Jaguar manufacture vehicles for sale worldwide with either manual or automatic transmission, we will continue to install an anti-theft lock operating on the steering c olumn. Jaguar therefore plan to comply with the amended standard by means of a spring-loaded electrical interlock operating on the console-mounted automatic transmission shift lever together with a revision to the steering column lock to prevent removal of the key unless the shift lever is in 'park'. When the ignition is next switched 'on', operation of the brake pedal produces an electrical signal to disengage the interlock and hence allow the shift lever to be moved.

However, as Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru and Toyota have previously stated in the docket, the use of an electrically operated interlock acting on the shift lever could, in the event of a battery or electrical failure, cause problems unless a mechanical e mergency release is provided. If the vehicle is tightly parked, the shift lever placed in 'park' to remove the key, and the battery subsequently discharged, it might then be necessary to "drag" the vehicle on locked wheels to gain access before a charge d battery or jumper leads could be connected to remove it from its disabled position.

Jaguar had anticipated that a manual emergency release which, when required, must be activated against spring pressure with one hand using a tool, while allowing the shift lever to be moved out of 'park' only by a simultaneous movement of the other hand, would maintain the declared intent of the amendment to prevent "rollaway" accidents. The theft protection of any (Jaguar) vehicle so equipped would not be degraded because the steering column lock and ignition/starter system remain immobilized. With t his or a similar combination of equipment there is no merit in requiring the shift lever interlock emergency release to be operable only by the key used to control the vehicle (emphasis added).

Jaguar request your consideration that the total objectives could be met by an interpretation along the following guidelines:

"In the case of an electrically operated interlock on the transmission shift lever, where the primary theft protection is provided by a steering column lock, the emergency release may be operated by a single action requiring the use of the key used to co ntrol the vehicle. Alternatively, a mechanical emergency release is allowable provided that it requires the use of a separate implement or tool and the simultaneous use of two hands to release the shift lever."

In view of the demanding timescale given by the Agency's interpretation on "mechanical override system's" in the final rule, Jaguar respectfully request the earliest consideration of our petition.

ID: nht90-3.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 24, 1990

FROM: Roman L. Cepeda

TO: Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from P.J. Rice to Roman L. Cepeda (A36; Part 591)

TEXT:

I was advised by Guam Customs to write and inquire from your office the requirements to import stainless steel jeep body from the Philippine.

The stainless steel jeep body are molded in the Phillipine in 8 to 12 parts. The molded jeep body would then be put together on Guam. The engine, chassis, all other parts other than the stainless steel body are from Guam.

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.

Perhaps, you could clear this misunderstanding with Guam Customs with a simple letter advising them that I can import stainless steel jeep body from the Philippine with out violating the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and U.S. 49 CFR Part 400 t o 999.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.

ID: nht90-3.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; signature by Stephen P. Wood TO: William Waltz -- Wagner Division, Cooper Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-12-90 to Stephen P. Wood from William Waltz

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1990, stating that Wagner Division "would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a 'Determination of Inconsequentiality' for non-compliance."

Specifically, Wagner wishes to manufacture round sealed beam headlamps (not "bulbs" as you call it) for Lectric Limited, a small parts business geared towards the antique automobile hobby. The headlamps are intended for use on "antique automobiles". We understand that term to mean any automobile manufactured in 1940 and subsequent model years that was originally equipped with round sealed beam headlamps. Although the headlamps would be designed to conform to current specifications, those of SAE Stand ard J579c, the word "top" would be used on the 7-inch diameter headlamp instead of the designation "2CI" (you mean "2Dl"), the numeral "1" for "1C1" on the single beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp, and the numeral "2" for "2C1" on the dual beam 5 3/4-inc h diameter headlamp. The lamps would not bear "DOT" identification. Lectric Limited is willing to "ink stamp" DOT, 2D1, 1C1, and 2C1 "on either the face and or the rear" of each headlamp so that they would not be mistaken for, those conforming to SAE J 579a, and to print instructions for purchasers explaining the difference. Lectric Limited is also willing to insure that the headlamps are marketed only through antique auto specialty retailers.

First, let me explain that your request cannot be considered as one for a determination of inconsequentiality. These determinations are made after-the-fact in order to determine whether a manufacturer must fulfill statutory obligations which include rep lacement, repurchase, or repair of the already-manufactured noncompliant product. What you seek is permission to produce motor vehicle equipment that fails to comply with labeling requirements. Unfortunately, the agency has no exemption provisions whic h can address this issue. We have authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicles from compliance for a temporary period, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, on either a temporary or permanent basis. Further , we cannot waive the marking requirements of sections S7.2 and S7.3 of standard No. 108, even for the limited purpose and subject to the restrictions you discuss.

After due consideration of the matter, we believe that you have no choice other than to conform to the marking requirements of Standard No. 108. Although neither the marking nor the performance of J579c headlamps replicates that of J579a headlamps, I hop e that auto enthusiasts will be willing to accept the marking that goes with the improved performance.