ID: aiam4202

Dear Mr. Maraney: This responds to your telephone inquiry about whether our regulation would prohibit the installation of a right hand drive steering system in a motor vehicle. We do not have any standards that prohibit the use of a right hand drive steering system. We have, however, issued two safety standards (Standard Nos. 203 and 204) that set performance requirements which apply to any steering system, whether left or right hand drive, installed in new passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A copy of each of these standards is enclosed.; You also asked about the agency's regulations on the importation o motor vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of a publication, 'Instructions Handbook for Complying with Regulations on Imported Vehicles,' which will provide you with information about our importation regulations.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0197

Dear Mr. Belier:#This is in reply to your letter, dated November 11 1969, in which you seek an interpretation as to how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) 103 and 104 are applicable to cars equipped with right-hand drive or a central steering wheel.#For motor vehicles equipped with right-hand drive, the windshield areas to be defrosted and wiped by FMVSSs 103 and 104 respectively, are mirror images of those areas required for vehicles equipped with left-hand drive.#More information is required before a reply can be given on vehicles equipped with a central steering wheel. Defrosting and wiping areas requirements would naturally vary depending on the number and location of the front seat passenger seating positions in the vehicle equipped with a central steering wheel.#We trust that we have been of assistance to you.#Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director;

ID: aiam0597

Dear Mr. Nolte: This is in reply to your letter of January 4, 1973, concerning th applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to passenger cars with railway guide wheels manufactured by your company.; You indicate that the guide wheels are installed on a passenger car b removing the bumpers, installing the wheels, and reinstalling the bumper shock absorbers with a new bumper of your own design. This operation is considered to be a manufacturing operation, for purposes of our regulations. If Fairmont installs the wheels on a new vehicle, then sells the vehicle to a customer, the vehicle will have to conform to the applicable safety standards. If, however, Fairmont installs the wheels on a completed vehicle that is owned by the customer, or if it sells the wheel assemblies for installation by a customer, the vehicle will not be required to conform.; The safety standard applicable to passenger car bumpers is Standard No 215. I have enclosed a copy for your reference.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 14248.ztv

Mr. Marcin A. Gorzkowski, P. Eng.
Compliance Engineer,
Motor Vehicle Safety Enforcement
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation
Transport Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5

Dear Mr. Gorzkowski:

We have received your letter of February 13, 1997, expressing concern that the intended functions of certain motor vehicle lamps and reflectors are not being met by manufacturers. You are specifically concerned about "separation of turn signal lamps/hazard warning lamps, separation of reflex reflectors, and the installation of reflex reflectors or hazard warning lamps on movable parts of the vehicle."

With respect to spacing of lamps and reflectors, you believe that "[t]here seems to be a need for introduction of [an] acceptable range of distances from the edge of the vehicle where the reflex reflectors and turn signal lamps/hazard warning lamps should be located. This range may be expressed either by an actual measurement or by a percentage related to the width of the vehicle."

As you recognize, this suggestion would have to be implemented through rulemaking. Both Federal and Candadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 108 specify that turn signal/hazard warning lamps and rear reflex reflectors be located "as far apart as practicable." However, in point of fact, both standards specify that all front and rear lighting equipment required to be provided in pairs must be located "as far apart as practicable."

Literal compliance with this requirement could mean that lamps and reflectors would have to be stacked vertically at the extreme edges of a vehicle. But we have never sought to enforce the location requirements of Standard No. 108 in that manner.

We generally rely on the good faith of a manufacturer in determining that the location of any particular pair of lamps and reflectors is "as far apart as practicable." The manufacturer's certification of compliance of the vehicle represents, in part, its certification that its lamps and reflectors are located "as far apart as practicable." NHTSA has repeatedly stated in its interpretations that it will accept the manufacturer's certification unless that determination appears clearly erroneous. For example, where there is room on a truck or trailer rear header for identification lamps and these lamps are placed at bumper level, NHTSA will question the lower location and try to persuade the manufacturer to relocate them. Both Transport Canada and NHTSA have alerted Ford Motor Company to their concern that the front turn signal lamps on the 1996-97 Mercury Sable passenger cars are not as "far apart as practicable" because they are spaced farther apart on the similar companion car, the 1996-97 Ford Taurus. We agree with you that the Mercury design does not fulfill the intent of a turn signal spacing requirement.

The question, then, is whether it is appropriate for NHTSA to develop a more objective regulation on lamp spacing. The gathering of accident data is not sufficiently discriminant to ascribe causation of crashes involving passenger cars to lateral spacing of their lamps or reflectors. Thus, a logical rationale would have to be developed in support of a more explicit regulation for the horizontal spacing of lamps and reflectors, if NHTSA decides that the requirement of "as far apart as practicable" is inadequate regulatory language..

Your second concern is the location of certain lamps and reflectors on trunk lids. You cite NHTSA's interpretations that compliance is judged with the vehicle in its normal operating configuration (i.e., with doors, trunk lids, cargo hatches, etc. closed), and present situations in which lamps and reflectors mounted on the deck lid will not be seen when the lid is open.

As I recall, we have advised over the years that lamps such as stop and turn signals should not be placed on trunk lids, and that, if a two-compartment lamp is placed both on the trunk lid and the adjacent rear sheet metal, the lamp located on the sheet metal should alone comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108. My review of the standard shows that S5.3.1 requires lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment to be "securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair." We will consider whether sufficient safety justification exists for proposing that no lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment be located on a trunk lid, door, panel, or other movable body part unless the regulated item complies with Standard No. 108 with the trunk lid, etc. in its fully open position, or unless an alternative fully-complying item is provided on the movable part.

As you recognize, any changes to respond to your concerns and the inconsistencies between interpretations of the U.S. and Canadian lighting standards would have to be implemented through rulemaking. NHTSA will carefully consider your suggestions and take the appropriate actions. We will coordinate any proposed regulatory changes with Transport Canada to ensure that any changes are harmonized by both countries. Harmonization with international standards is a stated policy of the United States.

Thank you for bringing these matters to our attention. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
5/6/97

ID: 7968

Mr. Mike Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
P. O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your request that NHTSA determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the Porsche 911 car line constitutes a de minimis change to the device. The change is proposed to be made on only one model in the 911 line and to be effective beginning with the 1994 model year (MY). As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device is not a de minimis change.

As you are aware, in a Federal Register notice of June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23727), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device, to be placed as standard equipment on the MY 1990 Porsche 911 car line, was likely to be as effective as parts marking. Subsequently, by letter dated May 31, 1990, the agency concluded that proposed changes to the antitheft device in the MY 1991 Porsche 911 car line were de minimis changes. The primary change for the 1991 model year was that the interior light control units were to be integrated with the alarm control unit and central locking system. The latter two components were already integrated.

For the following reasons, NHTSA concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device for the 1994 model year is not de minimis. In reaching this conclusion, we looked primarily at the anti-theft system on which the exemption was originally based. Under the original system, locking one door would automatically lock all doors, as well as arm the alarm system. Under the proposed change, locking one door with the key would no longer automatically lock all doors, but would still arm the alarm system.

This is not an insignificant change like the substitution of new components for old components, each serving the same function. Nor does the change involve adding a feature making an exempted antitheft device even more effective. The change in question lessens the likelihood that all doors of a car will be locked, thus easing a thief's access to the passenger compartment. A thief may easily open the unlocked door, providing an opportunity to attempt to shut off the alarm system (since both the alarm control unit and the power lines from the battery to the alarm system are inside the vehicle) and to circumvent the engine disabling system. If the thief successfully overcomes these systems, theft of the entire vehicle or its parts is facilitated.

Once inside the vehicle, a thief may open the hood by a release in the vehicle interior, thereby gaining access to the storage space under the hood. Since the battery for the Porsche 911 is also located in the front hood compartment of the vehicle, access to the battery also makes it easier for a thief to attempt to shut off the alarm system and engine disabling system, again facilitating theft of the entire vehicle or its parts.

Because the same aspects of performance (i.e., the central door locking system that automatically locked all doors, making access to the vehicle interior and hood release more difficult), are not provided in the proposed device, resulting in the possibility of the vehicle's increased vulnerability to being stolen in whole, or to have its parts stolen, this agency concludes that Porsche's proposed modification to the antitheft device in one model in the MY 1994 911 car line is not a de minimis change.

If Porsche wishes to place its proposed antitheft device on the 911 car line, it must formally file a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for a modification must provide the same information for the modified device as is required under 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all cars in the line for which an exemption is sought.

Since the modification planned by Porsche would result in one model within the car line lacking a feature found on the anti- theft systems of other models, the agency would determine in the following manner whether the car line continued to merit exemption. It would regard the system of the one model as the system of the car line as a whole and assess whether that system would be as effective in preventing theft as parts marking. The additional feature on the other models within the car line, i.e., the central locking system, would be regarded as an addition to the standard equipment system and would not have any bearing upon the exemptability of the car line. NHTSA notes that this same approach would not be taken if the system to be installed on a single model within a car line could not be regarded as a stripped down version of the system on the other models. In that case, there would be no standard equipment version of the system and the car line would not be eligible for an exemption.

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Barbara A. Gray, Chief, Motor Vehicle Theft Division, Office of Market Incentives, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA, at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-1740.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:543 d.12/1/92

ID: 21411

Mr. Eduardo A. Favela
P.O. Box 19995
Denver, CO 80219





Dear Mr. Favela:

This responds to your March 15, 2000, letter concerning a product that you have developed, called Seatlock. You ask whether the Seatlock is subject to any Federal standards or safety guidelines, and also ask if we have any safety concerns about the product.

You describe the Seatlock in a letter and in diagrams available on a web page. According to your letter and the information on your web page, the Seatlock is a device designed for use with child restraint systems, to reduce any slack left in the lap and shoulder belt used to secure the child seat in the vehicle. The Seatlock consists of a ratchet locking mechanism attached to a metal fork which slides over the webbing of the existing seat belt. Once the child seat is secured in the vehicle and the seat belt is fastened, the ratchet on the Seatlock is turned so that the belt webbing winds around the Seatlock's metal fork. As the ratchet mechanism allow the fork to turn in only one direction, the operation of the Seatlock tightens the seat belt and removes any slack. A release mechanism incorporated into the device can be used to release the tension on the seat belt so that the Seatlock can be removed. You state that the Seatlock does not interfere with the normal operation of the seat belt.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the Seatlock. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a supplemental belt that is used with a child safety seat. NHTSA also does not consider the Seatlock to be a seat belt assembly subject to Standard 209, as it is a supplemental accessory to the existing seat belt assembly and not intended to be used alone.

While no standard applies to the Seatlock, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. '30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

One concern we have relates to the additional stress that the operation of the Seatlock may place on other seat belt components, including the retractor and buckle mechanisms. While these components are required to withstand the high momentary forces that result in a crash, we note that the Seatlock, unless designed to limit the loads that can be applied by the user, has the potential to place a sustained load on the seat belt system that would be greater than that experienced in normal use. This sustained load, if maintained over a long period of time, could negatively impact the performance of the vehicle belt system. In addition, when the Seatlock is in place, it may generate sufficient tension on the seat belt buckle release mechanism to interfere with the normal operation of the buckle. This could make the child seat more difficult to remove in an emergency situation.

For your information, passenger vehicles manufactured since September 1, 1995, are required to have a locking mechanism for the lap belt or lap belt portion of lap and shoulder belts, to enable them to be capable of being used to tightly secure child safety seats without the necessity of the users attaching any device to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. In addition, under a final rule issued by the agency in March 1999, vehicle manufacturers are required, beginning on September 1, 2000, to equip a percentage of the cars they produce with a uniform child restraint attachment. This uniform child restraint attachment, when used with a compatible child seat, eliminates the need to secure a compatible child restraint with a seat belt. Instead, the child restraint itself will engage the restraint attachment and latch directly to the structure of the vehicle. Under this final rule, all passenger cars and light trucks manufactured after September 1, 2002, will be required to have the uniform attachments.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Otto Matheke or Ms. Deirdre Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.10/17/00

ID: 3080o

Raymond M. Momboisse, Esq.
General Counsel
Immigration and Naturalization Service
U.S. Department of Justice
425 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20536

Dear Mr. Momboisse:

Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver "exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchased directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation."

This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured for, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for your request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, the Border Patrol will save $5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs.

This agency has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by l5 U.S.C. 139l(3). If a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicability of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 57l.7(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be "motor vehicles" required to comply with the standards.

Under l5 U.S.C. 1391(3), a "motor vehicle" is "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways...." The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibikes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public roads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads.

You have informed us that the Hummer will "generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas." However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to consider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a "motor vehicle." However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operations and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original military specifications.

Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that one of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has become of paramount importance in the "war against drugs." In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-l4 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United States, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a component of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufactures and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#101#571 d:l0/l8/88

ID: nht91-6.27

DATE: October 16, 1991

FROM: S. Suzuki -- Managing Director, Suzusho Trading Co.

TO: Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, NHTSA

TITLE: Ref. No. ST-9015/91

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/31/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to S. Suzuki (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

RE: NEW TYPE OF HIGH-MOUNTED STOP & FLASHER LAMPS.

We have already learned the Merit of High Mounted Stop Lamp, therefore, the late models are coming with it from the factory, then we improved this High-Mounted Stop Lamp which is attached Flasher Lamps to give driver's informations to behind drivers quickly.

We introduced our High-Mounted Stop & Flahser Lamps to CHRYSLER CORPORATION then, Mr. Michael M. Fischer introduced us to contact to you about rear lighting because rear lighting on highway vehicles is regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards administered by NHTSA.

We made some hand-made samples and did the market research, then we could have so much requests to introduce. Everybody said that it was simple but it will convey driver's informations to behind drivers and help us not to be involved crash.

