ID: 7353

Mr. Steven Rovtar
General Manager
Blazer International Corp.
2960 Hart Drive
Franklin Park, IL 60131

Dear Mr. Rovtar:

This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, asking for "a written ruling" that the product you described "meets current SAE/DOT guidelines."

The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product "utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle." Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit.

For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" from "rendering inoperative, in whole or in part," mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps.

Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them "partially inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied.

We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:6/17/92

ID: nht90-2.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 20, 1990

FROM: Wayne Brush -- Director, Material Management, Conceptor Industries, Inc.

TO: Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-25-90 to W. Brush from P. J. Rice; signature by S. P. Wood

TEXT:

Conceptor Industries Inc. ("Conceptor"), a subsidiary of Magna International Inc., in conjunction with the Electric Vehicle Development Corporation, the Electric Power Research Institute and several U.S. Electric Utilities is modifying General Motors Van s to produce electric powered vehicles for sale into the United States and Canada.

In January 1989, Conceptor made an application for a temporary exemption from three Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This exemption was subsequently granted in November 1989 (Docket No. EX 89-2; Notice 2) with an expiry date of November 1, 1990. Conceptor has completed its testing program and concluded that the vehicle meets paragraphs S5.1.1.3, S5.1.2, and S5.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.105 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, 49 CFR 571.124 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 12 4 Accelerator Control Systems, and paragraphs S6.2/S6.4, and S6.3/S6.4 of 49 CFR 571.301 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity.

The purpose of this letter is to seek your assistance in resolving a difficult administrative problem for both General Motors and Conceptor concerning the assignment of the vehicle identification number for the electric van. Both companies are aware tha t the vehicle may not fit the current definition of an incomplete vehicle as described in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 568 (49 CFR 568) due to the fact that the shell as manufactured by General Motors lacks a power train. However, the shel l does have the other minimum requirements, i.e. a frame and chassis structure, steering system, suspension system and braking system. Due to this variance from the definition your department has indicated that Conceptor must assign the VIN. While Conce ptor is prepared to do this, use of a VIN to that is to a large extent different than that used by General Motors causes serious administrative difficulties in terms of tracking warranty, safety recall campaigns, etc. With this in mind, General Motors h as suggested that Conceptor use a VIN while it uses the GM world manufacturer identifier, check digit, model, year and production sequence codes, has a unique vehicle description code placing an "X" as the engine type code. An example of the proposed VI N is shown below:

2GKGG35X1K4528366

I would appreciate your thoughts on whether this approach is acceptable to NHTSA and if so, some guidance on how to secure the necessary approval. Early resolution of this matter is very important to us as we hope to be in production on July 9, 1990.

I will contact your office early next week to set up a convenient time to meet and discuss this issue.

ID: nht92-6.4

DATE: June 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Rovtar -- General Manager, Blazer International Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Steven Rovtar to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7353)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, asking for "a written ruling" that the product you described "meets current SAE/DOT guidelines."

The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product "utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle." Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit.

For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" from "rendering inoperative, in whole or in part," mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps.

Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them "partially inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied.

We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington

Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

ID: nht88-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/88

FROM: DON O. HORNING -- P. E. INDUSTRIAL TESTING LABORATORIES

TO: C-MORE-LITE, JERRY'S SERVICE

TITLE: TEST REPORT NO: 92606

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108 LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 08/03/87 TO DOUGLAS H. BOSCO FROM ERIKA Z JONES; LETTER DATED 0 6/09/88 TO JERRY K YOST FROM L. FROLLIN; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM JERRY SERVICE

TEXT: Enclosed is the photometric data taken on the Halogen H4651 Single Filament Sealed Beam Headlamp and the Halogen H4656 Dual Filament Headlamp.

The two headlamps were mounted on a standard text fixture placed on the goniometer and aimed per specification SAE J579, Dec 84. Candlepower readings were taken at the appropriate settings with both filaments energized on the H4656 headlamp and with the single filament energized on the H4651 headlamp.

These readings were combined to simulate the operation of the C-More-Lite Headlight relay which activates both filaments on the 2-filament headlamp as well as the single filament to effectively provide both low beam and high beam illumination when the hi gh beam is switched on.

The accompanying table of photometric results at 100 ft were made with the aim established per SAE J579, Dec 84, Section 3.4 and the voltage at 12.8 volts. As indicated at the bottom of the table, the maximums could not be combined, as they did not coin cide as to location. Adjusting either lamp to the location of the other maximum did not produce a combined maximum in excess of the permissible maximum of 75,000 cd.

No tests were run utilizing the C-More-Lite relay in the circuit. tests run only simulate the effect of its operation.

As a part of this report a copy of SAE J579, Dec 84, is included for substantiation of test points and maximum and minimum cd. There is also included a diagram of the measurement points combining both upper and lower beams.

It should be noted that this laboratory takes no position relative to the C-More Relay as regards its utilization.

Description of Headlamps used: ITL TEST NUMBER 92606

1. Lamp Halogen H4651 - 4x6 1/2 inch sealed beam headlamp Westinghouse Headlamps by Philips (Assembled in Mexico) High Beam for 4 head light system Replaces 4651, HP4651 2 lugs - 12 volts Marked - 1A1 Sealed Beam, Halogen, U.S.A. DOT.

2. Lamp Halogen H4656 - 4x6 1/2 inch sealed beam headlamp Westinghouse Headlamps by Philips (Assembled in Mexico) Low Beam for 4 headlamp system Replaces 4656, HP4656 3 lugs - 12 volts Marked - 2A1 Sealed Beam, Halogen, U.S.A. DOT.

[TABLE OF PHOTOMETRIC TESTS H4656 AND H4651 SEAL BEAM HEADLAMPS, ITL TEST NO 92606, OMITTED]

[SAE J579 STANDARD OMITTED]

LOWER BEAM & UPPER BEAM (CHART OMITTED)

ID: 10228

The Honorable Bart Stupak
U.S. House of Representatives
902 Ludington St.
Escanaba, MI 49829

Dear Mr. Stupak:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA regulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses.

Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jobs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with "mini-school buses," which he believes is economically unfeasible.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law.

NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation.

The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definition to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013.

NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of "school buses" when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school bus and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high-backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Carol Stroebel Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosure ref:571 d:9/26/95

ID: 10462-2

Mr. John E. Getz
Director, Mobile Products Engineering
Ellis & Watts
4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane
Batavia, Ohio 45103

Dear Mr. Getz:

This responds to your letter asking whether certain operations that your company performs on used trailers result in the trailers being considered "newly manufactured" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You stated that you sometimes change the finishing and equipment of a used trailer for a new application. As an example, you stated that you recently took a 10- year old trailer, stripped the inside, and refinished it as a mobile marketing facility. You also stated that in some cases you may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you indicated that you have also changed trailers by adding heating or air conditioning units, or making the trailer usable as an auditorium.

In your letter, you asked whether the trailers would be considered "newly manufactured" if the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does change. You asked this question in light of the fact that change of ownership is relevant under 49 CFR part 571.7(f) in determining whether a trailer manufactured from new and used components is considered newly manufactured. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the operations you describe do not result in the trailers being considered newly manufactured.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 49 CFR part 571.7(f) reads as follows:

Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for

purposes of [the safety standards], unless, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer--

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

This section only applies when new and used materials are used in the "assembly" of a trailer. It is our opinion that the operations that you describe, i.e., where the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, do not constitute trailer assembly. Therefore, this section, including its provision concerning transfer of ownership, does not apply. We consider your operations to be in the nature of repair or refurbishment of a used trailer, which does not result in the trailer being considered newly manufactured.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:3/2/95

ID: 04-006678drn

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your request of August 26, 2004 that we extend the date at which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will begin enforcing a May 6, 2003 interpretation letter, addressed to Jaguar Cars, on the meaning of "daylight opening" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. As explained below, we have decided to grant your request.

In our letter to you of March 31, 2004, in which we denied your request for reconsideration of the May 6, 2003, interpretation, we acknowledged that there has been some confusion in industry regarding the proper interpretation of the term "daylight opening". We stated that we would begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003 interpretation letter beginning with motor vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2005.

In your letter of August 26, 2004, you stated that "substantial work" will be needed on some vehicle models to meet the May 6, 2003 interpretation letter. You stated that some wiper systems may have to be redesigned to increase the wiped area and that windshield redesign may be required. You indicated "substantial costs can be avoided" if, for those models that need reworking, the wiper system and windshield redesigns can be accomplished at the same time as scheduled platform changes. You asked that the agency provide manufacturers until September 1, 2007, to permit an orderly transition to designs that comply with the interpretation.

Two vehicle manufacturers subsequently submitted additional information in support of your organizations request. They focused on the work that will be needed for some vehicle models to meet FMVSS No. 104s requirement that windshield wiping systems wipe at least 94% of "Area B".

One manufacturer indicated that, taking account of the agencys May 6, 2003 interpretation letter, seven of its vehicles will not meet the 94% requirement. The other manufacturer indicated that five of its vehicles will be below 94% (but at or above 93.2%) for the wiped Area B. That manufacturer stated that it is not easy to increase the 93.2% area because the wiped areas have already been optimized to maximize the wiped surfaces. Even the small increases required to bring the wiped Area B to meet 94% cannot be done with simple changes in the wiper system. The manufacturer stated that some vehicles will require a complete redesign of the wiper geometry, including changes to the sheet metal stampings. Such changes are normally only done when a complete redesign of a model is scheduled because changes to the stamping tools are always expensive.

After carefully considering your request and the additional information provided by the two manufacturers, and to minimize the costs of compliance, we agree to provide the requested additional time. While we believe the original date of September 1, 2005 was sufficient to enable manufacturers to make simple changes in wiper systems, we are persuaded that more significant design changes will be needed for a number of vehicles. Therefore, we will begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003 interpretation letter beginning with motor vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2007.

If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.1/7/05

ID: 05-002791drn

Cesar H. Cozzi Gainza, Esq.
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores
Comercio Internatcional y Culto
Direccion General de Asuntos Jurisdicos
Esmeralda 1212. 4 piso (1007)
Buenos Aires, Argentina

RE: "Miranda Guillermo Jorge y otros c/Centro Naval y otros s/daos y perjuicios" (expte. No. 13.445/02)

Dear Seor Gainza:

This responds to your request for our legal opinion concerning any United States "safety standard or legal, ruling or administrative provisions in force to compel the manufacturers and/or importers of automobiles with manual transmission to include a mechanism to block the ignition and thus avoid accidents".It is our understanding that that there is civil lawsuit before your court resulting from a car crash which is described as follows:

In Olivos, Province of Buenos Aires, on January first, two thousand, when the automobile of the Plaintiff, occupied by a minor child and a dog fell into the River Plate.The Plaintiff states that the cause of the casualty was due to the fact that the vehicle has no ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear, because the automobile which was involved in the accident was activated when the minor child started the ignition while the vehicle was in gear.The Defendant states that it is not compulsory to provide vehicles with said systems, and the lack thereof implies no design error.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs), which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America.(See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.)NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

There is nothing in the FMVSSs that require new motor vehicles with manual transmissions to have an "ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear".The FMVSS most relevant to your case is FMVSS No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, which specifies requirements for the transmission shift lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers per hour. FMVSS No. 102 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. A copy of FMVSS No. 102 is enclosed for your information.

FMVSS No. 102 has only the following requirement for motor vehicles with manual transmissions:

S3.2 Manual transmissions.Identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard "H" pattern, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the drivers seating position.

As you can see, S3.2 does not require new motor vehicles with manual transmissions to have an "ignition blocking system, activated when the vehicles are in a gear."

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

Enclosure

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure

ref:102#VSA
d.6/23/05

ID: 10931

Mr. Jim Burgess
Engineering Manager
Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.
4100 West Piedras St.
Farmington, NM 87401

Dear Mr. Burgess:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to this office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system.

You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no.

FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states:

[S]ide doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard.

FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion.

While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that "lift" includes "ramp." In order to amend the standard to exclude wheelchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriate.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures (2) 1985 final rule Part 552

ref:206 d:8/4/95

ID: 07-002929drn-2