ID: honda-spw-jan172001

William R. Willen, Esq.
Managing Counsel, Product Regulatory Office
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
1919 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, CA 90501-2746





Dear Mr. Willen:

This responds to your March 1, 2000, letter asking whether Honda's hybrid electric vehicles with "Idle Stop" automatic transmission systems are permitted under S3.1.3 of Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect (49 CFR 571.102). Paragraph S3.1.3 states: "the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." As explained below, we conclude that the systems on Honda's hybrid electric vehicles meet S3.1.3.

You also asked about a 'gasoline engine version' of the Insight that Honda is developing. Detailed information, such as that provided to us regarding the automatic transmission hybrid electric vehicle Insight, is apparently not yet available for that version. Therefore, we will defer an opinion on that version until Honda can make available to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) similar information about it.

As noted above, your letter described two future design vehicles that would use "Idle Stop" technology to conserve fuel and reduce exhaust emissions when the vehicle is normally stopped and idling. One is the Honda Insight hybrid-electric vehicle equipped with an automatic Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT). According to your letter, this vehicle uses both an electric motor and gasoline engine to provide motive power. The other vehicle is a "normal gasoline-engine vehicle" that would be equipped with an automatic transmission.

Based on your letter and your discussions with NHTSA's engineers, we understand that the Honda Insight hybrid electric vehicle equipped with a CVT and Idle Stop Technology (IST) works as follows. The hybrid vehicle is designed so that the transmission shift lever must be placed in Park or Neutral when the driver manually uses the key to engage the starter to start the vehicle's gasoline engine. Honda believes this design feature enables the hybrid vehicle to comply with the original intent of S3.1.3.

When the hybrid vehicle is driven with the transmission in Drive and the driver stops the vehicle with the brake, the IST shuts off the gasoline engine. When the driver subsequently removes his foot from the brake, the hydraulic brake fluid pressure is maintained, the transmission lever remains in Drive while the transmission itself electronically shifts internally from Drive to Neutral, the starter engages the gasoline engine, and the gasoline engine starts up. After the engine starts, the transmission shifts internally from Neutral back into Drive, the hydraulic brake fluid pressure is released, and the vehicle may start to creep forward. Honda engineers said that the vehicle will not lurch forward. To accelerate, the driver must depress the accelerator pedal. Honda believes that this automatic shut-off and restart sequence also meets S3.1.3, in that the driver's direct manual activation of the starter is not needed after the engine is initially engaged to start the vehicle.

Toyota submitted a similar request for interpretation regarding its Prius hybrid vehicle. In an interpretation letter of October 22, 1999, to Toyota, NHTSA noted that the Prius has a drive train system that is more complex than those on vehicles that existed when Standard No. 102 was issued. The agency said that it will examine the requirements and conduct a rulemaking to update them as necessary. The agency concluded by saying: "Until that action is completed, we will interpret S3.1.3 of Standard No. 102 as requiring that driver activation of the engine starter must be inoperative when the transmission lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." (Emphasis added.) By "driver activation," we meant direct manual activation of the starter by the driver.

Both the Prius and the Insight meet S3.1.3 as so interpreted.

In stating this conclusion, NHTSA wishes to elaborate on its reasons for believing that there are safety concerns that must be addressed through rulemaking. The agency is aware that, besides Honda and Toyota, other vehicle manufacturers are currently designing vehicles with gasoline or diesel engine and hybrid propulsion plants that operate differently but attempt to achieve improved fuel economy. NHTSA does not wish to impede any of these efforts, but must be mindful of its safety responsibilities. The agency expects that those other vehicles, like the Prius and Insight, will have safety features that prevent sudden lurching forward or backward when the gasoline engine is restarted. Such lurching is a concern because it could result in a crash. Our rulemaking will address this and other potential issues.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:102
d.1/17/01

ID: aiam3873

Dear Mr. Hart: This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) which concerned the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school bus safety. You asked whether a public or nonpublic school can purchase and use a bus to transport school children to or from school related events if that vehicle does not meet the requirements for school buses established by NHTSA.; There are two Federal laws that have a bearing on your situation. Th first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563, hereinafter 'the Vehicle Safety Act'), under which our agency issues safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. The second law is the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-564), under which we have issued highway safety program standards applicable to State highway safety grant programs.; Under the definitions sections of our motor vehicle safety standards 'school bus' is defined as a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (buses used as common carriers in urban transportation excluded). A 'bus' is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons.; The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits dealers or distributors from sellin new school buses to schools or school districts if those buses do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. Any new van which carries 11 persons or more that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events is a school bus, and must comply with the standards for school buses issued by this agency. A dealer or distributor who sells a new non-complying bus to a school or school district is subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.; You indicated in your letter that the color of the school bus i question is white. The Highway Safety Act, which deals with the safety of vehicle operation through a grant program to the States, specifies requirements for the color, lighting, and other operational criteria for school buses in Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety*, (23 CFR 1204.4). Among the criteria in this standard are that a school bus should be painted yellow, equipped with special mirrors and lights, and marked 'School Bus.' In the case of a 15-passenger van, classified under the standard as a 'Type II school vehicle,' the identification criteria would have to be met if the van were equipped with school bus lights. If the State law conformed exactly to the standard, and if the bus in question were equipped as a school bus, then it would have to be painted yellow and signed as a school bus.; We wish to stress that HSPS No. 17 would affect the operation of you school buses only to the extent that Delaware has incorporated it into State law. Unlike the Vehicle Safety Act, which gives NHTSA direct regulatory authority over the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, the Highway Safety Act gives us authority only over the content of the States' highway safety grant programs. Whether the 15-passenger school bus would have to be painted yellow is therefore determined by State law.; Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joe Rutman -- Travelite Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/12/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Mary Fulton (Std. 108); 1/12/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Fred E. Maynard

TEXT:

Mr. Joe Rutman Travelite Division Pathway, Ltd. BOX 195 Grand Rapids, MI 49508

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1987, providing information about the electronic message display known as "Tellite" which has been developed by Pathway Limited.

I enclose copies of two recent agency interpretations on electronic message displays similar to yours. You will see that under Federal law such displays may not be used as original equipment, or as replacement equipment on passenger cars that carried cen ter highmounted stop lamps as original equipment. Whether they are acceptable as aftermarket equipment on other vehicles depends on the laws of the individual States there the display will be sold and operated.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(See 5/12/86 and 1/12/87 NHTSA letters to Mary Fulton and Fred E. Maynard

Re: Pathway Limited

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is in response to your letter of January 7, 1987, regarding the electronic message display known as "Tellite" which has been developed by Pathway Limited.

Enclosed with this letter, you will find the following:

1. A letter from the Company's engineers, explaining certain material features of the display, and

2. Drawings of the display and the handheld keyboard which is used to activate the display.

It should be pointed out that the display can be read from directly behind the vehicle, but cannot be read from the side. You should also be aware that the handheld keyboard only activates the display, and does not program messages.

I am also enclosing the 16 messages with which it is currently intended that every chip will be programmed.

If you require anything further, please advise.

Sincerely,

PATHWAY LTD. Joe Rutman

February 9, 1987

Mr. Joe Rutman President Travelite Division of Pathway, Ltd. P.O. Box 88111 Grand Rapids, MI 49508

Subject: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LETTER OF INQUIRY

In regards to the questions raised in the aforementioned letter:

1. light emitted by the brake-light portion of the display will pass through the message portion, as the light sources for both portions originate from the same printed circuit board. Red L.E.D.'s are used for the brake-light and yellow L.E.D.'s are used for the message display.

2. The brake-light circuit overrides the message display by disabling and blanking out any message displayed at the time the brake-light is turned on.

I hope the above answers are satisfactory. If you have any other questions, feel free to call.

FRANK HOCKEBORN, PROPRIETOR

SEE DIAGRAMS...

TELLITE MESSAGES

1. CAUTION. CHANGING LANES LEFT.

2. CAUTION. CHANGING LANES RIGHT.

3. PLEASE DIM YOUR LIGHTS...THANK YOU.

4. PLEASE DON'T FOLLOW SO CLOSE...THANK YOU.

5. I AM OUT OF GASOLINE...PLEASE SEND HELP.

6. DEAD BATTERY...I NEED A JUMPER.

7. I HAVE A FLAT TIRE...PLEASE SEND HELP.

8. MY CAR WILL NOT START...NEED HELP.

9. SORRY.

10. PLEASE SEND A WRECKER...THANK YOU.

11. MY CAR IS STUCK...PLEASE SEND HELP.

12. GO AROUND...I AM WAITING FOR A PARKING PLACE...THANK YOU.

13. THANK YOU.

14. CAUTION...SLOWING TRAFFIC...ROAD REPAIRS? ACCIDENT?

15. ILLNESS...HELP...HELP...HELP.

16. PLEASE CALL POLICE...SEND AN AMBULANCE.

ID: 8796

Mr. Alan Niedzwiecki
Director of Business Development
EDO Corporation
14-04 111th Street
College Point, NY 11356-1434

Dear Mr. Niedzwiecki:

This responds to your letter requesting information about this agency's activities related to cylinders for "compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle on-board motor fuel storage." According to your letter, EDO is developing an all-composite cylinder that has a safety factor of 3.5. You further explained that your company is planning to begin a conversion program using these cylinders.

Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff discussed your letter with your associate, Mr. John Vincenzo. Mr. Vincenzo said that EDO knows that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is conducting a rulemaking related to CNG cylinders. Mr. Vincenzo seeks confirmation that, until a rule results from that rulemaking, there is no Department of Transportation regulation with which your company is required to comply before you start your conversion program.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or any regulation dealing with the conversion of vehicles to be equipped with such cylinders. Therefore, until such time as a standard is issued, you are correct that you are not required to comply with any NHTSA safety standard related to CNG fuel systems.

However, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle 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.

In addition, NHTSA has certain restrictions on vehicle fuel system conversions, depending on who does the conversion and when the work is done. I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under our present regulations of converting new and used gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses NHTSA's vehicle alterer requirements (49 CFR 567.7) which apply to work on new vehicles, and the Safety Act's "render inoperative" provision (108(a)(2)(A)), which applies to work on new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed ... in compliance" with any FMVSS. Please contact us if you have further questions relating to the enclosed discussion.

I also note that the enclosed discussion is based on the FMVSS's that are currently in effect. As you know, NHTSA issued a proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If the agency were to ultimately decide to adopt the proposal, it would be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the "render inoperative" issues that relate to vehicle conversions. For example, if NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on new or used vehicles converted to CNG fuel.

With regard to present requirements for vehicle conversions, you should also note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

You were particularly interested in NHTSA's proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. In response to that proposal, the agency received over 55 comments (including one from your corporation), which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. In addition, please be aware that the January 1993 notice was a proposal and does not necessarily reflect the precise requirements that will be contained in the final rule.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:303 d:8/l3/93

ID: 2857yy

Mr. Terry Rowe
President
Show Trucks U.S.A., Inc.
114 National Drive
Rockwall, Texas 75087

Dear Mr. Rowe:

This responds to your letter asking whether your company would be considered a vehicle "alterer," within the meaning of 49 CFR Part 567 Certification, and Part 568 Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. I apologize for the delay in this response. Based on the statements in your letter that your company modifies only new vehicles before delivery to customers and that the modifications performed by your company do not affect the vehicles' gross axle or gross vehicle weight ratings, your company would be considered an "alterer," and would be subject to additional certification requirements, if the modifications involve something more than the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable" components. A more complete explanation of your responsibilities under NHTSA's laws and regulations follows.

567.7 imposes additional certification requirements on "a person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with 567.4 or 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ..." You stated in your letter that your company can provide features such as a 3-piece seating system, removable headrest, custom walnut steering wheel, and tinted windows. Your company is an "alterer" subject to the requirements of 567.7 to the extent that your modifications do not involve "readily attachable" components.

A determination of whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching these components. To ascertain whether the installation involves "readily attachable" components, the agency in the past has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. Absent extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats, headrests, and steering wheels to involve "readily attachable" components. To the extent your company is involved in such modifications, then, it would have to affix an additional certification label pursuant to 567.7. Further, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of notification and remedy for defects or noncompliances with the safety standards, and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

You should also note that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act sets forth certain prohibitions and requirements that would apply to these vehicle modifications, even if the modifications involved only "readily attachable" components. For example, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce or importation of any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This provision of Federal law means that all of the vehicles modified by your company must continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after the modifications have been made. In addition, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly "render inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. Again I apologize for the delay in this response. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of may staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#567 d:3/7/9l

ID: nht79-2.43

DATE: 12/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 21, 1979, pointing out discrepancies in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as published in the Code of Federal Regulations and as published in "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and Regulations."

You are correct that the version of S4.1.5 appearing in "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" erroneously incorporates the paragraph of the Federal Register amendment notice finding that good cause had been shown for an immediate effective date. The error does not appear, however, in the official version of Standard No. 108 which appears in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The footnote reference to "S4.4.2" and the reference to "S3.1" in the interpretation do appear, however, in the Code of Federal Regulations. Originally, there was a paragraph S4.4.2 prescribing the testing sequence of combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers, referenced by footnotes in Tables I and III. As you may recall, there was a Standard No. 108a scheduled to become effective on January 1, 1973, which omitted S4.4.2 with its footnote reference, and added detailed performance and testing requirements for flashers under a new paragraph, S4.6. When Standard No. 108a was revoked, S4.4.2 was never reinstated as a requirement, though the footnote references to it still appear in Tables I and III as you have noticed.

With respect to the reference to "S3.1" appearing in Note 2 to Standard No. 108 in the Code of Federal Regulations, this is the S3 which appeared in the December 16, 1967, version of

Standard No. 108 cited by the Note. When Standard No. 108 was amended effective January 1, 1972, S3.1 became S4.1. Thus, the continued reference to S3.1, though confusing, is correct in its context.

Your final comment is that the amendments to Tables I and III, affecting headlamps, as published on July 27, 1978, have not been picked up by the agency's publication "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations." You are correct. We hope that recent steps taken by this agency will end the problems that have been experienced with this publication. However, I must emphasize that the only legal version of Standard No. 108 is that appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations, currently revised as of October 1, 1978, plus amendments and corrections published in the Federal Register since that date.

We appreciate your calling these mistakes to our attention. Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 21, 1979

F. Berndt, Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Subject: Discrepancies in Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

Upon recent review of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, we have found a few discrepancies between the Standard as published in the Federal Register and as published in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations compilation.

The Federal Register of June 15, 1978, amended Section S4.1.5. There was a paragraph printed after Section S4.1.5 which we believe was not intended to be part of the Standard; however, the compilation has this paragraph included as part of the Standard. Are we correct in assuming that this paragraph is not part of the Standard?

The Federal Register of July 27, 1978, amended the Table I headlamp requirements. The compilation does not reflect this amendment.

Table I of the compilation is footnoted to "See S4.4.2"; however, there is no Section S4.4.2 in the compilation. The reprinted Standard in the Federal Register of August 23, 1976, also has the same mistake. What is the correct footnote?

The second paragraph under "Interpretation", following Section S5.2, in both the compilation and the Federal Register of August 23, 1976, refers to paragraph S3.1; however, there is no such paragraph in either document. What is the correct reference?

We trust that you will have these areas reviewed and advise us of your findings. We have attached the appropriate pages from the compilation and the Federal Register for your reference.

Very truly yours, MACK TRUCKS, INC.;

Thomas F. Brown -- Executive Engineer-Vehicle Regulations and Standards

Attach.

ID: used_carseats

Ms. Shauna Sloan
Kid to Kid Franchise System
452 East 500 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111




Dear Ms. Sloan:

This responds to your letter asking whether there are Federal regulations applying to "the resale of used car seats or child restraint systems". Our use of the term "child restraint system" includes "car seats" and other types of child restraints.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child restraint systems," applies to new child restraint systems. 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").

Thus, the answer to your question is no, Federal law does not apply to the resale of used child restraint systems. However, while the FMVSSs apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, several of our programs affect used vehicles or equipment.

The "make inoperative" provision of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. ) states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). This provision applies to new and used motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Thus, manufacturers, distributor, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses are not permitted to make inoperative a device or design installed on or in a new or used child restraint in compliance with FMVSS No. 213.

Also, under our statute, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment (including child restraint systems) must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. NHTSAs investigations of safety-related defects often originate from reports of problems from owners of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

Finally, under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[. ]" This compliance requirement includes child restraint systems, which are subject to the provisions of FMVSS No. 213.

You asked if states regulate the resale of used child restraint systems. States could regulate the sale and use of used child restraints. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide information of any such regulation state-by-state, as you requested.

For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes responsibilities of new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed information on NHTSAs policy regarding the re-use of child restraints after minor crashes. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:213
d.10/28/05

ID: nht76-5.66

DATE: 03/18/76

FROM: R. L. CARTER FOR J. B. GREGORY -- NHTSA

TO: Richard Nolan; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1976, in which you ask six questions pertaining to tire identification and recordkeeping, and to defects notification and recall. The statutory basis for and regulations governing this subject are set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq., and 49 CFR Part 574. I have enclosed copies for your reference. Specific answers to your questions follow in the sequence asked:

1. Manufacturers are required to retain tire registration information for three years. (49 CFR 574.7(d)).

2. As in all defect recall campaigns under our Act, the tire manufacturer, not the Department of Transportation, traces and notifies individuals of defective tires. There have been approximately 2,526,480 tires subject to recall in 119 recall campaigns.

3. The number of persons employed by industry to process this information has not been reported, but the filling systems are highly automated by the use of computer processing techniques. The cost of storage of this information during the three-year period is minimal. The recording of information at the time of purchase, however, is manually performed at the retail level, usually by the salesman, and has been estimated by dealers to cost anywhere from 5 or 10 cents per tire up to $ 2.5C per tire. The substantial difference in cost estimates is to a large part due to whether or not one assumes the salesman who completes the forms and the clerk who mails them would not be employed but for the tire registration process. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) takes the position, which has yet to be refuted, that additional personnel are not needed to carry out the program on the retail level and consequently the costis at the lower end of the scale. Simplification of the process has been achieved with the adoption of a standardized report form on which towrite the name and address of the purchaser. A copy is enclosed.

4. There is no cost incurred by the Federal government attributable to the tire registration and recordkeeping procedure except (Illegible Word) in that the regular staff, as one of their functions, assigns and maintains a manufacturer's identification code list and monitors the program of defects recalls and regulation enforcement. The cost of this work has been determined to be about $ 34,000 annually.

5. The NHTSA has undertaken no proscution of dealers or manufacturers for violation of the tire information and recordkeeping regulation. Fourteen civil penalties have been assesed for violation of the regulation, although these all occurred shortly after the regulation became effective.

6. We do not presently anticipate a major revision of the regulation. However, as with all our standards and regulations, it is regularly reviewed and revised to increase its effectiveness while lowering its cost to the industry and the consumer. Further, dealers, manufacturers, and others are free at any time to petition the NHTSA to amend the regulations. These procedures, which are found in 49 CFR, Part 552, require that we act on positions within 120 days.

At the present time, this program is also being analyzed by the National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council as part of its study of "Safety Defects and Recalls" requested by Secretary William T. Coleman. The Council's report will also guide us in revising and improving the regulation.

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

February 17, 1976

Congressional Liaison Department of Transportation

Would you please provide me with background information regarding the registration of tire serial numbers. I am especially interested in:

1. How long is this information kept on file?

2. How often has the Department of Transportation used this information to trace and notify individuals of defective tires?

3. Approximately how many persons are involved in processing this information?

4. What is the approximate cost of this procedure to the federal government?

5. How often have violators of this regulation been prosecuted?

6. Does the Department foresee any revision of this regulation in the near future?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Richard Nolan Member of Congress

ID: GF002147

ID: aiam2493

Dear Mr. Heath: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1976, which raise several questions with respect to motor vehicle lighting and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; First I want to comment upon this statement: >>>'A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applie to 'original equipment' replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to 'aftermarket' lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle.'<<<; This is not entirely true. Standard No. 108 applies in pertinent par 'to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment or vehicles to which this standard applied.' The standard applies to motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. Thus, any replacement of an original equipment item specified by Standard No. 108 must meet original equipment requirements. This not only includes lenses and lamps, such as parking lamps and tail lamps designed for specific year model vehicles but also lighting equipment sold for general use, such as headlamps, clearance lamps, and identification lamps, whose dimensions do not vary over the years.; Your first question is: >>>'1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and othe devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the 'aftermarket' sales?'<<<; The answer is yes, as I explained in my preliminary remarks about th applicability of Standard No. 108 to all replacement equipment.; >>>'2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type seale beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies or are they subject to state regulations?'<<<; We construe the words 'like equipment' broadly. If one headlightin system is being replaced with another, the replacement headlighting system must meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, even though its configuration differs from that of the original. Obviously, a State may also regulate sale of this equipment if its requirements are identical with the Federal ones.; >>>'3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units ar energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?'<<<; Quartz-Halogen headlamps sold in the aftermarket, intended a replacement for headlamps that comply with Standard No. 108, must also meet Federal requirements. If the lamps do not conform, not only would their sale be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Section 108(a) (1) (A), but the removal of sealed beam headlamps by the seller or a motor vehicle repair shop to facilitate the installation of the nonconforming ones would also be a violation of the Act (Section 108(a) (2) (A).; >>>'4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?'<<<; It is NHTSA's position, as explained earlier, that if an item o lighting equipment 'sold for universal use' is capable of replacing equipment on a vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, then it must meet Standard No. 108, and a State may also regulate it in an identical manner.; You also asked our advice 'on the problem of not being able t recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not.' As an alternative to the DOT mark permitted by S4.7.2 of Standard No. 108, replacement lighting equipment may be certified in two other ways. Pursuant to Section 114 of the Act certification 'may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such time is delivered.' Thus, access by a State enforcement officer to corporate records is not required.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel