ID: dedecker.ztv

Mr. Dan DeDecker
Project Manager
Active Web Services, L.L.C.
75 Executive Drive, Suite 118
Aurora, IL 60504

Dear Mr. DeDecker:

This is in reply to your e-mail of April 21, 2003, asking for an interpretation of the amendment to 49 CFR 579.28(c) published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2003 (68 FR 18136 at 18143). This provision of the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation pertains to the one-time submission of historical information.

We amended Section 579.28(c) to require reports of only "the number of warranty claims recorded in the manufacturers warranty system." You asked the following question:

Does this mean that if a company has their 3 year historical warranty claims only in a paper format, that they do NOT need to input them? Or does a paper-based filing system for historical claims count as a system? As such, a manufacturer needs to input this information from paper-based claims to NHTSA.

The term "the manufacturers warranty system" is a broad one, and generally encompasses any system that a manufacturer uses to record its warranty claims. However, for the limited purposes of the one-time historical report, we focused on electronically-stored information. Thus, a manufacturer need not provide electronic summaries of warranty records that are stored in a manner other than electronically (i.e., paper). Such records would represent a three-year accumulation of claims and it might be difficult and time-consuming for a manufacturer to develop summaries for electronic transmission. If a manufacturers warranty record system is paper-based, it should so indicate in its historical report as an explanation of why it is not furnishing a report of the number of warranty claims.

However, all manufacturers have to provide warranty data in electronic form, as specified in Section 579.29(a), for all future quarterly reports, even if they continue to maintain a paper-based warranty record system.

If you have any questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:679
d.5/7/03

ID: forda

Mr. Richard J. Kinsey
Manager, Fuel Economy
Planning & Compliance
Ford Motor Company
The American Road
Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Kinsey:

This responds to your letter requesting our concurrence on a procedure for determining the domestic content and country of origin for foreign-sourced allied and outside supplier components. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you would like to obtain the relevant information from your present purchasing systems rather than by soliciting the information from your foreign suppliers. You stated that both processes will result in the same information, and that you believe requiring your foreign suppliers to respond to requests for information would impose costly and unnecessary burdens on those suppliers.

We are now in the process of completing our response to several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule on domestic content labeling. Your question is sufficiently related to some of the issues raised by the petitions that we believe it should be addressed in the context of that response, rather than in a separate letter.

We realize, however, that manufacturers and suppliers have an immediate need for guidance regarding the procedures for making content determinations for the 1996 model year. In a recent letter (copy enclosed) to the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, we advised that NHTSA had decided to give manufacturers and suppliers for model year 1996 the same alternative they had last year, i.e., in lieu of following the required procedures, they may use other procedures that are expected to yield similar results. Therefore, your planned approach will not raise any concerns for model year 1996.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:583 d:3/8/95

ID: nht74-3.4

DATE: 08/05/74

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JACK R. GILSTRAP -- GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

TITLE: N40-30 [ZTV]

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/17/74 FROM JACK R. GILSTRAP TO RICHARD B. DYSON-NHTSA, RE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 12/26/73 FROM WARREN M. HEATH TO JACK R. GILSTRAP

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gilstrap:

This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1974, asking whether S4.6 of Standard No. 108 prohibits a bus manufacturer from installing wining that could later be connected by the purchaser to normally steady-burning clearance lamps, enabling them to be flashed to signal a crime in progress. The vehicle modifications here concerned are the installation both of certain wiring by General Motors and dual filament bulbs in each clearance lamp by the Southern California Rapid Transit District.

Paragraph S4.6 requires that signalling lamps specified in Standard No. 108 shall flash when activated, and that "all other lamps" shall be steady-burning. Paragraph S4.1.3 in part prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

We construe the phrase" all other lamps" in S4.6(b) to mean lamps that are required by Standard No. 108. Supplemental lamps on ambulances and police cars, for example, that flash in normal use are not included in the standard. Similarly , it would appear that when the clearance lamp you discuss is operated as a warning lamp it becomes an item of lighting equipment outside the coverage of Standard No. 108. Therefore the fact that it flashes when activated would not violate the intent

2 of S4.6(b). Similarly, the wiring that is installed by GM is not considered additional equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment.

The modifications you described, therefore, are not prohibited by Standard 108.

Yours truly,

ID: nht75-4.19

DATE: 04/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Novus, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1975, inquiring as to whether any safety regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration applies to the "Novus Windshield Repair Kit," manufactured by your firm.

An advertising brochure for the product states that the material used in the process "is a special waterproof epoxy that not only fills the fissure in the glass but also bonds the crack surfaces to prevent formation or extension of radial cracks."

