ID: nht95-5.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 15, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hai Tee Young

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/14/95 letter from Hai Tee Young to Secretary of Transportation

TEXT: This responds to your August 14, 1995, letter to the Secretary of Transportation asking whether there are any Federal regulations prohibiting your sunshade invention. The Secretary referred your letter to me because the National Highway Traffic Safety A dministration (NHTSA) is the Department of Transportation agency that issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. From the patent application materials and drawings you enclose d with your letter, your invention appears to be venetian blind-type slats for use as a sunshade device on all windows of a motor vehicle, especially the windshield.

In a September 6, 1995 phone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you stated that you were not concerned about confidentiality of this public letter, even though your patent application has not been made. You also indicated that you wanted us to supplement your letter with additional drawings and letters. We received those materials by facsimile on September 18, 1995.

Let me briefly review the important points of your letter. The blinds for side windows are depicted as being attached to hooks above and below the windows. For the windshield, they are attached to the existing sunvisor and the dashboard. In these drawi ngs, blind deployment appears to be manual and require two hands. However, you state that you could also design the slats to be installed between two layers of glass and have them adjusted either manually or by electric automatic control. You believe t hat in a crash the blinds would cushion unbelted vehicle occupants before they hit the glass.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that directly prohibit your invention, there are Federal requirements that it must satisfy. We also have some safety concerns regarding this invention.

The FMVSS most relevant to your blinds is Standard No. 205, Glazing materials. Among other things, this standard requires the glazing to permit 70 percent of the incident

(Page 2 is missing.)

The manufacturer of these blinds, which are motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, i.e., on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with t he blinds installed complies with all FMVSS's, including the standards discussed above. In addition, if your invention were installed by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses, those commercial enterprises would have to take care not violate section 30122(b) of Title 49, which prohibits them from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable. Federal motor vehicle safe ty standard . . ." For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the blinds were mounted in front of the driver. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply to individual vehicle owners who install your blinds in their own vehicles, even if the installation wer e to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, since individual States have the authority to regula te modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my st aff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: EPA_008378.cmc.2

Mr. Anthony J. Tesoriero
United States Environmental Protection Agency
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2498

Dear Mr. Tesoriero:

This is in response to your letter and phone conversations with my staff requesting an explanation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to the modification and operation of motor vehicles for experimental purposes. As explained below, the applicability of the FMVSS is dependent upon when the vehicles are altered in relation to the vehicles certification, and the type of entity installing the experimental system.

In your letter you stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was planning to modify a total of six vehicles through the installation of an experimental hybrid drive system. Your letter further stated that several of the vehicles would be retained at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) for testing and demonstration purposes, and that the remaining vehicles would be loaned to vehicle fleet operators in order to gain performance and durability data. Initially you stated in a phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff that several vehicles would be purchased by NVFEL as chassis-cabs, while others would be purchased "retail" from a local automotive sales dealer. You explained that the installation of the experimental drive system would be performed by EPA personnel and engineers contracted from outside engineering firms. In a subsequent phone conversation, you stated that only fully certified vehicles that have been purchased and are owned by the EPA would be modified. As such we will address only those issues regarding the modification of fully certified vehicles owned by the EPA.

Additionally, you requested that the plans and details about these vehicles incorporated into your letter be kept confidential. In response to your request, it is our

position that this information is exempt from disclosure under exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)). Accordingly, we will honor your request that the information be granted confidential treatment.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30112(a):

[A] person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle unless the vehicle complies with [all applicable FMVSS] and is covered by a certification issued under Section 30115 of this title.

Generally, our standards do not apply to vehicles after the first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale). Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (enclosed), it is the manufacturer that must certify that a vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS.

While the Section 30112(a) applies only new motor vehicles, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30122). Accordingly, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to any entity so long as that entity is not of the type listed above and does not fall with in the definition of "motor vehicle repair business." The agency has defined "motor vehicle repair business" as follows:

The term motor vehicle repair business is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30122(a) as "a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." This term includes businesses that receive compensation for servicing vehicles without malfunctioning or broken parts or systems by adding or removing features or components to or from those vehicles or otherwise customizing those vehicles. (49 CFR 595.4.)

Based on your letter and subsequent conversations, it appears that the vehicles in question will not be modified by an entity specified in 49 U.S.C. 30122. As such, the prohibition would not apply.

Your letter also asked about regulations governing the operation of the experimental vehicles. NHTSA does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the States. Additionally, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to a vehicle by its owner. We recommend that you check with the appropriate State authorities to determine if any State laws would be applicable to the modification and operation of these vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:121
d.3/1/04

ID: nht95-7.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 15, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hai Tee Young

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/14/95 letter from Hai Tee Young to Secretary of Transportation

TEXT: This responds to your August 14, 1995, letter to the Secretary of Transportation asking whether there are any Federal regulations prohibiting your sunshade invention. The Secretary referred your letter to me because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the Department of Transportation agency that issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. From the patent application materials and drawings you enclosed with your letter, your invention appears to be venetian blind-type slats for use as a sunshade device on all windows of a motor vehicle, especially the windshield.

In a September 6, 1995 phone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you stated that you were not concerned about confidentiality of this public letter, even though your patent application has not been made. You also indicated that you wanted us to supplement your letter with additional drawings and letters. We received those materials by facsimile on September 18, 1995.

Let me briefly review the important points of your letter. The blinds for side windows are depicted as being attached to hooks above and below the windows. For the windshield, they are attached to the existing sunvisor and the dashboard. In these drawings, blind deployment appears to be manual and require two hands. However, you state that you could also design the slats to be installed between two layers of glass and have them adjusted either manually or by electric automatic control. You believe that in a crash the blinds would cushion unbelted vehicle occupants before they hit the glass.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that directly prohibit your invention, there are Federal requirements that it must satisfy. We also have some safety concerns regarding this invention.

The FMVSS most relevant to your blinds is Standard No. 205, Glazing materials. Among other things, this standard requires the glazing to permit 70 percent of the incident

(Page 2 is missing.)

The manufacturer of these blinds, which are motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, i.e., on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the blinds installed complies with all FMVSS's, including the standards discussed above. In addition, if your invention were installed by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses, those commercial enterprises would have to take care not violate section 30122(b) of Title 49, which prohibits them from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable. Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the blinds were mounted in front of the driver. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply to individual vehicle owners who install your blinds in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, since individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 003090Evenflo_SpanII_labels

Mr. Randy Kiser
Director of Product Safety, Research & Development
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Kiser:

This responds to your letter concerning questions you had about the possibility of Evenflo voluntarily providing child restraint labels in Spanish. You explain that Evenflo currently provides printed instructions in Spanish free of charge upon request, but has not provided bi-lingual labels for the child restraint itself. You are considering changing the latter situation by placing a label in Spanish on your child restraints informing consumers that, upon request, Evenflo will send them Spanish labels for them to adhere to their restraints. The "duplicate set of labels" would fully and accurately translate the information required of the English labels.

You ask whether three "options" related to this initiative comport with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. The first option involves telling consumers to affix the labels next to the English labels. The second option involves instructing consumers to affix the Spanish labels in places where they might not be visible when the child restraint is installed. The third option involves instructing consumers to adhere the Spanish language labels over the English labels.

The requirement under Federal law to manufacture and sell products that meet all applicable FMVSSs does not apply to the sale of a vehicle or item of equipment after the first purchase of the item in good faith other than for resale ("first retail sale"). Your options relate to the modification of child restraints by owners after the first retail sale. Because used child restraints are involved, FMVSS No. 213 generally does not limit where aftermarket labels are affixed.

However, manufacturers are limited in the statements they may make on the labeling of a new child restraint or in the child restraint owners manual. S5.5 of the standard states: "Any labels or written instructions provided in addition to those required by [FMVSS No. 213] shall not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required

information or be otherwise misleading to the consumer. "Affixing Spanish labels over the required English labels obscures the English labeling. We interpret the term "shall not obscure or confuse" in S5.5 as including labels or instructions that result in the obscuring of the required information by the consumer. Accordingly, Evenflo cannot include an instruction in the labeling or instructions to paste the Spanish labels over the English labeling. Obscuring the information could pose problems for second-hand owners who do not understand Spanish.

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.8/20/04

ID: 23947.ztv

Mr. Raymond Campanile
President/GM
Motorrad of North America
771 Fentress Blvd., Unit 22
Daytona Beach, FL 32114





Dear Mr. Campanile:

Thank you for your letter of January 21, 2002, responding to ours of January 10, asking for clarification of the relationship between Motorrad of Germany, Motorrad of North America, and CPI of Taiwan, as it affects the Moskito 125 for which you have filed a petition for temporary exemption.

As we now understand it, Motorrad of Germany has contracted with CPI to manufacture the Moskito, and the German company has tested the design for compliance with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Motorrad of Germany's certification of compliance with the FMVSS would be affixed by CPI and the vehicles shipped directly to Motorrad of North America.

Under 49 CFR 555.9 Temporary exemption labels, the certification label applied to an exempted vehicle "shall meet all applicable requirements of part 567 of this chapter" (Sec. 555.9(c)). Part 567 is the vehicle certification regulation. Section 567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to state the name of the manufacturer of the vehicle, which is the name of the "actual assembler" of the vehicle. The actual assembler of the Moskito 125 is CPI, not Motorrad of Germany. Thus, under our regulations, CPI appears to be the entity that should petition for a temporary exemption of the Moskito 125 and certify its compliance with the FMVSS. Further, as the "manufacturer," CPI would share with the importer for resale, Motorrad of North America, the obligation to notify and remedy noncompliances and safety related defects that might occur in the Moskito 125. However, were the Moskito 125 to be shipped to the United States in complete but unassembled form and, after importation, assembled by Motorrad of North America, your company would be the "actual assembler" which, as the certifying manufacturer, could petition for a temporary exemption as you originally did.

There is another possibility. If CPI is controlled by Motorrad of Germany or Motorrad of North America, and the controlling company assumes responsibility for conformity with the FMVSS, the name of the controlling company may be used as the manufacturer on the certification label (Sec. 567.4(g)(1)(i)). In any event, we cannot proceed further with your petition until we have had your response to this letter.

We appreciate your providing a copy of Motorrad of Germany's designation of agent for service of process, dated May 1, 1997. Our Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, Heidi Coleman, will write you shortly about its acceptability.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:555#567

ID: 1985-02.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Wataru Hayashibara -- Manager, Certification Business Division, Mazda Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wataru Hayashibara Manager Certification Business Division Mazda Motor Corporation P.O. Box 18, Hiroshima, 730-91 Japan

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. According to your letter, you are considering a bulb check system for telltales that operates while the ignition switch is turned to the "ON" position and the engine is not running. You stated that the proposed design of this system is such that all telltales subjected to the bulb check may emit light simultaneously when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system. You asked whether the proposed system would comply with the requirements of section S5.3.1 of the standard. You also asked whether the answer is dependent on whether a vehicle is equipped with a telltale for electrical charge. As discussed below, the answer to both of your questions is no.

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

Section S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states:

A telltale shall not emit light except when identifying the malfunction or vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed or during a bulb check upon vehicle starting.

There are thus only two situations in which it is permissible for a telltale to emit light: (1) when the telltale is actually identifying the malfunction or vehicle condition for which it is designed, and (2) during a bulb check upon vehicle starting. The emitting of light by all telltales whenever a malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system does not fall within either of these categories and is therefore not permitted by the standard.

This interpretation is limited to the specific factual situation described above, i.e., where light would be emitted by all telltales whenever a malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system. In essence, your proposed design would replace the telltale for electrical charge, which is provided by most manufacturers to warn of such things as low voltage, with a warning message in the form of all telltales simultaneously emitting light. This is not permitted by Standard No. 101, for the reasons stated above.

Your letter suggests an interpretation that the simultaneous lighting of all telltales subjected to the bulb check when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system could not be any violation of the requirements of S5.3.1, because it is the vehicle condition which "is designed" by a manufacturer for all telltales to emit light. We do not agree with that suggested interpretation. Section S5.3.1's use of the words "malfunction or vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed" refers back to the term "(a) telltale." It is our opinion that the phrase is applicable only to the specific malfunction or vehicle condition for which a particular telltale is designed to warn the driver and not to a situation where all telltales are designed to collectively warn of a malfunction or vehicle condition.

Our interpretation is not dependent on whether a vehicle is equipped with a telltale for electrical charge or not.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

December 26, 1980 Our Ref. No. NH84/20

Re: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 101 Controls and Displays

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request your interpretation regarding the telltale lighting condition specified in the last sentence, shown below, of S5.3.1 of Standards No. 101.

"A telltale shall not emit light except when identifying the malfunction or vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed or during a bulb check upon vehicle starting."

(Underline is added.)

We are now studying a bulb check system that operates while the ignition switch is turned to "ON" position and the engine is not running. If this system is adopted, all telltales subjected to the bulb check may emit light simultaneously when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system.

Under the above-mentioned conditions, we would like to have your confirmation whether the following interpretation is correct.

The simultaneous lighting of all telltales subjected to the bulb check when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system could not be any violation of the requirements of S5.3.1, because it is the vehicle condition which "is designed" for all telltales to emit light by a manufacturer.

If the interpretation depends on whether a vehicle is equipped with "a telltale for electrical charge" or not, the interpretations in both cases would be appreciated.

Your prompt interpretation on this matter would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Wataru Hayashibara Manager Certification Business Division

cc: Mazda (North America), Inc. Mazda (North America), Inc. Detroit Office

ID: nht79-3.32

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Berg Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 28, 1979, letter asking several questions about the compliance of your trailers with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

You first ask whether section S5.6.3 allows the use of service air to apply the parking brakes as long as a source of energy to apply the parking brakes is available at all times and is unaffected by any single failures in the service brake system. The answer to this question is yes. On August 9, 1979, the agency published in the Federal Register a notice amending section S5.6.3 of the standard to permit the type of parking brake system that you outlined in your letter.

In your second question, you ask whether your braking system complies with section S5.2.1.1. That section requires that a reservoir be provided that is capable of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes and that is unaffected by the loss of pressure in the service brake system. Your trailer has a tank and valve for each axle. You state that in the event of a service system failure including a failure of one of the tanks, that a reservoir is available such that when the supply line is pressurized to 55 psi, the vehicle's parking brakes will release. Assuming that your system operates as you have detailed in your letter, the agency concludes that it complies with S5.2.1.1 of the standard.

SINCERELY,

The Berg Manufacturing Company

June 28, 1979

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: 49CFR 571.121

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation as to the compliance of an air brake system for trailers with FMVSS 121.

Figure 1 depicts a typical tandem axle trailer brake system. It has a tank and valve for each axle. In the event of a service system failure, including the failure of one of the air tanks, the parking brakes can be released by pressurizing the supply line to 55 psi. In operation, the system works as follows:

Charging the system. Tractor air pressure, from the supply (emergency) line enters the trailer valve. Below 55 psi, the supply line air goes directly to the emergency section of the spring brake chambers. Above 55 psi supply pressure, the air flows through the valve directly to the air tank.

Normal driving conditions. Air pressure in the trailer air tanks and valves maintains a normal pressure of 100 psi to 120 psi and is ready when it is necessary to apply the brakes of the trailer by the tractor brake valve through the control (service) line. The spring brakes are kept released, through a double check valve built into the valve, by either the tank pressure or the supply line pressure, whichever is greater.

Service braking. In normal brake applications, control air from the tractor actuates the relay piston in the trailer valve, which applies air pressure from the air tank to the service section of the spring brake chambers applying the brakes in a service mode.

Parking and/or emergency braking. When air presssure in the supply line drops below 45 psi, the emergency piston in the trailer valve closes the control line and applies pressure to the top of the relay piston which delivers tank air pressure to the service section of the spring brake chambers applying the brakes in an emergency mode. If the supply line pressure drops slowly, the emergency brakes apply slowly. If the pressure drops rapidly, the emergency brakes apply rapidly. It is possible to release the emergency brake application by re-establishing pressure in the supply line, which will exhaust the pressure applied to the brake chambers.

No system air pressure. With no air pressure in the system, the brake is applied by the spring in the spring brake chamber in a stable parking mode. No matter how the air pressure in the system decays, slowly or rapidly, the parking brake application never ceases as the spring force takes over as the air pressure decreases.

We have determined, by a careful review of the standard, that we clearly comply with the specific requirements of the standard except S5.6.3 and S5.2.1.1 with which we believe we comply with the intent. We have an interpretation from your office, dated March 14, 1977, that allows the use of service air to apply the parking brakes as long as a source of energy to apply the parking brakes is usable at all times and is unaffected by any single failure in the service brake system which clarifies that the system does comply with S5.6.3.

Careful reading of the various interpretations of which we are aware, leads us to believe that we do comply with S5.2.1.1. In the case of any single service system failure, including one of the air tanks, a protected reservoir is available and pressurization of the supply line to 55 psi will release the parking brakes.

We encourage any queries or comments and would be pleased to supply any further information you may require.

We look forward to receiving your reply to this letter.

Robert J. Crail Director of Engineering

cc: SERGIO CAMPANINI; DAVID SPILLER (Illegible Word) PRESSURE PROTECTED RELAY EMERGENCY VALVE.

FIGURE I

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-3.18

DATE: 09/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. V. J. Adduci Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Suite 300 1909 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Adduci:

On June 5, representatives of MVMA met with representatives of this agency to discuss various issues concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115. At that meeting, the MVMA representatives requested clarification of the agency's policy on correction of errors made by vehicle manufacturers in their vehicle identification numbers (VIN's). This letter responds to that request.

The agency shares your concern about the potential difficulties associated with correcting erroneous VIN's and will attempt to minimize the burdens involved with any required corrective action. Nevertheless, the agency must consider the safety benefits of an accurate, national VIN system, as well as the anti-theft and other benefits of such a system.

This letter focuses on some of the most likely VIN errors and discusses whether those errors in vehicles sold to consumers would be inconsequential as the errors relate to safety, and, if not, what type of remedy would have to be provided to vehicle owners. Corrective action involving the replacing of an erroneous VIN plate or label or the restamping of the VIN on part of the vehicle is the most desirable remedy. However, there may be less burdensome remedies that would be effective and satisfy the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

One type of error which could be easily corrected is an error in a single VIN character other than the check digit or a character monitored by VIN users. The agency would likely regard such an error as inconsequential if the vehicle manufacturer submitted the necessary corrected decoding information to the agency. The agency would place this information in a public file, thereby making it available to other VIN users. With this corrected decoding information available, the agency's safety research activities would not be impaired and manufacturers would still be able to conduct recall campaigns where necessary.

A second type of error involves an erroneous check digit or other character monitored by vehicle records systems of States or other VIN users. Erroneous check digits could adversely affect our ability to conduct research and to monitor recalls, since the error rate of VIN transcription would presumably be higher in the absence of a properly functioning check digit. Further, without some form of corrective action by the manufacturer (such as restamping or the use of a correction label), vehicle purchasers could face rejections by State, insurance, and other data-processing systems using the check digit to verify transcription accuracy. However, the agency is also concerned that the use of labels could create opportunities for auto theft operations to generate bogus VIN's. Therefore, the agency is presently inclined to treat erroneous check digits as inconsequential noncompliance if the manufacturer reports the errors to the agency. However, as discussed below, the agency is planning to invite public comment on this question before establishing a final position on the matter.

A third type of error involves the physical aspects of the VIN itself. For example, a manufacturer might use a type face other than the sans type face required by the standard. Although errors of this type would have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, they would likely be deemed inconsequential because they would present no problems to the agency, other VIN users, or vehicle owners.

The most difficult type of errors would involve a major error in numbering which would impair the safety and other uses of the VIN. An extreme example of such an error would be a situation where a manufacturer numbered many of its vehicles identically, or where the VIN's were totally illegible. An error of that magnitude could impair the manufacturers' ability to conduct recall campaigns and the ability of the agency to monitor them. It would also cause serious problems for all VIN users. In this type of situation (which should arise rarely, if ever), some form of corrective action would be necessary. The use of a correction label which meets all requirements of FMVSS 115 including indelibility would be one possible approach.

One final matter discussed at the June 5 meeting relates to the correction of VIN errors on vehicles already produced but still in the possession of the manufacturer. We would treat these vehicles the same as the vehicles already sold, i.e., if the noncompliance were inconsequential for the vehicles already sold, it would also be inconsequential for the vehicles produced but still in the manufacturer's possession. However, the agency would expect that once the error is detected, similar vehicles produced thereafter would fully comply with the standard. There is precedent for this approach, since the agency has previously treated as inconsequential noncompliance erroneous identification numbers on tires still in the manufacturer's possession, where an inconsequentiality petition has been granted with respect to tires already sold.

The agency will issue in the near future a notice inviting comment on MVMA's petition to change Standard 115 to a general regulation. In this notice, we will seek comment on the types on corrective action discussed above. If you have any thoughts on other means of making these types of corrections, we would of course be pleased to receive your views.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-1.38

DATE: 12/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Carlisle Tire and Rubber Company's May 7, 1976, request for assurance that certain of its tires are in Compliance with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and your request for a meeting on the issue of reduced performance requirements for tires used on motor-driven cycles with a maximum speed capability of 30 mph or less. I regret that we have not responded sooner.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1391, et seq.) does not permit the assurance of compliance with Standard No. 119 that you request. The Act requires "self-certification" by the manufacturer that each of its products actually complies with all applicable standards (15 U.S.C. @@ 1397(a)(1)(A), 1403). The NHTSA does not issue "approvals" for this reason.

With regard to your request for a meeting on the subject of performance standards for tires used on low-speed motor-driven cycles, I would like to advise you that the NHTSA has decided to reduce some of the performance requirements for these tires. If you believe that a meeting would be desirable before we have issued a specific proposal, please contact Mr. Elwood Driver at the above address (tel. (202) 426-1740) to meet on the technical aspects of this issue.

SINCERELY,

Carlisle Tire & Rubber

May 7, 1976

National Highway Safety Administration Frank Berndt Acting Chief Council, Legal Section

The Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania is a manufacturer of bicycle and motorcycle type tires. Because of the recent interest in moped vehicles in the United States we have decided to add this type of tire to our line of products. Since this is a highway type tire we are attempting to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transportation. It has been indicated to us by various representatives of the Department of Transportation that this tire must be treated as a motorcycle tire even though the size of the motor of this vehicle would prevent these tires from ever exceeding a speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour. In attempting to comply with your current requirements we have subjected our tests to the following conditions.

1. The tire marking is in accordance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 and particularly Part 574. The DOT symbol is shown on the tire as well as our manufacturing code, tire size identification, and the date of manufacture. The tire size designation is shown. The maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure is also indicated on the tire. We identify our tire as a moped tire by printing the word "moped" on the sidewall of the tire. We have speed restricted tires by the words cured in the sidewall "Not to exceed 35 mph." We indicate the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material. We also identify the tire as a tube type tire. The tire load is identified as "Load Range A."

2. We have three tread wear indicators that will provide visual determination that the tread has worn to a depth of 1/32nds of an inch.

3. The carcass strength has been tested to make sure that we are in accordance with Table 2 of the FMVSS-119 standard.

4. The tires have successfully passed the high speed performance test as listed in FMVSS-119. This, of course, requires testing the tire at 75, 80, and 85 miles per hour. Naturally we feel that these speeds are excessive for this limited horsepower vehicle.

5. The tire has been subjected to the endurance test as prescribed in FMVSS-119. Once again, we feel that these conditions are excessive since the vehicle is not capable of speeds of 50 mph.

We are maintaining a file of our tests performed on this tire. Although we are currently passing all of the motorcycle tests required by FMVSS-119 we feel that those requirements are excessive for this type of vehicle. We are capable of meeting those requirements by the use of more expensive materials and compounds than that required for this type of lightweight duty tire.

There are two purposes for writing this memorandum to your department.

1. We would like to have assurance from you that the tires that we are marketing are in compliance with the requirements of the Department of Transportation.

2. We are requesting a meeting with your department so that we may present proposed amendments to this safety standard that we feel would be more realistic for this type of tire.

We respectfully await your response to this subject.

J. L. Hollis Vice President/Engineering

ID: 07-001408as