ID: GF005919

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005




Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your July 1, 2005, letter asking us to clarify certain issues discussed in our response to petitions for reconsideration of the April 4, 2004, final rule expanding parts marking requirements. Specifically, you ask us to clarify the phase-in calculation procedures, and how exempted vehicle lines should be considered relative to the phase-in calculation.

On May 19, 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published its response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule expanding parts marking requirements (see 70 FR 28843). As a part of this response, we adopted a phase-in of the expanded parts marking requirements over a two-year period. Specifically, a new section 541.3(c) reads as follows:

"For vehicles listed in subparagraphs (1)(i) to (iv) of this section that are (1) not subject to the requirements of this standard until September 1, 2006, and (2) manufactured between September 1, 2006, and August 31, 2007; a manufacturer needs to meet the requirements of this part only for lines representing at least 50% of a manufacturers total production of these vehicles." [emphasis added]

In your letter, you describe two possible interpretations of the phase-in requirement. In short, the first interpretation states that at least 50% of the production volume of the affected vehicles must be marked beginning September 1, 2006. The second interpretation states that at least 50% of the affected vehicle lines must be marked beginning September 1, 2006. To illustrate your question, you also offered the following hypothetical example:

Manufacturer XYZ has seven vehicle lines that are affected by the parts marking expansion.

Line	Production Volume
A	500,000
B	300,000
C	200,000
D	200,000
E	100,000
F	100,000
G	100,000
Total:	1,500,000

The first interpretation is correct and accurately reflects the regulatory text.That is, at least 50% of the production volume of affected vehicles must be marked beginning September 1, 2006. Using the example provided in your letter, the XYZ manufacturer could comply with the phase-in by marking the A and B lines, or A and C and E (or F or G lines) because together, these lines represent more than 50% of the production volume of affected vehicles.

The second interpretation does not accurately reflect the regulatory text because at least 50% of the vehicle lines (instead of the actual vehicles) could nevertheless amount to a smaller percentage of the vehicle fleet subject to the expanded parts marking requirements. For example, if the XYZ manufacturer marks lines D through F, the number of lines marked (4) will exceed 50% but the number of vehicles marked (500,000) would amount to less than 34% of the affected fleet. This outcome was not contemplated by the agency when issuing the response to petitions for reconsideration.

We note that the discussion on page 28848 of the preamble, which you believe raises the question of how to interpret the phase in requirements, sought to underscore the necessity of marking the entire vehicle line chosen for phase-in. For example, if the XYZ manufacturer chooses to mark A, C, and E lines, it must not stop marking the E vehicle line, once the total number of marked vehicles reaches 750,001.

You also ask how the exempted vehicle lines should be considered relative to the phase-in calculation. You are correct to note that the newly exempted vehicle lines must be included in the numerator and the denominator when calculating compliance with the phase-in. Using the XYZ manufacturer example, let us assume that vehicle line B was exempted from parts marking requirement. If XYZ manufacturer marks vehicle line A, it would be in compliance with the phase-in requirements because vehicle lines A and B represent more than 50% of the affected vehicles.

Finally, in your letter, you suggest that the agency amend the scope of the de minimis exemption for vehicle lines manufactured in quantities of not more than 3,500. That language currently reads as follows:

"(b) Exclusions. This standard does not apply to the following:

(2) Passenger motor vehicle parts identified in 541.5(a) that are present in a line with an annual production of not more than 3,500 vehicles."

You ask that we change the regulatory language such that the vehicle lines sold in the U.S. in quantities of not more than 3,500 would be exempted. We believe that no amendment is necessary. Ordinarily, our standards apply only to vehicles manufactured for sale in the Unites States. Thus, the de minimis exemption applies to vehicles lines manufactured in quantities of not more than 3,500 for sale in the U.S.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.8/5/05

ID: nht88-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: FRANK REYNOLDS -- F.E. REYNOLDS ASSOCIATES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/20/80 TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM FRANK BERNDT; NOA - 30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This is in response to your telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, seeking a clarification of my June 16, 1988 letter concerning school bus mirrors under Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17. Specifically, you asked about the meaning of the phrase, "area in front of the bus," as used in section S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111). In your telephone conversation, you stated that a NHTSA staff person told you in a previous telephone conversation that NHTSA h ad defined this phrase to mean "the area three feet in front of the bus." NHTSA has never so interpreted this phrase in Standard No. 111.

For your information, I am enclosing a June 20, 1980 letter to James Tydings that sets forth the agency's interpretation of S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111. This letter notes that the area of concern in S9.2(b) is the region in front of the bus where a dr iver is not able to see directly a school age child. As explained in the letter and an earlier notice (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975), the purpose of a crossview mirror is to "address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transporta tion," and this type of mirror "allows the bus driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there before moving the bus." This letter then explains: "The agency used the word 'view' in its ordinary, dictio nary sense to mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus." This is still an a ccurate expression of the agency's interpretation of the purpose of a crossview mirror and this phrase.

In your telephone conversation, you also expressed concern about the "legal effect" of Standard No. 111. You should be aware of @ 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which states that

No person shall manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any additional questions, or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: FRANK REYNOLDS -- F. E. REYNOLDS ASSOCIATES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO JAMES TYDINGS -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This is in response to your telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, seeking a clarification of my June 16, 1988 letter concerning school bus mirrors under Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17. Specifically, you asked about the meaning of the phrase, "area in front of the bus," as used in section S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111). In your telephone conversation, you stated that a NHTSA staff person told you in a previous telephone conversation that NHTSA h ad defined this phrase to mean "the area three feet in front of the bus." NHTSA has never so interpreted this phrase in Standard No. 111.

For your information, I am enclosing a June 20, 1980 letter to James Tydings that sets forth the agency's interpretation of S9.2(b) of Standard No. 111. This letter notes that the area of concern in S9.2(b) is the region in front of the bus where a drive r is not able to see directly a school age child. As explained in the letter and an earlier notice (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975), the purpose of a crossview mirror is to "address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transportatio n," and this type of mirror "allows the bus driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there before moving the bus." This letter then explains: "The agency used the word 'view' in its ordinary, dictionar y sense to mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus." This is still an accu rate expression of the agency's interpretation of the purpose of a crossview mirror and this phrase.

In your telephone conversation, you also expressed concern about the "legal effect" of Standard No. 111. You should be aware of @ 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which states that

No person shall manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any additional questions, or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht92-1.2

DATE: December 30, 1992

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Rodney T. Nash -- Vice President Engineering, Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/9/92 from Rodney T. Nash to Administrator, NHTSA (OCC 7996)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), received in this office on November 18, 1992, and your telephone conversation of November 30, 1992 with Walter Myers of this office, regarding the proper classification of an ambulance.

You indicated that Wheeled Coach Industries of Orlando, Florida, a subsidiary of Collins Industries, produces ambulances that are built on truck chassis. You stated that in the past those vehicles have been classified as trucks, but that Ford Motor Company auditors told you that they should be classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV). You said that you needed to know how v m;swl4(FAA@P/O=1[[YCBX[YX\\\YHH]Y[ H\YX] [XTBBH \Y\Y[X[[\H][ \\H\[\Z X\B X\HY[Y [ HHY\[Y[] [ H MK\H[BZ XH] [ ]H\^\HZ[\\YY\H L\B\ X \XYZ] \HX\\] XX[X]\\B\[[\Y\] [ated into Standard No. 108, any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

"(2) Where the above view is acceptable, could we consider the number of lighted section (sic) as 'one' in case of a lamp which contains three LED arrays arranged as shown in the attached drawing, if the circumferenc (sic) of three projected luminous areas does not exceed 150mm both in horizontal and vertical dimension?"

The answer is no under Standard No. 108 as it presently exists. The drawing you have enclosed depicts three "lighted areas of LEDs" with two separations. Your question is based upon SAE J1889, which defines a "one compartment LED lamp" as one whose "maximum projected linear dimension" does not exceed 150mm. Thus, the linear dimension of a two-compartment LED lamp is 151-300mm, and that of a three-compartment LED lamp is 301mm and greater. These dimensional specifications prevent LED lamps from achietion of persons. Accordingly, an ambulance falls within the definition of MPV rather than truck.

I hope this will help clarify this issue for you. Should you have any further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager, Vehicle Regulations, Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/13/95 LETTER FROM DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN TO PHILIP R. RECHT (OCC 10790)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 118, Power-operated window, partition, and roof panel systems. You asked whether the "squeezing force limitation" of S5 applies only to the first attempt to close a power operated window , partition, or roof panel system (power-operated system) and not to immediately following attempts to close. You explained that an operator may initiate more than one closing attempt in order to assure the closing of the power operated system under adv erse conditions such as low temperature or the presence of ice in the power operated system's track. As discussed below, the S5 squeezing force limitation applies to each closing attempt.

By way of background information, Standard No. 118 requires that a power operated system, while closing, must comply with one of two alternative provisions. The first, S4, generally specifies requirements for situations where a person is expected to be in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle to supervise the closing. The second, S5, covers "unsupervised" closings, i.e., automatic closings or closings where the person initiating the closing is further away from the vehicle.

In the rulemaking establishing S5, NHTSA recognized that unsupervised closings increase the risk that persons, especially children, could be caught between a closing system and the frame. Therefore, to the extent that a power operated system permits uns upervised closings, the agency decided to require an automatic reversal mechanism that reverses the window direction upon its meeting an obstruction. More specifically, if an obstruction is between 4 and 200 mm from any part of the vehicle structure wit h which the closing system mates, S5 requires window reversal before a force of 100 Newtons is encountered.

S5 does not specify different squeezing force limitation requirements for different closing attempts. Therefore, a power operated system must meet the same requirements for each closing attempt. We note that since the requirements of S5 address unsuper vised closings, the same safety concerns about children being caught between a closing system and frame would be relevant to each closing attempt.

I note that NHTSA decided not to apply the S5 squeezing force limitation requirement to unsupervised closings within the area between 4 mm and any part of the vehicle structure with which the closing system mates. The agency recognized that injury from system closure is not possible in this area, and that unnecessary automatic reversal could result from the system's misalignment or obstruction from ice. Thus, during unsupervised closing, if the system encounters an obstruction less than 4 mm from any part of the vehicle structure with which the closing system mates, the power operated system need not reverse.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam2359

Dear Mr. Turnbull: This responds to your March 19, 1976, recommendation that paragrap S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, be amended to clarify that the temperature specified in the resistance to light' test procedure is intended to be black panel' temperature rather than bare bulb' temperature.; The procedures outlined in Standard No. 209 for the resistance t light' test were adopted from the Bureau Standard's procedures for testing seat belts. The standard was developed by an industry and government group, which included Celanese Fibers, as a simplification and improvement of the A.S.T.M. Designation E42-64 procedure. The resistance to light' test was established to test nylon webbing, which was the standard material used in seat belt webbing at that time.; We recognize, however, that the industry now uses dacron and polyeste materials in seat belt webbing, and that the Standard 209 test procedure developed to test nylon does not give meaningful results for these new materials. Therefore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not enforce the requirements of paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209 in the case of seat belt webbing made of dacrons and polyesters, and will not until appropriate testing procedures can be developed and incorporated in the standard for these new materials.; Procedures for testing systems containing materials other than nylo are under development and we plan to initiate rulemaking to incorporate these procedures into standard(sic) 209. You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.; We would appreciate any data you may be able to provide regardin colorfastness tests for fabrics other than nylon.; Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht72-6.35

DATE: 02/02/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Triple H Frame Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1971, stating that you are an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and asking for clarification of provisions of section 568.4 of Title 49. Code of Federal Regulations ("Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages"), that refer to standards. You indicated in a phone conversation of December 17, 1971, with Michael Peskoe of this office that you manufacture travel trailer and mobile home frames, which may be equipped by you with both tires and a trailer hitch before being sent to the subsequent manufacturer for completion.

The reference to "standards" in @ 568.4, as you were informed on December 17, is to the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.101 et saq.; formerly 571.21 et seq.) which apply to motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. Copies of the standards, as you were also informed, may be purchased as indicated in the enclosed Notice of Publications Change.

You stated on December 17 that you planned to include the statement of 568.4(a)(7)(iii) as part of your certification label. Based on the information you have provided, this choice appears to be consistent with the requirements of Part 568. This is because the only motor vehicle safety standard presently applicable to trailers and mobile homes in Standard No. 108. (Illegible Words) Devices, and Associated Equipment. It appears quite possible that conformance to this standard would not be substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle you manufacture.

We are pleased to be assistance.

ID: nht87-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/87

FROM: WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER -- US CONGRESS

TO: ED BABBITT -- DIRECTOR OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/13/87, TO WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A30 (2), STD 211; LETTER DATED 05/08/67 TO EARL W KINTNER FROM WILLIAM HADDON; LETTER DATED 05/10/67, TO HAROLD T. HALFPANNY FROM LOWELL K. BRIDWELL; LETTER DATED 11/06/86, TO LARRY THUNDERBIRD AND MUSTANG FROM JOHN H HEINRICH AND J. MICHAEL ZEHNER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Babbitt:

I would greatly appreciate your assistance in having the matter which follows reviewed by your legal staff:

My constituent, Ed Money, owns a business providing parts for 1960's-vintage Thunderbird and Mustang automobiles. He recently imported a shipment of "spinner hubcaps" from Taiwan for resale as aftermarket parts.

The U.S. Customs Service in Los Angeles seized these as prohibited merchandise, for violating DOT Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 49 CFR 571,211, and have fined Mr. Money for declaring that they were in conformance with all applicable safety standards, which he believed to be true. These parts are widely sold, manufactured and imported throughout the United States.

It is my understanding that such safety standards apply strictly to automotive manufacturers, and therefore that this application to a parts dealer is in error. In order to rectify this with Customs, I would like to have a review of and ruling on thi s particular standard, and its applicability to anyone other than a manufacturer of automobiles. . . in particular to an importer of parts for aftermarket sale and use.

Please direct your response, or any questions, through Mike Bonk in my office, who is in contact with the District Director of Customs in this regard. Thank you for your assistance.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

[PRICES OF HUBCAPS FROM SEVERAL SUPPLIERS OMITTED]

ID: 2660y

Mr. William T. Mullen
Undersheriff of McHenry County, Illinois
2200 N. Seminary Ave.
Woodstock, IL 60098

Dear Mr. Mullen:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for safety belts in police cars. Specifically, you asked if your police department could legally remove the automatic belts that are installed and replace them with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. You stated that the reasons for making such a substitution would be to alleviate two problems your police officers have experienced with the automatic belts that were not present in older models that had manual lap/shoulder belts at the front seating positions. First, you said that the automatic belts result in a blind spot on the driver's left side. Second, you said that the automatic belts "prevent left arm movements" of your taller officers. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

I have enclosed copies of two previous letters we have written on the subject of removing or replacing occupant protection features from police cars. The first of these is a July 29, 1985 letter to Corporal Frank Browne and the other is a May 25, 1989 letter to Senator Harry Reid. These letters explain that new vehicles purchased by police departments must be certified as complying with the occupant crash protection standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208). All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must provide automatic crash protection for front seat occupants. To date, manufacturers have provided automatic crash protection either by installing air bags or automatic safety belts. General Motors, the manufacturer of the police cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing automatic safety belts in these cars.

Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from replacing the automatic belts in these police cars with manual lap/shoulder belts. Thus, none of these commercial entities could make such a replacement on behalf of the County without violating Federal law. However, Federal law does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from removing safety features from their own vehicles. Thus, McHenry County itself can replace the automatic belts in its own cars without violating any Federal law, just as any resident of McHenry County can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating any Federal laws. Such actions may, however, violate the laws of the State of Illinois.

I recommend that you carefully consider the effects of replacing the automatic belts in your police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the County itself from making these modifications to its own vehicles. The automatic belts in these cars help to assure safety belt use by police officers on the job. Particularly since the McHenry County police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe it is important that they use safety belts for effective protection in case of a crash. If you decide to replace the automatic belts in these vehicles with manual lap/shoulder belts, we would urge you to take some actions to assure that the police officers will use the manual lap/shoulder belts every time they ride in the police cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208 d:9/l7/90

ID: aiam0983

Dear Mr. Murley: This is in response to your letter of January 31, 1973, in which yo asked us to confirm your 'understanding that FMVSS No. 121 will not apply to fire-fighting vehicles until 1 September 1976, two years from the effective date.' In general, you suggest that 'we would expect to comply with FMVSS for firefighting vehicles within two years after the effective date or two years from the date of publication of the FMVSS, whichever date occurs later'.; You have misread the relevant language of 49 CFR S 571.8. That sectio provides that the effective date of a standard as applied to firefighting vehicles is 'either 2 years after the date on which such standard or amendment is published in the Rules and Regulations section of the *Federal Register*, or the effective date specified in the notice, whichever is later', except as otherwise specified in the standard with reference to those vehicles. The alternatives are thus (a) 2 years after the publication date, or (b) the effective date, whichever is later -- *not* 2 years after the effective date, as you have read it.; Your reading would not be reasonable, since the effective date canno be before the publication date, there would be no point to the alternative phrasing.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel