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: 7980

Mr. Richard Horian
President, Woodleaf Corp.
1458 West 240th Street
Harbor City, CA 90710-1393

Dear Mr. Horian:

This responds to your two letters of November 6, 1992, with respect to the allowability under Federal regulations of the "Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light." As you describe it, "when a driver engages in hard braking, a circuit activates a separate lighting system to warn other drivers to pay special attention to a potentially hazardous situation."

This system will not utilize any of the existing rear lights on a vehicle, and will consist of a single lamp or pair of lamps, either mounted separately, or in the same housing as the center high-mounted stop lamp. The system will be red or amber in color, and either steady burning or flashing. The system is activated only when a predetermined threshold of pressure is reached upon depression of the brake pedal.

Supplementary lighting systems such as the one you have described are permissible as original motor vehicle equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment if they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting systems required by the standard, or if there is no provision of the standard that affects them. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 specifically prohibits the physical combination of the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device, thus your system could not be used in a common housing with the center light (see copy of enclosed letter to Mr. S. Suzuki on this subject). However, if the system is mounted separately, under the circumstances you have presented, we do not believe that there would be any direct impairment of the required rear lights, or indirect impairment such as might be created when confusion may result upon simultaneous operation of the supplementary light and any required light.

As the letter to Mr. Suzuki indicates, passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, were not required to be equipped with the center lamp. This means that your light could be combined in the same housing as a center lamp intended for installation on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1985, but it could not be part of a replacement center lamp intended for use on vehicles manufactured subsequently. In addition, with the exception just noted, installation of the system on a vehicle in use would not appear to affect the safety functioning of any safety system necessary for continued conformance of the vehicle, it would appear that your system is acceptable for sale and installation in the aftermarket as well. However, the individual States have the authority to regulate lamps for vehicles in use, and we suggest that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion as to whether the system is permissible under State laws. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosusre ref:108 d.12/7/92

ID: 7981-2

Emmett Koelsch Coaches
ATTN: Kim Welsh
926 Delaware
Longview, WA 98632

Dear Sir/Madam:

Your letter of November 5, 1992 addressed to the Department of Transportation Publications Department was forwarded to this office for response. In your letter you requested a copy of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards pertaining to school buses "and other Transit type vehicles."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), apply to all classes and categories of motor vehicles, including passenger cars, trucks, buses of all types including school buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and the like. Excluded from the definition of motor vehicles are such vehicles as farm tractors, earth-moving equipment, and other off-road vehicles. For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Also enclosed are copies of two fact sheets issued by this office entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

You did not elaborate on what was meant by "Transit type vehicles." If you were referring to intercity buses, you should contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Room 3404, this address for information on their pertinent standards and regulations. For information on intracity buses, you should contact the Federal Transit Administration, Room 9328, this address. Finally, for information regarding implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you should contact the Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.

I hope this information is helpful. If after examining this material you have more specific questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:571 d.12/10/92

ID: 7981

Emmett Koelsch Coaches
ATTN: Kim Welsh
926 Delaware
Longview, WA 98632

Dear Sir/Madam:

Your letter of November 5, 1992 addressed to the Department of Transportation Publications Department was forwarded to this office for response. In your letter you requested a copy of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards pertaining to school buses "and other Transit type vehicles."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), apply to all classes and categories of motor vehicles, including passenger cars, trucks, buses of all types including school buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and the like. Excluded from the definition of motor vehicles are such vehicles as farm tractors, earth-moving equipment, and other off-road vehicles. For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Also enclosed are copies of two fact sheets issued by this office entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

You did not elaborate on what was meant by "Transit type vehicles." If you were referring to intercity buses, you should contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Room 3404, this address for information on their pertinent standards and regulations. For information on intracity buses, you should contact the Federal Transit Administration, Room 9328, this address. Finally, for information regarding implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you should contact the Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.

I hope this information is helpful. If after examining this material you have more specific questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:571 d.12/10/92

ID: 7996

Mr. Rodney T. Nash, P. E.
Vice President Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
421 East 30th Avenue
Hutchinson, KS 67502-2493

Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your letter to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), received in this office on November 18, 1992, and your telephone conversation of November 30, 1992 with Walter Myers of this office, regarding the proper classification of an ambulance.

You indicated that Wheeled Coach Industries of Orlando, Florida, a subsidiary of Collins Industries, produces ambulances that are built on truck chassis. You stated that in the past those vehicles have been classified as trucks, but that Ford Motor Company auditors told you that they should be classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV). You said that you needed to know how to classify ambulances, observing that it appeared to you that the final stage manufacturer was free to choose between the two classifications, truck or MPV.

NHTSA has long considered ambulances to be multipurpose passenger vehicles, which are defined in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Your company's ambulances fit this definition very well: they are mounted on a truck chassis and are designed to carry ten persons or less.

As you pointed out in your letter, it is true that an ambulance may carry more weight in special equipment than it carries in patients, and it may operate half its life with no patient on board. Nevertheless, NHTSA believes that whether or not a patient is on board or how much equipment is carried, the vehicle is primarily designed for the transportation and/or care of ill or injured persons, as well as the transportation of paramedic personnel to wherever they are needed. This is in contrast to a truck which is defined also in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment". Thus, although an ambulance carries special purpose equipment, NHTSA believes that the equipment is only ancillary to the primary function of an ambulance which is the transportation of persons. Accordingly, an ambulance falls within the definition of MPV rather than truck.

I hope this will help clarify this issue for you. Should you have any further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

ref:571 d.12/30/92

ID: 8-29-02Johnsonltr

Mr. Frank Johnson
Executive Vice President
Nichirin Inc.
139 Copernicus Boulevard
Brantford, Ontario
CANADA N3P 1N4




Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter, which we received on June 3, 2002, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 106, Brake Hoses. Specifically, you ask whether stainless steel braided brake hoses must meet the striping requirements of S5.2.1, Labeling. The answer is yes, unless the hoses are either sold as part of a motor vehicle or manufactured for use only in an assembly whose end fittings prevent the hoses from being installed in a twisted orientation.

S5.2.1 requires that "[e]ach hydraulic brake hose, except hose sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opposite sides of the brake hose parallel to its longitudinal axis." 49 CFR 571.106. In addition, S5.2.1 provides that "hydraulic brake hose manufactured only for use in an assembly whose end fittings prevent its installation in a twisted orientation in either side of the vehicle, need not" meet the striping requirement. 49 CFR 571.106.

You indicate in your letter that Honda is proposing to use stainless steel braided hoses in a "new vehicle program" and you ask whether the outer mesh of these hoses needs to be striped. As indicated above, the requirements of S5.2.1 apply to all hydraulic brake hoses, not only those made of rubber. S5.2.1 does not exclude stainless steel braided brake hoses from the striping requirement. (See also May 12, 1994 letter to Mr. Jim Davis, Russell Performance Products, copy enclosed.) Accordingly, the stainless steel braided hose about which you inquire must be striped unless they meet either of S5.2.1's two exceptions.

If you supply brake hoses to Honda and the hoses are only installed on newly-manufacured vehicles, then the hoses would not need to be striped under S5.2.1. However, if Honda were to sell any of the brake hoses as replacement parts, and therefore they are not installed on a new motor vehicle, then they would need to be striped unless they are constructed in such a way or have unique features that would prevent their being installed in a twisted manner when they are put on the vehicle as replacement brake hoses.

Finally, we note that the agency has been petitioned by Parker Hannifin to update FMVSS No. 106. NHTSA granted the petition and is now evaluating the issues raised therein. If you are interested in reviewing a copy of this petition, you may access it at the following web address:
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=46189&docketid=4367

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jaqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:106
d.9/6/02

ID: 8001

Mr. Guy Mozzicato
Meridian, Inc.
140 Rye Street
South Windsor, CT 06074

Dear Mr. Mozzicato:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on November 16, 1992.

You explained to Mr. Myers that your company, Meridian, Inc., exports used tires and casings from the United States to other countries. You stated that although your company endeavors to export only good quality tires, other used tire exporters are not so quality-oriented and export defective or otherwise unserviceable tires. You further stated that as a result of such unscrupulous practices, the country of Venezuela has asked you what the requirements are for importation of used tires into the United States.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S. Code, 1381 - 1431, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act), provides at Section 1397(a)(1)(A): "No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . ." The effect of that language is to require that motor vehicle tires, whether new or used, manufactured on and after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be imported into the United States. Manufacturers must certify such compliance by molding the symbol "DOT" onto the tire sidewalls. Therefore, to be legally imported into the United States motor vehicle tires must either display the DOT symbol or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before the effective date of the applicable safety standards.

The only exception to the above requirement is that used truck tires which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are being imported for retreading prior to on-road use may be imported without displaying the DOT symbol. This exception is explained in a June 18, 1981 letter addressed to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA (copy enclosed).

The standards that apply to passenger car tires are Standard 109, New Pneumatic Tires, and Standard 110, Tire Selection and Rims, found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.109 and 571.110 respectively. The standards applicable to tires for vehicles other than passenger cars are Standard 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.119; and Standard 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.110. Other regulatory requirements pertinent to tires are Standard 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires; Standard 129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars; 49 CFR Part 569, Regrooved Tires; 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping; and 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations. For your information, I am enclosing a fact sheet prepared by this agency entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations which explains how and from where the full text of our safety standards and regulations may be obtained.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding any of these matters, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-5830.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

7NCC-20 WMyers:mar:12/2/92:OCC 8001 Ref: #109#110#119#120 U:\NCC20\INTERP\MIS\8001.WKM Coord: NEF; NRM Interps: 109; 119; Redbook (4)

ID: 8002

Mr. Wayne Malbon National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc. 1250 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D. C. 20005

Dear Mr. Malbon:

This responds to your November 17, 1992 telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office regarding a shipment of truck tire casings being imported into the United States but held up in customs because the casings do not have the DOT symbols molded onto the sidewalls. You asked for a letter from this office setting forth the requirements for the importation of truck tire casings which do not display the DOT symbol, saying that you would use such a letter to show the U. S. Customs Service (USCS)in order to secure the release of the casings.

You will find enclosed a letter from this agency to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA, dated June 18, 1981, in which we explained at length the requirements for importation of truck tire casings and the rationale behind those requirements. The information contained in that letter is still fully applicable, except that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety referred to on page 2 is now the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration. Also, the reference on page 3 to Mr. Harrison Feese of the USCS is no longer valid. Point of contact in USCS is now Mr. Gary Manes, same address, (202) 927-1133; or Mr. Jeff Laxague, same address, (202) 927-0402.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

cc: Mr. Jeff Laxague U.S. Customs Service 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W. Room 4119 Washington, D. C. 20229

ref:571#117#119 d.12/11/92

ID: 8021

Mr. David M. Hart
President
Flushsaver
5440 W. Century Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90045-5992

Dear Mr. Hart:

This responds to your letter of November 16 asking for "feedback" on your plan to market a decal called "Flashit" for installation over a center high-mounted stop lamp.

I enclose a copy of an agency letter representative of our advice to inquirers on this subject. Though this letter, to David M. Romansky, dates from September 3, 1987, it remains the agency's position today.

Should you wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators on this subject, please note that its new address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:12/10/92

ID: 8023-2

Mr. Terry Wagar
Technical Services Bureau
State of New York
Department of Motor Vehicles
Division of Vehicle Safety Services
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12228

Dear Mr. Wagar:

This responds to your letter asking about the repair of glazing in in-service motor vehicles that were originally designed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). You were specifically concerned about the safety of a repair process known as "Ultra B-O-N-D" which you explained involves injecting a liquid through a crack in a windshield. The repaired area is then exposed to a lamp, scraped with a razor blade, and cleaned. You explained that after this process is completed, the crack is "not as visible."

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, the agency has issued Standard No. 205, which establishes performance requirements for all windows (called "glazing" in the Standard) in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement windows for motor vehicles.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles and motor vehicle equipment after their first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include a provision that prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, that provision does not require those entities, in repairing a damaged vehicle, to restore it to its original level of performance.

The States do have the authority to regulate motor vehicle repairs and the condition of in-service vehicles, and this agency encourages them to take steps to ensure the safe operating condition of vehicles-in-use. (The Federal Highway Administration has in-service requirements for commercial motor vehicles used in interstate commerce.) I regret that we are unable to provide any information concerning the safety of the "Ultra B-O-N-D" process. We suggest that, in developing criteria for the condition of in-use glazing, including the permissibility of certain types of repairs, that you consider such factors as whether particular damage, even after repair, would adversely affect driver visibility, would likely become more serious during normal use (e.g., a small crack becoming a large crack), would reduce the ability of the windshield to retain unrestrained occupants in the vehicle, or would otherwise adversely affect vehicle safety. In addition, if the windshield is so extensively damaged that it cannot be repaired using the "Ultra B-O-N-D" process, and must be replaced, the new windshield should be installed in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's instructions. In the event of an accident, an improperly installed windshield may allow unrestrained occupants to be ejected from the vehicle with resulting personal injury.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205 d.1/22/93