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

ID: nht94-5.35

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Doris Hull -- Owner, Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.

TO: Robert Hellmuth -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/12/94 Letter from John Womack to Doris Hull (Std. 109, 119 & 12)

TEXT:

This letter is in regards to a phone conversation with Mr. Walter Meyers on May 13, 1994 that David McCormick and I had. The conversation was concerning trailers with new and used tires. The understanding that we got that we are allowed to do is included in this letter. I would appreciate a quick response from you.

We understood that we, as manufactures, can sell to a dealer, who picks up a load of trailers, the trailers being stacked on top of each other; we can install new tires on the bottom trailer that would meet the requirements of standard 120 and for the other trailers that are stacked we can sell the used tires and rims mounted but not installed on trailers. That if a tractor trailer loaded with trailers was sold we could sell the used tires and rims but not installed on the trailers. All used tires and rims would meet the D.O.T. Standard 120 qualifications. We understood that an individual can request used tires and rims, we can sell them to them and install them if requested by the individual.

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. We have also talked with George Shifflett concerning what Mr. Meyers informed us.

Please do not hestitate calling me at the number listed above if there are any questions I may be able to help with.

ID: nht94-5.36

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hamilton K. Pyles -- Cairncross & Associates, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/5/94 from Hamilton K. Pyles to NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1994 to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. You would like to import into the United States "a kit for a compact custom truck bed". You ask what Federal laws and regulations govern the importation, sale, and installation of wooden pickup bed kits. You also ask what you must do, initially, to import a trial sample bed into the United States.

You have described the kit as consisting of plans and instructions in English, wooden and plywood parts of the bed, unspecified "metal parts," fastenings, wiring and "lights."

As a general rule, all motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must conform (and be certified by their manufacturer to conform) to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency in order to be imported into the United States and sold here. The only motor vehicle equipment in your kit that is covered by a Federal standard is "lights." They are subject to our Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT (49 CFR 571.108), and, thus, must conform and be certified as conforming in order to be imported into the United States. Certification is indicated either by a DOT symbol on the equipment, or by a statement of compliance attached to the equipment or on the container in which it is shipped.

If the lighting equipment does not conform, or if you are unsure whether it does, you are permitted by 49 CFR 591.5(j) to import one or more sample beds or kits for "research, investigations, studies, (or) demonstrations" for a period of up to three years after first obtaining written approval from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. If the lighting equipment does conform, there is no limitation upon the number of items you may import.

You have also written that the truck bed will be offered to the general public as a replacement for existing truck beds, and to "manufacturers who place specialized beds (campershells, utility company boxes, etc.) on pick-up frames that they buy new without factory installed beds."

Although you have no responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for compliance of a vehicle with the Federal safety standards when the conversion work is completed, we should like to apprise you of the obligations of a converter, since the converter will look to you to provide it with complying lighting equipment. With respect to the general public, under section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)) , the removal of the old truck bed and lights and

installation of the new truck bed kit by a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" must not "knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with" a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. For example, one of the named parties would violate the Act if it removed the old bed with complying lamps and installed a new bed with noncompliant lamps if that person knew that the lamps did not comply. Similarly, if the bed in some manner obscured the center highmounted lamp which is now required for pickups manufactured after September 1, 1993, that could be a violation of the Act. If a manufacturer is installing the truck bed on a new chassis, it becomes responsible for ensuring that the completed vehicle fully meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for certifying its compliance.

Finally, as the importer of the kit, you become its "manufacturer" under our laws and may have some responsibility for notification and remedy of safety related defects or noncompliances that are discovered in the kit either before or after its installation on motor vehicles.

I enclose an information sheet for your information, and hope that this letter has been helpful to you.

ID: nht94-5.37

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Nicholas S. Copass -- Sales Manager, Titeflex Industrial Americas

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/29/93 from Nicholas S. Copass to David Elias (OCC-9161), letter dated 3/6/91 from Anthony J. Laliko to Vernon G. Bloom, and letter dated 3/18/91 from Arthur H. Neill, Jr. to Anthony J. Lalikos

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. David Elias, formerly of this office, concerning the manufacture of hydraulic brake hose assemblies by Titeflex and Russell Performance Products. I regret the delay in responding.

We recently responded to a letter from Mr. Jim Davis of Russell about the labeling of the hose assemblies. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. In that letter, we explain that both Titeflex's and Russell's designations need not be marked on the assembly. Instead, since Russell is manufacturing the assemblies and will market the assemblies, Russell's designation must be marked. The designation will identify Russell as the manufacturer of the assembly in the event of a possible noncompliance or defect with the assembly.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202)-366-2992.

ID: nht94-5.38

DATE: MAY 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Davis -- President, Russell Performance Products

COPYEE: Nicholas S. Copass

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/93 from Jim Davis to David Elias (OCC-9249), letter dated 10/22/93 from Jim Davis to NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, and letter dated 11/16/93 from Jim Davis to David Elias

TEXT:

This responds to your letters to Mr. David Elias, formerly of this office, about the requirements of Standard 106, "Brake Hoses," for labeling hydraulic brake hose assemblies. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain in your letters that Russell holds a license to manufacture brake hose assemblies from Titeflex Corporation, a manufacturer of brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies. Titeflex supplies Russell with braided hose, and Russell manufactures the end fittings that Titeflex designed, using Titeflex's engineering drawings. Russell assembles the Titeflex hose with the end fittings, and "markets these hose assemblies (in) the marketplace."

You ask about marking the hose assemblies with a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the assembly, pursuant to S5.2.4 of Standard 106. You ask whether both Russell's and Titeflex's designations are required to be labeled, or only the designation of Russell.

The answer is only Russell's designation is required to be marked. Russell is manufacturing the assemblies and will market the assemblies. Russell's designation will identify Russell as the manufacturer of the assembly in the event of a possible noncompliance or defect with the assembly.

You also ask whether Titeflex's hose must be labeled with the information specified in *S5.2.1 and S5.2.2 of Standard 106. The first part of your question asks whether the labeling requirements apply to bulk brake hose "with a stainless braided outer covering." The answer is yes. The standard does not exclude braided brake hoses from the labeling requirements.

The second part of this question asks about the required labeling for hoses that are part of brake hose assemblies. You ask for confirmation that Standard 106 does not require the hose to be labeled once the hose is part of a brake hose assembly. Your understanding is correct with regard to S5.2.2. The last sentence of that paragraph states: "The information (specified in S5.2.2) need not be present on hose that is sold as part of a brake hose assembly or a motor vehicle." (The quoted sentence was adopted at 56 FR 50520, October 7, 1991, to replace the sentence you referred to.) Accordingly, the hose need not bear the labeling of S5.2.2 when the hose is part of an assembly. However, the hose must still bear the stripes required by S5.2.1 unless, to quote from S5.2.1, the hose is

"manufactured for use only in an assembly whose end fittings prevent its installation in a twisted orientation in either side of the vehicle."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at the above address, or by phone at (202) 366-2992.