There is no safety regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, nor any other Federal law or regulation, which prohibits the use of such a material or process in the repair of windshields which have previously been installed in vehicles and damaged in use. Using such a material or process in a new windshield which may require repair as the result of damage sustained in shipment could cause the windshield to fail to meet the performance requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 5 571.205) and we would therefore discourage use of the Novus kit on new windshields.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of further assistance.

ID: nht89-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/89 EST

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING

TO: EDWARD P. KIRBY -- MASSACHUSETTS SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/11/89 FROM EDWARD P. KIRBY TO BARRY FELRICHE -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Senator Kirby:

Thank you for your recent letter enclosing Senate Bill No. 1217 which you have filed in the Massachusetts General Court, and which has been referred to the Committee for Public Safety. Your bill would require all new motor vehicles made or sold in Massa chusetts to have amber-colored directional signals as of January 1, 1990.

Your comment that "such matters are reserved for the Federal government" is essentially correct. The express preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), permit States to have motor vehicle safety standa rds regulating the same aspects of performance as Federal standards provided that the State requirements regarding those aspects are identical to the Federal ones. In instances in which the Federal government has no standard (for example, there are none covering such equipment as horns or fog lamps), a State may have its own standard. As to the subject at hand, 49 C.F.R. 571.108 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, prescribes requirements f or the color of motor vehicle turn signals. At the front, they must be amber, and at the rear, either amber or red. Thus, if Senate Bill No. 1217 were enacted, it would be preempted under the Vehicle Safety Act to the extent that it required rear turn signals to be amber.

Years ago, in an attempt to standardize rear lighting, the agency proposed to eliminate the choice regarding the color of turn signals and to pick one of the two permissible colors and mandate its use. Because there were no clear benefits either way, an d because manufacturers wished to continue their existing practice (in general, the domestics preferred red, and the others, amber), the agency terminated rulemaking.

Informal agency studies since then have been similarly inconclusive. NHTSA has always been interested in improving the effectiveness of rear lighting and its present efforts are devoted to the general area of lamp size, separation, and color, of which t urn signal color is a part. However, because no data exist to support a requirement that only amber

2 be used for rear turn signals, there are no present plans to propose an amendment to Standard No. 108 that would eliminate red as a color choice.

We appreciate your interest in turn signal effectiveness, and ask that this letter be considered by the Committee of Public Safety in its deliberations. We would find it helpful if you would send us any data submitted to the Committee relating to the re lative merits of amber and red rear turn signals.

Sincerely,

ID: nht72-3.22

DATE: 11/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Philips Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 5, 1972, concerning the manufacture of storm windows for use in recreational vehicles. You refer to our letter to Mr. Bob Sanders of your company (our records show the date of the letter to be July 5) in which we outlined the requirements for glazing materials used in various locations in recreational vehicles, and ask whether storm windows used in these locations must meet the same requirements.

The answer is yes. Storm windows for use in motor vehicles must meet the same requirements as other glazing materials, according to their location in the vehicle.

I have enclosed a copy of our Response to Petitions for reconsideration concerning the latest amendment to Standard No. 205.

ID: nht74-5.4

DATE: 02/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

COPYEE: J. W. MURRAY; MR. PESKOE; MR. VINSON

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 4, regarding the proposed owner defect notification letter for defect notification campaign #73-0140.

Your letter fails to conform to 49 CFR, Part 577 as it states in the second sentence that the defect exists in equipment items manufactured and supplied by Rockwell International Corporation. We do not consider this statement to be responsive to 577.4(b)(1). As White Motor Corporation in the manufacturer of the motor vehicles involved, its determination and the statement required pursuant to 577.4(b)(1) must be to the effect that it has determined that a defect exists in the vehicles you identify in the following sentence.

The wording used by White Motor Corporation in the owner letter for defect notification campaign #73-0242 is an example of a letter which does conform to the regulation.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is aware that there is a disagreement between White Motor Corporation and Rockwell International as to the exact cause of the defect. The NHTSA does not wish to become a party to this disagreement and in our opinion we cannot allow White Motor Corporation to use the owner notification letter as a forum to air their views.

I trust that you will make the appropriate changes to the owner notification letter and submit a revised copy to this office.

ID: nht73-5.28

DATE: 03/05/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Sekurit-Glas Union GmbH

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of February 22, 1973, submitting material to our Docket 70-7, Fields of Direct View.

Under our procedural regulations 49 CFR @ 553.21, all submissions to a regulatory docket must be in English. We are placing your letter in the docket, but if you wish to have your report entered we must receive an English translation.

YOURS TRULY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

February 22 1973

Gentlemen:

We apologize for replying so late to your letter dated September 26th 1972 about our comments to Docket 70-7 (Notice 2).

Most of the tests which are mentioned in details in our comments have been realized by our company and have therefore no official signification. Concerning this matter detailed investigations have been conducted by the Medical Superintendent of the "Augenabteilung und der verkehrsmedizinisch-ophthalmologischen Untersuchungsstelle am(Illegible Word) Krankenhaus Othmarsche (Hamburg)" Priv.-Doz. Dr. Gramberg-Daniclsen. Owing to printing and editing reasons these investigations will be published in April 1973 only, in the "Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde" by Ferdinand Enke. In order to avoid a further waste of time we send you, enclosed, a copy of this manuscript, which shows that the thickness of the wires does not affect the driver.

We hope that this information will be helpful in your analysis of comments to the above mentioned Docket.

Sincerely, SEKURIT-Glas Union GmbH.

Encl.

ID: Morgenstern.1

Mr. Howard Morgenstern
144-32 72nd Road
Flushing, NY 11367

Dear Mr. Morgenstern:

This responds to your June 14, 2004, letter in which you request interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked about the light transmissibility requirements for windows on minivans and what vehicle classification a minivan would have under the standard. Your letter explained that you received a ticket in New York City because the rear window on the drivers side of your Ford Windstar had "excessive tint," which the ticket characterized as less than 70% light transmissibility. Based upon the facts presented, we believe that the rear windows on your minivan are not subject to any light transmissibility requirement under FMVSS No. 205, although they may be subject to requirements under State law.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of those standards is FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS

No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways Standard ANSI Z26.1-1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a-1980 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "ANSI Z26.1").

One requirement of FMVSS No. 205 involves the light transmissibility of glazing. The items of glazing to which these light transmissibility requirements apply depend upon the type of vehicle and the location of the glazing. For example, in passenger cars, all glazing required for driver visibility must meet a light transmissibility requirement of 70% (excluding any shade band), which essentially includes the windshield, all driver and passenger side windows, and the rear window (see ANSI Z26.1 Table 1).

However, for buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), only windshields, driver and passenger front side windows, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility need to meet the 70% light transmissibility requirement (see ANSI Z26.1 Table 1). The standard does not specify a light transmissibility requirement for any other windows on these types of vehicles.

Under NHTSAs statutory authority (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) and regulations, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance, and such classification is required to be included on the vehicle certification label (see 49 CFR 567.4(g)(7)). (Definitions for the terms "passenger car," "multipurpose passenger vehicle," and "truck" are provided under our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions.)NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle, although the agency may reexamine the manufacturers classification in the course of any enforcement actions.

Although we have not examined your vehicle or its certification label, we recognize that most minivans are properly classified as MPVs or trucks. We would expect that the Ford Windstar is similarly classified. Consequently, if our assumption is correct, only the windshield, driver and passenger front side windows, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility would be subject to the 70% light transmissibility requirement under FMVSS No. 205.

However, as discussed in our November 9, 2001, letter of interpretation to Terry W. Wagar (copy enclosed), NHTSA decided in a 1998 rulemaking not to regulate light transmittance levels of light truck and MPV rear and rear side glazing under FMVSS No. 205. In that rulemaking, the agency also stated that States are free to set light transmittance levels for those windows on those vehicles (see 63 FR 37820, 37827 (July 14, 1998)). Thus, Federal law would not preempt State laws that specify light transmissibility requirements for such windows. However, we cannot advise you as to the requirements of New York law.

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:205
d.8/20/04

ID: nht94-1.99

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GMBH

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108, S4.Definitions, Integral Beam Headlamp Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/94 from John Womack to Tilman Spingler (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In this paragraph an integral beam headlamp is defined to be an indivisible optical assembly of lightsource, reflector and lens. In the case of High Intensity Discharge Headlamps where the lightsource is comprised of a bulb and associated electronic mod ules, it may in some cases not be feasible to integrate the ignition module and the control module in the headlamp housing because of space limitations. In the letter to TOYOTA of March 1991 these modules were permitted to be separately located, but per manently attached by cable at the time of assembly. When the ignition module is installed inside and the control module outside the headlamp housing they will be connected by a 4-core cable in one design. Are there requirements for this cable concerning indivisibility and integration, for example, may it be of the following? - soft cable, resistant to abrasion? - hard cable, resistant to cutting and abrasion? - armored cable? Maximum voltage on 2 cores will be 130 V AC in the on-mode of the headlamp, on the 2 other cores 400 V AC for 700 msec during ignition of the light source. These voltages are much lower than voltages on ignition cables for motor vehicle engines.