ID: 11606ZTV

Mr. J. Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Administration Department
Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

We have received your letter of February 9, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and 49 CFR Part 564.

As you noted, the dimensional and specification information on HB Types of replaceable headlamp bulbs and their associated Figures were recently transferred from Standard No. 108 to Docket No. 93-11, established by Part 564. Note 2 to Figure 23-1 states that "It must be possible to insert the light source into a cylinder of diameter "s" concentric with the reference axis and limited at one end by a plane parallel to and 20 mm distant from the reference plane and at the other end by a hemisphere of radius s/2"

You asked whether the light shield is allowed to be located in the hatched area shown in Figure 23-1 and its note (2). You believe that the light shield may be located in the hatched area because the area is specified in order to allow room for the H4 yellow light source permitted by ECE REg. No. 37. However, there is no reason to allow room because yellow headlamps are not permitted under Standard No. 108.

Under Figure 23-1 and Note 2, no light shield may be located in the hatched area; therefore, we cannot agree with your interpretation. If Koito wishes to file a modified drawing to Docket 93-11 permitting installation of a light shield in the hatched area it may do so. However, in accordance with Sec. 564.5(d)(3) and (4), the changed drawing must be accompanied by

statements that the use of the light source as modified will not create a noncompliance with any requirement of Standard No. 108 when used to replace an unmodified light source in a headlamp certified by its manufacturer as conforming to Standard No. 108, and information demonstrating that the modification will not adversely affect interchangeability with the original light source.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:4/2/96

ID: 86-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/86

FROM: LYNNE L. KEIL -- MANAGER, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT - CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA

TO: WCS SPRUNK -- MANAGER, SAF-TEE SIPING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: This is written in accordance with your request that we document the results experienced as a consequence of siping tires to increase handling performance on certain vehicles. Last year, we were experiencing severe handling problems on snow and ice with police vehicles in particular.

Approximately 20 patrol cruisers had been fitted with new Good Year Eagle GT Tires. With these tires, cornering and stopping on ice and snow was hazardous and in some instances, impossible. In an effort to improve performance, we siped the tires on several of these vehicles and ran tests.

On the test vehicles, we found that we could negotiate 90 degrees corners safely on ice at 25 to 30 miles per hour - after siping. Prior to siping, we could corner and maintain vehicle control only at speeds under 10 miles per hour. Braking efficiency was increased in all cases by 30 percent.

Given the inclemental weather and tire type, siping in this case was obviously necessary and functional. It was also a great deal less costly than replacing 20 sets of tires. We have since siped tires on Met Transit coaches with very good results. Should you have any questions, or wish further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.

ID: 86-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Alan K. Simpson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 27, 1986 The Honorable Alan K. Simpson United-States Senate Washington, D.C. Dear Senator Simpson: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. W. S. Beaver, Superintendent of Schools for Sheridan County, concerning our requirements for school buses. We contacted your constituent to find out more about his concerns regarding the standard we issued for the identification of school buses. Mr. Beaver explained that he believed some allowance should be made in our regulation to permit a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) that does not have school bus warning lights to be identified as a school vehicle when the vehicle travels on hazardous mountain routes. He further informed us that, although he has recently become aware that the issue he raises primarily involves State requirements, he would appreciate a clarification of our school bus regulations. We appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations for school buses which we issued under different Acts of Congress. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and requires sellers of new school buses to ensure that the vehicle they sell complies with our school bus safety standards. While new school buses must be equipped with a system of signal lamps under Safety Standard No. 108, there is no comparable Federal requirement for MPV's. Mr. Beaver understands that this is the case for MPV's and he has no argument with the nature of those requirements. The second set to regulations applicable to school vehicles was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, and applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Under the Act, we issued a series of highway safety program standards for State highway safety program standards for State highway safety programs, one of which is Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This "standard" is more in the nature of a guideline for State school vehicle usage laws, and it is with this standard that you constituent is most concerned. HSPS No. 17 contains recommendation for the manner in which school vehicles should be identified, such as the yellow color and "School Bus" signs. It recommends that MPV's used as school vehicles should either have the warning lights, yellow color and signing of a school bus or have none of those identifying features. Mr. Beaver was concerned that this was a Federal requirement which prohibited his MPV's from being identified as school vehicles since they do not have the school bus signal lights. As your constituent now knows, this was not an accurate understanding of HSPS No. 17's recommendations. The effect of HSPS No. 17's recommendation for school bus identification is dependent on State adoption. NHTSA does not require States to adopt each aspect of our highway safety program standards, and Wyoming has discretion in adopting some or all of HSPS No. 17's recommendations. Thus, the decision whether to permit an MPV to have a school bus sign alone, without the other identifying features of school buses, is within Wyoming's discretion. Mr. Beaver informed us that he is pursuing the matter with Wyoming State officials. I hope that this information is helpful, and that you or your constituent will not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Lyon L. Brinsmade -- Porter and Clements

