ID: GF008126

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Mail Code 3C02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter of November 4, 2003, and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding applicability of certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201 "Occupant protection in interior impact," to sliding interior compartment doors. Specifically, you ask whether a sliding interior compartment door that does not project outward like a pivoting or hinged door would is subject to the requirements of S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201. In short, our answer is yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements prior to the initial sale of the vehicle.

FMVSS No. 201 establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201 specifies that doors to interior compartments must remain latched when subjected to certain forces that might be experienced in a crash. The determination of whether an interior compartment door is subject to the requirements of S5.3 is determined by both the location of the door and whether the door fits within the definition of "interior compartment door."S5.3 applies only to interior compartment doors located in the instrument panel, console, seat back or side panels adjacent to a designated seating position. We are assuming that the interior compartment in question is located in either the instrument panel, the console, the seat back or a side panel.

49 CFR 571.3(b) defines "interior compartment door" as "any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects" (emphasis added). For example, an ashtray is not normally used for storing personal effects, and therefore its cover is not considered to be an interior compartment door. [1] Similarly, the agency has also indicated that a fuse box door [2] and a cup holder door [3] are not interior compartment doors subject to the requirements of S5.3. In your phone conversation with George Feygin you indicated that the interior compartment in question is intended to store personal effects, thus making it subject to the requirements of S5.3.

The agency has never made a distinction between a sliding interior compartment doors and other, pivoting or hinged doors that project outward when opened. In your letter you assert that an open sliding compartment door does not present a potential for occupant injury because an open sliding compartment door does not project outward into the interior of the vehicle. S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201 requires that doors in the console or a side panel remain closed regardless of the method by which a manufacturer chooses to open or close them. The concern that an open door could cause occupant injury when there is a lateral or diagonal impact is not limited to a protrusion created by an open door. Rather, the concern addressed by the requirement is that a sharp or rigid surface does not expose an occupant to undue risk of injury.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.2/12/04

ID: GF008360

Mr. Jeff Thompson
Vice President
Timpte Trailer Co.
1827 Industrial Drive
David City, NE 68632

Dear Mr. Thompson:

This responds to your recent letter addressed to Richard Van Iderstine regarding installation of certain auxiliary lighting. Specifically, you ask whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, allows for installation of an auxiliary [1] three-light identification cluster between the taillamps at the lower edge of the trailer. With certain limitations, our answer is yes.

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that 3 red identification lamps must be located on the top rear of a trailer with an overall width of 80 inches or more, and as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. Identification lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J592e Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972, incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. Paragraph 2.4 of SAE J592e defines identification lamps as "lamps used in groups of three." Your letter and an attached illustration indicate that your trailer satisfies these requirements. We assume that the auxiliary three-light identification cluster would also satisfy these requirements, except for those related to the cluster being at the top of the trailer.

With respect to additional lamps, FMVSS No. 108 does not prohibit installation of auxiliary lighting equipment so long as this equipment does not "impair the effectiveness" of lighting required by the standard. Thus, the three-light identification cluster located at the bottom of the trailer would be acceptable if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required identification cluster at the top of the trailer or the required lamps located at the outer edges of the bottom of the trailer.

After studying your illustration, it appears that the auxiliary cluster would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting. It would be located several feet below the required cluster, so it would be distinct from that cluster, e.g., it would not appear to be part of a six-lamp cluster. Moreover, it would be located close to the vertical centerline of the trailer, so it would be distinct from the required lamps at the outer edges of the bottom of the trailer. In addition, drivers are used to seeing identification lamps in the same basic location on certain kinds of trailers such as flat-bed trailers.

We note that States also regulate auxiliary lighting devices in various ways.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/14/04





---

[1] We use the term "auxiliary lighting" to refer to any item of lighting equipment that is not required by the terms of FMVSS No. 108.

ID: GF008483

Robert Strassburger, Vice President
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 Eye Street, NW - Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005-6562

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This is in response to your letter dated November 2, 2004, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. Specifically, you ask about certain target points located on the seat belt mounting structure.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is in the process of responding to petitions for reconsideration of the February 27, 2004, final rule that addressed issues related to the targets located on seat belt mounting structures (see 69 FR 9217). We will address the issue raised in your letter in our response to the petitions for reconsideration.

Should you have any remaining or additional questions once the response to the petitions for reconsideration is published, please feel free to submit them to the agency. If you have further questions in the interim, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.12/30/04

ID: GF008639

Mr. Tom Lykken
President CEO
SnoBear Industries
3681 Fairway Road
Fargo, ND 58102

Dear Mr. Lykken:

This responds to an inquiry forwarded to us by Senator Byron L. Dorgan, and your subsequent e-mail communications with George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether a SnoBear ice fishing vehicle (SnoBear) that will be manufactured by your company would be classified as a "motor vehicle." As explained below, based on the information you provided us, we would not consider the SnoBear a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of our regulations.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations. Title 49 U. S. Code (U.S.C) Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

"[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

In your e-mail you stated that the SnoBear is not intended for highway use. Instead, SnoBear is intended for use on lakes, primarily for the ice fishing industry, and other limited off road use. Pictures obtained from your website ^[1] and CAD drawings youve provided indicate that the SnoBear is equipped with skies and tracks instead of tires, and therefore cannot travel on surfaces other than snow and ice.

Based on the information you provided, it is our opinion that the SnoBear is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. We have previously interpreted Section 30102(a)(6) to mean that vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles.^[2] In this instance the SnoBear is incapable of highway travel and therefore is not a motor vehicle. Because the SnoBear is not a motor vehicle, it is not subject to any of our regulations, including the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

We note that your product may fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission. Contact information for that agency is at http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/businfo.html. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency may have emissions regulations applicable to your product. Contact information for that agency is at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/comments.htm.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc: Nathan Berseth




---

[1] www.snobearindustries.com

[2] See our 09/25/87 interpretation letter to John R. Niemela of Ranger International Inc.

ID: GF008677

Mr. Bryce Pfister
Director of Operations
Collins Bus Corporation
P.O. Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946




Dear Mr. Pfister:

This is in response to your letter and subsequent e-mail regarding the placement of a tire safety information placard required by Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 110 "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less."Specifically, you ask if FMVSS No. 110 permits attaching the placard to the panel located above the drivers door in a raised roof vehicle, when the placard does not fit in the other locations specified in S4.3.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

S4.3  of FMVSS No. 110 reads, in relevant part, as follows:

"S4.3  Placard. Each vehicle, shall show the information specified in on a placard permanently affixed to the driver's side B-pillar. In each vehicle without a driver's side B-pillar and with two doors on the driver's side of the vehicle opening in opposite directions, the placard shall be affixed on the forward edge of the rear side door. If the above locations do not permit the affixing of a placard that is legible, visible and prominent, the placard shall be permanently affixed to the rear edge of the driver's side door. If this location does not permit the affixing of a placard that is legible, visible and prominent, the placard shall be affixed to the inward facing surface of the vehicle next to the driver's seating position" (emphasis added)

The photographs attached to your e-mail show a tire safety information placard that is considerably larger than the one contemplated by the agency, and used as an example in Figure 1 of the regulatory text.We note however, that a larger placard is not prohibited by FMVSS No. 110 because the Standard does not specify a particular size or a dimension for the placard. We also note that your placard would not be legible if affixed to the B-pillar, or to the rear edge of the drivers side door because it would have to bend along the edges of the door or the B-pillar.We conclude that locating the tire safety information placard on the panel above the drivers side door satisfies the requirement that the placard be affixed to the inward facing surface of the vehicle next to the drivers sitting position.In this location, the placard is clearly legible, visible and prominent.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.4/7/06

ID: GF008935

Ms. Dana Roeling
Executive Director
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
3327 W. Bearss Avenue
Tampa, FL 33618




Dear Ms. Roeling:

This is in response to your letter concerning legal responsibilities of vehicle modifiers (i.e., entities that modify motor vehicles after the first retail sale) with respect to the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask whether vehicle modifiers are obligated to replace the tire safety information placard required by S4.3, if the relevant information on the placard becomes inaccurate as a consequence of their actions. As explained below, the answer is no.

By way of background, S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less contain a placard showing certain critical tire safety information, including but not limited to, the vehicle capacity weight, the recommended inflation pressure, and the tire size designation. This information enables consumers to ascertain the cargo carrying limitations of their vehicles, and to properly inflate their tires. It also enables consumers to purchase correct size replacement tires.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

In your letter, you ask whether it would be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision if modifiers changed the vehicles such that the information of the tire placard is no longer accurate, but do not update the tire placard.

In evaluating this question, we have focused on the language of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. One of the items of safety information required by that section is identified in paragraph (d), which reads as follows:

"Tire size designation, indicated by the headings "size" or "original tire size" or "original size," and "spare tire" or "spare," for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the statement "see above" may, at the manufacturer's option replace the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word "none" must replace the tire size designation;" [Emphasis added]

Thus, the requirement for one of the critical items of safety information to be provided on the tire placard is specifically expressed in terms of the "tires installed at the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale." We also note that there is a relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard.

We observe that regardless of what changes a modifier may make to a vehicle, it does not change the size of the tires that were installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale (the information S4.3 of FMVSS 110 requires to be on the placard).Given this, and recognizing the relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard, it is our opinion that it would not be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision, with respect to S4.3 of FMVSS 110, if modifiers change the vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

We note that while our regulations do not require changes to the tire safety information placard if the changes to the vehicle occur after it is first sold for purposes other than resale, the potential inconsistency between the information on the placard and the actual vehicle could in some cases be misleading and dangerous to vehicle operators. Specifically, relying on what has become inaccurate information, vehicle operators could over-inflate or under-inflate their tires, thereby creating a safety hazard. Also, vehicle operators could overload their vehicles, which also would create a safety hazard. Finally, vehicle operators could end up purchasing incorrect replacement tires (e.g., original tire size not appropriate for aftermarket rim), erroneously relying on the placard that is no longer accurate.

In light of these concerns and consistent with previous interpretation letters concerning post-sale modifications relating to a vehicles Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (May 24, 1993, letter to Mr. John Paul Barber, Esq., and April 2, 1997, letter to Mr. James Baker), we would urge a party which modifies a used vehicle so that the tire safety information is no longer accurate to either add a new label to the vehicle which indicates the correct tire safety information or add a warning label (preferably proximate to the placard) indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate.

In your letter, you ask several questions highlighting the potential difficulties faced by vehicle modifiers attempting to ascertain accurate tire safety information, especially in situations where a vehicle has already undergone changes after the first sale. For example, the vehicle being modified could have tires that are different in size and recommended inflation pressure from those originally installed on the vehicle, and thus the information on the tire safety placard is already wrong when the vehicle arrives for modifications. As discussed in the previous paragraph, we would encourage vehicle modifiers to either affix a correct label or affix a warning indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate. In situations when the accurate tire safety information is difficult to ascertain, we encourage the latter option of a warning label.

You also ask a question regarding S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110. That section applies to vehicles altered prior to first retail sale and specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid. We caution that this interpretation applies only to modifications occurring after the first retail sale and does not concern alterers.

Finally, we note that with respect to modifications of vehicles to accommodate individuals with disabilities, 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5) requires modifiers to provide the vehicle owner with a document that indicates a reduction in the load carrying capacity of more than 100 kg (220 lb) after the modifications are completed.

If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.4/7/06

ID: GF009138

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
Associate Director, Government. Relations
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway
PO Box 1100
Brea, CA 92822-1100




Dear Mr. Bush:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, "Occupant protection in interior impact". Specifically, you ask whether side curtain air bag tethers are considered a part of the "stowed system" that is subject to reduced impact speed upper interior component performance requirements. As discussed below, the answer is yes.

By way of background, S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201 sets minimum performance requirements for upper interior components by establishing target areas that must be properly padded or otherwise have energy absorbing properties to minimize head injury in the event of a crash. Compliance with the upper interior component requirements is determined, in part, by measuring the forces experienced by the Free Motion Headform test device (FMH) when it is propelled into certain targets on the vehicle interior at the speed of 24km/h (15 mph), or in some cases, at the reduced impact speed of 19 km/h (12 mph).

Air bag systems are frequently stowed (in their un-deployed state) in the same interior areas where certain test targets are located. Targets located on or near air bag systems are subject to reduced impact speed test requirements because the agency is concerned that requiring areas over the stowed portion of an air bag (or its attachment and other hardware) to meet more stringent 15 mph impact requirement could hinder their development and use. Thus, in order to accommodate the current systems and the development of new or additional air bag systems, we determined that use of a 12 mph impact speed, in conjunction with a full-vehicle dynamic side impact pole test, would best help realize the safety benefits of air bags. In relevant part, S6.2(b)(2) of FMVSS No. 201 reads as follows:

"Targets that are over any point inside the area measured along the contour of the vehicle interior within 50 mm (2.0 inch) of the periphery of the stowed system projected perpendicularly onto the vehicle interior surface, including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers, when the dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system is not deployed, shall be impacted by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 at any speed up to and including 19 km/h (12 mph) with the system undeployed" [emphasis added]

You ask if stowed side curtain tethers are considered part of the "stowed system" under S6.2(b)(2).As used in S6.2(b)(2), "stowed system" refers to a stowed dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system. The language ofS6.2(b)(2) specifies that in determining the area subject to reduced impact speed test requirements, consideration is taken of the stowed system, including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers. Side curtain air bag tethers are a part of the stowed dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system, and they are not "covers". Therefore, they are considered in determining whether the target issubject to reduced impact speed test requirements.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.4/17/06

ID: GF009226

Mr. Siyamak Ahl
KMAK INT'L INC.
639 Maple Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90014

Dear Mr. Ahl:

This responds to your e-mail regarding requirements for brake pad importers. Specifically, you ask whether a brake pad importer must obtain DOT approval or certification. The answer is no.

Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), section 30101, et seq. (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) specifically applicable to brake pads. Instead, several FMVSSs regulate entire brake systems. Specifically, Standards No. 105, 121, 122, and 135 regulate brake systems for various types of motor vehicles. Vehicle manufactures are responsible for certifying that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSSs, including relevant brake system requirements. Accordingly, brake pad manufactures or importers are not directly responsible for any certification requirements.

We note that despite the fact that NHTSA does not directly regulate brake pads, any brake pad designed to be used on a motor vehicle is an item of motor vehicle equipment and is subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Enclosed please find an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:121
d.2/6/04

ID: GF009254

Mr. Richard Keller
Director of Business Development
Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc.
1780 Executive Drive, PO Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066




Dear Mr. Keller:

This is in response to your letter concerning legal responsibilities of vehicle modifiers (i.e., entities that modify motor vehicles after the first retail sale) with respect to the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask whether vehicle modifiers are obligated to replace the tire safety information placard required by S4.3, if the relevant information on the placard becomes inaccurate as a consequence of their actions. As explained below, the answer is no.

By way of background, S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires that vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less contain a placard showing certain critical tire safety information, including but not limited to, the vehicle capacity weight, the recommended inflation pressure, and the tire size designation. This information enables consumers to ascertain the cargo carrying limitations of their vehicles, and to properly inflate their tires. It also enables consumers to purchase correct size replacement tires.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

In your letter, you ask whether it would be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision if modifiers changed the vehicles such that the information of the tire placard is no longer accurate, but do not update the tire placard.

In evaluating this question, we have focused on the language of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. One of the items of safety information required by that section is identified in paragraph (d), which reads as follows:

"Tire size designation, indicated by the headings "size" or "original tire size" or "original size," and "spare tire" or "spare," for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the statement "see above" may, at the manufacturer's option replace the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word "none" must replace the tire size designation;" [Emphasis added]

Thus, the requirement for one of the critical items of safety information to be provided on the tire placard is specifically expressed in terms of the "tires installed at the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale." We also note that there is a relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard.

We observe that regardless of what changes a modifier may make to a vehicle, it does not change the size of the tires that were installed at the time of the first purchase for purposes other than resale (the information S4.3 of FMVSS 110 requires to be on the placard).Given this, and recognizing the relationship between a number of the items required to be specified on the tire placard, it is our opinion that it would not be a violation of the 30122 make inoperative provision, with respect to S4.3 of FMVSS 110, if modifiers change the vehicles tire size, cold inflation pressure, and/or cargo capacity rating but do not update the tire placard.

We note that while our regulations do not require changes to the tire safety information placard if the changes to the vehicle occur after it is first sold for purposes other than resale, the potential inconsistency between the information on the placard and the actual vehicle could in some cases be misleading and dangerous to vehicle operators. Specifically, relying on what has become inaccurate information, vehicle operators could over-inflate or under-inflate their tires, thereby creating a safety hazard. Also, vehicle operators could overload their vehicles, which also would create a safety hazard. Finally, vehicle operators could end up purchasing incorrect replacement tires (e.g., original tire size not appropriate for aftermarket rim), erroneously relying on the placard that is no longer accurate.

In light of these concerns and consistent with previous interpretation letters concerning post-sale modifications relating to a vehicles Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (May 24, 1993, letter to Mr. John Paul Barber, Esq., and April 2, 1997, letter to Mr. James Baker), we would urge a party which modifies a used vehicle so that the tire safety information is no longer accurate to either add a new label to the vehicle which indicates the correct tire safety information or add a warning label (preferably proximate to the placard)indicating that the tire safety information placard is no longer accurate.

I note that this interpretation applies only to modifications occurring after the first retail sale. With respect to vehicles altered prior to first retail sale, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid.

Finally, we note that with respect to modifications of vehicles to accommodate individuals with disabilities, 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5) requires modifiers to provide the vehicle owner with a document that indicates a reduction in the load carrying capacity of more than 100 kg (220 lb) after the modifications are completed.

If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood,
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Ms. Dana Roeling
Executive Director
National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association
3327 W. Bearss Avenue
Tampa, FL 33618

ref:110
d.4/7/06

ID: GF009344

Mr. Dave Adams
Market Manager Automotive, N.A.
Tesa Tape
5825 Camegie Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28209

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your December 3, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin of my staff, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). Specifically, you ask us to clarify the requirements in 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) with regard to the residual parts of a removed parts making label.

By way of background, the purpose of Part 541 is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard requires that a parts marking label, containing identifying numbers or symbols (usually the Vehicle Identification Number is used), be placed on major parts of certain passenger motor vehicles.

541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires that removal of the parts marking label must: "discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present. "(Emphasis added.) These residual parts are also known as "footprints."

In your e-mail, you indicate that you have encountered labels that leave a footprint upon removal, but that the footprint "can easily be wiped away thus providing no evidence that a label was originally present."You ask whether such an easily removable footprint satisfies the requirements of 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B). Our answer is no.

Section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires the footprint to be of a quality that will alert investigators that a label was once present. Since the vehicle would be inspected by an investigator some time after the removal of the label, the requirement envisions the footprint to have a degree of permanence. As indicated in the final rule establishing the footprint requirement, the agency thought that footprints that could not be removed with most solvents would be effective (see 50 FR 43166, at 43174; October 24, 1985). We note however, that the standard does not require that the footprint be visible under natural light (see April 8, 1994 letter to Daniel T. Mason).

In sum, unless removal of the label creates or uncovers lasting physical evidence that the label was originally present, the effectiveness of the theft prevention standard would be substantially reduced. In fact, allowing for an easily removable footprint would frustrate the very purpose of the requirement.

If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Feygin at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.2/2/05