ID: GF004208

Mr. Mike Finkelstein
Michael Finkelstein & Associates
9406 Wildoak Drive
Bethesda, MD 20814

Dear Mr. Finkelstein:

This is in response to your e-mail of April 24, 2004, asking about certain requirements in 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption From Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, as amended by a final rule published on April 6, 2004 (69 FR 17960).Specifically, you ask whether a manufacturer may seek exemptions from the parts marking requirements for below-median theft rate vehicle lines, prior to the September 1, 2006, effective date of the final rule.

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in the process of responding to petitions for reconsideration of the April 6, 2004, final rule.The issues raised in your letter are similar to those raised in the petitions.Accordingly, we will address your question in our response to the petitions for reconsideration.

If you have further questions in the interim, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.6/25/04

ID: nht93-9.9

DATE: December 10, 1993

FROM: Thomas Luckemeyer -- ITT Automotive Europe

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Rear Fog Lamp

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/23/93 from John Womack to Thomas Luckemeyer (A42; Std. 108; VSA 103(d))

TEXT:

In the field of a new development for a German customer who intends to certificate a rear lamp in the U.S. there are some questions regarding the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars. I hope you will answer the questions below.

- Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the MVSS 108.

- Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?

- Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?

- Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S.?

Please send your answer by FAX.

Thank you in advance for your help.

ID: nht73-1.29

DATE: 08/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1973, asking whether a rear "light signalling" switch may be installed on your vehicles.

As I understand your letter, the switch and circuitry in question provide automatic flashing of side markers, clearance, tail, and identification lamps. Wiring of this nature, whether installed by the incomplete, intermediate, or final stage manufacturer would violate S4.6(b) of Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.5.8(b)). You are correct in saying that a switch and circuit may be furnished by manufacturers of truck-tractors, and incomplete vehicles for flashing only the side markers, and "that trailer manufacturers and subsequent vehicle manufacturers shall be responsible for the electrical circuitry to insure that marker lamps are independent from clearance, tail, and identification lamps." Of course, wiring these lamps to the same on-off switch would not violate the standard provided there is no flasher in the circuit.

You also ask "who assumes the responsibility for older trailers which will not have marker lamps on an independent circuit." The person completing the circuitry on a trailer is responsible for compliance to standards in effect when the trailer is completed.

Yours truly,

July 19, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

ATTENTION: Office of the Administrator

SUBJECT: Request for interpretation of use of interrupting switch for flashing vehicle lighting for signalling purposes.

REF: Part 571.108, Standard 108, Paragraphs 54.5.3 & 54.5.8 (b)

Dear Sir:

As a manufacturer of heavy duty motor trucks, Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc. receives many customer requests for a "light signalling" switch, which we have refused to furnish.

Paragraph 54.5.8 (b) permits flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps. Is it the intent that a manufacturer of truck-tractors (complete vehicle when 5th wheel is installed) and original manufacturer of "Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages" may furnish a switch and circuit for flashing markers only, and that trailer manufacturers and subsequent vehicle manufacturers shall be responsible for the electrical circuitry to insure that marker lamps are independent from clearance, tail, and identification lamps? If so, who assumes the responsibility for older trailers which will not have marker lamps on an independent circuit?

Customers report that other truck manufacturers do furnish a rear lighting signalling switch and, due to our refusal (based on our interpretation) to offer this type of switch, Diamond Reo is being placed at a disadvantage when bidding on vehicle build contracts.

Your immediate interpretation will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

DIAMOND REO TRUCKS, INC. -- R. D. Shepard, Staff Engineer - Electrical & Safety

cc: G. Sztykiel

ID: nht94-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Alberto Negro -- Chief Executive Officer, Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/16/94 From Alberto Negro To John Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Negro:

This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, asking if Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection "allows the advisory information required by . . . S4.5.1 to be printed in English and also in one or more foreign languages."

On March 10, 1994, NHTSA published a notice responding to petitions for reconsideration of the September 2, 1993 final rule which amended Standard No. 208 to require air bag labels (59 FR 11200). In that notice NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets the labeling requirements of the September 2 final rule as requiring manufacturers to supply the information in English. Once this requirement is met, manufacturers may supply the same information in other languages, so long as it does not confuse consumers. As long as the non-English language label is a translation of the required information, NHTSA does not interpret it to be "other information." However, manufacturers are not permitted to include additional information in the non-E nglish label.

I am enclosing a copy of that notice for your information.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht74-4.36

DATE: 01/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Lousiana Independent Tire Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1973, to Michael Peskoe of our Chief Counsel's Office, asking whether dealers must record the name and address of the tire purchaser on the appropriate form at the same time the tire is sold. You indicate that most dealers record the information on their sales tickets and put it on registration forms at some later time, as the press of business allows.

The Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574) do not require dealers to record the information on the registration form at any specific time. The "scare stories" to which you refer are not true at all. A recent NHTSA investigation of dealer recording practices was intended only to discover whether dealers were writing down the tire ID number and the purchaser's name, and not whether they were recording the information on particular forms.

The Tire Identification regulation (@ 574.8(b)) requires the information to be supplied to the manufacturer (or person maintaining the information) every 30 days, unless less than 40 tires are sold (your letter to us incorrectly stated less than 60 tires), in which case the information must be reported when 40 tires are sold or 6 months elapses, whichever occurs first.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

SINCERELY,

Nov. 14 1973

Michael Peskoe Cheif Counsels Office Nat Hwy Traffic Safety Admin

Re: Tire Registration & Recordkeeping

A dealer has just contacted me about what seems to be a rather widespread concern.

As we interpret the registration law, a dealer must register his tires at least every 30 days, unless it is under 60 tires pr mo sales, in which case he does not have to turn in this registrations at once.

Because of the time press, most dealers simply get the information on their sales tickets, and then put it on registration forms once every couple of weeks, or as the press of business allows, so long as they get them in once per month.

Now a few scare stpries are going around that if they dont fill in the form right then & there, they will be fined $ 500.00 pr tire.

Before putting out anything to the members, then I wanted to be sure that my understanding was correct. I woild sure appreciate hearing from you.

George H. Jones Manager

Copy: Bill Fowler

ID: 9990

Mr. Alberto Negro
Chief Executive Officer
Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.
39300 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3473

Dear Mr. Negro:

This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, asking if Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection "allows the advisory information required by ... S4.5.1 to be printed in English and also in one or more foreign languages."

On March 10, 1994, NHTSA published a notice responding to petitions for reconsideration of the September 2, 1993 final rule which amended Standard No. 208 to require air bag labels (59 FR 11200). In that notice NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets the labeling requirements of the September 2 final rule as requiring manufacturers to supply the information in English. Once this requirement is met, manufacturers may supply the same information in other languages, so long as it does not confuse consumers. As long as the non- English language label is a translation of the required information, NHTSA does not interpret it to be "other information." However, manufacturers are not permitted to include additional information in the non- English label.

I am enclosing a copy of that notice for your information.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d:6/8/94

ID: nht90-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/90

FROM: JEFF CORNELL -- ENGINEERING, THE BARGMAN COMPANY

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-23-90 TO J. CORNELL FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO DOCUMENT SEARCH REPORT (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

My company manufactures lighting products for recreational vehicle manufacturers, OEM's. Due to recent customer requests, we are asking for a clarification on the following FMVSS 108 changes published May 15, 1990.

S5.1.1.31 (amended) states: On a motor vehicle, except a passenger car, whose overall width is 80 inches or more, measurements of the functional lighted lens area, and of the photometrics, of a multiple compartment stop lamp, and a multiple compartment turn signal lamp, shall be made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

Prior to this change, the maximum values increased as the number of lighted compartments Increased. As the new change states above, the photometric requirements are to be on the entire light, does this include the maximums also? If this is the case, a single compartment light must be less than the 300 maximum candlepower, and a 5 compartment light would also need to be less than the 300 value. This was addressed in the second full paragraph on page 20159 of the Federal Register for the minimum requirements, but there is no reference to the maximums. Please clarify.

Here is an example of another question we have:

Let's say a manufacturer is purchasing a single compartment light, that does not meet the new lens area requirement, for use in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap. If he is using 3 of these lights per side as stop lamps, and the combined area of the 3 is greater than the 75 square centimeters (from SAE J1398 MAY85), is this legal per the new requirements? Along the same line, If the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing, are we correct in assuming that this would now classify as a multiple compartment lamp? If adding a housing to these lights will make it a multiple compartment lamp, then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap?

At the beginning of the amendment in the summary, it states that the lens area is 12 square inches, however, in the SAE standard J1398 MAY85 it states 75 square centimeters. When the two areas are converted into like units they do not match up. Which area is correct? (75 square centimeters = 11.625 square inches, 12 square inches = 77.42 square centimeters).

We would appreciate your earliest response, as we have customers waiting for answers concerning the above items.

ID: 1983-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in response to your September 23, 1982, letter regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle, Safety Standard No. 118, Power-Operated Window Systems, to power sunroofs. The agency apparently has never previously addressed this question.

Standard 118 specifies requirements only for power-operated window and partition systems. A power sunroof would be considered neither a "window" nor a "partition" and therefore would not be subject to the standard. Our standard was intended to apply to the typical power side windows and the power tailgate window of station wagons. The reference to "partitions" in the standard was adopted as part of the July 23, 1970, final rule establishing Standard 118 and was intended to assure that power-operated interior partitions, such as might be used in a taxi or a limousine, would comply.

Although Standard 118 does not apply to power sunroofs, we strongly recommend that safety precautions along the lines of those established in that standard be incorporated in power sunroof designs. It appears possible that the types of accidents which the standard was intended to prevent could also occur as a result of the unsupervised operation of power sunroofs.

If you have any further questions to this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by Frank Berndt Cheif Counsel

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt: We sincerely request information concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118: "Power Operated Window Systems" (49 CFR Part 571).

Nissan's question is whether or not the requirements of MVSS 118 are applicable to a power-operated sunroof.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this inquiry. We are looking forward to an expeditious reply.

Sincerely,

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

ID: nht95-5.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3/4/77 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO DENNIS G. MOORE

TEXT: I have been reviewing all NHTSA's attempts over the years at improving the definition of "OPTICAL COMBINATION" as the subject applies to Vehicle Lighting. I have numerous pages of information from the Federal Register and from NHTSA's Docket "Legal Interpretation" Files gathered over the past 20 years and I must say the situation is now worse than it ever has been.

Back in 1977 I was sent the attached letter from NHTSA lawyers. This was sent to me after five pieces of rather Technical back and forth correspondence * . The substance of the letter is that NHTSA's legal experts finally admitted that Lighting functions that share the same housing and the same lens (and when both use Separate Bulb Filaments and fulfill all other Lighting requirements for their particular function when lit separately), were "not" to be considered Optically Combined.

* All five pieces of Correspondence available upon request, but also in NHTSA's Docket Records.

Later, the Canadians, in spite of U.S. and Canadian written agreements to adopt identical rules and interpretations on this issue, said essentially they would only honor the common housing portion of this Interpretation, which "somehow?", NHTSA also later adopted in spite of the 1977 Legal Interpretation sent me that was based on well thought out scientific discussions and conclusions. *

Then, around 1990, "out of the blue", NHTSA put a "Rider" into a proposed change that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, "NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING", which of course, knocked out the second part of the Legal Interpretation sent me. In response, I wrote NHTSA asking for clarification and a reasonable explanation, and was essentially ignored.

Using the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976 and 1977, and the Re-Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support?

ID: nht95-3.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 31, 1995

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products

TO: Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Legal Interpretation Request for FMVSS # 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENNIS G. MOORE (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3/4/77 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO DENNIS G. MOORE

TEXT: I have been reviewing all NHTSA's attempts over the years at improving the definition of "OPTICAL COMBINATION" as the subject applies to Vehicle Lighting. I have numerous pages of information from the Federal Register and from NHTSA's Docket "Legal Inter pretation" Files gathered over the past 20 years and I must say the situation is now worse than it ever has been.

Back in 1977 I was sent the attached letter from NHTSA lawyers. This was sent to me after five pieces of rather Technical back and forth correspondence * . The substance of the letter is that NHTSA's legal experts finally admitted that Lighting function s that share the same housing and the same lens (and when both use Separate Bulb Filaments and fulfill all other Lighting requirements for their particular function when lit separately), were "not" to be considered Optically Combined.

* All five pieces of Correspondence available upon request, but also in NHTSA's Docket Records.

Later, the Canadians, in spite of U.S. and Canadian written agreements to adopt identical rules and interpretations on this issue, said essentially they would only honor the common housing portion of this Interpretation, which "somehow?", NHTSA also late r adopted in spite of the 1977 Legal Interpretation sent me that was based on well thought out scientific discussions and conclusions. *

Then, around 1990, "out of the blue", NHTSA put a "Rider" into a proposed change that had no relevance to this subject, whereas the Rulemakers added the expression, "NOT TO SHARE THE SAME HOUSING", which of course, knocked out the second part of the Lega l Interpretation sent me. In response, I wrote NHTSA asking for clarification and a reasonable explanation, and was essentially ignored.

Using the Scientific Argument and discussions I submitted back in 1975, 1976 and 1977, and the Re-Interpretation letter sent me, how can NHTSA support the SAME HOUSING definition they currently support?