ID: 77-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 14, 1977, concerning the symbol "DOT" as a certification of compliance to FMVSS No. 108.

The symbol "DOT" is permitted by the Standard to be placed on the item of equipment in lieu of the certification requirements of Section 114 of the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966," which states, in part ". . . In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered . . ."

"DOT" on the individual container does not meet the certification requirements. The label or tag must state that the item "conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards."

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

STANLEY ELECTRONIC CO. LTD.

February 14, 1977

E. T. Driver -- Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Motor, Vehicle Programs,

U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Driver,

Our lighting equipment to which F.M.V.S.S. 108 is applicable are now being directly labeled with symbol "DOT" as a certification of compliance to that standard.

We are now considering to label this symbol "DOT" on an individual container in which each item of equipment is packaged, instead of labelling it on the item itself.

Please let us have your comment on whether the labelling with symbol "DOT" container is acceptable or not.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Yours faithfully, H. Miyazawa -- Director, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Dept.

ID: nht95-6.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: Jonathan P. Reynolds -- Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Cosco

TO: Deirdre Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: Cosco's Petition for Reconsideration Final Rule - Federal Register Volume 60 Number 129 Docket No. 74-09; Notice 42

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/24/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JONATHAN P. REYNOLDS (REDBOOK 4; PART 553; 74-09, N42-005-02)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Fujita:

In accordance with the requirements set forth in the Federal Register announcement of the subject Final Rule, Cosco submitted its petition for reconsideration in a timely fashion. The petition was transmitted via Federal Express on Friday, August 4, 1995, for next day delivery, on Monday, August 7, 1995.

Although we have not been formally advised, we have learned informally that NHTSA may contend that the petition was not received until August 10. We have confirmed with Federal Express that in fact the petition was delivered on August 7, 1995, and signed for by NHTSA employee T. Proctor. Attached are the Federal Express forms signed by each recipient of a Federal Express delivery, showing T. Proctor under item 15 on page 2 for August 7, 1995. Federal Express has confirmed that this package was in fact delivered to NHTSA on August 7, 1995.

Please confirm in writing that Cosco's petition is being deemed as timely received and that a response to the petition will be forthcoming in a timely fashion. Given the scope of the Final Rule and the very important concerns involved, Cosco assumes that the agency wishes to promptly address the issues raised by Cosco in its petition.

Please contact me if you require any further information or have any questions. I look forward to your prompt reply to this inquire.

(Federal Express forms omitted.)

ID: nht95-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 20, 1995

FROM: Jonathan P. Reynolds -- Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Cosco

TO: Deirdre Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: Cosco's Petition for Reconsideration Final Rule - Federal Register Volume 60 Number 129 Docket No. 74-09; Notice 42

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/24/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JONATHAN P. REYNOLDS (REDBOOK 4; PART 553; 74-09, N42-005-02)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Fujita:

In accordance with the requirements set forth in the Federal Register announcement of the subject Final Rule, Cosco submitted its petition for reconsideration in a timely fashion. The petition was transmitted via Federal Express on Friday, August 4, 199 5, for next day delivery, on Monday, August 7, 1995.

Although we have not been formally advised, we have learned informally that NHTSA may contend that the petition was not received until August 10. We have confirmed with Federal Express that in fact the petition was delivered on August 7, 1995, and signe d for by NHTSA employee T. Proctor. Attached are the Federal Express forms signed by each recipient of a Federal Express delivery, showing T. Proctor under item 15 on page 2 for August 7, 1995. Federal Express has confirmed that this package was in fac t delivered to NHTSA on August 7, 1995.

Please confirm in writing that Cosco's petition is being deemed as timely received and that a response to the petition will be forthcoming in a timely fashion. Given the scope of the Final Rule and the very important concerns involved, Cosco assumes tha t the agency wishes to promptly address the issues raised by Cosco in its petition.

Please contact me if you require any further information or have any questions. I look forward to your prompt reply to this inquire.

(Federal Express forms omitted.)

ID: GPScrashsensor

Mr. Ralph Longton
Application Engineer
LoJack Corp.
15 Commercial Circle
Dedham, MA 02026





Dear Mr. Longton:

This responds to your letter of June 1, 2001. In that letter, you inquire about a system that LoJack is currently developing. This system will be located in the passenger compartment of a vehicle. In the event the vehicle is in a crash, the system will rate the crash as minor or major, alert a G.P.S. locator, and contact a clearinghouse. The clearinghouse will attempt to contact the driver or send assistance. You would like to know whether there are any regulatory obligations you may need to meet in the deployment and operation of such a device.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot speak to all of your regulatory obligations, but only to Federal requirements in the area of automotive safety. We do not have any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for this type of device. However, the FMVSS could be relevant to your device if the device affects a vehicle's compliance with any of the standards. We do not have sufficient information about your system to comment on whether it would likely affect a vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS.

I have enclosed a copy of a paper titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment" which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

I hope this answers your question. Should you have any more questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:571
d.7/20/01

ID: 3271yy

Mr. John H. Heinrich
District Director of Customs
U.S. Customs Service
300 So. Ferry Street
Terminal Island, CA 90731

Re: Case No. 92-2704-00015

Dear Mr. Heinrich:

This responds to your letter of December 5, 1991, enclosing a petition for relief from the forfeiture of "200 Spinner Wheel Nuts" seized by the Customs Service as violative of 49 CFR Sec. 571.211. The petitioner expresses the opinion that the wheel nuts should be exempt from DOT regulations, stressing safety considerations and the need to replace worn parts on vehicles manufactured in the l950's. You have also enclosed a copy of the petitioner's own parts list that identifies the wheel nuts as part of a conversion kit, intended to replace disc wheels with wire wheels.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps, 49 CFR 571.211, precludes, for use on passenger cars, wheel nuts that incorporate winged projections. The chrome wheel nuts depicted in the Moss Motors catalogue page which you enclosed (Parts Nos. 200-210 and 200-220) clearly incorporate winged projections, and are the type of wheel nuts that Standard No. 211 addresses and prohibits. As such, they may not be imported for sale in the United States.

We have discounted petitioner's safety arguments. This is the first allegation in the nearly 24 years that the standard has been in effect that the spinners are required to replace original equipment, implying that there is no acceptable substitute that would conform with Standard No. 211. In our view, no justification has been shown for granting the petition.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:2ll d:l/9/92

ID: nht92-9.55

DATE: January 9, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John H. Heinrich -- District Director of Customs, U.S. Customs Service

TITLE: Case No. 92-2704-00015

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/05/91 from John H. Heinrich and Kathleen M. Tobin to the Office of Chief Counsel, DOT (OCC 6758)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 5, 1991, enclosing a petition for relief from the forfeiture of "200 Spinner Wheel Nuts" seized by the Customs Service as violative of 49 CFR Sec. 571.211. The petitioner expresses the opinion that the wheel nuts should be exempt from DOT regulations, stressing safety considerations and the need to replace worn parts on vehicles manufactured in the 1950's. You have also enclosed a copy of the petitioner's own parts list that identifies the wheel nuts as part of a conversion kit, intended to replace disc wheels with wire wheels.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps, 49 CFR 571.211, precludes, for use on passenger cars, wheel nuts that incorporate winged projections. The chrome wheel nuts depicted in the Moss Motors catalogue page which you enclosed (Parts Nos. 200-210 and 200-220) clearly incorporate winged projections, and are the type of wheel nuts that Standard No. 211 addresses and prohibits. As such, they may not be imported for sale in the United States.

We have discounted petitioner's safety arguments. This is the first allegation in the nearly 24 years that the standard has been in effect that the spinners are required to replace original equipment, implying that there is no acceptable substitute that would conform with Standard No. 211. In our view, no justification has been shown for granting the petition.

ID: nht73-1.37

DATE: 11/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crane Carrier Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 7, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking whether Standard No. 108 permits four identification lamps.

It does not. The purpose of the three-lamp system is that vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width be clearly identified as large vehicles, and only the three-lamp system specified by the standard is permissible. Standard No. 108, however, allows some latitude in mounting. The system need not be mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle if the manufacturer determines that is impracticable. Since you appear to have made such a determination, the front identification lamp system should be placed "as close as practicable to the vertical centerline" with height and spacing requirements in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel

Attention: Larry Schnieder

Dear Sir:

In regards to trucks of 80 or more inches, are the three (3) lamps for front identification a minimum requirement?

The front loader equipment requires a bumper guard across the center of the windshield over the cab which would obscure the center lamp. Would four (4) identification lamps be permissible, i.e., 2 on each side of the center?

I would appreciate any advice or reference to a standard.

Thanking you in advance.

Very truly yours,

Crane Carrier Company --

Darrell Gambill,

Standards Engineer

ID: nht71-1.17

DATE: 09/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to a request made on behalf of Phillips Petroleum Company by Veigh J. Nielson for an assigned identification mark for two of Phillips' plants which manufacture tires for research purposes.

As I informed you in my letter of September 20, 1971, if Phillips purchases a new tire, removes the trend material and then applies its own experimental trend containing various rubber compounds, Phillips is considered to be a new tire manufacturer. If Phillips applies its experimental tread to a used tire, it is considered a retreader of tires.

As a new tire manufacturer you are required to certify the tire as conforming to the new passenger car tire standard (No. 109) and comply with Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR 574). Accordingly, you are assigned the identification mark of "J1" for tires made in your (Illegible Word), Oklahoma plant and "K1" for tires manufactured in your Stow, Ohio plant.

If you act as a retreader then Part 574 would not be applicable for the tires you retread because they are retreaded for your own use. (Enclosed is a copy of Docket No. 70-12, Notice No. 8 which makes the regulation inapplicable to retreaders who retread for their own use). As explained in my letter of September 20, you are, of course, required to certify that your new tires and your retreaded tires comply with the respective standards for new and retreaded tires if they are to be used on the public highways, by placing the symbol DOT on the tires in the prescribed location.

ID: nht71-5.22

DATE: 12/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Phillips Petroleum Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to a request made on behalf of Phillips Petroleum Company by Veigh J. Nielson for an assigned identification mark for two of Phillips' plants which manufacture tires for research purposes.

As I informed you in my letter of September 20, 1971, if Phillips purchases a new tire, removes the tread material and then applies its own experimental trend containing various rubber compounds, Phillips is considered to be a new tire manufacturer. If Phillips applies its experimental tread to a used tire, it is considered a retreader of tires.

As a new tire manufacturer you are required to certify the tire as conforming to the new passenger car tire standard (No. 109) and comply with Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR 574). Accordingly, you are assigned the identification mark of "J1" for tires made in your Bartlesville, Oklahoma plant and "K1" for tires manufactured in your Stow, Ohio plant.

If you act as a retreader then Part 574 would not be applicable for the tires you retread because they are retreaded for your own use. (Enclosed is a copy of Docket No. 70-12, Notice No. 8 which makes the regulation inapplicable to retreaders who retread for their own use). As explained in my letter of September 20, you are, of course, required to certify that your new tires and your retreaded tires comply with the respective standards for new and retreaded tires if they are to be used on the public highways, by placing the symbol DOT on the tires in the prescribed location.

ENC.

ID: nht91-2.4

DATE: February 27, 1991

FROM: Charles A. Schue, Jr.

TO: Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, DOT/NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Charles A. Schue, Jr. (VSA Sec. 108; Regs. 591)

TEXT:

Reference is made to your Guide for Complying With Regulations On Imported Motor Vehicles, DOT HS 807 144, Effective January 31, 1990.

I just received this guide from your office and was previously unaware of the one provision regarding purchase of the vehicle prior to November 1, 1988.

I have been working in Turkey continuously sine June, 1986. This employment has been with two separate United States Companies who are contracted to the U.S. Air Force on the Turkey Base Maintenance Contract.

In addition, I retired from the U.S. Army as a Warrant Officer Grade Three in 1974 after 27 years honorable service. I have not imported any other non-conforming vehicle in the past.

I purchased my present foreign made automobile on 15 May 1969 from an American employee of my present company who had previously purchased it from another American employee of the same company many years before.

Statistics of this automobile are:

1979, Mercedes, 300D, 423 Four Door, Red, SN: 42313010127393.

Request waiver of purchase date requirement outlined in your referenced guide. I plan to import this vehicle prior to October 31, 1992.

In the event this waiver cannot be granted, please inform me of other provisions under which I may request approval to import this vehicle into the U.S.A.