ID: nht94-5.26

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager Vehicle Regulations, Voirswagen of America, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barbara Gray

TITLE: Request for Confirmation of Interpretation Relating to 49 CFR Parts 541 & 543, Theft Prevention Standard

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/94 from John Womack to Dietmar R. Haeochen (A42; Part 543; Part 541

TEXT: This is to request an interpretation relative to the parts marking requirements for replacement parts on a vehicle which has been granted an exemption from parts marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.

By letter dated May 7, 1993, NHTSA granted an exemption for the 1995 model year Volkswagen Corrado from the parts marking requirements based on a petition for exemption filed by Volkswagen on September 29, 1992. The Volkswagen Corrado was parts marked for the model years 1990 to 1994.

In an interpretation letter of October 12, 1989 to Saab-Scania of America, Inc., NHTSA stated that after a carline has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, the replacement parts for that carline no longer need to be marked even if the replacement parts can also be used on prior model years during which the particular carline was parts marked and not exempt under Part 543.

Volkswagen has just determined that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for the 1995 model year and as such, Volkswagen will not be selling vehicles covered under the exemption granted in the letter of May 7, 1993.

Our question is whether in line with the interpretation to Saab the marking of replacement parts for the Volkswagen Corrado carline can be terminated based on the exemption granted for the 1995 model year, even if the replacement parts can be used for earlier model years and even though the 1995 model year Corrado will not be sold in the United States (although it will be available in Europe).

4

Because we would like to take advantage of the cost savings from the termination of parts marking as soon as possible, your earliest possible response to the issue will be appreciated.

As an additional question with regard to replacement parts anti-theft marking, Volkswagen would like to know whether replacement parts marking can ever be terminated on carlines that were parts marked while they were in production, but which have been out of production for more than five years and which are therefore statistically low theft. The particular example Volkswagen has in mind is the Audi 5000 carline which was produced through the 1988 model year as a parts marked vehicle.

Thank you for your consideration of the issues in this letter.

ID: nht94-5.27

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: Larson, Victor -- P.E., Cryenco, Inc.

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Conspicuity Striping Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/14/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To Victor Larson (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: Cryenco is a manufacturer of cryogenic tank trailers. Our trailers are cylindrical in shape and in most cases, have no side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road, except at the center of the tank (at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions). This is at a height of approximately 90" above the ground. Additional structures would have to be added to the sides of the trailer to provide lower mounting surfaces that are at the 1.25m height. In our interpretation of the rule, which is based on phone calls with NHTSA and 3M striping performance specifications, the side striping 1.) Can legally be placed at a height of 90" above the ground, if that is the only available vertical mounting area, and 2.) it is not necessary to add additional structure for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface for the side striping. Please advise if this interpretation is correct.

Additional limited side mounting areas are sometimes available. For instance, some cryogenic transports have a rear cabinet that is approximately 4' long. Some also have a midship undermounted cabinet. These locations provide limited lower areas for side striping to amount to, approximately 4' to 6' length each, that could be used for striping location. However, if striping is mounted to these surfaces and to the remaining areas above, (on the tank at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions and 90" height), the result is a fragmented, non-aligned striping pattern that is not visually pleasing, and which Customers object to. Since transporters are highly interested in visual impact they sometimes find this pattern unacceptable. Would compliance be satisfied if the side striping was placed only at the higher (90" above the ground) location, where the predominant available vertical mounting surface is found?

Requests to mount the side striping lower on the tank, to better fit-in with their graphics, have been received. In one instance, if this were done, the side striping would be rolled down from the 3:00 and 9:00 positions to about the 4:30 and 7:30 positions. This would place the side striping on an area of the tank that angles downward approximately 30 degrees. The striping manufacturers do not certify to meet the reflectivity requirements at compound angles exceeding 15 degrees down, combined with the horizontal angles indicated in the rule. The general feeling among transporters and striping suppliers is that the rule is not definitive about the angular orientation of the striping, i.e. that there is no need to have the striping mounted on a surface that is perpendicular to the road. Please verify what the requirement is relative to orientation of the striping for conspicuity.

ID: nht94-5.28

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Norman Duncan -- President, Study-Tech, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from Norman Duncan to Rodney Slater (OCC-9882) and letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Thomas G. Cehelnik

TEXT:

The Federal Highway Administration has forwarded your letter of March 10, 1994, for reply. You request "an interpretation of the existing vehicle code as it may apply to a safety warning system that our corporation has devised."

Our agency issues the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act'). Our Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT is the regulation that governs the performance of lighting equipment that is required on new motor vehicles and determines whether optional lighting equipment is acceptable. As you have described it, the "Early-Warning Slow Down Safety Light" will automatically be activated when a vehicle decelerates. The system will operate through the stop lamps, but, alternatively, it could employ separate lamps mounted on the rear deck.

Your system is similar to others which have been suggested over the years, and we therefore do not feel that a demonstration is necessary as you have offered. With respect to operation of your system through the stop lamps, as you will see from our letter of October 22, 1993, to Dr. Cehelnik, a copy of which I have enclosed, automatic activation of the stop lamps is not permitted by Standard No. 108 which allows the stop lamps to operate only when the brake pedal is applied.

As for operation of your system through a separate lamp system, paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Were your separate warning system to utilize red lenses, we believe that it could impair the effectiveness of the required stop lamps by sending at times a false signal; not every deceleration is followed by braking, and the operation of your system when not followed by brake application activating the stop lamps could be confusing to a following driver. On the other hands, if your system utilized amber lenses, we believe that impairment would be unlikely to exist because the public associates this color with the need for caution.

The Act itself governs acceptability of your system in the aftermarket (i. e. , installed on vehicles in use). Section 108 (a) (2) (A) prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 and all other safety standards. We interpret this where possible as equating inoperability with impairment. Thus, we would view installation of your

system by the persons named above as violative of the Act if it operated through the stop lamp system or if it were a separate lamp system with red lenses.

Even where a supplementary lighting system may be permitted under Federal laws and regulations, it remains subject to the laws of the individual states where the system will be operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht94-5.29

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fred Carr -- Engineer, Utilimaster

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/21/94 From Fred Carr To John Womack (OCC-9912)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Carr:

This responds to your question asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, applies to "motor vehicle equipment relating to light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty trucks or truck manufacturers." As explained below, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment.

S2. Application of Standard No. 211 states the following:

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle equipment.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less, which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Since Standard No. 211 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and their equipment, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. "Truck" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. Accordingly, manufacturers of trucks or truck equipment are not required to certify their trucks and truck equipment to the requirements of Standard No. 211.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samson Helfgott, Esq., Helfgott & Karas, P.C.

TITLE: Re: Your Ref. No.: 12.065

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/29/94 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO JOHN WOMAK (OCC 10394)

TEXT: We have received your letter to John Womack, the former Acting Chief Counsel of this agency, responding to his letter to you of July 20, 1994. Thank you for enclosing a copy of his letter for ready reference.

Our previous letter to you was without the benefit of the diagram of the Caine system which you have now enclosed. The system is intended to be placed "along the side of trucks and other vehicles." It consists of three read lamps mounted over three ambe r (yellow) ones, the array installed between the amber front side marker lamp and the red rear side marker lamp. In normal operation the amber lamps are used as "running lights" but will be turned off when the red lamps are illuminated in a steady burni ng state upon application of the brake pedal. The three amber lamps will flash to indicate that the vehicle is turning. All six lamps will flash when the hazard indicator switch is on. If the turn signal is on and the driver's foot is on the brake ped al, the amber lamps will flash while the red ones illuminate in a steady burning state. At 32 candela, the turn signal lamps will be at a higher intensity than the running lamps which operate at 3 to 5 candela. These are within NHTSA specifications. Y ou ask whether this system will be in violation of Standard No. 108.

This office has corresponded with you on lighting matters on a number of occasions and you are well aware that supplementary lighting equipment is prohibited as original equipment only if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is require d by Standard No. 108. This determination is to be made by the manufacturer or dealer who installs the equipment and NHTSA will not question it unless it is clearly erroneous.

ID: nht94-5.30

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fred Benford -- 100+ Motoring Accessories

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/18/94 From Fred Benford To John womack (OCC-9891)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Benford:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps. You wrote that your company manufactures aluminum wheel covers without "protruding objects." You requested confirmation that the wheel covers do not violate any FMVSS. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles, or of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that its equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 211 regulates wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. Since "wheel discs" encompasses wheel covers, your company's wheel covers are subject to Standard No. 211. S4. Requirements of Standard No. 211 states in part:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections . . .

In your letter, you stated that your wheel covers do not have any "protruding objects." Since Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs (covers) with "winged projections," if your company's wheel covers do not incorporate "winged projections," the wheel covers would satisfy Standard No. 211. "Winged projection" is defined at S3.2 of Standard No. 211 as an exposed cantilevered appendage that projects radially from a wheel disc and that typically has front, edge, and/or rear surfaces which are not in contact with the wheel when the wheel disc is installed on the axle.