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Lyon L. Brinsmade, Esq. Porter & Clements 3500 Republicbank Center Houston, TX 77002

This responds for your request for information regarding Federal regulation of semi-trailer manufacturing. You asked about Federal standards applicable to "pneumatic aluminum tank type semi-trailers" which your client wishes to manufacture abroad and imp ort into the United States. You were particularly concerned about specifications for aspects of the vehicle which pneumatically load and discharge substances into and out of the tank unit.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide some background information concerning this agency's regulations. you are correct that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for that manufacture and sa le of new motor vehicles, including semi-trailers. NHTSA is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse ant commercial produ cts. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in th e exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.)

We note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equip ment for resale." (Emphasis added.) Therefore your client, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, is responsible for certifying compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The procedure, specified in 49 CFR Part 567, requires also that the manufacturer provide safety information on the certification label, includ ing the vehicle's gross weight rating and gross axle weight rating.

At this time, the only safety standards applicable to all trailers are Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at Part 565. Your client's trailers also must meet Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle brake flui ds, and applicable requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. These standards are found in 49 CFR Part 571.

You were particularly concerned about Federal standards applicable to pneumatic tank of the semi-trailer. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards for pneumatic tank units. However, even in the absence of an applicable safety standard, the Vehicle Safety Act imposes general responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are responsible generally for ensuring safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. If your client or the agency determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, your client is obligated under section 151 et seq. of the Act to notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

In addition to the regulations described above, your client should be aware of two procedural rules which apply to all manufacturers subject to the regulation of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part ???, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires y our client to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to this agency within 30 days after it imports its products in the Unite States.

The other rule is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Subpart D of this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Ave., S. W., Washington D. C., 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation; and

6. The full legal name of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

You asked whether your client's semi-trailers would be affected by regulations administered by other Federal agencies. If the semi-trailer will be used to transport a material designated by the Secretary of Transportation as a "hazardous material" (see 4 9 CFR Part 172), then the transportation of that material is regulated by the Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation of the Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA). You can contact the director of that office, Mr. Alan Roberts, at 366-0 656 for more information on RSPA's regulations in addition, you might be interested in information about regulations for interstate motor carriers issued by the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Tim Kozlowski of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, F ederal Highway Administration, can provide you with more information. He may be reached at this address, Room 3403, or by telephone at (202) 366-1790.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Room 5219 - 400 7th Street S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Chief Counsel's Office

Gentlemen:

This letter is written by way of following up a telephone conference between the writer and your Ms. Didre Hom and is to respectfully request the issuance by your office of a written interpretation concerning compliance with applicable government regulat ions of certain semi-trailers which one of our clients manufactures abroad and proposes to import to the United States for sale and use in this country. Such semi-trailers are described below.

Thus, the subject semi-trailers are of the pneumatic aluminum tank type (see enclosed photocopy) and are used for the transportation in bulk of substances such as cement, flour, lime, sugar, powdered milk, powdered fertilizer and, in general, other subst ances in dry powdered form, which may be loaded and discharged into and out of the tank unit, pneumatically at a pressure of up to 15 pounds per square inch. Detailed specifications of these semi-trailers are attached hereto.

If you should need any additional information, please specify the additional information in as much detail as possible for us to be able to compile the same.

Also, if the characteristics of the subject semi-trailers, as described herein and in the attached, fail to meet applicable requirements, please specify any such failures in as much detail as possible to enable our client to correct the same.

Additionally, we would appreciate your letting us know if there is any other federal agency apart from yours that would need to be consulted to make sure that the specifications of the subject semi-trailers are in compliance with all existing requirement s that may be applicable under federal law.

Yours very truly,

Lyon L. Brinsmade

SPECIFICATIONS OF PNEUMATIC ALUMINUM TANK TYPE SEMI-TRAILERS MANUFACTURED ABROAD AND PROPOSED TO BE IMPORTED FOR SALE IN THE UNITED STATES

(Omitted)

ID: 1983-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo White Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 27 1983 NOA-30

Mr. J. W. Lawrence Manager, Compliance and Recall Volvo White Truck Corporation P.O. Box D-1 Greensboro, NC 27402-1200

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether standard's identification and illumination requirements are applicable to an optional windshield wiper control you are planning to make available on some heavy duty trucks.

By way of background information, the agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is up to the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The following interpretation represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. It also takes into account information provided in a follow-up telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office.

