ID: nht95-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM MILFORD BENNETT (SIGNED BY F. LAUX) TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and t he raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted.

Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not.

You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 per cent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached).

Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10932-2

Milford R. Bennett, Director
Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and the raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted.

Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not.

You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 percent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached).

Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:9/1995

ID: nht95-7.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Van Sciver -- Sciver Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/3/95 letter from Ken Van Sciver to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC 11293)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 3, 1995 to this office requesting information on any safety standards applicable to the Auto Bib, a new product you are developing and marketing. From the promotional material you furnished with your letter, your Auto Bib can be described as a portable cover, of Naugahyde fabric, that clips between the window and door molding of a vehicle's door. The Auto Bib unrolls downward to cover the door, and is intended to protect the door's upholstery from damage caused by children, pets, and the sun.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing and testing motor vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompliance or defect at no charge to the customer. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, or grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market.

Turning now to the Auto Bib, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.), @ 30102(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the Auto Bib is an accessory if it meets two tests:

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.

After reviewing the product literature you enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the Auto Bib is an accessory. The Auto Bib was designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor vehicles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the promotional literature makes it clear that the Auto Bib is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, as distinguished from professional vehicle repair businesses, since its stated purpose is to preserve motor vehicle upholstery from damage by children, pets, and the sun.

While the Auto Bib is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, you as the manufacturer are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30116 - 30121 which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

You asked about state or local requirements that may apply to your product. NHTSA has no information on such requirements. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information in that regard from:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-0145; Fax (202) 898-0148

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 11293b

Mr. Ken Van Sciver
Sciver Corporation
Post Office Box 1283
Broomfield, CO 80038

Dear Mr. Van Sciver:

This responds to your letter of October 3, 1995 to this office requesting information on any safety standards applicable to the Auto Bib, a new product you are developing and marketing. From the promotional material you furnished with your letter, your Auto Bib can be described as a portable cover, of Naugahyde fabric, that clips between the window and door molding of a vehicle's door. The Auto Bib unrolls downward to cover the door, and is intended to protect the door's upholstery from damage caused by children, pets, and the sun.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing and testing motor vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompliance or defect at no charge to the customer. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, or grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market.

Turning now to the Auto Bib, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S.Code (U.S.C.), '30102(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the Auto Bib is an accessory if it meets two tests:

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.

After reviewing the product literature you enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the Auto Bib is an accessory. The Auto Bib was designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor vehicles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the promotional literature makes it clear that the Auto Bib is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, as distinguished from professional vehicle repair businesses, since its stated purpose is to preserve motor vehicle upholstery from damage by children, pets, and the sun.

While the Auto Bib is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, you as the manufacturer are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. '' 30116 - 30121 which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

You asked about state or local requirements that may apply to your product. NHTSA has no information on such requirements. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information in that regard from:

Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-0145; Fax (202) 898-0148

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Ref:206 d:12/8/95

ID: 77-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Bendix Corporation's March 29, 1977, request for confirmation that the manual adjustment of automatic adjusters is acceptable following the burnish procedures of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, at the option of the manufacturer.

The procedure that you recommend is not permitted by any provision of Standard No. 121. The NHTSA would consider some provision to deal with the overadjustment of automatic adjusters upon receipt of technical data showing justification for such action. Based on consideration of the data received and a petition for amendment, the agency could commence a rulemaking proceeding in accordance with established procedures.

I have enclosed a copy of a similar interpretation made to Rockwell International.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Bendix

Heavy Vehicle Systems Group

John Snow -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 29, 1977

Subject: Request for Interpretation: FMVSS '121'

Ref.: Brake Burnish Procedures S6.1.8.1 and S6.1.8.2

Dear Mr. Snow:

The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group (HVSG) respectfully requests clarification of the portions of S6.1.8.1 and S6.1.8.2, which permit adjustment of the brakes as recommended by the vehicle manufacturer after the burnish procedure. Specifically, clarification is requested that either S-Cam or wedge brakes equipped with automatic adjusters can be adjusted as recommended by the vehicle manufacturer, as well as those equipped with manual brake adjusters.

As permitted by the subject paragraphs, vehicle manufacturers have, in the past, manually adjusted the brakes; especially S-Cam brakes, after the burnish procedure. The affect of this has been to generate a large amount of background data and vehicle compliance testing starting with given brake chamber strokes.

In an effort to promote safety by maintaining a predictable level of good braking, assuring good brake balance and eliminating the possibility of vehicles being operated with S-Cam brakes badly out of adjustment, Bendix has introduced an automatic slack adjuster. Since the adjustment maintained by an automatic slack adjuster is influenced by several factors, including brake and drum temperature, and lining and drum design and conditions, the stroke maintained by an automatic slack adjuster after the burnish procedure will likely be different than that which has been used by the vehicle manufacturers for compliance testing.

It is the opinion of the Bendix Corporation (HVSG) that the use of automatic slack adjusters does not prohibit the vehicle manufacturer from adjusting the brakes, if desired, after the burnish procedure. A vehicle manufacturer advised us that it is reluctant to introduce this device, unless assurance can be given that requalification testing will not be required with the strokes that exist after the burnish test procedure.

We would be pleased to discuss the details of this matter if any additional information is necessary.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt -- Group Director of Engineering

ID: nht87-1.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Barry Bartlett

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Barry Bartlett President Canadian Automotive Radiator Air Industrial Park P.O. Box 189 Debert, Nova Scotia, BOM 1GO CANADA

Dear Mr. Bartlett:

Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1987, concerning Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You asked the agency to confirm that the requirements set out in the standard apply only to fuel systems installed as items of original equipment in new vehicles and do not apply to aftermarket fuel systems. Several of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply both to original any aftermarket equipment. Standard No. 301, however, applies only to fuel system; installed as items of original equipment in new vehicles.

Although the agency does not have any standards that directly apply to aftermarket fuel systems, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes aftermarket fuel systems, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall any remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes those responsibilities.

In addition, installation of your product can be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle Safety Standards. Thus, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair shop that installs replacement fuel tanks most ensure that it does not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(a) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with the vehicle safety equipment.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 5, 1987 Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety, 400 7th St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Recent discussions with Mr. Steven Wood, representative of the Legal Regulations Office of the National Highway Safety Transportation, regards gas tank production for the automotive market, has prompted my writing this letter to you for clarification and confirmation. It is Mr. Wood's opinion that regulation standard number 301 as outlined in your Federal Motor Standards Act governs gas tank specifications aimed at original equipment production and does not cover products produced solely for aftermarket consumption. We would appreciate it greatly if you would confirm Mr. Wood's observations.

Thanking you in advance for your assistance in this matter, I remain,

Yours very truly,

CANADIAN AUTOMOTIVE RADIATOR EXCHANGE AND MANUFACTURING LIMITED

Barry Bartlett, President

ID: nht78-1.27

DATE: 06/15/78

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

TO: Minnesota Claims Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry concerning the steering wheel system on a 1972 Plymouth Cricket. You ask whether Federal safety standards permitted non-collapsible steering columns on that vehicle model, whether the steering columns met all safety standards, and whether the vehicle manufacturer was exempted from Federal safety standards on the 1972 Plymouth Cricket because of hardship.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR 571.203), became effective for all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. Therefore, a 1972 Plymouth Cricket had to meet the performance requirements specified in that standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 203 for your information, and you should note that the standard does not specifically require "collapsible" loads that can be imparted by the steering column during a dynamic impact test.

Under Federal motor vehicle safety regulations, manufacturers are required to determine for themselves that their vehicles are in compliance and to certify the vehicles as being in compliance. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration only conducts compliance tests on a "spot-check" basis for purposes of enforcement. Therefore, I cannot tell you whether the particular Plymouth with which you are interested was in fact in compliance with all safety standards. I can tell you that the agency has not made any determinations that the 1972 Plymouth Crickets failed to comply with Safety Standard No. 203.

Regarding your final question, no exemption from Standard No. 203 was granted for the 1972 Plymouth Cricket.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

April 4, 1978

Wayne C. Parsil Minnesota Claims Services

Dear Mr. Parsil:

This is in response to your March 29 letter regarding your investigation of an automobile accident involving a 1972 Plymouth Cricket, Serial Number 4C1L2R213949.

Your letter has been forwarded to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., for direct reply to your specific questions.

Ardella J. Pitts Highway Safety Management Specialist

MINNESOTA CLAIMS SERVICES

March 29, 1978

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTENTION: Safety Standards Department

RE: Vehicle Involved: 1972 Plymouth Cricket

Vehicle Serial No.: 4C41L2R213949

Gentlemen:

Presently we are investigating an accident in which the driver of the subject vehicle sustained fatal injuries when she collided with the steering wheel as a result of an accident.

Kindly supply us with the following information:

1) Do vehicle standards on this model permit non-collapsible steering column?

2) Did the steering column in these vehicles pass all of your safety requirements at the time?

3) Was the manufacturer permitted to relax steering column safety standards on these vehicles because of hardship?

We will appreciate your assistance in answering these questions and in supplying us with any additional information which may be pertinent on this vehicle.

Wayne C. Parsil

ID: 18005.drn

Mr. Jeffrey T. Morris
Director of Human Resources
George Junior Republic
P. O. Box 1058
Grove City, PA 16127

Dear Mr. Morris:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether George Junior Republic, a "non-profit residential treatment facility," must use school buses to transport youth under its care. As explained below, we do not consider the residential treatment program to constitute a "school" as that term is used in our statute. However, to the extent you transport the pupils to athletic and other events related to the public school located at your facility, a new bus that is sold for such purposes may have to be a school bus, depending on how regularly the vehicle is used for the school-related transportation. You should also keep in mind that the States regulate the registration and use of vehicles in their jurisdictions. You should therefore consult Pennsylvania law to see what requirements, if any, apply to how your youth are to be transported.

Your letter explains:

George Junior Republic is a non-profit residential treatment facility located in Grove City, Pennsylvania. We provide residential care to approximately 460 teenagers who are adjudicated delinquent or dependent and court ordered into treatment for care and rehabilitation. ... All of our students are educated by Public School Systems. The residents attend a school located on our campus which is operated and governed by the Grove City Area School District. These students walk to and from school so transportation is not a problem.

You also explain that each youth lives in a campus home with seven other youths, headed by a married couple who are the counselor/parents. The youths with their counselor/parents may attend off-campus activities that require transportation. In addition, you explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that George Junior Republic youth participate in athletic competitions with other schools in the Grove City Area School District. They are also occasionally taken on field trips for academic purposes.

Some background information on our requirements may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, and to apply those standards to all school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new "school bus," which may include a 15-passenger van, to sell or lease a vehicle that meets the Federal school bus safety standards. The seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus and the vehicle is not certified as such.

Your letter raises two questions. First is whether George Junior Republic's residential treatment program constitutes a "school." This question is one the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the type of services provided by the organization at issue.

The facts you have provided show that George Junior Republic primarily provides psychological and therapeutic counseling and other social services for the youngsters. For purposes of NHTSA's safety standards, I have concluded that these services are distinct from the academic instruction associated with a "school," and that therefore, George Junior Republic is not a "school." (This finding is consistent with NHTSA's April 8, 1998, letter to Mr. Hammontree of Starr Commonwealth, a residential treatment facility whose program appears similar to that of George Junior Republic.) Thus, if a dealer were to sell a new bus to George Junior Republic for purposes of transporting youth to social services activities relating to the rehabilitation of your clients, the dealer need not sell a school bus.

The second issue is whether school buses are required in transporting George Junior Republic youngsters to and from events related to the public schools, e.g., athletic competitions with other Grove City schools, and school-related field trips.

From your letter, we are unable to estimate the extent of transportation for "school-related" activities versus non-school related activities (such as outings with parent/counselors and others for recreational or rehabilitation purposes). Please note that we consider any bus that is likely to be "used significantly" to transport students to or from school or related events a "school bus." If your buses are only occasionally used for school-related events, such use would not be significant. However, if your vehicles are used on a regular basis to transport students to school-related events, the buses would be school buses. Any person selling a new bus (including 15-passenger vans) for regular use transporting students to school-related events would be required to sell a certified school bus.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacturer and seller of new motor vehicles, not individual users. Federal law does not prohibit owners from using their vans to transport school children, regardless of whether such vans meet the Federal school bus safety standards. However, the states have the authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles, including school vehicles, and your state may have restrictions on the types of vehicles you may use. Thus, you should consult Pennsylvania law as to whether Pennsylvania has requirements for the vehicles you use for carrying clients to social services programs, or to school-related events.

For information on Pennsylvania's requirements, you can contact Pennsylvania's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Mr. Stephen Madrak
Manager, Special Driver Program
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 68684
Harrisburg, PA 17106-8684
Telephone: (717) 783-4755

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571#VSA

ID: nht70-1.25

DATE: 06/20/70

FROM: Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have read with great interest your letter of June 10 and its enclosures. You appear to be seeking an assurance that "we, the C&CR Organization Committee, are complying with all Federal rules and regulations in regard to highway safety", and information ensuring "that the race vehicles involved are satisfactory to [National Highway Safety Bureau] specifications and regulations".

The first part of your inquiry really requires a response from us to [Illegible Words] of your entry rules, which states that the entrant shall "Satisfy any additional requirements imposed by the U.S. Federal Government since cross-country travel will take place on interstate highways". There are no conditions which must be met prior to operation of experimental vehicles on the interstate system. Nor are there any Federal requirements applicable to the Committee as promoter or sponsor of a competition conducted in part on the interstate system. State and local laws, if any, would have to be followed of course.

In response to the second part of your inquiry the Federal "specifications and regulations" concerned are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The Committee has no responsibility under the Act for ensuring compliance with the Federal safety standards. This responsibility rests with the vehicle's original manufacturer, and with any person modifying a vehicle prior to its first sale in a manner affecting compliance with the safety standards. It is evident that standard production motor vehicles (such as the Chevelles presented to the Committee by General Motors) which originally

[Page 2 Is Missing.]

ID: tunick2.ztv

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Re: Request for Clarification and Reconsideration of Interpretation

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This is in reply to your FAX letter of August 12, 2003, asking for a clarification and reconsideration of recent NHTSA interpretations of certain provisions of the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which are set out at Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

Your first question is:"Consistent with the May 7, 2003, interpretation to Dan De Decker . . . is it correct that a Small Volume Manufacturer ('SVM', i.e. a producer with fewer than 500 USA units/year) does not have to report information going back 9 model years to the extent that such information is not available as computer data and only exists on paper?"

The threshold figure of 500 is not a sum total of motor vehicles but separate totals applicable to the individual categories we have established for EWR purposes. Thus, if a manufacturer produces 350 light vehicles and 400 medium-heavy vehicles in a year, it would report under 49 CFR 579.27 for each category.

The De Decker letter addressed a different situation then the one you raise. We informed Mr. De Decker that, to the extent that a manufacturer has not stored historical warranty records in an electronic medium (e.g., the warranty system is only paper-based), the manufacturer need not submit historical warranty information with respect to the one-time historical report required by Section 579.28(c). The one-time historical report is not required from manufacturers that report only under Section 579.27, and a manufacturer must provide the information on incidents involving deaths, as specified in subsections (b) and (c) thereof, even if it "only exists on paper."Prospectively, beginning with the third calendar quarter of 2003, manufacturers covered by 49 CFR 579.21-.26 must report warranty and warranty adjustment data regardless of the type of data storage system they maintain.

Your second question relates to the timing of a manufacturers determination of the 500 vehicle production threshold separating limited and comprehensive reporting under the early warning reporting regulation. As set forth in a letter to Jason Cavallo of July 21, 2003, where individual small volume manufacturers are held by a single parent corporation, under Section 579.3(b), EWR reports could be filed by either the parent corporation or each of the vehicle-manufacturing subsidiaries, but in either event, the production of all related vehicle manufacturers must be aggregated to determine whether the threshold for comprehensive reporting was met. We also stated in a July 24, 2003 letter to you that we expect each manufacturer to make a good faith estimate of its expected annual production of a category of vehicle, and that if its estimated production is 500 or more annually, the manufacturer should begin comprehensive reporting in the quarter in which the estimate is made rather than the quarter in which production actually reaches or exceeds 500.

You also stated that you had been under the impression that comprehensive reporting would begin with the first quarter following the calendar quarter in which production first exceeded 500. In consideration of these letters and your understanding of the regulation, you have asked us to agree to exercise our prosecutorial discretion not to take action against any manufacturer whose total production in 2003 was less than 500 if it fails to file comprehensive information for the first quarter of 2004.

While we do not believe it appropriate to make such a commitment, we do not anticipate taking enforcement action, particularly against relatively small manufacturers, who make good faith mistakes in attempting to comply with the EWR regulation.

If you have any questions, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.10/14/03