ID: nht81-2.12

DATE: 04/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Auto Meter Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 3 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Rolan 'Jeep' Worthan National Sales Manager Auto Meter Products, Inc. 413 W. Elm Street Sycamore, IL 60178

Dear Mr. Worthan:

This responds to your letter of January 12, 1981, regarding the applicability section of Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. You asked whether this standard applies to the speedometers you build, which are produced in low volume and primarily for manufacturers of show automobiles, off-road use vehicles and professional race cars. You interpret section S3 of the standard to apply only to "original equipment manufacturers such as Ford, General Motors or those who manufacture speedometers for them."

Your interpretation is not quite correct. As you note in your letter, the application section (S3) of Standard No. 127 states that:

This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, motorcycles, and buses, and to speedometers and odometers for use in vehicles to which this standard applies...

"Passenger car" is defined in S 571.3 of 49 CFR Part 571 as:

a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.

Thus, the word "passenger car" in Standard No. 127 encompasses more than those vehicles mass-produced by Ford, General Motors and Chrysler that we traditionally view as passenger cars. Any motor vehicle that (1) has motive power, (2) is designed to carry 10 persons or less (including the driver), and (3) that is not a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), motorcycle, or trailer is a "passenger car."

Therefore, a professional racing car would be considered a "passenger car" if it is a "motor vehicle." Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) defines "motor vehicle" as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

A motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer intends to be used on the public highways part of the time or has reason to expect will be so used. Vehicles intended and used solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles. Thus, a professional race car or show car that was built and is used solely for off-road purposes is not considered to be a motor vehicle under the Act. Vehicles which use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are classified as motor vehicles. However, in Koehring Co. v. Adams, 452 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Wisc. 1978), aff'd., 605 F.2d 280 (7th Cir. 1979), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that mobile construction equipment that is used on the highways in such fashion does not fall within the definition of motor vehicle. The agency construes the opinion to apply only to the specific equipment at issue in Koehring Co., i.e., mobile cranes, mobile excavators, and mobile well drills.

Thus, the vehicles that you supply with speedometers may be considered "passenger cars" as the term is used in Safety Standard No. 127. We cannot make a definite determination on the basis of the information you have provided (you state that you supply speedometers primarily for off-road vehicles). However, the guidelines set forth above should enable you to reach your own decision. You should contact this office if you have questions about a specific vehicle. If the vehicles for which you are manufacturing speedometers are considered "passenger cars," Standard No. 127 would apply. However, since the speedometer provisions of this standard became effective on September 1, 1979, only speedometers (both original equipment and replacement) manufactured for passenger cars built on or after that date would have to comply. The speed indicator scale on such a speedometer would have to be limited to 85 mph. The Act does not give this agency the power to grant manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment exemptions from applicable safety standards on the grounds of low volume.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 12, 1981 Office of the Chief Counsel NOA-30 N.H.T.S.A. 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Auto Meter Products Inc. is an aftermarket manufacturer of specialty and hi-performance instruments. Among the instruments that we manufacture and for which I am concerned at this time, are speedometers. We have become aware of recent regulations limiting standard speedometers to 85 MPH maximum and are interested in your confirmation of our interpretation of this regulation.

On page 40593 in Standard No. 127 of the Federal Register volume 45, covering speedometers and odometers, the application of this regulation, (S-3) states, "This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, motorcycles, and buses, and to speedometers and odometers for use in vehicles to which this standard applies." In reading over regulation 127, I interpret the standard to be referring to original equipment manufacturers such as Ford, General Motors or those who manufacture speedometers for them. That these standard OEM speedometers are limited to go no higher than 85 MPH.

Since Auto Meter Products Inc. speedomters are produced in low volume and are used primarily in show automobiles, off road use, professional race cars etc. rather than street applications, it is our uderstanding that the 85 MPH limit of the standard No. 127 does not apply. Please advise.