2

You also asked whether wheel covers made of aluminum violate any FMVSS. The answer is no, because Standard No. 211 does not specify materials for use in wheel covers. However, since wheel covers are "motor vehicle equipment," your company must ensure that the wheel covers are free of safety-related defects under the Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that your company or NHTSA determines that the wheel covers have a safety-related defect, your company would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective wheel covers and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-5.31

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Alberto Negro -- Chief Executive Officer, Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, United States Department Of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: 49 CFR 571.208 S4.5.1 Request For Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To Alberto Negro (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I need to know whether NHTSA allows the advisory information required by 49 CFR 571.208 S4.5.1 to be printed in English and also in one or more foreign languages on the same sun visor label.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-5.32

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John A. Griffiths

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/3/94 From John Womack To John Griffiths (A42; Std. 102)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I should be pleased if you would inform me whether or not motor vehicles post 1990 are required by law to have a [Illegible Word] safety switch so that the vehicles cannot be started in gear if they have automatic or manual transmissions.

Thankfully yours,

(804) 874-8039

DRN spoke to Mr. Griffiths on 5/26. Mr. Griffiths essentially wanted to know whether, on a manual transmission vehicle, there must be a neutral safety switch, i.e., making it impossible to start the vehicle unless the clutch is fully depressed. as the owner of a MY93 Dodge, with a manual transmission, he was concerned about this.

ID: nht94-5.33

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: R.H. Goble -- President, R.H. Goble Enterprises, inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/94 from John Womack to R.H. Goble (A42; STD 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(a))

TEXT: R.H. Goble Enterprises has developed a new lighting system to be added to motor vehicles. We are soliciting input from you as to the current rules and regulations and how they may apply to this new system. Specifically, can brake lights appear over the wheels and in the front of a vehicle?

Traffic and highway safety is a critical factor in our society. New ideas have evolved over the years to improve highway safety. The most recent innovation is the introduction of the eye-level rear view brake light. Rear-end collisions have been reduced by fifty two percent as a result.

This new concept worked because it introduced a change which was immediately apparent to drivers following a vehicle. We believe this same principle should be applied to the front and sides of a vehicle. The, other drivers could discern the braking intent of the operator from any direction. This is especially true in congested areas where one must watch for vehicles entering from side streets and on coming traffic. This can be accomplished by simply wiring the brake lights to the directional lights with an ordinary bridging connector.

NOTE: When wiring the brake lights to the front directional and side marker lights the brake lights are over ridden by the directional lights.

Also, when the brake lights are applied both sides light up, with the directional light on one side flashing.

Brake lights will not interfere with the directional lights or hazard lights functions.

As seen in the enclosed packet we are introducing a further safety enhancement for vehicles. The Wheel Well lighting system provides indication of the drivers intent when viewing the vehicle

2

from any direction. This takes more of the guess work out of being a defensive driver.

The obvious awareness of another vehicle and the intentions of its operator are the keys to avoiding a collision. The Wheel Well lighting system provides complete illumination around the vehicle, with all light indications or signals being visible from any direction. Therefore, we can provide the same safety advantages for all drivers, not just those approaching from the rear. In addition, the reflection of the Wheel Well lights off of the wheels will draw attention to the vehicle even more.

This is not just an idea. Our lighting system is already being used on a few vehicles locally. Four hundred lights have been produced to perform a marketing trial and provide consumer feedback.

The Wheel Well lights utilize standard lights, bulbs, and wiring. They are inexpensive and simple to install. We believe this new patent pending product will do even more to revolutionize highway safety than even the eye-level rear view brake light.

Please understand that these new lights are standard vehicle lights already manufactured by Peterson Manufacturing. Our system merely provides for placement of the newly designed lights above the wheels. They are directly wired into the vehicle and provide the same signaling around the vehicle as can be seen from the rear of any standard vehicle.

Please advise us as to the legality of providing this new system in existing vehicles.

ID: nht94-5.34

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Gianfranco Venturelli -- Director General, Automobile Lamborghini

TO: Christopher A Hart -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

COPYEE: J. Womack

TITLE: FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Standard Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/94 from John Womack to John E. Gillick (Std. 214 and Part 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini) hereby petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for the purpose of compliance with the side impact standard's phase-in calculation. n1 In the alternative, Lamborghini petitions NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption from the side impact standard requirements until September 1, 1996, pursuant to its authority under 49 C.F.R. @ 555.

n1 Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., 40019 Sant'Agata Bolognese (BO)-via Modena, 12-Italy, is a joint stock company organized under the laws of Italy. Chrysler Corporation, on January 31, 1994, sold Lamborghini to a group of investors led by MegaTech Ltd., a Bermuda corporation.

