ID: nht94-4.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 16, 1994

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

TO: Matt Decker -- Project Engineer, Wenger Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/25/94 FROM MATT DECKER TO RICARDO MARTINEZ

TEXT: We have received your letter of October 25, 1994, petitioning for exemption from S5.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which establishes conspicuity requirements for large trailers.

Your letter states that Wenger Corporation "manufactures and sells a complete line of music education and performance equipment" including "Wenger Showmobiles, mobile performance stages in trailer form." The reason for your request is that "[the] additio n of the conspicuity striping is unacceptable for many of our potential customers because of how it would impact their graphics on the sides and rear of the product."

The agency's exemption authority is prescribed by statute, and has been implemented by a regulation, 49 CFR Part 555, a copy of which I enclose. Your letter does not contain the information needed for an exemption petition. There appear to be two bases upon which Wenger could apply for an exemption, under the hardship provisions of Sec. 555.6(a) and the safety level provisions of Sec. 555.6(d). If Wenger submits an application that contains the information required by Part 555, we shall give the matt er further consideration. The desire of manufacturers to use retroreflective logos as a substitute for conspicuity marking was considered in the rulemaking proceedings that established S5.7 but was not adopted because the agency saw greater safety benef its in adopting a standardized pattern.

We have studied the photo in your product literature that shows the trailer ready for performance. It would appear that the upper rear conspicuity treatment is not visible to an audience when the trailer is open. Noting that Wenger provides an optional skirt for the platform, we see that the skirt hides the lower side and rear conspicuity treatment required by S5.7. We believe that the simplest solution is to provide the skirt as standard equipment with the trailer.

ID: nht94-4.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 16, 1994

FROM: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Legal & Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Patrick Boyd -- Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: 7% haze requirement for reflectors (Docket No. 93-15; Notice 2)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/7/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO YOSHIAKI MATSUI (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: We have a question about the applicability of the above requirement for reflex reflector materials.

According to the Final Rule issued by the Federal Register of November 2, the amended haze requirement shall be effective on November 1, 1995. Our question is that if this requirement shall be applicable to replacement reflex reflectors or not.

For replacement reflex reflectors, two possible cases are in problem. Would you please inform us if the amended haze requirement shall be applicable in each case.

First case - Replacement reflex reflectors manufactured after the effective date, but the vehicle to which the reflex reflectors are fitted is no longer manufactured after the effective date.

Second case - Replacement reflex reflectors manufactured before the effective date, which may be fitted to a vehicle manufactured before or after the effective date. (In this case, the same type of vehicles are manufactured before and after the effectiv e date continuously.)

Your prompt reply will be highly appreciated.

ID: nht94-4.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 18, 1994

FROM: Harry C. Gough, P. E., Automotive Engineering, Professional Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/16/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO HARRY GOUGH (A43; STD. 217); ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/7/93 AND 3/28/94 LETTERS FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS D. TURNER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

I am writing on behalf of the State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. We are requesting a written opinion or interpretation regarding the meaning of the phrase "outlined around it's outside perimeter" as used in FMVSS # 217 S5.5.3, Subsection( c). The term is used in regard to retroreflective tape required to identify emergency exits on school buses. The reason for the request is that a State requirement on the color of school buses requires the rear bumper to be black. One school bus manuf acturer supplied buses with the bottom piece of retroreflective tape required for the rear emergency exit installed on the rear bumper. While discussing options regarding relocation of the bottom piece of tape we were told that installation on the botto m of the door itself (not the opening) was not viable since it would not comply with FMVSS # 217 language. Subsequently a number of new school buses from a different manufacturer which were required to have their emergency exits marked were noted to hav e the tape on the door itself rather than on the edges of the opening.

When the door itself is outlined, the tape is not visible when the door is fully opened. When the edges of the opening for the door are outlined then only the hinge side of the tape is not visible. If only the bottom section of the door outline were on the door itself then both the bottom and hinge side would not be visible when the door is opened.

The ultimate question is; Does the language in FMVSS # 217 allow the required retroreflective tape marking around an emergency exit door to be installed on the door itself?

While I realize your office very busy with such interpretations. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. If there are any additional questions or information required, please feel free to have your office call me at (203) 566-8754.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

ID: nht94-4.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 22, 1994

FROM: P. Binder -- ITT Automotive Europe

TO: John Womack -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: New Development of a Rearlamp

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/7/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO HERR P. BINDER (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: We have the following problem regarding the new development of a rearlamp:

The rearlamp will be fixed on a car which will be produced in Germany and exported to the USA.

The car manufacturer wants to have a yellow bulb for the function "turn signal lamp". Planned is the bulb type PY 21W. This is a yellow bulb (12V/21W) registered under ECE-R37 with a base BAU 15 (TEC-Publ. 61, Page 7004-19-1)-a data sheet is attached!

As far as we know there is only one comparable yellow bulb available in USA - the bulb Trade No. 1156 NA. This one has, however, a base S.C. Bayonet.

(GRAPHICS OMITTED)

May we ask you therefore to answer the following questions:

1) Is it allowed in USA that new rearlamps are fitted with such "Europe"-bulbs?

2) Do spare bulbs of the same type (PY 21W) have to be freely available in USA (e.g. supermarket, station, etc.)?

3) Would it be sufficient if the car manufacturer offers this bulb (PY 21W) as a spare part within his service stations in USA?

4) Is there any specification or law regarding the use of bulbs in USA? If so, please inform us about these specifications.

5) Is the use of bulbs treated differently in the single states?

As there is the possibility of changes in design of the rearlamp we would be grateful for an answer as soon as possible.

Thank you very much in advance for you help.

ID: nht94-4.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 22, 1994

FROM: Robin R. Miller -- DaRosa and Miller

TO: Mary Versailles -- U.S. DOT

TITLE: RE: Elmhurst Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v Excalibur Automobile Corporation

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/5/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Robin R. Miller (A43; Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Versailles:

Please be advised that I am an attorney representing Elmhurst Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. in the above-described matter.

Below is a list of automobiles which were purchased from Excalibur Automobile Corporation by my client, Elmhurst Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. For each vehicle I have provided you with the make of the vehicle, the vehicle identification number, the production c ompletion date (or manufacture date), and the date that the automobile was sold to Elmhurst Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. Copies of invoices are included for your review.

Please provide to me all information regarding the United States Department of Transportation's regulations in effect at the time these automobiles were manufactured, specifically referencing seat belt restraint systems and air bag systems.

1. J.A.C. Cobra (Red)

VIN# 1J9CA2312RM123027

Production Completion Date - 1/10/94

Date Automobile Sold to Elmhurst - 1/19/94

2. J.A.C. Cobra (Viper Blue)

VIN# 1J9CA2314RM123028

Production Completion Date - 1/13/94

Date Automobile Sold to Elmhurst - 1/25/94

3. Excalibur Limited Edition (Ivory)

VIN# 1XAPY4324RM940019

Production Completion Date - 4/2/94

Date Automobile Sold to Elmhurst - 4/11/94 4. J.A.C. Cobra (Black)

VIN# 1XACA2312RM123047

Production Completion Date - 5/6/94

Date Automobile Sold to Elmhurst - 5/9/94

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please do not hesitate in contacting me should you require further information for the above automobiles. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Very truly yours,

DA ROSA AND MILLER

Robin R. Miller

(Invoices omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1994

FROM: Melinda Dresser -- Manager Contracts/Transportation, Carlin Manufacturing

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: Swivel Seats

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/13/95 (est.) letter from Philip Recht to Melinda Dresser (A43; Std. 207)

TEXT: Carlin Manufacturing, Inc. is a manufacturer of custom mobile kitchens and specialty vehicles, using manufacturing license #23791. We are currently manufacturing two (2) Command Post Vehicles for the California Highway Patrol. We are installing a driver and front passenger seat with a swivel base. We were informed from several seat manufacturers and vendors, that swivel bases on seats are not allowed per 49 C.F.R. part 571 section 207 and 208.

On November 4, 1994, you were kind enough to fax me a letter regarding a similar type of application. The letter dated November 25, 1992, stated there wasn't a Federal law prohibiting a person from adding a swivel base to a seat. However, installation must be done in such a way that the seats and safety belts continue to provide the safety protection mandated by the safety standards.

Even though I still don't find any restrictions in section 207 and 208, we are requesting a current written determination from your office.

If you should have any questions or need clarification, please feel to call contact me at 209/276-0123. Thanking you in advance.

ID: nht94-4.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 28, 1994

FROM: Melinda Dresser -- Manager Contracts/Transportation, Carlin Manufacturing, Inc.

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/9/95 letter from Philip Recht to Melinda Dresser (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: Carlin Manufacturing, Inc. designs and manufactures mobile kitchens and specialty vehicles for organizations such as Pizza Hut, Burger King, McDonald's, Salvation Army, and California Department of Forestry. We also build units for off-premise caterers, fire fighters, emergency service organizations, and all branches of the armed forces.

As a vehicle manufacturer, (license #23791) our vehicles conform to applicable federal and California standards, including, but not limited to, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Code of Regulations, and National Highway Traffic Safety A dministration.

We are currently in the final manufacturing stage for six (6) driveable "Wienermobiles" for Oscar Mayer. Since the outside structure is not a typical configuration, we are asking for a ruling determining the requirements for exterior lighting, as per 49 C.F.R. Part 571 section 108. Please review the attached drawings showing the location of the exterior lighting; including headlights, tailights, side and front markers.

Please advise at your earliest convenience, whether our application of exterior lighting for the "Wienermobile" will meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. Our "Wienermobile" program is on HOLD pending your determination. Since th ree of the Oscar Mayer "Wienermobiles" are scheduled for a nationwide rollout January 1, 1995, your prompt reply to this project will be greatly appreciated.

If you should have any questions, please feel to call contact our Project Engineer, Anton Holty, at 209/276-0123, for further clarification.

Thanking you in advance,

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-4.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 26, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Sally O'Cordan -- Ashley, Hannula & Halom (Superior, WI)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/5/94 from Sally O'Cordan to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your question about whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applies to glass used in a travel trailer. You stated that your law office was investigating an accident in which an individual was injured by glass of such a vehicle.

Please be aware that no FMVSS applies to the glazing (the term the agency uses for glass) in trailers. The agency has issued one standard, FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR S571.205), which applies to glazing in some motor vehicles. However, th is standard does not apply to glazing in trailers, which our regulations define as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle" (49 CFR S571.3).

You may wish to contact the State of Wisconsin about the regulation of glass in trailers. The State has the authority to regulate the operation and modification of vehicles by their owners. Wisconsin may have used this authority to issue regulations ab out glazing in travel trailers.

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.

ID: nht94-4.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 29, 1994

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation - 49 CFR 591

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/22/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MICHAEL LOVE (A42; PART 591; PART 592; PART 593)

TEXT: Porsche Cars North America, Inc. ("Porsche Cars N.A.") is the authorized importer and distributor of Porsche vehicles in the United States. Effective 1/1/95, Porsche Cars N.A. will become the authorized importer and distributor of Porsche vehicles in Ca nada. All Porsche vehicles for Canada are built as close as possible to U.S. specification vehicles, while still complying with Canadian law, resulting in only minor (if any) differences on the various models due to the similarity of the laws in both co untries.

Currently Porsche Cars N.A. imports all U.S. vehicles into Charleston, South Carolina, where they are processed at its Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) facility. The processing consists of removing the protective shipping material, cleaning the vehicle, in specting for proper operation of all systems and making any repairs. Porsche believes it is permissible to also import all the vehicles for the Canadian market into the U.S. and process them at the PDI facility in Charleston before exporting them to Can ada under the provision of 49 CFR 591.5(c), which states:

(c) The vehicle or equipment item does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but is intended solely for export, and the vehicle or equipment item, and the outside of the container of the e quipment item, if any, bears a label or tag to that effect.

Does NHTSA agree with this?

Due to the small volume of vehicles sold by Porsche Cars N.A. in the U.S. and Canada and the large number of options available on the vehicles, we foresee the possibility that a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U .S. customer. Porsche Cars N.A. would like to be able to convert such a Canadian specification car to U.S. specification before it has been retail sold. This would include conversion of all equipment and labels so that the vehicle would be in complianc e with all applicable U.S. requirements before it was released from Porsche Cars N.A.'s control.

Porsche Cars N.A. believes this would be permissible for cars imported under provision of 49 CFR 591.5(c) (as discussed above) and still in the U.S. under Porsche Cars N.A. control. Does NHTSA agree with this? Similarly, Porsche Cars N.A. believes it w ould be possible to bring a Canadian vehicle back from Canada (once it has already been processed in the U.S. and exported to Canada) into the U.S. and convert it to U.S. specification, as long as it has not been retail sold and has remained under Porsch e Cars N.A. control. Does NHTSA also agree with this?

If NHTSA does not agree with Porsche Cars N.A. interpretations as stated above, what does NHTSA see as the options available to Porsche Cars N.A. to import and process Canadian specification cars in the U.S.?

Since Porsche Cars N.A. will assume responsibility for importing Canadian vehicles as of January 1, 1995, we would appreciate an answer from NHTSA on these questions as soon as possible.

ID: nht94-4.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 29, 1994

FROM: Lori A. Hawker

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/2/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Lori A. Hawker (A43; Std. 213)

TEXT: Dear Sir or Madam;

I am proposing to manufacture a product intended for use in an infant car seat. This product or bunting fits inside the car seat. The bunting has slots big enough for the straps on the car seat to thread through the bunting and then reattached to th e car seat as per the design of the car seat.

After attaching the straps properly, the child can be placed in the car seat and the buckle fastened securely. (there is a slot in the bunting for the buckle to fit through. Because the harness is inside the bunting you can zip up the bunting around the infant. This is particularly handy for carrying the child from the house or across the parking lot at the mall to your car.

When you place the car seat in the car, the bunting does not interfere with the placement of the safety belt. You then may unzip the bunting and fold it over. The child now has soft blanket to keep them warm while safely strapped in their car seat. The bunting in no way interferes with the adjustment or function of the safety straps or buckle mechanism when properly installed.

During the winter months, when the winds are blowing the bunting keeps the child safe from the elements while being transported to and from the car. The bunting encourages the use of a car seat and discourages the unsafe use of bulky blankets.

The inner layer of the bunting (insulation) is 8 ounce Polyester Fiberfill. The shell is made from 100% cotton flannel.

I have seen a similar product made in Canada on the market. I would like to know if my product complies with the standards of the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Could you please forward information to me as to how I may get this product approved.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely;

Lori A. Hawker

Enclosure

(Drawing omitted.)