ID: ntea.ztv

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in reply to your letter of October 2, 2002, requesting an interpretation of several provisions of the "early warning reporting" final rule (49 CFR Part 579, Subpart C).

You asked three sets of questions. The first of these was:

All reports . . . require the vehicle make, model, and model year. As many of the bodies and equipment manufactured by NTEA members are installed on a variety of different makes and models of trucks most body and equipment manufacturers have never needed this information nor required it to be provided in normal processing of warranties or consumer complaints. Also, the vehicle make and model year are seldom recorded in field reports because the primary focus is on the truck body or equipment. Give the "Minimal Specificity" provision outlined in 579.28(d), if the historical records do not include the vehicle make, model and model year, it is our interpretation that they are not reportable by the body or equipment manufacturer since there is no way to identify the vehicle make or model. Is this interpretation correct and would it also apply to the one-time three year historical report and the nine years of historical data to be included in the quarterly reports?

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer of "bodies and equipment" is a manufacturer of "motor vehicle equipment." The bodies and equipment manufactured by NTEA members are "original equipment" because they are equipment installed on a motor vehicle at the time it is delivered to its first purchaser. (This answer assumes that the "bodies and equipment" are installed on a chassis by a third person.) The only early warning reporting requirements of Part 579 that apply to manufacturers of original equipment (other than tires) are the limited reporting requirements of 49 CFR 579.27.The one-time historical report established by Section 579.28(c) is required only of manufacturers "covered by Sections 579.21 through 579.26 of this part."This does not include manufacturers covered by Section 579.27, such as manufacturers of original equipment.

If an NTEA member that is a manufacturer of original equipment receives a claim or notice of an incident involving death, the claim or notice need not be reported if it does not identify the equipment with "minimal specificity" (Section 579.28(d)). For bodies and other equipment, "minimal specificity" (as defined in Section 579.4(c)) amounts to the name of the manufacturer (and if there is a model or family of models identified on the item of equipment, the model name or model number). Even if the equipment is identified with minimal specificity, the claim or notice need not be reported if the identified equipment was manufactured prior to four calendar years before the reporting period (Section 579.27(b)).

In sum, it appears to us that NTEA members who are solely manufacturers of original equipment will have very limited reporting responsibilities under the early warning reporting rule.

NTEAs second question was as follows:

In the truck body and equipment industry, typically, a body manufacturer supplies the body to a distributor who installs it on the truck chassis. In this case, the body manufacturer would be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and the distributor would be the final stage manufacturer. Distributors (the final stage manufacturer) typically complete warranty work, as it applies to the body, on a customers vehicle and subsequently submit a warranty claim to the body manufacturer for coverage under its warranty plan. If the distributor is the final stage manufacturer of more than 500 vehicles per year, then presumably the distributor must report warranty information to NHTSA. There is the potential that both the distributor and the body manufacturer will submit warranty information to NHTSA on the same warranty claim. How is this situation to be handled?

In the example you give, the body manufacturer is subject to the reporting provisions of Section 579.27. This section requires reporting only of information regarding claims and notices of incidents involving deaths. There is no requirement that the body manufacturer report warranty claims to NHTSA, even if it receives them. However, the entity that you have characterized as the "distributor" would be a vehicle manufacturer under our statute and thus would have to submit warranty data if it produced 500 or more vehicles of a given category per year. It is possible that such claims may also be reported by the chassis manufacturer (although it probably would not have to do so), but our screeners will be able to adjust to avoid double counting.

NTEAs third question was as follows:

Some body manufacturers install the bodies on truck chassis themselves (thus becoming the final stage manufacturer) while also selling some bodies through distributors, who become the final stage manufacturers of those vehicles. Does this body manufacturer need to submit reports as both an equipment manufacturer and a motor vehicle manufacturer? Do they need to submit one form for the bodies sold as equipment and one for the bodies they installed as the final-stage motor vehicle manufacturer? If so, should the equipment manufacturer form cover both those bodies sold via distributors and those bodies installed directly? Does the body manufacturer need to report on behalf of its independent distributors?

The body manufacturer must submit reports as both an equipment manufacturer and a motor vehicle manufacturer when circumstances dictate. However, as discussed above, only the limited reporting requirements of Section 579.27 apply to manufacturers of bodies furnished to persons who become the final stage manufacturer. If the body manufacturer becomes a final stage manufacturer of less than 500 vehicles annually, the limited reporting requirements of Section 579.27 will also apply. Each claim or notice of a death it receives as a body manufacturer and as a vehicle manufacturer must be reported separately. If the body manufacturer is the final stage manufacturer of 500 or more of any category of vehicles annually (e.g., medium heavy vehicle), it must furnish full reports as specified in the sections that apply to the type of vehicle completed.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/11/03

ID: ntea2.ztv

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 2003, asking 20 questions relating to the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations issued by this agency (Subpart C, 49 CFR Part 579). By letter dated April 11, 2003, we previously answered several other questions you asked about these regulations. Your questions, and our responses, are as follows:

"1) For manufacturers of fewer than 500 vehicles per year, is NHTSA requiring a report for each quarter when there are no fatalities?"

No.

"A) If not, are low volume and equipment manufacturers still required to submit a request for an m [User] ID and password when they have no fatalities to report?"

No.

"B) Is it true that low volume and equipment manufacturers can submit reports for fatalities in writing to NHTSA?"

No. "Low volume" and equipment manufacturers eligible to report under Section 579.27 must submit reports of claims and notices involving deaths in one of the two ways specified under Section 579.29(a)(2), either by submitting them to the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) early warning repository through the use of templates available through NHTSAs internet home page, or by filling out an interactive form on ODIs early warning website.