Background

On October 30, 1990, NHTSA promulgated revisions to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 regarding side

2

impact protection. See 55 Fed. Reg. 45,722 (Oct. 30, 1990) (codified at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214). Standard 214 specified vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified strength requirements for side doors. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214(b). The standard included the following phase-in schedule: (1) at least 10% of a manufacturer's passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1994, must comply; (2) at least 25% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1995, must comply; and (3) at least 40% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, and before September 1, 1996, must comply. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214 S8. In promulgating the rule, NHTSA recognized that it could take single-line manufacturers up to three years to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to comply with the standard. 55 Fed. Reg. at 45,749. Accordingly, Standard 214 provides an alternative to the phase-in option. The standard permits manufacturers to delay implementation of the side impact protection standard for one year (until September 1, 1994) if after that date all vehicles produced meet the standard's requirements. 49 C.F.R. @ 5711.214 S1(d).

As noted supra, Lamborghini was sold by Chrysler on January 31, 1994. Chrysler, as the corporate parent of Lamborghini, had included Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for side impact protection compliance purposes. Due to the number of different Chrysler models that required modifications to meet Standard 214, Chrysler elected to comply through the phase-in alternative. Lamborghini vehicles were scheduled to be modified during the last year of the phase-in period because

3

of the relatively low number of vehicles the subsidiary produced and the lead time necessary for engineering and tooling modifications.

Discussion

Chrysler's sale of Lamborghini has placed Lamborghini in a difficult position regarding compliance with the side impact safety standard. Prior to the sale, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing that it would not need to meet the requirements of Standard 214 until the production year beginning September 1, 1996 due to its status as part of Chrysler's vehicle fleet. Now that Lamborghini is not part of the Chrysler fleet, the company cannot utilize this flexibility. While the first segment of the phase-in requirement (10% compliance for all passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993) has already passed, Lamborghini still could elect Standard 214's alternative compliance date that requires full compliance by September 1, 1994. However, Lamborghini does not now have sufficient lead time to complete the engineering analysis and implement the tooling changes to comply with the standard for the production year beginning either September 1, 1994 or September 1, 1995. In addition, since Lamborghini only produces one model, it cannot phase in compliance even if this were technically possible and the first year of the phase-in period had not already begun. Accordingly, Lamborghini respectfully requests NHTSA to grant this petition to enable Chrysler to count Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's fleet for purposes of side impact compliance, or in the alternative, grant Lamborghini a temporary exemption from the requirements of Standard 214. Granting either request would be in the

4

public interest as it will not affect overall motor vehicle safety because Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance, thereby ensuring that, consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the total number of vehicles meeting the side impact requirements will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its Lamborghini subsidiary.

I. FLEET AVERAGE CALCULATION.

As part of the contract with MegaTech, Ltd. for the sale of Lamborghini, Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance. This action will ensure that the overall number of vehicles complying with the standard through the phase-in period will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its subsidiary. This approach gives Lamborghini, a single line manufacturer, the three-year lead time needed to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to satisfy the standard's requirement envisioned in the preamble to the final rule. All Lamborghini vehicles produced after September 1, 1996, will satisfy Standard 214.

II. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION.

In the alternative, Lamborghini requests NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption to Standard 214 through August 31, 1996, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. @ 555.6(a). In the meantime, as noted above, Chrysler will include, for purposes of production volume compliance, all Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's phase-in calculations. Beginning September 1, 1996, all Lamborghini vehicles produced will fully comply with the standard.

5

The application of Standard 214 to Lamborghini without adequate leadtime would subject the company to substantial economic hardship. In order to comply with this standard, Lamborghini must modify the door structure and redesign the aperture and door for its automobiles. In view of the extremely short lead time between now and the beginning of production for next year's model, it is simply not possible to complete the necessary engineering and related retooling necessary to meet the September 1, 1994, target date in the regulations.

Lamborghini is confident, however, that it will be able to comply with the standard by September 1, 1996, but not sooner, in accordance with the following schedule:

1. May 1994 - 1995

- engineering, drawing and development of preliminary prototypes.

2. June 1995 - May 1996

- final tune-up tests, and modification of production tooling.

3. July 1996

- begin production of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

4. September 1996

- delivery of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

The estimated cost of the research and development and the tooling changes necessary to meet the new standards is estimated to be between

6

We would reiterate that the financial hardship this action would cause is primarily due to the absence of sufficient leadtime to implement this standard. Lamborghini had only recently begun analysis of the engineering changes necessary to meet the standard and has not yet begun to implement the necessary tooling changes and purchasing because, until the sale occurred, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing it would not have to meet the standard until September 1, 1996.

* * *

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please contact Michael J. Grossman, our designated agent for U.S. certification and regulatory liaison (516-829-8694) or John Gillick of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, our legal counsel (202-775-9870), if you have any questions about this petition.

Enclosures