Sincerely,

Rolan 'Jeep' Worthan National Sales Manager

RJW/ap cc: B. Owens

ID: matsumoto-2.ztv

Mr. Todd Matsumoto
1625 A. Makahuine St.
Honolulu, HI 96817

Dear Mr. Matsumoto:

This responds to your letter concerning your 1964 and 1968 "dune buggy" kit cars. You informed us that the "local government" requires you "to provide the state with a design plan certified by a professional engineer that meets all federal safety standards in order for my car to be legally registered." Subsequently, you faxed us a copy of a letter to you, dated June 30, 2003, from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation, which indicates that your vehicles are considered "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law. You asked whether your cars have to meet any specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS or standards) or other regulations.

I will address the applicability of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to this issue. This law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must meet the FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture.

We have previously provided the following explanation [1] how our regulations apply to kit cars:

We have no definition of "kit cars" but we understand them to be passenger cars consisting of a mixture of old and new parts, assembled into vehicle form by either the supplier or purchaser of a kit of motor vehicle equipment. Some of the FMVSS apply to individual equipment items (for example, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies), and if these items are new and furnished with the kit, they will have been certified by their manufacturers. If the vehicle is assembled entirely from new parts, the kit supplier must furnish certification with the kit that, when assembled, the vehicle will comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if the vehicle is manufactured incorporating a number of previously used parts, particularly involving the chassis and/or drive train, we generally have considered the vehicle to be a used one, and none of the FMVSS that apply to new completed vehicles (as contrasted with those that apply to equipment items) apply to it.

In order to be registered for use, a kit car must meet the requirements of the State of licensing.

Assuming that the construction of a kit car does not involve the use of so many new parts as to make it a new motor vehicle, we do not consider it to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSSs in effect on the date of completion of the kit car. Based on the information you provided with your letter and in telephone conversations with Taylor Vinson of my staff, it appears that this is the case with your 1964 and 1968 dune buggy kit cars.

However, the States may regulate the reconstruction of vehicles. The letter you provided to us from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation indicates that it considers your vehicles to be "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law, and subject to its requirements for the approval of reconstructed vehicles.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson again (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.7/25/02





---

[1] Letter to Mr. Joel Trim, September 27, 1993.

ID: 22750.ztv.wpd

Mr. Todd Matsumoto
1625 A. Makahuine St.
Honolulu, HI 96817

Dear Mr. Matsumoto:

This responds to your letter concerning your 1964 and 1968 "dune buggy" kit cars. You informed us that the "local government" requires you "to provide the state with a design plan certified by a professional engineer that meets all federal safety standards in order for my car to be legally registered." Subsequently, you faxed us a copy of a letter to you, dated June 30, 2003, from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation, which indicates that your vehicles are considered "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law. You asked whether your cars have to meet any specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS or standards) or other regulations.

I will address the applicability of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to this issue. This law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must meet the FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture.

We have previously provided the following explanation [1] how our regulations apply to kit cars:

We have no definition of"kit cars" but we understand them to be passenger cars consisting of a mixture of old and new parts, assembled into vehicle form by either the supplier or purchaser of a kit of motor vehicle equipment. Some of the FMVSS apply to individual equipment items (for example, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies), and if these items are new and furnished with the kit, they will have been certified by their manufacturers. If the vehicle is assembled entirely from new parts, the kit supplier must furnish certification with the kit that, when assembled, the vehicle will comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if the vehicle is manufactured incorporating a number of previously used parts, particularly involving the chassis and/or drive train, we generally have considered the vehicle to be a used one, and none of the FMVSS that apply to new completed vehicles (as contrasted with those that apply to equipment items) apply to it.

In order to be registered for use, a kit car must meet the requirements of the State of licensing.

Assuming that the construction of a kit car does not involve the use of so many new parts as to make it a new motor vehicle, we do not consider it to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSSs in effect on the date of completion of the kit car. Based on the information you provided with your letter and in telephone conversations with Taylor Vinson of my staff, it appears that this is the case with your 1964 and 1968 dune buggy kit cars.

However, the States may regulate the reconstruction of vehicles. The letter you provided to us from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation indicates that it considers your vehicles to be "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law, and subject to its requirements for the approval of reconstructed vehicles.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson again (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.7/25/03





---

[1] Letter to Mr. Joel Trim, September 27, 1993.

ID: nht78-4.22

DATE: 08/11/78

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

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

August 11, 1978

Mr. Glenn Abbott Cars & Concepts, Inc. 12500 E. Grand River Brighton, Michigan 48116

Dear Mr. Abbott:

This is in response to your letter dated June 27, 1978, asking whether fog lamps mounted to the surface of a vehicle bumper are removed prior to testing for compliance with Part 581, Bumper Standard.

Vehicles subject to the requirements of Part 581 must comply with the protective criteria of section 581.5(c) (49 CFR 581.5(c)) when tested under the conditions stated in section 581.6 (49 CFR 581.6). The test conditions make no provision for removal of fog lamps prior to testing. As was the case under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 215, Exterior Protection, the Part 581 test procedures provide for removal only of trailer hitches before testing. With the added exception of license plate brackets, excluded from the requirements of Part 581 by interpretation (42 FR 24056; May 12, 1977), other equipment (including fog lamps) attached to the bumper system prior to sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser must meet the damage limitations of the standard.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

June 27, 1978

Mr. Joseph Levin Office of the Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

Cars & Concepts, Inc. is preparing a prototype Dodge Omni "Rally" for a 1980 model year production program. It is proposed that Chrysler Corporation ship completed vehicles to one of our facilities where we would attach certain pieces of equipment comprising the "Rally" package. The vehicles would then be shipped back to Chrysler for distribution through their normal channels. Included in the "Rally" package is a pair of Cibie C-95 white fog lamps. These would be made inoperable for highway use by means of an easily removable fuse mounted to the instrument panel. The lamps would be mounted to the top surface of the bumper (to comply with certain state regulations) and closely enough to the vehicle centerline to avoid the normal beam path of the headlights. To avoid contact with the grille when the bumper is fully compressed, it will be necessary to mount the lamps close to the bumper face placing them in potential danger of being damaged in a 5 mph pendulum test. It is our understanding that under the provisions of FMVSS #215 such items were routinely removed before testing. We are concerned that the status of accessory lighting would change under FMVSS part 581 and would like a clarification of this.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Glenn Abbott Design

GA/dma

cc: D. Chrysler E. Hopp D. Draper M. Pare

ID: aiam4982

"Dear Mr. Sens: This responds to your letter to me dated March 26 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 214, Side Door Strength, and 216, Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars,, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ- 7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a 'sport utility vehicle' and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., 1381, et seq., as amended, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards. Each safety standard applies to specified 'types' of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a 'sport-utility vehicle,' it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined in Part 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of 33o, departure angle of 25o, breakdown angle of 18o, axle clearance of 7.8', and minimum running clearance of 8.1', and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation. With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it. Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: '. . . C omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, . . . need not conform to this standard.' You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements. I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht76-5.44

DATE: 01/13/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: GENERAL Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 2, 1975, asking this agency's opinion as to whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number, would preempt any differing State law or regulation specifying the content of a vehicle identification number. You asked the question in the context of a Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission action recommending such a regulation to the States.

Standard No. 115 requires a vehicle identification that is unique to a manufacturer during any ten-year period. It does not specify the length or the content of the number. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standard on vehicle identification numbers was intended generally to cover all aspects to those numbers, and preempt any differing State rules, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV S74-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U. S. Supreme Court in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is "whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field." Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U. S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

The NHTSA has determined that the safety standard on vehicle identification numbers, No. 115, is intended to cover all aspects of vehicle identification numbering relative to the vehicles to which it applies, and that any aspects for which there are no specific requirements were intended by this agency to be left to the discretion of the manufacturers. State regulations differing from the Federal standard on this subject are found to "impair the federal superintendence of the field," within the meaning of the Florida Lime doctrine, and any such State regulation would be preempted under section 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

November 14, 1975

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DEAR DR. GREGORY:

Re: Preemption and FMVSS 115

The Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) will hold a hearing on December 11, 1975 in Kissimmee, Florida preliminary to adoption of a regulation entitled "Minimum requirements for the design of a vehicle identification number system for passenger cars". The regulation, if adopted at the VESC meeting, would apply to passenger cars registered in States that in turn adopt the VESC regulation.

Due to the relationship between the VESC and its member States [discussed in detail below], the December 11 hearing raises the real concern that one or more States will adopt the proposed VESC regulation as a part of their vehicle code within a few months thereafter. Thus, the VESC regulation can be expected to very quickly become part of the vehicle law in several states.

The proposed VESC regulation is not identical to the performance requirements of FMVSS 115, "Vehicle Identification Number". The difference will be discussed in detail below.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 states in part:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

General Motors is of the opinion that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intended FMVSS 115, "Vehicle Identification Number", to be a comprehensive, uniform and exclusive safety standard applicable" to all aspects of vehicle identification numbering; that generally those State vehicle identification numbering requirements which apply to passenger cars and which are not identical to FMVSS 115 are preempted by FMVSS 115 under

authority of Section 103(d) as quoted above; and that specifically those provisions dealing with the content of the digits and letters used in the vehicle identification number are preempted by FMVSS 115 under authority of Section 103(d). GM anticipates that NHTSA holds the same opinion in the matter as GM does and requests that NHTSA express its opinion on this important subject in response to this letter and to the VESC prior to the December 11 meeting.

VESC AND ITS MEMBER STATES

The Beamer Resolution, Public Law 85-684, August 20, 1958, gave Congressional assent to agreements or compacts among States for "cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the establishment and carrying out of traffic safety programs, including but not limited to, the enactment of uniform traffic laws . . . and . . . for the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they deem desirable for the establishment and carrying out of such traffic safety programs". Attached is a copy of the Beamer Resolution.

The Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact was subsequently developed as the mechanism by which States could compact with one another for the purposes stated in Public Law 85-684. Attached is a copy of the Compact.

Article III of the Compact creates the VESC as the agency of the member States.

As stated in Article I, subsection (b)(1), of the Compact, one purpose of the Compact is to "promote uniformity in regulation of and standards for equipment". Article V of the Compact authorizes the VESC after hearings to adopt "rules, regulations or codes embodying performance requirements or restrictions for any item or items of equipment covered in the report [indicating the need for regulation]". (This provision appears in the Compact notwithstanding the fact that the Beamer Resolution relegates compact activities in the field of "safe automobile . . . design" to research only.) Under Article V of the Compact, once a regulation has been adopted by the VESC, each party State must duly consider it for adoption.

Sections (e), (f), and (g) of Article V of the Compact provide that member States may adopt or reject VESC regulations by administrative or legislative action as appropriate under individual State constitutions and statutes.

Forty-two States and the District of Columbia are now members of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact. The eight states that are not members are Alabama, Alaska, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

In thirty of the member States, a VESC regulation becomes a mandatory State equipment requirement only after the individual State's Legislature enacts it into law.

A VESC regulation, however, can be adopted by administrative action alone in the following twelve States: Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maryland (deemed approved in absence of legislative disapproval), New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia.

Under the procedure followed by VESC, the December 11 hearing may be the final administrative step before adoption by VESC of this regulation. Indeed, the first line of the attached Notice of Public Hearing states that the hearing is preliminary "to final adoption" of the regulation. Following VESC adoption, as many as twelve States can adopt the VESC regulation administratively without legislative action, whereupon the regulation acquires the force of law immediately in those States. In those twelve States, six months is the maximum time within which to act but no minimum time is specified.

The twelve States not only may adopt the VESC regulation but are required by statute to do so unless "the public safety" requires otherwise. Article V, section (g) of the Compact, which has been incorporated in the statutes of the member States, so provides. If only "public safety" is relevant in the State hearing prior to adoption of the regulation by an individual State, an objection that the regulation is preempted by FMVSS 115 under authority of Section 103(d) might not be heeded.

Since its establishment, the VESC had adopted a number of regulations. Among them are Regulation V-1, New Tires; Regulation (Illegible Word) Minimum Requirements For Motor Vehicle Connecting Devices and Towing Methods; Regulation VESC-6, Minimum Requirements For School Bus Construction and Equipment; and VESC-9, Safe Operating Condition of Truck and Bus Type Tires.

VESC can adopt the regulation soon after the December 11 hearing and thereby trigger simultaneous action in forty-two States and the District of Columbia to adopt the regulation as law. If the NHTSA does not express its opinion on preemption at the VESC hearing or prior to adoption by VESC of the regulation, it will be necessary for each of the forty-three member jurisidictions to consider the merits of the preemption argument individually with possibly differing results.

Thus, urgent need exists for the NHTSA to express its position on preemption at or soon after the December 11 VESC hearing.

DIFFERENCES IN CONTENT BETWEEN PROPOSED VESC REGULATION AND FMVSS 115

FMVSS 115 and the proposed VESC regulation apply to the same class of vehicles, namely, passenger cars. See paragraph 2, Scope, of proposed VESC regulation.

The attached yellow pages from the VESC proposal deal with the passenger car regulations. The pink pages deal with a proposal for non-motive power recreational vehicles which is included for information only.

Paragraph 6 of the proposed VESC regulation sets forth the basic requirements. These require the VIN to contain in sequence exactly two digits called the Make Code Field, five or fewer digits called the Identifier Field, and exactly eight digits called the Indicator Section.

FMVSS 115 does not expressly address the make-up of the vehicle identification number. However, it is GM's understanding that FMVSS 115 is intended by the NHTSA to be a comprehensive, uniform, and exclusive standard covering all aspects of vehicle identification numbering. As such, the absence of an express requirement concerning the make-up of the vehicle identification number does not permit a State to impose such a requirement. This understanding is supported by your letter of November 8, 1973 to Mr. W. Pudinski of the Department of California Highway Patrol concerning FMVSS 108. See Attachment. In that letter you stated:

The implication of the California opinion is that any mode of design or performance that is not expressly dealt with in the Federal standard is open to regulation by

the States. Such a position is impractical, where the agency's intent is to have a comprehensive, uniform regulation in a given area . . . Congress clearly intended the NHTSA to establish a single set of uniform standards to which manufacturers must comply, and that intent would tend to be defeated by the position taken in the California opinion. Federal regulation has a negative as well as a positive aspect: in determining that there should be certain requirements in an area, we also are deciding against imposing others. The only way to effectuate such a decision is to declare, as we have done here, that our regulation is intended to be exclusive, and to describe as necessary its outer limits. [Emphasis added]

POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH FUTURE NHTSA PLANS

If it is assumed for sake of argument only that preemption is not present, adoption of the VESC regulation in any of the VESC member jurisdictions could result in serious practical complications of future NHTSA plans.

In September 1975, the International Standards Organization (ISO) adopted two vehicle identification number standards: Vehicle Identification Numbering System 3779

and World Manufacturer Identifier Coding System 3780, which apply to all "road vehicles" including passenger cars. The text of the officially adopted standards will issue in January 1976. The European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market Council, at its November 7, 1975 meeting, began considering these ISO standards for incorporation in the proposed EEC Council directive for statutory places and inscriptions for motor vehicles and trailers. Once the Common Market Council has incorporated the ISO standard, all Common Market countries must within 18 months "accept" the standard, i.e., recognize the standard as the exclusive or an alternative method of compliance with vehicle identification numbering requirements.

The ISO standard sets a maximum of 17 digits in the VIN. Although the standard can be met by fewer than 17 digits, one or more of the Common Market countries may adopt the standard in a way that requires no more and no less than 17 digits. Regardless of whether this happens, there is a direct conflict between the ISO standard which sets a maximum of 17 digits and the proposed VESC regulation which sets a maximum of 15 digits.

The ISO standard includes a World Manufacturer Identifier in the vehicle identification number which makes it possible to identify the country of origin as well as the manufacturer. This feature of the standard presumably will facilitate efforts to curtail international taffic in stolen cars. For that reason, it may be favored by the Interagency (DOT-Justice) Committee on Auto Theft Prevention. If curtailing international traffic in stolen cars prevents some car thefts from occurring in the United States, it may be that the NHTSA would also favor incorporating the ISO standard in FMVSS 115. If so, there will be a

head-on conflict with any VESC member jurisdiction that has adopted the VESC regulation because the VESC regulation requires two and only two digits in the Make Code Field, whereas the ISO standard requires three.

In the absence of Federal preemption in this matter, if any of the Common Market countries adopt the ISO standard in such a way that the 17 digits permitted by that standard are mandatory, adoption of the VESC standard in any of the VESC member-state jurisdications would require domestic manufacturers to have two separate VIN systems, one for vehicles sold in the United States and another for vehicles sold for export. This would be a confusing, wasteful and untenable situation.

GM respectfully requests NHTSA's opinion regarding FMVSS 115 in relation to the VESC regulation and the adoption thereof by any State or the District of Columbia. Your opinion should also be conveyed directly to the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission either at the December 11 meeting or at the VESC headquarters in Washington.

Frank W. Allen -- Assistant General Counsel, GENERAL MOTORS

ENCS.

ID: 003832rbm

Mr. William E. Lawler
IMMI
18881 U.S. 31 North
P.O. Box 408
Westfield, IN 46074-0408

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This letter responds to your request for interpretation of the labeling requirements of S4.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208) as they relate to an inflatable tubular structure installed inside a fire truck. The fire truck would be within a range of 30,000-70,000 lb gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). According to your letter, the inflatable device is designed and installed to prevent the occupant's head from striking the side window or door frame during a rollover. The inflatable structure you describe is not subject to the labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 208 or any other safety standards.

S4.5.1(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 208 states that "except as otherwise provided in S4.5.1(b)(2), ^[1] each vehicle shall have a label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint." The subparagraph then goes on to state what the required label must look like. The label requirements of S4.5.1(b)(1) are limited to vehicles with the type of inflatable restraint system defined in S4.1.5.1(b). That paragraph defines an inflatable restraint system as an air bag that is activated in a crash.

S4.1.5 applies to all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996. A corollary provision, S4.2.6, applies to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997. S4.1.5.3, which applies to passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1997, and S4.2.6.2, which applies to those vehicles addressed by S4.2.6 manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, require that vehicles falling within their purview meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means of an inflatable restraint system, as defined in S4.1.5(b). These types of inflatable restraint systems are the only ones subject to the labeling requirements of S4.5.1(b)(1).

The inflatable tubular restraint described in your letter does not appear to be designed to provide protection in a frontal crash. Instead, your letter states that they are designed to provide head protection in a rollover crash. As such, they are not subject to FMVSS No. 208, including its labeling requirements. Moreover, as discussed in a March 23, 1999, interpretation to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. (copy enclosed), the labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 208 apply only to passenger cars and to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 lb or less. There are presently no other labeling requirements that would apply to these inflatable tubular structures.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.7/7/03





---

[1] S4.5.1(b)(2) sets forth the sun visor labeling requirements for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements adopted by NHTSA on May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30680). Those requirements are not applicable to the vehicle in question.

ID: 1980y

Alan S. Eldahr, President
Optimum Building Technologies
P.O. Box 881105
San Diego, CA 92108

Dear Mr. Eldahr:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a "small LED display reader board for use in private vehicles." This device can be incorporated with the center highmounted stoplamp, or installed as a separate unit, also to be placed in the rear window. In the latter configuration, messages can be displayed continuously, or stop when the service brakes are applied. You have concluded that the device will not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked for our comments. I regret the delay in responding.

Our first comment is that the device cannot be combined with an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp, or with an aftermarket center highmounted stop lamp used to replace original equipment center lamps, installed on vehicles manufactured on and after September l, l985. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08 forbids combining the center stop lamp with any other lamp. We view the LED reader board as a type of signal lamp within the meaning of the prohibition.

The legality of a combined LED-center stop lamp for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September l, l985, is not determinable under Standard No. l08, but under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Its installation by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses would be permissible under Federal law if the installation does not render inoperative in whole or in part any element of design, or device, installed in accordance with a safety standard. However, it would still remain subject to regulation by any State in which it would be sold or operated. We cannot advise you on State laws. You may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion (4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203).

As for the device's legality as a separate unit in the rear window area, when installed as an item of original equipment, it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. If it creates a noncompliance with the field of view requirements of Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors, an outside rear view mirror must be provided on the passenger's side. As an aftermarket item, it is subject to the render inoperative provisions of the Act. We believe that an additional original equipment light in the rear window, whether red or amber, and whether or not operating simultaneously with the center lamp but sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp. For the same reason, we believe that as an aftermarket item installed on passenger cars manufactured on or after September l, l985, your device could render the original equipment center lamp on those cars partially inoperative by distracting attention from its function. As for installation on vehicles that were manufactured before that date and thus lack center lamps, this again is a question to be answered under State laws. At all times, the field of view requirements of Standard No. lll must be maintained, regardless of whether the car was manufactured before or after September 1, l985.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/

VSA#108 d:8/l7/89

ID: 86-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hans W. Metzger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hans W. Metzger Scottsdale, AZ 85253

Thank you for your letter of October 14, 1985, asking several questions about Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions. You first asked for a clarification of S4.1.3.1.2. That section provides that a manufacturer must equip a specific amount of its vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987, with automatic restraints. The amount must not be less than 10 percent of the average annual production of passenger cars manufactured for sale in the United States during the period September 1, 1983, to August 31, 1986 (the base period). You explained that your client did not produce any vehicles for the U.S. during one year of the base period (September 1, 1983 -September 1, 1984). For the other two years of the base period, your client produced a limited number of vehicles for sale in the U.S. You asked whether in calculating the average yearly production for the base period, it is correct for your client to use zero for the production for the production between September 1, 1983 and August 31, 1984, and the actual production figures for two subsequent years. The three year base period addresses a situation where a manufacturer has produced vehicles for sale in the U.S. in each of those years. The purpose of averaging the production is to ensure that the calculation of the percentage of a manufacturer's passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraint requirements is based on a production figure which is representative of the manufacturer's typical production. In the case of a manufacturer who has produced vehicles for two of those years, it would defeat the purpose of the rule to allow the manufacturer to lower artificially the number of vehicles which must comply with the automatic restraint requirement by counting its production as zero for one of the base years. Thus, in a situation where a manufacturer has only two years of production, the manufacturer should calculate its base period average based on the number of vehicles produced during those two years. To provide manufacturer's with additional flexibility is calculating the number of passenger cars which must be equipped with automatic restraints, NHTSA proposed, on April 12, 1985 (50 FR 14509), an amendment to Standard No. 208 which would give manufacturers the option of using either a three year average or the actual production for the model year in question. We expect to issue shortly a final rule on this subject. You also asked for another clarification of S4.1.3.1.2. You asked if the required number of vehicles can be produced anytime between september 1, 1986 and August 31, 1987. S4.1.3.1.2 does not require that the automatic restraints be installed at any specific time during that period. Thus, you are correct that the installation of automatic restraints does not have to be evenly distributed throughout that 12 month interval. I hope this information is of assistance to you. If your have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3980

Dear Mr. Lucki: This responds to your letter of March 7, 1985, concerning Standard No 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. I regret the delay in our response. You noted that sections S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) of the standard require a seat belt warning system that conforms to S7.3 of the standard to be installed at each front outboard seating position of automatic restraint-equipped cars that have manual belts also at those positions. You pointed out that S7.3, however, only sets requirements for a warning system for the driver's seating position. You asked whether the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) can be met by providing a warning system conforming to S7.3 at only the driver's seating position. The answer is that those requirements can be met by a warning system for the driver only.; In December 1974 (39 FR 42692), the agency amended Standard No. 208 t establish new safety belt warning system requirements for vehicles manufactured after February 24, 1975. As discussed in the preamble, the agency decided against requiring a warning system at both the driver's seating position and the right front passenger's position. Instead, the agency adopted a requirement in S7.3(a) for a warning system at only the driver's seating position. (In July 1977 (42 FR 34299), the agency renumbered S7.3(a) to become the current S7.3).; In July 1976 (41 FR 29715), the agency proposed language concerning th safety belt warning system in automatic restraint-equipped cars. The proposed language was subsequently adopted, on July 5, 1977 (49 FR 34299), in S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The agency explained in the preamble of the July 1976 notice that the proposed safety belt warning system was to parallel the existing requirements for passenger cars. Thus, the intent was to require a warning system for only the driver's position. Requiring a warning system for the driver's position only is also consistent with the separate warning system requirement set in S4.5.3.3(b) for automatic belts. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a warning system only for the driver's position.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel