ID: nht90-2.78

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 11, 1990

FROM: Tony Llama -- President, Davenport Enterprises

TO: Steven P. Wood, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 to T. Llama from P. J. Rice; (A35; Part 591); and letter dated 6-12-90 to T. Llama from D. Sander

TEXT:

Our customer in Panama, Motores Internacionales, S.A., is the distributor for Latin America and the Caribbean of vehicles manufactured in the USSR, and we supply the air conditioners for the vehicles which they sell.

Recently they received a new vehicle, which is a van similar to the ones manufactured in Japan. This type of van can also be converted into an ambulance, and they have asked us to design and develop an a/c unit for this vehicle.

In order to do so, we must bring one into the U.S.A. for a period of at least 90 days. Once we have built and installed the a/c unit on this vehicle, it will be returned to Panama for evaluation and testing.

Since this is a non-compliant vehicle, we would like to request from you permission to enter it into the United States through the Port of Houston, Texas, where it will be transferred on a platform to our factory in Dallas, Texas, until we finish develop ing the air conditioning unit. Then it will be returned to Panama in the same manner.

Please let us know your requirements so that we may advise our customer and be able to proceed with this project.

P.S. Please address your response to our export office in Coral Gables, Florida.

ID: nht89-2.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/24/89 EST

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION -- WASHINGTON OFFICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT; OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 08/26/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO TAK FUJITANI; LETTER DATED 06/29/89 FROM SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DO T TO ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- SENATE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kastner:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) actions to extend certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) to light trucks and vans. The Secretary has asked me to r eply.

Your letter was especially concerned with NHTSA's November 1987 amendment to FMVSS 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, and our denial of NTEA's petition for reconsideration of that rule. I regret that I am unable to respond to your comments at this time. As you know, the Department and NTEA are presently involved in litigation concerning those actions. In view of the litigation, we feel it would be inappropriate to address your comments in this letter.

We appreciate your interest in informing the Department of your views. I can assure you that Secretary Skinner is actively interested in each of the letters he receives regarding NHTSA's mission to improve motor vehicle safety. Let me assure you also t hat the potential impacts on small businesses is one of our concerns in each of our rulemaking actions.

A copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed in NHTSA's docket section.

Sincerely,

ID: nht70-2.39

DATE: 12/08/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 20, 1970 concerning your telephone conversation with Mr. Schmeltzer of my office, relating to the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulations (Docket No. 70-12; Notice No. 2).

You are not completely correct in your understanding that, as a result of the tire identification regulations, the DOT symbol will only be required on the sidewall of the tire where the identification number will appear. As indicated in the(Illegible Word) of the notice of proposed rulemaking on these regulations, it is anticipated that the identification number required by the regulation will replace the manufacturer's identification number required by Standard No. 109. However, no decision has been made as yet whether Standard No. 109 will also be amended to require the "DOT" symbol on only one sidewall of the tire.

You are correct in your understanding that the regulations were not intended to restrict the third grouping of characters, the optional the type code, to three symbols. In addition, you are correct in your understanding that a tire manufacturer will receive individual identification numbers for each of its tire manufacturing and retread plants.

Under the regulations, B.F. Goodrich will not be required to apply for identification marks for Goodrich owned brand name tires if sold and controlled by them.

Concerning your question as to what class of certified mail would be required in the event of a recall, a notification letter sent by certified mail to the addressee, himself, would be preferable but is not, at this time, required by the Act or any regulation issued thereunder.

Thank you for your interest.

ID: nht93-1.12

DATE: January 19, 1993

FROM: Steven C. Friedman -- Director of New Product Development, Saddleman, Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-93 from John Womack to Steven C. Friedman (A40; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT: Our company, Saddleman, Inc., is contemplating the introduction of an aftermarket automotive airbag. The product is manufactured by a Korean company, Line Precision Co., LTD. As you can see in the accompanying brochures, the airbag attaches to the ceiling of the vehicle and discharges downward in between the occupant and the steering wheel or dashboard. The product operates by a mechanical, rather than an electronic, sensor. The response time of the airbag is .05 seconds after sensing frontal impact. This product has been marketed in Korea since early 1992 under the brand name "Challa." Line Precision has applied for T.U.V. approval in Germany, and expects to receive this approval shortly.

Saddleman is based in Logan, Utah, with manufacturing facilities in Utah, Ohio, and S. Carolina. We sell exclusively automotive aftermarket products to such mass merchandisers as Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Sears; and to automotive retailers such as Pep Boys, Trak Auto, and Northern Automotive. We feel that the Challa Airbag, being an attachable, aftermarket product, will fill a market need by providing airbag protection in vehicles where an original equipment airbag is not available.

Saddleman would like to be advised of any federal standards that would apply to this product and of any responsibilities we would have to the NHTSA. We would greatly appreciate a response as soon as possible so that we may address any issues that we have not foreseen.

Attached to brochure (graphics and text omitted)

ID: nht72-3.21

DATE: 07/24/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Argo Plastic Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 27, 1972, requesting Federal "approval" for plastic glazing material you manufacture. You enclose copies of certificates showing approval by the State of California.

The NHTSA does not provide approvals for glazing materials subject to its requirements. Those requirements are found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," and apply to glazing materials for use in motor vehicles manufactured for sale to the United States. (This includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, and American (Illegible Word), and not 37 States as you mentioned.)

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (18 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) manufacturers must use due care to ensure that products they manufacture conform to applicable standards (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)). The manufacturer must certify conformity as specified in section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), and in the case of Standard No. 205, as specified in the standard. The NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or their certification, but monitors compliance with the standards by purchasing materials on the open market, and testing them to the requirements of the standard. The failure of materials to conform can result in the imposition of civil penalties against the manufacturer, and other sanctions (15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).

A copy of Standard No. 205 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act are enclosed for your information.

Enclosures

ID: nht93-3.27

DATE: April 28, 1993

FROM: Thomas Luckemeyer -- SWF Auto-Electric GMbH

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Multiple Turn Signal Lamp

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-28-93 from John Womack to Thomas Luckemeyer (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: During our investigations in the field of a new rear lamp development, we have the following two questions:

1) Is it allowed to split the turn signal lamp in two parts with the dimensions given in the sketch on the next page, where the bigger part (4.5 sq. in.) is on the body of the car. The distance does not exceed 22 in.

2) Is it allowed to use the combination of the two lamps to meet the photometric requirements.

As we urgently need this information, could you PLEASE SEND IT BY FAX. Our address is:

SWF Auto-Electric GmbH Attn.: Dr. Thomas Luckemeyer/Dept. VER/LB Stuttgarter StraBe 119

W - 7120 Bietigheim-Bissingen

Telephone: 07142 / 73 23 80 Fax: 07142 / 73 28 95

Thank you in advance for your help.

Attachments: - Sketch of turn signal lamp - 5 copies of same invoice re: "Letter requesting an information" (Text omitted.)

ID: nht95-2.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1995

FROM: Douglas C. Helbig -- Vice President, SPENCER TESTING SERVICES, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/7/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DOUGLAS C. HELBIG (A43; STD. 304)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womak:

I am writing in reference to a telephone conversation I had with Marvin Shaw of NHTSA on May 16, 1995 regarding written verification of NHTSA's power to regulate the re-inspection of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks on Altern ative Fuel Vehicles.

It is our understanding that NHSTA does not have any regulatory authority to require periodic reinspection of CNG containers used as a vehicle fuel container. We have been told this by several NHSTA personnel over the phone but they are unwilling to give this to us in writing. Our inability to obtain this in writing has led to considerable confusion for our clients who need to know if D.O.T. or NHTSA does indeed regulate this periodic reinspection.

Simply stated, we need in writing, a letter stating that NHTSA does not have any authority to require periodic inspection of CNG containers used as fuel cells on alternative fuel vehicles.

We thank you for your prompt attention to our request and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.

ID: nht72-1.3

DATE: 10/03/72

FROM: C. A. BAKER FOR E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA

TO: G. D. Stapley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1972, proposing "that legal standards for the performance of windshield defrosting systems be established and applied to vehicles manufactured in or imported into USA."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened Docket No. 1-3 to receive comments on extension of coverage of the passenger car defrosting and defogging system standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Ice or slush buildup on the windshield, as well as the overall performance of the defroster system, are among the problems and concerns currently being investigated by the NHTSA. We plan to combine all the problems associated with vision and precipitation into an Adverse Weather Visibility standard such as you suggest in your letter. This would also include wiping and washing requirements. At the present time research has been initiated to obtain data so that we can propose definite performance requirements for all types of weather conditions. Under our Program Plan such a standard would become effective September 1, 1976.

Your suggestion and the mention of the specific problems are appreciated and will be considered as we proceed in our rulemaking. Thank you for writing and if we can be of further service, please let us know.

ID: nht79-4.16

DATE: 05/09/79

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK BERNDT, NHTSA

TO: Management Consulting in Product Assurances

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 9, 1979, letter asking how the agency will apply the reporting requirements of Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, to equipment manufacturers.

As the agency indicated in the preamble to the final rule, replacement equipment manufacturers that are required to notify owners and to remedy defective or noncomplying equipment would do so to the best of their abilities. The reporting requirement does not require them to manufacture their equipment so that it is easily identifiable nor does it require them to maintain lists of persons to whom equipment has been sold. Some equipment manufacturers may wish to upgrade their recordkeeping and identification systems to facilitate their statutory obligations to recall and remedy, but the reporting regulation does not require this.

With respect to the "flasher" incident to which you refer in your letter, if a vehicle manufacturer authorizes the use of incorrect flashers in its vehicles, problems resulting from the use of those flashers would be the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer not the equipment manufacturer. The problem that you describe is one of incorrect use of properly functioning equipment. It is not a problem of defective equipment.

Sincerely,

ID: 14520toy.2

Mr. James G. O'Neill
Clever Living Products
P.O. Box 274
Rancocas, N.J. 08073

Dear Mr. O'Neill:

This responds to your March 26, 1997, letter asking whether an August 5, 1993, interpretation to you reflects current National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) law and policies.

The answer is yes, the general policies, legal principles and requirements discussed in that letter have not changed. You wrote about an aftermarket toy holder that attaches to a child restraint system by a mounting bracket. Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," has been amended a number of times since 1993, but still does not apply to aftermarket accessories for child restraint systems. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on a child restraint system in compliance with Standard 213.

For your information, the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" to which the 1993 letter refers has been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the letter are outdated; however, the substantive requirements it describes have not changed.

If you have other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213
d:5/6/97