ID: VINs

Mr. Dale Kardos
Dale Kardos & Associates
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 715
Washington, DC 20036-4104





Dear Mr. Kardos:

This responds to your letter requesting information on Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirements as they pertain to a forthcoming Porsche sport utility vehicle (SUV). You state that the Porsche SUV will be produced in two stages and in two different Porsche plants. The first stage will occur at the Porsche plant in Bratislava, Slovakia, where the body structure will be produced, and the front windshield and VIN will be installed. This basic structure then will be transported to the Porsche plant in Leipzig, Germany, where it will be combined with the rest of the vehicle (i.e., engine, transmission, wheels, tires, brakes, etc.).

You ask whether it is acceptable to use the letter "L" as the eleventh character of the VIN, which would indicate the plant of manufacture as the Leipzig plant rather than the Bratislava plant. Under the circumstances described above, this is acceptable.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) VIN requirements are contained in 49 CFR Part 565. Each VIN must be made up of seventeen characters consisting of Arabic numbers and Roman letters. Under 565.6(d)(2), the eleventh character must represent the "plant of manufacture," which is defined as the plant where the manufacturer affixes the VIN. Since the VINs of the Porsche SUVs will be affixed at the Bratislava plant, it would appear that the eleventh character in the Porsche SUV VINs should indicate the Bratislava plant, not the Leipzig plant.

However, the requirements of Part 565 do not apply until the structure at a minimum meets the definition of an "incomplete vehicle." Section 565.4(a) requires a vehicle manufactured in more than one stage to have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined as:

an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Since the Porsche SUV unit which will be produced at the plant in Bratislava will consist only of the body structure, front windshield, and VIN, it does not meet the definition of an "incomplete vehicle." Thus, the requirements of Part 565 do not apply to the Porsche SUV until the unit produced at the Bratislava plant is married with the power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system. Since this will take place at the Leipzig plant, NHTSA considers the Leipzig plant to be the plant of manufacture for purposes of 49 CFR Part 565. Consequently, Porsche should use the letter "L" as the eleventh character in Porsche SUV VINs to indicate the Leipzig plant as the plant of manufacture.

I hope this answers your question. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565
d.2/20/01

ID: visor21836

Mr. Richard Larson
55 South Smith Street
Palatine, IL 60067-2636



Dear Mr. Larson:




This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a sun visor attachment. As you state, the attachment "is roughly 2 inches in diameter and can be attached to the visor wherever the driver prefers" and "is translucent and can be tinted as well." You do not mention, however, the purpose of the attachment, or provide a more thorough description of the product. Further, you ask for information regarding 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30122, the "make inoperative" provision of our statute (formally codified at 15 U.S.C. 108(a)(2)(A).) ⁽¹⁾

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing new vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

As far as we can tell from your letter, your product appears to be an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment," in relevant part, as any system, part, or component "sold ... as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

a.   A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b.   It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Your sun visor attachment is an accessory because it was presumably designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. (We make this assumption because you designed the product to attach to a vehicle's sun visor, "wherever the driver prefers.") Further, the attachment is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

There is currently no FMVSS that is directly applicable to a sun visor attachment sold directly to a consumer. The FMVSSs that regulate aspects of sun visors, FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, apply only to new, completed motor vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale) and not to items of aftermarket equipment, such as a sun visor attachment. However, a manufacturer of aftermarket equipment, whether you or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 (copy enclosed) which set forth the notification and remedy (recall) requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer of the product determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. The installation of the sun visor attachment by a commercial entity is also subject to certain restrictions, as discussed below.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (the section of which you inquire in your letter), provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the sun visor attachment could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the compliance of a vehicle with any FMVSS, including but not limited to those identified above.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

I note that the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the U.S. You should contact that agency at (202) 366-4012 for information about any requirements that may apply to your product.

In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions and may prohibit sun visor attachments. Therefore, in response to your question regarding who you should contact regarding the standards of each state, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used. In further response to your question, we regret that we do not have the internet addresses for each state.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.




Sincerely,




Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel




Enclosures
ref:201#302
d..8/30/00

---

1. Our statute, formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, was recodified in 1994 without substantive change. It is now codified at Title 49 of the U.S. Code in Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety.)

ID: volvo.crs

Mr. William Shapiro
Director, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter of March 11, 1998, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on vehicles within a new car line, currently designated as "P23," that Volvo plans to introduce into North America beginning in model year 1999. Although you requested confidential treatment of the information contained in the March 11, 1998 letter and in its enclosure, you subsequently withdrew that request. Accordingly, this letter makes reference to certain of that information.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(c) prescribe specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provide that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for the agency's approval. As identified in your letter, and in an accompanying drawing, the alternate location for which you have requested approval is on the vehicle's B-pillar, facing the door opening of the rear door on the driver's side. In a subsequent letter, dated March 23, 1998, you state that it is not possible for the certification label to be placed in any of the locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4(c) owing to the size of the label, the corresponding surface geometry of each of those locations, and adhesion difficulties owing to the surface properties at some of those locations.

In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for vehicles in the P23 new car line would meet this objective. NHTSA therefore approves your request.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:567
d.4/29/98

ID: volvov70.crs

Mr. William Shapiro
Director, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter of January 6, 2000, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on vehicles within a new, early 2001 model year passenger car line, to be designated as the "Volvo V70," that Volvo plans to begin offering for sale on or about March 15, 2000.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(c) prescribe specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provide that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for the agency's approval. As identified in your letter, and in an accompanying drawing, the alternate location for which you have requested approval is on the vehicle's B-pillar, facing the door opening of the rear door on the driver's side. You note that by letter dated April 29, 1998, NHTSA approved this same location for the placement of the certification label on vehicles within the Volvo S80 line. You state that the new Volvo V70 shares with the S80 many safety features that involve structural design, and has the same basic vehicle platform as the S80.

Your letter states that it is not possible for the certification label to be placed in any of the locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4(c) owing to the size of the label, the corresponding surface geometry of each of those locations, and adhesion difficulties owing to the surface properties at some of those locations. You state that the alternate location that Volvo has proposed will meet the requirements of 49 CFR 567.4(c) because it is in "the same general area" as the locations specified in that section, and because a label in the proposed location will be "easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except an outer door."

In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for vehicles in the new V70 passenger car line would meet this objective. NHTSA therefore approves your request.

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:567
d.2/22/2000

ID: vondale.ztv

Mr. James P. Vondale
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental & Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company, Fairlane Plaza South
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126-2738

Dear Mr. Vondale:

This is in response to your letter of April 22, 2003, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue an interpretation that the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations (Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579) "were not intended to capture data generated by two non-typical data sources. These data sources are from subsidiaries of Ford Motor Company that are a rental car company (Hertz), and "a company that administers external, supplemental third party extended warranty programs that can be purchased for both Ford and competitive vehicles (Automobile Protection Corporation or APCO).

For purposes of the EWR regulations, we have defined "manufacturer to specify that "This term includes any . . . subsidiary . . . . See Section 579.4(b). Therefore, the question is whether it is appropriate to require Ford to provide data that these subsidiaries may generate that would be reportable under the EWR regulations if it were generated by a vehicle producer itself.

You pointed out that Hertz is "an authorized vehicle service center, and that "warranty repair information on Ford vehicles operated by Hertz is contained in our warranty information system and will be included in the EWR warranty count information, as well as "any consumer complaints that were directed to Ford from renters of Hertz Ford products. We understand, then, that Ford will include in its EWR reports relating to the number of warranty claims and consumer complaints such claims and complaints as are reported to it by Hertz.

You asserted that other data Hertz collects should not have to be reported. We do not expect Ford to report on non-Ford vehicles that Hertz rents or leases. As to Ford vehicles that Hertz rents or leases, while it is possible that some valuable EWR information might be in the possession of Hertz, inclusion of that data would skew the Ford reports, since no other vehicle manufacturer would have a similar data source. Moreover, we expect that ordinarily claims involving death or injury, based on alleged problems with Ford vehicles, received by Hertz would also be asserted against and received by Ford. On the other hand, we would expect that if Hertz were required to report all claims involving death or injury, we would receive information on numerous claims based on Hertzs ownership of the vehicle, as opposed to a potential problem with the Ford vehicle. Similar considerations apply to property damage claims. Therefore, we will not require reporting of claims for death, injury or property damage, or consumer complaints, received only by Hertz (on Ford vehicles or other vehicles).

With respect to field reports, you asserted that you did not believe that "non-warranty data from Hertz would be valuable as field reports as "Hertz data does not come directly from employees of a vehicle manufacturing company. However, a field report need not be a communication that originates with an employee of a manufacturer. The term "field report also includes a communication from "an authorized service facility, or an entity known to the manufacturer as owning or operating a fleet to a manufacturer. See the revised definition of "field report at 68 FR 18142. A "fleet is defined as "more than ten motor vehicles of the same make, model, and model year. See 49 CFR 579.4(b). Thus, a communication from Hertz to Ford relating to failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem in a vehicle manufactured by Ford, would be reportable by Ford. (We note, parenthetically, that a similar communication from Hertz to a vehicle manufacturer other than Ford would be reportable as a "field report by that manufacturer assuming that Hertz is an authorized service facility of that manufacturer, or owns and operates a fleet of vehicles produced by that manufacturer). However, we agree that a report by a Hertz employee to Hertz that was not forwarded to Ford in its capacity as a vehicle manufacturer would not have to be reported to NHTSA by Ford in its EWR submissions.

With respect to APCO, you related that this "subsidiary administers a third party supplemental extended warranty program, and that "the warranties are available to customers directly through [Ford] dealers [and] are also available through other, non-Ford dealers.

You also advised that Ford has an "internal ESP extended warranty system, which is contained in our warranty information system [and] will be included in the TREAD EWR warranty count information . In the preamble to the final rule (67 FR 45822, 45851), we observed that "in our view, the proposed definition [of warranty] already excludes third-party insurance-type contracts. However, we also noted that the proposed (and adopted) definition of warranty included "any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale or lease of a motor vehicle . . . by a manufacturer to a buyer or lessee . . . . Thus, claims under an APCO extended warranty that was sold by a Ford dealer in connection with the sale of a motor vehicle would be reportable by Ford under the EWR regulations. However, if the APCO extended warranty was purchased from a Ford dealer other than in connection with the sale of lease of the vehicle, or if the APCO extended warranty was purchased from other than a Ford dealer, each of these transactions would not be included in the definition of "warranty, and a claim filed under these APCO extended warranties would not have to be reported by Ford, even if the APCO contract covered a Ford-manufactured vehicle.

We recognize that this may create a reporting obligation, especially if APCO does not currently segregate its information in the manner we have described. However, the approach suggested in your letter would encourage Ford, and other vehicle manufacturers, to sell all extended warranties through subsidiaries to avoid reporting requirements, and would lead to a loss of potentially valuable EWR data.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:579
d.5/14/03

ID: Wagar.1

Mr. Terry W. Wagar
Vehicle Safety Technical Analyst III
NYS Department of Motor Vehicles
6 Empire State Plaza, Room 111
Albany, NY 12228

Dear Mr. Wagar:

This responds to your e-mail of June 2, 2003, asking whether a proposed New York State bill (A5226) would be preempted by Federal law, in light of a possible inconsistency with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Your correspondence attached a version of the bill and expressed concern regarding an amendment to existing State law that would require motor vehicles sold in New York (except motorcycles) to be equipped with a blind spot mirror.

I would note that except for a change in dates, it is our understanding that the New York Assembly sought to pass a nearly identical provision in 1996 (A9376, March 5, 1996). In the enclosed interpretation letter to Mr. R. Karbowski, we stated that the proposed State requirement would be preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). Because the State legislative provision and the applicable Federal laws have remained essentially unchanged in relation to this matter, NYS bill A5226 would be similarly preempted for the reasons set forth in our earlier interpretation letter.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:111
d.6/30/03

ID: wagar.ztv

Mr. Terry W. Wagar
Vehicle Safety Technical Analyst III
Technical Services Bureau
Office of Vehicle Safety & Clean Air
Department of Motor Vehicles
State of New York
6 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12228
FAX 518-473-9903





Dear Mr. Wagar:

This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 2001, to Thomas M. Louizou, NHTSA Regional Administrator, and confirms our telephone discussion of July 27, 2001.

You have written to us about several aspects of the relationship between State and Federal requirements for low-speed vehicles (LSV). Under Federal law, a "low-speed vehicle" is defined as a "4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface." A "truck" is a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." These definitions are found at 49 CFR 571.3(b). In addition, the enclosed letter of March 8, 2001, to Neil Mardell clarifies that a truck cannot be a LSV. At this time, we do not have sufficient information about the vehicles you describe as "small trucks" to offer an opinion as to whether they meet the Federal description of low speed vehicle or truck.

A vehicle that meets the definition of "low-speed vehicle" must be manufactured to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500, Low-speed vehicles (49 CFR 571.500). You have informed us that "New York State law and regulation recognize the vehicles that have speeds not to exceed 40 MPH as limited use vehicles and must be uniquely registered and operated." There is no conflict here between State and Federal authority. NHTSA has no authority to prescribe conditions for registration and operation of motor vehicles, and with respect to LSVs (as opposed to other types of motor vehicles), New York may adopt and enforce whatever conditions for registration and operation it deems appropriate, including a total prohibition against the use of these vehicles on public roads.

You relate your initial understanding that "where equipment was addressed under 500, New York State would be preempted and could not have more stringent standards." However, "more recently, the answer from NHTSA has been that low speed vehicles only have to meet a specific seatbelt and windshield glazing requirement." You ask for a clarification.

Under Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1)), when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may prescribe its own standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance . . . only if the standard is identical to the [Federal] standard. . . ." Standard No. 500 requires LSVs to be equipped with a windshield of AS-1 or AS-5 composition, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly conforming to Standard No. 209. These are performance standards, and New York State's windshield glazing and seat belt standards as they apply to low-speed vehicles (i.e., limited use passenger-carrying vehicles with a maximum speed of more than 20 miles per hour but not more than 25 miles per hour) must be identical to those of Standard No. 500.

Standard No. 500 also requires LSVs to be equipped with certain items of lighting equipment, mirrors, and parking brakes, but it does not specify that these items must comply with Standards Nos. 108, 111, and 135, the Federal standards establishing performance requirements for lighting equipment, mirrors, and parking brakes. The American Association for Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) petitioned for reconsideration of Standard No. 500 and asked that States be allowed to establish their own performance requirements for these equipment items. We agreed, and on September 1, 2000, we published a notice (65 FR 53219), copy enclosed, saying (at 53221) that States "may adopt and apply their own performance requirements for required LSV lighting equipment, mirrors, and parking brakes until we have established performance requirements for those items of equipment." To date we have neither proposed nor established these requirements.

You mentioned that the GEM LSV appears to have a SAE "Y" symbol on the lens of its headlamp, indicating that the lamp is a driving light. As noted above, NHTSA has not proposed nor established requirements for the headlamp required by Standard No. 500, although we may do so in the future. A lamp with the SAE "Y" symbol on its lens is one that has been manufactured to comply with SAE Standard J581, Auxiliary Driving Lamps. The SAE defines an auxiliarly driving lamp as "a lighting device . . . intended to supplement the upper beam of a standard headlamp system. It is not intended for use alone or with the lower beam of a standard headlamp system." Thus, while the SAE clearly does not consider a driving lamp to be a headlamp, we have concluded that 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) permits a State to make its own decision as to whether it will accept a driving lamp as a headlamp for low-speed vehicles.

You also mentioned bumpers. As with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, "a State or political subdivision of a State may prescribe or enforce a bumper standard for a passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to" 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 U.S.C. 32511(a)). However, Section 581.3 specifically excludes low-speed vehicles from the applicability of the bumper standard. This means that New York, or any other jurisdiction, may establish a bumper standard for low-speed vehicles until such time as NHTSA may prescribe its own.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: wakley.2.wpd

Mr. Mark Wakley
25919 25^th Lane South, Apt. E-201
Kent, WA98032

Dear Mr. Wakley:

This is in response to your several e-mails in October 2003, concerning your desire to have the daytime running lights (DRLs) on your model year 2004 Chevrolet Cavalier disconnected. I understand that you discussed this issue at length with Eric Stas and other agency staff. You stated that your vehicle is equipped with DRLs that illuminate upon vehicle start-up and that there is no manual on-off switch. You stated that despite repeated requests, General Motors is unwilling to provide a means to disable the DRLs. Further, you described problems this has engendered in your delivery operations to military bases and other federal facilities, which require extinguishment of such lighting as a security measure.

Because DRLs are not required motor vehicle equipment, we confirm that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are free to disconnect the vehicles DRLs or to install an on-off switch, at customer request. As the vehicle owner, you are also free to disconnect the DRLs yourself. However, vehicle manufacturers are not required to provide a means to disable DRLs.

By way of background, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not require vehicle manufacturers to install DRLs on new vehicles; however, if manufacturers choose to install such devices, paragraph 5.5.11 of the standard sets forth certain performance requirements. Paragraph S5.5.11(a) provides that DRLs are to be "automatically deactivated when the headlamp control is in any on position, and as otherwise determined by the vehicle manufacturer." In the context of paragraph S5.5.11(a), "headlamp control" refers to those position(s) of the master lighting switch that cause the headlamps themselves to be turned on.

Because DRLs are not required by FMVSS No. 108, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may disconnect DRLs or provide on-off switches without violating the statutory prohibition against knowingly making inoperative any 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. However, these entities may not alter the performance specifications of DRLs in a manner that would make them not comply with the performance requirements specified for DRLs under the standard.

I hope that this clarifies NHTSAs regulations related to DRLs. If you have any further questions regarding our regulations, please contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/22/04

ID: Wallach.1

Mr. Mark Wallach
President
Air Chex Equipment Company, Inc.
27 New Street
Nyack on Hudson, NY10960

Dear Mr. Wallach:

This responds to your letters concerning your companys new tire pressure safety devices for use on trucks, buses, and other large vehicles. The attachments to your letters describe three products intended to be mounted on a vehicles wheels which allow the vehicle operator to gauge tire inflation pressure and which facilitate the addition of air up to the proper inflation level. You seek assurance that these planned items of motor vehicle equipment are in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

The agency does not have any regulations covering tire pressure safety devices for heavy vehicles. However, if your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle, prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Thus, these entities could not install your tire pressure system if it would take the vehicle out of compliance with any existing safety standard. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify NHTSA and purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact FMCSA for further information about any FMCSA regulations that may apply to your system. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I note for your information that NHTSA is currently in the process of rulemaking to establish FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMSs), which will set forth requirements for TPMSs that are installed in new passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.6/25/04

ID: Wallach.3