ID: nht72-5.5

DATE: 01/27/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Chesapeake Marine Products

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1971, in which you raised a question concerning the motor vehicle certification regulations, 49 CFR Part 967. You asked whether it would be permissible for you, as a distributor of boat trailers who receives those trailers in unassembled form from their manufacturers, to have the trailers shipped to you without the labels attached, and attach the labels yourself as the vehicles are assembled and sold.

We consider the action you suggest to be permissible under the certification regulations, as long as the affixing of the labels with the manufacturer's name is done with the consent, and on behalf of, the manufacturer. In so doing, you would be acting essentially as the agent of the manufacturer, fulfilling his legal responsibility under the statute and regulations.

ID: nht93-4.27

DATE: June 7, 1993

FROM: Willaim (William) C. Longo -- Chief Executive Officer, Ram Off Road Accessories

TO: Office of the Chief Consel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/29/93 from John Womack to William C. Longo (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Ram Off Road Accessories is a manufacturer of aftermarket tubular steel bolt on products such as Grille/Brush Guards, Side Bars and Bumpers. Most of our products attach to existing bodywork on the intended application, but with more vehicles being equipped with the Supplementary Restraining Systems (SRS) we are concerned about the possible liabilities involved with marketing our products.

Especially, would a permanent disclaimer affixed to the product as well as disclaimers on all printed material be sufficient? How can we determine what lengths are necessary to limit our liability as well as inform the consumer of the product's intended use.

I have written this letter as brief as is possible, but if more information is necessary or if it needs to be addressed to another department, please let me know.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

ID: nht74-5.37

DATE: 04/26/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A. G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Conco Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to Mr. W. J. Reinhart, dated March 26. In this letter you requested that the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) reconsider the necessity of your revising the notification letters which were mailed by you in conjunction with your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No. 74-0038).

We have determined that your notification letter must be revised and that you must provide this office, and those owners who did not correct their vehicles, with a copy, sent certified mail, of the revised letter. It is not sufficient under Part 577 for you to state that a "safety hazard" exists "due to a decrease in visibility of the vehicle." This statement fails to conform to section 577.4(d) of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577). That section provides that the risk to traffic safety presented by the defect be evaluated in terms of whether or not vehicle crash is the potential occurrence. We believe it obvious within the context of Part 577 that the potential result of the failure of any vehicle to conform to the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108 is vehicle crash. The factors you cite, that the vehicles have limited use, go only to whether it is likely they may be involved in crashes, not whether crash is the potential or possible result. In this regard, we note that your own description of the likelihood of crash does not preclude the possibility that crash can occur.

ID: 1984-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kazuhiko Ohkochi, Manager, Quality Assurance Dept., Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kazuhiko Ohkochi, Manager Quality Assurance Department Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. 1550 Northwest Highway, Suite 200 Parkridge, Illinois 60068

This responds to your letter dated February 17, 1984, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. In your letter, you asked several questions regarding the construction and labeling of hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars. In a subsequent telephone call to this office, your associate, Mr. Kitayama, informed us that your brake hoses would be used in motorcycles as well as passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required 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. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

FMVSS No. 106 applies to brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose and fittings used in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. The requirements of the standard are the same regardless of whether your hoses are used in passenger cars or motorcycles.

Your first question asked whether a hydraulic brake hose may be constructed out of nylon. The answer to your question is yes. Nylon may be used to manufacture hydraulic brake hose, as long as the hose can meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 106.

Your second question asked whether the standard prohibits labeling hydraulic brake hoses which have inside diameters between 0.110 and 0.118 inches as "1/8." The answer to your question is no. S5.2.2(d) of FMVSSS No. 106 requires that a hose's nominal inside diameter be expressed in inches or fractions of inches.

We note that the constriction requirement for hydraulic brake hoses in section 5.3.1 of Standard No. 106 is, of course, applicable to your hoses. That section states that:

Except for that part of an end fitting which does not contain hose, every inside diameter of any section of a hydraulic brake hose assembly shall be not less than 64 percent of the nominal inside diameter of the brake hose.

Since the standard does not include tolerances for the labeling requirements for hydraulic brake hose, the standard does not prohibit you from labeling your hose "1/8." You should consider, however, how your brake hoses will be used in the industry and determine whether a safety problem might result from labeling your hose "1/8" when in fact they are smaller than 1/8 inch. One safety concern that you should consider is whether the tolerances you selected would result in the problem of mismatched hoses and end fittings. Another safety concern relates to the effect that cold weather has on the flow of fluid through the brake hose. Cold weather may thicken the fluid and restrict the flow through the hose. The thickened fluid and restricted flow through the hose may result in an increase in the time required for the brakes to respond.

Regardless of whether labeling your brake hose "1/8" is regulated by FMVSS No. 106, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act imposes general responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151 et seq., manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 of the Act imposes a civil penalty of $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Further, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, you should consider also the possibility for liability in tort should your products prove to be unsafe in operation.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 17, 1984

Office of Crash Avoidance Handling and Stability Div. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW. Washington D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sirs:

Re. Questionnaire of Hydraulic brake hose for automobiles.

We are a manufacturer of automotive parts including hydraulic brake hose assembly to Toyota Motor Corporation and other Japanese auto makers. Our company name is registered in your file as follows:

I.D. Mark as hydraulic brake hose maker

I.D. Mark as hydraulic brake hose assembler

We have been developing new type of hydraulic brake hose for automobiles shown as attached, and making sales promotions. And regarding such a new type, please let us have the attached information.

We would like to ask you to answer to us by March 15, 1984.

Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.

Very truly yours,

TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.

Kazuhiko Ohkochi Manager Quality Assurance Dept. KO/kk Encl. 2. QUESTIONNAIRE

2.1 The above structure shows that a tube is made of Nylon, and meets performance requirements of FMVSS 106. As FMVSS 106 does not stipulate that a tube shall not be made of Nylon, we think that such a Nylon hose is also included among hydraulic brake hose for automobiles. We would like to have your comments on this matter (such a hose can be certified as a hydraulic brake hose).

2.2 If such a Nylon hose is certified, the hose's inside diameter is between 0.110 and 0.118 inch, and a little smaller than 1/8 inch (0.125 inch). We are now scheduled to use the hose as 1/8 inch hose and to subscribe "1/8" to the hose surface. We would like to know as to whether this subscription has any problem.

ID: nht89-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MARK RECCHIA -- FIAT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S.A. BRANCH

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recchia:

This responds to your telephone call asking about an apparent inconsistency between the requirements of S4.1 of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, and NHTSA's laboratory procedures for flammability compliance tests (June 1973). You as k whether the laboratory procedures are correct in specifying that all materials found in the vehicle occupant compartment must meet the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. I regret the delay in responding. The answer is no.

Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302 sets forth a listing of the components of vehicle occupant compartments that must be certified as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. Paragraph S4.1 includes a reference to "any o ther interior materials . . . that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash." That paragraph represents a complete listing of all components in new vehicles that must comply with the flammability resistance requiremen ts. Any component not identified in paragraph S4.1 is not subject to those requirements.

Paragraph 10.1 of NHTSA's laboratory procedures also lists the components of vehicle occupant compartments that must meet Standard No. 302. That listing was intended to include only the components described in S4.1 of the standard, but inadvertently mak es a general reference to "[a]ny other materials" in the vehicle interior compartment (item number 19) without including the modifying clause, "that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash." The modifying clause shou ld have been included, since Standard No. 302 applies only to the vehicle components identified in S4.1 of the standard.

Sincerely,

ID: 10290

Mr. Earl L. Hartley, Jr.
Ryan Freight Services, Inc.
2595 Chandler #10
Las Vegas, Nevada 89120

Dear Mr. Hartley:

This responds to your letter concerning 49 CFR Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you need to provide country of origin information to the auto manufacturers you sell to, and would like confirmation that you are properly interpreting the regulations. We understand that you are an "outside supplier," i.e., your company is not owned by an auto manufacturer. (Requirements differ for outside suppliers and allied suppliers.) Your questions, and our responses, are set forth below.

Question 1. 583.6(c) We interpret this to mean that if the U.S./Canada value added is 70% or more we are to report the U.S./Canada percentage to be 100%. If the U.S./Canada value added is less than 70% we are to report the U.S./Canada percentage to be -0-% Is this correct?

Response. You are partially correct. It is true that, under 583.6(c), equipment supplied by an outside supplier is considered 100 percent U.S./Canadian if 70 percent or more of its value is added in the U.S./Canada, and 0 percent if less than 70 percent is added in the U.S./Canada. However, the specific information which outside suppliers must provide to auto manufacturers is set forth in 583.10. (Outside suppliers of engines and transmissions must also provide the information specified in 583.12. I will assume for the balance of this letter that you are not a supplier of engines or transmissions.) Rather than requiring outside suppliers to report the 100 percent or 0 percent figure, section 583.10 instead specifies that outside suppliers are to provide a statement that the equipment has, or does not have, at least 70 percent of its value added in the United States and Canada.

Question 2. 583.7(a), (e), (f) If the U.S./Canadian percentage of the value is -0-% then we should report the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" which are over 15% each. Is this correct?

Response. No. This question suggests a misunderstanding of the differing requirements for auto manufacturers and suppliers. Auto manufacturers are required to calculate, on a carline basis, "U.S./Canadian parts content" and "Major sources of foreign parts content." Suppliers are required to provide specified information about the equipment they supply to enable the auto manufacturers to make these calculations. As indicated above, the information that outside suppliers must provide is set forth in 583.10. Suppliers are not required to provide the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" of their equipment.

Question 3. 583.7(c)(1) This requirement is completely independent from the determination of the percentage of the value determination. Therefore it is possible for a part to be of U.S.A. origin and have -0- % U.S./Canadian percentage of value. Are we correct in this assumption?

Response. The answer is yes. It is true that a part could be of U.S./Canada origin under 583.7(c)(1), for purposes of determining major foreign sources of passenger motor vehicle equipment, even though it has less than 70 percent U.S./Canadian content and is hence considered to have 0 percent U.S./Canadian content under 583.6. This reflects the different purposes of 583.6 and 583.7. Section 583.6 sets forth the procedure for determining the U.S/Canadian content of carlines. Under the American Automobile Labeling Act, equipment supplied by an outside supplier is considered 100 percent U.S./Canadian if 70 percent or more of its value is added in the U.S./Canada, and 0 percent if less than 70 percent is added in the U.S./Canada. Section 583.7 specifies the procedure for determining major foreign sources of passenger motor vehicle equipment. The only effect of a determination under 583.7(c)(1) that a part is of U.S./Canadian origin is that it will not be considered to have been contributed by a foreign source.

Question 4a. 583.10(a)-(c) From these parts we assume the following requirements:

Our certificate must show:

1. The name and address of the supplier, 2. The part number and description of the part or assembly, 3. The selling price to our customer, 4. Whether the part has or does not have 70% of its value from the United States/Canada as determined under 583.6(c), 5. If the United States/Canada percentage is less than 70% the country of origin determined under 583.7(c), 6. For equipment that may be used in an engine or transmission, the country of origin of the equipment, determined under 583.8(c), 7. A certification for the information, pursuant to 583.13 and the date of the certification, and, 8. One certificate can cover multiple parts and assemblies.

Response. Your eight stated understandings are correct. With respect to the second, I note that while 583.10(a) does not specifically mention "part number," we assume that would be the customary way of identifying unique equipment.

Question 4b. If the United States/Canada percentage of the value added is -0- percent, should we show the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" which are over 15% on our certificate? This information does not seem to be required by 583.10(a).

Response. As discussed in our answer to Question 2, suppliers are not required to provide the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" of their equipment.

Question 5. 583.13 This section requires us to certify the information provided on our certificate to be in accordance with DOT regulations. Please provide us with a copy of these DOT regulations or advise where we can secure a copy of these regulations so we can know the regulations to which we are subscribing.

Response. The Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations concerning automobile parts content labeling are simply those set forth in 49 CFR Part 583.

Question 6. 583.10(c)(1)-(2) We can issue our certificate for the calendar year from January 1 through December 31 of each year.

Response. Section 583.10(c)(1) provides that, except as provided in (c)(2), the information provided in the certificate is to be for equipment expected to be supplied during the 12-month period beginning on the first July 1 after receipt of the request from the auto manufacturer or allied supplier. Paragraph (c)(2) provides that the 12- month period specified in (c)(1) "may be varied in time and length by the manufacturer or allied supplier if it determines that the alteration is not likely to result in less accurate information being provided to consumers. Therefore, your certificate can only be issued for the calendar year if the auto manufacturer or allied supplier to which you supply equipment makes such a determination.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:583 d:2/3/95

ID: nht69-1.38

DATE: 03/24/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This refers to your letter of February 14 concerning the problems faced by some members of the boat trailer manufacturing industry in complying with the Administration's certification regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 367).

As I understand the problem, it is that manufacturers of boat trailers sometimes ship the trailers to their dealers as "knocked down" components, in the form of kits containing all the parts necessary to construct a boat trailer and instructions for the trailer's assembly. I also understand that the kits are not packaged, but are held together by steel bands or similar devices.

In the circumstances described above, it is my opinion that a manufacturer of boat trailers would not violate the certification regulations if he affixed the certification label required by section 367.4 of the regulations to a component of the trailer so that, when the trailer is assembled in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, the label will appear on the forward half of the left side of the trailer such that it is easily readable without moving any part of the trailer.

If a trailer is shipped in assembled form, of course, the certification label must be affixed to it in the location specified by section 367.4(d).

If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to ask me for it.

ID: 3157o

W.E. Baldwin, Ph.D.
President, K-R Industries
418 Crestwood Avenue
Feasterville, PA 19047

Dear Dr. Baldwin:

This is in reply to your letter of September 1, 1988, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.5.11(e) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

You have developed a center highmounted stop lamp "containing 5 bulbs, where each bulb is illuminated in sequential order." You state that the "time between each lamp illumination is less than 250 ms, providing a steady photometric value, meeting S4.1.1.41(c)", and that "the red lens of the lamp is steadily illuminated, with the illuminated area moveing (sic) in a back and forth motion." In your opinion, the invention meets the requirement of S4.5.11(e) that lamps, other than those enumerated, be steady-burning.

We cannot provide the interpretation you seek. Under paragraph S4.5.4, "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon activation of the service brakes." This means that all bulbs providing the center stop lamp signal must be simultaneously activated, not sequentially. In addition, we do not consider a lamp with a moving illuminated area to be one that is steady-burning within the meaning to S4.5.11(e).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:ll/3/88

ID: nht70-2.50

DATE: 05/28/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R.A. Diaz; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 11,(Illegible Word), in which you asked four questions concerning the application of Standard 206 to your products, with reference to several illustrations and drawings that you enclosed.

1. "It is our opinion that hinge, latch and inside door lock on(Illegible Word) compartment must comply with requirements of FMVSS No. 206. Is this correct?"

Answer: Yes.

2. "Is inside door lock required in this type utility(Illegible Word) compartment?"

Answer: Yes, since it is a "hinged door", and not a "cargo-type door", within the meaning of the standard, on that the requirement of(Illegible Word) applies.

3. "It is our opinion that FMVSS No. 206 does not apply to material compartment door latches illustrated in Exhibit 1. Is this correct?"

Answer: Yes. Material compartment doors are not(Illegible Word)

4. "It is our opinion that hinge, latch and inside door(Illegible Words) illustrated in Exhibit 4 and not done under FMVSS No. 206. Is this correct?"

Answer: Yes. The requirements of the standard apply only to side doors.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht95-4.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1995

FROM: Ken Van Sciver -- President, Sciver Corporation

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Ken Van Sciver (A43; Std. 206; VSA 102)

TEXT: Safety Administration:

The Sciver Corporation has developed a new product, the Auto Bib, hereafter known as product. We have already began the development and marketing of this new product. The reason for this letter is to familiarize ourselves to any local, state, or govern ing agency with regards to the consumers safety standards if applicable with this product.

After speaking with Walter Meyers in one of your departments, he suggested we submit drawings and describe our product to the New Product Safety Committee for review. We have enclosed a promotional sheet that gives detailed instructions of it's uses and installation of this product. The intentions of this product are to provide the consumer a way of protecting their vehicle's door from the abuse caused by their small pets, the sun, and children.

If you could please forward any information and findings at your earliest convenience it will be appreciated.

Enclosures: product description product installation instructions

(Enclosures omitted.)