The standard wiper controls for the vehicles in question consist of two knobs which independently control the left and right wipers. These controls provide both the on-off function and variable speed. According to your letter, these controls are identified and illuminated as required by the standard.

The proposed optional control, the specific subject of your letter, would provide a time delay for windshield wiper operation during light mist conditions. The control would be a knob which, if turned to the left, would provide no pause, and if turned toward the right, would offer a variable time delay.

We are unable to agree with your suggestion that the control is not covered by Standard No. 101. As discussed below, Standard No. 101 requires that this control, like the standard controls, be identified and illuminated in accordance with the standard's requirements. Additional words or symbols may be provided for the purpose of clarity.

Section S5 of Standard No. 101 requires, among other things, that each truck manufactured with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 meet the requirements of the standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control. One of the controls listed by S5.1 is "windshield wiper." Also, "windshield wiping system" is among the controls listed in column 1 of Table 1. The issue raised by your letter is therefore whether an optional control for intermittent wiper operation is within the meaning of "windshield wiper" control and/or "windshield wiping system" control. It is our interpretation that such a control is within the meaning of both terms.

Neither the term "windshield wiper" control nor "windshield wiping system" control is limited to specific wiper functions, such as on-off, variable speed, etc. Since a control for intermittent wiper operation controls one function of windshield wipers, it is a "windshield wiper" control or "windshield wiping system" control. Such a control is therefore subject to the standard's requirements for location, identification and illumination.

We would note that while section S5.2.1 and Table 1 require such a control to be identified by the symbol specified for windshield wiping system controls, additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for purposes of clarity. Since your vehicles would have three windshield wiper controls, you may wish to provide such additional words or symbols to explain the function of each.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 30, 1983

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Subject: Request for Interpretation FMVSS-101 Controls and Displays

Volvo White Truck Corporation of Greensboro, North Carolina, a manufacturer of heavy duty trucks 26,000 lbs. and greater GVWR, requests an interpretation of FMVSS-101 as it applies to these classes of vehicles. In specific, we request an interpretation of S 5.3.1 and Table 1 for an optional windshield wiper control available on some of our vehicles.

Volvo White's standard wiper controls are identified and illuminated as required by S 5.3.1 and Table 1 of the Standard. We also are making available an additional control that allows the driver to "time" the wiper sweep by delaying the wipe cycle for vehicle operation during light mist conditions. The control is separate from the wiper control and selects only the desired time delay for the intermittent wiper operation.

Considering that this control operates the time delay feature only but is similar to a wiper control, Volvo White considers it should be identified as follows:

1. The control is not covered by Standard 101, therefore, the identification is at the discretion of the manufacturer.

2. Standard 101 does not prohibit the use of the symbols in Table I for similar type controls. Volvo White may use the symbols and/or words in Table I or other appropriate identification.

3. The control, when mounted on the instrument panel may, but need not, be illuminated.

Volvo White would appreciate, at your earliest convenience, confirmation or clarification on the three issues noted above.

Very truly yours,

J. W. Lawrence Manager, Compliance and Recall

ID: nht78-4.24

DATE: 12/12/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: James P. Bally, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEC 12 1978 NOA-30

James P. Bally, Esq. Messrs. Brownfield, Kosydar, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz 140 East Town Street. Columbus, Ohio 43215

Dear Mr. Bally:

We understand that you are interested in an interpretation of the relationship of a rear lighting system, developed by your client Mr. Leno Bevilacqua, to Federal motor vehicle lighting requirements. As you described this device in your letter of September 29, 1978, to the Nevada Department of Highways:

"The device will project a green light for the vehicle which would be in a constant or accelerated speed, a yellow light for the vehicle in a decelerated moving state and a red light for the vehicle which would be stopping."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, (49 CFR 571.108) neither requires nor expressly prohibits a lighting device of this nature as original equipment on motor vehicles. One section of the standard, however, S4.1.3, prohibits the installation of all original lighting equipment not mandated by the standard "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." While we make no judgment with respect to Mr. Bevilacqua's 18-inch long 1 1/2 inch high rectangular device, I think it important to note that the agency's research into rear green signal lights indicate that there may be disadvantages rather than advantages to such a lighting system. One major disadvantage is the problem of confusing the unfamiliar colored rear lamps in urban environments having multicolored lights.

Standard No. 108 does not cover this device as an aftermarket item, and it would therefore be subject to regulation by the individual States.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

Chief Counsel

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION REGION IX TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER - SUITE 610 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

October 24, 1978

Mr. James P. Bally Brownfield, Kosydar, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz Attorneys at Law 140 East Town Street Columbus, Ohio 43215

Dear Mr. Bally:

Your letter of September 29, 1978 concerning an automobile safety signal system with reference to Saflect Signal Corporation and Mr. Leno Bevilacqua, was forwarded to this office. You requested an interpretation concerning conformance to Federal requirements.

We have forwarded the correspondence to our Washington, D.C. headquarters for reply.

Sincerely,

Joseph F. Zemaitis Motor Vehicle Programs Specialist

cc: Associate Administrator for Rulemaking NHTSA, Washington, D.C.

state agencies, therefore, our expression or interpretation is only an unofficial expression of our view in an attempt to be of some assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

William H. Raymond Deputy Attorney General Assistant Chief Counsel Department of Highways

WMR/l

cc: Joe Souza, Highway Engineer Darwin Garvin, FHWA, 1 with enclosure Brian Nelson, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, DMV, with enclosure

STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 12635 SOUTH STEWART STREET CARSON CITY 89712

ROBERT LIST MELVIN L. BEAUCHAMP ATTORNEY GENERAL October 10, 1978 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CHIEF COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

Mr. James P. Bally Brownfield, Kosydar, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz Attorneys at Law 140 East Town Street Columbus, OH 43215

Dear Mr. Bally:

Your letter of September 29, 1978, to our Highway Engineer was referred to this office for reply. A copy of your letter is attached hereto.

We are also attaching a copy of Nevada's Motor Vehicle laws which relate to "lamps and other lighting equipment." While this Department is not directly involved with motor vehicles and vehicle equipment, it would seem the proposed safety signal system would be subject to regulation, specifically under the provisions of NRS 484.563.

We are sending a copy of your letter to the District Office of the Federal Highway Administration for possible comment. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Darwin Garvin who will, if he can be of assistance, reply to you directly or forward your request to the appropriate office.

In addition, we are sending a copy of your letter to Brian Nelson, Esq., Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Motor Vehicles, whose agency is responsible for enforcing the motor vehicle laws which contain the attached statutes. Since this is their area of expertise, they should be able to give you their interpretation of whether or not your proposed system would meet the legal requirements of our state.

If this office can be of further assistance, please feel free to request the same.

It is the policy of the Nevada Attorney General's Office to give statutory opinions only to state officials or

ID: 07-005971as underride guards

ID: nht88-3.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/15/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: M. IWASE -- MANAGER TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT KOITO MFG. CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/30/80 TO DIETMAR M HAENCHEN FROM FRANK BERNDT; LETTER DATED 02/22/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM M IWASE RE INSTALLATION OF TAIL AND STOP LAMP ONTO MOVING VEHICLE PART

TEXT: Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1988, asking whether location of a stop and taillamp on a deck lid would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In your opinion this is acceptable because the vehicle complies with the trunk lid closed. You have also asked, alternatively, whether the deck lid is an acceptable location for turn signal lamps.

Section S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires lighting devices to be mounted on "a rigid part of the vehicle...that is not designed to be removed except for repair". In past interpretations the agency has stated that a deck lid is "a rigid part of the veh icle", and that compliance with the standard will be determined with the deck lid closed. Thus, it may be used for mounting lamps and reflectors required by Standard No. 108. However, Table IV specifies the location for rear lamps. Stoplamps, taillamp s, rear turn signal lamps, and rear reflex reflectors must be mounted "as far apart as practicable". Although the determination of practicability is initially made by the vehicle manufacturer, the agency in its enforcement efforts would consider whether lighting equipment mounted on the deck lid meets the requirements of Table IV. On the other hand, the separation requirement is not specified for backup lamps and license plate lamps.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a 1980 interpretation that addressed a similar question. As you will note, the agency raised some safety concerns in that letter which could also pertain to your design.

Operation of a motor vehicle in the United States is subject to the laws of the individual States, some of which may prohibit operation of a vehicle when its turn signals and stop lamps are not visible.

In summary, we urge you to consider the issues described above, including those raised in the 1980 letter, in deciding whether to proceed with this design.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: nht79-3.25

DATE: 06/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chief of Specifications; State Board of Control

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms your May 23, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked whether it is permissible for vehicles to be modified by the addition of propane gas systems replacing their regular fuel systems.

As Mr. Tilton stated, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration permits the type of modification mentioned above. If the modification is done to a new vehicle, the person making the modification would be required to attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, Certification, of our regulations. That label states that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all safety standards. The standard that may be affected by such a modification would be Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

If used vehicles are being modified, the person modifying the vehicle would not be required to attach a label. However, that person would be responsible for noncompliance with safety standards if he or she knowingly rendered inoperative any element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

ID: 08-002289as