ID: nht95-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Earl L. Hartley, Jr. -- Ryan Freight Services, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/23/94 letter from Earl L. Hartley, Jr. to John Womack (OCC 10290)

TEXT: 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 li ke 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 questi ons, 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 per cent 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 t o 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 foreig n 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 i n 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 conte nt 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 Au tomobile 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 spe cifies 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 regulation s 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 re quest 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

ID: nht71-2.32

DATE: 04/28/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Simek Manufacturing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 7, 1971, concerning the applicability of the Tire identification and Record Keeping Regulations to boat trailers. As used in the regulation, "Motor Vehicle" includes boat trailers as well as other types of trailers. Thus, the regulation does apply to boat trailers.

If a trailer is shipped with the tires attached, section 574.10 requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to maintain the records of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale because the tires will be "on or in" a vehicle shipped by him. If, however, the trailers are shipped in a "knocked down" configuration with the tires shipped seperately, the tires are not considered to be shipped "on or in" the vehicle within the meaning of Section 574.10, and therefore, the vehicle dealer is, by section 57 required to report the name and address of the purchaser to the tire manufacturer.

The manner of maintaining the records is not specified by the regulation and any method that satisfies the requirements of the regulation may be used.

ID: nht75-6.39

DATE: 05/09/75

FROM: James B. Gregory -- Administrator, NHTSA

TO: J. C. Carruth -- President, Canadian Trucking Association

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: The Secretary has asked me to respond to your letter of March 17 (F-50-A) requesting relief from a provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 et seq.) that prevents operation in the United States of Canadian vehicles which were not manufactured in conformity with Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You request a temporary exclusion from the standard for Canadian-based commercial vehicles operating in the United States, whether or not they are manufactured in Canada.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no person shall import into the United States a motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with the standard (@ 1397(a)(1)(A)). Sections 1397(b)(3) and (b)(4) specifically address importation:

@ 1397

(3) A motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment offered for importation in violation of paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section shall be refused admission into the United States under joint regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary.

(4) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary may, by joint regulations, permit the temporary importation of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.

The only exception to these laws is promulgated in Part 12 of the customs regulations (19 CFR @ 12.80). One exception permits temporary importation for personal use, but it does not apply to commercial use of U. S. highways.

Section 1392(g) of the Act also mandates that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (referred to in the section as the Interstate Commerce Commission) "not adopt or continue in effect any safety standard which differs from" our standards unless it is a higher standard of safety. The Bureau has indicated its intent to adopt Standard No. 121 as its performance standard in the regulation of U. S. and foreign motor carriers on U. S. highways.

I conclude that any exclusion of Canadian vehicles from Standard No. 121 would be an evasion of the Act's prohibition on importation of noncomplying vehicles. Such an exclusion would reduce the expected benefits of Standard No. 121 and would discriminate against U. S. manufacturers and carriers. For those reasons, your request is denied.

For clarification, I note that the standard applies (with limited exceptions) to air-braked trailers manufactured after January 1, 1975, and air-braked trucks and buses manufactured after March 1, 1975. I am unaware of the significance of the March 31, 1975, date to which you refer.

ID: nht92-2.42

DATE: November 9, 1992

FROM: Rodney T. Nash -- Vice President Engineering, Collins Industries, Inc.

TO: Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/92 from Stephen P. Wood (signed by John Womack) (A40; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Please forward this letter to the appropriate locations within the office of General Counsel to answer this question on vehicle designation. The final-stage manufacturer of a vehicle is required to label his vehicle with the information designated in FMVSS 115 and FMVSS 120. This information requires the final-stage manufacturer to designate the vehicle classification involved. We need to know how to classify an ambulance that is built on a truck chassis.

The ambulance carries more weight of specialized equipment for patient-care support than it carries people. The special purpose vehicles operates half of its life with no patient in the rear cargo area but always carries heart monitors, jaws of life, stretchers, respirators, and other life-support equipment. The question that needs clarification is what vehicle class (truck or MPV) should be applied to an ambulance. Should the classification change if the vehicle is focused on equipment transport over patient transport? It appears to us that the final-stage manufacturer is free to select between these categories.

Should you wish to discuss this question further, please call 316-663-5551 during normal working hours. I've taken the liberty of enclosing a piece of sales literature for a cargo intensive ambulance for you to review in issuing your opinion letter.

Thank you in advance for any prompt consideration you can give this request.

ID: 20585.ztv

Mr. Frank K. Lattimore
P.O. Box 08
Bovard, PA. 15619

Dear Mr. Lattimore:

This is in response to the petition you filed dated August 19, 1999, requesting the agency to allow cell-phone alert lamps to be mounted on the front and rear bumpers of automobiles to alert other drivers that the phone is in use.

You describe the system you wish to use as consisting of lamps not more "than 3 to 4 inches in diameter with a soft, purplish, slow quivering light bulb." Federal law (i.e., Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) permits a lamp emitting a soft, purplish light to be installed on a motor vehicle if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by the standard. We see no impairment here; as a matter of fact, many funeral directors use a purple lamp to indicate that a funeral procession is in progress. However, Standard No. 108 also requires that supplementary lamps such as you propose to use be steady burning. If you change the light to steady burning from "quivering," you may use your system without the need for rulemaking on our part. For this reason, we consider your petition to be moot.

We believe that some states may be moving to require purple lamps to be used to identify funeral processions. The Society of Automotive Engineers is currently developing an industry standard for the color and performance of purple funeral lamps. You should check with your local authorities to see whether use of a purple lamp to indicate cell phone use is acceptable under the laws of Pennsylvania.

If you have any questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.10/22/99

ID: Warning letter re electronic devices --Bligidy

ID: nht76-3.22

DATE: 07/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Plymouth Fire Department

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 22, 1976, request to know when Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, became applicable to firefighting vehicles, and whether the date of manufacture of the chassis or the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle is relevant for purposes of the standard's applicability. You also ask whether the chassis manufacture or the final manufacturer who completes the vehicle is responsible for complying with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 applies to firefighting vehicles manufactured on or after June 1, 1976. I have enclosed a copy of the standard, which includes a listing of effective dates in section S3, Applicability.

Because most trucks are manufactured in two or more stages, the NHTSA has issed a regulation that assigns responsibilities to the incomplete vehicle manufacture, intermediate manufacturers, and the final-stage manufacturer for ensuring conformity of the vehicle with safety standards (Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (49 CFR Part 568)). Section 568.6 of this regulation requires that the final-stage manufacturer complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to applicable standards. Section 568.6 does permit the final-stage manufacturer to treat as the time that manufacture is "completed" for the purposes of certification any date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the complete vehicle and no later than the date of completion of final-stage manufacture. For example, a firefighting vehicle that is completed on a chassis built before June 1, 1976, could be legally completed by a final-stage manufacturer at any future date without conformity to Standard No. 121.

ID: 1922y

Mr. Robert V. Potter, Jr.
Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc.
5750-A North Hoover Blvd.
P.O. Box 30101
Tampa, FL 33630

Dear Mr. Potter:

This responds to your March 17, 1989, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires child restraint manufacturers to make spare parts available for their products for a specified amount of time. I regret the delay in responding.

NHTSA has addressed the availability issue you raise in a July 31, 1986, letter to Ms. Ziomek of Washington, Michigan, a copy of which is enclosed. As explained in that letter, NHTSA does not specifically require child restraint manufacturers to make replacement parts available for any child restraint. However, manufacturers must be prepared to meet their recall obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That law requires that, in the event of a safety-related defect or non-compliance with a safety standard, manufacturers provide a remedy without charge to consumers for eight years after purchase.

With regard to your statement about an existing Federal regulation requiring automobile manufacturers to make replacement parts available for 10 years, NHTSA does not have such a requirement. However, automobile manufacturers have the same recall responsibilities described above for safety-related defects and non-compliances. Further, we understand manufacturers commonly follow a voluntary practice of making replacement parts available for vehicle parts likely to become worn or damaged for a 10-year period, which to the best of our knowledge has usually proven adequate to meet general consumer demand.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:213 d:7/27/89

ID: nht73-3.5

DATE: 11/22/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Claude S. Brinegar; NHTSA

TO: Honorable John E. Moss; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 26, 1973, concerning our estimate of the time required by vehicle manufacturers to meet the adopted and proposed(Illegible Word) to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

Our basic approach to leadtime analysis in the automotive industry has been along the lines set forth in(Illegible Word) automotive engineering studies prepared in the early days of the highway safety program by Arthur Young and Company, and by Booz, Allen, and Hamilton. Over the years, we have found these studies to be accurate predictors of the time required to make substantial structural modifications to production vehicles.

On the basis of our preliminary crash tests, we concluded that to meet the 30 mile-per-hour, rear moving barrier crash test, the rear-end structure of a typical vehicle would have to be strengthened considerably. To accomplish such strengthening, the manufacturers may have to change the gauge of metal used, the configuration of the underbody and interior panels, and the location and design of interior braces and(Illegible Word). Any changes of this nature will require major tooling modifications, and tool modification has historically occupied a major portion of the leadtime needed to effect a change.

Our leadtime evaluation, based on our usual techniques, indicated that the tooling time and other production planning time required for the structural changes we expect to be necessary to meet the standard

be at least two years. To this time must be added the time required for us to complete the rulemaking process and present the manufacturers with a final standard to which they can design their vehicles. We were, therefore, obliged to conclude that there was not enough time remaining before September 1975 to allow manufacturers to meet the standard with their 1976 models.

In this as in most rulemaking actions, we are working without benefit of information from the manufacturers on their projected expenditures of funds and man-hours. I would like to be able to tell you, to the minute, what those projections are, but the best I can say is that we have no indications that the manufacturers' plans could place conforming cars in production in less than the time specified in our proposal.

I remain committed to the pursuit of this rulemaking action and assure you that it will be completed expeditiously.

ID: nht75-2.48

DATE: 07/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA Z. VINSON FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: D. R. Bernard, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1975, providing further information for our determination whether certain "safety lights" would violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

There is no Federal prohibition against sale of this accessory in the aftermarket. It would, however, be subject to regulation by the states. For the following reasons, it could not be used as original equipment. Standard No. 108 requires a minimum spacing of 4 inches (edge to edge) between the stop lamps and the rear turn signal lamps and a minimum spacing of 9 inches (centerline to centerline) between the turn signals. The purpose of this spacing is to provide a distinctive indication of the turning direction. A flashing stop lamp located in close proximity to the steady-burning stop lamp required by Standard No. 108 would, in our opinion, impair the effectiveness of the rear turn signal within the meaning of S4.1.3, during a combined braking and turning operation. Such a lamp would also be prohibited by S4.6(b) which, in effect, requires all original equipment stop lamps to be steady burning.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BERNARD & BERNARD -- ATTORNEYS AT LAW

May 28, 1975

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: N40-30 (ZTV)

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Pursuant to your letter, we are providing the following supplemental information in order for you to reach a decision in regard to the proposed safety lights.

1. The flashing lights will be no brighter than the standard brake light, but will be mounted in close proximity to the said brake lights.

2. The flashing lights will be a different color from the turn signals and will not interfere with the operation nor be confused with the turn signals.

3. The flashing lights will be the same color normally as the brake lights and will have a frequency of flashes approximately twice the speed of the signal light for turns.

It is hoped that this information will be satisfactory to you, and your conclusion as soon as possible would be appreciated.

Yours truly,

D. R. Bernard