ID: nht94-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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 res ponsibility 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 cov ers 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 contac t 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 t hat 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: nht94-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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: nht94-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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 o wner of a MY93 Dodge, with a manual transmission, he was concerned about this.

ID: nht94-2.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/22/93 from Jane L. Dawson to Walter Myers

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office in which you posed two questions regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Your first question related to the definition of "daylight opening" found in the final rule amending FMVSS 217, dated November 2, 1992, (57 FR 49413) (hereinafter Final Rule). Specifically, you asked "(w)hat constitutes an obstruction and how close to t he door does an object have to be in order to be considered an obstruction?"

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or obje ct that would block, obscure or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the o pening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. I have enclosed a copy of a March 24, 1994 letter to Mr. Bob Carve r of Wayne Wheeled Vehicles which provides an example of how the amount of area to be credited was determined for a specific design.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993, (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

In your second question you referred to the current provisions of S5.2.3.1(b), FMVSS 217, which provides that a left-side emergency door must be located in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. You then asked whether that requirement was chang ed in the Final Rule. The answer is yes.

Section S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217, as amended in the Final Rule, provides manufacturers two options for the provision of school bus emergency exits, S5.2.3.1(a) (Option A) and S5.2.3.1(b) (Option B). Option A requires a rear emergency door. If additional e mergency exit area is required, the first additional emergency exit must be a left side door located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. Option B requires a left-side emergency door and a pushout rear window, but does no t designate a specific location for them. Thus, the amended standard does not specify a location for a left-side emergency door installed for Option B, the equivalent of current S5.3.3.2(b).

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Walter myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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 re duced 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 ligh ts 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 fr om 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: nht94-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Gianfranco Venturelli -- Director General, Automobile Lamborghini

TO: Christopher A Hart -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

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 t he 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 Lt d., 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 streng th 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 re quirements. 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 differe nt 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 requiremen ts 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 Nati onal 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 com plying 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 chang es 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 vo lume 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, 199 4, 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 sta ndard 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: nht94-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

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 includ ed 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 ot her 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: nht94-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/21/93 From Michael Love To Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-8259)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 101; Controls and displays and No. 102; Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. I apologize for the d elay in our response. You asked about the standards in connection with three options your company is considering for changing its "Tiptronic" automatic transmission system.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure th at its vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The current Tiptronic automatic transmission system can be described as follows:

The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventiona l automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 1. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift lever can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The ri ght slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping the shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the "M" position aft er being tapped.

2

There are two gear position displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel. The middle console display, which is not illuminated, shows each of the 10 positions where the shift lever may be placed. It also shows the position which is selected. The display on the instrument panel, which is illuminated, has two columns which correspond to the slots on the middle console. However, while the left column (corresponding to the left slot or automatic function) shows the positions P R N D 3 2 1, the right column (corresponding to the right slot or manual function) shows the positions 4 3 2 1. In other words, the right column portion of the display shows the available gears and the actual gear selected rather than + M -. For bot h columns, the selected position or gear is indicated by an illuminated arrow.

In your letter to NHTSA, you indicate that Porsche is considering the following three options for modifying its system:

Option 1. The first proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot.

Option 2a. The second proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot and the + and - positions on the right (manual) slot. Gear selection in the manual mode would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel.

Option 2b) The third proposed modification would provide only one slot with the following positions (in order): P R N D M D. In the M position, gear selection would be accomplished by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel.

For each of the proposed modifications, the shift lever positions would be labeled on the middle console, in the same manner as the current system. Similarly, the middle console would not be illuminated. The instrument panel display would not change for any of the options.

You ask a number of questions concerning whether the Tiptronic system, as modified under options 1, 2a and 2b, would comply with Standards No. 101 and 102. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 which are relevant to your questions. Section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102 states:

Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position,

3

identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist:

(a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted.

(b) The transmission is not in park.

S3.1.4.4 states:

Effective September 23, 1991, all of the information required to be displayed by S3.1.4.1 or S3.1.4.2 shall be displayed in view of the driver in a single location. At the option of the manufacturer, redundant displays providing some or all of the infor mation may be provided.

Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position indicators. Section S5.1 requires that gear position display must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S5.3.1 an d Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102. In a April 2, 1989 letter to Porsche concerning the Tiptronic system, we concluded that, given the reference in Standard No. 101 to Standard No. 102, where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. 102 and the others do not, the requirements of Standard No. 101 must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. 102.

With this background in mind, I will discuss the existing Tiptronic system and the three possible modifications. For the reasons discussed above and in our April 2, 1989 letter, while multiple gear position displays are permitted, one such display must comply with all of the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. Since your console display is not illuminated, it would obviously not comply with Standard No. 101. I will therefore address your letter in the context of whether the instru ment panel display meets the requirements of the two standards. I assume that the instrument panel is activated during the times specified by Standard No. 102.

Under section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102, there must be a display of all of the shift lever positions in relation to each other, and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. In our April 2, 1989 letter, we stated that your design has the following ten shift lever

4

positions: P R N D 3 2 1 + M -. We noted that the right column of the alternative instrument panel displays identified in your letter showed either 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1 instead of + M -. We concluded that if the instrument panel display was to be used to meet the requirements of Standard No. 102, it would be necessary for the display to show the 10 actual shift lever positions, including + M -.

Porsche evidently did not follow the opinion provided in that letter, since Porsche neither provided illumination for the console display nor showed the 10 actual shift lever positions, identified in our letter, on the instrument panel display. While we do not understand the reason for this decision by Porsche, we believe that one could reasonably argue that the + and - locations are not really shift lever "positions," since the shift lever cannot be left in those locations. Under this view, + M - cou ld be seen as "one" shift lever position, which is represented on the instrument panel by 4 3 2 1. We would accept this as an alternative way of characterizing the current Tiptronic system, and are therefore not aware of any compliance problems.

I will now turn to the three possible modifications. Once again, since the non-illuminated console display would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, the relevant question is whether the instrument panel display meets the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. A common problem for all three options would be that the instrument panel display retained from the original Tiptronic system would not correspond to the shift lever positions of the modified designs. This could be co rrected for options 1 and 2a simply by deleting the 3 2 1 portion of the left column. A more complicated correction would be needed for option 2a, since the display would need to show the following positions in relation to each other: P R N D M D.

I have several other comments on your letter. You stated that for all three options, Porsche believes that it is not necessary to have the shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1, or to necessarily display those positions if selected automatically in the D pos ition, as long as they as displayed when selected manually by use of the shift lever (in option 1) or shift rocker switch(es) (in options 2a and 2b). Porsche is correct that it is unnecessary to provide shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1. Moreover, to th e extent that such shift lever positions are not provided but the gears are instead selected automatically in the D position or manually in the M position by tapping the shift lever or shift rocker switch, it is unnecessary to display the gears.

You also stated the following:

5

Porsche believes that under options 2a and 2b, both the shift lever and the shift rocker switch(es) would be considered as "shift levers" during the period when they are capable of changing the transmission position. The "shift lever position" would the n be defined as the transmission position, or mode of operation, that was selected by manipulation of any combination of "shift levers." It follows then that identification of "shift lever position" would entail identifying the distinct transmission oper ating modes, in relation to each other and the specific mode selected. . . .

For options 2a and 2b, Porsche believes it is not necessary to illuminate the shift rocker switches, just as it is not necessary to illuminate the shift lever, under the provisions of FMVSS 101, as long as the display in the speedometer showing transmiss ion position is illuminated.

We would not view the shift rocker switch(es) as shift levers under any circumstances. Instead, for the vehicle designs at issue, the lever provided on the middle console would be the only shift lever. When the shift lever is in the "M" position, the s hift rocker switch(es) simply permit manual shifting that is akin to the automatic shifting that occurs when the shift lever is in the "D" position. The rocker switch(es) could not be used to shift the transmission to P, R or N. Under these circumstanc es, we view the rocker switch(es) as a control which is auxiliary to the shift lever and unregulated by Standard No. 102. I note that we might take a different position if the rocker switch(es) permitted the transmission to be shifted to P, R or N, sinc e Standard No. 102 includes requirements to prevent shifting errors. I also note that Standard No. 101 does not require transmission shift levers or controls which are auxiliary to shift levers to be illuminated.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager Vehicle Regulations, Voirswagen of America, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Confirmation of Interpretation Relating to 49 CFR Parts 541 & 543, Theft Prevention Standard

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/94 from John Womack to Dietmar R. Haeochen (A42; Part 543; Part 541

TEXT: This is to request an interpretation relative to the parts marking requirements for replacement parts on a vehicle which has been granted an exemption from parts marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.

By letter dated May 7, 1993, NHTSA granted an exemption for the 1995 model year Volkswagen Corrado from the parts marking requirements based on a petition for exemption filed by Volkswagen on September 29, 1992. The Volkswagen Corrado was parts marked f or the model years 1990 to 1994.

In an interpretation letter of October 12, 1989 to Saab-Scania of America, Inc., NHTSA stated that after a carline has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, the replacement parts for that carline no longer need to be marked even if the replacement parts can also be used on prior model years during which the particular carline was parts marked and not exempt under Part 543.

Volkswagen has just determined that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for the 1995 model year and as such, Volkswagen will not be selling vehicles covered under the exemption granted in the letter of May 7, 1993.

Our question is whether in line with the interpretation to Saab the marking of replacement parts for the Volkswagen Corrado carline can be terminated based on the exemption granted for the 1995 model year, even if the replacement parts can be used for ea rlier model years and even though the 1995 model year Corrado will not be sold in the United States (although it will be available in Europe).

4

Because we would like to take advantage of the cost savings from the termination of parts marking as soon as possible, your earliest possible response to the issue will be appreciated.

As an additional question with regard to replacement parts anti-theft marking, Volkswagen would like to know whether replacement parts marking can ever be terminated on carlines that were parts marked while they were in production, but which have been ou t of production for more than five years and which are therefore statistically low theft. The particular example Volkswagen has in mind is the Audi 5000 carline which was produced through the 1988 model year as a parts marked vehicle.

Thank you for your consideration of the issues in this letter.

ID: nht94-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: Larson, Victor -- P.E., Cryenco, Inc.

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: Conspicuity Striping Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/14/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To Victor Larson (A42; STD. 108)

TEXT: Cryenco is a manufacturer of cryogenic tank trailers. Our trailers are cylindrical in shape and in most cases, have no side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road, except at the center of the tank (at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions ). This is at a height of approximately 90" above the ground. Additional structures would have to be added to the sides of the trailer to provide lower mounting surfaces that are at the 1.25m height. In our interpretation of the rule, which is based o n phone calls with NHTSA and 3M striping performance specifications, the side striping 1.) Can legally be placed at a height of 90" above the ground, if that is the only available vertical mounting area, and 2.) it is not necessary to add additional stru cture for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface for the side striping. Please advise if this interpretation is correct.

Additional limited side mounting areas are sometimes available. For instance, some cryogenic transports have a rear cabinet that is approximately 4' long. Some also have a midship undermounted cabinet. These locations provide limited lower areas for si de striping to amount to, approximately 4' to 6' length each, that could be used for striping location. However, if striping is mounted to these surfaces and to the remaining areas above, (on the tank at the 3:00 and 9:00 positions and 90" height), the result is a fragmented, non-aligned striping pattern that is not visually pleasing, and which Customers object to. Since transporters are highly interested in visual impact they sometimes find this pattern unacceptable. Would compliance be satisfied if the side striping was placed only at the higher (90" above the ground) location, where the predominant available vertical mounting surface is found?

Requests to mount the side striping lower on the tank, to better fit-in with their graphics, have been received. In one instance, if this were done, the side striping would be rolled down from the 3:00 and 9:00 positions to about the 4:30 and 7:30 posit ions. This would place the side striping on an area of the tank that angles downward approximately 30 degrees. The striping manufacturers do not certify to meet the reflectivity requirements at compound angles exceeding 15 degrees down, combined with t he horizontal angles indicated in the rule. The general feeling among transporters and striping suppliers is that the rule is not definitive about the angular orientation of the striping, i.e. that there is no need to have the striping mounted on a surf ace that is perpendicular to the road. Please verify what the requirement is relative to orientation of the striping for conspicuity.