ID: nht73-4.49

DATE: 08/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Adams Rite Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your July 25, 1973, request for copies of the Federal regulations concerning door locks and latches.

Federal Standard 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, is enclosed. It regulates passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. These categories include ambulances and "motor homes", which are self-propelled units with sleeping accommodations, generally constructed on a light truck chassis. Most other "mobile homes" are not self-propelled and they qualify as trailers, which are not subject to this standard.

For your information, paragraph 9.1.2 of Ambulance Design Criteria has also been enclosed. This publication specifies the criteria which an ambulance must meet to qualify for Federal funding under the Highway Safety Program @ 402.

ENCS.

ADAMS RITE PRODUCTS, INC.

July 25, 1973

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590

Adams Rite Products manufactures locks and latches used on commercial aircraft. We have been receiving many inquiries from mobile home builders and ambulance fabricators to supply latches that meet federal safety requirements. To date we have been unable to obtain copies of these regulations.

Please forward two copies each of the regulations governing our type of equipment. If this is not under your jurisdiction, would you please forward this letter to the proper agency or notify us of the correct address.

Robert B. Hirsch Marketing, Technical Staff

ID: nht89-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/22/89

FROM: H. HASEGAWA -- AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO LTD

TO: RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE -- SAFETY STANDARDS ENGINEER U.S. DOT, NHTSA OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

TITLE: REVISION OF FMVSS NO. 108 (DOCKET NO. 85-15 NOTICE 8)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HASEGAWA; REDBOOK A33 [3]; STANDARD 108; DOCKET 85-15 NOTICE 8

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Iderstine,

We appreciate very much for your kind cooperation during our stay in the U.S. for SAE Lighting Commity Meeting.

We have two questions on Revision of FMVSS No. 108 (Docket No. 85-15 Notice 8) which was finally issued on Federal Register of May 9, 1989.

- Question -

1. Please advice us the effective date of the requirement of S7.7.5.1 a). We suppose that S7.7.5.1 will be applied to the all headlamp with external aiming system (including replaceable bulb type headlamp).

However, this requirement was not applied for replaceable bulb type headlamp by previous FMVSS No. 108.

Therefore, we think that addition of new requirement need longer interval of effectiveness.

2. The requirement of S7.7.5.1 b) used quote SAE J580b "Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly" by previous FMVSS No. 108 and the expression is little bit different from new S7.7.5.1 b).

Please advice us that the requirement of "0.1 in. max." will be determined, either during the test or after the test?

We would like to have your advice by facsimile.

Our facsimile number is 03-792-0007 (JAPAN).

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht90-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/19/90

FROM: CLARKS GORTE -- FORD HEAVY TRUCK VEHICLE ENGINEERING

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: [FORD RATIONALE FOR FMVSS 108 COMPLIANCE]

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION; REDBOOK A 35; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TO TAYLOR VINSON -- DOT ; OCC 4613

TEXT: Mr. Van Alstin, listed below are the FMVSS requirements and the rationale used by Ford Heavy Truck Engineering to signoff for compliance to FMVSS 108, specifically side marker lamps.

FMVSS 108 required motor vehicle lighting equipment is covered on page 226, S4.1.1 and S4.1.1.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations for 571.108, the location is covered on page 237, S4.3, S4.3.1, & S4.3.1.1, combinations are covered on page 238, S4.4.

1990 and prior year Ford C-Series and CL-Series vehicles use the roof mounts corner marker lamps to satisfy the side marker lamp requirements of FMVSS 10 The corner marker lamps are forward of the vartical C/L of the vehicle, are prominantly displayed, s ecurely attached, and satisfy the photomarty, vibrat corrosion, moisture, dust and color requirements.

For your information, all Ford C and CL-Series are believed to be in compli. with FHWA DOT requirements, Part 393-Parts and Accessories Necessary For Sa Operation. Subpart B.

Should you require additional information or require further clarification please contact this office.

Clarke Gorte Ford Heavy Truck Vehicle Engineering

C-CT SERIES DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS [Illustration Omitted]

ID: nht70-1.6

DATE: 05/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Donald B. Haaversen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 9, 1970, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning our Federal motor vehicle tire standards.

The only tire standard promulgated to date is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires-Passenger Cars" which was effective January 1, 1968. This standard specifies minimum performance for size, strength, endurance, high speed laboratory testing and labeling. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 109 and No. 110 with amendments.

The replies to your specific questions are as follows:

1.Question: New American made tires have DOT load ranges, load capacity and inflation pressures molded into the sidewall. Is this required (that they be permanently marked), or is it sufficient to affix a temporary marking (such as a sticker) with this same information?

Response: Section S4.3 states that this information shall be permanently molded into or onto all new passenger car tires manufactured after August 1, 1968. If the tire was manufactured between January 1, 1968 and July 31, 1968 the labeling requirements may be met by use of a label or tag.

2. Question: How is load capacity information arrived at? Is it by manufacturer certification, government conducted tests, or some other method?

Response: The load/inflation schedule is calculated by use of empirical formulas and coordinated through the various Tire and(Illegible Word) Associations as well as the Society of Automotive Engineers.

3. Question: Is it necessary that these tires be subject to safety tests? These particular tires are already imported by another organization and may already have passed the necessary tests, if any.Response: The application of the "DOT recital to a tire, is the tire manufacturers self certification that his tire conforms to all the minimum performance standards of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

I have also enclosed for your review and information the following data:

1. U.S. Customs Regulations for Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment.

2. Automobiles Imported Into the United States.

ID: nht89-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/12/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DAVID W. RANEY -- ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES MANAGER SAAB-SCANIA OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 6/29/89 FROM DAVID W. RANEY OF SAAB TO ERIKA JONES OF NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Raney:

Thank you for your letter requesting our interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, and 543, Exemption from Theft Prevention Standard. I apologize for the delay in this response.

You asked two questions. Your first question concerned the scope of the exemptions granted under Part 543. You noted that the Saab 9000 car line has been determined to be a high theft car line. Accordingly, Part 541 requires that both the original equ ipment and the replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 be marked with certain information. Your letter states that your company marked both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 in the 1987 and 1988 model years.

For the 1989 model year, the Saab 9000 was granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, pursuant to the provisions of Part 543. Your company understands that this exemption means that the original equipment parts on the Saab 900 0 are no longer required to be marked. However, the replacement parts for the Saab 9000 that are produced in 1989 and thereafter pose a more difficult problem. On the one hand, Saab could consider these parts as replacement parts for the 1989 models, w hich would mean these parts are exempted from the parts marking requirement. On the other hand, these parts could also be considered as replacement parts for the 1987 and 1988 Saab 9000 line, which would mean the parts have to be marked because no exemp tion applies for such parts.

The answer to your question is that once a high theft line is granted a Part 543 exemption in whole from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, as the Saab 9000 was, the replacement parts for that line are also exempted from the parts marking requir ements even if those parts can be used as replacement parts for the high theft line during model years for which no exemption applies. NHTSA addressed this issue in the preamble to the September 8, 1987 final rule establishing Part 543 (52 FR 33821), as follows:

Section 602(d)(2)(A) of Title VI (of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act) states that the vehicle theft prevention standard can not require 'identification of any part which is not designed as a replacement for a major part required to be identified under such standard.' (Emphasis added.) As long as a manufacturer is producing a car line under an exemption granted in whole, there is no requirement to identify major parts otherwise subject to the theft standard; therefore, NHTSA can not re quire marking replacement parts. 52 FR 33828.

Applying this reasoning to your company's situation, Saab was free to discontinue marking both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the Part 543 exemption took effect, provided that Saab actually installed the a ntitheft device described in its petition as original equipment on 1989 Saab 9000 vehicles.

Your second question asked whether the manufacturer of a high theft car lines that has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, pursuant to Part 543, may discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and resume parts marking in some future model year. We addressed this issue in detail in a May 4, 1988 letter to Ms. Deborah Bakker, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. A manufacturer of a high theft line that has received an exemption under Part 543 is required to either install the antitheft device as standard equipment on every vehicle in that line produced during a model year or to mark all original equipment and replacement major parts for that line produced during the model year. As long as Saab marked al l of the original equipment and replacement parts produced in a model year for the Saab 9000, your company is free to stop installing the antitheft device on those cars.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: 2075y

Mr. David W. Raney
Environmental Activities Manager
Saab-Scania of America, Inc.
Saab Drive
P. O. Box 697
Orange, CT 06477

Dear Mr. Raney:

Thank you for your letter requesting our interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, and 543, Exemption from Theft Prevention Standard. I apologize for the delay in this response.

You asked two questions. Your first question concerned the scope of the exemptions granted under Part 543. You noted that the Saab 9000 car line has been determined to be a high theft car line. Accordingly, Part 541 requires that both the original equipment and the replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 be marked with certain information. Your letter states that your company marked both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 in the 1987 and 1988 model years.

For the 1989 model year, the Saab 9000 was granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, pursuant to the provisions of Part 543. Your company understands that this exemption means that the original equipment parts on the Saab 9000 are no longer required to be marked. However, the replacement parts for the Saab 9000 that are produced in 1989 and thereafter pose a more difficult problem. On the one hand, Saab could consider these parts as replacement parts for the 1989 models, which would mean these parts are exempted from the parts marking requirement. On the other hand, these parts could also be considered as replacement parts for the 1987 and 1988 Saab 9000 line, which would mean the parts have to be marked because no exemption applies for such parts.

The answer to your question is that once a high theft line is granted a Part 543 exemption in whole from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, as the Saab 9000 was, the replacement parts for that line are also exempted from the parts marking requirements even if those parts can be used as replacement parts for the high theft line during model years for which no exemption applies. NHTSA addressed this issue in the preamble to the September 8, 1987 final rule establishing Part 543 (52 FR 33821), as follows:

Section 602(d)(2)(A) of Title VI (of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act) states that the vehicle theft prevention standard can not require 'identification of any part which is not designed as a replacement for a major part required to be identified under such standard.' (Emphasis added.) As long as a manufacturer is producing a car line under an exemption granted in whole, there is no requirement to identify major parts otherwise subject to the theft standard; therefore, NHTSA can not require marking replacement parts. 52 FR 33828.

Applying this reasoning to your company's situation, Saab was free to discontinue marking both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the Part 543 exemption took effect, provided that Saab actually installed the antitheft device described in its petition as original equipment on 1989 Saab 9000 vehicles.

Your second question asked whether the manufacturer of a high theft car lines that has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, pursuant to Part 543, may discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and resume parts marking in some future model year. We addressed this issue in detail in a May 4, 1988 letter to Ms. Deborah Bakker, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. A manufacturer of a high theft line that has received an exemption under Part 543 is required to either install the antitheft device as standard equipment on every vehicle in that line produced during a model year or to mark all original equipment and replacement major parts for that line produced during the model year. As long as Saab marked all of the original equipment and replacement parts produced in a model year for the Saab 9000, your company is free to stop installing the antitheft device on those cars.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref: Parts 541, 543 d:l0/l2/89

ID: surface_area_AGF

Mr. Gerald Plante
Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America, Inc.
P.O. Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your March 14, 2003, letter and e-mail and phone conversations with George Feygin of my staff concerning certain parts marking requirements found in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR Part 541. The standard requires manufacturers to designate a "target area" on certain vehicle parts upon which identifying numbers are to be marked. You ask whether the surface area used in the "target area" computation is the overall surface area of a part, even if the part is multidimensional, such as an engine. The answer is yes.

By way of background, the target area designation requirement found in Part 541 was adopted under the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984. The purpose of the target area requirement was to facilitate quick identification checks by law enforcement personnel, where vehicles or vehicle parts are under suspicion of being stolen. The standard requires vehicle manufacturers to designate "target areas" where identifying numbers would be marked. These designations are then submitted to NHTSA and placed in the public docket. The information tells law enforcement personnel where to look for the identifying numbers and thus expedites the parts markings verification process.

Section 541.5(e)(1) requires a manufacturer to designate a "target area" on certain original vehicle parts, upon which identifying numbers are to be marked. That section also states: "The target area shall not exceed 50 percent of the surface area on the surface of the part on which the target area is located." Similarly, 541.6(e)(1) requires a manufacturer to designate a separate "target area" on certain replacement parts. That section states: "Such target areas shall not exceed 25 percent of the surface area of the surface on which the replacement part marking will appear." The original and replacement vehicle parts that must be marked are identified in 541.5(a) and 541.6(a), respectively.

In establishing Part 541, NHTSA originally proposed a target area for each vehicle part identified in 541.5(a) and 541.6(a) to be just 25 cm². Due to the industry comments on the restrictive nature of a 25 cm² target area, the final rule issued on October 24, 1985 (50 FR 43166), established the target area requirement for original parts of not more than 50% of the total surface area of a given vehicle part upon which the marking would appear. For replacement parts, the target area requirement was set at not more than 25% of the total surface area of a given vehicle part upon which the marking would appear.

The preamble to the final rule is silent as to the computation method for the target area. The regulatory text, however, is straightforward.

In the absence of any contrary guidance from the preamble, our answer is that the surface area used in the target area computation is the overall surface area of a specific vehicle part. We recognize that in the case of a multidimensional vehicle part such as an engine, the overall surface area may be difficult to calculate. We note, however, that the standard only requires that the target area not exceed 50% of the surface area, and does not prohibit designating a smaller portion of a surface area as the target area. Therefore, manufacturers are afforded a fair amount of flexibility in designating target areas. For example, a manufacturer can designate a much smaller target area located at a specific place and on a specific side of the engine. If the designated target area is obviously smaller than 50% of the overall surface area, there is no need for a precise calculation of the overall surface area.

As per our requirements, manufacturers submit their target area information to NHTSA. This information is publicly available through our Docket Management System at http://dms.dot.gov/. An examination of manufacturers submissions to the docket reveals that the majority of the manufacturers indeed avoid precise calculations of the overall surface areas for a given vehicle part, and instead choose to designate smaller target areas.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.4/11/03

ID: nht88-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/88

FROM: PAUL SCULLY -- VICE PRESIDENT, PETERSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF "EFFECTIVE PROJECTED LUMINOUS AREA"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO PAUL SCULLY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The members and counsel of the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute, who met with you on April 14, 1988, requested that I send you a summary of the interpretations which industry has been using regarding the term, "effective projected luminous area" . This relates to an inquiry from Wesbar and the agency's response on the meaning of this term.

On October 28, 1970, the National Highway Safety Bureau issued the following interpretation:

"The effective projected luminous area is that area of the lens measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, which is not obstructed by an opaque object, such as a mounting screw, mounting ring, or an ornam ental bezel or trim. This allows the area of rings or other configurations (raised portions) molded in the lens to be considered part of the total effective area, even if this area does not contribute significantly to the total light output."

On October 28, 1979, an interpretation was issued by Roger Compton, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs, to American Motors Corporation which read as follows:

"The effective projected luminous area is that area of the lens measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of the lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, which is not obstructed by an opaque object. This interpretation allows the area of rings, or ot her configurations molded to the lamp to be considered part of the total effective area, even if this area does not contribute significantly to the total light output."

The above interpretations are basically the same. The vehicle lighting industry has been using these definitions, based on opinions from your agency, for about 18 years. Prior to that time, this same basic definition was even used by a number of indivi dual states. Also, the independent testing laboratories throughout the nation, as well as all manufacturers, have been excluding reflex areas in calculating "effective projected luminous area" for well over 40 years.

In 1987, the Society of Automotive Engineers through the SAE Lighting Committee adopted the following language which is now a part of SAE J387-Terminology:

"Effective projected luminous area" is the part of the light emitting surface measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of a lamp, excluding reflex reflectors, (but including congruent reflexes), which is not obstructed by opaque objects such as mounting screws, mounting rings, bezels or trim or similar ornamented feature areas. Areas of optical or other configurations, for example, molded optical rings or markings, shall be considered part of the total "effective projected luminous area" even if they do not contribute significantly to the total light output. The axis of the lamp corresponds to the H-V axis used for photometric requirements."

Again, you will note that the SAE term clearly excludes the reflex reflector areas. A prismatic reflex reflector is constructed to return light from an outside source. In contrast, a lens optic is designed to direct light which originates inside the le ns area. While it is true that a small amount of light escapes through the prismatic reflector area, this light cannot be controlled or directed and provides nothing more than a minimal glow of light.

I confirmed that the vehicle manufacturers in Detroit have also relied on the interpretations issued by your agency and its predecessor as described above.

The letter to Wesbar Corporation, dated March 16, 1988, appears to have been caused by a misunderstanding involving some engineering terms. We respectfully suggest a prompt clarification should satisfy everyone.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht94-2.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. Mark Willingham, Esq. -- Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C. (Austin, TX)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/94 from Mark Willingham to John Womack (OCC 9640)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 1, 1994, letter to me about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) consumer information regulation for utility vehicles (49 CFR 575.105, Utility Vehicles). The regulation, Part 575.105, requires man ufacturers to permanently affix a prescribed sticker in a prominent location of each utility vehicle to alert drivers of the handling differences between utility vehicles and passenger cars.

You asked about the meaning of the word "permanent" as used in Part 575.105. In a May 1984 final rule establishing Part 575.105 (copy enclosed), NHTSA said that the label "should be of a permanent nature" and concurred with a comment on the proposed rule that the label should be permanently affixed so that, among other reasons, subsequent vehicle owners are made aware of the utility vehicle's handling characteristics. NHTSA believed specifying precisely how the label is to be permanently affixed would be design restrictive. However, we stated in the enclosed final rule that stickers such as the placard required by paragraph S4.3, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, would be considered adequate.

You also asked "to whom is Part 575.105 directed (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealership)...(or) a seller of a used vehicle." The regulation applies to the manufacturer and seller of a new vehicle, not to a seller of a used vehicle. The regulation was issued under sections 103, 112 and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C S1381, et seq. (hereinafter Safety Act). Section 103 authorizes NHTSA to issue and amend Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new mo tor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 112(d) (15 U.S.C. S1401(d)) authorizes NHTSA:

"(T)o require the manufacturer (of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment) to give such notification of such performance and technical data as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act in the followi ng manner --

(1) to each prospective purchaser of a motor vehicle or item of equipment before its first sale for purposes other than resale . . .; and

(2) to the first person who purchases a motor vehicle or item of equipment for purposes other than resale . . . .

Section 119 confers general rulemaking authority to issue rules to effectuate the express grants of authority and the obligations imposed by the Safety Act.

Sections 103, 112, and 119 of the Safety Act authorize NHTSA to require the consumer information label up to the delivery of the new vehicle to the consumer who first purchases the vehicle "for purposes other than resale." NHTSA cannot require sellers of used vehicles to restore missing labels prior to sale of the used vehicles, or prohibit a vehicle owner from removing or defacing the label.

You also asked for documents regarding the drafting and interpretation of Part 575.105. Please find enclosed copies of the following: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58323); final rule, dated May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20016); fi nal rule, response to petitions for reconsideration, dated August 10, 1984 (49 FR 32069); and letter to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq., dated August 15, 1984. For future reference, copies of NHTSA's interpretation letters can be obtained from the agency' s docket section. The address for the docket is 400 Seventh St., S.W., Room 5108, Washington, D.C., 20590, telephone (202) 366-4949.

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

ID: 9640

R. Mark Willingham, Esquire
Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C.
114 Lost Creek Boulevard, Suite 215
Austin, TX 78746

Dear Mr. Willingham:

This responds to your February 1, 1994, letter to me about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) consumer information regulation for utility vehicles (49 CFR 575.105, Utility Vehicles). The regulation, Part 575.105, requires manufacturers to permanently affix a prescribed sticker in a prominent location of each utility vehicle to alert drivers of the handling differences between utility vehicles and passenger cars.

You asked about the meaning of the word "permanent" as used in Part 575.105. In a May 1984 final rule establishing Part 575.105 (copy enclosed), NHTSA said that the label "should be of a permanent nature" and concurred with a comment on the proposed rule that the label should be permanently affixed so that, among other reasons, subsequent vehicle owners are made aware of the utility vehicle's handling characteristics. NHTSA believed specifying precisely how the label is to be permanently affixed would be design restrictive. However, we stated in the enclosed final rule that stickers such as the placard required by paragraph S4.3, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, would be considered adequate.

You also asked "to whom is Part 575.105 directed (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealership)...[or] a seller of a used vehicle." The regulation applies to the manufacturer and seller of a new vehicle, not to a seller of a used vehicle. The regulation was issued under sections 103, 112 and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. '1381, et seq. (hereinafter Safety Act). Section 103 authorizes NHTSA to issue and amend Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 112(d) (15 U.S.C. '1401(d)) authorizes NHTSA:

"[T]o require the manufacturer (of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment) to give such notification of such performance and technical data as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act in the following manner -- (1) to each prospective purchaser of a motor vehicle or item of equipment before its first sale for purposes other than resale . . .; and

(2) to the first person who purchases a motor vehicle or item of equipment for purposes other than resale . . . .

Section 119 confers general rulemaking authority to issue rules to effectuate the express grants of authority and the obligations imposed by the Safety Act.

Sections 103, 112 and 119 of the Safety Act authorize NHTSA to require the consumer information label up to the delivery of the new vehicle to the consumer who first purchases the vehicle "for purposes other than resale". NHTSA cannot require sellers of used vehicles to restore missing labels prior to sale of the used vehicles, or prohibit a vehicle owner from removing or defacing the label.

You also asked for documents regarding the drafting and interpretation of Part 575.105. Please find enclosed copies of the following: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58323); final rule, dated May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20016); final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration, dated August 10, 1984 (49 FR 32069); and letter to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq., dated August 15, 1984. For future reference, copies of NHTSA's interpretation letters can be obtained from the agency's docket section. The address for the docket is 400 Seventh St., S.W., room 5108, Washington, D.C., 20590, telephone (202) 366-4949.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:575 d:4/l/94