ID: nht95-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 25, 1995

FROM: Stuart Sacks -- TRADEPRO, INC.

TO: Philip R. Recht, Esq. -- Chief Legal Council, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO STUART SACKS (A43; STD. 119 PART 574)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

We are requesting a further interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 119, part 119 S-6.5.

We are considering the immediate possibility of importing tires from The Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which holds the D.O.T. identification number 7D.

While Standard 109 for passenger tires (Section S-4.3) requires molded D.O.T. code numbers, Standard 119 clearly does not require this for non-passenger tires.

The tires that we are interested in importing from the above factory do not have molded code numbers and the cost of altering these existing molds is prohibitive.

Please respond at your earliest possible convenience so that we might proceed with this matter in full compliance with current regulations.

ID: nht88-2.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/88

FROM: WILLIAM J. HENRICK -- GENERAL TIRE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL

TO: ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO WILLIAM J HENRICK; REDBOOK A32, PART 574

TEXT: Gentlemen:

This company has reached an agreement with two foreign manufacturers of tires to jointly produce a radial medium truck tire. The facility used to produce this tire will be an expansion of one of this company's facilities in the U. S. of America.

It is contemplated that the same green or uncured tires will be used by all three entities. However, the sidewall will reflect the member company's name.

This letter is a request to confirm our interpretation of 49 CFR 574.6. We believe that each member company may under the regulation secure its own identification mark for use in the curing process. Of course, it is understood that compliance with s ubsections (a), (b) and (c) of part 574.6 would be required.

ID: nht78-2.44

DATE: 03/29/78

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

TO: Stanley Kuny

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Joan Claybrook has asked that I respond to your February 24, 1978, letter asking whether the seller of a school bus that contains a safety-related defect is responsible for correcting the defect, whether the buyer would otherwise be entitled to a refund for the price of the defective equipment, and whether a brake pressure limiting valve may be installed on the front axles of school buses whose antilock systems are disconnected pursuant to a recall campaign. You also ask about the status of the reimplementation of requirements for school bus service brake stopping distance performance contained in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Section 154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1414) requires the vehicle manufacturer to provide an adequate repair of safety-related defects found in its products, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of its purchase price is undertaken. International Harvester (IH) is in the process of field-testing its remedy for these school buses and it should be available fairly soon.

As for the installation of front-axle brake pressure limiting valves, Federal regulations for vehicles in interstate commerce prohibit the installation of manual limiting valves in 121-equipped vehicles and regulate the installation of automatic limiting valves. Also, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits, with one exception, the knowing rendering inoperative by commercial facilities of a device or element of design installed in satisfaction of a Federal safety standard such as Standard No. 121. A private party is not prohibited under this provision, but the vehicle manufacturer should be consulted about safest configuration of the vehicle brake system. In this case, IH's notice on antilock disconnection explained that the deactivation would render the brake system identical to those produced by IH since the "no lockup" requirement was suspended in January 1976. Thus IH does not recommend any further modification of the brake system.

With regard to your belief that the antilock systems may have cost $ 1200.00, I would like to clarify that Standard No. 121 contains many requirements for improved braking, and the incremental price increase for the improved brakes is attributable only in part to the antilock systems. At present, the Kelsey-Hayes antilock system used on IH school bus chassis costs $ 412.11, and this price would presumably be lower if the system was installed on all bus production as standard equipment.

As for the status of the reimplementation of service brake stopping distance requirements for school buses on April 1, 1978, the NHTSA expects to reach a decision soon and publish it in the Federal Register. I have asked a member of my staff to call you when a decision is made public.

ID: nht76-4.6

DATE: 02/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Hal H. Newell -- Eaton Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Eaton Corporation's January 21, 1976, questions whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stay of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, eliminated all requirements of the standard for the period of the stay, whether complying vehicles built prior to the stay may be modified so they do not comply, and whether non-complying vehicles built during the stay would have to be retrofitted upon reinstatement of the standard. Your other questions are no longer relevant in view of the recent reinstatement of the standard by the Supreme Court.

The NHTSA has interpreted the stay to have had the effect, nationwide, of voiding the standard's force and effect as a whole during the period of January 16 through January 29, 1976.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits the sale of a vehicle unless it is in conformity with applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. Therefore, a vehicle manufactured in conformity with Standard No. 121 prior to January 16, 1976, would have to conform to the standard when sold. Non-complying vehicles built during the stay would not be required to be retrofitted under this provision, because the standard was not in effect on the date of manufacture.

SINCERELY,

Eaton Corporation Government Relations Office

January 21, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Eaton Corporation desires clarification as to the effect the order, issued on January 16 by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in PACCAR Inc., vs. NHTSA and DOT, has on the current status of FMVSS 121 and the proposed changes thereto. Are the requirements mandated under Standard 121 totally eliminated during the duration of the order? Does the Government plan to appeal the order or seek to have it reconsidered by the Court? Can equipment installed on vehicles prior to January 16 in order to meet the requirements of the Standard now be removed? If a vehicle is produced while the Court order is in effect which cannot meet the requirements under the Standard, should the Standard ultimately be sustained, would the purchaser be required to refit the vehicle to meet the Standard's requirements? In the event the stay order is lifted will NHTSA permit a delay in requirements under the Standard until supply lines have been re-established.

As a brake system supplier to the truck industry, there is considerable uncertainty at Eaton as to what type of equipment should be manufactured during this interim period. We would appreciate receiving your thoughts on the problems described above as early as convenient.

Hal H. Newell

ID: nht93-2.43

DATE: April 2, 1993

FROM: T. Kouchi -- Director, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: Automotive Tail & Stop Lamps Using Light Emitting-diodes (LEDs)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from John Womack to T. Kouchi (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: Thank you for your answer to our questions regarding the above subject by your letter of December 30, 1992.

In your answer, there is your view that any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

According to your view, we consider that the lamps having three lighted sections described in the attached drawing No. 1 & No. 2 need only comply with the photometric requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

So, we would like to have your opinion if our idea is appropriate.

Your kind answer will be highly appreciated.

Attached to Drawings No. 1 and No. 2 of LEDs. (Drawings omitted.)

ID: 86-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William F. Slye

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William F. Slye 51 Stebbins Ave. Brockton, Mass. 02401

Dear Mr. Slye:

This is in reply to your letter of March 31, 1986, to the Department of Transportation with reference to whether the 1985 Buick Century that you purchased on September 18, 1985, should have been equipped with a center high-mounted stop lamp.

The requirement for the new lamp applies only to passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 (regardless of model year designation), and therefore would not apply to a vehicle which was sold after that date but was manufactured earlier. The manufacturer's certification located in the driver door post area of your car will indicate the month and year of its manufacture, which we assume was earlier than September 1985. If our assumption is correct, your dealer was correct in informing you that it need not install the lamp at its expense. However, because of the demonstrable value of the lamp in reducing the frequency and severity of rear end collisions, you may nevertheless wish to have the lamp installed.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

51 Stebbins Avenue Brockton, Mass. 02401 March 31,1986

U.S. Dept. of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Gentlemen:

According to the March/April, 1986 issue of the American Automobile Association magazine, "The U.S. Department Transportation requires the third brakelight on all cars made or sold in the United States after Sept. 1, 1985." This statement appears in an article entitled "Car Light, Car Bright", authored by Leslie Janet Woolf.

I purchased my new 1985 Buick Century on Sept. 18, 1986. It does not have the extra light. The dealership says that the rule applies only to 1986 cars, and that the statement "sold after Sept. 1, 1985 does not apply, or is in error. Based on this interpretation, the agency will not install the light at its expense. If their interpretation is incorrect, I don't feel that I should have to pay for their error.

I would appreciate a ruling on this matter as soon as possible. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

William F. Slye

ID: nht94-2.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Rhein -- Fisher-Price, Inc. (East Aurora, NY)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/3/93 from John Rhein to John Womack (OCC 8639)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the consumer registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a "proposed format." You first ask whether you may specify "Please Print" on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company.

You also ask whether you may use "open box spaces" for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting "blocked squa res" for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement.

Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed Ju ne 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that "(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material."

The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address spac e is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or over all organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-6.30

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Rhein -- Fisher-Price, Inc. (East Aurora, NY)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/3/93 from John Rhein to John Womack (OCC 8639)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the consumer registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a "proposed format." You first ask whether you may specify "Please Print" on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company.

You also ask whether you may use "open box spaces" for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting "blocked squares" for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement.

Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed June 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that "(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material."

The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address space is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or overall organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1994

FROM: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager Vehicle Regulations, Voirswagen of America, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Confirmation of Interpretation Relating to 49 CFR Parts 541 & 543, Theft Prevention Standard

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/94 from John Womack to Dietmar R. Haeochen (A42; Part 543; Part 541

TEXT: This is to request an interpretation relative to the parts marking requirements for replacement parts on a vehicle which has been granted an exemption from parts marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.

By letter dated May 7, 1993, NHTSA granted an exemption for the 1995 model year Volkswagen Corrado from the parts marking requirements based on a petition for exemption filed by Volkswagen on September 29, 1992. The Volkswagen Corrado was parts marked f or the model years 1990 to 1994.

In an interpretation letter of October 12, 1989 to Saab-Scania of America, Inc., NHTSA stated that after a carline has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, the replacement parts for that carline no longer need to be marked even if the replacement parts can also be used on prior model years during which the particular carline was parts marked and not exempt under Part 543.

Volkswagen has just determined that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for the 1995 model year and as such, Volkswagen will not be selling vehicles covered under the exemption granted in the letter of May 7, 1993.

Our question is whether in line with the interpretation to Saab the marking of replacement parts for the Volkswagen Corrado carline can be terminated based on the exemption granted for the 1995 model year, even if the replacement parts can be used for ea rlier model years and even though the 1995 model year Corrado will not be sold in the United States (although it will be available in Europe).

4

Because we would like to take advantage of the cost savings from the termination of parts marking as soon as possible, your earliest possible response to the issue will be appreciated.

As an additional question with regard to replacement parts anti-theft marking, Volkswagen would like to know whether replacement parts marking can ever be terminated on carlines that were parts marked while they were in production, but which have been ou t of production for more than five years and which are therefore statistically low theft. The particular example Volkswagen has in mind is the Audi 5000 carline which was produced through the 1988 model year as a parts marked vehicle.

Thank you for your consideration of the issues in this letter.

ID: 05-006303drn

Mr. Jim Pike
Business Development Manager
DSM Engineering Plastics
645 Waverly Circle
Copley, OH 44321




Dear Mr. Pike:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). You asked whether your brake hose products may be certified as meeting the December 20, 2004 final rule on brake hoses. The answer is yes.

In responding to your letter, I note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

You inform us that your company "has developed thermoplastic copolyester materials" that have resulted in products that meet all requirements applicable to plastic airbrake tubes as specified at S11. and S12. in the December 20, 2004, (69 FR 76298) final rule updating FMVSS No. 106. The final rule takes effect on December 20, 2006, but manufacturers were provided the option of early compliance with the new rule beginning on February 18, 2005. Thus, until December 20, 2006, your company has the option of manufacturing products to meet either the requirements in the December 20, 2004 final rule or the present FMVSS No. 106.

When certified as meeting FMVSS No. 106, the products can be sold in the U.S. , and placed on vehicles to be sold in the U.S. and used on U.S. roads. No changes were made in the way the products must be labeled. However, if there was a change in how the manufacturer of the tubing is designated (i.e. , change in company name or change of company logo), the December 20, 2004, final rule specifies the information is to be provided to a different NHTSA office than that presently specified. The December 20, 2004 final rule does not have the effect of requiring any manufacturer to re-register. If a brake hose or tubing manufacturer has already registered with NHTSA, there is no need to re-register.

In the December 20, 2004, final rule (at page 76,298), we noted that the rulemaking began from a joint petition that was submitted in light of a 1997 proposal to revise Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) provisions for brake tubing and hose adequacy (at 49 CFR 393.45) and for brake tubing and hose connections (at 49 CFR 393.46). You ask about the status of this rulemaking to remove the FMCSR provisions. Sections 393.45 and 393.46 are administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). FMCSA published the Final Rule on August 15, 2005 (70 FR 48008).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:106
d.9/19/05