"2) Is there another method for requesting and receiving a [User] ID and password, and also the designation of manufacturer's contacts, besides writing to the Director or [sic] ODI, as required under Part 579.29?"

No.

"A) If [a request for] an ID and password is submitted in writing within the required period, and it is not received prior to the due date for the reports, what should a manufacturer do?"

ODI will attempt to provide user IDs and passwords well before the due dates for reporting. If a manufacturer does not receive that information by the due date, it should notify ODI which will take appropriate action. We would then expect reports to be submitted within 10 working days after the manufacturer receives the User ID and password.

"B) Also, if a low volume or equipment manufacturer has no fatalities to report, are they still required to submit a request for an ID and password and the designation of the manufacturer's contacts?"

No.

"3) Part 579.29 - Manner of Reporting, indicates that the required reports must be submitted to NHTSA's early warning data repository identified on NHTSA's Internet home page (www.nhtsa.dot.gov). As of April 21, 2003, there does not appear to be any reference to the repository or to early warning reporting in general, including the Excel templates on the home page. When will the repository, Excel templates and any other information be listed on the home page?"

The NHTSA home page contains a link to "Early Warning Reporting (EWR) Requirements" under the list of "Popular Information."That link will take the viewer to templates and other information which are available now for downloading. Templates may be updated, as necessary. Manufacturers are encouraged to check the website periodically for any such updates.

"A) Also, Part 579.29 indicates that manufacturers of fewer than 500 vehicles per year and equipment manufacturers can either submit reports to the data repository "or by manually filling out an interactive form on NHTSA's early warning web site." Where is this located, and are there instructions/examples for using this interactive form? (See question 1 regarding low volume/equipment mfg.)"

There will be a link from the NHTSA website. We will also provide an information manual on how manufacturers are to report to ODI.

4) [Answered by the Final Rule published April 15, 2003, 68 FR 18136]

"5) For manufacturers that have production of 500 or more vehicles for the first time in the 2003 calendar year or after, but not in any prior year, what would be their reporting obligations?"

"A) If such a manufacturer reaches a production level of 500 for the very first time in the 4th quarter of a given calendar year, are they then responsible for submitting reports for the 4th quarter and each of the prior 3 quarters of that calendar year?"

In this situation, a manufacturer would submit reports under Section 579.27 for the first three calendar quarters, and, for the fourth quarter, reports under Sections 579.21-24, according to the type of vehicle manufactured.

"B) If so, would such a manufacturer also be required to submit a one-time historical report?"

The one-time historical report is due only on the date specified in Section 579.28(c), and would not be required from a manufacturer that begins to submit reports under sections 579.21-.24 at a subsequent date.

C) [Moot]

"D) How are the reporting obligations for the quarterly reporting and one-time historic report determined for manufacturers whose production fluctuates above and below 500 vehicles per year for the previous 2 or more years?"

The EWR regulations provide that if a manufacturers aggregate production of a vehicle type "during the calendar year of the reporting period or during each of the prior two calendar years is 500 or more," the manufacturer is not eligible to report under Section 579.27 for that type, and must provide quarterly reports and a one-time historical report in accordance with Section 579.28(c). See, e.g. the introductory text of Section 579.22.

"6) When acting as an intermediate stage manufacturer, how are vehicles that are modified treated? Are they counted for production?"

As we explained in our letter of April 11, 2003 to you, for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, only the manufacturer of the completed vehicle is required to report as a vehicle manufacturer. Incomplete vehicles, including vehicles produced by intermediate manufacturers, are deemed to be equipment, and information about them need not be reported under Sections 579.21-.24. However, we recognize that some light vehicle manufacturers may choose to include information about their incomplete chassis along with their other vehicles for which they report under Section 579.21. The final rules definition of "type" includes "incomplete vehicle" as a category of "light vehicle." Therefore, such a manufacturer would report production numbers and other data for incomplete vehicles that will be light vehicles when completed.

"A) Are intermediate stage manufacturers considered to be equipment manufacturers, since they are not completing the incomplete vehicle?"

See prior answer.

"7) Production Number reporting - do manufacturers of vehicles built in 2 or more stages count both the vehicles that they complete from incomplete chassis and the number of vehicles that they alter? The OEM of the completed vehicles that are altered, such as a pickup truck with the box removed and a new body added, would already have counted the completed pickup in their production numbers, so would the alterer need to count it as well after their manufacturing operations?"

Yes. A manufacturer must include in its production numbers any vehicle to which it attaches, or should attach, a certification under Part 567, either as its original manufacturer or as its alterer.

"A) Are used vehicles that are modified counted toward production, warranty claims, etc. since the company performing this is technically not a "manufacturer" at this point, but a repair facility? Ex. a used chassis that has a new body installed on it."

As a general rule, a used chassis with a new body installed is not considered a new vehicle, and no reporting is required under the EWR regulations. In addition, modifications of used vehicles, with two exceptions, are insufficient to create a new vehicle subject to NHSTA regulations that apply to new vehicles. Those two exceptions are based upon the extent of the modifications. See Sections 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, and 571.7(f), Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. These provisions may be relevant to the operations of some NTEA members.

"If so, what model year is used for reporting, the original model year of the vehicle or the year in which it was modified?"

If a truck or trailer is considered newly manufactured under Sections 571.7(e) or (f), the model year would be that of the year of the vehicles modification, and reporting would be required under the EWR regulations in the same manner as other new motor vehicles. If a truck or trailer is not considered newly manufactured under these sections, no reporting is required. This moots your remaining questions under "A."

"B) Along the same lines, under Part 571.7(e) and (f), since certain vehicles are excluded from Subpart B, does it make a difference whether a vehicle that is modified after the first retail sale is considered newly manufactured or not with regard to being counted toward production. For example, if it is not newly manufactured is it

accounted for, and if so how? If it is considered newly manufactured is it accounted for, and if so, how? If not, what about when a new VIN is issued? If so, for a vehicle with a new VIN, what model year would be used to designate it?"

See our answers to questions 7 and 7 A) above.

"C) Also under Part 571.7(c), since military vehicles are excluded from Subpart B, are vehicles and/or equipment produced and sold to the US Armed Forces counted toward production and included in reporting of warranty claims, consumer complaints, field reports, etc.?"

The exclusion of Section 571.7(c) is limited to compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and does not extend to other NHTSA regulations applicable to motor vehicles. We would expect manufacturers of vehicles that they would otherwise be required to certify, such as staff (passenger) cars and some trucks, to submit reports under the EWR regulations in the same manner as manufacturers of non-military motor vehicles certified by their manufacturers.

"D) Vehicles modified for mobility of the disabled are allowed to use the exemption from the make inoperative prohibition under which the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail is defined as the point at which the seller and the end user enter into a sales contract that identifies a specific vehicle to be delivered in the Final Rule of February 27, 2001. Are vehicles that are modified under this provision counted for production purposes?"

Part 595 only applies to modifications made after first sale. Therefore, they will be counted for EWR purposes by their original manufacturers, and not by the modifier.

"8) What are the model years of production volumes that need to be reported for the one-time historic and on-going quarterly reports? The July 10, 2002 (sic) indicates that production volumes from 1994 to the present must be reported for each year of the one-time report and then a moving window of the current model year plus the past 9 model years for the quarterly reports (i.e. is it provided for every year starting with 1994 and carries forward so there are always 9 years plus the current year shown on the quarterly reports?)."

For the quarterly reports, the reports must cover all vehicles "manufactured during the reporting period and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period." See, e.g., the introductory text of Section 579.22. For the one-time historic report, each of the twelve reports must cover claims and field reports applicable to vehicles back to model year 1994.

"A) Can you please give examples of what production information should be submitted for both the one-time historical report and the quarterly reports?"

The production information that is required for quarterly reports and the one-time historical report by manufacturers is described in the introductory text of Sections 579.21- 579.24, and subsection (a) of each of these sections. See the production template at NHTSAs EWR website for an example of the information that is to be submitted.

"B) Also, are the one-time historical reports to be produced utilizing the quarterly spreadsheet templates?"

Manufacturers should use the templates for the production numbers and the number of warranty claims and field reports for their one-time historical report.

"If so, what would be the file name strategy vs. the quarterly reports?"

ODI is developing a "naming convention" which will be covered in an early warning reporting manual that will be issued in the near future.

"9) Can the one-time historical report for warranty claims, warranty adjustments and field reports be submitted electronically?"

The one-time historical report should be filed electronically in the same manner as quarterly reports under Section 579.29(a).

"10) The Final Rule published on January 28, 2003 indicates that NHTSA would allow electronic submission of foreign defect reports under Part 579.11, so that they may be transferred by email or fax. Does this apply to other documents required under Part 579.11, specifically the annual list of substantially similar vehicles?"

Yes. Moreover, NHTSA is developing a template for these submissions.

"11) Clarification - are manufacturers responsible for reporting warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc. for equipment that was installed after the first retail sale by someone or themselves?"

We assume that the last phrase of this question meant to say "by someone other than themselves." Vehicle manufacturers need not report warranty claims, etc. under those circumstances. However, they would have to report a claim or notice about a death or injury regarding their product, even if they believe the claim arose out of the performance of an aftermarket addition.

"12) Are manufacturers responsible for reporting warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc. for altered vehicles? If they don't count toward the alterer's production count, it would seem then that they should be excluded from reporting in any of the other categories not involving deaths or injuries."

Alterers are responsible for reporting on the vehicles they alter. If an alterer has certified, or was required to certify, 500 or more vehicles per year within a specific vehicle category, it is required to submit production numbers, the number of warranty claims, consumer reports, etc.

"13) What are the rules for forwarding information that is received from other manufacturers in regards to external communications? Do engineering bulletins that are produced by another manufacturer and sent to more than one other manufacturer, dealer, customer, etc. and then redistributed by one of the recipients who also happens to be a manufacturer, have to be sent to NHTSA by the manufacturer recipient who re-distributes the bulletin/communication?"

Yes, they must do so under Section 579.5, even though the information may also be submitted by the original issuer of the document.

"14) Is there a hierarchy of reporting categories for incidents that fit more than one reporting category? E.g. how would an incident that starts as a consumer complaint that turns into a warranty claim be logged? Both as a consumer complaint and warranty claim or just one of them?"

The incident would be reported both as a consumer complaint and as a warranty claim.

"15) Make - Is it acceptable to use the chassis manufacturer's designation for the make and model?"

No. Our system will not accept submissions that attempt to specify multiple, unrelated manufacturers producing the same make, model, and model year vehicle. For EWR purposes, a final stage manufacturer can create a pseudo make by combining the final stage manufacturers name with the chassis make, such as Widget Ford, Widget Dodge, Widget Volvo, etc., used in conjunction with the appropriate model application. If a single body is installed on various chassis of a single manufacturer, the model designation would be modified to reflect the chassis. From the example above, Widget Ford becomes Widget Ford 150, Widget Ford 250, etc.

Whichever way a final stage manufacturer identifies a product in its production data, that product identification must be applied throughout each quarterly report (i.e., Death, Injury, Warranty, Consumer Complaints, etc.) as well as in all future quarterly reports.

"16) What constitutes structure"?

For purposes of the EWR regulations, "Structure" is defined in Section 579.4(b).

"A) If truck bodies are considered structures, are all components of the truck body considered to be part of the structure for warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc.?"

Yes.

"B) If yes, what about latch mechanisms on the body compartments-would they be categorized under latch-17?"

Yes. "Latch," as defined in Section 579.4(b), applies to latching devices on "doors" of all exterior body compartments.

"C) Further, are there any components of truck body that would not be reportable for warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc.?"

A manufacturer that has certified a completed truck is not required to report the number of property damage claims, consumer complaints, warranty claims, and field reports, involving a body component that is not considered "structure." However, the manufacturer would be required to report incidents involving death or injury with respect to such a component, using Code 98.

"i Clarification - are paint runs or dents or scratches reportable as warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc.?"

No. These do not relate to any systems or components of a vehicle specified in the regulations.

"ii What about equipment that is attached to or stored within a body? How would they be classified? Examples: ladder racks, generators, welding equipment, cranes, tool boxes, liquid storage tanks, sprayers, etc."

Equipment attached to the exterior of a body could create a safety problem if it detaches from the body while the trailer is in motion should be classified as "structure." Please note that the definition of "structure" includes mounting elements such as brackets and fasteners. On the other hand, equipment stored within a trailer is normally related to the structure of the vehicle. However, an incident that occurs that is due in whole or in part to the equipment, such as a fire or an incident involving a death, would be reportable.

"(a) And, would it make a difference if the vehicle to which the equipment is attached was completed from an incomplete vehicle vs. an altered vehicle with the same equipment?"

No.

"17) Would the definition of latch include locking/latching mechanisms that are located internally to a vehicle, such as on the inside of a second unit body of a truck or the interior of a trailer?"

No. The definition of "latch" relates only to a vehicles exterior doors.

"18) Would power take-off (PTO) issues be classified?"

"A) If so, how?"

"B) What about transmission mounted vs. engine mounted PTO's? Would the mounting location change the classification?"

Claims and other items involving PTOs would be reportable in the context of how they affect the vehicle or roadway safety; e.g., if a PTO failure causes the engine to seize, then it would be reported in the "Engine and Engine Cooling" category; if a hydraulic line to a PTO ruptures causing a fire, it would be reported under "Fire;" if there is an electrical problem as a result of a failure or problem with a PTO, then it would be reported under "Electrical System."

"19) In regards to the one-time historical report, the Production Information of Part 579.22 indicates that "[i]f the service brake system in a vehicle is not readily characterized as either hydraulic or air, the vehicle shall be considered to have hydraulic service brakes." Brake system information is not readily accessible in the records of many final-stage manufacturers, however, GVWR information typically is available. Given this, could manufacturers base their brake system designations on GVWR for the lack of any records to indicate otherwise? Some companies manufacture vehicles that are primarily under 20,000 Lbs. GVWR while others primarily manufacture Class 8 (over 33,000 Lbs. GVWR) vehicles. The guidance provided would be proper for assuming a hydraulic brake system for vehicles that are under 20,000 Lbs. GVWR, but not for vehicles that are over 33,000 Lbs. as they are predominately equipped with air brakes."

With respect to the service brake issues in the one-time historic report, the manufacturer should provide the warranty claim counts, as they are available. If the counts are not divided by type of service brake system, the approach suggested by NTEA is acceptable except that to prevent any gaps, vehicles with a gross vehicle weight less than 30,000 lbs. GVWR should be filed in Service Brake System, Hydraulic, and all others in Service Brake System Air.

"20) Part 573.5(a) states that [e]ach manufacturer of a motor vehicle shall be responsible for any safety-related defect or any noncompliance determined to exist in the vehicle or in any item of original equipment. Does this mean that a final-stage manufacturer would be required to perform a recall on vehicles that it completes where the defect or noncompliance lies within the incomplete chassis upon which the completed vehicle is based?"

Recall responsibility rests primarily with the manufacturer that certified the completed vehicle. See Sections 568.7, 571.3, 573.5. If the final stage manufacturer certified the vehicle, then it is primarily responsible for remedying any safety-related defect or noncompliance in the vehicle, including the portion of the vehicle manufactured by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. If an incomplete vehicle manufacturer or intermediate manufacturer certified the vehicle, then it is responsible for remedying the safety defect or noncompliance regardless of the manufacturer of the part or system that is the subject of the recall. Of course, the final stage manufacturer could seek indemnification or other redress from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

"A) Further, are incomplete vehicles considered to be "original equipment" for reporting purposes?"

See answer to Question 6.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.5/14/03

ID: ntea3.ztv

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in reply to your letter of June 26, 2003, which, to facilitate future reference, is your third request for interpretations relating to the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations issued by this agency (Subpart C, 49 CFR Part 579).

Your first issue related to an inconsistency that others have brought to our attention, and which we intend to address in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. That is, the regulation requires complete reporting by a manufacturer of light vehicles with an aggregate number of vehicles either during the reporting period or "during each of the prior two calendar years is 500 or more" (49 CFR 579.21) whereas complete reporting is required for medium-heavy vehicles and buses if the aggregate number of vehicles "during either of the prior two calendar years is 500 or more" (49 CFR 579.22; see also Sections 579.23 and 579.24). The regulatory text of the final rule was intended to implement the related statement that we made in the preamble (67 FR 45822 at 45831), that manufacturers of motor vehicles would report under Section 579.27 if their aggregate number of vehicles was fewer than 500 "in the year of the reporting period and in each of the two calendar years preceding the reporting period." Accordingly, we intend to correct Sections 579.22, 579.23, and 579.24 to reflect the intent expressed in our preamble statement.

Your second request was that the template for manufacturers reporting under Section 579.27 be revised so that the entry column labeled "Deaths/ Injuries" be changed to "Deaths," to reflect the fact that these manufacturers are not required to report injuries. However, your assumption is not correct. Although manufacturers reporting under Section 579.27 need not report incidents involving only injuries, they are required to report the number of injuries of which they are aware that occurred in incidents involving one or more deaths that are identified in claims or notices received by the manufacturer.

Your third and fourth requests related to the definition of "platform" and issues you believed it may raise with respect to final stage manufacturers.

The EWR rule defines "platform" as follows:

Platform means the basic structure of a vehicle, including but not limited to, the majority of the floorpan and undercarriage and elements of the engine compartment. The term includes a structure that a manufacturer designates as a platform. A group of vehicles sharing a common structure or chassis shall be considered to have a common platform regardless of whether such vehicles are of the same type, are of the same make, or are sold by the same manufacturer.

"Structure," in turn, is defined as follows:

Structure means any part of a motor vehicle that serves to maintain the shape and size of the vehicle, including the frame, the floorpan, the body, bumpers, doors, tailgate, hatchback, trunk lid, hood and roof. The term also includes all associated mounting elements (such as brackets, fasteners, etc.

You related that vehicles manufactured in two or more stages can have both common structures on different chassis, as well as different structures on common chassis. You asserted that the "floorpan or undercarriage, and elements of the engine compartment are very rarely, if ever, added or modified by a final stage manufacturer," and you asked whether the designation of "platform" for the final stage manufacturer should "be derived from the body/equipment being added to complete the vehicle or from the original chassis."

The definition of platform includes a group of vehicles "sharing a common structure or chassis." We construe the regulatory definition to mean that vehicles with "different structures on common chassis" have the same platform. We recognize that the regulatory language could be construed such that vehicles that have common structures added by a final stage manufacturer on different chassis could also be considered to have the same platform. However, that was not our intent. Moreover, such an interpretation could lead to confusion, since, under that approach, some vehicles could be considered to have more than one platform.

Your fourth concern relates to vehicles that share a platform because they are built on a common chassis. You asked how an incomplete vehicle manufacturer would determine which models share the same chassis since this is "typically an internal designation assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer."It is our understanding that chassis manufacturers use well-established and recognized designations for their chassis, such as Ford "E Series" or General Motors "C/K Series."Moreover, platform designations by final stage manufacturers do not have to be exactly the same as those of the original chassis manufacturer. Rather, final stage manufacturers need only identify those models/vehicles that share a chassis.

Finally, you asked whether the platform designations would be "determined the same way for alterers as for final stage manufacturers?"The answer is yes.

If you have any additional questions, you may refer them to Andrew DiMarsico of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.9/4/03

ID: NY_ bus_preemption

Robert A. Rybak, Associate Attorney
Office of Legal Affairs
State of New York
Department of Transportation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY12232




Dear Mr. Rybak:

This is in response to your letter and June13, 2005, facsimile asking whether the proposed changes to the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) bus inspection procedures are preempted by Federal regulations. We apologize for the delay in responding, as your original correspondence was lost. In short, we conclude that except for certain limited circumstances, the proposed procedures would not be preempted by Federal regulations.

In your letter, you explain that the new inspection procedures would require aftermarket bus modifiers to provide certain documentation and certification as to the scope of the changes made to a modified bus. Specifically, if the certification label required by 49 CFR Part 567 is missing, or contains information that no longer accurately reflects the vehicle because of the extent of modifications, the new procedures would require the modifiers to provide "Certification of the Present Status of Vehicles Altered, Modified, or Remanufactured After First Sale".

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which all motor vehicle manufacturers, including bus manufacturers, are responsible for certifying that their vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs. The certification label requirements are listed in 49 CFR Part 567. 567.4(g)(7) specifies that the certification label must indicate the type of the vehicle being certified (e.g., truck, bus, trailer).

With respect to your question, we first note that NHTSA does not generally regulate rebuilding or re-manufacturing of used motor vehicles, and thus, the States are not preempted from regulating these activities. However, if the rebuilding or remanufacturing involves sufficient manufacturing operations and new parts, the vehicle may be considered newly manufactured. This means that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of rebuilding (re-manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards. Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case-by-case basis.

We note that the preemption issue arises only with respect to the proposed NYSDOT requirements of certification. The States are not, of course, preempted from conducting inspections of all vehicles in question. We further note that, if a modified vehicle does not fall into the category of being deemed newly manufactured, the only other Federal requirement that is imposed on commercial entities that make modifications to used vehicles is that they "not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [the] vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . ." (49 U.S.C. 30122(b)).

Finally, please be advised that on June 22, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to amend the definition of "designated seating position" (70 FR 36094). If this proposal is adopted, it may affect your procedures with respect to determining seating capacity.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:567
d.7/27/05

ID: NYBILL22661

Terry W. Wagar, Vehicle Safety Technical Analyst III
Technical Services Bureau
NYS Department of Motor Vehicles
6 Empire State Plaza, Room 111
Albany, NY 12228





Dear Mr. Wagar:

This responds to your letter and telephone calls asking whether a proposed New York State bill (A00359) would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205. I regret the delay in responding. Your correspondence attached a version of the bill and expressed concern regarding an amendment to the original language of the bill which imposes light transmittance requirements on windows to the left and right of the driver on sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). Based on our understanding of your correspondence and telephone conversations with staff, we believe that the legislation would not be preempted.

BACKGROUND

According to your correspondence, New York's amended proposed law states, in relevant part:

(b) No person shall operate any motor vehicle upon any public highway, road or street:

* * *

(4) the rear window of which is composed of, covered by or treated with any material which has a light transmittance of less than seventy percent. A rear window may have a light transmittance of less than seventy percent if the vehicle is equipped with side mirrors on both sides of the vehicle so adjusted that the driver thereof shall have a clear and full view of the road and condition of traffic behind such vehicle.

The proposed State law pertains to the light transmittance of the rear window of SUVs and other MPVs, which is an aspect of performance regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR '571.205). The standard specifies performance requirements and permissible locations for the types of glazing that may be installed in motor vehicles. The standard requires some glazing to allow 70 percent of the incident light to pass through. For buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), the standard specifies the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for glazing installed in the windshield, the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility.

The proposed State standard also pertains to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR '571.111). The standard at S6.1 requires that MPVs, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less must have either (a) a passenger car mirror system, which includes an inside rear view mirror; or (b) a light truck mirror system, which requires unit magnification (flat) outside rear view mirrors of a minimum size on each side of the vehicle. In vehicles using the passenger car mirror system, the rear window is used for visibility. An inside mirror is not required for use with the light truck mirror system.

Whether the proposed New York law would be preempted under our statute is determined by '30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, which states in part:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

NHTSA safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30112.) Thus, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), state laws that apply to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles, and to the same aspect of performance, must be identical to the FMVSS.

However, NHTSA does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the States. Federal law does not require New York to set operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSS. Nonetheless, there are limits on State operational requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to new vehicles under the FMVSS, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State.

ANALYSIS

The proposed New York law would appear to be more stringent than the FMVSS, in that it would prohibit the windows to the rear of the driver on the left and right from having a light transmittance of less than 70 percent. However, NHTSA has determined in a 1998 rulemaking that the light transmittance levels of light truck and MPV rear glazing not used for driving visibility and light truck and MPV rear side glazing are not regulated under FMVSS No. 205, and that States are therefore free to set transmittance levels for those windows on those vehicles. Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking, July 14, 1998, 63 FR 37820. Thus, we conclude that the proposed New York law would not be preempted and that New York could prohibit the operation of light trucks and MPVs with rear windows that have a minimum light transmittance of less than 70 percent.

In addition, the proposed New York law would be less stringent than the FMVSS for mirrors because the New York law merely requires two outside mirrors rather than mirrors complying with the light truck mirror system in S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed New York law would not be preempted under '30103(b).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.11/9/01

ID: NYDOTBILL

Mr. Tom Perreaut
New York State Department of Transportation
Office of Legal Affairs
Building 5, New York State Campus
Albany, NY 12232





Dear Mr. Perreaut:





This responds to your letter and telephone calls asking whether a New York state bill (S.1731-B, January 27,1999,) would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors." Your correspondence attaches a revised version of the bill and a letter dated April 16, 1999, from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to your office regarding a previous version of the bill. Further, you attach a copy of a request for comments, dated June 12, 1996, based upon a granted petition for rulemaking to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to require convex cross view mirrors on certain trucks (61 FR 30586). Based on our understanding of your correspondence and telephone calls, we believe that the answer to your question is a qualified no.

According to your correspondence, New York's proposed law states, in relevant part:

Every motor vehicle when driven or operated upon a public highway in the delivery of goods or services to residential or business locations shall be equipped with one or more cross-view back-up mirrors designed to allow the driver of such motor vehicle a view of the area behind the back of the motor vehicle.

For the purposes of the bill, a "motor vehicle" is defined as:

a vehicle that is registered or based in the state of New York, and that is equipped with a cube-style or enclosed delivery bay with a minimum eight feet six inches and a maximum of eighteen feet, provided that any such vehicle be a single unit vehicle which is operated for commercial purposes except for motor vehicles in interstate commerce and rental vehicles....

A "cross-view back-up mirror" is defined as "a mirror mounted on a motor vehicle and so located to enable the driver to view directly behind such vehicle."

Section 30103(b) of our statute, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) (formerly 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), states in part:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State...may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), requires side rear view mirrors on trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) or more. The standard at S7.1 (for trucks with GVWRs of between 4,536 kg and 11,340 kg) and at S8.1 (for trucks with GVWRs of 11,340 kg or more) requires mirrors on both sides of the vehicle. The mirrors must be "located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and shall be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene." The use of the words "a view to the rear" and "rearward scene" does not indicate that the specified field of view extends directly behind the truck. Our review of the rulemaking history of the standard, including the notice we published at 61 FR 30856 (June 12, 1996), indicates that there is no Federal intent to regulate the area directly and immediately behind the type of vehicle in question. New York would thus be regulating a different aspect of performance (i.e., a different field of view) than that regulated by Standard No. 111.

If the State regulation addresses only the area directly behind the motor vehicle and therefore not the area addressed by Standard No. 111, it would not be preempted by 30103(b). However, it is difficult to respond categorically that the State regulation would not be preempted because you have provided little information on what the State would require. The State regulation would be preempted if it conflicts with Federal law, either by creating a situation in which manufacturers cannot comply with both the State and Federal laws, or by interfering in some way with another Federal motor vehicle safety standard (such as the field-of-view requirements for the lighting standard, 49 CFR 571.108).

If NHTSA were to issue a standard regulating the field of view of this area, inconsistent State laws would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Of course, we would consider any relevant State laws when adopting a Federal standard. Currently, we have ongoing rulemaking considering establishing performance for rear cross view mirrors. We expect to publish an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), following upon 61 FR 30586, on this in the future.

In addition, there may be preemption issues concerning Federal law administered by the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. FMCSA was established on

January 1, 2000, and was formerly a part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). We note that Mr. Brian Temperine of the FHWA wrote your department on April 16, 1999, concerning preemption issues arising from a previous version of the bill in question. We suggest that you contact the FMCSA at (202) 366-4012 for information concerning preemption, FHWA's April 16, 1999, letter, and FMCSA's views of the current version of the bill.

In closing, we want to make clear that we are not providing any views with respect to the merits of the State mirror requirement to be enacted in New York. This letter only addresses the preemption issue you raised.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





ref:111
d.8/3/00

ID: NYS_preemption-8263

Ms. Ida L. Traschen, Esq.
Department of Motor Vehicles
6 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12228




Dear Ms. Traschen:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether New York State "must" amend its definition of low speed vehicle (LSV) to conform to the recent amendment to the Federal definition of LSV. Your question is addressed below.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, Low Speed Vehicles, to ensure that LSVs are equipped with an appropriate level of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. As established in an August 17, 2005 final rule, LSV is defined as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds), whose attainable speed in one mile is more than 32 kilometers per hour (km/h) (20 miles per hour (mph)) but less than 40 km/h (25 mph) (70 FR 48313).

In your letter, you stated that the definition of LSV under New York State Vehicle Traffic and Safety Law 121-f does not include a gross vehicle weight rating limit. You then asked if New York State must amend its definition of LSV to conform to the recently amended Federal definition of LSV.

While a State is not required to amend its definition of LSV, maintaining a different definition than the Federal definition could have implications with respect to preemption of State laws.

Under Federal law, a vehicle that meets the Federal definition of "low-speed vehicle" must be manufactured to conform to FMVSS No. 500. Similarly, a vehicle that meets the Federal definition of "passenger car," "multipurpose passenger vehicle," or "truck," must be manufactured to meet the FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle type, regardless of how the vehicle may be classified under State law.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

Different motor vehicle safety standards apply depending on how a vehicle is classified, i.e. , its vehicle type. If a State law classifies a vehicle differently than Federal law, preemption is an issue under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) if: (1) the State classification results in the vehicle being subject to a State standard applicable to the same aspect of performance regulated by a FMVSS, and (2) the State standard is not identical to the FMVSS. In such an instance, the State safety standard would be preempted.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:500
d.1/4/06

ID: Ocean_imports_scooter_03-9045.2version2

Mr. Brian Lambert
Panalpina Inc. / Ocean Imports
18600 Lee Rd.
Humble, TX 77338

Dear Mr. Lambert:

This responds to your letter asking whether several models of scooters you are considering importing into the United States are "motor vehicles" for the purpose of the regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, it is our opinion that the two models with a maximum speed greater than 20 mph are motor vehicles.

The legislation establishing NHTSAs vehicle safety authority is set out at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" (Emphasis added.) "Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a) as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In a November 26, 2003, letter addressed to Mr. Amir Ambar, we addressed the issue of whether a scooter that he wished to import into the United States was considered a motor vehicle under this definition. We will consider the points we made in that letter in responding to your request.

In responding to Mr. Ambar, we noted that when determining if a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, the agency first looks to see if the vehicle has on-road capabilities.

We also noted that in an October 3, 1969, notice, the agency determined that while "mini-bikes" have on-road operating capabilities, they are not motor vehicles for

the purpose of our standards (34 Federal Register 15416; enclosed). At that time the agency found that "mini-bikes" were precluded from operation on public roads by a vast majority of States. The agency has determined this to still hold true. Further, "mini-bikes" were at that time promoted and advertised solely for off-road use.

The scooter at issue in our November 2003 letter was described as a "toy" intended for off-road use only. The literature submitted stated that the maximum speed of the scooter ranged between 12.5 and 16 miles per hour (mph). The scooter was shown to have an engine displacement of 36 cc, a height of 33 inches, and wheel diameters of ten and nine inches (front and rear, respectively). The owners manual and a label on the scooter warned against operating the scooter on public roads.

Based on the description provided, including its speed capabilities and small size, we concluded that the "scooter" at issue was properly characterized as a "mini-bike," and therefore was not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Chapter 301. We explained that the scooters low speed capability would prohibit it from being operated in normal moving traffic. This was reflected in the warning label. Further, the low sitting height and small wheel diameters were comparable if not smaller than those of the mini-bikes considered under the 1969 notice.

We also stated that while the scooter at issue in that letter could theoretically be operated on public roads, we anticipated that because of its small size and absence of a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), which is generally required by States for vehicles authorized to operate on public roads, incidents of its actual operation on public streets, roads, and highways would be comparatively rare. We recognized that the scooter was equipped with a headlight, horn, turn signals, and a mirror. We noted that while this equipment may be seen as equipping the scooter for road use, such equipment is also sometimes present on bicycles and other non-motor vehicles as well.

Finally, we stated that while we had concluded at that time that the scooter was not a motor vehicle, we might re-evaluate our determination if we were to receive additional information indicating that the scooter (or similar ones) were being used on public roads on more than an incidental basis, the scooter were to be advertised for use on public roads, or the characteristics of the imported scooters were not consistent with the descriptions provided.

We will now turn to the scooters you asked about. In your e-mail, you stated that the three scooter models you are considering importing are intended for off-road-use only. The JC 50 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 49 cc, a maximum speed of 15 mph, and a height of 32.6 inches. The JC 70 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 72 cc, a maximum speed of 37 mph, and a height of 37.4 inches. The JC 90 model is advertised as having an engine displacement of 85.7 cc, a maximum speed of 50 mph, and a height of 37.4 inches. Your e-mail stated that all three models are marked for off-road use and all three models have VINs. You further stated that sales of these scooters would be primarily through the internet. As advertised on the internet, the scooters are shown with headlights and mirrors.

ID: ODI.approximationofproduction

Memorandum Regarding Estimates Of Production
Under The Early Warning Reporting Rules

NHTSA has received inquiries whether under the early warning reporting (EWR) rule, a manufacturer must estimate annual production of its vehicles to determine whether it likely will be above the production threshold for full reporting, and if so, whether it must then submit quarterly reports before its actual production-to-date reaches the threshold. We have also received inquiries on how to report production where the manufacturer does not know, and cannot determine with reasonable effort, the number of reportable items it manufactured.

The early warning reporting rule divides manufacturers of motor vehicles into two groups with different responsibilities for reporting. The first group, which includes larger manufacturers of motor vehicles that produce, import, offer for sale or sell 500 or more vehicles per year of one or more of four defined categories of vehicles, is subject to comprehensive reporting. See 49 CFR 579.21-24. The second group, which includes relatively small manufacturers of less than 500 vehicles per year in those defined categories, is subject to limited reporting. See 49 CFR 579.27. (Manufacturers of tires and child restraint systems are also required to make comprehensive reports.) As we explained in an interpretation, manufacturers are required to make good faith estimates of their expected annual production for purposes of determining whether to report under 49 CFR 579.21-24 or 579.27. See Letter of July 24, 2003, to Mr. Lance Tunick.

While we require estimation of future production for purposes of determining whether the manufacturer is likely to be at or above the 500 vehicle threshold, ordinarily reports of production-to-date will be actual numbers. However, manufacturers will be permitted to approximate production information in those situations where it is not possible for a manufacturer to quantify the number of vehicles, tires, or child restraint systems it manufactured. We anticipate and expect that such approximations of past production will be few and far between, given that manufacturers would usually keep production records in the ordinary course of their business.

Additional questions concerning EWR should be directed to Andrew DiMarsico of this office at 202-366-5263.

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.12/3/03

ID: onlinetireregistration

Ms. Ann Wilson
Sr. Vice President, Government Affairs
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Ms. Wilson:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSA) tire information regulation, 49 CFR 574.7. You asked whether the regulation permits tire manufacturers to offer electronic registration in addition to the required mail-in form. You state that no more than 10% of tire registration cards are currently returned to manufacturers and that the information provided on these cards is often inaccurate, incomplete, or illegible. RMA believes that offering registration via the Internet, by telephone, or by other electronic means would improve the registration return rate and aid manufacturers in fulfilling notification requirements.

As explained below, we interpret the regulation to permit electronic registration as a supplement to the required mail-in form for independent distributors and dealers.

By way of background, Part 574 establishes a registration program for new tires. NHTSA implemented this program to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer campaigns to recall tires that contain a safety-related defect or fail to conform with applicable safety standards. By identifying new tire purchasers, the program increases the manufacturers ability to inform owners of tires about defects or noncompliances in those tires.

Part 574 establishes the following requirements:

New Tire manufacturers, new tire brand name owners. Except as noted, new registration forms are to be provided for independent dealers. All of those forms are required to be identical in format and content and within the size range specified in the interim final rule. Alternatively, the manufacturer can provide independent dealers with pre-addressed envelopes in which tire purchasers could mail the mandatory registration forms.

Independent distributors and dealers. These dealers are required to record the tire identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold along with their name and address on a registration form and give the form to the tire purchaser.

Other distributors and dealers. They must record the purchaser's name and address, the tire identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold, and a suitable identification of themselves as the selling dealer on a tire registration form and return the completed forms to the tire manufacturers or their designees.

Section 574.7 prescribes the content and format of the registration forms provided by tire manufacturers to all distributors and dealers. Paragraph (a)(2) of this section states that the registration form provided to independent distributors and dealers must conform to the examples provided in that section. Paragraph (a)(4) of this section provides that the registration form must contain space for recording the following information: 1) name and address of the tire purchaser, 2) tire identification number, and 3) name and address of the tire seller or other means by which the tire manufacturer can identify the tire seller. Under section 574.7, no other information than that prescribed in the section is permitted to appear on the form.

RMA asks that we interpret the regulation to permit manufacturers to provide independent dealers and distributors with a supplemental form, in addition to the form required under section 574.7(a)(2), that notifies consumers that they may also register their tires by electronic means; e.g., by directing the consumer to a website or a toll-free telephone registration line. RMA cites to two recent interpretation letters issued by our office with respect to the electronic registration of child restraint systems under FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (letter to John K. Stipancich, January 3, 2003; letter to Mark A. Rosenbaum, Esq., April 12, 2001). These letters conclude that child restraint manufacturers "may include a supplemental form that encourages electronic registration" if the following two conditions are met:

1. The registration card required by FMVSS No. 213 does not bear any information or writing beyond that required to be on the form, and
2. The additional information is presented in a manner not likely to confuse consumers about the purpose of the required form or to obscure the importance of owner registration.

Subsequent to RMAs interpretation request, Computerized Information Management Services, Inc. ("CIMS"), a tire registration agent for tire manufacturers and/or brand name owners, submitted a letter dated April 23, 2003, urging that "web-based tire registration is a bad idea" and that the interpretation that RMA is requesting should be denied. More specifically, CIMS argues that a web-based system would create significant confusion for the tire dealer and the consumer, would place an additional paperwork burden on the tire dealer, and would place an additional burden on the consumer to correctly enter all of the required tire registration information.

After considering the issues raised by your letter and also by CIMS, we agree that the rationales of the aforementioned FMVSS No. 213 interpretation letters are also applicable to interpreting Part 574. We therefore interpret Part 574 to permit electronic registration as a supplement to the required mail-in form, subject to the two considerations noted above for FMVSS No. 213. We do not agree with CIMS that supplemental electronic registration would create confusion, given these considerations. Moreover, since electronic registration would be supplemental and voluntary, it would not result in additional burdens.

This interpretation does not relieve non-independent distributors and dealers from the requirements of section 574.8(b) that they themselves record the purchaser's name and address, the tire identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold, and a suitable identification of themselves as the selling dealer on a tire registration form and return the completed forms to the tire manufacturers or their designees. While we would interpret Part 574 to permit non-independent distributors and dealers to accomplish these tasks by electronic means, they may not transfer this responsibility to consumers.

If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc: CIMS
ref:109
d.7/18/03