ID: aiam1579

Dear Mr. Tsukano:#This responds to your August 1, and July 30, 1974 request for approval of hydraulic and vacuum brake hose labeling. We have evaluated your examples based on the labeling requirements of the standard as amended by Notice 11 of Docket No. 1-5.#The hydraulic brake hose marking on 'Face A' appears to conform to the requirements of S5.2.2, assuming that letter 'size' refers to letter height. The interval between markings, represented by '--', also conform. 'Face B' is not regulated by our standard.#With regard to the markings for brake hose end fittings, the date (indicated by 'XY') is not required. If you choose to add the date to your markings, it should not interfere with the legibility of the required markings. I would like to point out that under Notice 11, the marking requirements do not apply to end fittings 'attached by deformation of the fitting about a hose crimping or swaging.' This means that hydraulic hose fittings for use in passenger cars need not be labeled.#The brake hose assembly markings you submit appear to conform to the requirements of the standard.#With regard to vacuum brake hose, your 'Face A' appears to conform to S5.2.2 if letter 'size' refers to letter height. S5.2.1 is not applicable and therefore the stripe is not required. 'Face B' is not regulated by our standard.#We have placed 'MRCC' on file as the manufacturer designation for your company. #Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson;

ID: aiam3397

Dear Mr. Echelberry: This is in response to the vehicle owner's questionnaire you forwarde on March 9, 1981, concerning the installation of computer terminals in patrol cars assigned to the city of Miami Police Department. The questionnaire was recently forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether the installation violated any safety standards.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection i Interior Impact*, a copy of which is enclosed, specifies performance requirements for the instrument panel. It can't be determined from the information you provided whether the terminals are located within an area of vehicle covered by that standard. The standard generally regulates only the upper portion of the dashboard. If it is located within the regulated zone, the installation of the computer terminal on the vehicle's instrument panel may be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....<<<; Modification of the instrument panel by a manufacturer, distributor dealer or motor vehicle repair business during the installation of the computer terminals so that it no longer complies with Standard No. 201 would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 21490importtiresneb

Mr. Reginald Williams
A.N. Deringer, Inc.
48 Customs Loop
Houlton, ME 04730

Dear Mr. Williams:

This responds to your March 31, 2000, letter requesting information regarding the requirements for "DOT safety compliance labeling required on the tires." You state in your letter that you are a United States customs broker located in Houlton, Maine and that you have three clients interested in importing new and retreaded tires into the United States from Canada.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

It is not clear from your letter whether your clients are interested in importing passenger car tires or tires for use on other motor vehicles. To ensure that you receive the information that is of concern to you, I will discuss requirements for new and retreaded tires for use on both passenger cars and on other motor vehicles.

Generally speaking, all tires which are subject to a FMVSS must have the symbol "DOT" molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard.

With regard to new tires, FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires (copy enclosed), and FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims (copy enclosed), specify performance standards and labeling requirements for new passenger car tires and rims. FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed), and FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed), specify performance standards and labeling requirements applicable to tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping (copy enclosed), requires new tire manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto one tire sidewall a tire identification number (TIN) and specifies methods by which new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners shall maintain records of tire purchasers. 49 CFR 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS) (copy enclosed), requires new motor vehicle and new tire manufacturers and brand name owners to provide information to consumers concerning the relative performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The UTQGS grades are also required to be molded into or onto the tire sidewall.

The labeling requirements specified in the regulations referred to above apply to the actual tire manufacturers and/or brand name owners, and the required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers. A "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles or equipment or one who imports motor vehicles or equipment for resale.

Concerning retreaded tires, FMVSS No. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires (copy enclosed), specifies performance, labeling, and certification requirements for retreaded pneumatic passenger car tires. No FMVSS is applicable to retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. These tires may be imported without certification of compliance by the retreader and a DOT symbol must not appear on these tires as indicated in 49 CFR 574.5. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 Part CFR 574, if they are to be legally sold in the United States.

In sum, all new or retreaded tires sold or imported into the United States for sale must comply with all applicable FMVSSs and regulations as discussed above. For you and your clients' information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

If the tires in question are intended for or capable of being used on a commercial vehicle, you may want to check with the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at (202) 366-1790, for information about any applicable requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:109#110#117#119#120
d.5/10/00

ID: nht92-1.25

DATE: 12/11/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: GUY MOZZICATO -- MERIDIAN, INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 6-18-81 FROM FRANK BERNDT TO ROY LITTLEFIELD

TEXT: This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on November 16, 1992.

You explained to Mr. Myers that your company, Meridian, Inc., exports used tires and casings from the United States to other countries. You stated that although your company endeavors to export only good quality tires, other used tire exporters are not so quality-oriented and export defective or otherwise unserviceable tires. You further stated that as a result of such unscrupulous practices, the country of Venezuela has asked you what the requirements are for importation of used tires into the United States.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S. Code, @@ 1381 - 1431, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act), provides at Section 1397(a)(1)(A): "No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . ." The effect of that language is to require that motor vehicle tires, whether new or used, manufactured on and after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be imported into the United States. Manufacturers must certify such compliance by molding the symbol "DOT" onto the tire sidewalls. Therefore, to be legally imported into the United States motor vehicle tires must either display the DOT symbol or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before the effective date of the applicable safety standards.

The only exception to the above requirement is that used truck tires which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are being imported for retreading prior to on-road use may be imported without displaying the DOT symbol. This exception is explained in a June 18, 1981 letter addressed to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA (copy enclosed).

The standards that apply to passenger car tires are Standard 109, New Pneumatic Tires, and Standard 110, Tire Selection and Rims, found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.109 and 571.110 respectively. The standards applicable to tires for vehicles other than passenger cars are Standard 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.119; and Standard 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.110. Other regulatory requirements pertinent to tires are Standard 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires; Standard 129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars; 49 CFR Part 569, Regrooved Tires; 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping; and 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations. For your information, I am enclosing a fact sheet prepared by this agency entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations which explains how and from where the full text of our safety standards and regulations may be obtained.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding any of these matters, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-5830.

ID: 1984-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. R. Kittle -- Director, Vehicle Safety and Emissions, Chrysler Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated July 20, 1984, for a determination that the noncompliance therein described with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Paragraph S4.3 of this standard requires that the specified placard show the recommended tire size designation. Chrysler has provided labels on 11,500 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state "P215-7OR15" but the correct information is "P205-75R15." However, Chrysler is mailing correct placards "on a customer satisfaction basis to owners of all subject vehicles."

By providing the corrective placard, Chrysler has remedied the noncompliance. Because the noncompliance no longer exists, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moct. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Chrysler has provided owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek re-notice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.

The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and do not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.

SINCERELY,

July 20, 1984

Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Steed:

In accordance with the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and 49 CFR Part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance, Chrysler Corporation herewith submits a Petition for Exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of Section 151 of the Act and 49 CFR Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification, on the grounds that the subject condition is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation was initially notified of this condition and Chrysler's intention to petition for exemption through our submission of a Noncompliance Information Report dated May 23, 1984.

Sincerely,

W. R. Kittle -- CHRYSLER CORPORATION

Enclosure

PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

Applicant

Chrysler Corporation, located in Detroit, Michigan 48288 and incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

Affected Vehicles

Exemption is sought for a total of approximately 11,500 vehicles produced by Chrysler Corporation for sale in the United States. The involved vehicles are 1984 Dodge Diplomat and Plymouth Gran Fury passenger cars produced from mid-September, 1983 through late-April, 1984.

Noncompliance for Which Exemption Is Sought

Chrysler Corporation petitions to be exempted from the notification, remedy, and further reporting requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a discrepancy in the minimum tire size designation exhibited by the tire placard provided on the subject vehicles as required by S4.3 of FMVSS 110, Tire Selection and Rims, on the basis that the discrepancy is inconsequential in relation to motor vehicle safety.

Specifically, the discrepancy is that the provided tire placard displays the recommended minimum tire size as P215/70R15, whereas it should designate P205/75R15 which is the actual size of the tire installed on these vehicles. All other information shown on the placard is correct. The enclosure shows copies of both the improper and proper placards for the subject vehicles.

Data, Views, and Arguments Supporting This Petition for Exemption

Chrysler's position that the subject discrepancy is inconsequential in relation to motor vehicle safety is based on the following evaluation factors:

1) The installed P205/75R15 tire is adequate for the subject vehicles in all regards. Its load rating exceeds the maximum vehicle capacity loading on the tire by a substantial margin -- 21%.

2) The placard designated P215/70R15 tire is also adequate for the subject vehicles in all regards. It is listed in the Operator's Manual provided in these vehicles as an allowable tire, and is in fact specified as the minimum size tire for fleet versions of these vehicles.

3) The load carrying capacity of the placard designated P215/70R15 tire is greater than that of the installed P205/75R15 tire.

4) The subject placard information creates no concern regarding potential improper tire selection because: a) The placard designated P215/70R15 tire is available and suitable for use on these vehicles.

b) Sidewalls of the installed tires display the intended P205/75R15 minimum size designation.

c) The Operator's Manual provided in these vehicles properly specifies the P205/75R15 tire as the minimum size tire.

5) Chrysler is not aware of any owner complaints, field reports, or allegations of hazardous circumstances relating to tire placard information on the subject vehicles.

6) Application of the incorrect placard to the subject vehicles was the result of an inadvertent design release error. A placard intended only for fleet vehicles was mistakenly also released for non-fleet vehicles.

7) Existence of the subject condition was detected during routine evaluation of a production vehicle. Chrysler then took immediate, expedited action to institute use of the correct placards for vehicle assembly plant installation.

8) Chrysler is mailing correct placards on a customer satisfaction basis to owners of all subject vehicles shipped prior to production correction. This is to avoid confusing or misleading an owner who may rely on the placard information when selecting replacement tires.

Summary

We believe that the information provided herein clearly demonstrates that the effect of the subject discrepancy in tire placard information on the subject vehicles is inconsequential with respect to motor vehicle safety. It is Chrysler's evaluation that the discrepant information creates no safety-related concern with respect to either tire loading or replacement tire selection.

Existence of the discrepant tire placard information was totally inadvertant and not a deliberate attempt to evade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements. Upon discovery of the condition, Chrysler Corporation took immediate action to correct it in production and minimize the number of vehicles produced with the discrepant tire placard information.

Therefore, in spite of good faith and due care efforts by Chrysler Corporation, a number of production vehicles were manufactured and shipped with the discrepant tire placard information. Chrysler Corporation is notifying affected owners of the condition and providing them replacement placards on a customer satisfaction basis. We respectfully request that this Petition for Exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Act relative to these vehicles be granted.

[Illustrations Omitted]

Correct Placard

Wrong Placard Enclosure

ID: nht87-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Andrew G. Baird -- Executive Director, North Platte Development Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 9/15/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to W. Alex Cantrell (Std. 114)

TEXT:

Mr. Andrew G. Baird, II Executive Director North Platte Development Corporation P.O. Box 968 North Platte, NE 69101

This responds to your letter concerning a design for a remote automatic starting system for motor vehicles. Enclosed is a copy of a September 15, 1986 letter, addressed to C&A Control Systems, Inc., which discusses the general issues raised by your l etter. Also enclosed is a copy of an information sheet which we prepared for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

While remote automatic starting systems can be designed so that they do not conflict with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, you should be aware that this agency strongly advises that cars should never be left unattended with the engine running. Remote automatic starting systems create that vehicle condition. I am enclosing a copy of a recent press release which cautions motorists that allowing a cold engine to idle for an extended period of time could lead to a fire. The agency has previously w arned of the danger of inadvertent movement by unattended cars which are left running.

I urge you to consider these and other safety issues as you evaluate the safety of your device.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY NHTSA 07-87 March 13, 1987 Contact: Barry McCahill Tel.: (202) 366-955)

SAFETY AGENCY WARMS MOTORISTS TO AVOID LONG ENGINE WARM-UPS

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today cautioned motorists that allowing a cold engine to idle for an extended period could lead to a fire.

The safety agency explained that when an engine is cold, most vehicles equipped with a carburetor will idle fast while the choke is on until the operator depresses the accelerator pedal to return the idle to normal. If the operator neglects to do this, o r is away from the vehicle, the engine may operate too long with the choke on, the catalytic converter could overheat and a fire could result. Due to vehicle differences, NHTSA suggests that drivers should consult their owner's manual to determine how lo ng the manufacturer advises that an engine can be idled safely.

"Fortunately, these fires are rare events," according to NHTSA Administrator Diane K. Steed. "But incidents have been reported to us, typically when a car is left idling and the operator goes back into the house while it warms up. Under no circumstances, even in warm weather, should a car be left unattended with the engine running."

Steed urged motorists to follow carefully the manufacturer's warm-up procedure. In addition, these safety precautions should be followed:

o The engine should not be running while someone is clearing the windshield or windows of frost, snow or dew.

o If, after a brief warm-up, the vehicle hesitates or stalls, have it serviced rather than opting for a longer warm-up period.

o Before leaving any vehicle, turn off the ignition and set the parking brake. If the vehicle is equipped with an automatic transmission also, make sure the gear selector is in the "park" position.

Motorists who experience a fire associated with engine warm-up, or any other safety-related motor vehicle problem, are urged to call NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline on (800) 424-9393.

December 15, 1968

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway & Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th, S.W. Washington' D.C. 20590 NOA-30

Dear Sirs:

Please find enclosed a diagram and explanation of a Remote Automatic Starting System for motor vehicles. Please review and notify me if there are any problems with this system under Federal Regulations or Statutes.

I have spoken to Mr. Kenneth Rutland of N.H.T.S.A. about this device and he referred me to your office. From our conversation I feel that he will probably do the review of the system.

If you have any questions, please contact either myself or the inventor, Mr. Dale Gleason at 308-532-8466.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

ANDREW G. BAIRD, II Executive Director North Platte Development Corporation

/mjh Encl. cc. Dale Gleason Rex Martin, NE Tech. Assistance Center

REMOTE FREQUENCY CENTER, Similar to a Garage Door Opener

The Signal receiver activates a number one relay, and as soon as that is activated it puts juice to the ignition side of the coil or the electronic module, in case of electronic ignition. . . . Also supplies power to an electric switch that is closed unt il the rpm reaches 500 rpm. The juice then goes to a timer, starts a timer sequence that activates the glow plugs for 30 sec., and after 30 sec. it activates a number 3 relay, which throws juice to the starter solonoid and also to a throttle solonoid. Th e throttle solonoid cracks the throttle open one-third throttle and lets the automatic choke close. . . . . Same time we're crankin' the engine. As soon as the engine starts, the rpm reaches 500 rpm the electric switch closes, shutin' off the power to th e timer, which sets off power to the starter solonoid and throttle lever. The throttle goes back into normal position of high-idle and choke that's already on the car. In case of a No-start the timer will activate starter for 15 seconds, then off for 30 seconds, and then the whole cycle will start over. . . . . glow plugs, starter & throttle lever.

We have a master toggle switch to are the number 1 relay, which is turned on after you park your car that arms the number 1 relay, and when you hit your remote button in the morning, you can start the machine from inside the house, or wherever you want t o be.

We are going to hook it up on the neutral side of the safety switch so the unit would have to be in Park or Neutral before it would activate the starter.

Until the key is in place and release the steering column the car cannot be placed in gear. The system does not bypass the locking mechanism.

What we're doin' is starting the car, defrosting the windows , warming the engine up, and stop some people from driving while looking through a little three inch hole cuz they're too lazy to scrape the windows! A safety precaution. Also precludes cold en gine stalls.

The car must be "in tune", because if you have a car that you have to go out there an pump the throttle, this is not going to work... and it will not work if the car is sittin' out in 20o below 0 weather either, unless the car is well "in-tune". But we a re not bypassing any neutral safety switches, and will absolutely NOT start the car, if the car is in gear! At this time it is for automatic transmissions only. . . .We have not figured out a way to put it on a standard transmission that could accidently be started in gear. All the automatics do have a neutral safety switch.

ID: 2741y

William F. Canever, Esq.
Staff Attorney
Office of General Counsel
Ford Motor Company
The American Road
Dearborn, MI 48l2l

Dear Mr. Canever:

This responds to your letter concerning the implications under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy ("CAFE") program of the acquisition by Ford Motor Company ("Ford") of Jaguar plc ("Jaguar"). You stated that you believe all Ford and Jaguar vehicles produced and imported for model year ("MY") 1989 should be placed in Ford's fleet.

As discussed below, we have concluded that Ford's acquisition of Jaguar did not take place until MY 1990. Thus, Ford and Jaguar vehicles constituted separate fleets for MY 1989. As a consequence, while the fuel economy credits earned by the combined Ford/Jaguar fleet in MY l990 may be applied to reduce (or eliminate) Jaguar's CAFE shortfall in MY 1987 and later years, the credits earned by Ford in MY 1989 may not be applied to offset any Jaguar shortfall.

According to your letter, Ford publicly announced its tender offer for Jaguar shares on November 2, l989. This occurred after Ford had obtained the agreement of the Board of Directors of Jaguar to recommend the offer. The offer document, which constituted the formal legal offer, was mailed on November 8. After over 50 percent of Jaguar stock had been tendered, Ford declared the tender offer "unconditional" on December l0, l989.

You stated that during the period of negotiation, tender offer, and acceptance, and continuing through the end of calender year l989, Ford was "manufacturing" MY l989 vehicles. Apparently, that statement is based on your statement that a small number of MY l989 Jaguar and Aston Martin vehicles were imported into the United States "through calendar year end l989." You argued that because Ford controlled Jaguar and the importer of Jaguar vehicles prior to the time that the last of these MY l989 vehicles were imported, and because fuel economy standards apply to particular model years as a whole and not to separate parts of a model year, all Ford and Jaguar vehicles produced and imported for MY l989 should be placed in Ford's fleet. You contended that this treatment would be consistent with that accorded Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler") and American Motors Corporation ("AMC") for model year l987.

We disagree with your analysis comparing your situation to that of Chrysler/AMC, given significant differences in the timing of the respective acquisitions. In a letter to Chrysler dated April 4, l990, NHTSA stated the following:

Another issue raised by Chrysler's memorandum is whether Chrysler and AMC became the same manufacturer for fuel economy purposes for model year l987. According to the memorandum, Chrysler agreed to acquire AMC in the spring of l987, and the transaction closed on August 6, l987. . . . Since Chrysler controlled AMC prior to the end of the l987 model year, and since fuel economy standards apply to particular model years as a whole and not to separate parts of a model year, it is our opinion that all of the vehicles produced by both Chrysler and AMC for model year l987 shall be treated as if manufactured by the same manufacturer, i.e., placed into one fleet. Otherwise, one or both of the manufacturers would have two separate CAFE values, pre-acquisition (or pre-control) and post-acquisition (or post-control), for the same model year.

We continue to adhere to our view that where one manufacturer acquires another during a model year, they should be deemed as the same manufacturer, with a single CAFE value, for that model year. However, in the Chrysler/AMC acquisition, all relevant aspects of the transaction took place during the l987 model year.

As you know, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act ("Act") establishes time limits within which NHTSA must establish and/or amend fuel economy standards for a given model year that are based upon the beginning of the model year. See sections 502(b) and 502(f)(2) of the Act. In interpreting those provisions, both NHTSA and the courts have concluded that the model year is traditionally thought to start approximately October l. See In re Center for Auto Safety, 793 F.2d l346, l349 (D.C. Cir. l986); 49 Fed. Reg. 225l6 (May 30, l984); 49 Fed. Reg. 4l250 (October 22, l984). See also General Motors Corporation v. NHTSA, 898 F.2d l65, l76 (D.C. Cir. l990); Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA, 7l0 F.2d 842, 847 (D.C. Cir. l983).

In the Chrysler/AMC case, all relevant aspects of the transaction were completed well before the completion of MY 1987, i.e., September 30, l987. Conversely, in the Ford/Jaguar transaction, Ford made its tender offer in early November 1989 and declared the tender offer "unconditional" on December 10, 1989. These dates and any other possible date for the acquisition are clearly within the l990 model year, which began on approximately October l, l989.

We recognize that manufacturers may produce or import vehicles that are designated as belonging to a particular model year after October l of that year. However, for purposes of deciding the model year in which one manufacturer acquires another, we have concluded that the traditional model year is the appropriate frame of reference.

This conclusion is supported by the fact that by early November l989, the earliest date referred to in your letter, when Ford made its tender offer, it had been selling its MY l990 models for over a month. The fact that Ford or Jaguar may have produced or imported a small number of MY 1989 cars after the date of the acquisition is not determinative, since it has always been the case that model years can overlap for a given manufacturer, and some prior model year cars may be produced after the commencement of a given model year. Thus, any MY 1989 Jaguar vehicles that were imported during the last three months of 1989 should be included in Jaguar's MY 1989 fleet, as they would have been had the acquisition not occurred.

I note that your letter indicated that Ford intended to file its Final l989 Model Year Report under the CAFE program with all MY 1989 Jaguar vehicles included in Ford's fleet. You stated, however, that you would not file that Report until you received this agency's views on the propriety of that action. For the reasons set out above, we believe that Ford and Jaguar had separate, distinct fleets in MY 1989, and that therefore separate information should be filed for that model year.

I hope that this letter adequately explains our position on these issues. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

d:l0/22/90 ref:50l(8)#50l(l2)

ID: 9663

Mr. Ilmars Ozols
2925 Escoba Drive, Unit 206
Palm Springs, CA 92264

Dear Mr. Ozols:

This responds to your February 8, 1994, letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Serv-o-tray. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations.

It appears from the enclosed technical description and photograph that the Serve-o-tray is a folding adjustable table designed to mount between the driver and passenger seats of a vehicle, and hold food, drinks, etc. As depicted, the Serv-o- tray is secured to the center console with an adhesive pad. The table is mounted on a swiveling, articulated, lockable arm that is composed of two horizontal and two vertical tubular support members. The Serv-o-tray is made of injection molded plastic and is capable of supporting up to 20 pounds, including a laptop computer. You explain that your product is intended to be used while the vehicle is stationary or moving.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the Serv-o-tray, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Serv-o-tray relates to motor vehicle operation, by allowing the occupants to eat while operating the car. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While the Serv-o-tray is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

This agency is very concerned about the safety implications of the Serv-o-tray, especially if it is swiveled in front of the occupants in an air bag-equipped vehicle. Under the provisions of FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," all new cars and trucks must be equipped with a driver side and passenger side air bag by September 1, 1998. Manufacturers are already producing ever increasing numbers of air bag-equipped cars and trucks. The enclosed document entitled "Sudden Impact" describes the speed with which an air bag deploys. Should the Serv-o-tray be installed in an air bag- equipped vehicle, the occupants could be at risk of injury or death from the interaction of the deploying air bag and the Serv-o-tray or its contents. To protect the occupant, this agency will require that every new vehicle with an air bag be provided with a caution label that states, among other things, "TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY . . . Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag and yourself." As you can see, the installation of a Serv-o-tray could be contrary to this warning.

There are other potential safety problems associated with the Serv-o-tray. Even without being propelled by an air bag, the Serv-o-tray or its contents could impact the occupant's head, abdomen or lower extremities during a collision. It also seems possible that the Serv-o-tray could interfere with the driver's use of the vehicle's transmission shift lever in an emergency situation. We ask that you consider these and all possible safety impacts of the Serv-o-tray.

If the Serv-o-tray were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Serv-o-tray installed, complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by the Serv-o-tray installation are Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact" (copy enclosed), and Standard No. 208.

A commercial business that installs the Serv-o-tray would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your product if the Serv-o-tray renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, installing the Serv-o-tray in front of the driver or passenger could degrade the performance of an air bag or the seat belts in the vehicle. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Serv-o-tray in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your product would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d:5/6/94

ID: aiam3356

Dear Mr. Kuhns: This responds to your letter of August 10, 1980, in which you as whether your proposed urban transport vehicle would be classified as an automobile or a motorcycle.; The agency's definition of 'motorcycle' is given in 49 CFR S 571.3 which reads in part:; >>>'Motorcycle' means a motor vehicle with motive power having a sea or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.<<<; Based on our understanding of your drawings, your proposed vehicle ha more than three wheels. If our understanding is correct, your vehicle would be classified as a passenger car rather than as a motorcycle.; The requirements for passenger cars are more stringent than fo motorcycles. We have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by the agency which gives a brief summary of the requirements and applicability of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (issued as of August 1978). However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. We have enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain up-to-date copies of our standards and other regulations.; This agency does not license any vehicles for street or highway use Licensing is handled by the States. We specify performance requirements, and any motor vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer as being in compliance with all applicable safety standards as of the date of its manufacture. If the vehicle complies with these requirements, we specify no further steps which must be taken.; The agency will provide confidential treatment for your letter an accompanying drawings.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2381

Dear Mr. Butler: Your letter of June 23, 1976, forwarding correspondence from one o your constituents, Mr. Ralph L. Lichtfuss, concerning the effect of Federal bumper requirements on insurance costs, has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by the Federal Trade Commission for reply.; Mr. Lichtfuss cites a newspaper article in which escalating insuranc rates are attributed to inflation. As an example of the inflationary impact in this area, the article's author states that the cost of the 1970 Ford LTD front bumper was $68.00, while the cost of the same component on the 1976 LTD model is $334.90. Mr. Lichtfuss asks whether Federal regulations are responsible for this cost increase and the resulting escalation in insurance premiums.; A part of the increased cost is due to Federal regulation. Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, requires that cars be capable of sustaining 5 mph barrier and pendulum impacts without experiencing damage to specified safety components. Compliance with this standard by motor vehicle manufacturers has been achieved by upgrading the vehicle bumper system. Although the new bumpers cost more, they protect vehicles during low-speed crashes far better than the old 'cosmetic' bumpers.; The higher costs are offset to a significant degree by savings i insurance costs. The insurance industry has supported the standard throughout, and currently takes the position that a weakening of the standard would increase liability costs for insured motorists and out-of-pocket expenses for those without collision insurance.; It appears from the insurance industry position, as reflected in th enclosed press release, that the Federal requirements mandating more efficient bumpers are not responsible for increases in automobile insurance rates.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel