ID: nht95-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles de Saint Martin -- Project Manager, The Fairchild Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/10/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES DE SAINT MARTIN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. de Saint Martin:

This replies to your letter of August 10, 1995, with reference to "Securiflash". Taylor Vinson of this Office phoned you on August 21 for a clarification.

We understand that, in the event of a deceleration of 0.8 g, such as caused by emergency braking, "Securiflash" automatically activates a vehicle's hazard warning system lamps; after 5 seconds, the lamps go off.

Enclosed is a copy of a letter that we sent Saline Electronics on April 24, 1995, which provides our views that a decleration system that operates through the hazard warning system is impermissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

However, we are interested in your remark that the product "was developed after different European studies showed that 60 percent of rear end collisions would be avoided if the brakes had been applied one second earlier." We are unaware of such studies, and would like to receive copies of them so that the agency may enhance its knowledge of the conditions under which rear end collisions occur.

If you have any further questions, please call Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-5263.

ID: brandt3

The Honorable Andrea Seastrand
California State Assemblywoman
33d District
523 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Dear Ms. Seastrand:

Thank you for your letter forwarding the concerns of Mr. Eric Brandt regarding the use of aircraft tires on the dollies that he uses to move houses and other structures on the highway. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond.

Your office's description of Mr. Brandt's concerns was as follows:

He is upset because the California Highway Patrol has stopped him from his house moving business because he is using aircraft tires on the dollies he uses to move the houses. He thinks that the law is being interpreted incorrectly. He is using low profile tires, and he thinks the law means the high floatation tires. The California Highway Patrol officer told Mr. Brandt to contact the Federal Department of Motor Vehicles and find out. In the meantime, he is out of business. Can we help?

In accordance with your request, we have prepared a response directly to Mr. Brandt (copy enclosed).

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:119 d:12/6/94

ID: nht81-1.11

DATE: 02/09/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Synnestvedt & Lechner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letter of December 11, 1980, in which you ask us to reconsider the interpretation we issued on April 22, 1980, regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. We stated in our letter to you on that date that the abrasion test for vehicle windshield glazing must be conducted on both the exterior and the interior surfaces of the windshield (i.e., both surfaces must comply with the requirements of the standard).

After further consideration, we reaffirm our earlier interpretation. However, on January 19, 1981, the NHTSA did issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments on whether Standard No. 205 should be amended to adopt less stringent requirements for glass-plastic glazing. A copy of that notice is enclosed for your information.

Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SYNNESTVEDT & LECHNER

December 11, 1980

Frank E. Berndt, Esquire -- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: NOA-30

Dear Mr. Berndt:

By letter of December 9, 1980 from Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein, we have been advised of the granting of the petition of our client, Saint-Gobain Vitrage, to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

In the context of a rulemaking proceeding in progress, we ask that prompt attention be given to our letter of May 7, 1980, copy enclosed, requesting that you reconsider the interpretative ruling we seek. By the interpretation we urge, some actual on-road experience in the United States could be gathered during the pendency of the rulemaking proceeding. This would come about through the supply from Saint-Gobain Vitrage to European car manufacturers who are already customers for the Securiflex inner guard windshield, of additional such windshields to be used in cars being shipped to the United States. Audi and Peugeot are obvious candidates to begin such introduction, although there are other European car manufacturers who would probably do the same, perhaps as an optional feature.

We will look for your response.

Very truly yours,

John T. Synnestvedt

Enclosures

cc: Joan Claybrook

ID: nht76-4.11

DATE: 12/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack's Tire Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 23, 1976, letter concerning retreaded tires and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117.

Your understanding that you are required to retain for three years certain records described in your letter is mistaken. While such a requirement was proposed in a Federal Register notice published on March 5, 1970 (35 FR 4136), it was never adopted. The NHTSA strongly recommends, however, that retreaders retain information on the materials and processes that they use, so that in the event of a defect or noncompliance they will be able to determine which tires are involved.

To assign you a retreader's identification mark, we need more information from you. 49 CFR Part 574.6 specifies that:

To obtain the identification mark required by @ 574.5(a), each manufacturer of new or retreaded motor vehicle tires shall apply after November 30, 1970, in writing, to "Tire Identification and Record- keeping," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, identify himself as a manufacturer of new tires or retreaded tires, and furnish the following information:

(a) The name, or other designation identifying the applicant, and his main office address.

(b) The name, or other identifying designation, of each individual plant operated by the manufacturer and the address of each plant, if applicable.

(c) The type of tires manufactured at each plant, e.g., passenger car tires, bus tires, truck tires, motorcycle tires, or retreaded tires.

Enclosed for your convenience is an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

SINCERELY,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

MEMO

TO: Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service National Highway Safety Bureau Federal Highway Safety Administration U.S. Dept of Taxation

FROM: JACK'S TIRE COMPANY INC

SUBJECT: D O T. REg. No. DATE: 11/23/76

MESSAGE

Please Issue a Code # to identify retreads produced by My Company. I understand that it is required of me to keep the following records for at least a period of three years. (1) records of the material used in theretreading process) (2) records of performance test, (3) records of reported defects and failures, with associated causes.

Also requesting a Current copy of "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117.

Jack D. Cooper, PRESIDENT

ID: nht72-6.32

DATE: 01/04/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ellwood T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 21, 1971, relating to the upcoming requirements for GVWR and (Illegible Word) on the vehicle label, under Part 567 of our regulations.

You discussed the difficulties some of your members have had in arriving at the proper values for gross axle weight ratings. To the extent that your discussion highlights the uncertainty that may in the part have existed with respect to the basic load-carrying capacity of vehicle components, it emphasizes the need for the regulation not only as a matter of information but also to ensure the proper design and selection of safety-related components. You asked specifically "what NHTSA would consider to be the requisite test factors which should be utilized for determining wheel ratings." Pending development of performance standards for wheels (or other components), we can only say that the ratings should reflect the manufacturer's own judgement as to the loads that the component can safely carry under the conditions expected to be encountered in use.

The diagrams that you enclosed setting forth basic weighing procedures for determining vehicle and axle loads appear to interpret the regulations correctly.

You mentioned the problem of a possible misunderstanding concerning the measurement of GAWR of a trailer and asked whether the tongue weight may be "deducted from GAWR in arriving at what GAWR should be." The answer is yes, since weight that is carried by the towing vehicle will not be carried by the trailer axle. We should add, however, that GAWR is a rating and therefore may be greater than the actual weight on the axle system when the vehicle is loaded to capacity.

Finally, you requested an "extension of the effective date of the GAWR and GVWR certification requirements to allow time to be sure the industry is advised of the procedure to follow." This request is denied. On the basis of the information available to this agency, it has been determined that our procedures, and the load time between issue and effective date of the regulations, have been fully adequate to allow affected manufacturers to prepare for compliance. Also, by a recent notice published in the Federal Register, we have allowed final-stage manufacturers using incomplete vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972, for which the weight rating information has not been made available, to omit the GVWR and GAWR values from their labels.

ID: 14937.ztv

The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6025

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your recent letter to the Department on behalf of your constituent, Brad Brown of Anchorage. Mr. Brown ordered a Chevy Suburban and discovered that it was made in Mexico. He believes that the law on motor vehicle content labeling should be amended to require dealers to disclose the country of origin when a vehicle is ordered. I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations on motor vehicle content labeling were issued pursuant to the American Automobile Labeling Act. This Act has been codified at 49 U.S.C. section 32304. The law requires that new Chevy Suburbans and other passenger motor vehicles have affixed an informational label that includes, among other things, the city and country of the final assembly plant of the vehicle (49 CFR 583(a)(3)). Thus, in the case of a vehicle which is ordered, the purchaser would not see the label until delivery of the vehicle.

While we appreciate Mr. Brown's concern, we do not believe it would be practicable to change the law to require dealers to disclose the country of origin when a vehicle is ordered, since many vehicle models today are assembled in more than one location. The Chevy Suburban, for instance, is also produced in Janesville, Wisconsin. It is our understanding that dealers do not place orders with specific assembly plants. Unless a vehicle model is assembled in a single location, the dealer would not know from which assembly plant the ordered vehicle will be delivered.

It is probable that the most a dealer could do is to inform a prospective purchaser of the location of the assembly plants for the model desired, and that the vehicle will come from one of these. However, a prospective purchaser could likely obtain this information now from a dealer simply by asking. I note that although the prospective purchaser might be able to examine the

domestic content label on similar new vehicles on the dealer's lot to determine their country of origin, this would not necessarily mean that his or her vehicle would be assembled in the same location.

I hope this information is helpful. If you or your staff have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-5265.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:583
d:5/22/97

ID: 8303

Ms Beverley Silver-Corber
6738 Montgomery St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6P 4G4

Dear Ms Silver-Corber:

This is in reply to your letter to the agency with respect to your wish to import into the United States a l992 Honda Accord, which was not manufactured to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. You would like to use the car for a two-year period in the U.S. while your husband is in graduate school. You have asked whether you qualify for an exemption, and whether you will be allowed to import the car for the two years of study.

Under regulations of the Department of Transportation that govern the importation of motor vehicles, you, as a nonresident of the United States, are permitted to import your nonconforming Honda for a period of up to one year, provided that the importation is for your personal use, that you will not sell it during that time, and that the vehicle will be exported not later than the end of one year after entry (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 591.5(d)). The reason for the one-year limitation is that, under the Road Traffic Convention (1952) and the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles (1957), Conventions to which the United States is a party, an imported vehicle may be subjected to all the laws of any country in which it has remained longer than one year, including import duties and taxes. In recognition of the effect of these Conventions, we have adopted a one-year limitation on the temporary importation of nonconforming vehicles by nonresidents, and we do not grant waivers or exemptions from this requirement. However, if you return in the Honda to Canada at the end of the first year of your husband's studies, we would regard the export provisions as having been met, and a new one-year period would begin when the car is re-imported into the U.S. for your husband's second year of studies.

Although our regulations do provide for indefinite entry of nonconforming vehicles that are imported for "research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training" (Section 591.5(j)), we do not interpret this as applying to importers who come to the U.S. to study. Rather, it applies to the importer who wishes to import a vehicle so that it may be studied.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:2/19/93

ID: nht93-1.43

DATE: 02/19/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: BEVERLEY SILVER-CORBER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-29-93 FROM BEVERLEY SILVER-CORBER TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA (OCC 8303)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to the agency with respect to your wish to import into the United States a 1992 Honda Accord, which was not manufactured to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. You would like to use the car for a two-year period in the U.S. while your husband is in graduate school. You have asked whether you qualify for an exemption, and whether you will be allowed to import the car for the two years of study.

Under regulations of the Department of Transportation that govern the importation of motor vehicles, you, as a nonresident of the United States, are permitted to import your nonconforming Honda for a period of up to one year, provided that the importation is for your personal use, that you will not sell it during that time, and that the vehicle will be exported not later than the end of one year after entry (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 591.5(d)). The reason for the one-year limitation is that, under the Road Traffic Convention (1952) and the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles (1957), Conventions to which the United States is a party, an imported vehicle may be subjected to all the laws of any country in which it has remained longer than one year, including import duties and taxes. In recognition of the effect of these Conventions, we have adopted a one-year limitation on the temporary importation of nonconforming vehicles by nonresidents, and we do not grant waivers or exemptions from this requirement. However, if you return in the Honda to Canada at the end of the first year of your husband's studies, we would regard the export provisions as having been met, and a new one-year period would begin when the car is re-imported into the U.S. for your husband's second year of studies.

Although our regulations do provide for indefinite entry of nonconforming vehicles that are imported for "research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training" (Section 591.5(j)), we do not interpret this as applying to importers who come to the U.S. to study. Rather, it applies to the importer who wishes to import a vehicle so that it may be studied.

ID: nht71-1.16

DATE: 07/02/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Drake America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of June 18 you ask for confirmation "that automotive brake fluids SAS 7OR1 Heavy Duty and SAE 7OR3 Super Heavy Duty currently meet U.S. standards."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Hydraulic Brake Fluids, specifies performance requirements for SAE Type 7OR1, Type 7031 Arctic, and Type 70R3 brake fluids. Thus if those Types of brake fluids conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 116 they will meet current Federal requirements.

You also ask for confirmation "that it is illegal for SAE 70R2 Moderate Duty to be sold in the U.S. . . . ." Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 116 does allow the manufacture and sale of types other than 70R1, 70R1 Arctic and 70R3, however, "when the type indicated is not the of these three types, the hydraulic brake fluid shall comply with [Standard No. 116's performance] requirements for SAE Type 70R1 ...." Since SAE Type 70R2 does not meet these requirements, its manufacturer, sale, and importation into the United States is precluded.

For your information I enclose a copy of a new amendment to Standard No. 116, a revised version of the Standard effective March 1, 1972, and an advance notice of proposed amendment which would allow fluids other than petroleum base, all of which appeared in the Federal Register for June 24.

Sincerely,

June 18, 1971

National Highway Traffic Administration Department of Transportation

Att:Lawrence R. Schneider

Acting Chief Counsel

Gentlemen:

As requested during our telephone conversation of this afternoon, we would appreciate your confirming to us the fact that automotive brake fluids SAE70RI Heavy Duty and SAE70R3 Super Heavy Duty currently meet U.S. standards.

If you can likewise indicate that it is illegal for SAE70R2 Moderate Duty to be sold in the U.S., it will be of assistance to us in establishing for a foreign government the standards followed by our government in the use of automotive brake fluids.

Many thanks for your assistance.

Yours very truly

Automotive Export Division

DRAKE AMERICA CORPORATION --

Paul M. Pancirer, Manager

ID: 12507.ogm

Adrian Burrows, Homologation Engineer
Daewoo Motor Company
Worthing Technical Centre
Downlands Business Park
Lyons Way, Upper Brighton Road
Worthing, United Kingdom, BN149LA

Dear Mr. Burrows:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of two of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 201, Occupant

Protection in Interior Impact and Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I regret the delay in this response.

Your request regards the installation of glass mirrors on passenger side sun visors. You note that Standard 201 does not address the presence of mirrors on sun visors but that S3.4 of the Standard contains general requirements for sun visors. You ask if S3.4 requires the exposed edges of any mirror attached to a sun visor to meet the radii requirements of S3.4.2 or be covered by energy absorbing material pursuant to S3.4.1.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that paragraph S3.4.1 of Standard No. 201 does not prohibit the installation by manufacturers of vanity mirrors on sun visors.

Consequently, so long as the mirror does not interfere with the energy-absorbing requirement of S3.4.1, manufacturers are free to incorporate such mirrors into or onto sun visors.

You also ask if the mirror must meet the radii requirements of S3.4.2. S3.4.2 provides that a visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." In a letter dated June 19, 1989, from Stephen P. Wood to a Mr. Jack Satkoski of Spectra Enterprises the agency interpreted this requirement to apply to both the visor and its mount. Therefore, your mirror must be installed in a fashion that assures that your visor meets the radii requirements of S3.4.2

Your final question relates to whether a glass mirror attached to a sun visor must meet any glazing requirements. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing material for use in specified locations in motor vehicles, including motor homes. The agency has previously stated that the standard establishes requirements for glazing used in windows and interior partitions in motor vehicles. Glazing used in locations other than windows and interior partitions would not be subject to the requirements of the standard. Therefore, the vanity mirror you propose would not have to meet the requirements of Standard 205.

I hope that this response is helpful. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Mr. Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:201
d.7/3/97