ID: nht72-4.4

DATE: 08/25/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your request of August 7, 1972, for the data used to support the conclusions we announced in Notice 20 of Docket 69-7 concerning the ignition interlock for the center front position and the ability of seat belt systems to meet a 60g, 3-millisecond injury criterion in 1975.

In evaluating the petitions for reconsideration of the center seat interlock requirements, we followed the techniques of cost/benefit analysis adopted in our earlier studies of passive restraints (see General Reference items 42, 43, and 99). The anticipated incremental benefit from an interlock at the center position was $ 9.70 per vehicle, which, when divided by the incremental cost of $ 7.00 supplied by Ford Motor Company (N<16>-69-7-3), produced a favorable ratio of 1.4. Although the analysis was completed, it was used as a rough working paper and was not submitted to the docket. A typed draft of the analysis is being prepared for submission to the docket.

Although we decided to grant interim relief for belt systems from the 60g, 3-millisecond chest injury criterion, several manufacturers submitted data which indicated to us that their present systems were capable of meeting the criterion or that they were close enough that minor modifications would enable them to meet it. The data from your own organization (N<13>-69-7-16) showed that a number of cars were passing the criterion by comfortable margins. The Chrysler data, for example, revealed that in 9 tests no dummy recorded chest accelerations in excess of 50g's. Although General Motors, in its comment, submitted data on subcompacts which indicated a problem with chest accelerations, the data from their larger vehicles ranged between 38 and 52g's. (N<13>-69-7-20). Toyota also submitted test results with most accelerations in the range of 45-50g's, with only one test of a Corolla appearing to show a marginal condition (N<13>-69-7-23).

From our research contracts, a number of sled tests have been conducted at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (General Reference No. 135), and most of these produced accelerations of between 30 and 50g's. From other sources have come data indicating that such improvements in belt design as the use of tear seams can produce significantly lower accelerations (see, e.g., General Reference items 161, 166, and 167).

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: nht91-4.29

DATE: June 25, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Debby Funk

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-4-91 from Debby Funk to The United States Department of Transportation (OCC 6130)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 4, 1991, to the Department requesting information regarding regulations on the display of lighted signs in vehicles. If they are not prohibited, you are interested in regulations governing size, placement, color, luminosity, and power source "(i.e. batteries, wire connections to either brake lights or cigarette lighter)."

There are no Federal regulations or restrictions that directly prohibit the use of lighted signs in vehicles. However, there may be State and local laws that do. We are not in a position to advise you as to these laws, but you may write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. The address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you are contemplating a commercial venture in supplying lighted signs for use in motor vehicles, there are somewhat different considerations. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, once a vehicle has been sold and in use, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not modify it in any way that would create a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard with which the vehicle originally complied. Thus, installation of a lighted sign by any of the foregoing persons could affect compliance with Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors and Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If the size of the sign interferes with the field of view in the interior mirror, a mirror must be provided on the exterior of the passenger side (most new cars today come equipped with these mirrors). If the sign is wired to the stop lamps, it must not result in a diminution of power that reduces the light from the lamp below the minimum levels specified in the standard. However, if the device is intended for owner installation, the foregoing discussion does not apply, as the Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles in any manner they choose, even if the modification creates a noncompliance.

Our regulations do prohibit combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or device such as a lighted display sign. However, there is no Federal prohibition governing manufacture and sale of these devices. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to respond.

ID: nht90-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 25, 1990

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

TO: ANTHONY T. GREENISH -- U.N.D.P.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-19-90 TO U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION FROM ANTHONY P. GREENISH; (OCC 4482) TEXT:

Your letter of February 19, 1990, to the Department has been referred to this Office for reply. You are contemplating buying a car in Europe and importing it when you return to the United States in July. You have in mind the BMW 324d and the Honda Acco rd 1.6 LX, and ask for information "as to how these cars rate as to motor vehicle safety standards.

BMW does not offer the 324d for sale in the United States, and we assume that the Honda you mentioned was also produced for the European market. This means that these vehicles are not certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safet y, bumper, and theft prevention standards. Because of the difficulties you would entail in attempting to import an uncertified vehicle, we recommend that you purchase a vehicle certified by its original manufacturer for the American market. As you know , many European manufacturers have a factory delivery program for U.S. tourists. That way you can ensure that your car meets 100 percent of Federal requirements.

If you nevertheless wish to pursue the idea of buying and importing a passenger car not certified by its original manufacturer to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you should be aware of some recent changes in law. Because of new regulati ons which were mandated by congress and became effective January 31, 1990, such a vehicle may not be imported unless the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that that specific model and model year is capable of conversion to mee t the standards. Importation of the vehicle is also subject to the requirement that it be imported either by a person who has been approved by this agency as a Registered Importer and will be responsible for converting the vehicle to meet the standards, or by a person who has a contract with a Registered Importer. In either instance, a bond in an amount equal to 150 percent of the entered value of the vehicle as determined by the U.S. Customs service must be given to ensure performance of the conversi on work. We anticipate that the effect of these stringent regulations will be to convince many prospective importers not to buy vehicles intended for markets other than the United States.

ID: nht87-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Martin V. Chauvin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Martin V. Chauvin Chief, Carrier Safety Bureau New York Department of Transportation Albany, N.Y. 12232

Dear Mr. Chauvin:

This responds to your two letters to this agency concerning safety belts on school buses. Your October 24, 1986 letter to this office asked for clarification of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA in 1976 which stated that seats on large school bus es are strong enough to absorb the seat belt loads set for belts on smaller school buses. Your October 29, 1986 letter to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, which has been referred to my office for reply, concerned manufacturers' test data for h ead form impact requirements of Standards No. 222 and No. 208. apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.

Your first letter pertained to retrofitting safety belts on large school buses meeting Standard No. 222. You referred to a 1976 Federal Register notice in which NHTSA said that seats on large school buses that meet Standard No. 222 are strong enough to a bsorb safety belt loads. You explained that school bus manufacturers disagree with those statements and have indicated that they are not true for most seats on large school buses manufactured since 1977. Your question asked whether manufacturers are requ ired to equip large school buses with seats that are strong enough to meet the load requirements set for safety belts in small school buses.

The answer to your question is no. Seats installed on large school buses must meet their own strength requirements set by Standard No. 222. Manufacturers are not required to install seats on large school buses that are capable of meeting the load require ments set for safety belts on small school buses.

For your information, I am enclosing a May 11, 1978 letter from former Chief Counsel Joseph Levin to Dr. Arthur Yeager, in which we discuss the statement made in Notice 5 of Docket 73-3 you referenced in your letter. Mr. Levin's letter explains that NHTS A had proposed safety belt requirements for large school buses that would have set lower belt load requirements than those currently applicable to small school buses. (I) addition, the proposed sear strength requirement was higher than that adopted in St andard No. 222.2 Mr. Levin explains that the statement made in Notice 5 was referring to the safety belt requirements formerly proposed for the seats on large school buses, which the seats would be capable of withstanding. It did not mean to imply that t he seats on large school buses were strong enough to be retrofitted with safety belts and meet the requirements applicable to belts on small school buses.

We believe that manufacturers can design the seats on large school buses to accommodate safety belts which meet the load requirements applicable to belts on the smaller school buses. As you know, NHTSA proposed an amendment to Standard No. 222 which woul d set such a strength requirement for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses, to ensure that proper belt installations are made. If adopted, the amendment would supersede any conflicting statements in the Yeager letter concerning th e load requirements applicable to new large school buses.

In your second letter, you explained that New York enacted a law which sets certain head form impact requirements for school buses. You would like to obtain information from manufacturers regarding the values they obtained for the actual axial accelerati on of the head form pursuant to Standards No. 208 and No. 222. You asked whether motor vehicle manufacturers are required to submit such test data to NHTSA.

