ID: nht90-4.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 11, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Ben Blaz -- Congressman

TITLE: Re Ref: C-3J0039

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson R ice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733); Also attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of October 4th. I fully understand the need for you to communicate with Governor Guerrero and Representative Juan Babauta about your assistance with FMVSS and FMCSR regulations.

I believe they are working on this problem at this very moment. Just yesterday, I received a call from Governor Guerrero's legal counsel Tim Bruce Esq. I believe they will develop a position that the DOT regulations should not apply to the CNMI. I agr ee with this position which has been consistent with past administrations. This, in my view, would be the best outcome for all concerned. These regulations cost 3 to 4 hundred dollars extra per vehicle in specialized equipment.

The DOT regulations are great in areas like Los Angeles, where there is a real smog problem and where the average speed limit is 50 to 60 miles per hour on the freeways. I doubt that the people in the CNMI, or of any Island in Micronesia get their monie s worth for these regulations. As you know, most speed limits are 25 to 35 miles per hour and smog is the least of their problems.

Congressman, the bottom line however, is that the CNMI position and the Federal Governments position should be consistent if we are to solve our problems. If the Federal Government insists on taking a different position than the CNMI Government, then th e Federal Government should do their job and enforce their own position.

Then, and only then, will all the Distributors and Dealers of Automobiles and the people of the CNMI know what the ground rules are.

ID: nht90-4.41

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA (Signature by K.M. Weinstein)

TO: C.D. Black -- Manager, Product Legislation and Compliance, Jaguar Cars Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to copy of 49 CFR Part 571.114 and May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868) (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-23-90 from C.D. Black to NHTSA Administrator (OCC 501)

TEXT:

This concerns your July 23, 1990 petition requesting "reconsideration of an interpretation" of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114), as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). You requested that the agency consider interpretin g the amendment to permit a mechanical override device that would allow shifting the transmission lever through the use of a separate tool, other than the key.

We note that while your petition requests an "interpretation," it appears to be seeking an amendment to the standard. Moreover, it appears that you consider your submission to be a petition for reconsideration. However, your petition was submitted to t he agency after the June 30, 1990 deadline for submitting petitions for reconsideration. Under 49 CFR 553.35, NHTSA considers a late-filed petition for reconsideration as a petition filed under Part 552, i.e., as a petition for rulemaking. In the case of your petition, the agency received timely petitions for reconsideration which addressed the same issues. NHTSA therefore plans to address the issues raised by your petition at the same as we respond to those petitions.

In addition, in this letter, we will address your questions in the context of Standard No. 114's current requirements, as amended in the May 30, 1990 final rule. As discussed below, your proposed system would not appear to comply with the requirements o f section S4.2, as amended.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not app rove any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 pe r violation up to $800,000.

Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key."

You explained that you plan to equip your vehicles with an electrical interlock that allows the transmission shift lever to be moved by producing an electrical signal to disengage the interlock. In case of battery or electrical failure, the electrical i nterlock does not work and thus the transmission shift lever cannot be moved. Therefore, you plan to install a spring-activated mechanical emergency release that is activated by using a tool in one hand and simultaneously moving the transmission shift w ith the other hand. You believe that your system would adequately prevent against theft through the steering lock and "rollaway" accidents though the device just described, and there is no need to require the vehicle's key to activate the override.

We do not believe your suggested device would comply with Standard No. 114, as amended. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "pa rk" as the direct result of removing the key. Assuming that the mechanical emergency release operates independent of the ignition key, it does not appear that the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. It is irrelevant that your emergency release could only be operable by using a tool and both hands, because this requirement would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: nht90-4.42

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA (Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein)

TO: Don James -- Contracts, Stone Bennett Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to copy of 54 FR 29042, July 11, 1989 and 55 FR 1226, January 12, 1990 regarding 49 CFR Part 571 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 2-27-90 from D. James to NHTSA (OCC 4486); Also attached to diagram of the toggle installati on & envelope (graphics omitted); Also attached to diagram of control panel with auto neutral (graphics omitted); Also attached to diagram of control panels (text and graphics omitted).

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the standard's display identification requirements for automati c transmission vehicles without a gear shift lever park position. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 102 sets forth the following display identification requirements for automatic transmission vehicles without a gear shift park position:

S3.1.4 Identification of shift lever positions. . . .

S3.1.4.2 Except as specified in S3.1 4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence does not include a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the driver's seating position.

S3.1.4.3 Such information need not be displayed when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle.

You asked about several similar designs for shift control consoles. In addition to including a mechanism for shifting the transmission (push buttons or toggle levers), the consoles incorporate a display which lists the particular gear position which has been selected, e.g., "R" for reverse. No other gear positions are shown. In at least some of the designs, the display is an electronic one. You asked about the "acceptability" of providing a label indicating the gear position sequence on the body of the shift control consoler e.g., "1 2 D N R." Drawings provided with your letter indicate that the label would be provided directly adjacent to the gear position display. As indicated above,

section S3.1.4.2 requires identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, to be displayed in view of the driver. While your designs do identify the gear position selected, they do not , in the absence of an added label, identify the shift lever positions in relation to each other. The additional label would, however, provide such information.

Section S3.1.4.2 also requires that the specified information be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the driver's seating position (except when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle). T he times when display is required includes situations in which the ignition is "off." Since your designs use electronic technology to identify the gear position selected, a vehicle equipped with your design might not meet this requirement, at least in t he absence of a device which activates the display whenever a driver is present. It is our understanding that "permanent" display is not possible with electronic technology, due to battery drain. However, if the gear position display is turned off with the ignition (the most obvious means of avoiding battery drain), this requirement would not be met. This is because the display would not function when a driver is in the driver's seating position (before leaving the vehicle upon entering the vehicle a t a later time) while the ignition is "off".

As you are aware, NHTSA has proposed new requirements for the purpose of facilitating the use of electronic technology. See 55 FR 1226, January 12, 1990. If amendments are adopted based on that proposal, the analysis presented above could change.

Attached is a copy of 54 FR 29042, 7-11-89 and 55 FR 1226, 1-12-90 regarding 49 CFR Part 571 and FMVSS 201 (text omitted).

ID: nht90-4.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 12, 1990

FROM: A. Kling -- Hamadbik, Ltd.

TO: U.S. Dept of Transport, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: (FMVSS) No. 116

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to A. Kling (A37; Std. 116)

TEXT:

We are enquiring about the abovementioned Safety Standard regarding DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluids.

Clause S5.1.14 of the above standard refers to the color of the brake fluid being colorless to amber. We would much appreciate your sending us the color coding range of amber referred to in this clause. We would appreciate your sending us the color cod e and chart used by your department and as designated by the U.S. federal department

We much appreciate your cooperation and thank you in advance

ID: nht90-4.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 15, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W. Marshall Rickert -- Motor Vehicle Administrator, Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-31-90 from W.M. Rickert to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5076); Also attached to Maryland Vehicle Law, sections 22-103 and 104, page 320 (text omitted); Also attached to Maryland Vehicle Inspections procedures regarding m irrors and vehicle glazing, pages 227 and 228 (text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter seeking this agency's opinion as to whether the State of Maryland may amend its motor vehicle regulations to permit the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows, for individuals who may desire this for medica l reasons. I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the legal principles that relate to your question.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that impose requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on pa ssenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in complianc e with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperati ve" within the meaning of Standard 205.

This Federal prohibition is similar to that imposed by section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law, which provides:

A person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle . . . in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of . . . the United States or of this State . . . unle ss the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the (Maryland Motor Vehicle) Administrator.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which aftermarket tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, although section 22-104 appears to preclude aftermarket tinting by any person if the result would be to reduce the level of light transmittance below 70 percent, Maryland may amend its rules or regulations to permit such tinting by individuals, for medical or any other reasons deemed valid by the State. However, Maryland has no authority to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any p rovisions of Maryland law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

In adopting Standard 205, NHTSA determined that a minimum light transmittance of 70 percent is necessary to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. This is the same level of light transmittance contained in the Safety Code of the American National Stand ards Institute. If, as your letter suggests, Maryland is considering permitting vehicle owners to modify their vehicles such that their windows will have a lower level of light transmittance, we would urge you to carefully consider the safety consequenc es of such an exemption.

Please let me know if you need any further information on this subject.

ID: nht90-4.45

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 15, 1990

FROM: Paul A. Shaw -- Superintendent, Florence County School District Five

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-14-91 from Paul J. Rice to Paul A. Shaw (A37; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

I would like your clarification on the School Bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Act amended by congress in 1974. This amendment directed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all school buses. Under this federal law, a van designed for eleven or more persons is considered a school bus if it is maintained for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

Does federal law prohibit a school district from using a fifteen-passenger van that does not meet federal safety standards for school buses to transport students to athletic events, extra-curricular activities, and field trips?

Our school district purchased a standard, fifteen-passenger, 1990 Dodge van to transport students to various school-related events. Is the use of this van for transporting students to these events violating federal law? If so, please cite the specific s ection of the law pertaining to this.

I shall look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht90-4.46

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Donaldson -- Human Factors Engineer, Arcad

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-5-90 from J. Donaldson to S. Wood (OCC 4524)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the requirements of sections S5.1 and S5.3.3(a) in connection with a n instrument panel illumination intensity control. Your question is addressed below.

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

As noted by your letter, section S5.1 of Standard No. 101 reads as follows:

S5.1. Location. Under the conditions of S6, each of the following controls that is furnished shall be operable by the driver, and each of the following displays that is furnished shall be visible to the driver. . . .

One of the controls listed under section S5.1 is a hand-operated control for illumination intensity. Thus, under section S5.1, an instrument panel illumination intensity control is required to be in a location where it is operable by the driver.

You also noted that section S5.3.3(a) requires that "(m)earns shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions." You asked whether, under this section, an instrument panel illumination intensity control is required to be "visible to the driver." As discussed below, section S5.3.3(a) does not apply to an instrument panel illumination intensity control.

Section S5.3.3(a) is one of a number of sections which appear under the heading "Illumination." See section S5.3. Standard No. 101 does not require that all controls be illuminated. Section S5.3.1 sets forth requirements concerning which controls must be illuminated. Section S5.3.3(a) then sets forth additional illumination requirements for the controls which must be illuminated and their identification (as well as for gauges and their identification).

In order to determine whether section S5.3.3(a) applies to a particular

control, the first question is thus whether Standard No. 101 requires illumination for that control. As indicated above, this is covered in section S5.3.1. It provides that, with certain exceptions, the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 for a ny control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. (Column 4 of Table 1 includes the heading "Illumination.") Th us, Standard No. 101 requires illumination only for those controls which are listed in Table 1 and have the word "yes" in the column for illumination.

Since an instrument panel illumination intensity control is not listed at all in Table 1, no illumination is required by Standard No. 101 for that control. Given that section S5.3.3(a)'s additional illumination requirements only apply to controls which Standard No. 101 requires to be illuminated, and since no illumination is required for an instrument panel illumination intensity control, the section's requirements do not apply to that control.

ID: nht90-4.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 17, 1990

FROM: Fred Ciampi -- Fred's Welding Service

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 from P.J. Rice to F. Ciampi (A37; Part 571)

TEXT:

I own and operate a small welding shop in southern West Virginia and recently asked for and received information pertaining to the manufacture of utility trailers.

Not being a lawyer, literary professor, or physic, nor being able to afford hiring one, I am unable to interpret the information I received.

I am asking for your help. I need to know what is needed with regard to lighting requirements, brakes, length, width, and any other requirements pertaining to trailers only. I don't need any information relevant to the manufacture of automobiles, truck s, or any other motor driven vehicle, foreign or domestic. (I have already sent for VIN information from SAE.)

I also would like to have this information written in such a way that is easily understood by someone such as myself.

This information would not only be of great benefit to me but potentially to the economy of this depressed region. I have the possibility of manufacturing a great number of trailers, both commercially and for the general public.

Any help that you can provide me with will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht90-4.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 19, 1990

FROM: Tom Wiatrak -- Century Products Company

TO: Deidre Fujita -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Tom Wiatrak (A37; Std. 213)

TEXT:

We are enclosing pictures of a suggested location for the warning and instruction labels for a new carseat pad. This surround pad covers the sides of the casting thus hiding the labels installed in the normal position. We would like to add tyvek warnin g and instruction labels sewn to the pad as shown in addition to the labels that appear on the casting.

Please advise at your earliest convenience if this proposal meets the requirements of FMVSS 213.

Attachment

Photos of label location on carseat pad. (Photos omitted.)

ID: nht90-4.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 22, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William F. Canever -- Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Ford Motor Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-1-90 from W.F. Canever to S.P. Wood; Also attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from K. DeMeter to W.F. Canever

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the implications under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy ("CAFE") program of the acquisition by Ford Motor Company ("Ford") of Jaguar plc ("Jaguar"). You stated that you believe all Ford and Jaguar vehicles produ ced and imported for model year ("MY") 1989 should be placed in Ford's fleet.

As discussed below, we have concluded that Ford's acquisition of Jaguar did not take place until MY 1990. Thus, Ford and Jaguar vehicles constituted separate fleets for MY 1989. As a consequence, while the fuel economy credits earned by the combined Fo rd/Jaguar fleet in MY 1990 may be applied to reduce (or eliminate) Jaguar's CAFE shortfall in MY 1987 and later years, the credits earned by Ford in MY 1989 may not be applied to offset any Jaguar shortfall.

According to your letter, Ford publicly announced its tender offer for Jaguar shares on November 2, 1989. This occurred after Ford had obtained the agreement of the Board of Directors of Jaguar to recommend the offer. The offer document, which constitu ted the formal legal offer, was mailed on November 8. After over 50 percent of Jaguar stock had been tendered, Ford declared the tender offer "unconditional" on December 10, 1989.

You stated that during the period of negotiation, tender offer, and acceptance, and continuing through the end of calender year 1989, Ford was "manufacturing" MY 1989 vehicles. Apparently, that statement is based on your statement that a small number of MY 1989 Jaguar and Aston Martin vehicles were imported into United States "through calendar year end 1989." You argued that because Ford controlled Jaguar and the importer of Jaguar vehicles prior to the time that the last of these MY 1989 vehicles wer e imported, and because fuel economy standards apply to particular model years as a whole and not to separate parts of a model year, all Ford and Jaguar vehicles produced and imported for MY 1989 should be placed in Ford's fleet. You contended that this treatment would be consistent with that accorded Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler") and American Motors Corporation ("AMC") for model year 1987.

We disagree with your analysis comparing your situation to that of Chrysler/AMC, given significant differences in the timing of the respective acquisitions. In a letter to Chrysler dated April 4, 1990, NHTSA stated the following:

Another issue raised by Chrysler's memorandum is whether Chrysler and AMC became the same manufacturer for fuel economy purposes for model year

1987. According to the memorandum, Chrysler agreed to acquire AMC in the spring of 1987, and the transaction closed on August 6, 1987. . . . Since Chrysler controlled AMC prior to the end of the 1987 model year, and since fuel economy standards apply t o particular model years as a whole and not to separate parts of a model year, it is our opinion that all of the vehicles produced by both Chrysler and AMC for model year 1987 shall be treated as if manufactured by the same manufacturer, i.e., placed int o one fleet. Otherwise, one or both of the manufacturers would have two separate CAFE values, pre-acquisition (or pre-control) and post-acquisition (or post-control), for the same model year.

We continue to adhere to our view that where one manufacturer acquires another during a model year, they should be deemed as the same manufacturer, with a single CAFE value, for that model year. However, in the Chrysler/AMC acquisition, all relevant asp ects of the transaction took place during the 1987 model year.

As you know, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act ("Act") establishes time limits within which NHTSA must establish and/or amend fuel economy standards for a given model year that are based upon the beginning of the model year. See section s 502(b) and 502(f)(2) of the Act. In interpreting those provisions, both NHTSA and the courts have concluded that the model year is traditionally thought to start approximately October 1. See In re Center for Auto Safety, 793 F.2d 1346, 1349 (D.C. Cir . 1986); 49 Fed. Reg. 22516 (May 30, 1984); 49 Fed. Reg. 41250 (October 22, 1984). See also General Motors Corporation v. NHTSA, 898 F.2d 165, 176 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA, 710 F.2d 842, 847 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

In the Chrysler/AMC case, all relevant aspects of the transaction were completed well before the completion of MY 1987, i.e., September 30, 1987. Conversely, in the Ford/Jaguar transaction, Ford made its tender offer in early November 1989 and declared t he tender offer "unconditional" on December 10, 1989. These dates and any other possible date for the acquisition are clearly within the 1990 model year, which began on approximately October 1. 1989.

We recognize that manufacturers may produce or import vehicles that are designated as belonging to a particular model year after October 1 of that year. However, for purposes of deciding the model year in which one manufacturer acquires another, we have concluded that the traditional model year is the appropriate frame of reference.

This conclusion is supported by the fact that by early November 1989, the earliest date referred to in your letter, when Ford made its tender offer, it had been selling its MY 1990 models for over a month. The fact that Ford or Jaguar may have produced or imported a small number of MY 1989 cars after the date of the acquisition is not determinative, since it has always been the case that model years can overlap for a given manufacturer, and some prior model year cars may be produced after the commencem ent of a given model year. Thus, any MY 1989 Jaguar vehicles that were imported during the last three months of 1989 should be included in Jaguar's MY 1989 fleet, as they would have been had the acquisition not occurred.

I note that your letter indicated that Ford intended to file its Final 1989 Model Year Report under the CAFE program with all MY 1989 Jaguar vehicles included in Ford's fleet. You stated, however, that you would not file that Report until you received t his agency's views on the propriety of that action. For the reasons set out above, we believe that Ford and Jaguar had separate, distinct fleets in MY 1989, and that therefore separate information should be filed for that model year.

I hope that this letter adequately explains our position on these issues. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.