ID: 1984-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nichirin Rubber Industrial Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. Takashi Shimoda Nichirin Rubber Industrial Company, Inc. 1118 Sazuchi, Bessho-cho Himeji-City, 671-02 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Shimoda:

This responds to your October 8, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses.

Your first question asked about the manufacturer designation required by S7.2.3(b) of Standard No. 106. According to your letter, "NCRN" has been filed with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards as the designation identifying you as the manufacturer of brake hose. You asked whether you must re-register your designation again in order to manufacture air brake hose assemblies. The answer is no. The designation is intended to identify the manufacturer or assembler of brake hoses in the event of a safety-related defect or a noncompliance necessitated recall. You need register this designation with NHTSA only once, even if you also manufacture air brake hose assemblies.

Your second question asked about 49 CFR Part 393.45, which is referenced in S7.3.10 and S7.3.11 of FMVSS No. 106. Part 393.45 references, among other standards, SAE Standards J1403c for air brake hose assemblies, and J844d for nonmetallic air brake system tubing. You asked whether your understanding is correct that your air brake hose assemblies are required to comply with both FMVSS No. 106 and SAE J1403c. As explained below, your brake hoses are only required to comply with Standard No. 106.

Sections 7.3.10 and 7.3.11 of Standard No. 106 provide that only "coiled nylon tube assemblies" designed for use between frame and axle or between a towed and a towing vehicle are required to comply with Part 393.45. Based on the description in your letter, we believe that the assemblies you manufacture are not coiled nylon tube assemblies. Therefore, your assemblies must conform only to the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 106.

Your third question asked whether Standard No. 106 applies to hoses labeled (A), (B), (C) and (D) in your illustration. As explained below, we conclude that the standard applies to (A), (B) and (C) since, as we understand your letter, if one of these hoses were to fail, the brake system could not be operated.

"Brake hose" is defined by the standard as:

a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

Your hoses would be excepted from the standard only if they do not transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. Since a failure of hoses (A), (B) and (C) would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system, the hoses transmit or contain the pressure used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes and therefore must comply with the standard.

You stated that if (D) were to fail, no influence would be exerted directly on the brakes. We are unable to determine from this information whether (D) transmits or contains the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. We suggest that you determine whether a failure of this hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, (D) is a brake hose subject to FMVSS No. 106.

Your final question asked about the certification requirements for manufacturers of brake hose assemblies. You stated your understanding that the "parts certification needs to be entirely guaranteed by the hose marker itself."

You are correct that under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. As the manufacturer of air brake hose assemblies, you are responsible for certifying that the assemblies meet the applicable requirements of Standard No. 106. While it is up to you to decide whether to obtain the certification from the parts manufacturers that their products comply with Standard No. 106, this information may be useful to you when you certify that your assemblies comply with the requirements of that standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C., 20590 U.S.A.

October 8, 1984

Gentlemen :

Re : Enquiry on parts certification of air brake hose assembly.

We are the maker of brake hose assembly products and our maker's identification symbol "NCRN" is registered at NHTSA. This time we are planning to deliver our air brake hose assembly to a car maker to be assembled into the automobiles which will be exported to the USA market. Allow us to make some questions on the procedure for having the parts certification on our air brake hose assembly.

Question 1 : Inquiry on labeling. As for the nomination to identify the hose maker set forth in FMVSS No. 106 S7.2.1 (b), our symbol "NCRN" has already been registered as the marker or brake hose. We are of the view that no re-registration is necessary for air brake hose assembly this time since the registered "NCRN" applies to it effectively. Is this understanding of ours correct? (1) Does the legal regulation apply only to the hose for main piping? (2) Or, does it apply to all the hoses (A), (B) and (C), which, if destructed, result in causing the brake ineffective? (3) Or, does it apply to all the hoses (A), (B), (C) and (D) as the hoses used in the system even if they do not influence on the brake operation should they be destructed? Question 4 : Inquiry on procedures or parts certification. The parts certification needs to be entirely guaranteed by the hose marker itself. We are of the opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain the certificate even if the approval procedure is taken to NHTSA and AAMVA. Is this understanding of ours correct? Thanks in advance for your reply to above questions at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, Takashi Shimoda NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. Question 2 : Inquiry on applicable regulations for air brake hose assembly. Relating to the item of FMVSS CFR-49-Part 393.45, we assume that the air brake hose must satisfy both the code conditions of FMVSS106 (49 CFR 571.106) and SAEJ1402C. Is this understanding of ours correct? If so, does the performance need to satisfy both the code requirements at the time? Is it enough for the labeling to satisfy only the requirements described in the item FMVSS 106? Question 3 : Inquiry on legal regulation object or hose in air brake system. The outline of air brake system is illustrated below (Fig.1) (A) Hose for main piping. (B) Hose for parking brake. (C) Hose for pressure gauge.

(D) Hose for unloader. If the hoses (A), (B) and (C) out of them should be destructed, the air brake system can not be operative. The hose (D) for unloader is for the circuit or pressure governor which emits the load alleviation signal for air compressor in the event the set pressure of main tank has exceeded the stipulated pressure. Even if this hose is destructed, there is no influence exerted directly on the brake. (In the figure) 1) Valve 2) Main tank 3) Governor 4) Booster 5) Air guage 6) Air chamber 7) Parking brake "SKETCH INSERT HERE"

ID: 1985-02.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ralph Walker

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ralph Walker 5517 Cleon Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

This responds to your letter of April 8, 1985, and follows up on your telephone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning safety regulations applYing to sun roof windows for recreational vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets requirements for the glazing used in motor vehicles, including the glazing for a sun roof in a recreational vehicle. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

You were particularly interested in the certification requirements for sun roofs. Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.3 of Safety Standard No. 205 specify that prime glazing material manufacturers shall certify each piece of glazing for use in motor vehicles. The certification must be in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and with section 6 of the ANS Z-26 standard. These requirements would be applicable to the company from which you buy your glazing, since that company would qualify as a prime glazing material manufacturer.

As a manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing for use in a motor vehicle, your company would be required to certify its product in accordance with paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. S.6.4 requires your company to mark any section of glazing that it cuts with the same AS number, manufacturer model number and manufacturer trademark or designation as the piece of glazing from which it was cut.

S6.5 requires your company to certify your product in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment (including glazing) may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must certify that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, Standard No. 205 in this case.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

RALPH WALKER 5517 CLEON AVE NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91605

Jeff Miller 5219 Room # 400 7TH St. South West Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller;

On this date I talked with Mr. Wood and he told me, I would have to write. So to get infomation on the safety codes for making sun roof windows for R.V.s. I would make them not install them.

I would appreciate the help and I will be awaiting your answer. Thank-You Ralph Walker

ID: nht90-3.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 16, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Delbert N. Pier -- Legislation and Compliance Coordinator, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 2-27-90 to Stephen Wood from Delbert N. Pier; (OCC-4526) TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces. (49 CFR 571.107). I apologize for the delay in our response.

You explained that Hyundai is planning to test the surface of a windshield wiper blade rail spring by using several rail springs gathered together because one spring would have a limited amount of area to reflect the light source. You asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to confirm your view that this method of compliance testing is a satisfactory method of complying with section S4 of Standard No. 107.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") makes manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your l etter.

Each safety standard specifies performance requirements and test procedures used by the agency in its compliance testing to evaluate a vehicle or item of equipment. For instance, section S4 of Standard No. 107 specifies specular gloss requirements for c ertain vehicle components, including windshield wiper arms and blades. That provision requires that the specular gloss of the specified components must not exceed 40 units when measured by the 20 degree method of ASTM Standard D523-62T.

While the agency would follow ASTM Standard D523-62T for purposes of compliance testing, the Vehicle Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products in the manner specified in a motor vehicle safety standard or even to test the product at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of that standard, provided, however, that the manufacturer exercises due care in ensuring that the vehicle or equipment will comply with Federal requirements when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. In other words, the manufacturer must show that its chosen means of evaluating compliance is a reasonable surroga te for the test procedure specified by the standard.

In the event that the agency determines an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment tested in the agency's compliance program, the manufacturer must show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies. Th e manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised due care in its designing and manufacturing of the product and in its checking (through actual testing, computer simulation or otherwise) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply. Of course, notwithstanding the exercise of due care, the manufacturer would still be subject to the recall responsibilities of the Vehicle Safety Act for any noncomplying vehicles or equipment.

With these considerations in mind, you appear, based on the statements in your letter, merely to be testing a group of identical components with identical specular gloss levels at one time rather than separately. If this is the case, it appears that you r intended method of testing is consistent with the testing procedures in Standard No. 107.

I hope this informaiton answers your questions. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992, if you have further questions.

ID: 2617y

Delbert N. Pier
Legislation and Compliance Coordinator
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Pier:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces. (49 CFR 571.107). I apologize for the delay in our response.

You explained that Hyundai is planning to test the surface of a windshield wiper blade rail spring by using several rail springs gathered together because one spring would have a limited amount of area to reflect the light source. You asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to confirm your view that this method of compliance testing is a satisfactory method of complying with section S4 of Standard No. 107.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") makes manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Each safety standard specifies performance requirements and test procedures used by the agency in its compliance testing to evaluate a vehicle or item of equipment. For instance, section S4 of Standard No. 107 specifies specular gloss requirements for certain vehicle components, including windshield wiper arms and blades. That provision requires that the specular gloss of the specified components must not exceed 40 units when measured by the 20 degree method of ASTM Standard D523-62T.

While the agency would follow ASTM Standard D523-62T for purposes of compliance testing, the Vehicle Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products in the manner specified in a motor vehicle safety standard or even to test the product at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of that standard, provided, however, that the manufacturer exercises due care in ensuring that the vehicle or equipment will comply with Federal requirements when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. In other words, the manufacturer must show that its chosen means of evaluating compliance is a reasonable surrogate for the test procedure specified by the standard.

In the event that the agency determines an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment tested in the agency's compliance program, the manufacturer must show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies. The manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised due care in its designing and manufacturing of the product and in its checking (through actual testing, computer simulation or otherwise) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply. Of course, notwithstanding the exercise of due care, the manufacturer would still be subject to the recall responsibilities of the Vehicle Safety Act for any noncomplying vehicles or equipment.

With these considerations in mind, you appear, based on the statements in your letter, merely to be testing a group of identical components with identical specular gloss levels at one time rather than separately. If this is the case, it appears that your intended method of testing is consistent with the testing procedures in Standard No. 107.

I hope this information answers your questions. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992, if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:107#VSA d:7/l6/90

ID: 11517WKM

Under Secretary
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Post Office Box 2944, Code No. 13030
Kuwait

Dear Mr. Under Secretary:

This responds to your letter of December 25, 1995, to the Department of Transportation asking about conformity certificates for tires. You stated that Ministerial Decree No. 3/82 of Kuwait states that every consignment of motor vehicle tires entering Kuwait should have a conformity certificate issued by an authorized body in the country of origin. You asked whether the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) is authorized to issue such certificates after testing in accordance with U. S. safety standards.

Please find enclosed a copy of a November 13, 1992, letter written to the Ministry by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which we described in detail the requirements for certification of tires under U.S. law. The requirements described in that letter are still in effect.

Briefly stated, U.S. law establishes a self-certification system in which tire manufacturers certify, normally based on testing and/or analysis, that their tires comply with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers must indicate their self-certification by marking the letters ADOT@ on the sidewalls of their tires. Under U. S. law, a manufacturer's self-certification is legally equivalent to a type approval under the law of a country whose conformance procedures rely upon type approval. We respectfully suggest that you recognize self-certification as a way of meeting Ministerial Decree No. 3/82, adjusting for the particulars of the U.S. system. There is precedent for regarding type approval and self-certification as equivalent in this context. Although neither the U.S. nor Kuwait are signatories to the UN/ECE AAgreement concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions@ (E/ECE/TRANS/505 Rev.2, 5 October 1995), we note that Article 1 of that agreement recognizes self-certification as an acceptable alternative to type approval.

All tires bearing the symbol ADOT@ are recognized by the United States as having been certified by the tire manufacturers as being in conformity with all applicable U.S. safety standards. There

is no provision in U.S. law for prior certification or approval by NHTSA, the U.S. agency responsible for the law=s implementation, or by any other entity. NHTSA monitors compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing tires in the retail market and testing them in accordance with test procedures specified in the standards. If a manufacturer's tires fail to meet applicable standards during NHTSA testing, the manufacturer is requested by NHTSA to provide any available test data and/or the results of any analysis underlying its certification. If the tires are ultimately determined to be in noncompliance with applicable standards, the manufacturer is required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, known as a Arecall,@ to correct the problem at no cost to consumers.

In summary, U.S. law establishes a self-certification system in which tire manufacturers themselves certify that their tires comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, since conformance procedures for U.S. tire standards are based on self-certification instead of type approval, no independent body, governmental or nongovernmental, is authorized to issue conformity certificates with respect to U. S. tire safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any additional questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref: #109#119#574 d:3/19/96

ID: nht88-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/08/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: NORMAN D. SHUMWAY -- CONGRESS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/29/89 ESTIMATED, FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 09/22/89 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE TO JEFFREY R. MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/25/89 FROM CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE TO NORMAN Y. MINETA -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA TO CONSTANCE A. MORELLA; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; INTERPRETATION STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shumway:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Ernest P. Crockett, who received a State of California citation for having tinted film on his car windows for medical reasons. You asked me to review Mr. Crockett's letter and provide a ny comments or assitance that I could. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

Mr. Crockett suffers from systemic lupus erythematosus and as a result needs protection from ultra-violet rays. He consulted with the California Highway Patrol and was told that the law allowed him to use tinting film on his car windows, if he had a med ical letter stating that this was necessary. Not known at this time to Mr. Crockett was a provision in the California law prohibiting the use of noncomplying medically-necessary devices during darkness. Mr. Crockett had Security Glass System's "Almost Clear" tinting permanently installed on his windshield and front windows and was subsequently given a citation by the California Patrol for not being in compliance with @ 26708(a)(2) of the California Vehicle Code. Upon further inquiry, Mr. Crockett lea rned that his film was unacceptable because it had been permanently affixed, and that a much darker tint (blocking 70 percent of light) film was allowable, if it was removable at darkness.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area 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. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 pe rcent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the v ehicle 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 the vehicle's glazing are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of glazing, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device that would result in a light t ransmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of a passenger car, or result in the window no longer complying with any other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation. The materials enclosed with Mr. Crockett's letter appear to show that the business that installed the film on his car windows did not render inoperative compliance with the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205, since the film installed on Mr. Crockett's car windows is said to have 70 percent light transmittance.

However, Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's glazing no longer complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. We do, however, urge vehicle owners not to take actions that degrade the performance of required safety features.

The individual States have the authority to govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners. In this case, the State of Californai has exercised its authority to establish requirements in this area. The wisdom and fairness of applying those requ irements to individuals in Mr. Crockett's situation is something to be decided by the State of California, not the Federal government.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Anders-Barton Automotive Design

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether your modifications of Toyota pickup trucks comply with the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The NHTSA requires that a person who modifies a vehicle attach a label to the vehicle indicating that, as modified, the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards (49 CFR Part 567. Certification). From your letter, it appears that you are in compliance with this requirement. You should note further that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal safety standard. In the case of a vehicle which is being converted from one vehicle type to another (e.g., a sedan to a convertible), modification of safety systems would not violate section 108 as long as the modified systems complied with the standards that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted.

As long as you ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all of the standards applicable to it and you do not render inoperative any safety device or element of design, you would appear to be in compliance with the agency's requirements. You should note that the waiver signed by your customers would not remove your responsibility for any defects or noncompliances with our standards.

ID: nht88-3.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES

TO: GARY M. CEAZAN -- VICE PRESIDENT RIKEN-AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/16/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO MIKE KAIZAKI; STANDARD 119; UNDATED LETTER FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO E.W. DAHL; LETTER DATED 04/18/88 FROM GARY M. CEAZAN TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; OCC-1951; STANDARD 109,119

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ceazan:

This is in response to your letter asking whether tires marked with both an ETRTO (European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization) size designation and a different ISO (International Standardization Organization) size designation and a different ISO (Inter national Standardization Organization) size designation can legally be imported into the United States. As discussed below, such tires cannot be imported into the United States, because they do not comply with the applicable safety standards. I regret the delay in this response.

All new pneumatic tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.109), and all new pneumatic tires impo rted for use on motor vehicles other than passenger vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.119). Both of these standards prohibit "dual-size markings," or l abeling two different size designations on one tire.

In the case of passenger car tires, section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." (emphasis added). This agency expressly prohibited dual-size markings on passenger car tires in a preamble amending Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. This prohibition was expressly repeated in subsequent amendments that addressed the question of tire labeling under Standard No. 1 09; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974; and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

In the case of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, there is no express prohibition in Standard No. 119 against dual size markings. However, section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "th e tire and size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." NHTSA has interpreted the use of the singular in the phrase "tire size designation," rather than the plural "tire size designations," to be a prohibition against marking more than one tire size designation on these

tires. See the enclosed copies of my January 7, 1988 letter to Mr. E.W. Dahl and my February 16, 1988 letter to Mr. Mike Kaizaki.

Since tires marked with two size designations would not comply with our tire standards, they could not legally be imported into the United States, according to the requirement specified in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Sa fety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). If you have any further questions about our tire standards or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht94-4.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 29, 1994

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation - 49 CFR 591

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/22/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MICHAEL LOVE (A42; PART 591; PART 592; PART 593)

TEXT: Porsche Cars North America, Inc. ("Porsche Cars N.A.") is the authorized importer and distributor of Porsche vehicles in the United States. Effective 1/1/95, Porsche Cars N.A. will become the authorized importer and distributor of Porsche vehicles in Ca nada. All Porsche vehicles for Canada are built as close as possible to U.S. specification vehicles, while still complying with Canadian law, resulting in only minor (if any) differences on the various models due to the similarity of the laws in both co untries.

Currently Porsche Cars N.A. imports all U.S. vehicles into Charleston, South Carolina, where they are processed at its Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) facility. The processing consists of removing the protective shipping material, cleaning the vehicle, in specting for proper operation of all systems and making any repairs. Porsche believes it is permissible to also import all the vehicles for the Canadian market into the U.S. and process them at the PDI facility in Charleston before exporting them to Can ada under the provision of 49 CFR 591.5(c), which states:

(c) The vehicle or equipment item does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but is intended solely for export, and the vehicle or equipment item, and the outside of the container of the e quipment item, if any, bears a label or tag to that effect.

Does NHTSA agree with this?

Due to the small volume of vehicles sold by Porsche Cars N.A. in the U.S. and Canada and the large number of options available on the vehicles, we foresee the possibility that a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U .S. customer. Porsche Cars N.A. would like to be able to convert such a Canadian specification car to U.S. specification before it has been retail sold. This would include conversion of all equipment and labels so that the vehicle would be in complianc e with all applicable U.S. requirements before it was released from Porsche Cars N.A.'s control.

Porsche Cars N.A. believes this would be permissible for cars imported under provision of 49 CFR 591.5(c) (as discussed above) and still in the U.S. under Porsche Cars N.A. control. Does NHTSA agree with this? Similarly, Porsche Cars N.A. believes it w ould be possible to bring a Canadian vehicle back from Canada (once it has already been processed in the U.S. and exported to Canada) into the U.S. and convert it to U.S. specification, as long as it has not been retail sold and has remained under Porsch e Cars N.A. control. Does NHTSA also agree with this?

If NHTSA does not agree with Porsche Cars N.A. interpretations as stated above, what does NHTSA see as the options available to Porsche Cars N.A. to import and process Canadian specification cars in the U.S.?

Since Porsche Cars N.A. will assume responsibility for importing Canadian vehicles as of January 1, 1995, we would appreciate an answer from NHTSA on these questions as soon as possible.

ID: 15230.ztv

Mr. Tadashi Suzuki
Manager, Homologation Section
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguroku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1997, to Richard VanIderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of the visual/optical aiming specifications for headlamps. Because the Office of Chief Counsel is the designated office for providing legal interpretations of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards including Standard No. 108, please address your future requests for interpretations to this Office.

There are two matters for which you request clarification. Paragraph S7.8.2.1(c) states that "A visually/optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam shall not have a horizontal adjustment mechanism unless such mechanism meets the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.2 of this standard." You "think that the construction which vehicle user can not reach horizontal adjustment mechanism, can be treated as 'No horizontal adjustment mechanism' in view of S7.8.2.1(c), even if horizontal adjustment can be done only in manufacturing process." You ask whether your understanding is correct, and, if correct, whether you can use the construction shown in the three figures you enclosed with your letter.

We agree with your interpretation. If a headlamp is equipped with a mechanism allowing horizontal adjustment only at the time the vehicle is manufactured, and is thereafter inaccessible for adjustment, we will not consider this design to be a "horizontal adjustment mechanism" within the meaning of paragraph S7.8.5.2. The language of that paragraph prescribes performance requirements for on-vehicle aiming devices and clearly indicates that these apply to horizontal adjustment mechanisms that may be used over the life of the headlamp to adjust the horizontal aim of the headlamp.

With respect to the three figures, Example A depicts an adjustment bolt which requires for horizontal adjustment the use of a special tool that the user will not have. In Example C, a special coupler is used during the manufacturing process and "shipment will be done without this special coupler. So vehicle user can not do." We regard these as horizontal adjustment mechanisms within the meaning of S7.8.2.1(c) since the headlamp remains capable of horizontal adjustment, even if you do not intend it to be adjustable by the vehicle user. As such, if either Example A or C is to be used, each must meet the requirements of paragraph S7.8.5.2. However, in Example B, the headlamp cannot be further adjusted after the manufacturing process. Because further adjustment is not possible, we do not regard this construction as a horizontal adjustment mechanism.

The second matter concerns language in the preamble to the final rule. In discussing the visual/optical aimability identification mark for existing headlamp designs, you quote the agency as saying at 62 FR 10714 that the discussion therein "does not mean that existing designs can be changed from being mechanically aimable to being visually/optically aimable." You understand that you cannot change the design of a current mechanically aimable headlamp to be visually/optically aimable only, but that you can add visual/optical aimability to a mechanically aimable headlamp as an alternative. However, if a vehicle manufacturer offers "a new model vehicle, even outlook of vehicle is almost same as previous one", you believe that you can manufacture two different types of "outlook" headlamps, a mechanically aimable one for replacement of the previous model, and a visually/optically aimable one for original equipment and replacement of the new model. You also comment "Of course we can distinguish them." You ask whether your understanding is correct.

We are not sure what you mean by an "outlook" headlamp. The situation we believe you are presenting is one in which a new model vehicle would be equipped with the same headlighting systems that appeared on an older vehicle. You are asking whether the headlamp that was furnished with mechanical aim on the older vehicle (and will still be manufactured for replacement purposes) can be manufactured for the new model vehicle (as both original and replacement equipment) without the mechanical aiming feature. The answer is no. Although the vehicle design has changed, the design of the headlamp has not changed, and it must continue to be manufactured with the mechanical aiming feature even though it is installed on a new model vehicle, and even though you may be able to distinguish the two.

We will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.7/3/97