ID: 1984-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David W. Allen; NHTSA

TO: Morton; Lewis; King & Krieg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Charles B. Lewis Esq. Morton, Lewis King & Krieg P.O. Box 2425 Knoxville, TN 37901

Dear Mr. Lewis:

This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1984, asking for an interpretation of 49 C.F.R. 571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S4.6 in pertinent part requires that headlamps when activated shall be steady-burning. You present the situation of a Honda motorcycle which has a headlamp that is illuminated when the engine is running "or while the motorcycle is otherwise moving while in gear." Allegedly, the engine stopped running for awhile and during the period of time the clutch was disengaged, there was no headlight and a collision ensued. Your consultant states that "the engine has to be turning for the headlight to burn and such a system does not comply with the 'steady-burning' requirement of the regulation, since the light would not burn without the engine turning."

The Federal requirement, is that when a headlamp is on, it shall provide a steady beam. The Honda lamp meets this requirement. There is no Federal requirement that the headlamp be on when the engine is running or that it remain on when the engine is not running. The agency's Enforcement office informs us that many motorcycles are wired so that the headlamp remains illuminated when the engine is off, but that the Honda design is not unique.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 22, 1984

Mr. Frank Burndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Honda Motor Company, Ltd. (Hopper) Model XL125S; CFR Title 49

Dear Mr. Burndt:

We have a seemingly unique and serious problem regarding the interpretation of Title 49, S571.108 relating to the definition of a "steady-burning headlamp." The involved unit is a Honda, 1980, XL125S which has a headlight powered by a coil in the AC generator and which illuminates when the engine is running or when the motorcycle is otherwise moving while in gear. Briefly, the engine allegedly stopped running for a short period of time and during the period of time the clutch was disengaged by the rider there was no headlight and a collision ensued.

A professor from Vanderbilt University has checked the regulations referred to hereinbefore and says that when the engine stops turning the headlight stops burning and that this makes this particular unit and those units of all other manufacturers defective and not in compliance with the federal regulations mentioned hereinabove. The professor says the flaw in design is that the engine has to be turning for the headlight to burn and such a system does not comply with the "steady-burning" requirement of the regulation, since the light would not burn without the engine turning. The witness says the light is "steady burning" when the engine is turning and is in compliance with the regulation during such operation. The witness doing this testing says that many other things are defined, such as "flash" but that "steady-burning" is not defined and that it can only mean the above interpretation.

We have talked to your office on several occasions, the last time being with Mr. Taylor Vinson, and were advised that if we would briefly state the facts you could give us an advisory opinion and perhaps other enlightening comments which would assist us. This is very important to all manufacturers of units of this type, in addition to being directly involved in a lawsuit against Honda at this time. It is the desire of all manufacturers, and in particular my client, Honda, to comply with all regulations; and they believe they are in compliance here, but respectfully request the opinion of your office.

Thank you for your assistance and the assistance of the Department in this matter.

Yours truly,

MORTON, LEWIS, KING & KRIEG

Charles B. Lewis

CBL/bs

ID: nht87-1.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JEROME A. CZARNOWSKI

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/16/86 TO CARL CLARK -- NHTSA FROM JEROME A. CZARNOWSKI

TEXT: Dear Mr. Czarnowski:

In September 1986, you sent information concerning your Emergency Air Reserve System (EARS) to Dr. Carl Clark of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Research and Development. According to your letter, EARS is a separ ate high-pressure system intended to provide an emergency vehicle with enough air volume and pressure to charge the vehicle's integral system to operating pressure. You stated that the system does not violate the integrity of the vehicle's system, since check-valves, a relief valve and one-way regulator are present.

Later, in February 1987, you asked Dr. Clark for information concerning whether EARS is permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This letter responds to that request.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipme nt comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering auxiliary devices for the quick pressurizing of air brake systems. However, since your device is tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121.

If your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards.

One issue we have examined is whether your device is considered an integral part of the brake system in the sense that it would need to comply with certain of Standard No. 121's requirements, e.g., those for

reservoir strength. A related issue is whether certain parts of the device are considered brake hose and therefore subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses.

It is our opinion that your device is not considered part of the braking system, so long as the device is separated from the vehicle's main braking system by a check valve in such a way that the main braking system will not be affected by a leakage failu re in the device. Thus, since your letter indicates that such a check valve is provided, your device itself would not be subject to the requirements of Standards No. 106 and 121. This opinion is limited to the specific factual situation raised by your letter. We note that the device is not intended to replace a vehicle's normal braking system but instead to provide auxiliary air pressure for certain emergency situations. We also note that the requirements of Standards No. 106 and 121 were not writt en to cover the high air pressures used in your system.

If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle con tinues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any dev ice 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. This is required by section 108(a)(20)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Sa fety Act.

In response to a request you made to Dr. Clark, Edward Glancy of my staff previously sent a general information sheet to your attorney, Ralph Rath, Esq. The information sheet identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affect ing motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. We are also sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Rath.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1986, asking about the permissibility under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of two different designs of supplementary parking lamp systems.

In your first design, the vehicle headlamps on each side are bracketed by two parking lamps, the one closest to the vehicle edge termed "obligatory" and the inner one "supplementary." Both are designed to comply with Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the installation of supplementary lighting equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. From the information you have provided us, it would not appear that the supplementary parking lamps designed to meet Standard No. 108 would impair the effectiveness of the headlamps, turn signal lamps, or "obligatory" parking lamps.

In your second design, the "obligatory" parking lamps remain outboard of the vehicle's headlamps but a single supplementary parking lamp is installed on the centerline of the vehicle. This lamp will also be designed to comply with the parking lamp requirements of Standard No. 108. From your drawing, it appears that this lamp extends from the centerline almost to each headlamp. This supplementary lamp is also subject to the same restrictions of S4.1.3. Although the design is unusual, the low photometric output associated with parking lamps should insure that this lamp does not impair the effectiveness of Standard No. 108's required lighting equipment.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail (1/2)

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date: Mar. 28, 1986 Chief Counsel Ref No.86.03.28.01 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Supplementary Parking Lamp

Dear Sir:

Many thanks for your kind consideration which you have extended to us.

We would hereby ask for your kind advice to the subject matter.

In S4.1.1 and Attached Table III of FMVSS No. 108, passenger cars of less than 80 inches overall width are required to be equipped with at least one(1) parking lamp on each side of the vertical centerline.

According to this prescription, a supplementary parking lamp is being equipped on passenger cars in addition to an obligatory parking lamp which is specified in the FMVSS No. 108.

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your kind advice as to whether such a supplementary parking lamp as shown in Case-A or Case-B could be accepted or not under the FMVSS No. 108.

"INSERT FORMULA"

Supplementary Parking Lamp Headlamp obligatory Parking Lamp specified in FMVSS No. 108

Note: 1. A supplementary parking lamp will be installed on each side of the vertical centerline and located adjacent and inner to headlamps.

2. This supplementary parking lamp will be designed to comply with the requirements of performance specified in FMVSS No. 108.

Atten.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date : Mar. 28, 1986

Case-B:

Supplementary Parking Lamp Headlamp obligatory parking Lamp specified in FMVSS No. 108

Note: 1. A supplementary parking lamp will be installed on the centerline of vehicle.

2. This supplementary parking lamp will be designed to comply with the requirements of performance specified in FMVSS No. 108.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your kind and prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Yours very truly,

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept. KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. Shizuoka Works

ID: 1983-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: VIRACON Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary Richards VIRACON, Inc. 800 Park Drive Owatonna, MN 55060

Dear Mr. Richards:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the agency's regulations and standards which would be applicable to a sun roof kit that you plan to manufacture as an item of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. As I understand it, you only plan to manufacture the sun roof kit and have no plans to install the sun roof in vehicles. You were, however, interested in any regulations or standards affecting the installation of such a sun roof kit.

Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies performance and location requirements for all glazing materials used on motor vehicles, whether as original equipment or as replacement (aftermarket) equipment. As a manufacturer or fabricator of glazing you would have to certify that the glazing used in your sun roof complies with all applicable requirements of the standard, a copy of which is enclosed.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have specific responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety-related defects in their products. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers about safety-related defects in their product and to remedy such defects without charge. A copy of the Act and the applicable defect regulations are enclosed. In addition, Part 556, Manufacturer Identification, requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide the agency with certain information concerning themselves and the products they manufacture. A copy of Part 556 is enclosed.

If a sun roof is added to a vehicle before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, the vehicle alterer is required by Part 567 of our regulations to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. A copy of Part 567 is enclosed. If the sun roof is added by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop after the sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, the vehicle does not have to be recertified. Such businesses are, however, prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. Thus, for example, they would have to ensure that they do not install the sun roof in such a way that the vehicle no longer complies with Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, a copy of which is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: 19499.ztv

Mr. James Cowell
General Manager
Topline Products
No. 1 Topline Plaza
4651 State Street
Montclair, CA 91763

Dear Mr. Cowell:

This is in reply to your letter of January 27, 1999, "requesting approval to use a product in regard to Federal motor vehicle safety standard 108 lighting rules." You understand that "some types of auxiliary lighting are allowed as long as they do not interfere with the standard equipped vehicle lighting such as head lamps, turn signals, and other factory lighting."

Topline wishes to market a "Chevrolet light truck bowtie emblem that glows in the dark," using "an electro luminescent panel." You have enclosed two photos showing the device mounted on a truck at night when the truck's front lamps are lit.

Let me begin by saying that we have no authority to approve or disapprove items of lighting equipment. We do provide manufacturers of auxiliary lighting equipment with opinions regarding the relationship of their devices to Federal law. Your understanding of the relationship of your device as original equipment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is correct; the luminescent bowtie is permitted if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. After studying your photos, it does not appear to us that the light level of the luminescent bowtie is high enough to impair the effectiveness of the other front lighting equipment on a truck. Because the bowtie does not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, it is not a violation of Federal law for it to be installed as an aftermarket device.

Whether it is legal to use the luminescent bowtie emblem depends on state and local laws. We note that the color of the device is blue. Some states restrict the use of blue lighting to emergency vehicles. Whether a state with such a law would apply it to use

of this small device we cannot say, as we are not conversant with laws of the individual states.

You should contact the individual states in which you intend to sell your products. You may also wish to contact:

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
4301 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22203
V: 703 522 4200
F: 703 522 1553
Faxback: 888 226 8237

This organization promotes cooperation among the states with motor vehicle safety, administrative matters, and other issues of importance to motor vehicle use.

You may also wish to contact:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc.
1101 15^th St., N.W. Suite 607
Washington, DC 20005
V: 202 898 0145
F: 202 898 0148

This organization is a centralized voluntary agency that notifies government, industry and the public about items of motor vehicle safety equipment that have been tested by accredited laboratories and found to be in compliance with applicable United States industry, state and federal standards.

If you have any questions you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.3/3/99

ID: nht91-5.33

DATE: September 3, 1991

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry/Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: Request for Interpretation for 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6.1(b), S.4.2.5.6.2 and 49 CFR Part 585; Ref: W-491-H

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-28-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Satoshi Nishibori (A38; Std. 208; Part 585)

TEXT:

Nissan Research & Development, Inc., with specific authority from Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan ("Nissan"), formally requests interpretation regarding the provisions set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6, "Trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less produced by more than one manufacturer" and 49 CFR Part 585, "Automatic Restraint Phase-in Reporting Requirements".

Nissan intends to produce a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) in a joint program with another automobile manufacturer (hereafter referred to as "Company A") beginning in the 1992 calender year. Nissan is requesting that the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel provide an interpretation regarding the applicability of the provisions set forth in 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6.1(b), S4.2.5.6.2, and 49 CFR Part 585.5(c)(3)(i) with regards to calculations of percentages of vehicles within its composite fleet for the purposes of complying with the passive restraint phase-in requirements set forth in FMVSS 208, as recently amended to include light duty trucks and MPV classified vehicles.

Company A will assemble the MPV in a domestic (U.S.) assembly plant. Nissan has undertaken the majority of design and development tasks and will supply the major powertrain components to Company A for the purposes of assembly. Nissan believes that this activity meets the substantive requirements such that Nissan may be considered a "manufacturer" of the vehicle. Nissan and Company A have mutually agreed upon the terms of a supplemental exhibit to the governing Design and Development contract that stipulates that Company A is the "manufacturer of the vehicle and will inscribe its name on the certification label." Additionally, the contract supplemental exhibit apportions among the two automakers the responsibility for defect investigations, safety noncompliances and statutory mandated submissions to the NHTSA.

Upon mutual consent by both manufacturers, company A will count Company A badged vehicles in its total fleet for the purposes of calculating passive restraint phase-in percentages, while Nissan will count Nissan badged vehicles in its composite fleet for the purposes of calculating passive restraint phase-in percentages. A separate document that acknowledges this agreement will be prepared and ratified by representatives of both Company A and Nissan.

Nissan is requesting that the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel provide Nissan with an interpretation to the following issues:

1) Is Nissan considered a "Manufacturer", as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.208, S4.2.5.6, of the jointly produced MPV?

2) Can Nissan use the Nissan badged vehicles in its calculations in demonstrating compliance regarding the phase-in schedule for the passive restraint devices as amended for light trucks and MPV in FMVSS 208?

Please inform Nissan Research & Development, Inc. of your interpretation regarding these features at your earliest possible convenience. If you have any questions or require further information regarding this request for interpretation or related matters, please contact Mr. Toshio Horiuchi of my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 466-5284.

ID: 20822.ztv

Mr. Timothy J. Flanagan
Manager, Gas Methods & Training
PECO Energy Company
300 Front Street
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2723

Dear Mr. Flanagan:

This is in reply to your letter of October 6, 1999, requesting permission "to install additional lighting for visibility and safety purposes" on PECO Energy Company emergency service vehicles.

You report that your vehicles currently are equipped with an "amber strobe light on the roof and the regular hazard lights." You would like to add "additional strobe lights in the rear and front" of your vehicles to be used while the vehicles are stationary, and state that this additional lighting "will not interfere with any other warning or safety devices on the vehicle such as headlights or turn signals."

Strobe lamps are not permitted as original equipment on motor vehicles. This is because all lamps with which a vehicle is supplied must be steady burning, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, and headlamps which may be automatically flashed for signaling purposes (see S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). We regard a strobe lamp as one that flashes, and hence prohibited as original equipment.

As for vehicles in the field, such as yours, Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122) prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative safety equipment installed in accordance with FMVSS No. 108 (and any other applicable FMVSS as well). Installation of a strobe lamp would create a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 which we equate with "making inoperative" within the meaning of the statute. However, the list of persons prohibited from making safety modifications affecting compliance do not include vehicle owners. Thus, if PECO Energy has its own vehicle repair facilities, your company may install the strobe lamps without violating Federal law. Use of these lamps is subject to the laws of Pennsylvania.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d:1/7/00

ID: nht92-5.47

DATE: June 24, 1992

FROM: Peter E. Reinert -- Counsel - Transaction, GE Plastics

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- General Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: G. Robert McAllister

TITLE: Request for Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 (the "Request")

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/4/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Peter E. Reinert (A39; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Dorothy Nakoma from your staff recommended that we direct our Request to your attention. Ms. Nakoma told us that it was not necessary that we contact anyone at the AAMVA for an interpretation of FMVSS 205 since the interpretation from NHTSH would be controlling over AAMVA. We also understood that we could expect to receive a response to our Request within sixty days from receipt.

Statement of Facts. General Electric Company ("GE") manufactures at its Mt. Vernon, Indiana plant LEXAN polycarbonate sheet (the "Sheet") which is used in applications for motor vehicles which FMVSS No. 205, S6--Certification and Marking--applies. GE and its distributors have agreed contractually that the distributors will be responsible for marking the Sheet with GE's DOT number in accord with section 6 ANZ 26 after the distributors receive the Sheet from GE and before the distributors ship the Sheet to the customer. The distributors are responsible contractually for marking the Sheet with GE's DOT number in the same manner as the distributors, if they cut the Sheet, are required by FMVSS No. 205, S6.4 and S6.5 to mark pieces after cutting with the GE DOT number.

Question. May GE, as a prime glazing material manufacturer having its own DOT number and being required to mark and certify in accordance with FMVSS No. 205, S6.1 and S6.2 the Sheet it manufactures in Mt. Vernon, ship the Sheet unmarked to its distributors?

Provided that the above question is answered affirmatively then what is the timing required in order to implement the new procedure wherein GE will not mark the Sheet initially? For example, would GE be required to file a notice in the Federal Register? Also, if GE is to continue as a registered prime glazing material manufacturer can GE cancel its existing DOT No. 94 and replace it with another new number.

If you have any questions regarding the above, or require any additional facts please do not hesitate to contact me at (413) 448-4672. We look forward to hearing from you.

G. Robert McAllister

ID: 19837.ztv

[       ]

Dear [     ]:

This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1999, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to a new product you are developing. Because the product is new, you have commented that you would appreciate our "discretion and confidentiality."

As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you on April 9, 1999, our interpretations are a matter of public record, and lighting devices must be described with sufficient detail for the interpretation to be understandable. However, we can, on request, withhold from copies of the interpretation available to the public any material that identifies the addressee and company. You agreed to this treatment of your letter.

You are about to begin the design of a rear identification lamp system which would be a "light bar" with three identification lamps contained within a single lens/base. The lamps would be spaced on 6 to 8-inch centers. You have asked if this conforms to Standard No. 108 "as long as each individual lamp meets the requirements for an identification lamp and as long as there are three distinct 'hot spots' shining through the single lens."

Identification lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J592e Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps, July 1972, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 2.4 of SAE J592e defines identification lamps as "lamps used in groups of three." This can be interpreted as meaning that the lamps must be separate, individual units. However, we would view this aspect of the identification lamp requirement as met if the light bar were constructed so that the three lamps would be perceived as individual lamps. This does not appear to be the case with your system. We interpret your description as indicating that the entire light bar would be illuminated with the hot spots intended to be discernable from the rest of the light bar. If our understanding is correct, your system would not meet the identification lamp requirement of Standard No. 108. However, if you design the light bar with three chambers behind the single lens so that the assembly when lit has the appearance of three separate lamps with no spillover between the chambers, we would consider that as a design that meets this requirement of Standard No. 108.

You have also asked whether this product can also incorporate "a set of brake lights to act as a 'third eye' brake light, similar to those required for automobiles." In other words, the identification lamp bar would act as a supplementary stop lamp when the brakes are applied.

Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lamps as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard (S5.1.3). The function of the identification lamps is to indicate the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. This effectiveness of this function would not be impaired by an increase in intensity of the lamps when the brake pedal is applied. Therefore, your product can incorporate a supplementary stop lamp function.

If you have any questions you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/23/99

ID: certlab3.crs

Ms. Michele Mor
Professional Micro Computer Service, Inc.
2525 Honolulu Avenue
Montrose, CA 91020

Dear Ms. Mor:

This is in response to the memorandum of July 29, 1997 that you telefaxed to Coleman Sachs of my staff, forwarding for our review a format for a vehicle certification label (which you refer to as a "VIN label") that your company is proposing to offer to clients who manufacture trailers for sale in both the United States and Canada. Your memo requested that we disregard your letter of July 15, 1997, forwarding for our review an earlier version of the certification label format that you withdrew after speaking to David Coleman of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Certification requirements for vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States are set forth in this agency's regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.4 of those regulations specifies the contents and format of the certification label that manufacturers are required to affix to new motor vehicles to which one or more of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply. To meet those requirements, the following modifications would have to be made to the certification label format that your company has most recently proposed:

1. Section 567.4(g)(2) requires the certification label to specify the vehicle's "month and year of manufacture." The first line of your company's label format contains the word "date" followed by a colon. We recommend that this heading be changed to "date of manufacture" or "manufactured in" to better identify the date provided.
2. Section 567.4(g)(3) specifies that the certification label must include the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating, or "GVWR," "followed by the appropriate value in pounds . . . ." The second line of your company's label format contains the letters "GVWR/PNBV" followed by the abbreviation "KG," which presumably represents "kilograms." To comply with section 567.4(g)(3), the GVWR value must be specified in pounds. If you wish to provide a metric equivalent for this value, it should be specified in kilograms, with that word fully spelled out, followed by the corresponding value in pounds, appearing in parentheses. With this format, the entry for GVWR/PNBV would be as follows:

   GVWR/PNBV: ________ kilograms (________ pounds)

3. Section 567.4(g)(4) specifies that the certification label must include the gross axle weight rating, or "GAWR," "followed by the appropriate value in pounds for each axle, identified in order from front to rear . . . ." The third line of your company's label format contains the letters "GAWR/PNBE," followed by the abbreviation "KG." To comply with section 567.4(g)(4), the GAWR of each axle should be specified in pounds. If you wish to provide a metric equivalent for this value, it should be specified in kilograms, with that word fully spelled out, followed by the corresponding value in pounds, appearing in parentheses, as set forth in the above format for GVWR/PNBV entries.

We note that your company's proposed label format also includes information on the size designation for tires and rims and the recommended cold inflation pressure for tires that is required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars, as found at 49 CFR 571.120. Paragraph S5.3 of that standard requires the cold inflation pressure to be identified first in metric units (kPa) and then in English units (psi). On your company's proposed certification label, English units are listed before metric units under the heading "COLD INFL PRESS." To comply with paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 120, this order of presentation should be reversed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, do not hesitate to contact Mr. Sachs at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.7/31/97