RE: MERITS FOR HIGH-MOUNTED STOP & FLASHER LAMPS

1). If drivers use it and stepped on brake pedal, the Normal Brake Lamps and High-Mounted Stop Lamp will be put on, in case, the behind driver's eye will watch High-Mounted Stop Lamp more than Normal Brake Lamps becuase it is on the eye-line. Therefore, the Flasher Lamps should be together with Stop Lamp not to make any delayed. 2). If we use our High-Mounted Stop & Flasher Lamp, the Normal Stop and Flasher Lamps will work normaly which means working together with. It will work as assistant Flasher Lamps. 3). From this reason, if drivers use our High-Mounted Stop & Flasher lamps, they can see Flasher Lamps easily without moving their eyes from High-Mounted Stop Lamp to the Normal Flasher Lamp. Our "Safety Shot" will give driver's informations of STOPPING and CHANINGING LANE/DIRECTIONS to behind drivers quickly not to be involved crashes. 4). The Snow countries, a lot of snow on the roof, bonnet, trunk etc., and snow melted roads, the rear side of cars should be dirty and it will be difficult to see. All drivers will remove snow on the Front/Rear and both side of Glasses to see before they start driving. In case, if drivers use our "SAFETY SHOT" High-Mounted Stop & Flasher lamps, behind drivers will be able to see it easily and we will be able to avoid crashes etc.,

5). There is a lot of clouds of spray when we drive high speed on the Highway in the rain day, in case this clouds of spray will disturb Normal Stop and Flasher Lamps, however, the Center of Rear Glass scheild should be the ravine from the both side clouds of spray and we can see

High-Mounted Stop Lamp well, therefore, we should put Flasher Lamps together with Stop Lamp.

We think that it will be important very much to save drivers if we had an accident such as Airbag System, Door Side Beem etc., but if we can have somethings not to cause accidents or to avoid accidents, it will be much valuable for drivers. Drivers will not hesitate to pay extra expenses to save themselves but they expect these devices are not expensive.

We need High-Mounted Stop Lamp on the busy Highway. If the highway is very empty, we do not need it at all. All big cities in the world, many cars are on the road, therefore, all drivers would like to know the former driver's informations, STOPPING, CHANGING DIRECTIONS, etc., and if we can know tow or three former driver's informations, we can change our lane soon and we can avoid the trafic jam, too.

Of course, there are many differnt countries and different way of thinking and different people, therefore, everybody will not agree the above suggestions, however, if we have to reply which is more safety, to use our High-Mounted Stop & Flasher Lamp or not to use it. In case, everybody will reply, it will be more safety if the "SAFETY SHOT" is built-in rear window.

We are pleased to enclose our hand-made samples (pictures) for your study as under:

* " Safety SHOT - Type I" : L.E.D. Use.

* " Safety SHOT - Type II" : L.E.D. Use.

* " Safety SHOT - Type III" : General Electric Bulb Use.

We will produce goods and introduce them in our domestic market, therefore, is it possible to use it in the U.S.A. or not.

We are much appreciated if we can received your comments on this matters.

Thanking you for your best co-operations and looking forward to hearing from you soon, we remain, yours very truly.

ID: aiam1111

Dear Mr. Barclift: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1973, concerning th acceptability of the State of Washington title application form as a means of conforming to the Federal odometer disclosure requirements in new car transactions.; Although we are not anxious to increase the paper work burden in ne car transactions, without good reason, there have been indications of a variety of misleading practices involving new cars and we drafted the requirements to place new car transactions, with one exception, on the same footing as used car transactions. We would therefore urge that a full statement be given to new car purchasers, or at the least, that a statement containing the balance of the information required by section 580.4 be appended to the application form.; The exception is the transfer between dealers of a new car prior to it first sale to a customer. Your letter indicates that you may have overlooked this exception, which is found in section 580.5(b).; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1078

Dear Mr. Davis: This is in reply to your letter which we received April 5, 1973, whic asks if you, as a dealer of tires, may register all new and retreaded tires sold to first purchasers on a single form and send that form to a tire registry service.; Under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CF Part 574) dealers selling cars to first purchasers must record the sale and forward the required information to the manufacturer or his designee. Therefore, you can only record all the tire sales from various manufacturers and retreaders on a registry service form if that registry service is the designee of all of the manufacturers and retreaders whose tires you sell.; For your information we have enclosed a copy of the Tire Identificatio and Record Keeping regulation (Notice No. 5) and a copy of an interpretation of the regulation dealing with the question of manufacturers' designees (Notice No. 10).; Thank you for your interest in auto safety. Sincerely, David Schmeltzer, Assistant Chief Counsel