ID: suzuki

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
Regulations Manager
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 E. Imperial Highway
Brea, CA92821

Dear Mr. Bush:




This is in response to your letter of October 8, 2002, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. You state that for the 2003 model year, Suzuki is planning to market two new motor scooter models in the United States.You note that for the purpose of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), these vehicles are classified as motorcycles, but that they have certain physical attributes that differ from those of conventional motorcycles.In particular, you note that unlike motorcycles, motor scooters have a step-through design and body panels that completely cover the frame members.

You note that a provision of the certification regulations, at 49 CFR 567.4(e), requires the certification label for motorcycles to "be affixed to a permanent member of the vehicle as close as is practicable to the intersection of the steering post with the handle bars, in a location such that it is easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." You state that on conventional motorcycles, the certification label "is usually affixed to the steering post, or if the motorcycle is equipped with a fairing that obscures the steering post location, to an exposed frame member."You observe that on most motor scooters, "there are no exposed frame members that allow placement of [the] certification label" in such a manner that it is "easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle except the steering system." As a consequence, you have asked whether "a body panel that is not intended to be removed, and which is not readily removed" can be considered a "permanent member" of the vehicle for the purposes of section 567.4(e), and therefore an acceptable location for the placement of the certification label. To illustrate your question, you have included a photograph of a certification label affixed to what appears to be a molded panel between the foot rest and a storage compartment on the center line of the vehicle, which you describe as "a permanent body panel . . . reasonably close to the intersection of the steering post with the handlebars."

The term "permanent member" is not defined in the vehicle certification regulations. The intent of the regulations is that the certification label be affixed to an integral part of the vehicle, in a location where the label may be easily read. We are satisfied that these objectives will be met if the certification label on 2003 model year scooters you are planning to market in the United States is placed in the location you have proposed.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.10/24/02

ID: SWI

ID: swivelinglamp.3

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter, in which you ask how a swiveling lamp, incorporated as original equipment in a new vehicles headlight assembly but with its own on-off switch, would be characterized under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Your letter states that the swiveling lamp is designed to automatically enhance illumination around corners and through curves, so as to improve a drivers ability to see pedestrians, bicycles, and other objects that may be in the roadway. Specifically you ask whether the swiveling lamp would be "a supplemental piece of lighting equipment and therefore not directly regulated by [FMVSS No. 108]."For the reasons below, we have concluded that the swiveling lamp you have described would be a component of the required headlighting system under FMVSS No. 108. Consequently, its installation on a motor vehicle would violate those provisions of the standard that limit a replaceable bulb headlamp to having no more than two replaceable light sources.

You have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accord your letter confidential treatment because it includes proprietary commercial information. We note your attorneys consent on your behalf that your interpretation request letter and our interpretation may be made public, provided that all information identifying you and your company are deleted. We shall follow this procedure, which will adequately describe the device to allow a reader to understand just what this interpretation covers.

Your letter states that the vehicles complete front lighting system will include all of the forward lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, as well as the swiveling lamp, as depicted in the attachments to your letter. However, the swiveling lamp would

use a different light source and reflector than any of the other functions, and it is controllable by a manual on-off switch on the dashboard that is independent of the switch for operation of the vehicles standard headlamps. Once engaged, activation of the swiveling lamp is a function of transmission position (i.e., the vehicle must be in neutral or a forward driving position) and of the state of the vehicles headlamp switch (i.e., low or high beams must be engaged). Horizontal aim of the swiveling lamp is determined by both vehicle speed and steering input.

Your letter further states that the swiveling lamp has been designed to aim its light output downward and to the side, so as to be distinct from and to not affect the brightness or visibility of any turn signal. According to your letter, the swiveling lamp has also been "designed to minimize glare to other drivers."

Paragraph S7 of FMVSS No. 108, Headlighting requirements, requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting system options, whose specifications are set forth in the standard. Headlighting systems are comprised of headlamps and associated hardware. The standard sets its performance requirements for headlamps, in part, through reference to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard No. J1383 (Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps; April 1985).

Under paragraph S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems, subparagraph (a) provides, "The system shall provide only two lower beams and two upper beams and shall incorporate not more than two replaceable light sources in each headlamp." This limitation on the number of light sources was contained in a final rule published on May 22, 1985, that amended FMVSS No. 108 (50 FR 21052).

We note that subsequent to that time, NHTSA has engaged in rulemaking seeking to develop more performance-oriented and less design-restrictive headlighting requirements; [1] however, the proposed system specifying roadway illumination requirements was found to be complex, and there were questions as to whether the uncertain potential benefits justified the perceived regulatory burdens. Consequently, the rulemaking was terminated, [2] and FMVSS No. 108s existing requirements were retained, including the limitation on the number of replaceable light sources. NHTSA stated that it would be willing to revisit the issue of more performance-oriented changes to FMVSS No. 108 through the regulatory process, perhaps through negotiated rulemaking. [3]

In determining whether the swiveling lamp is part of a headlamp system or a supplemental piece of lighting equipment, an important consideration is where the swiveling lamp directs its light. According to section 2.1 of SAE J1383, a "headlamp" is defined as "a lighting device providing an upper and/or a lower beam used for providing illumination forward of the vehicle." Your swiveling lamp would provide illumination forward of the vehicle when a turn of a sufficient magnitude is executed, which is consistent with the headlighting function.

Based upon its function, we view your lamp as a type of Adaptive Frontal-lighting System (AFS). AFSs are systems that can actively change the intensity and direction of headlamp illumination in response to changes in vehicle speed or roadway geometry, such as providing more light during a turn. We note that the agency published a request for comments on the AFS issue in the Federal Register on February 12, 2003 (68 FR 7101).

Other governments and organizations support the position that lamps that bend light in the direction of a turn are adaptive frontal-lighting systems. In order to allow introduction of this new headlighting technology in Europe, regulations are currently being modified under the auspices of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) (see ECE R112 A2). SAE has also issued a draft standard J2591 (Adaptive Forward Lighting System) that characterizes swiveling lamps as part of the headlighting system.

Beyond the fundamental matter of where the light emitted by the swiveling lamp is directed, other factors also lead us to conclude that the swiveling lamp is part of the headlighting system. We note that the swiveling lamp you describe uses a headlamp replaceable light source to emit a beam that provides significantly more light flux than supplemental cornering lamps or fog lamps designed to conform to applicable SAE standards. In addition, when operated as intended, the use of cornering lamps and fog lamps is limited to more narrow driving conditions and situations; in contrast, your swiveling lamps are presumably intended to be used regularly, since turning is a routine part of driving. We do not find the inclusion of a manual on-off switch (which can be left on indefinitely) to be a dispositive indicator that the swiveling lamp is a piece of supplemental lighting equipment.

For the above reasons, we have concluded that the swiveling lamp described in your letter is an integral part of the headlighting system, and as such, it would cause the headlighting system to exceed the maximum number of permissible light sources under paragraph S7.5 of FMVSS No. 108. Consequently, the swiveling lamp described in your letter would not meet the requirements of the standard.

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/21/04





---

[1] See 54 FR 20084 (May 9, 1989).

[2]  See 60 FR 58038 (November 24, 1995).

[3] Id. at 58039.

ID: Takata_lrd_5014

Mr. Kazuo Higuchi
TK Holdings, Inc.
601 13^th Street, NW, Suite 350 South
Washington, DC 20005




Dear Mr. Higuchi:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation that under the low risk deployment test procedures for the 12-month-old child specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, the compliance test is performed with the passenger seat in the full forward position only. As explained below, your understanding is correct.

On May 12, 2000, we established the advanced air bag requirements in FMVSS No. 208 to reduce the risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, particularly for children and small adults (65 FR 30680; May 12, 2000). Under S19 of FMVSS No. 208, vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements must comply with one of two options in order to provide protection for infants in rear facing child restraint systems: (1) air bag suppression, or (2) low risk deployment.

In a response to petitions for reconsideration of the advanced air bag requirements we specifically addressed and clarified the test procedure for the low risk deployment option. We explained that testing with a rear facing child restraint system under S20.4.1 is only conducted with the vehicle seat in the full forward position (see 68 FR 65179, 65182; November 19, 2003). We also noted that the associated indicant testing specified in S20.4.9 is conducted with the passenger seat in the full forward, middle, and full rearward position.

We recognize that the test procedure data sheet (Data sheet 22, TP-208-12) for the low risk deployment test has entries under S20.4.1 for all three seat positions. However, it is the regulatory text in FMVSS No. 208 that is controlling, not the test data sheet.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.7/27/05

ID: Tanabe.1

Kenji Tanabe, Director
Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America, Inc. ,
Regulatory Affairs and Certification
2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1109
Arlington, VA22201




Dear Mr. Tanabe:

This responds to your August 30, 2005, letter in which you seek clarification regarding any requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, that would be applicable to a removable wind deflector for use on convertible vehicles. Specifically, you asked whether the thin, tubular frame of the folding deflector would constitute a "pillar" when it is in the raised position. You also sought to confirm that the front seat backs would not need to be tested with the vertical surface of the wind deflector in the "up" position, because rear seat occupancy is not possible when the device is installed. We are pleased to have the opportunity to explain the requirements of our regulations, as they relate to your product.

In your letter, you stated that the wind deflector (as depicted in the attached diagrams) would be an original equipment option on certain convertible vehicle models. Its purpose is to reduce wind buffeting on the front seat occupants, thereby improving comfort and reducing noise. Specifically, you stated that the wind deflector is comprised of a "two-piece tubular frame with a pliable mesh screen that creates both a vertical, lateral surface behind the head restraints of the two front seats and a horizontal surface that spans the opening of the two rear seating positions". Your letter also stated that the movable tubular frame does not support the roof or any other structure of the vehicle, and the thin-wall frame is not designed to act as a roll-bar. According to your letter, the horizontal surface of the frame snaps into the rear occupant compartment side interior trim, and from there, the vertical surface can pivot to a vertical position to provide the wind screen. You also stated that the frame is mounted inboard of the windows and that it is not adjacent to or supporting any glazing. Once installed, the wind deflector prevents use of the rear occupant seating area. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

FMVSS No. 201 establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. One purpose of that standard, of particular relevance here, is to set energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat, in order to protect occupants in the rear seat who may be thrown forward in a crash (see S5.2, Seat Backs).

Furthermore, the standard establishes other relevant requirements under S6, Requirements for upper interior components, although a vehicle need not meet those requirements for "[a]ny target located on a convertible roof frame or a convertible roof linkage mechanism" (see S6.3(a)). "Convertible roof frame" is defined in S3 as "the frame of a convertible roof". "Convertible roof linkage mechanism" is defined in S3 as "any anchorage, fastener, or device necessary to deploy a convertible roof frame". The terms "pillar" and "roll-bar" are defined under S3 as follows:

Pillar means any structure, excluding glazing and the vertical portion of door window frames, but including accompanying moldings, attached components such as safety belt anchorages and coat hooks, which:

(1) Supports either a roof or any other structure (such as a roll-bar) that is above the drivers head, or

(2) Is located along the side edge of a window.

Roll-bar means a fixed overhead structural member, including its vertical support structure, that extends from the left to the right side of the passenger compartment of any open body vehicles and convertibles. It does not include a header.

Based upon the information provided in your letter, it is our opinion that your removable wind deflector would not be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 201. We agree that the wind deflector in question would not be considered a roll-bar, because it is not a fixed overhead structural member, but is instead readily detachable. We also agree that it is not a pillar, in that it provides no structural support and is not located along the side edge of a window.

Our opinion is contingent upon the fact that the device, when installed, precludes rear seat occupancy. If rear seat occupancy were possible with the wind deflector installed, we would need to determine whether the device would be considered part of the seat back for the purposes of S5.2, because its location would cause concern if a rear seat occupant made contact with your product in the event of a crash.

We note further that if the wind deflector were installed as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. For example, the deflector could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (safety belts and other restraint systems), and Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (driver field of view).

If you need further assistance, please contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.11/5/05

ID: Tesa.jeg

ID: time.replcepart.Pollak.12-03

David G. Pollok, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022-6030

Dear Mr. Pollak:

This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of the provisions of the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (Safety Act). Specifically, you asked whether Federal law obliges an automobile manufacturer to continue producing and/or supplying replacement parts for a vehicle model that has not been manufactured or distributed in 10 years, and, if so, for how long. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Enid Rubenstein of my staff, you stated that the vehicles in question have never been recalled pursuant to the Safety Act to correct a safety-related defect or non-compliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

There is no provision in the Safety Act or in any of our safety standards or other regulations that requires a manufacturer to make replacement parts available for any particular period of time, or, for that matter, at all. However, under 49 U.S.C. 30118-30119, vehicle manufacturers are required to provide notification of safety-related defects or noncompliances with safety standards to owners, purchasers, and dealers for an unlimited period of time. Also, under 49 U.S.C. 30120, if either a manufacturer or this agency decides, within 10 years of the date of sale of the vehicle to the first purchaser, that a motor vehicle contains a safety-related defect or fails to comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the manufacturer is required to provide a free remedy for the safety-related defect or noncompliance. These remedies may include the repair, replacement or repurchase of the affected vehicles.

Although your clients vehicles apparently are beyond the age at which a free repair for a safety-related defect or noncompliance could be required, your client may wish to consider the issue of the ability to provide repairs in deciding whether to continue to make available replacement parts for its vehicles. We understand that some vehicle manufacturers do make various replacement parts available for a considerable period of time.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.12/19/04

ID: title.ztv

Mr. Philip Trupiano
President
Auto Enterprises
28801 Universal Drive
Warren, MI 48092
FAX:

Dear Mr. Trupiano:

This is in reply to your letter of November 11, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking for an interpretation of 49 U.S.C. 30146 as implemented by 49 CFR 592.8.

You have informed us that

Auto Enterprises, Inc., and some of the customers on behalf of whom Auto Enterprises is performing importing services, wish to obtain United States titles for re-sale purposes only for vehicles imported into the United States during the period that the vehicles are still within the custody and control of Auto Enterprises.

Specifically, you want "to obtain such titles for re-sale purposes prior to the time that the performance bond . . . is released." You asked:

May a Registered Importer, or the customer on whose behalf the vehicle is imported, obtain a title for re-sale purposes for a vehicle which it has imported, prior to the time that the applicable performance bond has been released by the Administrator?

As you know, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1), a Registered Importer (RI) "may license or register an imported motor vehicle for use on the public streets, roads, or highways, or release custody of a motor vehicle . . . to a person for license or registration for use on the public streets, roads, or highways, only after 30 days after" the RI has certified to NHTSA that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We are unsure of precisely what you are referring to by "a title for re-sale purposes." However, we do not construe the statutory provisions as prohibiting a RI from obtaining a title in its own name to a vehicle it has imported for resale, while the vehicle is still bound by its performance bond, in order to expedite the subsequent licensing or registration of that vehicle for on-road use after the bond has been released.

You have also asked if "the customer on whose behalf the vehicle is imported" may obtain a title for re-sale purposes before the bond is released. The answer is no; the title may not be in the name of the customer. One of the conditions of the bond is that the vehicle it covers be exported or abandoned to the United States in the event that an insufficient showing of conformity is made and the bond and the vehicle are not released (49 U.S.C. 30141(d)(1), as implemented by 49 CFR 591.8(e), and Appendices A and B, and 49 CFR 592,6(a)). If the RI has transferred or reassigned title to the vehicle to "the customer on whose behalf the vehicle is imported" before the bond has been released, the RI could not fulfill its duty to export or abandon the nonconforming vehicle because it would no longer own the vehicle. In that instance, NHTSA's sole remedy would be to foreclose on the bond. This is insufficient to fulfill the safety purpose of the statute and the bond which is to ensure that imported noncomplying vehicles be brought into compliance before being licensed for use, and used, on the public roads.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.4/17/00

ID: toyo.ajd

Mr. Harold van der Meijden
Toyo Tire (USA) Corporation
6261 Katella Avenue
Suite 2B
Cypress, CA 90630

Dear Mr. van der Meijden:

This is in reply to your telefaxed note of August 29, 2003, to Taylor Vinson of the Office of Chief Counsel and your e-mail of September 2, 2003, to Jonathan White of the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) asking for a clarification of certain provisions of the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation, 49 CFR Part 579 Subpart C, and certain provisions of ODIs EWR Compendium that track the EWR regulation.

In your fax to Mr. Vinson, you advised that Toyo Tire Corporation (Toyo), in its warranty provisions, handles claims for "early ride" complaints and warrants projected mileages on certain tire lines. You assert that tires subject to such claims do not have a failure condition other than they did not meet the subjective expectancy for comfort or warranted mileage projections. You would like to know whether these types of claims have to be reported under component code 98 (other) for ride disturbances or 71 (tread) for mileage, respectively?

Also in your fax, you cited the preamble to the final rule, 67 FR 45822 at 45853 (July 10, 2000), where we stated that we did not think warranty claims that merely concern "cosmetic, ride or wear concerns or did not concern a failure would be useful to early detection of safety-related tire defects." You stated that it was your understanding that "claims with no failure condition fall into the category of tires that would not be useful in the early detection of safety-related tire defects."

We concur with your understanding that you do not have to report warranty adjustments that do not involve the component categories specified in 49 CFR 579.26(c). As we explained in our response to the Rubber Manufacturers Associations (RMA) August 26, 2002 Petition for Reconsideration, "we adhere to our view that we do not want to receive data on warranty adjustments that do not relate to one or more of the four identified component categories." 68 FR 35132 at 35137 (June 11, 2003).

I now address your questions raised in your e-mail to Mr. White regarding the EWR Compendium. At the outset, we note that the EWR Compendium is not an interpretation of Part 579 or the terms used therein, but merely is intended to assist manufacturers in submitting information to NHTSA pursuant to the requirements of the EWR regulation. In addition, the Compendium was updated on September 18, 2003, after your e-mail to Mr. White. In the future, any interpretive questions that you may have concerning substantive reporting regulations should be sent to the Office of Chief Counsel.

Your first question concerns Section IV A of the Compendium. You stated that:

Section IV A. Note reads: &"For tires that are produced or imported in quantities less than 15,000 annually..., the manufacturer need only report information on incidents involving deaths." Toyo interprets the term &"tires&" to mean all those products within a complete tire line with various SKU's whose production or importation is less that 15,000 units annually.

Your understanding is incorrect. We refer you to the introductory paragraph of Section 579.26 for clarification. See 49 CFR 579.26, as amended at 68 FR 35132. That section states:

For each group of tires with the same SKU, plant where manufactured, and year for which the volume produced or imported is less than 15,000, or are deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 12 inches or less, or are not passenger car tires, light truck tires, or motorcycle tires, the manufacturer need only report information on incidents involving a death or injury, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

We note that the regulation refers in part to groups of tires with the same SKU. Therefore, if a tire line has SKUs, if fewer than 15,000 tires with a given SKU are produced (or expected to be produced) in a given year, only incidents involving a death or injury have to be reported.

Second, in connection with Compendium Section IV B.1 Reporting Production Data, you state:

"g.) Manufacturing Plant - code as appearing within the TIN per 574.5 and 574.6, and&" Referencing the Federal Register/ Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations - page 35144/Section 579.26 Reporting requirements for manufacturers of tires states: &"For purposes of this section, the two-character DOT alphanumeric code for production plants located in the United States assigned by NHTSA in accordance with 574.5(a) and 574.6(b) of this chapter may be used to identify plant where manufactured. If the plant is located outside the United States, the full plant name must be provided&". Toyo's interpretation is since many of our tires are produced in foreign plants for distribution and sale in the United States, we must report the full plant name in our data. What is the requirement criteria for the &"plant name&" that will be noted in the Plant Code field of the template?

Pursuant to 49 CFR 571.109 and 571.119, every tire manufactured for use on the roads and offered for sale in the United States must have a Tire Information Number (TIN) in accordance with 49 CFR Part 574. However, if the tire is manufactured outside of the United States, the TIN need not include the plant name. If a tire that is the subject of an EWR report has a TIN that does not include the plant name of a foreign plant, the manufacturer is required to type in the name of the plant where it is manufactured, up to 25 characters. In typing the name of the plant, the manufacturer may either abbreviate or truncate the name of the plant to fit within the 25 character limitation so long as it uses the same abbreviation or truncation in all EWR reports, including future ones. This approach will satisfy 49 CFR 579.26. When a manufacturer provides the plant name in this manner, it indicates to NHTSA that the tire is manufactured in a foreign plant. We also note that manufacturers are allowed to provide the country of origin (and date of importation), rather than plant and date of manufacture, when the TIN is unknown. See Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, RMA, of October 10, 2003, at 3.

Third, in connection with Compendium Section IV B. 3, you stated:

Reporting Numbers of Warranty Adjustments (including Extended Warranty and Good Will) reads: &"A warranty adjustment need not be reported when: c.) The claim/adjustment is denied&". Toyo's interpretation is that any claim that fails to meet the adjustabilility requirements that are explicitly stated in the applicable warranty, and is therefore denied to the dealer or consumer, need not be reported.

We concur in your understanding that you would not have to report a warranty claim/adjustment that is denied in its entirety. In applying the EWR definition of warranty adjustment, a tire manufacturer would only report warranty adjustments when it paid or provided other reimbursement to a consumer pursuant to a warranty program offered by a manufacturer or goodwill. See 49 CFR 579.4, as amended at 68 FR 35132 at 35142. Therefore, under the circumstances suggested in your e-mail, Toyo would not have to report any claim that was denied because it failed to meet the "adjustability" requirements that are explicitly stated in the applicable warranty.

Fourth, in connection with Compendium Section IV B. 4, you stated:

Reporting Claims and Notices of Death and Injury reads: &"A manufacturer need not file a report for a claim or notice of death and injury when: b.) The claim alleges one or more deaths in a foreign country involving a tire that is identical or substantially similar to one offered for sale in the United States&". This seems to contradict the statement on page 16 (paragraph 2): &"Similar reporting is also required when a claim alleging or proving that one or more deaths in a foreign country was caused by a defect in a tire that was identical or substantially similar to one offered for sale in the United States&". Toyo's interpretation is that we will need to report on any identical or substantially similar tire involved with a foreign death if it meets minimal specificity requirements.

In connection with the Section IV B. 4, the Compendium (Version 1.0) inadvertently left out the word "not" in the sentence you reference. The Compendium should have read:

A manufacturer need not file a report for a claim or notice of death and injury when:

b.) The claim alleges one or more deaths in a foreign country involving a tire that is not identical or substantially similar to one offered for sale in the United States.

This omission has been corrected in "Version 2.0" of the Compendium.

Lastly, in connection with one-time historical reporting section in the Compendium you wrote:

Section V One-Time Historical Reporting Requirements B. What To Report: reads: &"Historical data concerning production totals, number of warranty adjustments for the preceding 12 quarters (July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2003) covering production year 1998 and later tires (see 579.28(c))&". Referencing the Federal Register/ Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations - page 35148/Section 579.28 Due date of reports and other miscellaneous provisions. (c) (iii) reads: &"Each manufacturer of tires covered by 579.26 of this part shall file separate reports covering the number of warranty adjustments recorded in the manufacturer's warranty adjustment system for tires that it received in each calendar quarter from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003, for tires manufactured from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003&". Toyo interprets this to mean that the production data for the one-time historical report should only include production numbers for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 1998 to June 30, 2003 and not the entire calendar production for 1998.

We do not agree with your understanding.The historical reports are expected to provide a baseline so that we will be able to compare current rates to historical rates. In order for NHTSA to evaluate the EWR information, we need annual production for the five previous years. Our intent is for tire manufacturers to provide annual production for all of 1998 until 2003 is complete and we have first quarter 2004 production. See 49 CFR 579.28, as amended at 68 FR 35132 at 35148. Therefore, when reporting for each quarter from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003, for tires manufactured from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2003, a manufacturer should include the total annual production of tires produced from the beginning of each calendar year included in the report until the close of the quarter that is the subject of the report.

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.11/19/03

ID: toyota

Mr. Yaichi Oishi
General Manager
Government Affairs Division
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
1850 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Oishi:

This responds to your December 22, 1997 letter concerning the telltale requirement for air bag retrofit on-off switches adopted in 49 CFR Part 595 by a November 21, 1997 final rule (62 FR 62406). You ask whether you may use a telltale design which contains the required words "DRIVER AIR BAG OFF" and "PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF," but in a different word order.

Part 595.5(b)(3)(ii)(B) states that "the telltale for an air bag shall have the identifying words "DRIVER AIR BAG OFF" or "PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF" as appropriate, on the telltale or within 25 mm of the telltale."

You state that your proposed design would consist of three sections: a top section in which the word "AIRBAG" will be centrally located and illuminated in green, a middle portion which will have two telltales each consisting of the word "OFF" which would be illuminated when an air bag had been deactivated by the on-off switch, and a bottom portion consisting of the words "Driver" or "Passenger" in white lettering and under the appropriate telltale. You do not state whether the words "AIRBAG", "Driver" and "Passenger" will all be within 25 mm of their respective telltales.

The proposed design contains all of the words required in the final rule, although in a different order. NHTSA generally requires the exact wording as set forth in the regulatory text where warning labels are concerned. The Agency is concerned that allowing significant flexibility in warning label designs could lead to consumer confusion as to the meaning of the warning label. Thus, while there may be some flexibility regarding the size and format of lettering, depending on the specific regulatory text, the word order generally cannot be changed.

Nevertheless, NHTSA has decided to interpret Part 595 more broadly in this instance in light of several factors. First, it believes the telltale at issue is easily understandable. Second, the agency does not wish to unduly delay the introduction of a retrofit on-off switch. However, the agency wishes to make it clear that its opinion concerning diversion from exact word order is limited to this interpretation request and should not be construed as precedent for how we would interpret other requirements in this or other regulations. This includes the requirement that the words "AIRBAG", "Driver" and "Passenger" be within 25mm of the words "OFF" which serve as the telltale.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.1/20/98