ID: 86-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/86 EST

FROM: MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NHTSA

TO: CHARLES SCHAMBLIN

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schamblin:

Your letter to Elizabeth Hanford Dale. Secretary of Transportation, was forwarded to me for response.

Thank you for sending the sample of the Flag-It Fluorescent Safety Signaling Device and the information that it is being manufactured in the United States. We share your concern with the problem of school bus safety and appreciate your efforts to develop a device to reduce the problem. However, as I am sure you can understand, government agencies cannot endorse commercial products.

Thank you, again, for your interest in improving highway safety.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert Juckett -- Transglobal Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert Juckett Transglobal Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 98 Whitehall, New York 12887

This responds to your letter of September 9, 1985, regarding the applicability of Standard No. 121 to a partially used and partially new trailer. You asked whether your customer, who plans to purchase a trailer frame, air tank, and air valve from you, is responsible for compliance with Safety Standard 121. Your customer plans to mount on his newly purchased frame his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

If your customer intends to use the trailer which he is assembling for his own use, then he is not governed by the Federal motor vehicles safety standards. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:

(a) No person shall:

(1) Manufacture for sale, sell or deliver for introduction into 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 rule unless it is in conformity with such standard,

Section 102(5) of that Act defines "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles...for resale." Your customer is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless he is assembling the vehicle you mention for sale.

In the event that your customer is a manufacturer within the meaning of the Act, he may still be excepted from the requirements of Standard No. 121. You noted that your customer will mount a new trailer frame, air tank and air valve on his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles. 49 CFR Part 571.7(f) excludes from Standard No. 121 partly new and partly used trailers when the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new and was taken from an existing trailer. In addition, the reassembled vehicle must use the same vehicle identification number as the original trailer and the original trailer must be owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

09-09-85

Mr. Jeffery Miller Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. 400 - 7th Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller,

We are a new trailer manufacturer and have a question reguarding F.M.V.S.S. 121. I recently spoke to Mr. Edward Glancy of your office and he suggested writing.

We have a customer requesting to purchase a trailer frame, air tank, and air valve from us. He has told us that he is going to mount his own old suspension, wheels, brakes, and axles on this frame.

Please inform me if my interpretation is correct.

As the owner is using his existing undercarriage, he is responsible for any F.M.V.S.S. 121 compliance, as with using his existing undercarriage the trailer retains its original Vehicle Identification Number.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours.

Robert Juckett Engineering

ID: 86-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: G. F. Kirchoff -- Special Project Manager, Morton Thiokol, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

G. F. Kirchoff Special Project Manager Morton Thiokol, Inc. 3350 Airport Road Ogden, UT 84405

Thank you for your letter of November 13, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff asking how our standards would affect a diagnostic and sensor warning light for a self-contained airbag system you arc developing. You explained that the system would be mounted in the steering wheel and would have the diagnostic and sensor light located on the steering wheel horn pad.

Your warning light would be affected by Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, S4.5.2 of the standard requires crash-deployed restraint systems, such as airbag systems, to have an indicator that monitors the readiness of the system, In addition, the indicator must be clearly visible from the driver's seat. Placing your diagnostic and sensor warning light in the center of the horn pad should ensure that it is visible to the driver.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

13 November,1985 U200-FY86-060

Mr. Steve Oesch, NOA-32 U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Subject: Diagnostic and Sensor Light in Horn Pad

Morton Thiokol, Inc. is presently developing a self-contained airbag system for the automobile driver. As such, this system is planned to have a warning light in the steering wheel horn pad. It is an electrical system with the sensor and diagnostics, and capacitor power supply located in the driver module. The warning light for the diagnostics is planned to be either red or green. It would also appear to be desirable from an occupant attention standpoint to locate it on the horn pad.

We wish to insure that the placement of the warning light is in compliance with all NHTSA regulatory requirements and would appreciate your review and position on this. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

G. F. Kirchoff Special Project Manager

ID: 86-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Alan K. Simpson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 27, 1986 The Honorable Alan K. Simpson United-States Senate Washington, D.C. Dear Senator Simpson: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. W. S. Beaver, Superintendent of Schools for Sheridan County, concerning our requirements for school buses. We contacted your constituent to find out more about his concerns regarding the standard we issued for the identification of school buses. Mr. Beaver explained that he believed some allowance should be made in our regulation to permit a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) that does not have school bus warning lights to be identified as a school vehicle when the vehicle travels on hazardous mountain routes. He further informed us that, although he has recently become aware that the issue he raises primarily involves State requirements, he would appreciate a clarification of our school bus regulations. We appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations for school buses which we issued under different Acts of Congress. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and requires sellers of new school buses to ensure that the vehicle they sell complies with our school bus safety standards. While new school buses must be equipped with a system of signal lamps under Safety Standard No. 108, there is no comparable Federal requirement for MPV's. Mr. Beaver understands that this is the case for MPV's and he has no argument with the nature of those requirements. The second set to regulations applicable to school vehicles was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, and applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Under the Act, we issued a series of highway safety program standards for State highway safety program standards for State highway safety programs, one of which is Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This "standard" is more in the nature of a guideline for State school vehicle usage laws, and it is with this standard that you constituent is most concerned. HSPS No. 17 contains recommendation for the manner in which school vehicles should be identified, such as the yellow color and "School Bus" signs. It recommends that MPV's used as school vehicles should either have the warning lights, yellow color and signing of a school bus or have none of those identifying features. Mr. Beaver was concerned that this was a Federal requirement which prohibited his MPV's from being identified as school vehicles since they do not have the school bus signal lights. As your constituent now knows, this was not an accurate understanding of HSPS No. 17's recommendations. The effect of HSPS No. 17's recommendation for school bus identification is dependent on State adoption. NHTSA does not require States to adopt each aspect of our highway safety program standards, and Wyoming has discretion in adopting some or all of HSPS No. 17's recommendations. Thus, the decision whether to permit an MPV to have a school bus sign alone, without the other identifying features of school buses, is within Wyoming's discretion. Mr. Beaver informed us that he is pursuing the matter with Wyoming State officials. I hope that this information is helpful, and that you or your constituent will not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Commander, Naval Safety Center, Naval Air Station, Norfold, VA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Commander Naval Safety Center Naval Air Station Norfolk, VA 23511-5796 Ref: 5100 Ser 42/5064

Thank you for your letter of December 5, 1985, following up on a number of phone conversations between your staff and mine, concerning the effective dates of the Federal standard requiring the installation of safety belts in motor vehicles. As requested by your staff, we have prepared the enclosed information sheet to be used as a guide by your security personnel in enforcing the safety belt use requirements on naval installations. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 86-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Russ L. Bomhoff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 31, 1986 Mr. Russ L. Bomhoff Special Projects Director Precision Pattern Inc. 1643 S. Maize Road Wichita, Kansas 67209 Dear Mr. Bomhoff: Thank you for your letter of October 30, 1985, asking about the effect of our regulations on several components you wish to install in the interior of a passenger car. I hope the following discussion answers your questions. All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you are installing the components described in your letter in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, then you would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since you are modifying the interior of the passenger car, you must ensure that the vehicle will still comply with Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, a copy of which is enclosed. If you are making these alterations to a used vehicle, then you, as a commercial business, would be covered by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with Federal safety standards. Thus, in installing the components you described, you cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201 or any of our other standards. The potential effect of Standard No. 201 on each of the components you asked about is discussed below. Front and rear cooler consoles. S3.1 of the standard sets performance requirements for the instrument panel. S3.1.1(a) of the standard specifically provides that the instrument panel requirements do not apply to console assemblies. We would consider both the front and rear seat coolers to be console assemblies and thus exempt from the requirements of S3.1. S3.3 of the standard requires interior compartment door assemblies located in an instrument panel, a console assembly, a seat back, or a side panel adjacent to a designated seating position to remain closed under certain test conditions. The purpose of the requirement is to prevent a door from flying open and striking an occupant in a crash. The doors in the front and rear consoles would have to meet this requirement. Seat back fold-down tables. S3.2 of the standard sets performance requirements to limit injuries caused when rear seat occupants strike the seat backs in front of them. You would have to ensure that the seat backs would still comply with S3.2 when the fold-down tables are installed. The fold-down tables mounted in the seat back and the door do not have to meet the requirement in S3.3 for interior compartment doors. However, since both those items are hinged surfaces which could fly open in a crash and pose a hazard to an occupant in a crash, we urge you to ensure that the tables will be adequately secured in a crash. S3.5 of the standard sets requirements for armrests. You would have to ensure that the vehicle will still comply with S3.5 when the fold-down table is installed in the door. TV/VCR Cabinet There are no requirements that apply to the TV/VCR cabinet. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 31, 1986

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Clennie H. Murphy, Jr. -- Acting Associate Commissioner, Head Start Bureau

TITLE: School Bus Regulations of the NHTSA and Head Start Buses

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Charles Pekow; Also attached to letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to Chuck Anderson (A39; VSA 103 (i))

TEXT:

The purpose of this memorandum is to comment on the draft memorandum you provided us which discusses our requirements under Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to further clarify our regulations for school buses.

On October 25, 1985, Mr. Hilton Baines, Program Director for Region VII, Department of Public Health and Human Services, requested information from you on the applicability of HSPS No. 17 to Head Start programs. Mr. Baines referred to a "Day Car U.S.A." newsletter which stated that, in 1977, NHTSA determined that buses used to transport children to and from Head Start facilities are considered school buses and must meet all Federal school bus safety standards. This statement is essentially correct. However, in continuing its discussion of NHTSA's requirements, the newsletter expanded on the requirements of "Standard 17," without properly distinguishing a discussion of this standard from the "Federal school bus safety standards" to which it had referred previously. In so doing, the newsletter implied that NHTSA requires buses used by Head Start facilities to meet all requirements of Highway Program Standard No. 17. Mr. Baines asked whether NHTSA does indeed require this of Head Start buses.

Unfortunately, the implication made in the newsletter is misleading. Its determination that HSPS No. 17 is binding on Head Start buses apparently resulted from confusing two separate sets of regulations for school buses that were issued by NHTSA under different Acts of Congress. Our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses ("the Federal school bus safety standards") were issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1381 et seq.; hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), while HSPS No. 17 is part of the series of highway safety program standards NHTSA promulgated under the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401-408). Both sets have requirements for school buses, but differ in their application.

The Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress amended that Act to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus performance, including emergency exits, windows and windshields, seating systems, and crashworthiness of bus body and frame. The school bus safety standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. Those standards, together with the other motor vehicle safety standards issued by NHTSA, are set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 571.

In the 1974 amendment to the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress also directed NHTSA to establish a regulatory definition of "school bus" which encompasses buses which are significantly used to transport "primary, preprimary, or secondary school students" to or from such schools or related events. Our definition of a "school bus" is set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.3(b). Under our definitions, a vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is a "bus," and is a "school bus" if sold for school-related events. Head Start centers, whose functions are primarily educational, are considered by NHTSA to be "preprimary schools" falling under the ambit of the Vehicle Safety Act.

The Vehicle Safety Act applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and prohibits the manufacture and sale of any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. It requires persons selling new buses to schools to ensure that the vehicle complies with all Federal safety standards for school buses. Since Head Start facilities are considered to be "schools," any person selling a new bus (i.e., a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons) to such schools must sell a complying school bus. If any new bus does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties. The Vehicle Safety Act, however, does not apply to motor vehicle use, and therefore does not require Head Start centers to USE school buses that comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. The requirements governing the USE of a motor vehicle after it is sold is a matter of state law.

As your draft memorandum stated, NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17 under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. The standard contains a number of recommendations to the states covering pupil transportation operations, and applies to state highway safety programs receiving Section 402 funds. However, while the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act are Federal requirements imposed on school bus sellers regardless of state law implementation, NHTSA has provided the states some discretion in adopting HSPS No. 17. A state might be receiving S402 funds under the Highway Safety Act even though its highway safety program requirements for pupil transportation are not identical to those of Standard No. 17.

The applicability of HSPS No. 17 to Head Start center vehicles depends on State adoption of that standard. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the requirements of HSPS No. 17 as part of their own highway safety programs, and a state might have requirements patterned after the recommendations of HSPS No. 17 for the use of school vehicles, including Head Start buses. Those requirements might apply to a Head Start center even though the center might not be a direct recipient of S402 funds. Therefore, the regulations for school vehicle use are those set by the individual states, and a particular state's requirements would determine the operational standards for Head Start center vehicles operating in that state.

ID: 86-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Donald L. Stephens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 3, 1986 Mr. Donald L. Stephens Paccar Technical Center 1261 Highway 237 Mount Vernon, Washington 98237 Dear Mr. Stephens: This responds to your letter of September 13, 1985, asking two questions regarding the legality of an air brake system which proportions the amount of air brake pressure delivered to the drive axles of a tandem drive tractor. By "proportions", you refer to the reduction of the applied air pressure at all treadle positions in rough proportion to the load carried by the tires. Your first question is whether an air brake system such as the one you described would be legal if it otherwise complies with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, (49 CFR 571.121). You also would like to know if it would be legal for you to remove the front axle limiting valve in the design you propose. By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. In response to your first question, the NHTSA's regulations do not address the matter of proportioning. Standard No. 121 does not specify the design of brake system components; rather, it establishes a performance level. A brake system which proportions the amount of air brake pressure delivered to the drive axles of a tandem drive tractor is not prohibited if it otherwise meets Standard No. 121. As to your second question, NHTSA regulations do not require nor do they prohibit a vehicle from having a front axle limiting valve. Therefore, vehicles need not have these valves in order to meet our standard and you are not prohibited from removing the front axle limiting valve in the design you propose. In fact, an interim technical report of the NHTSA Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Research Program, published April, 1985, concluded that automatic front axle limiting valves in many vehicles. significantly degrade straight line performance in the empty mode and on wet surfaces. However, if a vehicle does have an automatic pressure limiting valve, it must meet the test requirements set out in S6.1.8.1 of Standard 121. Sincerely, Original Signed by Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 3, 1986 Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson P.O. Box 23314 Jacksonville, FL 32217 Dear Ms. Syverson: Thank you for your letter of January 7, 1986, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to a sun shading product you enclosed with you letter and asking whether the product complies with our standards. The product is a rolldown sun shade, which when extended cover a 15 x 18 inch area of a vehicle window with a piece of perforated plastic. The product is designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to this product. Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA , however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically test vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety. We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. these requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one enclosed in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles. If you need further information, please let me know. I an returning, under separate cover, the sample you sent. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Shintaro Nakatasuka

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 3, 1986 Mr. Shintaro Nakatasuka Manager, Certification Business Dept. II Mazda Motor Corporation P.O. Box 18 Hiroshima 703 91 Japan Dear Mr. Nakatasuka: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked two separate questions, which are discussed in detail below. First, you stated that you plan to introduce a 1987 carline in February 1986. This particular carline has been selected as one that will be subject to the requirements of Part 541. However, Part 541 does not become effective until April 24, 1986. You stated your belief that the introduction of the 1987 vehicles before the effective date of Part 541 means that none of the 1987 vehicles in that carline will be required to comply with Part 541. Your belief is a correct interpretation. Nevertheless, you stated that Mazda would voluntarily comply with the requirements of Part 541 for the 1987 vehicles in that carline produced after April 24, 1986, the effective date for Part 541. You asked whether your voluntary marking of some of the 1987 vehicles in that carline would cause this agency to conclude that all of the 1987 vehicles in that carline were not in compliance with Part 541. It will not. As you noted, the effective date for Part 541 is April 24, 1986. This effective date means that Part 541 applies to all selected carlines beginning with the 1987 model year. However, the legislative history for Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings aCT (14 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.), which Title requires that Part 541 be promulgated, expressly states: "The (theft prevention) standard cannot apply to a car in the middle of the model year." H.R, Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2 Sess. at 11 (1984). For purposes of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, NHTSA believes that the model year for a carline begins on the day on which a vehicle in that carline is introduced into commerce in the United States. Hence, if a 1987 model year vehicle in a carline is introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541, the 1987 model for that carline would have begun prior to the effective date of the theft prevention standard. Obviously, the requirements of any standard do not apply before the effective date. Given the clear expression of Congressional intent that this theft prevention standard cannot apply to a carline in the middle of its model year, NHTSA concludes that a 1987 model year version of a carline introduced into commerce before the effective date of the theft prevention standard is not subject to the requirements of the theft prevention standard for the 1987 model year. It would, of course, be subject to the requirements for the 1988 model year. Having concluded that the theft prevention standard does not apply to such 1987 model year vehicles, any voluntary actions taken by the vehicle manufacturer cannot affect this conclusion. Your company may choose to mark the 1987 vehicles in this carline introduced on or after the effective date of Part 541, as your letter indicates you plan to so. On the other hand, you may choose not to mark those or any of the 1987 vehicles in this carline. Whichever course of action you choose does not change the fact that Part 541 does not apply to the 1987 model year vehicles of a carline introduced into commerce before April 24, 1986. Second, you stated that Part 541 was unclear as to whether a metal tag stamped with the vehicle identification number and affixed to a vehicle part by means of "one-way screws" would be considered "labels", subject to the requirements of section 541.5(d)(1), or "other means of identification, subject to the requirements of section 541.5(d)(2). All means of identification which are affixed to a part are considered labels for purposes of Part 541. Section 541.5 expressly states that the required markings "must be affixed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section or inscribed by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section" (Emphasis added). All markings which are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, one-way screws, rivets, or welding, are labels. As such, those markings must satisfy all the requirements of section 541.5(d)(1). Conversely, all markings which are inscribed into a part, whether by means of etching, stamping, engraving, or sandblasting, are other means of identification. As such, those markings must satisfy all the requirements of section 541.5(d)(2). If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel