ID: 9807

Mr. Daniel T. Mason
Product Development Engineer
Avery Dennison - Automotive Division
P. O. Box 1019
Troy, MI 48099-1019

Dear Mr. Mason:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of labeling requirements under 49 CFR part 541 Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard. Your letter has been referred to my office for a reply. You asked whether a label that leaves a fluorescent "footprint" of a vehicle identification number (VIN) on a vehicle part, complies with section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) of part 541. The answer is yes.

Section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) requires that if a theft program label is removed from a vehicle part, "residual parts of the label" be left in the area of the part where the label was affixed. The residual parts, also known as "footprints," provide investigators evidence that a label was originally present. "Footprint" requirements for theft labels were discussed in the preamble to the final rule establishing 49 CFR part 541 (See 50 FR 43166, at 43174; October 24, 1985):

... this standard requires only that removal of the labels must leave residual parts of the label ... , on the part, and that these residual parts must be discernible by trained investigators. For purposes of this requirement, "discernible" does not mean that residual parts must be visible under natural light. (50 FR 43174)

In your letter, you stated that Avery Dennison's VIN marked labels have a fluorescent agent that transfers onto vehicle parts when the label is applied. If the label is removed, and the formerly labelled area is viewed under an ultraviolet light, a reproduction of the VIN is visible. If the labels, when removed, leave "residual part[s] of the label ... on the part" that is "discernible" under ultraviolet light, the Avery Dennison label would fulfill section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B).

I hope this responds to your question. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:541 d:4/8/94

ID: 9808

Mr. Gerald J. Gannon
General Motors Corporation
Legal Staff
N Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Mr. Gannon:

This responds to your letter asking whether NHTSA intended, in a recent final rule, "to require that vehicles with an automatic transmission with a 'park' provision must prevent steering after removal of the key in order to have an ignition key-operated transmission shift override device?" You stated that the final rule might be interpreted to produce that result, but argued, based on the preamble, that a more limited result was intended. You suggested that a clarifying amendment would be appropriate. We apologize for the delay in our response.

After reviewing your letter, we have concluded that the issue you raise should be addressed in rulemaking. We anticipate that a notice addressing this issue will be issued shortly.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#114 d:9/16/94

ID: 9821

Mr. Robert L. Montgomery
Safety Manager
Leprino Transportation Division
Leprino Foods
P.O. Box 17989
Denver, CO 80217-0989

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

This replies to your letter of March 9, 1994, to the Regional Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You have questions regarding the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, a regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

You have enclosed photos of two rear end treatments. In Photo #1, the conspicuity treatment is applied "on the doors at a height of 56 inches which is approximately 6 inches higher than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated." The conspicuity treatment appears to extend the full width of the vehicle. In Photo #2, the reflectorized material is located "4 inches less than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated." In this configuration, the conspicuity treatment has been relocated to a position between the rear lighting units so that it no longer extends the full width of the vehicle.

Photo #1 represents the trailer as received from the manufacturer. Photo #2 represents the modifications you wish to make to the trailer. You have asked whether the configuration depicted in Photo #2 complies with Standard No. 108.

The manufacturer of the trailer has certified its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the conspicuity treatment location requirements of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) specifies that the material be located "as close to the extreme edges as practicable." The relocation you contemplate would place the material where it is not as close to the extreme edges of the trailer as it originally was. This would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(20(A)) (the Act) prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition, however, does not apply to the vehicle owner. This means that Leprino Foods and its employees are not themselves prohibited by the Act from modifying your trailers to the configuration depicted in Photo #2. It does mean that a "manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business" cannot perform this work for you.

We surmise that your trailers are subject to the jurisdiction of the FHWA when they are operated in interstate commerce. FHWA regulations require your trailer to be equipped to conform to Standard No. 108. Thus, if you modify your trailers so that they no longer conform to the rear location requirements of Standard No. 108, you would be in violation of the regulations of that agency. This is to advise you that the FHWA has concurred in this interpretation to you.

Either mounting height location is permitted. Originally, Standard No. 108 did specify a mounting height for rear conspicuity material that was "as close as practicable to 1.25 meters above the road surface." However, the agency amended this paragraph on October 6, 1993, to adopt a height range of "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." This is the equivalent of 15 to 60 inches above the road surface. Therefore, the mounting heights of 46 and 56 inches shown in your two photos is in accordance with the revised requirement.

Finally, we note your comment that the diagram in the Federal Register "failed to consider the bumper bar area and the light assemblies that are actually on a van." The requirements that must be adhered to are found in the text of Standard No. 108; Figure 30 is meant only as a general guide as to the placement of the conspicuity material. Obviously, it cannot depict the exact rear configuration of all van trailers.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref.108#VSA d:4/14/94

ID: 9832

Mr. Michael E. Klima
Managing Engineer
Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.
2100 East Maple Road, Suite 200
Birmingham, MI 48009

Dear Mr. Klima:

This responds to your letter of March 29, 1994, to Mr. Edward Jettner of this agency concerning the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions concern the application of this standard to a pickup truck manufactured in April 1988 with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,400 pounds. You asked whether the injury criteria in S6 apply to this truck, whether a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test is required, and which sections of Standard No. 208 apply to this truck.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208. Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 1, 1976 and before September 1, 1991. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts.

According to your letter, the manufacturer installed Type 2 seat belt assemblies at the front outboard seating positions. This suggests that the manufacturer chose to comply with Option 3. Under this option, the only requirements in Standard No. 208 that those belts were required to comply with were S7.1, S7.2, and S7.3. The belts were also required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The manufacturer was not required to certify that the vehicle complied with the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208. The injury criteria in S6 of the standard are applicable only to vehicles which must comply with the dynamic testing requirements.

Standard No. 208 does not include a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test requirement. The dynamic crash test in Standard No. 208 is barrier crash test at any speed up to 30 mph. NHTSA does perform some 35 mph barrier crash tests as part of the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is a consumer information program, not a safety compliance test. NHTSA does not test every vehicle under this program. In the 1993 model year program, NHTSA tested 37 new vehicles and released results on 68 additional vehicles which had been tested previously and had not changed significantly in model year 1993.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:4/26/94

ID: 9833

Mr. Gary Klingaman
Engineer
Inter Pipe, Inc.
3807 W. Adams
Phoenix, AZ 85009-4764

Dear Mr. Klingaman:

This responds to your March 16, 1994, letter inquiring about the applicability of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to the alteration of used motor vehicles. You stated that your company manufactures water trucks and lube/fuel service trucks by adding water tanks and various other apparatus to incomplete vehicles. Your question is whether you are required to add a certification label (as required in 49 C.F.R. 571.115) even if you use a "pre-owned" (I assume you mean "used") truck chassis.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Whether Inter Pipe, Inc. would have to apply a certification label depends upon whether the vehicles your company modifies are new (that is, the vehicles have not yet been sold to the first retail purchaser) or used (vehicles that have already been sold to and used by the first retail purchaser). With respect to your company's modifications of new vehicles, your company would be a "final stage manufacturer" for the purposes of NHTSA's laws and regulations. 49 C.F.R. 568.6 requires a final stage manufacturer of a new vehicle to affix a certification label in accordance with 49 C.F.R. 567.5.

The requirements of 49 C.F.R. Parts 567-568 do not apply if you modify used vehicles. Hence, your company is not required to affix a manufacturer's label to those used vehicles you convert into water trucks or fuel/lube trucks. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly "render inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, you must be careful when adding your equipment not to degrade the truck's ability to meet the safety standards.

For your information, I have enclosed a general information sheet for manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of the relevant NHTSA regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact our office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:567 d:4/21/94

ID: 9838

The Honorable Doug Bereuter
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2701

Dear Mr. Bereuter:

Thank you for your letter concerning a rulemaking related to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle fuel systems and fuel containers. You express concern about the time it is taking to complete the rulemaking.

I fully understand your concern over this matter and want to assure you that the agency is working diligently to reach a final decision. The supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking we issued in December 1993 was an essential step toward permitting the use of CNG containers that employ new technologies. We have now reviewed the comments received on this notice and are preparing the final rule. As agency representatives explained when they met with you in December 1993, the final rule will be reviewed by the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget.

I hope this information is helpful and appreciate your patience in this matter.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Hart Acting Administrator

ref:303 d:4/12/93

ID: 9847

Mr. Mark M. McGregor
7 Highfield Drive
Sandwich, MA 02563

Dear Mr. McGregor:

This is in reply to your letter of March 31, 1994, with respect to Federal regulations that may apply to a motor vehicle rear lighting device that you have invented.

Your "Safe Driving Indicator Light", mounted on the rear of a vehicle, would emit one color ("possibly green") which would change to red when a vehicle following came too close.

To put it at its simplest, an invention such as yours is permissible under the Federal statutes and regulations of this agency as long as it does not negatively affect the performance of the lighting equipment that is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This is the Federal standard that specifies what is required as original lighting equipment on motor vehicles.

More specifically, paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits non-required lighting devices as original equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. We believe that your invention, as described, has the potentiality to impair the stop lamp system. While running lamps of the color red are permitted (e.g. taillamps), the sudden change from green to red of the lamp of your system could be misinterpreted as a signal to the car following that the car ahead is preparing to stop. However, the purpose of your lamp is not to indicate a stop but to warn the following driver that (s)he is too close.

As a warning lamp, we believe that your use of amber as a color, rather than red, would convey the desired message without impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamps. But you should consider the intensity and location of the lamps to avoid impairment of the rear turn signal lamps.

With respect to the aftermarket, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) (Section 108(a)(20(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as not forbidding activities by persons other than those named above that affect the compliance of a vehicle with the Federal safety standards. Thus, the installation of your invention emitting a red color is not precluded if the invention is intended for installation by a vehicle owner, and is not prohibited for installation by others if the warning light color is amber.

However, you must still determine whether use of the lamp is permissible under the laws of States where it will be used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest that you write for an opinion to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:4/28/94

ID: 9861

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. You asked whether footnote 4 of Table 3 of the standard applies to a motorcycle speedometer using a digital display. As explained below, the answer is no.

In your letter, you requested that information identifying your company be kept confidential. As explained in the March 25, 1994 letter to you from Heidi L. Coleman, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, when confidential treatment is claimed for material submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), our confidentiality regulation, 49 C.F.R. '512, requires the submission of a certification stating that the submitter has made a diligent inquiry to ascertain that the information submitted has not been disclosed, or otherwise made public (49 C.F.R. '512.4(e)) and other supporting information (49 C.F.R. '512.4(b)). However, in order to expedite our response to you, I will waive the requirement of the certification contained in 49 C.F.R. '512.

Under S5.2.3 of Standard No. 123, if a speedometer is provided, the item shall be identified by "wording shown in both Column 2 and Column 4" of Table 3 of the standard. Column 4 of Table 3 specifies that a speedometer shall be identified by "M.P.H." You believe your speedometer meets this requirement. However, you ask whether footnote 4 of Column 4 applies to a digital display speedometer. Footnote 4 states:

M.P.H. increase in a clockwise direction. Major graduations and numerals appear at 10 mph intervals, minor graduations at the 5 mph intervals.

The answer to your question is no. Digital displays were not common in 1972, when the footnote 4 specifications were

published. The original Standard No. 123 drafters had in mind only dial display speedometers. For these reasons, we interpret the specifications in footnote 4 of Column 4 not to apply to digital display speedometers on motorcycles that provide a reading of numeric vehicle speed.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:123 d:5/31/94

This letter contains confidential information!

ID: 9864

Mr. Ivan L. Bost
Director of Engineering
Comm-Trans
792 S. Cooper St.
Memphis, TN 38104

Dear Mr. Bost:

This responds to your letter of April 6, 1994, requesting information on the type of seat belt required at the rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds but less than 10,000 pounds. Your letter states that these vehicle have a capacity for 10 to 15 persons, including the driver.

Before explaining the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles, I would like to clarify two of the terms that I will be using. A "rear designated seating position" is any seating position to the rear of the front seat(s). An "outboard designated seating position" is a designated seating position within 12 inches of the side of the vehicle. However, the latter term does not include any designated seating position adjacent to a walkway that is located between the seat and the side of the vehicle and is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions. Thus, with respect to a passenger van having a two person bench seat behind the front seats, the latter term typically does not include the rightmost of those two positions.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208. Passenger vans with a seating capacity of 10 persons or less would be considered multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) under NHTSA's regulations. Section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position in an MPV, other than a motor home, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. A Type 1 (lap) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions. Sections S4.2.4.2 and S4.2.4.3 of Standard No. 208 allow the Type 2 seat belt assembly to have a detachable upper torso portion if the seating position can be adjusted to a direction other than forward- facing or if the seat is designed to be easily removed and replaced.

Vans with a seating capacity of more than 10 persons would be considered buses under NHTSA's regulations. Section S4.4.3.2 of

Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at each forward- facing rear outboard designated seating position in a bus, other than a school bus, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. A Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:6/8/94

ID: 9865

Mr. Richard Kreutziger
Executive Director
New York State Bus Distributors Ass'n
102 Grace Street
Penn Yan NY 14527

Dear Mr. Kreutziger:

This responds to your request of April 13, 1994, for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You reference paragraphs S5.5.7(a) and (b) which apply to vehicles of less than 80 inches overall width and ask whether there are similar requirements for wider vehicles.

Paragraph S5.5.7(a) requires that "[w]hen the parking lamps are activated, the tail lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated." There is no similar requirement for vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more because these vehicles are not required to have parking lamps (see Table I of Standard No. 108).

Paragraph S5.5.7(b) requires that "[w]hen the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the tail lamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps and side marker lamps shall also be activated." Paragraph S5.5.3 requires tail lamps on all vehicles, regardless of width, to be activated when the headlamps are activated in a steady burning state. As noted in the preceding paragraph, wide vehicles are not required to have parking lamps.

This leaves the question of license plate lamps and side marker lamps. As you have surmised, there is no specific requirement in Standard No. 108 that these lamps be simultaneously activated with the headlamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or greater. However, we understand that it is industry practice to wire its large vehicles in this manner. We also believe that those who do not wire the side marker lamps to operate with the headlamps include them in the separate switch that activates the clearance and identification lamps.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/25/94