ID: nht90-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING NHTSA

TO: MIKE LOVE -- MANAGER, SAFETY COMPLIANCE PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO STEPHEN WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL ENTITLED PORSCHE'S MODIFIED ANTITHEFT EXEMPTION, LETTER DATED 04/12/90; LETTER DATED 03/30/90 FROM MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR ON 49 CFR PART 543 EXEMPTION

TEXT: This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new feature added to the antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 911 and 928 Porsche car lines, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the age ncy's previous granting of a theft exemption for those car lines beginning in MY 1990, and that therefore Porsche 911's and 928's containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Porsche 911 and 928 car lines were granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Porsche showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on these car lines was likely to be as effec tive as parts marking. This exemption was issued on May 25, 1989, and appeared in the Federal Register on June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23727).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6( a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Porsche plans to modify the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Porsche 911 and 928, as follows: integrate the alarm control unit with the central locking and interior light contro l units; incorporate a feature that will also monitor the glove box for unauthorized opening; improve

P2

diagnostic capability in order to enhance serviceability; and install a capability to accept other features (such as motion sensors) if they are desired in the future.

In addition, it was stated that the changes in the system will be virtually unnoticeable to the operator, and that the system will still be armed passively by locking either door with the key. Further, with the addition of the glovebox, all the same poi nts of entry, such as the doors, hood, and hatch, will be monitored by the system and the engine disabling and alarm features will be the same. Porsche further stated that the system "will be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system."

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspec ts of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessar y for Porsche to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Porsche does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Porsche notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in an April 13, 1990 telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, you stated that Porsche was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a c opy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.

REF: PART 543

ID: 86-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allen F. Brauninger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Allen F. Brauninger Esq. Office of the General Counsel U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207

Dear Mr. Brauninger:

Thank you for your letter of March 20, 1986, concerning whether a nylon tow strap would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment as defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As discussed below, we have determined that a nylon tow strap is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines, in part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . (Emphasis added.)

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory" the agency has looked at the following two factors, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. On first impression, it would seem that the nylon tow strap in question could have purposes, such as work with agricultural equipment, which do not involve motor vehicles covered by the Vehicle Safety Act. However, the advertising and promotional literature and articles you have provided show that the strap is intended to be used by motorists to pull one motor vehicle with another motor vehicle. The literature consistently refers to the use of the strap to pull a stuck motor vehicle out of mud, snow, and sand. Likewise, the illustrations in the advertisements and promotion literature show the straps being used to pull motor vehicles.

The material you enclosed also makes clear that the nylon tow straps are being offered to vehicle owners for use with conventional passenger cars and off-road, utility-type vehicles. Given those considerations, we would consider the nylon tow straps in question to be vehicle accessories and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment covered by the Vehicle Safety Act.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Stephen Oesch, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation -- Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

As you know, section 3 (a) (1) (C) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 2052 (a) (1) (C) ) excludes "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by section 102 (4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1391 (4)) from those "consumer products" which are subject to the authority of this agency.

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether a nylon tow strap promoted for use in extricating a vehicle stuck in mud or snow is an item of "motor vehicle equipment." As you repeated during our telephone conversation on March 19, 1986, I am enclosing copies of advertising and promotional materials for the product in question, and two articles which describe the product and its use.

After you have had an opportunity to examine these materials, I would like to discuss them with you.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Allen F. Brauninger Attorney

Enclosure

ID: 00472.ztv

Mr. Daryn Tubbergen
Midwest Regional Sales Manager
Sound Off Inc.
5132 37^th Avenue
Hudsonville MI 49426

Dear Mr. Tubbergen:

This is in reply to your letter of September 16, 2002, and enclosed videotape, asking for confirmation of your conclusion that the "Anti-Blow-By Secondary Warning Light System" (referred to in this letter as "the System") you describe is not prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The System is intended for use on school buses. My staff has reviewed the videotape and commented that it would have been clearer had there been a narrative as to what exactly was being depicted at any given moment, since your brief written description of the System is at times at odds with the videotape.

The System has three variants. "System 1 Anti-Blow-By" consists of four lamps of no specified color (your video tape shows that they are red strobe lamps), two mounted on the front of the bus above the bumper and two on the rear, above the bumper. You stated that when the red lamps of the school bus warning system are activated, the four lamps "will turn on and will flash." Your video tape shows that they flash twice for each single flash of the required red school bus signal lamps; also they alternate in phase with red school bus signal lamps.

The specifications for school bus-specific lighting systems are set forth in paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108. This requires a school bus to be equipped with either four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964. The school bus system must be wired so that the amber lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and, if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened.

Your System is not part of a red and amber school bus warning lamp system, even though it is wired to operate simultaneously. Even though you may believe that the System is supplemental to the required red school bus signal lamps, it is not, because the System does not function identically nor is it located as prescribed by SAE Standard which is referenced in S5.1.4. It flashes twice for every single flash of the required lamps. Although paragraph S5.5.10(a) specifically requires that the red and amber school bus warning lamps be wired to flash, paragraph S5.5.10(d) requires that all lamps (other than those enumerated in S5.5.10(a)-(c)) be steady burning. This requirement applies to your System 1, which would be prohibited because it flashes.

We also call your attention to S5.1.3, which prohibits the addition of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because your lamp system is mounted lower than permitted for school bus warning lamps, we believe your system may impair the effectiveness of required lamps on the rear of the school bus. This is because school bus warning lamps are required to provide at least twice the intensity as the maximum permitted intensity of red rear stop and turn signal lamps.

"System 2 Anti-Blow-By with Brake Function" consists of a pair of supplemental stop lamps that are caused to flash in the manner identical to System 1 when the school bus signal lamps are operating. .

System 2 also would not be permitted by S5.5.10(d) because it flashes.

"System 3 Side Warning Lights" consists of two lamps "to be mounted on either side of the bus around the stop arm area . . . ." While not clearly described in your letter or video tape, we presume that these lamps operate in a manner similar to System 1, but with the lamps facing directly to the side near the front of the bus, presumably to warn drivers in vehicles on cross streets. As such, System 3 would not be permitted by S5.5.10(d) because it flashes.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.2/14/03

ID: nht92-1.4

DATE: 12/29/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: LEO WENSTRUP -- MANAGER - TECHNICAL SERVICES, EATON CORPORATION, AXLE AND BRAKE DIVISION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-3-92 FROM LEO WENSTRUP TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 7963)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You explained that you have experienced problems in conducting certification testing of brake lining for vehicles in a city refuse fleet. Specifically, you stated that while the fade portion of the dynamometer test specifies decelerations from 50 miles per hour (mph) to 15 mph, the trucks in question have a maximum vehicle speed governed to 45 mph. You asked at what speed should the fade portion of the test be conducted given that these trucks are governed to a lower speed. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force--relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. In particular, the specified decelerations are designed to heat the brakes to simulate such severe driving conditions.

In conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would follow the procedures set forth in Standard No. 121. The standard expressly provides that decelerations are made from 50 mph to 15 mph in the dynamometer tests. See, for example, S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1. Nothing in Standard No. 121 specifies an exception for vehicles with a maximum speed below 50 mph. Moreover, since the tests in question are dynamometer tests and not road tests, there would be no difficulty in conducting the tests at a speed higher than the vehicle's maximum speed.

I note that this opinion assumes that Standard No. 121 applies to the vehicles in question. Certain vehicles with slow maximum speeds are excluded from the standard's coverage. See S3. However, these exclusions do not appear to apply to the refuse trucks in question.

Your letter appears to imply that Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests are inappropriate for vehicles which have a maximum speed governed to less than 50 mph. We note, however, that a governor set at 45 mph does not prohibit a vehicle from achieving speeds greater than 50 mph in certain situations such as driving downhill. In addition, as indicated above, the specified decelerations are designed to heat the brakes to simulate the severe driving conditions caused by prolonged and severe use and long downhill driving. The same degree of heating can occur at speeds below 50 mph. Therefore, we believe that the specified tests are appropriate for vehicles with a maximum speed governed to below 50 mph.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 86-6.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DALTON G. FEAGLER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/16/86, TO ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA, FROM DALTON G. FEAGLER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Feagler:

This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1986, to the Administrator, with respect to your "Dee-Tailer" device, asking for confirmation that it complies with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, in essence defines a stop lamp as one that indicates the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or to diminish speed by braking. Although you intend your device to indicate a similar intent, it would operate the stop lamp at any time the accelerator was released regardless of whether the driver intended to apply the brake pedal. This could result in confusion to following drivers. The "Dee-Tailer" could therefore be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamp within the prohibition of Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, and hence, unacceptable as an item of original equipment.

With respect to the aftermarket and the permissibility of your device for used vehicles, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part equipment that is installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard. Thus installation of the "Dee-Tailer" by a person other than the vehicle owner could be considered a violation of the Act. Finally, the acceptability of the device would also depend upon the laws of any State in which it is to be sold or used.

In concluding that the center highmounted stop lamp was the most effective way to reduce the incidence and frequency of low speed rear end collisions, the agency considered deceleration warning devices such as "Dee-Tailer," and found no discernible benefit from their use.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/17/94 from Karl-Heinz Ziwica to Barbara A. Gray

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the BMW 7 car line constitutes a de minimis change to the device. The propo sed modification is to be effective beginning with the 1995 Model Year (MY). As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device is not a de minimis change.

In a Federal Register notice dated October 9, 1986 (51 FR 3633), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device installed as standard equipment on the MY 1988 BMW 7 car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking.

In assessing whether changes are de minimis, the agency has focused its inquiry on whether the changed device would continue to provide the same aspects of performance as did the device on which the exemption was based. An example of a de minimis change is the substitution of new components for old components, without changing the aspects of performance provided by the device. NHTSA has also determined that adding a new aspect of performance, making an exempted antitheft device even more effective, wh ile leaving the original aspects undisturbed, is a de minimis change.

The change from the original BMW MY 1988 antitheft device to the one proposed for the MY 1995 BMW 7 car line does not present a simple case of either substituting new components for old, without changing the aspects of performance provided, or enhancing the effectiveness of an existing device, by adding a new aspect. Instead, the change is more complex, involving not only the addition of a new aspect (monitoring glass breakage), but also the deletion of some original aspects (monitoring the radio and g love box).

2

The agency is uncertain about the net effect of these changes and is therefore also uncertain whether the new modified device would be at least as effective as the original device. Monitoring glass breakage might decrease the likelihood that a would-be thief would ever enter a vehicle. On the other hand, adding this aspect of performance would not necessarily enhance effectiveness of the antitheft device. If a thief were to gain access to the passenger compartment with a slim-jim or other tool, witho ut breaking the glass, no alarm would sound, making the inside compartment vulnerable to theft. Further, no alarm would sound if the thief then tampered with the radio or glove box, individually.

NHTSA believes that the necessity for making judgments about the relative effectiveness of new and removed aspects of performance, and the complexity of the issues underlying those judgments, indicate that the changes are not de minimis. Indeed, these ju dgments are similar to the ones that the agency must make in considering a new petition for exemption.

Accordingly, if BMW wishes the planned MY 1995 device to be the basis for a theft exemption, it must submit a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR @ 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for modification must provide the same information or the m odified device as is required under @ 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in @ 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all cars in the line for which an exemption is sought.

If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Gray or Rosalind Proctor on (202) 366-1740.

ID: nht68-3.3

DATE: 12/30/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. M. Jackson, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of October 23, 1968, requesting the addition of the 5-inch alternative rim size for use with the 155-13/6.15-13 tire size designation.

In your request you cited a letter from the German Rubber Industry stating that "for passenger car tires in addition to the rims specified in the German Industrial Standards (DIN) also the use of the next large size rims is permissible." The subject of the foot note in the German standard was discussed by my staff in conversations with Mr. Von Polhemus. When the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were written, it was the intent to accept the German Industrial Standards (DIN) of 1967 for all tire and rim combinations listed based on established usage. We did not intend to apply foot notes from any 1967 reference materials to the present or future tire and rim combinations.

However, on the basis of the data submitted indicating compliance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110 and other information submitted in accordance with the procedural guidelines set forth in the Federal Register, Volume 33, No. 195, page 14969, dated October 5, 1968, the 5J alternative rim size for the 155-13/6.15-13 tire size designation will be listed within Table I of Appendix A to Standard No. 110. This change will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.

The addition of this new alternative rim size to the table is accomplished through an abbreviated procedure consisting of the publication in the Federal Register of the petitioned alternative rim size. If no comments are received, the amendment became effective after 30 days from the date of publication. If comments objecting to amendments are received, additional rule making pursuant to Part 216 of the Procedural Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will be considered.

ID: 11292ZTV

Christopher A. Cernik, Esq.
Couch, White Brenner, Howard & Feigenbaum
P.O. Box 22222
Albany, NY 12201

Dear Mr. Cernik:

This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1995, to Thomas M. Louizou, NHTSA Regional Administrator, seeking an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on behalf of your client, RoyRock LLC. RoyRock wishes to know "the extent to which it may state that the Dobert Lights meet DOT requirements when used as temporary replacement lights for certain lights required on commercial motor vehicles . . . ."

RoyRock is the distributor for the Dobert Universal Safety Light, two of which you enclosed with your letter. This is a lamp operated by two AA batteries, in either steady-burning or flashing mode, which may be affixed to a vehicle and is equipped with a road base stand for off-vehicle use. We note that the art work on the blister pack also depicts use of the lamps on products other than motor vehicles, specifically tractors and boats.

One intent for the Dobert Light is for it "to act as a temporary replacement for several standard lamps and reflectors as required by Standard 108", specifically, "taillamps; side marker lamps; identification lamps; vehicle hazard warning signal flasher; clearance lamps; and intermediate side marker lamps; . . . reflex reflectors and side reflex reflectors."

As you note, "[a]t issue is the fact that Standard 108 does not contemplate the use of temporary replacement lights." We

agree with that statement. Paragraph S3(c) specifies that Standard No. 108 applies to "Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies." Unless that equipment is identical in design to original equipment, it cannot be said to be a replacement for it. The purpose of paragraph S5.8 Replacement Equipment and most of its ten subparagraphs is to require that replacement equipment be designed to meet the same level of performance as original equipment. As you also note, the wiring requirements of paragraph S5.5 cannot apply to the activation and operation of the Dobert Light. In our view, taken together, paragraphs S3(c), S5.5, and S5.8 indicate the agency's unmistakable intent that the replacement lighting equipment governed by Standard No. 108 is equipment that differs from original equipment only in the time in which it installed on a motor vehicle. Replacement equipment is intended to be permanent, not temporary, and operable through a vehicle's electrical system and not through self-contained power sources outside the vehicle.

In our view, the Dobert Light meets the statutory definition of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B) for "motor vehicle equipment" to the extent that it is "an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle" even though it is not replacement equipment. Under Standard No. 108, the symbol "DOT" on a product is the manufacturer's certification that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, neither Standard No. 108 nor any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to this item of accessory lighting equipment and use of the DOT symbol on it would be inappropriate and misleading. Standard No. 108, however, would not prohibit the Dobert Light from being marked with the SAE lighting code specifying the various automotive lighting functions that its manufacturer believes it may meet.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/8/96

ID: 1982-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/82 EST

FROM: KATHLEEN M. BENNETT -- ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION - EPA

TO: SLADE GORTON -- UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO OCTOBER 29, 1982 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO CAMPBELL

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 30, 1982 concerning suggestions made to you by Mr. Lane Campbell of Kirkland, Washington.

I can comment only on the second and third of Mr. Campbell's three suggestions, which deal with EPA emission standards for highway vehicles and EPA noise standards for motorcycles. By copy of this letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), I am suggesting that they comment directly to you concerning Mr. Campbell's first suggestion, which deals with two NHTSA standards.

His second suggestion is that waivers or exemptions from EPA's emission standards be established for several defined categories of light, high fuel economy vehicles and for vehicles produced only in small quantities. Because the Clean Air Act itself establishes the basic emission reductions required for highway vehicles other than motorcycles, EPA is empowered only to allow temporary waivers from certain requirements of these standards for which this is specifically permitted by the Act. We do not have broad authority to grant the types of waivers proposed by Mr. Campbell. We do permit a substantially less detailed certification procedure for manufacturers of low production vehicles, defined as vehicles produced in quantities less than 10,000 units per year, but not a complete exemption from certification. Also, motorcycles powered by engines of less than 50cc in displacement are not required to comply with EPA emission standards.

Accordingly, I believe the Clean Air Act itself would have to be amended to provide waivers or exemptions for at least some of the categories of vehicles identified by Mr. Campbell. As you know, committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives are considering Clean Air Act amendments at the present time. H.R. 5252 contains a proposed change to section 202(b) of the Clean Air Act, which reads: "Upon the petition of any manufacturer, the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, shall waive any standard established under this part for any model (as determined by the Administrator) of vehicles or vehicle engines of such manufacturer for a period of up to four model years if the manufacturer

demonstrates that such waiver is necessary for the use of an innovative power train technology, innovative emission control device or system, or alternative fuel (other than any fuel or fuel additive registered pursuant to section 211 before the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1982) or power source in such model. The Administrator may review annually the actions taken by the manufacturer during the period for which the waiver is in effect and take appropriate action to insure conformance with the waiver." This amendment, if adopted, would appear to grant the necessary authority to the EPA Administrator to consider and respond to suggestions such as Mr. Campbell's.

His third suggestion concerns changes to noise standards applicable to certain specified categories of motorcycles. EPA promulgated motorcycle standards on December 31, 1980 which become effective on January 1, 1983. The issuance of these standards followed the evaluation of over 2,000 comments received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, plus extensive interactions with all segments of the motorcycle industry relative to the technological feasibility of compliance by all categories of motorcycles. In view of this extensive public involvement, we are not convinced that new amendments should be considered at this time.

I hope these comments will be helpful. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

ID: 1985-04.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Norman Friberg, P.E. -- Manager, Product Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647

This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated June 27, 1985, for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Paragraph S4.3 of the standard requires that a specified placard show the recommended tire size designation. Volvo has provided labels on approximately 3,200 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state "185/65R15" but the correct information is "185/70R14." However, Volvo intends to mail correct placards "to owners of all affected vehicles."

By providing the corrective placard, Volvo will remedy the noncompliance. Because the noncompliance will no longer exist, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moot. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Volvo will provide owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek renotice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.

The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and do not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.

Our records indicate that Volvo is in technical noncompliance with 49 CFR Part 575, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, by failing to file a report within 5 days of its determination of the existence of the noncompliances. We will, however, treat the submission of information in your petition as a Part 575 report. Part 575 also requires 6 quarterly reports on the progress of recall campaigns. In your situation, the campaign will be accomplished in a single mailing. We ask that you furnish the agency with a report of the number of letters sent and the number of letters returned as undeliverable in lieu of the Part 575 quarterly reports.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 27, 1985

CERTIFIED MAIL

Hon. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Re: Petition For Inconsequential Non-Compliance

In accordance with the provisions of 49 CFR S556, Volvo submits herein a petition for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act, on the grounds of that the the subject non-compliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

FULL NAME ADDRESS OF APPLICANT

Volvo North America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07637

a Delaware corporation

DESCRIPTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE

It has come to our attention that the tire information placard, as required by FMVSS No. 110 Sect. 4.3, installed on about 3,200 l985 model year Volvo 740 Turbo Diesel passenger cars, may contain the incorrect tire size designation.

The correct tire size designation for these vehicles is 185/70 R 14, whereas the labels read 185/65 R 15.

DATA AND VIEWS SUPPORTING PETITION

Volvo believes this error to be inconsequential because the other information regarding these tires, vehicle capacity weight and inflation pressure, are the same for both tire types. Thus, an owner could not inadvertently overload his vehicle as long as he did not exceed the weight shown on the existing placard.

If an owner were to attempt to mount a 185/65 R 15 tire on the 14-inch rim supplied with the car, he would find it to be impossible, and a quick check of the other tires on the car would show that a 13-inch tire is required.

Even in the unlikely event that an owner mounted a 15-inch tire and rim in one or more locations on the vehicle, it would not result in any significant adverse vehicle characteristics since the rolling radii of the two tire sizes are very close to each other, differing only by approximately 1.1%.

We request your earliest possible decision on this matter. In the meantime, Volvo intends to send correct tire pressure placards to owners of all affected vehicles. -

Please have your staff contact me if you have any questions regarding this petition.

Sincerely yours, Product Planning & Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance NF: cmr cc: B. Holthe W. Shapiro P-O Beiring S. Bengtson G. Leoj R. Mercer

July 10, 1985 Hon. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Petition for Inconsequential Non-Compliance Clarification

Dear Ms. Steed:

This is to supplement my letter of June 27, in which we requested exemption under 49 CFR S 556 on the basis of inconsequential non-compliance.

Please be advised that, as stated in page 2 of the letter, a tire placard (reference FMVSS No. 110 S4.3) containing correct tire size information will be sent to all owners of record of affected vehicles. This label will be of the peel-off, adhesive type. Instructions for affixing this label in place of the original label will be included.

We trust that this will serve to clarify our intent in this matter. Sincerely yours, VOLVO CARS Of NORTH AMERICA Product Planning & Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance NF:jy cc: P.O. Beiring S. Bengtson