ID: nht90-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/90

FROM: MICHAEL LOVE -- MANAGER SAFETY COMPLIANCE PORSCHE

TO: JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA

TITLE: 49 CFR PART 543 EXEMPTION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE, A 35 PART 543; LETTER FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL ENTITLED PORSCHE'S MODIFIED ANTITHEFT EXEMPTION, LETTER DATED 04/12/90

TEXT: On January 25, 1989, Porsche submitted petitions for exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard under 49 CFR Part 543 for its 1990 (MY) 911 and 928 models. NHTSA granted the petitions on May 26, 1989, on condition that any modifications to the alarm systems require Porsche to re-petition the NHTSA unless the modifications could be characterized as de minimus.

Porsche is planning to make the modifications set forth below to the alarm systems of MY 1991 911 and 928 model lines. For the following reasons, the changes described below should be considered de minimus:

1) The alarm control unit will be integrated with the central locking and interior light control units in order to save space and simplify the vehicle electrical system.

2) The system changes will be virtually transparent to the operator. The system will still be armed by locking either door with the key.

3) All of the same points of entry (i.e., door, hood, hatch, etc.) will be monitored by the system and the engine disabling and alarm features are the same. The system will be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system.

4) The new system will also monitor the glove box for opening. If the glove box is opened while the alarm is armed, the alarm will be set off (this is important for convertibles).

5) The system will have improved diagnostic capability in order to enhance serviceability.

6) The system will have the capability to accept other inputs (such as motion sensors) if they are desired in the future.

Based on the above, we believe that the alarm systems as modified contains all of the functions and features on which NHTSA based its decision to grant the exemptions. For that reason, we respectfully request a ruling from you that the planned modificat ions are de minimus and thus, obviating the need for a formal petition.

If you have any questions, please call me at (702) 348-3198.

ID: aiam0040

Dear Mr. Darby:#Thank you for your letter of December 17, 1967, to th National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the installation of dual controls on passenger cars.#The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not prohibit the installation of dual controls provided none of the requirements specified by the standards are eliminated or adversely affected by such installation. In other words, if a dealer or manufacturer modifies a conforming vehicle, then he assumes the responsibility for the vehicle's certification. We enclose a complete set of standards now in effect for your information.#In the event that dual steering controls and other controls are provided on driver training vehicles, the applicability of the appropriate standards is confined to the primary controls. For example, under Standard No. 101, the person seated behind the secondary steering control need not be able to reach all controls.#We trust this information will be of assistance to you in your desire to comply with existing safety standards.#Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performance Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam3436

Dear Mr. Bingham: This responds to your letter of June 8, 1981, concerning Standard No 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You are correct that my letter of June 1, 1981, on the abrasion test procedure of the standard should have referred to section 5.1(d), instead of to section 5.2(d).; You also suggested that in the process of clarifying the standard' abrasion requirements, the agency should consider possible modifications to sections 4.2(e) and (f) of the standard. In the process of reviewing the abrasion test requirements, the agency will also examine those other sections to determine what changes should be made.; Finally, you raised the issue of whether the standard, as with othe national and international standards, should have a requirement that conditioned webbing must retain a certain percentage of its unconditioned strength and must also meet the minimum strength requirement for unconditioned webbing. The agency is not aware of any data indicating that our current conditioned strength requirements are insufficient.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 16537.drn

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica
General Manger, Environmental Engineering
BMW of North America, Inc.
BMW Plaza
Montvale, NJ 07645-1866

Ref: A:FW22197

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect as it applied to a proposed BMW transmission design with electronic shifting controls.

We have reviewed the arguments presented in your request for an interpretation, and cannot agree with BMW that S3.1.1 Location of transmission shift lever positions on passenger cars, S3.1.3 Starter interlock and S3.1.4 Identification of shift lever positions "are not applicable to automatic transmissions without a shift lever." However, the agency is carefully reviewing BMW's related petition for rulemaking submitted on November 19, 1997, the same date as the request for interpretation. The agency will inform you of its decision on the petition for rulemaking after it has completed its review of your petition.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:102
d.3/4/98

ID: 2853yy

Lennard S. Loewentritt, Esq.
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Personal Property Division
General Services Administration
Washington, D.C. 20405

Dear Mr. Loewentritt:

This responds to your November 7, 1990 letter requesting further clarification with regard to my August 23, 1990 letter to you. 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply "to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications." In my August letter, I stated that school buses purchased by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the sole use of the Army would be considered to fall within this exception. This interpretation was based on the assumption that GSA acts as a purchasing agent for the Army, and that the buses were actually sold to the Army, albeit indirectly.

In your recent letter, you stated that this assumption was erroneous. While GSA's Automotive Center does act as a purchasing agent for some agencies, the vehicles in question would be purchased for the GSA's Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS). Vehicles in the IFMS "are assigned on an indefinite basis to agencies that have had their fleets consolidated into the IFMS." You stated that the Army has consolidated their nontactical vehicles into the IFMS.

In this case then, the GSA would be purchasing buses which are intended for "indefinite assignment to and sole use by the Army for the purpose of transporting troops as well as transporting military dependents to and from school." You stated that these vehicles would be manufactured in conformity with contractual specifications "which reflect the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for buses rather than school bus specifications." Given this clarification of GSA's role, you again asked if these buses would fall within the exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c).

The answer to your question would be yes, if the purchase contract specifies that the buses should not be certified as school buses in order to serve the needs of the Armed Forces. In these circumstances, we see no meaningful difference between a sale directly to an element of the Armed Forces and a sale to GSA's IFMS intended for exclusive and indefinite assignment to the Army. In announcing this conclusion, I want to make several points. In the interest of safety, I strongly recommend that the contract specify compliance with the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended use of the bus. Also, if reassignment of these buses to another agency is ever contemplated, I would appreciate your undertaking to ensure that they would only be used for transporting adults.

I hope this response is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:57l d:2/26/9l

ID: 12375.wkm

Mr. C. O. Jung
Technical Manager
Hankook Tire America Corporation
Three University Plaza, Suite 430
Hackensack, NJ 07601

Dear Mr. Jung:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Jim Gilkey of this agency in which you asked whether the agency was planning to issue a regulation adding a symbol to the end of the tire identification number to designate the year of manufacture. The answer is no.

As you correctly pointed out in your letter, the fourth grouping of numerals in the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 Code of Federal Regulations 574.5 is a three-symbol code representing the week and year of manufacture. The first two numbers represent the week and the third the year. Thus, in the example you provided, the numbers "439" would represent the 43d week of 1989. As you further pointed out, however, that "9" could also mean 1979 or even 1969. For that reason, you stated that the Imported Tyre Manufacturers Association of the United Kingdom intends to add a fourth symbol to that grouping to identify tires produced in the decade 1990 to 1999. You asked whether this agency has any plans to do the same.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized the possibility that a single number representing the year of manufacture could cause some confusion because there is nothing to identify the decade to which that number belongs. That has not proven to be a significant problem, however, it being generally assumed that the number refers to the most recent year ending in that number. Because NHTSA only regulates new tires and newly-retreaded passenger car tires, that will generally be a valid assumption since it is extremely unlikely that a tire manufactured or retreaded in 1969 or 1979 will remain unsold on the store shelf in 1996. Accordingly, NHTSA has no present plans to add a symbol to the fourth grouping of the TIN to specify the exact year of manufacture.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Ref: #574

d:9/13/96

ID: aiam4439

"Dear Mr. Look: Your letter of October 30, 1987, addressed t Administrator Diane Steed, was referred to me for reply. You are apparently seeking this Department's approval of your product which you describe as a new warning device for stopped motor vehicles. As explained below, we do not provide approvals for products. Your product is made of inflatable plastic material that you describe as 'flexible and extremely durable.' When a user inflates your device, the product takes the shape of a cone standing about 18' high. The pictures you enclose indicate that the inflatable part of the cone has three broad alternating stripes. Two of the stripes are orange, and a 6' 'reflective' white stripe is sandwiched between them. Your cone sits on a non-inflatable, spherical, black base filled with 'approximately' 3 lbs. of sand. You state that your device has many advantages over the warning device currently specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 125, Warning Devices. Among the advantages you list are that your device is 'more visible at night, up to 1,000 ft. away,' that it '(is) not affected by winds up to 50 MPH,' and that if struck, it 'will return to an upright position' without damaging the vehicle involved. You state your company's intention to package your device in a corrugated container with three inflatable cones to a kit, including both a 'new-type double-action hand pump' and instructions for proper use of your device. Let me begin with some general information about this agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Department of Transportation, and has authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards issued by this agency. Periodically, NHTSA conducts tests to determine whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects. One of the safety standards issued by this agency is Standard 125, Warning Devices, which sets uniform performance requirements for certain devices that are designed to be carried in a motor vehicle and used when needed to warn approaching traffic when the vehicle is disabled and stopped in or by the side of the road. The Standard applies to any such device that does not have a self-contained energy source (such as a battery). Your product falls under this Standard. Thus, it must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configuration, color, and reflectivity. Failure to comply with a standard renders the manufacturer subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Safety Act requires a manufacturer to recall and remedy or replace a noncomplying item of motor vehicle equipment. As the above discussion suggests, you do not need approval from NHTSA or any other agency in the Department of Transportation to market your product. However, you do need both to ensure that your product meets Standard 125's requirements and to certify compliance. Our preliminary review of your product indicates that you may not be able to make that certification. For example, it appears that your product may not comply with the color, reflectivity, configuration, and stability requirements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market it as a warning device. I hope you find this response helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht75-1.2

DATE: 02/24/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

N40-30 (TH) FEB 24 1975

Mr. J. W. Kennebeck Volkswagen of America, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Kennebeck:

This responds to Volkswagen of America's January 24, 1975, request for written confirmation that S5.3.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, only requires indication of a low fluid level condition (S5.3.1(b)) with the vehicle on a level surface, but that, in the event of a decrease in this fluid level (and apparent fluid volume) due to positioning the vehicle on an incline, the indicator lamp is permitted to activate and then deactivate when the vehicle is repositioned on a level surface.

Your understanding of the requirements of S5.3.3. for indication of a low fluid level condition (S5.3.1(b)) is correct. S5.3.3 requires low fluid level indication with the vehicle on a level surface, and an activation due only to positioning on an incline may be extinguished when the vehicle is again placed on a level surface.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3431

Dear Mr. Biddle: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff describing a situation in which a railroad car full of new tires caught on fire. As a result of the damage caused to the tires by the fire, Firestone's quality control staff determined that the tires could no longer be certified as safe for highway use. The railroad company has refused to pay your claim for damage to the tires unless Firestone releases the damaged tires to the railroad company. You stated that the railroad company will either sell the tires through its salvage outlets or use the tires on company vehicles. You ask whether you can rightfully withhold these tires from the railroad company.; If Firestone releases the tires and the railroad company sell the tire or uses them on the public roads, both Firestone and the railroad company would violate an express provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.*) ('the Safety Act'). Therefore, you can rightfully withhold the tires from the railroad company.; Your letter did not indicate whether the damaged tires were tires fo passenger cars or tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. In either case, the tire manufacturer is required to certify that each tire fully complies with certain marking requirements and with specified performance requirements (resistance to bead unseating, strength, endurance, and high speed performance) of Safety Standard No. 109 in the case of passenger car tires (49 CFR S571.109) or of Safety Standard No. 119 for tires other than passenger car tires (49 CFR S571.119). This certification is made by the manufacturer by molding the letters 'DOT' into the sidewall of the tire.; As a result of the damage to this particular shipment of tires, you company has determined that this certification is no longer valid. This determination obligates Firestone to remove the 'DOT symbol from the sidewall of the tires.; Without the 'DOT' symbol, these tires would clearly not comply with th requirements of either Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 119. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). provides:; >>>No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, or offer for sale, o introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United State, any ... item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard...<<<; Firestone would violate this prohibition if it were to deliver tires t the railroad company which were not certified as complying with the appropriate safety standard. The railroad company would violate this prohibition if it sold or offered to sell uncertified tires, or if uncertified tires were used by the company on the public roads (introduction in interstate commerce). Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies penalties of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108. Section 109 specifies that the maximum civil penalty which can be imposed for a series of related violations, which this would be, is $800,000 for each violator.; You indicated that Firestone would not release the damaged tires fo use in any case, because of the potential safety hazard. I hope that this response reinforces that position. Should you need any further information on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please show this letter to the interested railroad company so that it will realize the serious nature of its contemplated actions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 8871

Mr. James Z. Peepas
Selecto-Flash, Inc.
P.O. Box 879
Orange, NJ 07051

Dear Mr. Peepas:

We have received your letter of July 9, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting interpretations of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your questions are directed towards a 48-foot container chassis, but in a telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson you have explained that a 40-foot container chassis is also involved. For simplicity's sake we shall refer to trailers of both lengths collectively as the "trailer". The gooseneck on the trailer is 8 feet long.

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108 specifies in pertinent part that the side horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered." You have asked whether the length of the gooseneck is included in the 50% computation. The answer is yes. The gooseneck is similar to a trailer tongue, and is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. From the photos you enclosed, we see that retroreflective sheeting has been applied to the gooseneck and the frame rail with approximately the same spacing between segments. If you determine that this configuration meets S5.7.1.4.2(a) without the container load in place, there would be no need to increase the amount of retroreflective sheeting on the trailer behind the gooseneck.

The same paragraph also requires that retroreflective sheeting shall be located "as close as practicable to 1.25 m. above the road surface." You enclosed a photo of a Maersk loaded chassis and note that "because of space limitations, the striping may not be 4 foot (sic) from the road surface." You have asked whether there has been a change in height allowance to compensate for space adjustments. The agency has been petitioned for reconsideration of this specification, and to allow a mounting height as low as the 15 inches originally proposed. We have not reached a determination on this point, and the height remains at 4 feet. However, if the manufacturer of a new trailer determines that something less than 4 feet is "as close as practicable to 1.25 m. above the road surface" with respect to a particular trailer design, it may certify conformance of the trailer with the mounting height requirement on that basis.

Finally, paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires that the spaces between sheeting be "distributed as evenly as practicable." In a telephone call on July 16, you informed Mr. Vinson that in some instances equal spacing may not be possible because of trailer unit numbers and other identification, and structural characteristics. As we have advised in the preceding paragraph, the requirement is modified by what is practicable under the circumstances.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:7/l9/93:OCC 8871:62992 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron interps. Std. 108; Redbook (3) 8871; ztv; U:\ncc20\interp\108\8871.ztv