The answer to your question is no. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its pro ducts meet all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computer simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. That data is retained by the manufacturer, and is not submitted to NHTSA for approval. NHTSA can request manufacturers to produce records to show how it determined compliance if a question should arise as to the compliance of a particular product with NH TSA requirements.

Please note that the New York legislation you mentioned raises an important preemption issue. Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is governed by S103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor v ehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the gov ernment of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

We understand that New York's law requires passenger safety belts and additional seat padding on all new school buses manufactured for use in New York. The New York law applies to the same aspect of performance (i.e., passenger crash protection) as Stand ard No. 222 but specifies performance requirements that are not identical to the Federal standard. In requiring the belts and the additional padding, the New York law is specifying higher requirements than those in the FMVSS. Section 103(d) preempts high er state requirements except to the extent that they apply to vehicles procured for the State's use. Therefore, the New York law is preempted under the first sentence of S103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in New York to be equipped with belts and extra padding. The law is not preempted to the extent that it requires belts and additional padding for public school buses. The phrase "vehicles procured for (the State's) own use" includes public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 24, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, South West Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

The New York State Department of Transportation has been designated by New York statute as the agency responsible for promulgating regulations dealing with seat belts on school buses, In pursuing this assignment, we have been presented with a problem tha t needs clarification from your office.

Enclosed are two documents that refer to standards being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). One document is a copy of a page (4017) of the Federal Register, Vol. 41-No. 19-Wednesday, January 28, 1976 (the specific d ate is somewhat blurred but it is definitely January 20 something 1976). The second document is identified as "Preamble to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222" and is dated October 26, 1976. The question we need clarification on is addressed in both do cuments.

We have been provided an interpretation of these documents (underlined or otherwise marked to identify particular item in question) that indicates that school buses, since 1977 have been required to provide seats that meet safety standard 222 and as such must be capable of accommodating seat belts. School bus body manufacturers advise us that this is not true. In fact, the manufacturers advise us that better than 95 percent of the buses manufactured since 1977 would not be equipped with seats that can a ccommodate seat belts.

We are looking to you to help clarify this matter. In essence, we want to know If manufacturers are required to equip school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds with seats that can accommodate seat belts (for example, meet the federal standards that have been spelled out for buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

We are faced with some severe time constraints so we would appreciate a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Thanks for your help.

Sincerely,

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

October 29, 1986

Mr. William Smith Department of Transportation N.R.M.-12 Room 5320 400 7th Street Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Smith:

Enclosed is a copy of a bill that was enacted into law on July 30, 1986 and sets certain requirements for seat belts and seat back padding for school buses.

Section 142 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law provides a broad definition of school bus and applies to passenger cars if used by a school district or by others on a for hire basis to transport pupils. This law specifies that these school buse s (including passenger cars) must meet the head form impact requirement as spelled out in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), 49 CFR Section 571.222 except the impact requirement shall not exceed 800 whereas the federal standard allows 1000.

We are interested in finding out if the automobile manufacturers are required to provide any specific test data that would indicate the actual axial acceleration of the head form as described in FMVSS Section 571.222, S5.3 Impact zone requirements or Sec tion 571.208. S6 Injury criteria. We are trying to determine if the information we are seeking is already available at one central point or if we must deal directly with each manufacturer individually.

Any assistance you can provide in helping us deal with this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ID: nht91-4.17

DATE: June 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rosemary Dunlap -- President, Motor Voters

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-91 from Rosemary Dunlap to Jack Rice (OCC 6035)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning bills under consideration by a number of states which would require disclosure concerning safety features in light trucks and vans and bumper strength. You stated that there is considerable debate about whether such bills would be preempted be Federal law, and noted that opponents have represented that a NHTSA spokesperson indicated that the states are preempted in this area. You stated that you have been unable to locate this statement, and asked whether NHTSA has an official opinion regarding Federal preemption and disclosure.

I believe that the statement you refer to was made by NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, Barry Felrice, at the July 1990 NHTSA Public/Industry Meeting. Mr. Felrice was responding to a question from the Center for Auto Safety. I have enclosed a copy of the relevant portion of the transcript for that meeting and the question.

As you can see from the transcript, Mr. Felrice did not say that states are necessarily preempted from establishing information disclosure requirements. In order to provide an opinion as whether a particular bill would be preempted, I would need to review the specific language of the bill.

I hope this information is helpful.

Attachment NHTSA MEMORANDUM

Subject: INFORMATION: Submittal to Docket Date: August 13, 1990 NHTSA/Industry

From: Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

To: Docket Section THRU: Jack Rice Chief Counsel

Please insert in that Section of the Docket titled, "Rulemaking, Research and Enforcement Program: Public Meetings, the following:

1. Federal Register Notice 55 FR 25920 of June 25, 1990 - Notice of Meeting July 18, 1990, Ann Arbor, MI.

2. Agenda of Meeting

3. Submittal from Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc, subject: "NHTSA/Industry Meeting - Agenda Items, July 18, 1990."

4. Letter dated July 10, 1990, from Center for Auto Safety, subject: "Questions for the July 18, 1990, NHTSA/Industry Meeting."

5. Letter dated July 9, 1990, from Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, subject: "Questions for NHTSA/Meeting, July 18, 1990.

6. Transcript of Proceedings for the NHTSA Industry Meeting on July 18, 1990.

Attachments

Agenda for NHTSA Industry Meeting Wednesday, July 18, 1990 Ann Arbor, Michigan

I. RULEMAKING

Q. MVMA

1. Attached is a list of unresolved petitions. Please advise as to their status and anticipated actions.

CRASHAVOIDANCE

Q. AIAM

1A. What is the status of NHTSA action on the petition that would require brake hydraulic system malfunction indication for fluid loss and/or pressure loss?

Q. MVMA

2. After review of petitions for reconsideration, does the agency expect to retain the current method of measuring turn signal/headlamp separation by amending the recent FMVSS 108 Final Rule (effective November, 1990)?

3. When does the agency plan to issue a Final Rule on Docket No.

89-24; Notice 1 (optional combinations of lamps)? What changes are expected from the NPRM?

4. When does the agency plan to issue a Final Rule on Docket No.

81-11; Notice 29 (amended humidity test procedure)? What changes are expected from the NPRM?

5. When will the next rulemaking action be taken and what will be the content regarding the adoption of roadway illumination specifications for forward lighting? (Docket 85-15, Notice 7)

Q. AIAM

6. NHTSA issued a final rule to require vehicles with automatic transmissions to be equipped with key-locking systems from September 1, 1992. Has the agency received any request for reconsideration of the requirements and does the agency have an intention to amend the regulation?

Q. MVMA

7. When does the agency plan to issue a SNPRM on brake harmonization? Please describe any expected changes from the previous notice.

Q. AIAM

51. Automobile manufacturers are well aware of the benefits of ABS systems and many are moving forward to adopt ABS for their model lineups. However, in the State of California, a bill, AB 4342 is currently being deliberated, which would make ABS mandatory for all vehicles 6,001 lbs unloaded vehicle weight. While the intent of the bill is a step for the better, we do believe that the bill may conflict with Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

Could NHTSA comment on whether this bill does come into conflict with Federal preemption of state laws as stated in Section 103(d)?

Q. MVMA

52. When is NHTSA planning to complete and make available the "EMERGENCY RESCUE GUIDELINES FOR AIR BAG-EQUIPPED VEHICLES"?

-How and when can copies be obtained?

-How will the "GUIDELINES" be announced and distributed, and to what organizations and mailing lists?

-To whom should individual requests be directed?

Q. CFAS

53. Because light trucks and vans (LTV's) need not meet the same safety standards as passenger cars, several states have proposed laws to require disclosure of standards that a particular LTV does or does not meet, and any effect on the owner's insurance rates. What is NHTSA's view on such state laws?

54. To what extent does NHTSA plan to continue soliciting the opinions of consumer groups in roundtable meetings, such as the recent one on rear seat shoulder belt installation?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

In the Matter of:

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION INDUSTRY MEETING

PAGES: 1 through 79 PLACE: Ann Arbor, Michigan DATE: July 18, 1990

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters 1220 L. Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20805 (202) 623-4233

...regulate. So while we don't specifically require or address anti-lock in our standards, we think that a state law requiring anti-lock can be regarded as addressing the same aspect of performance as Standard 105 and therefore, would be preempted by our standard.

MR. SCHWENTKER: Don Schwentker from AIAM. One might argue that breaking is an aspect of performance quite apart from anti-lock breaking and that a breaking standard, itself, might be preempted like that.

MR. FELRICE: Could be. But we're willing right now to go even further than that. Like I said, breaking stability is regulated by Standard 105. So, without looking at the actual bill, you know, the lawyers think that such a law would be preempted by us.

MR. SCHWENTKER: Does NHTSA have any plans to communicate their feelings on that to California?

MR. FELRICE: No, not at this time. It would be premature.

Fifty two we talked about. Fifty three is another legal question. In this case, the states are requiring disclosure of information to consumers, in this case, light trucks and vans -- a label or something that says these vehicles do not meet all the same requirements that passenger cars do. I think we've seen similar laws here on the bumper performance.

This is a different case. Here we -- there is nothing in federal law that preempts or otherwise prohibits a state from establishing information disclosure requirements as long as the information is accurate and is not required to be affixed to the vehicle. And we think

there is federal preemption there but if a state wants to provide dealerships, provide point of sale information to consumers, or that there be information in an owner's manual, we believe that they have authority to do that.

And the second part of this question asks, what are our views on such state laws? We would hate to give any kind of opinion as to whether a particular state law was good or bad or if we agreed with it based on the specifics of that particular law and I really don't want to give a general statement that we disapprove of the states being in this area.

MR. DANA: Greg Dana, AIAM. About petitions -- did you just say as long as that information labeling requirement, whatever, is not attached to the vehicle?

MR. FELRICE: Yes.

As long as it is not required to be affixed to the vehicle. MR. DANA: All right.

MR. FELRICE: And what the legal cite for that particular aspect is I don't know and you can feel free to ask Jack Rice, our Chief Counsel, who said you can say this, Barry.

Now the last question asks, To what extent we plan to continue soliciting the opinions of consumer groups or others in round table meetings?

For instance, in a recent one, we had an issue about lap/shoulder belts. These will be done periodically. Jerry Curry wants to reach out a lot. We've had meetings with insurers, with manufacturers, consumer groups -- the rear seat lap shoulder belt meeting was an interesting one because we sort of had everybody there together: dealers, manufacturers, consumer groups and insurers. We don't have a particular time table that we'll do these. And probably -- I think everyone wants to do them once every six months, once every year, and I think we will continue to do that and as specific subjects come up, like rear seat lap shoulder belt retrofit kits that merit a specific meeting, we'll just call it then. So they will be continued but there is no specific schedule for doing that.

And I will answer any other questions.

MR. BENNETT: Milford Bennett, General Motors. Barry, a follow up on Item 22, Side Impact. BIOSID AND SID...

ID: 10666

Mr. Stuart Sacks
Tradepro, Inc.
7350 N.W. 35th Street
Miami, FL 33122

Dear Mr. Sacks:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, in which you stated that you are considering importing tires from the Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which has been assigned NHTSA manufacturer identification number 7D. You stated that the tires do not display the "molded D.O.T. code numbers," and that Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), "clearly does not require [DOT code numbers] for non- passenger tires." Your reading of FMVSS No. 119 is not correct.

I assume from your letter that you are considering importing only non-passenger car tires. This letter, then, will address only the labeling requirements for non-passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 119 and 49 CFR 574. I further assume that by "DOT code numbers" you mean the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR 574.5.

49 U.S. Code '30112 provides that no person may sell in or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. With respect to non-passenger car tires, which are items of motor vehicle equipment, section S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires specific items of information to be marked on the tire sidewalls. Those markings must be no less than 0.078 inch high and must be "raised above or sunk below the tire surface" a specified distance. Among other things, the markings must include the TIN (S6.5(b)).

Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 requires the TIN to comply with part 574. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be permanently molded into or onto tire sidewalls as specified in Figure 1 of Part 574, and specifies what information the TIN must contain. The TIN can be branded into or onto the sidewalls of retreaded tires after the fact, but not new tires. On new tires, the TIN must be molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the original manufacturer.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Ref:119#574 d:5/25/95

ID: Holliday

ID: hyundai.ztv

Mr. Roger Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 2003, asking for an interpretation as to whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 preempts a California statute relating to fog lamps.

You reported that "a California statute, Title 13, Section 691" states that "Foglamps shall be mounted so the inner edge of the lens retaining ring is no closer than 10 cm (4 in.) to the optical center of the front turn signal lamp."In your view, "FMVSS 108 allows fog lamps to be located less than 4 inches from front turn signal lamps in certain circumstances" by virtue of "SAE J588, which is incorporated into FMVSS 108."

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Preemption, a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle . . . only if the standard is identical to" a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is in effect. Fog lamps are not required items of lighting equipment under FMVSS No. 108. Thus, the action by California in regulating the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps is not "an aspect of performance" that is covered by FMVSS No. 108. Therefore, we do not find that FMVSS No. 108 preempts the California statute.

We do not view SAE J588 as relevant to this issue. SAE J588 NOV84, "Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width," is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108 as the Federal standard applicable to turn signal lamps on passenger cars and motorcycles, and on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in overall width (see S5.1.1 and Table III). J588 does contain references to fog lamps. Under J588, if the lighted edge of "the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp" is closer than 100 mm (4 in.) to the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area, the luminous intensity of the turn signal lamp is required to be higher than it would be if the spacing between the turn signal and other lamp were 100 mm or greater (See J588, 5.1.5.4 and 5.1.5.4.2). But the reference to fog lamps is illustrative only, and the thrust of J588 is to regulate performance of turn signal lamps.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/2/03

ID: kroger.ztv

Mr. Richard C. Kroger
Corporate Counsel
Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 330
Sealy, TX 77474

Dear Mr. Kroger:

This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 2003, addressed to David "Comen" (Coleman), which we received on May 5. You seek clarification as to whether you are subject to the TREAD Acts early warning reporting (EWR) requirements set out in Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

Your company manufactures trucks exclusively for the United States Army. You asserted that feedback reports you receive from the Army on your trucks are usually "purposely vague and prevent any meaningful review or truck evaluation." In the event that negative information might be received regarding a trucks performance, you pointed out that furnishing us with this information could result in an enemy gaining knowledge that it could put to tactical use. You argued that "it would seem that the intent of the Act (protecting the consumer public at large) is inapplicable to our situation."

The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) recently observed that under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles manufactured for, and sold directly to, the military need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NTEA asked whether such vehicles should be counted as part of a manufacturers production and included in reporting of warranty claims, consumer complaints, field reports, etc. We replied on May 14, 2003, that:

The exclusion of Section 571.7(c) is limited to compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and does not extend to [the defect program or] other NHTSA regulations applicable to motor vehicles. We would expect manufacturers of vehicles that they would otherwise be required to certify, such as staff (passenger) cars and some trucks, to submit reports under the EWR regulations in the same manner as manufacturers of non-military motor vehicles certified by their manufacturers.

By "some trucks," we mean trucks that are the counterparts of trucks that a manufacturer produces for non-military use. Thus, reports would not be required under the EWR rules for military personnel carriers. On the other hand, reports would be required for pickup trucks, vans, and sedans that have civilian counterparts.

You have informed us that your company does not produce trucks for civilian applications. In other words, there are no civilian counterparts. Based on this information, we do not consider your company subject to the EWR requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:579
d.5/21/03