ID: 17497.ztv

Herr Tilman Spingler
Robert Bosch GmbH
FAX 9-011-49-7121-35-1792

Dear Herr Spingler:

This is in reply to your fax of March 12, 1998, commenting on our letter to you of March 10 with respect to the visual/optical headlamp aiming provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In response to your question, our letter advised that it would not be permissible to install on new vehicles a mixed headlighting system in which a headlamp on one side of the vehicle would have a VHAD for vertical aim and on the opposite side a visually aimable headlamp. We also advised that the VHAD appeared to allow for vertical aim only and did not include a horizontal aiming feature. You comment that it was not the intent to have a headlamp with only a vertical VHAD but "to replace the vertical VHAD (bubble level) by means which allow optical/visual aim and to leave the horizontal VHAD as it is." We understand from your remark that both headlamps would have a horizontal VHAD and that one would have a vertical VHAD as well while the other would substitute for the vertical VHAD a means allowing optical/visual aim. This clarification, then, moots our previous comment.

You have also commented that "mixed installation should only be permitted in the case of replacement of a damaged headlamp as indicated in my FAX of 1/14/98," and asked whether our advice that the headlamps on both sides of a new vehicle have to be identical "really only applicable for new vehicles."

We do not seem to have received your FAX of January 14, 1998, in which you indicated that your question pertained to replacement headlamps rather than original equipment. While the prohibition against mixed headlamp aiming systems that was the subject of the March 10 interpretation applies only to new vehicles, the agency is concerned that the ability to correctly aim all headlamps on a vehicle could be lost as a result of certain mixes of replacement headlamps. Accordingly, the agency expects to propose shortly rulemaking that will address this issue.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/3/98

ID: 17501.wkm

The Honorable Paul D. Coverdell
United States Senate
100 Colony Square, Suite 300
1175 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30361

ATTN: Brice Willis

Dear Senator Coverdell:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve O. Palmer, the Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, which was referred to this agency for reply.

Your letter forwarded a letter dated January 23, 1998, from Mr. Jimmie D. Gowen, Jr., President, Big John Trailers, Folkston, GA. Mr. Gowen's letter enclosed copies of letters to The Honorable Saxby Chambliss, U. S. House of Representatives, and to Ms. Heidi Coleman, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law in this office. Mr. Gowen stated in his letter to you that his company produces self-propelled loader/crane carriers that are equipped with early model used truck air brake axles that are not designed for antilock brake system (ABS) applications as now required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. He stated that such vehicles are utilized primarily off-road in logging operations, although they are capable of being towed between job sites. He stated that being required to comply with the ABS requirements would result in his company's having to eliminate the vehicle from the company's product line. He therefore asked your assistance in bringing the matter to the attention of the proper authorities.

For your information, Mr. Gowen wrote to this agency on January 26, 1998, and submitted additional information to us on March 12, 1998. He asked whether knuckle boom loader trailers and self-propelled loader carriers that his company produces are required to comply with the ABS requirements of Standard 121. We replied that they are not subject to the ABS requirements because those particular vehicles do not meet the statutory definition of "motor vehicle."⁽¹⁾ Therefore, they need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in particular the ABS requirements of Standard 121. A copy of our response to Mr. Gowen is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref: 121#VSA
d.4/23/98

1. "'[M]otor vehicle' means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).

ID: 17506-r.wkm

Mr. Chris Cardwell
Manufacturing Engineer
McKechnie Vehicle Components
Fluid Handling Division
Post Office Box 537
Newberry, SC 27108

Dear Mr. Cardwell:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you ask for an "official ruling" as to whether the plastic tubing you produce is subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 106, Brake hoses, or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

You state that your company intends to produce plastic tubing for use in the model year 2000 Ford Escort. The tubing will be utilized as low-pressure brake fluid return lines running from the clutch to the brake fluid reservoir and from the fluid reservoir to the brake master cylinder. The fluid in these lines will not be under pressure since the reservoir is open to the atmosphere. You feel that for that reason, these tubes are not subject to Standard No. 106.

Standard No. 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to "hydraulic, air, and vacuum brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings...." The term "brake hose" is defined in pertinent part in S4 of the standard as:

[A] flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

Hoses are excepted from Standard 106 if they do not transmit or contain the brake fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. To determine whether the hoses you produce are excluded from the standard, you must determine whether a failure of your hose would result in a loss of pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, the hoses transmit or contain the pressure used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes and therefore would have to comply with the standard. (See NHTSA's August 3, 1984 letter to Eaton Corporation, copy enclosed, concerning small diameter hoses used on air brake equipped trucks.) Failure of a conduit that transmits or contains the pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes would either immediately or eventually affect the vehicle's braking performance. It is important, therefore, for such hoses to meet the performance requirements of Standard 106, to reduce the likelihood of failure in service. If you use a check valve or some other device to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the pressure and would not be required to comply with Standard 106.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:106
d.6/5/98

ID: 17513mer.b-i

Mr. Daniel J. Selke
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Selke:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about the test requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for a child restraint system you plan to sell. You believe that the system is a "built-in" child restraint system under Standard 213 and ask for confirmation that the restraint will not be tested in "misuse" configurations, i.e., installed on the testing apparatus in ways contrary to Mercedes-Benz's instructions for using the restraint. As explained below, we have carefully considered your suggested interpretation and regret that we cannot confirm it.

You describe the restraint as follows:

The system is composed of two parts; an integrated booster cushion and an add-on impact shield. The booster cushion is operated by a push-button. When activated, a portion of the rear seat of a vehicle equipped with the system raises to form the booster cushion. . . .[Daimler-Benz AG's (DBAG's)] integrated child restraint system is a progressive system designed for use with children as they grow older. The impact shield is designed for use in conjunction with the booster seat for children who weigh 9 to 18 kg (20 to 40 lbs.). The impact shield is secured directly in front of the child by the lap and shoulder belt with the "legs" of the shield stabilized by being placed on both sides of the booster cushion. Without the presence of the booster cushion, the "legs" of the impact shield would collapse making use of the shield alone unrealistic. The design of the impact shield acts to secure the child's torso and to keep the child's legs fixed. Children who weigh 18 to 36 kg. (40 to 80 lbs.) only need the booster seat and standard lap and shoulder belt to be properly secured. Children who weigh more than 36 kg (80 lbs.) may use the conventional lap and shoulder belts.

For convenience, we have depicted these recommended weight ranges and restraint configurations in the following table:

DBAG'S RECOMMENDATIONS

Your specific questions concern how NHTSA would test the restraint. You want us to confirm that when the restraint is tested in the configuration intended for children under 40 lb., the agency would test the system using both the booster and the shield with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt. You also ask us to confirm that when the restraint is tested in the configuration intended for children greater than 40 lb., the booster would be used with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt. You would like us to concur that "At no time, would testing of the system be required that involved use of the shield without the booster."

We agree with some of your statements but do not agree with others. We agree that the shield would not be tested without the booster. Standard 213 defines a "child restraint system" as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." An impact shield is designed "to restrain. . . children." The standard also defines an "add-on" child restraint system as "any portable child restraint system." A portable impact shield that is sold to consumers without any other accompanying parts would be an add-on child restraint system and, obviously, would be tested to Standard 213's requirements without any other part. Your shield, however, is merely a component of a child restraint system and is not intended to be used separately from the other parts of the restraint system. The shield cannot even support itself on its "legs" without the booster cushion. Because of these factors, we do not consider your impact shield to be an add-on child restraint system. The shield itself would not be tested to the requirements of Standard 213 without the booster.

However, there is a question of whether your restraint system (booster cushion with impact shield) is a "built-in child restraint system" under Standard 213 (S4). Configured in the mode used to restrain children under 40 lb., the restraint does not meet the standard's definition of a "built-in child restraint system."

The standard defines "built-in child restraint system" as "a child restraint system that is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle." (Emphasis added.) NHTSA has used the term "integral" in the context of Standard 213 to mean "formed as a unit with another part." See, e.g., April 29, 1980 letter to Mr. Koziatek (copy enclosed). The add-on impact shield would not be formed as a unit with the motor vehicle. Also, the add-on shield would not be "permanently installed" in the vehicle. Because of these factors, we would not consider the add-on shield to be part of the built-in child restraint system. Accordingly, we would not use the shield when testing the restraint in Standard 213 compliance tests.

This means that the booster would have to meet Standard 213's requirements when configured so as to consist of the cushion alone with the lap and shoulder belts, without the shield, and when tested with each of the appropriate test dummies specified in the standard. The standard specifies that child restraints recommended for children weighing 20 to 40 lb. are tested with a dummy representing a 3-year-old child. Because the add-on shield is not part of the built-in system, it would not be used in the compliance test using the 3-year-old dummy, notwithstanding any instructions you might provide to consumers to use the shield. Add-on, nonpermanent components can be lost or misplaced and may not be accessible when the restraint has to be used.

Standard 213 does not prohibit you from voluntarily providing add-on pieces to possibly improve the performance of your built-in restraint. However, as stated in the preceding paragraph, the restraint must provide a minimum level of safety and meet Standard 213's requirements without use of the add-on components, to ensure that the restraint will provide adequate protection in the event the add-on components are not used. Of course, if Mercedes-Benz redesigned this seat to assure that the shield was "integral" and "permanently installed," these considerations would not apply.

With respect to the restraint's configuration for older children, Standard 213 also specifies that a test dummy representing a 6-year-old child is used to test a child restraint that is recommended for children weighing 40 or more lb. Accordingly, we would also use the 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests to test the booster cushion and lap and shoulder belts. We agree with you that when the booster is tested in the configuration intended for children greater than 40 lb., the booster would be used with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt, without the shield.

There is another matter we would like to address, concerning your labeling of the restraint for children weighing as little as 20 lb. You should note that S5.5.5(f) of Standard 213 prohibits manufacturers from recommending booster seats for children less than 13.6 kilograms (30 lb.). This prohibition is based on test data that showed that the 20 lb. dummy (representing a 9-month-old child) was consistently ejected from booster seats in 30 mile per hour dynamic tests. (See final rule adding the prohibition to Standard 213, 59 Fed. Reg. 37167, July 21, 1994.) NHTSA believes children weighing approximately 20 to 30 lb. need a restraining system that provides a higher degree of upper torso and crotch restraint, such as that provided by convertible or toddler restraints, than that provided by a booster seat. Accordingly, the DBAG booster seat must not be recommended for children weighing less than 30 lb.

We would like to take this opportunity to make one last point before closing. In arguing that the DBAG booster seat should be tested only in accordance with your instructions for using the restraint, you state that Standard 213 "was not designed to sanction improper use or misuse of any child restraint system...." Standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. It does so by requiring restraints that have features that are likely to be misused to meet performance requirements when installed on the test seat assembly in the "misuse" mode. For example, because NHTSA determined that parents were not attaching the top tethers of child restraints when installing the restraints in their vehicles, Standard 213 was amended to require restraints that have tether straps to meet the standard's requirements with the tether unattached. (See S6.1.2(a)(1), requiring restraints to be secured using only a lap belt and without a tether.) Standard 213 also addresses misuse by standardizing certain aspects of child restraints, such as the manner of installation, to reduce the chance of confusion and incorrect use resulting from such confusion. We believe that the likelihood that parents will misuse a built-in system is reduced when all the components needed to restrain the child are built into the child restraint system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have other questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.8/4/98

ID: 17539.wkm

Mr. C. Thomas Terry
Director, Safety Affairs and Regulations
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Box 9010
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Terry:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Mr. John Womack of this office in which you stated that General Motors (GM) is considering the use of dual vacuum hoses between the engine manifold and the booster unit to meet the failed power-assist requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 135, Passenger car brake systems.

You stated that the hoses would be connected to the manifold at two separate locations and to two separate non-removable check valves at the booster unit. Thus, failure of one hose would not affect system performance since the other hose would continue to provide vacuum to the booster unit. The check valves would prevent loss of vacuum from the booster in the event of failure of one of the hoses. You asked our agreement that in such a system, only one hose at a time need be disconnected when conducting the failed power-assist test of Standard No. 135, specifically subparagraphs S7.11.3(g) and (h). We have carefully considered your suggested interpretation but, for the reasons discussed below, we do not agree.

Subsection S7.11.4 establishes the applicable performance requirement as follows:

The service brakes on a vehicle equipped with one or more brake power assist units or brake power units, with one such unit inoperative and depleted of all reserve capability, shall stop the vehicle as specified in S7.11.4(a) or S7.11.4(b).

(a) Stopping distance from 100 km/h test speed: 168m (551 ft).

(b) Stopping distance for reduced test speed: S0.10 + 0.0158V.

In testing for this requirement, subparagraph S7.11.3(g) provides:

Disconnect the primary source of power for one brake power assist unit or brake power unit, or one of the brake power unit or brake power assist unit subsystems if two or more subsystems are provided (emphasis added).

Subparagraph S7.11.3(h) provides:

If the brake power unit or power assist unit operates in conjunction with a backup system and the backup system is automatically activated in the event of a primary power service failure, the backup system is operative during this test.

The agency does not consider the use of hoses from the engine manifold to the booster unit as the primary source of power for the brake power-assist system. The power or medium used to operate the brake power assist system is vacuum, the primary source of which is the engine. Thus, the "primary source of power" of a vacuum-operated brake power-assist system is the engine intake manifold, which provides vacuum to the power assist unit regardless of the number of vacuum hoses used to transmit the vacuum. Loss of vacuum generated by the engine constitutes a loss of the primary power source. That is what the failed power-assist test of S7.11 seeks to replicate, that is, the standard seeks to ensure that in the event of loss of power assist, the driver will still be able to bring the vehicle to a stop in the required distance of 168 meters (551 feet) with the prescribed brake pedal force of 500 Newtons.

In this test, therefore, all hoses from the engine intake manifold to the booster unit are disconnected and the system is depleted of vacuum. The stopping tests are then conducted without reconnecting the brake power assist unit to the vacuum source. This is not to imply that the engine is turned off for this portion of the testing, but rather that the source of power, the engine manifold, is disconnected from the power assist unit. I note that with respect to S7.7, Stops with Engine Off, the difference is that residual vacuum remains in the system to be used to power the brake assist unit. For the inoperative brake power assist test, the system and any subsystems must be depleted.

A "backup" system as provided in S7.11.3(h) would be a separate electric or vacuum accumulator that would automatically activate in the event of failure of the primary power source. Thus, the dual hose system you described in your letter would not constitute a backup system. Rather, it would be no more than components of the primary power source.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/15/98
ref:105#135

ID: 17556.wkm

Mr. Enzo Bauk
Director of Engineering
Electric Vehicles International LLC
1331 Main Street
Anderson, IN 46016

Dear Mr. Bauk:

This responds to your letter of March 16, 1998 and refers to the telephone conversation of May 20, 1998 between Mr. O. L. Rand of your staff and Walter Myers of my staff. You stated that your company manufactures, among other things, electric buses and trolleys that use air-over-hydraulic (AOH) braking systems. You stated that there are currently no brake systems available that will permit you to comply with the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. You enclosed a list of twenty-five manufacturers and suppliers whom you contacted but who could not or would not provide you the required equipment except at considerable additional cost because of the small number of units involved. You stated that you believe that the ABS requirement should not apply to your vehicles "until the market offers a reliable economically viable system for small equipment manufacturers."

Standard No. 121 defines air brake systems as follows:

Air brake system means a system that uses air as a medium for transmitting pressure or force from the driver control to the service brake, including an air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem, but does not include a system that uses compressed air or vacuum only to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components (emphasis added).

The standard further defines AOH brake systems as:

Air-over-hydraulic brake subsystem means a subsystem of the air brake system that uses compressed air to transmit a force from the driver control to a hydraulic brake system to actuate the service brakes.

Thus, the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121, by their terms, apply to your AOH-equipped vehicles.

In reviewing the list of companies that you contacted for AOH brake systems equipped with ABS, we noted that all those companies are U.S. manufacturers and suppliers. As Mr. Rand and Mr. Myers discussed in their telephone conversation, AOH systems are more commonly used in Europe and Japan than they are in the U.S. Thus, you could perhaps have better luck locating suppliers in those areas that could provide the components that you need. In that connection, I refer you to an article entitled Antilock Brakes, Part II which appears in the March 2, 1998 issue of Transport Topics, commencing at page 12. A brief discussion of the effect of antilock requirements on AOH systems appears at page 16 where the author comments on techniques used by Hino Diesel Trucks engineers in Japan (copy enclosed).

Mr. Rand and Mr. Myers also discussed the provisions of 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555, TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS (copy enclosed). Mr. Taylor Vinson of this office ((202) 366-5263; fax (202) 366-3820) may be contacted for additional information on this procedure.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have other questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
d.7/9/98
ref:121

ID: 17557.drn

Mr. Harry C. Gough, P.E.
Automotive Engineering Professional Specialist
Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles
60 State Street
Wethersfield, CT 06161

Dear Mr. Gough:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217's retroreflective tape requirements for school bus rear emergency doors.

You enclose a photograph of a school bus rear exit door which shows that the retroreflective tape above the door opening is interrupted by the words "Emergency Door." Your letter states that the gap caused by the words is 16 inches (40 centimeters) long. In the retroreflective tape outlining each of the two sides of the emergency door, there also are gaps in each of the four corners that would have been formed had the two horizontal tapes and two vertical tapes met. You ask three questions, restated below, about whether gaps are permitted in the tape.

Question 1: Is there an interpretation of the language in S5.5.3 of FMVSS 217 allowing the gap retroreflective tape as heretofore described?

Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, specifies emergency exit identification requirements at S5.5. School bus emergency exit identification requirements are at S5.5.3, and state:

(a) Each school bus emergency exit ... shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit," as appropriate, in letters at least 5 centimeters high, of a color that contrasts with its background. For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the door....

 * * *

(c) Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a retroreflective tape with a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters and either red, white, or yellow in color ...

In previous NHTSA compliance tests conducted on school buses manufactured by Thomas Built Buses and by Blue Bird Body Company, the agency found gaps in the retroreflective tape similar to what you describe in your letter. NHTSA's Safety Assurance office determined in those tests that the requirements of Standard 217 were not violated. The agency determined that there was not enough space at the top of the exit to place the words "Emergency Door" and the 2.5 centimeter tape without either: (a) taping part of the upper door trim and rivets; or (b) taping over the "School Bus" designation. Both of these alternatives were deemed undesirable. Taping over trim and rivets would likely reduce the wearability of the tape, and taping over the school bus designation would reduce the clarity of the sign. Thus, the gaps were permitted.

Without knowing the exact measurements of your school bus, we cannot make a determination that placement of the tape, as you described, is acceptable. However, if the space is limited as it was on the buses that NHTSA evaluated, then interrupting the tape with the "Emergency Door" designation is an acceptable means for a manufacturer to try to meet both S5.5.3(a) and (c). You can send us the measurements of the vehicle if you wish, for us to further review the matter.

Question 2: If the gaps are allowed then how large of a percentage of a given perimeter edge would be acceptable.

In July 7, 1993 and June 8, 1994 letters to Blue Bird and Van-Con, respectively, NHTSA permitted interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges, handles and tail lights. However, NHTSA said that the tape must be able to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Also, the tape must be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter.  In these letters, NHTSA did not establish a specified "percentage" of an exit perimeter or of a side of a perimeter that must be outlined to be deemed acceptable.

In the school bus emergency door in your photograph, I note that there are gaps in the tape at the four corners where the two horizontal tapes and the two vertical tapes should meet. If there are no rivets or curved surfaces or other impediments to placement of the tape, as described in the July1993 letter to Blue Bird, tape must be applied so that the horizontal tapes and the vertical tapes meet, forming corners.

Question 3: If the size of the gap at the top edge of the rear door, as previously indicated, is interpreted as excessive then can the words "Emergency Door" be relocated to the top half of the door or alternately can a section of retroreflective tape be located immediately above the words "Emergency Door."

As noted in our answer to Question 1, it is possible that the gap is permitted, depending on the measurements of your bus. Concerning your specific question about possibly relocating the emergency door identification, NHTSA has a longstanding interpretation that the emergency door identification can be on the top half of the emergency exit door. (See, September 22, 1978, letter to Mr. Tydings, Thomas Built Buses.)

I note that in a March 16, 1995, letter to you, then-Chief Counsel Philip Recht enclosed copies of our June 8, 1994, letter to Van-Con, Inc., and March 28, 1994, and July 7, 1993, letters to Blue Bird Body Company. For your convenience, I am again enclosing copies of those letters.

I hope this information is helpful. In the future, it would help us in responding to you if you would provide a telephone number at which you can be reached. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures (4 letters)
ref:217
d.9/2/98

ID: 17563.ztv

The Honorable Jon Christensen
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2702

Dear Mr. Christensen:

Thank you for your recent letter to the Department of Transportation on behalf of your constituent, Sam M. Person of Omaha.

Mr. Person first wrote you complaining of the use of parking lamps as daytime running lamps ("DRLs"). He stated that use of parking lamps while a vehicle is in motion violates Nebraska Statute 60.622. Mr. Person then wrote you stating that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the use of turn signal lamps as DRLs, but that "on most vehicles the turn signal lamp and parking lamp are in the same housing and both display an amber lamp." He is unsure how a law enforcement officer can distinguish between the two. He has been informed that Standard No. 108 supersedes state laws.

States are permitted to enact and enforce their own motor vehicle safety standards. However, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)((1), a Federal motor vehicle safety standard will preempt any state standard covering the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard that is not identical to it. We see no conflict with Nebraska Statute 60.622. Although Standard No. 108 requires parking lamps as original equipment on passenger cars, it does not prescribe the conditions under which they are to be operated. In fact, the DRL requirements of Standard No. 108 specifically says that parking lamps may not be wired to operate as DRLs (paragraph S5.5.11(a)).

However, Standard No. 108 does permit turn signal lamps to be wired to operate as DRLs. As law enforcement officials become aware of this fact, they will be less likely to confuse a permissible turn signal DRL with a parking lamp that is not permitted to be used when a vehicle is in motion. We are not aware that use of amber turn signal lamps as DRLs has created confusion or a safety problem.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/22/98

ID: 17569.ztv

Mr. Peter Borne
SuperHero Cars Ltd.
6336 Humboldt Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423

Dear Mr. Borne:

This will confirm that we regard as a 1971 motor vehicle the Bat-Mobile you described in your letter of March 12, 1998, as follows:

This is a custom built fiberglass molded body, which has been mounted to a 1971 Chrysler New Yorker Frame. All the running gear and mechanical elements are 1971. The engine . . . has been replaced by the same 1971 Vintage Chrysler 440. This car is registered in Vancouver B.C. as a 1971 New Yorker.

You may import this vehicle pursuant to the declaration that the vehicle is 25 or more years old, which means that it does not have to be brought into conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, this exemption does not apply to those items of equipment which are the subject of certain individual Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These items are brake hoses and brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, and seat belt assemblies (if the Bat-Mobile is equipped with them). These items of equipment must conform in order to be imported. Generally, conformance with our requirements is indicated by the DOT symbol which the manufacturer has placed on the item to certify compliance.

We are unable to advise you on the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency for exceptions to the emissions regulations.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office who spoke with you on April 16 (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.5/14/98

ID: 17570.drn

Mr. Mark Recchia
Liaison Engineer
Fiat Auto R & D U.S.A.
39300 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3473

Dear Mr. Recchia:

This responds to your March 18, 1998, request for an interpretation whether a vehicle identification number (VIN) placed inside a motor vehicle passenger compartment may be divided into two lines. You explain that Maserati "uses this practice in Europe because of space restrictions, and its acceptance in the United States would facilitate the production of U.S.- version Maserati cars." Assuming the VIN meets all other requirements of 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, the answer is yes.

In Part 565, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) specifies the format, content, and physical requirements for a VIN system and its installation. General requirements for a VIN system are specified at Section 565.4 General requirements. Although NHTSA is aware only of VINs written in one line, nothing in Section 565.4(f) prohibits a VIN from being written in two lines. Since there is no prohibition against it, Maserati may write the passenger compartment VIN in two lines.

I note that in the example of the VIN you have provided, the first line of the VIN is preceded by a star, followed by the first nine digits of the VIN, then another star. The second line of the VIN begins with a star, followed by the last eight digits of the VIN, then another star. These stars would be considered "dividers" in the VIN. In a letter of November 20, 1978, to Volkswagen of America, Inc. (copy provided), NHTSA stated the following about VIN dividers:

'[d]ividers' which would appear at the beginning and the end of the VIN would not be considered part of the VIN and, therefore, would not be regulated by the standard. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the dividers are neither alphabetic nor numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN.

As stated in the letter to Volkswagen, Fiat and Maserati must ensure that any VIN dividers not be in alphabetic or numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN.

You state that the attached diagram is "from a European application." We cannot determine from your letter whether the VIN location in the diagram meets 49 CFR 565.4(f) which states that the VIN shall be readable "through the vehicle glazing under daylight lighting conditions by an observer having 20/20 vision (Snelling) whose eye-point is located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar." Before being sold in the U.S., the VIN on the passenger car must meet this and all other requirements specified in Part 565.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/15/98
ref:565