ID: 12262.jeg

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. You noted that the regulation specifies that the U.S./Canadian content of components is defaulted to zero when outside suppliers fail to respond to a manufacturer's or allied supplier's request for content information. You requested clarification concerning how a manufacturer should treat the value and content of such defaulted components for purposes of determining the "major foreign sources of passenger motor vehicle equipment."

More specifically, you suggested two alternative general rules regarding the treatment of defaulted components:

A review of the regulation prescribing the manner of determining the "major foreign sources" suggests at least two ways that this question could be answered. . . .

One possibility is that the value of the defaulted components would be excluded entirely from the "major foreign source" calculation, since the origin of the defaulted components is undocumented and therefore not reasonably assumed to be either foreign or non-foreign for purposes of Line Two of the label.

Another possibility is that the value of the defaulted components would be included in the total value computation under 583.7(d)(1), but excluded from any country-specific value calculation under 583.7(d)(2).

As discussed below, it is difficult to provide generalizations that apply in all instances. We disagree with the first of the

two suggested rules. We agree with the first portion of the second suggested rule, but not necessarily with the second portion of that rule.

Section 583.7 specifies the procedure for determining major foreign sources of passenger motor vehicle equipment. One of the steps in that procedure, set forth at 583.7(d)(1), reads as follows:

Adding up the total value of all of the passenger motor vehicle equipment (regardless of country of origin) expected to be installed in that carline during the next model year.

While the U.S./Canadian content of components is defaulted to zero when suppliers fail to respond to a manufacturer's or allied supplier's request for content information (583.6(c)(5)⁽¹⁾), the components do not cease to be passenger motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the value of those components is included as part of the "total value of all of the passenger motor vehicle equipment" expected to be installed in a carline, as you suggest in the first portion of your second suggested rule. I also note that 583.7(d)(1) makes it clear that all such equipment is included "regardless of country of origin."

The second portion of your second suggested rule provides that the value of defaulted components would be excluded from any country-specific value calculation under 583.7(d)(2). While this would often be the case, it would not be a necessary result. While Part 583 provides that the U.S./Canadian content of components is defaulted to zero when suppliers fail to respond to a manufacturer's or allied supplier's request for content information, it does not address whether the origin could be determined to be from another country.

As we discussed in our September 15, 1995 notice, manufacturers may possess the information necessary to make origin determinations for equipment that was manufactured in countries other than the U.S. or Canada and then imported into the U.S. or Canada. See 60 FR at 47893. In such instances, manufacturers may use any available information to make determinations of zero U.S./Canadian content, country of manufacture, and purchase price, as an alternative to relying on supplier certifications.

If a manufacturer in such instances requested, but did not receive a certificate from a supplier, the manufacturer might nonetheless be able to make a determination of origin for a country other than the U.S./Canada.

If you have further questions about this subject, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:583

d:9/13/96

1. Please note that NHTSA recently made a limited, temporary amendment to this section to provide vehicle manufacturers added flexibility in making content determinations where outside suppliers have not responded to requests for content information. This added flexibility affects the application of the "default-to-zero" provision.

ID: 15826.ztv

Herr Olaf Schmidt
Hella KG Hueck & Co.
Rixbecker Strabe 75 75
59552 Lippstadt
Germany

Dear Herr Schmidt:

This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1997, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, concerning the conformity of a new headlamp design to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You report that Hella has designed a headlamp to be visually aimable in accordance with the amendments to Standard No. 108 that were published on March 10, 1997. To facilitate the production of new vehicles on which the headlamp will be installed, the headlamp will incorporate a bubble-vial type of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) which is not required for visually aimable headlamps. The headlamp will be provided "with an initial pre-setting so that the location of the cut-off line [of the beam] corresponds very close (less than one tenth of a degree) to the indication of the bubble scale." You assure us that "The VHAD will not interfere [with] the aiming and performance of the headlamps" and that "[t]his auxiliary vertical VHAD is intended as a production aid and will not be mentioned in the owner's manual of the relevant car."

Paragraph S7.8.5. of Standard No. 108 in pertinent part requires headlighting systems installed on motor vehicles to "be aimable with at least one of the following" methods, which are specified as an externally applied aiming device, an on-vehicle headlamp aiming device, or by visual/optical means, each method to be "as specified" by a cited paragraph of Standard No. 108. This means that a headlamp may be both visually/optically aimable and aimable using a VHAD. However, the VHAD must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 108, one of which is that it be capable of horizontal aim adjustment. The Hella "auxiliary VHAD" does not include this feature. Therefore, the headlamp design you contemplate would appear not to conform to Standard No. 108.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask us.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/18/98

ID: nht94-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 15, 1994

FROM: Bob Graham -- U.S. Senate

TO: John Womack -- Chief Council, Legislation Division, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Bob Graham (A43; Std. 109); Also related to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Connie Mack (Std. 109; A43); Also related to 12/12/94 letter from Connie Mack to the DOT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Enclosed is a letter from Mr. Howard Levy, who has concerns regarding guidelines used by states regarding tire tread requirements and whether they also apply to Puerto Rico.

I would appreciate your reviewing this situation and providing me with your comments. Please send your response to my state office: Post Office Box 3050, Tallahassee, Florida 32315, Attention: Sharon McLanahan.

I am grateful for your cooperation and assistance. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

With kind regards,

Sincerely

Enclosure 1:

December 6, 1994

The Honorable Bob Graham Post Office Box 3050 Tallahasse, FL 32315

Dear Senator Graham:

On October 6, 1994 I wrote to you about the proposed bill before the Senate in Puerto Rico, with the regards to the importation of used tires.

In these days of the N.F.T.A. and G.A.T.T. agreements it seams that the new tire manufacturers are pressing for a restraint of trade by pressing for the passage of this bill.

We have contacted the U.S. Department of Commerce they in turn have directed us to the National Highway Safety & Traffic Administration. We had written them on November 6, but as of today we have not gotten any response. We would like to get a copy of the laws regarding tire tread depth here in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico and we would like to know if they have jurisdiction in Puerto Rico. We need your help in getting this vital information.

If this bill passes it will surely mean the end of our industry in Puerto Rico

WE URGE YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER!!!!

Sincerely,

Howard J. Levy Vice-President, Used Tire International

Enclosure 2:

November 3, 1994

DR. Ricardo Martinez Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Martinez:

Used Tire International, INC. is an Exporter of Quality Used Tires Worldwide. There is a very serious situation that has arisen in Puerto Rico in regards to the importation of Used Tires, a proposed bill is before the senate there that would require all Used Tires being imported to have a minimum 5/32" tread depth and a tax of $ 10.00 each. The tread depth of 5/32" is 3/32" more than the 2/32" that is required by U.S. law. Does the NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Pue rto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety.

If this proposed Bill is passed this would mean the end of the Used Tire industry on the island. This is an industry that many people count on there because many people cannot afford to purchase new tire which I will add some new tires only have 4/32" t read. To inact a law that would require a Used Tire to have more or as much tread as a new tire would further hurt our industry.

WE URGE YOUR AGENCIES HELP IN THIS MATTER!!!!!

Sincerely,

Howard Levy Vice President

Enclosure 3:

10/28/94

Mr. Howard J. Levy Vice-President Used Tire International 837 S.E. 8th Ave., Suite 202 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Dear Mr. Levy: On behalf of Secretary Brown, I am pleased to respond to your letter regarding a proposed bill in Puerto Rico which would change tread depth regulations for selling used tires.

The U.S. Government agency responsible for developing guidelines used by states regarding tread requirements is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The NHTSA would also be able to respond to your concerns regarding Puerto Rico. You may wish to contact directly the NHTSA:

Mr. Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 tel: (202) 366-1836

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

Sincerely,

Walter Bastian Director Office of Latin America and the Caribbean U.S. Dept. of Commerce

Enclosure 4:

December 5, 1994

Dr. Ricardo Martinez Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Martinez:

On November 3, 1994 I wrote to you about the proposed bill before the Senate in Puerto Rico. As of this letter I have not heard from you or your agency.

As I stated in my first letter to you this bills passage will mean the end of our industry in Puerto Rico.

WE NEED YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER!!!!!

Would it also be possible for you to send a copy of the laws pertaining to tread depth in the U.S. and it's territories.

Sincerely,

Howard J. Levy Vice-President

ID: nht69-2.18

DATE: 12/01/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Executive Motors, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 28, 1969, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning our Federal Motor Vehicle safety standards.

The Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New(Illegible Word) Tires - Passenger Cars" was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 1967. This standard specifies tire(Illegible Word) and laboratory test requirements for head unseating resistance, strength, endurance, and high speed performance; defines tire load ratings; and specifies labelling requirements. The standard also requested "Persons desiring an amendment to Standard No. 109 adding tires not presently listed, should submit sufficient pertinent information relative to these tires in 10 copies to the Secretary of Transportation---."

The(Illegible Word) S.p.A. of Milan, Italy requested the addition of the 165-400 tire size designation to Standard No. 109 as well as the adoption of the letter symbols(Illegible Words) for tires. The(Illegible Words) petition was approved and published in the Federal Register on April 18, 1969. The(Illegible Word) tire size designation has been listed within Table I-D of Standard No. 109 since that time.

The labelling requirements of Standard No. 109 apply to all new(Illegible Word) tires - both domestic and foreign - manufactured after January 1,(Illegible Word). There are no "special markings" required on the tires coming into this country other than those detailed in Standard No. 109. For your information, I have enclosed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and No. 110 with amendments.

The 165-400 tire size designation is currently listed within our Standard No. 109 and the labelling requirements are considered to be reasonable and in the interest of safety. The National Highway Safety Bureau does not prohibit any tire manufacturer from fabricating motor vehicle tires. The availability of tires from a specific tire manufacturer is a matter of that company's policy for marketing and has no direct relation to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

As required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which deals with lighting requirements, was based on existing standards. Accordingly, the initial standard reflected existing requirements contained in Federal and State regulations and the Society of Automotive Engineers Standards on lighting equipment. Since publication of the initial standard on February 3, 1967, this Bureau has sponsored a continuing research program leading to the development of more effective and extensive requirements for vehicular lighting. In fact, during the past two years, eight research contracts have been awarded in the areas of improved forward and rear lighting systems. Under these contracts, in-depth studies, tests and evaluations will be conducted to determine the most effective color, size, intensity, location, and method of controlling the operation of the lamps which are required on the front and rear of motor vehicles. Further follow-on studies and evaluations are envisioned to determine the most-effectiveness and practicability of the proposed improved lighting systems. Results of this research will assist us in evaluating your suggestion and other similar suggestions relating to improved rear lighting systems.

ID: ntea3.ztv

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in reply to your letter of June 26, 2003, which, to facilitate future reference, is your third request for interpretations relating to the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations issued by this agency (Subpart C, 49 CFR Part 579).

Your first issue related to an inconsistency that others have brought to our attention, and which we intend to address in a forthcoming Federal Register notice. That is, the regulation requires complete reporting by a manufacturer of light vehicles with an aggregate number of vehicles either during the reporting period or "during each of the prior two calendar years is 500 or more" (49 CFR 579.21) whereas complete reporting is required for medium-heavy vehicles and buses if the aggregate number of vehicles "during either of the prior two calendar years is 500 or more" (49 CFR 579.22; see also Sections 579.23 and 579.24). The regulatory text of the final rule was intended to implement the related statement that we made in the preamble (67 FR 45822 at 45831), that manufacturers of motor vehicles would report under Section 579.27 if their aggregate number of vehicles was fewer than 500 "in the year of the reporting period and in each of the two calendar years preceding the reporting period." Accordingly, we intend to correct Sections 579.22, 579.23, and 579.24 to reflect the intent expressed in our preamble statement.

Your second request was that the template for manufacturers reporting under Section 579.27 be revised so that the entry column labeled "Deaths/ Injuries" be changed to "Deaths," to reflect the fact that these manufacturers are not required to report injuries. However, your assumption is not correct. Although manufacturers reporting under Section 579.27 need not report incidents involving only injuries, they are required to report the number of injuries of which they are aware that occurred in incidents involving one or more deaths that are identified in claims or notices received by the manufacturer.

Your third and fourth requests related to the definition of "platform" and issues you believed it may raise with respect to final stage manufacturers.

The EWR rule defines "platform" as follows:

Platform means the basic structure of a vehicle, including but not limited to, the majority of the floorpan and undercarriage and elements of the engine compartment. The term includes a structure that a manufacturer designates as a platform. A group of vehicles sharing a common structure or chassis shall be considered to have a common platform regardless of whether such vehicles are of the same type, are of the same make, or are sold by the same manufacturer.

"Structure," in turn, is defined as follows:

Structure means any part of a motor vehicle that serves to maintain the shape and size of the vehicle, including the frame, the floorpan, the body, bumpers, doors, tailgate, hatchback, trunk lid, hood and roof. The term also includes all associated mounting elements (such as brackets, fasteners, etc.

You related that vehicles manufactured in two or more stages can have both common structures on different chassis, as well as different structures on common chassis. You asserted that the "floorpan or undercarriage, and elements of the engine compartment are very rarely, if ever, added or modified by a final stage manufacturer," and you asked whether the designation of "platform" for the final stage manufacturer should "be derived from the body/equipment being added to complete the vehicle or from the original chassis."

The definition of platform includes a group of vehicles "sharing a common structure or chassis." We construe the regulatory definition to mean that vehicles with "different structures on common chassis" have the same platform. We recognize that the regulatory language could be construed such that vehicles that have common structures added by a final stage manufacturer on different chassis could also be considered to have the same platform. However, that was not our intent. Moreover, such an interpretation could lead to confusion, since, under that approach, some vehicles could be considered to have more than one platform.

Your fourth concern relates to vehicles that share a platform because they are built on a common chassis. You asked how an incomplete vehicle manufacturer would determine which models share the same chassis since this is "typically an internal designation assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer."It is our understanding that chassis manufacturers use well-established and recognized designations for their chassis, such as Ford "E Series" or General Motors "C/K Series."Moreover, platform designations by final stage manufacturers do not have to be exactly the same as those of the original chassis manufacturer. Rather, final stage manufacturers need only identify those models/vehicles that share a chassis.

Finally, you asked whether the platform designations would be "determined the same way for alterers as for final stage manufacturers?"The answer is yes.

If you have any additional questions, you may refer them to Andrew DiMarsico of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.9/4/03

ID: nht70-2.51

DATE: 01/02/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of November 25, 1969, to the National Highway Safety Bureau requesting the addition of the 4-J and 4 1/2-J rims for use with the 5.60x15 tire size designation and the 4 1/2-J rim for use with the 6.00x15L tire size designation to Table I, Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

The addition of these rims to Standard No. 110 is not necessary, as these combinations are listed within the references cited in S.J of Standard No. 109. The fact that you have changed the hump configuration on these rims requires no action on our part as we do not list variations from the basic Tire and Rim Association's contours. We consider only the rim width and flange coutour designation at this time when listing rims in the standard.

Manufacturers who modify rims are, of course, responsible to see that their product will perform satisfactorily to the requirements of Standard No. 109 and No. 110.

ALBA TIRE COMPANY

NOV. 24, 1969

NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU

We unfortunatley were unable to attend the Convention in Atlanta, and to hear your address, delivered to those interested, at the convention. However I have reviewed your address carefully, as reported in the November issue of Modern Tire Dealer, and have some questions.

Will Off the Read New Tires, and Retreads(say Racing Tires) come under the Regulations which are proposed for New Tires- and Retreads? If they are going to be included we wonder why-sincethis Deal is a different Ball game from the other phases of the Tire Business. The reason I say this is because of the difference in the original construction of the Tires (new at the factory). There is also a vast difference in the performance of the Tires-as regards heat buildup-and heat dissipation factors,. For ourselves we have been retreading Racing Tires for some 6 years now, and I have my First complaint-with one of my Retreads coming loose. My 45 years experience in Retreading may not make me an expert- but(Illegible Word) have learned a few things about the performance of Retreaded Tires on the Tracks-as opposed to New Tires. I cannot find any difference in the performance-or the satisfaction of the Users of a new Tire-as opposed to Retreads.

I ship my retreaded Race Tires all over Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebrasks, as well as New Mexico. These Tires are run on both Paved, and Dirt Tracks, and by(Illegible Word) slow cars to sprint cars which turn up to 145 mph on the Straightway- NO PROBLEMS.

I buy my Retrenching Rubber Tax Free-since it is not going to be used on Hiway Type Tires- and of course should be Tax free.

I am 100% for a Fine quality Retread-and have for many years been critical of the Marginal Retreader-who had nothing but price- and POOR Quality to recommend his product-but as I say-I am wondering WHY The Race Tire deal should be included in any Guidelines that apply to Highway type Tires?

We will appreciate greatly your consideration of our concern-and thank you for an early response.

ID: nht73-4.10

DATE: 04/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gil-Mar Welding Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1973, asking how to comply with NHTSA Certification regulations in cases where you supply a trailer chassis or frame only, and another manufacturer installs the body. In another example, you supply the vehicle without an axle assembly, which is, we assume, also installed by another party.

Based on your letter, the procedures to be followed in certifying vehicles such as these are those contained in NHTSA regulations for "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Part 568, copy enclosed). Briefly, these regulations require the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, who would be you in these cases, to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a document indicating the extent that the incomplete vehicle conforms to Federal standards, and what the final stage manufacturer must do in order that the completed vehicle will conform to all applicable standards.

If upon your review of these regulations you have further questions, we will be pleased to respond to them.

ENC.

ID: 000191

ID: nht70-2.54

DATE: 10/28/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: TVR Engineering Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1970, to the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau forwarding information sheets on the TVR Vixen. I am enclosing copies of the Bureau's Consumer Information Regulations (49 CFR Part 575). The substantive provisions, @ 575.101 on vehicle stopping distance, @ 575.102 on tire reserve load, and @ 575.106 on acceleration and passing ability, require the furnishing of specific information in a format which is in the form set out in the regulations. The information sheets which you have provided fall short of these requirements in both form and substance. For example, @ 575.101 requires furnishing information on the minimum stopping distance, expressed in feet, for the particular vehicle, from a particular speed, at specified loads, with the braking system in a specified condition. The information provided by you in this regard is incomplete, and is not in the form specified. In addition, the regulations require the information to describe and be valid for each of the vehicles with which it is provided.

Please study the enclosed regulations carefully and forward to us complying consumer information within the near future. Let us know if you need further assistance.

ENCLOSURES

ID: 77-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

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

TO: Transportation Testing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your conversation with Karen Dyson of my staff in which you asked whether you could resell course monitoring tires after having used them to conduct tire tests.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration furnishes these tires to enable you to test for compliance with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. After you purchase course monitoring tires from the agency, they become your property to do with as you wish. There is no prohibition against the resale of the tires after you have completed your testing.