ID: GF0044754

Mr. Russ Hunt
C/O Snider Tire Inc.
PO Box 16046
Greensboro, NC 27416-6046

Dear Mr. Hunt:

This is in response to your e-mail of July 13, 2004, in which you seek clarification of certain regulations pertaining to retreaded tires. Specifically, you ask whether it is permissible to remove or obscure certain information originally located on the sidewall of a medium truck tire during the retreading process.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

There is no FMVSS applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. However, 49 CFR 574.5 does require each tire sold in the United States, including retreaded medium truck tires, to be labeled with Tire Identification Number (TIN) in order to facilitate a recall in the event of a defect.

The DOT symbol located on the sidewall of a medium truck tire may either remain or be removed from that tire prior to retreading (see 574.5, enclosed).

With respect to other information located on the tire sidewall, including manufacturer name, ply rating, and maximum pressure, no regulation requires retreaded tires (for vehicles other than passenger cars) to show this information, and no regulation prohibits a retreader from removing this information.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref 574
d.9/7/04

ID: GF004581

Chris Tinto, Director
Technical & Regulatory Affairs
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your June 25, 2004, letter regarding this agencys Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541), as amended by a final rule published on April 6, 2004 (69 FR 17960, Docket 12231; corrected on June 22, 2004 69 FR 34612).

You ask about the amendments made by the April 6, 2004, final rule to the standards parts marking requirements for light duty trucks (LDTs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less. For many years the standard required vehicle manufacturers to mark the major parts (parts listed in 49 CFR 541.5(a)) of "high theft" lines of passenger motor vehicles. (A high theft vehicle had or was likely to have had a theft rate greater than the median theft rate for a specified period for all new vehicles.) On April 6, 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amended the standard to apply the parts marking requirement to: p assenger cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (MPVs) with theft rates lower than the median theft rate ("below-median theft rate"); and to LDTs with below-median theft rates that "have a majority of major parts interchangeable with those of" passenger cars and of MPVs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less (49 CFR 541.3(a)(3))

.

You ask three questions concerning the provision about LDTs. We have restated those below, followed by our answers.

Question 1. Is our interpretation correct that parts marking is only required on LDTs if a "majority" of parts listed in [Section] 541.5(a) are interchangeable with passenger cars and/or MPVs? In cases where the LDT does have a "majority" of interchangeable [Section] 541.5(a) parts, all of the parts on the LDT listed in [Section] 541.5(a) are required to be marked, regardless as to whether the parts are one of the interchangeable parts.

Answer: As to the first part of your question, the standard applies to (a) high theft LDTs, and to (b) below-median theft rate LDTs if a majority of parts listed in Section 541.5(a) are interchangeable with passenger cars and/or MPVs. If a below-median theft rate LDT is subject to the standard because of the interchangeability of its major parts, all major parts must be marked, not just the interchangeable ones.

Question 2. Are we correct that LDTs with less than a "majority" of interchangeable [Section] 541.5(a) parts do not have to be parts marked? In other words, if an LDT has only one [Section] 541.5(a) part that is interchangeable with a passenger car or an MPV, then the LDT does not have to be parts marked; not even the one part that is interchangeable.

Answer: Our answer is yes, a below-median theft rate LDT that does not have a majority of major parts interchangeable with a passenger car or an MPV subject to parts marking is not subject to the parts marking requirements of the standard. Using your example, not even the one part has to be marked.

Question 3. What is the meaning of "majority," as used in the context of this rule? Websters dictionary defines "majority" as, "a number greater than half of a total." Based on this definition, Toyota believes a "majority of major parts" means that more than half of the LDTs applicable parts listed in [Section] 541.5(a) have to be interchangeable with either an MPV or a passenger car before the LDT is required to be parts marked. Thus, a manufacturer first has to count how many parts listed in [Section] 541.5(a) are present on the LDT, and would have to determine whether more than 50% of the existing [Section] 541.5(a) parts on the LDT are interchangeable to determine whether parts marking is required on the LDT.

Answer: We agree that, with respect to the requirements at issue, "majority" means a number greater than half of the total. Accordingly, a below-median theft rate LDT is subject to parts marking requirements if greater than one half of the major parts present on that vehicle are interchangeable with major parts of a passenger car or an MPV that is subject to parts marking requirements.

You used an example of an LDT that has a total of 10 parts listed in Section 541.5(a) and stated your understanding that the LDT would have to have at least 6 interchangeable parts with an MPV or passenger car before all 10 of the parts on the LDT are required to be parts marked. Your understanding is correct. You also stated, "If the [LDT] has 5 or less interchangeable parts, none of the ten parts on the [LDT] are required to be marked." That understanding is correct with regard to the LDT in this example with the 10 major parts.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.7/27/04

ID: GF004598

Mr. John L'Espoir
Enid Drill Systems, Inc.
4510 East Market Street
Enid, OK 73701-9686

Dear Mr. L'Espoir:

This responds to your facsimile of June 16 and your July 8 phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff, regarding certain water well drilling equipment that your company produces. In your letter, you ask whether the water well drilling equipment incorporating a tandem axle trailer design is subject to the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS No. 121). You requested and received our interpretation on a similar issue in 1999. Based on the previously submitted informational materials and your recent conversation with George Feygin, our answer is no, provided that the equipment you now intend to manufacture is indeed similar to the equipment for which you sought our earlier interpretation.

In your previous submission, you stated that your equipment is used off-road to drill water wells, and that some of your designs incorporate tandem axle and triple axle semi-trailers equipped with air brakes. During a recent phone conversation, you indicated that the drilling equipment now in question will be substantially similar in design and function to the equipment subject to the previous interpretation. Please note that our present interpretation extends only to the type of drilling equipment previously described in your 1999 interpretation request.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

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

In reviewing the information you have previously provided, it is our opinion that the water well drilling equipment is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. The water well drilling equipment is designed to be used primarily at off-road job sites and, although capable of being transported on-road from one job site to another, its on-road use is only incidental to the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. This contrasts with instances in which vehicles such as cement mixer trucks and dump trucks frequently use the public roads going to and from off-road job sites, but remain there for only a limited period of time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act because their on-road use is more than merely incidental.

In view of the above discussion, your water well drilling equipment is not a motor vehicle and is therefore not required to comply with the FMVSSs, including the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121.

We note that our interpretations in this area are based in part on a court decision issued in 1978, addressing mobile construction equipment. Subsequent legal developments make the holding of that court decision open for reassessment. Moreover, some mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment the court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. At some point in the future, we may revisit the issue of whether certain equipment should be considered motor vehicles. However, if we were to take such action, we would announce it publicly, and address such issues as what standards should apply to the vehicles and what effective date is appropriate.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.10/20/03

ID: GF004709

Mr. Paul Brooks
220 Rogers Street
Ulster Park, NY 12487

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This is in response to your e-mail of July 12, 2004, in which you ask several questions related to adhesive numbers designed to be affixed to tires. Specifically, you ask whether vehicle owners are permitted to affix large-print adhesive numbers onto the tire sidewalls of their vehicles. You also ask whether the manufacturer of this product would be subject to recall responsibilities.

You describe your large-print adhesive numbers as follows. The numbers, made from either rubber or vinyl and measuring one to three inches in size, would be affixed to the tire sidewalls by adhesive. This would enable vehicle operators to more clearly see the tire pressure information molded onto the tire sidewall or provided elsewhere on the vehicle. You intend to either provide vehicle owners with the correct tire pressure information for their vehicles or more likely, instruct them to consult appropriate information already on the vehicle. Based on the information you have provided, we understand that you intend to sell your large-print adhesive numbers to consumers but do not intend to participate in the installation or application of these adhesive numbers.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues FMVSSs applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B) defines motor vehicle equipment as:

"any component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle"

The large-print adhesive numbers described in your e-mail would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B) because they are accessories to a motor vehicle. Because these numbers are an item of motor vehicle equipment, they would be subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. Accordingly, if you or NHTSA determine that your product contains a safety-related defect, you will be responsible for notifying purchasers of the large-print adhesive numbers and remedying the problem free of charge.

Additionally, we note that vehicle owners themselves are not prohibited from affixing large-print adhesive numbers to the tire sidewalls of their vehicles. Generally, Federal law does not prohibit vehicle owners from modifying their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with applicable safety standards.

Finally, we note that S4.3 of the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 110, requires that each vehicle subject to the standard be equipped with a placard which contains tire inflation and certain other information related to tire load limits and proper inflation levels for the safe operation of a motor vehicle. An improved version of this tire information placard will be required beginning September 1, 2005. Although it is not required by our standards, you may wish to advise vehicle owners to consult the tire information placard to find out the proper tire inflation pressure.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.8/27/04

ID: GF004887

Mr. Palmer Robeson
1832 Birch Road
McLean, VA 22101

Dear Mr. Robeson:

This is in response to your e-mail of June 14, 2004, and subsequent phone conversations with George Feygin of my staff regarding a "tire traction device" you have invented. You also provided a CD-ROM with additional information on the device and its intended use. You ask whether your invention is subject to any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and other regulations. In short, there are no FMVSSs applicable to your device.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues FMVSSs applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B) defines motor vehicle equipment as:

"any component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle;"

According to your letter, the tire traction device is akin to "snow chains" that are attached to wheels in order to provide better traction. This device attaches to wheels in a similar fashion and is designed for the same purpose. Your traction device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B), because it is an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle.

There are no FMVSSs applicable to the traction device described in your letter. Nevertheless, as an item of motor vehicle equipment, it is subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer of your device or NHTSA determine that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Please be advised that some states regulate the use of snow chains and similar equipment. You may wish to contact appropriate state authorities to ascertain state regulations pertaining to your device.

Enclosed please find an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:110
d.8/30/04

ID: GF005146

Mr. Milo Plasil
Intertech
2629 Purdue Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Dear Mr. Plasil:

This responds to your e-mail to George Feygin of my staff in which you ask several questions regarding 49 CFR Part 555 (Part 555). Part 555 provides a means by which manufacturers of motor vehicles may obtain a temporary exemption from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of certain motor vehicles from compliance with one or more Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) or with NHTSAs bumper standard.

You ask about complex fact scenarios. We have simplified and restated your questions as we have understood them, and follow each question with our answer.

1. Suppose a manufacturer builds vehicles from various new parts and subassemblies. Later, its Part 555 petition is granted. Can a vehicle assembled from the parts prior to the agencys grant of the Part 555 petition be entered into interstate commerce as "used," "demonstration" or "testing" vehicles?

A vehicle may be sold if it is covered by the Part 555 exemption, but the vehicle would have to meet all applicable FMVSSs (except to the extent exempted by the grant of the petition). The FMVSSs apply to the vehicle until the vehicles first purchase in good faith other than for resale. Calling a vehicle a "used," "demonstration" or "test" vehicle before the vehicles first purchase in good faith other than for resale does not make the vehicle "used" in NHTSAs view. The vehicle would be considered "new," and would have to meet the applicable FMVSSs when it is sold or introduced into interstate commence.

2. How can a U.S. manufacturer of vehicles described in Question 1, "register" and "license" them for testing on public roads prior to agencys decision on the Part 555 petition?

Under the pertinent portion of 49 U.S.C. 30112, "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States," any motor vehicle unless it complies with, and is certified as complying with, all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, test vehicles cannot be introduced into interstate commerce by being driven on public roads until they are certified in accordance with NHTSAs certification requirements for vehicle manufacturers (these requirements are attached to this letter).

3. If the petition for Part 555 exemption is granted, and the manufacturer sells less than the maximum of 2,500 vehicles in the first year of exemption, can this manufacturer sell more than 2,500 vehicles the second year if the two year total does not exceed 5,000 vehicles?

Carry-forward or carry-back credits are not permitted. If the manufacturer obtains a temporary exemption on grounds other than financial hardship (see 49 CFR 555.6 (b) through (d)), the number of exempted vehicles that can be sold is limited to 2,500 in any 12-month period. Accordingly, a manufacturer cannot sell more than 2,500 exempted vehicles in the second year of exemption, even if it sold less than 2,500 in the first year, and the two-year total is below 5,000.

If the manufacturer obtains a Part 555 exemption on financial hardship grounds, there is no limit on the number of exempted vehicles that can be sold. Note that under 555.6(a)(1)(v), to be eligible for a petition on financial hardship grounds the total number of motor vehicles produced by or on behalf of the petitioner in the 12-month period prior to filing the petition cannot exceed 10,000.

4. If the exemption is granted for 900 vehicles per year, and the manufacturer sells only 600 in the first year, can the manufacturer sell an extra 300 vehicles in the second year of exemption?

When the agency grants a petition for a Part 555 exemption, the agency generally does not specify the number of exempted vehicles that may be sold each year, so long as the number of exempted vehicles does not exceed 2,500 in any 12-month period. As stated in my answer to question 3, carry-forward credits are not permitted. As also explained in that answer, there are no limits on eligible manufacturers (manufacturing less than 10,000 vehicles in the past 12 months) exempted on financial hardship grounds.

5. If the petition for Part 555 exemption is granted, can the exempted manufacturer sell the same vehicle under a different name?Specifically, the manufacturer is uncertain as to the name of the vehicle. Must the application for exemption be name-specific?

Section 555.9(a) requires the manufacturer of exempted vehicles to submit to NHTSA a sample certification label that would appear on those vehicles (the relevant certification label requirements are attached). The certification labels must include the vehicle identification number (VIN). Under Part 565, the VIN must include the vehicle name. Because the VINs are name-specific, a mid-term change by the manufacturer of the exempted vehicles name would require that manufacturer to resubmit its sample certification label with a VIN that is formatted using the revised name. We note, of course, that a name change would have no affect on the maximum quantity of vehicles subject to the exemption.

6. The entity seeking exemption will initially assemble vehicles in the U.S. However, the same entity may later wish to import assembled vehicles from a foreign country. Are registered importers eligible for Part 555 exemptions? If so, may the same entity apply for a single exemption as an importer and a manufacturer?If not, must the foreign entity assembling these vehicles petition for a separate Part 555 exemption?

The exemption provisions in 49 U.S.C. 30113, implemented in Part 555, apply only to vehicle manufacturers. While a registered importer may file a Part 555 temporary exemption petition on behalf of a foreign manufacturer (if it acts in the capacity of the manufacturers agent in the United States), the agency will consider the circumstances of the manufacturer, and not the importer, in deciding on the petition (see 33 FR 14557, and an October 9, 1990 letter to Mr. William D. Rogers, copies enclosed).

7. How can the petitioner "reconcile possible honest differences of compliance interpretation, if they appear when the vehicles are selectively tested for compliance"?

Each of the FMVSSs specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. Manufacturers are not required to test their products in the manner specified in the relevant FMVSS as their basis for certifying that the product complies with that standard. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products in order to determine, in good faith, that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the FMVSSs when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. However, manufacturers often choose to follow the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use in conducting compliance testing.

NHTSA may ask a manufacturer to provide basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the FMVSS. If in fact there is a noncompliance, a manufacturer would have to recall the product to bring it into compliance, at no charge to the customer. In addition, the manufacturer could be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product, that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)).

8. Does NHTSA have an entity that can inspect a prototype vehicle subject to the exemption petition in order to ensure that they are accurately described in the petition for exemption?

Our statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Consistent with this statutory framework, NHTSA does not have an entity that inspects vehicles for compliance with our programs. Under 555.5(c), the knowing and willful submission of false, fictitious or fraudulent information will subject the petitioner to the civil and criminal penalties of 18 U.S.C. 1001.

9. How do I obtain information on NHTSA investigations pertaining to Land Rover Defender, model years 1993 to 1997?

Summary information on all NHTSA defect investigations since 1972 is available online at: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/defect/defectsearch.cfm. If this database contains files pertaining to the vehicle in question, you may purchase copies of the investigation documents online.

If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Feygin at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:555
d.12/9/04

ID: GF005156

Jack Sheehan, Managing Director
Adaptive Driving Alliance
4218 W. Electra Lane
Glendale, AZ 85310




Dear Mr. Sheehan:

This responds to your March 15, 2005, letter asking whether this agency would permit voluntary compliance with the requirements of a recently published final rule before the stated effective date.

On February 14, 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule establishing a new process under which intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers could obtain temporary exemptions from dynamic performance requirements (see 70 FR 7414). The final rule also amended the pass-through certification provisions. The preamble to the final rule states that the effective date for the amendments is September 1, 2006.

First, notwithstanding the effective date, the agency will accept temporary exemption petitions submitted before the September 1, 2006, because, in certain circumstances, this will enable the agency to consider the exemptions in an expeditious manner. We note, however, that the agencys review process will not be limited to 120 days (as indicated in 555.14) until the September 1, 2006, effective date. We further note that because a good faith effort to comply with applicable requirements is a prerequisite for a temporary exemption petition, the agency will not consider a petition unless it demonstrates that the petitioner has made reasonable efforts to comply with the applicable dynamic performance requirements (see 49 CFR Part 555.13(b)).

Second, parties affected by the February 14, 2005, final rule are not prohibited from voluntarily complying with the amended certification and documentation requirements in Parts 567 and 568 before the September 1, 2006, effective date.

Finally, we will address the application and the effective date of the new section 571.8(b) when we respond to the petitions for reconsideration of the February 14, 2005 document.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:555
d.8/1/05

ID: GF005203

Mr. Graham Wells, IV
Whites Tire & Rubber Company
PO Box 1469
Wilson, NC 27894

Dear Mr. Wells:

This is in response to your e-mail of August 2, 2004, in which you seek clarification of certain regulations pertaining to retreaded tires. Specifically, you ask what information is required on the sidewalls of retreaded tires for use on vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating greater than 10,000 pounds.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

There is no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. However, 49 CFR 574.5 does require each tire sold in the United States, including retreaded tires, to be labeled with Tire Identification Number (TIN) in order to facilitate a recall in the event of a defect. Under 574.5 (a) through (d), each TIN consists of (a) the manufacturers or retreaders identification code, (b) the tire size symbol, (c) optional tire type code, and (d) the date code; i.e. the week and year of manufacture.

With respect to maximum load and maximum pressure, no regulation requires retreaded tires (for vehicles other than passenger cars) to show this information.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:574
d.9/10/04

ID: GF005229-2

[ ]

Dear [ ]

This responds to your letter asking whether a key locking system, which includes an engine control module immobilizer, could be used to meet the requirements of S4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114, Theft Protection. More specifically, you asked whether such a system would meet the requirements of S4.2 by (a) preventing normal activation of the vehicles engine by removal of the key, and (b) preventing vehicle forward self-mobility by the presence of the immobilizer. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

Before I address your question, I note that you requested confidential treatment for the identity of your company and for yourself, as well as for additional information provided in your letter. You also provided a redacted version of your letter. I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [      ] in our letter will be kept confidential. The redacted version of your letter will be made public. We will send a separate letter providing a complete response to your request for confidentiality.

SECTION S4.2

FMVSS No. 114 specifies requirements for theft protection to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle. S4.2 of the standard specifies:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents:

(a) The normal activation of the vehicles engine or motor; and

(b) Either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

As you noted in your letter, "self-mobility" is not defined in the standard. Manufacturers have typically prevented forward self-mobility by installing transmission lever locks.

YOUR SYSTEM

Your vehicle features an engine control module immobilizer system that uses a multi-level coding process (hash code), which differentiates between a constant key code and a continuously varying authorization code.

First, for normal vehicle activation, an operator must insert the properly coded electronic key into the electronic ignition lock. After insertion, a 2-way data exchange takes place for positive verification of the drive authorization. The engine can be started only after the positive verification occurs.

Second, if a key without the proper electronic code is used, or an attempt is made to bypass the electronic ignition lock in order to start the vehicle through other means (e.g. , through "hot-wiring" of the vehicle), the immobilizer will lock out the engine control module effectively preventing engine operation.

You believe that the presence of this engine control module immobilizer prevents forward self-mobility in the context of S4.2(b) because without engine operation, the vehicle is incapable of moving forward under its own power.

DISCUSSION

We agree that the type of system you describe would meet the requirements of S4.2(a) because it prevents normal activation of the vehicles engine when the key is removed. We also agree that the type of system you describe would meet the requirements of S4.2(b) because engine control module immobilizer prevents vehicle forward self-mobility when the key is removed.

As you discussed in your letter, the two provisions of S4.2 were intended to reduce unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle in different ways. Provision (a) was intended to prevent unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle by requiring that the vehicle could not be started without the key. Provision (b) was intended to further impede unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle by preventing vehicle operation outside the normal activation method. That is, if an attempt were made to circumvent the ignition lock (through "hot-wiring," for example), another device would prevent unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle.

We note that in promulgating FMVSS No. 114, the agency expressed concern about car thieves who could bypass the ignition lock. In response to this concern, the agency decided to require a device, which would prevent either self-mobility or steering even if the ignition lock were bypassed (see 33 FR 4471, April 27, 1968).

The engine control module immobilizer described in your letter satisfies the requirements of S4.2(b) because it locks out the engine control module if an attempt is made to start the vehicle without the correct key or to bypass the electronic ignition system. When the engine control module is locked, the vehicle is not capable of forward self-mobility because it is incapable of moving forward under its own power.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:114
d.9/24/04

ID: GF005279

Mr. Fred Anderson
President
BrakeQuip International, Inc.
1470 Amherst Road
Knoxville, TN 37909

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of July 16 and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) "recognizes and accepts other countries test standards." Specifically, you state that the Australian standard ADR7 and Canadian standard CMVSS106 were both adopted from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (FMVSS No. 106), and are identical to that standard. Your product is certified to the Canadian and Australian standards. You ask whether your product has to be "re-tested in the U.S." before certifying compliance with FMVSS No. 106.

By way of background, NHTSA administers Federal requirements applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hoses.  NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new vehicles and equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (Vehicle Safety Act) [1] , establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify owners and purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge.

Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA follows these specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing.

Manufacturers are not required to test their products in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all relevant standards. A manufacturer may choose any valid means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard and to provide a basis for its certification of compliance.

If the agency has reason to believe that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer will have to recall the product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer. In addition, the manufacturer will be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it had no reason to know despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)). In addition, a manufacturer is prohibited from selling or making available for sale any vehicle or equipment that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

We cannot provide you with assurance that relying on testing conducted for Canadian and Australian standards would be sufficient to demonstrate "reasonable care." This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:106
d.8/12/03





---

[1] 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.