ID: nht95-5.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tim Phillips -- International Tire Marketers

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/21/95 LETTER FROM TIM PHILLIPS TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10999)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your letter of June 21, 1995, in which you asked us to update your information on new tire sizing codes used in the DOT identification of tires. Please be advised that this agency no longer specifies tire size codes.

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) @ 574.5, Tire identification requirements (copy enclosed), requires tire manufacturers to label on one sidewall of each tire it produces a tire identification number (TIN), and specifies that the TIN will be composed of four groupings, the second of which "shall be used to identify the tire size."

The size requirement in the TIN was first promulgated as @ 574.4 on November 10, 1970 (35 FR 17257). At that time, NHTSA (then the National Highway Safety Bureau) specified in Table 1 of the regulation the codes to be used to designate the various tire sizes. In the following two years, the agency amended Table 1 numerous times to add new codes to represent additional tire sizes. On November 8, 1972 NHTSA published a final rule rescinding Table 1 and the agency-specified tire codes (37 FR 23727). The agency explained that because of the many new tire sizes being introduced, available new codes had become exhausted and it was necessary to change the system to one permitting greater flexibility. Accordingly, the agency amended the regulation to permit manufacturers to assign their own two-digit code to represent tire size and to permit retreaders to use either a self-assigned matrix code or a self-assigned tire size code. The November 8, 1972 amendment also required each new tire manufacturer and retreader to maintain a record of each symbol used and provide that information to NHTSA upon written request. Those requirements remain in effect (49 CFR @ 574.5(b)).

In summary, 49 CFR @ 574.5 no longer specifies tire size codes for use as the second grouping of symbols in TINs. Rather, the regulation permits manufacturers and retreaders to use their own tire size codes in that grouping of the TIN.

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.

ID: nht95-3.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tim Phillips -- International Tire Marketers

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/21/95 LETTER FROM TIM PHILLIPS TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10999)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your letter of June 21, 1995, in which you asked us to update your information on new tire sizing codes used in the DOT identification of tires. Please be advised that this agency no longer specifies tire size codes.

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) @ 574.5, Tire identification requirements (copy enclosed), requires tire manufacturers to label on one sidewall of each tire it produces a tire identification number (TIN), and specifies that the TIN will be composed of four groupings, the second of which "shall be used to identify the tire size."

The size requirement in the TIN was first promulgated as @ 574.4 on November 10, 1970 (35 FR 17257). At that time, NHTSA (then the National Highway Safety Bureau) specified in Table 1 of the regulation the codes to be used to designate the various tire sizes. In the following two years, the agency amended Table 1 numerous times to add new codes to represent additional tire sizes. On November 8, 1972 NHTSA published a final rule rescinding Table 1 and the agency-specified tire codes (37 FR 23727). Th e agency explained that because of the many new tire sizes being introduced, available new codes had become exhausted and it was necessary to change the system to one permitting greater flexibility. Accordingly, the agency amended the regulation to permi t manufacturers to assign their own two-digit code to represent tire size and to permit retreaders to use either a self-assigned matrix code or a self-assigned tire size code. The November 8, 1972 amendment also required each new tire manufacturer and r etreader to maintain a record of each symbol used and provide that information to NHTSA upon written request. Those requirements remain in effect (49 CFR @ 574.5(b)).

In summary, 49 CFR @ 574.5 no longer specifies tire size codes for use as the second grouping of symbols in TINs. Rather, the regulation permits manufacturers and retreaders to use their own tire size codes in that grouping of the TIN.

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.

ID: 10999

Mr. Tim Phillips
International Tire Marketers
358 West Heber Street
Glendora, CA 91741

Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your letter of June 21, 1995, in which you asked us to update your information on new tire sizing codes used in the DOT identification of tires. Please be advised that this agency no longer specifies tire size codes.

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) '574.5, Tire identification requirements (copy enclosed), requires tire manufacturers to label on one sidewall of each tire it produces a tire identification number (TIN), and specifies that the TIN will be composed of four groupings, the second of which "shall be used to identify the tire size."

The size requirement in the TIN was first promulgated as '574.4 on November 10, 1970 (35 FR 17257). At that time, NHTSA (then the National Highway Safety Bureau) specified in Table 1 of the regulation the codes to be used to designate the various tire sizes. In the following two years, the agency amended Table 1 numerous times to add new codes to represent additional tire sizes. On November 8, 1972 NHTSA published a final rule rescinding Table 1 and the agency-specified tire codes (37 FR 23727). The agency explained that because of the many new tire sizes being introduced, available new codes had become exhausted and it was necessary to change the system to one permitting greater flexibility. Accordingly, the agency amended the regulation to permit manufacturers to assign their own two-digit code to represent tire size and to permit retreaders to use either a self-assigned matrix code or a self-assigned tire size code. The November 8, 1972 amendment also required each new tire manufacturer and retreader to maintain a record of each symbol used and provide that information to NHTSA upon written request. Those requirements remain in effect (49 CFR '574.5(b)).

In summary, 49 CFR '574.5 no longer specifies tire size codes for use as the second grouping of symbols in TINs. Rather, the regulation permits manufacturers and retreaders to use their own tire size codes in that grouping of the TIN.

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

Enclosure

ref:574 d:8/4/95

ID: nht74-2.1

DATE: 01/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Aeroquip Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request of January 8, 1974, made to Mr. Herlihy of this office, for an interpretation of S5.1.2.3 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, as it applies to a check valve which is designed to bleed back no more than 5 psi pressure from the service reservoir toward the source of air pressure.

The check valve described in the specification you enclosed would satisfy the requirements of S5.1.2.3 as long as there is no air loss in excess of the designed bleed off, and that total air loss never lowers the pressure at any time below the air compressor "cut in" pressure.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

AEROQUIP CORPORATION/INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

January 4, 1974

John Womack and Richard Dyson -- Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

This letter is a request for approval of our XFF9260-50 check valve for use in truck and bus air brake systems as detailed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards #121, Paragraph S5.1.2.3.

The function of the subject check valve is to allow air bleed back of no more than 5 psi pressure from the maximum pressure setting on the primary reservoir. The purpose of the air bleed back is to increase the service life of our Aerofiner Air Purifier (P/N FF9260-01). The air volume used off the #1 air reservoir (pre-dried air) is used to back flush the desiccant bed in the Aerofiner at approximately 3 cfm until the pressure in the reservoir drops to the relief valve setting, (5 psi below maximum reservoir operating pressure) at which time the valve is completely closed. In all other respects, it functions as a typical safety check valve.

Attached is a layout sketch of the subject check valve showing the seal surfaces and flow paths under various conditions.

Also attached, is a copy of Bulletin #5212, describing our Aerofiner brake system air purifier.

Please supply me in writing, the council's approval of our XFF9260-50 check valve in truck and bus air brake systems.

If there are any questions, feel free to contact me.

Sincerely yours

Donald T. Fischer -- Project Engineer, Coupling Section

ID: 11732-1.PJA

Ms. Brigitte Neifer
Sekurit Saint-Gobain Deutschland
GmbH & Do. KG
Firmensitz
Viktoriaallee 3-5
D-52066 Aaohen GERMANY

Dear Ms. Neifer:

This responds to your letter asking whether one of your customers may use item 2 glazing (ordinary tempered glass) for motorcycle windshields. Your customer uses a kind of tempered glass not mentioned in our standard on its European model motorcycles, and is looking for a windscreen material for vehicles to be sold in the U.S. market. Although item 1 (laminated) glass is permitted in this application, your client is searching for an alternative and believes that item 2 (ordinary tempered) glazing should also be allowed on this 50 km/h maximum speed motorcycle, Ajust as it is allowed on off-highway machines.@ The short answer to your question is no, tempered glass is not one of the permitted materials in that location.

Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR '571.205) incorporates by reference ANSI Z26.1-1977 (Z26), which explains the performance requirements and application of different types of glazing materials. Z26 describes item 2 glazing as being for use Aanywhere in Motor Vehicle except windshields.@ Therefore, item 2 glazing is explicitly not allowed to be used on windshields, including motorcycle windscreens. Tempered glass does not have some of the safety attributes of laminated glass and thus is not permitted on windshields. Because motor vehicles are required to be safer than off-road vehicles, the fact that item 2 glazing may be used in off-highway vehicles (over which NHTSA has no jurisdiction) is immaterial.

As far as alternatives to item 1 glazing, item numbers 6, 7, and 10 glazing are also permitted. In certain locations, you may also use item numbers 5, 12, 13, 16A and B glazing.

Last, a note of clarification. You referred in your letter to Athe current version@ of the ANSI standard. Please be aware that it is the 1977 version of Z26 that is referenced and that any revisions of Z26 have no effect on the Federal requirements unless NHTSA adopts the revised ANSI standard in its regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:205 d:5/9/96

ID: 12730a.jeg

Mr. Chet K. Wilson
Executive Consultant
AEI Consulting
38345 Ten Mile Road
Suite 230
Farmington Hills, MI 48335

Dear Mr. Wilson:

This responds to your letter concerning regulations issued under the American Automobile Labeling Act. I apologize for the delay in our response. You ask about the following factual situation:

An outside supplier, in preparing a response to a request from an unrelated motor vehicle manufacturer, pursuant to 49 CFR 583.10, determined the following percentages of foreign and domestic content contained in the equipment (which is not an engine or transmission) supplied directly to the manufacturer:

You ask three questions under these facts, which are addressed below.

Question 1. Because the combined U.S./Canadian content is less than 70% in the equipment, the supplier must determine and report the country of origin. In determining the country of origin, are the Canadian and U.S. content percentages to be combined or treated separately?

The Canadian and U.S. content percentages are combined. Section 583.10(a)(5) specifies that, for equipment which has less than 70 percent of its value added in the United States and Canada, an outside supplier is to provide "the country of origin of the equipment, determined under 583.7(c)." Section 583.7(c) specifies that the U.S. and Canada are treated together in making this determination.

Question 2. If Canadian and U.S. are to be combined, how is the supplier to report the country of origin?

The supplier should specify the country of origin as U.S./Canada, but must do so in a manner that makes it clear this determination is being made pursuant to 583.10(a)(5), and not 583.10(a)(4). The country of origin would not be "U.S./Canada" under the latter section because 70 percent of more of its value was not added in the U.S. and/or Canada.

Question 3. Does the supplier have to report the percentage of content or just the name of the country of origin?

Section 583.10(a)(5) only requires the supplier to report the name of the country of origin.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:583
d.7/25/97

ID: nht87-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/87

FROM: ANDREW E. WOOLNER -- GENERAL MANAGER AUSTIN ROVER

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 101, CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS, SECTION S 5.3.5.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/23/88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, TO ANDREW E. WOLLNER -- AUSTIN ROVER, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 101; BROCHURE FROM AUSTIN ROVER, UNDATED (RE CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS)

TEXT: Austin Rover Ltd. (ARG), the mamufacturer of the Sterling passenger car seeks an interpretation of FMVSS NO 101, Controls and Displays as of September, 1989.

1. All Sterling 825 vehicles have a fuel gauge and a speedodometer/odometer located in the instrument panel immediately in front of the driver as illustrated in Fig. 1.

2. The Sterling SL has in addition to the above-mentioned displays, a trip computer fitted in the center console (Fig. 2). This trip computer is able, among other functions to display supplemental information in relation to fuel consumption, (instan taneous and average), fuel used, average speed, trip distance and distance to arrival. The attachment shows the method of operation and the functions.

ARG interprets the illumination requirements of standard 101 as applicable to the trip computer display as being:

a. The illumination requirement not mandatory.

b. The illumination provided at the choice of the manufacturer is subject to the requirements of section S 5.3.5. and not section S 5.3.3.

The reasons for our interpretation are as follows:

a. The fuel section of the trip computer does not show the fuel level in the fuel tank.

b. The distance and speed functions cannot be considered as "speedodometer" because it does not indicate actual vehicle speed at any instant. Also there is no need to illuminate an odometer even if the distance function could be so considered.

Would you please confirm that ARG's interpretation for 1 and 2 above are correct. That is, that such displays contained in our trip computer which offer "supplemental information" to other gauges and displays that are clearly regulated by FMVSS NO. 101 will categorically fall under S 5.3.5 requirements for illumination.

Sincerely,

Enc.

ID: 17697.ztv

Tadashi Suzuki, Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153,
Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in response to your letter of April 2, 1998, asking for confirmation of the acceptability under Standard No. 108 of Stanley's new visual/optical headlamp system.

The system is based upon an existing system aimed by VHADs. In the new system, the VHAD for vertical aim has been removed. The horizontal aiming mechanism is "deleted by removing the horizontal VHAD and by fixing a cover on the head of the aiming bolt so that the access is impossible." The requisite marks are on the lenses identifying it as a visually/optically aimable headlamp..

You note the remarks in the preamble to the final rule on visually/optically aimable headlamps that "any current headlamp design that is modified to include visual/optical aimability must still provide mechanical aimability if that headlamp is intended to be a replacement in vehicles in which the lamp was used before its redesign." You inform us that this headlamp is intended for a new model year vehicle and that the existing type of headlamp will be provided for the replacement of the present model year of vehicle. The two headlamps will have different parts numbers and lens identifiers. Under these circumstances, you have asked for an interpretation that the new system need not continue to provide mechanical aimability.

It is not advisable for headlamps on the same vehicle to have be aimed by two different means. However, in this situation, where the two headlamps have different parts numbers and lens identifiers, we have concluded that Stanley is justified in concluding that the visually/optically aimable headlamp is not a replacement for the headlamp that is mechanically aimable, and therefore need not retain the mechanical aiming feature on the newer headlamp. We believe that Stanley's intent would be even clearer if the cartons in which each type of replacement headlamp is shipped are marked to identify the specific model year(s) for which replacement is intended.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:5/30/98:62992:OCC 17697
interp. 108; redbook (2)
NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:5/21/98:62992:OCC 17697
cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron
ztv; 17697; U:\ncc20\interp\108\17697.ztv

ID: nht72-6.62

DATE: 01/26/72

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: K. NAKAJIMA -- TOYOTA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL TO VIRVE AIROLA; LETTER AND BROCHURE DATED 04/14/89 FROM VIRVE AIROLA OF OY TUPPI AB TO NHTSA CONCERNING ITS FINLAND COMPANY'S RANGE OF PLASTIC TUBES AND HOSES PARTICULAR ITS AIR BRAKE TUBING

TEXT: This letter is in response to your request for interpretations of Section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR Part 566, manufacturer Identification as they affect foreign manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment.

You state that it is your understanding that under these provisions:

If a foreign covered equipment manufacturer supplies his products, including original and (Illegible Word) equipment, to a vehicle manufacturer outside the United States, and if this equipment manufacturer is not engaged in business in the United States in this regard:

(1) he is not necessarily required to establish his agent under the job;

(2) he is required to furnish the manufacturer identification information to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which he supplies his products.

Your interpretations of both provisions are correct. Section 110(c) requires that all manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, whether "covered" or not, which is offered for importation into the United States, designate an agent in the United States. However, if an equipment manufacturer produces equipment which is supplied only to foreign vehicle manufacturers, he will not be offering that equipment for importation into the United States, and he therefore need not designate an agent under the Act.

Part 566 requires that a manufacturer of "covered equipment" must submit the required information to NHTSA separately from the manufacturer to whom he supplies his products. As you suggest, this is true regardless of whether the equipment manufacturer is engaged in business in the United States, as long as the foreign vehicle manufacturer to whom the equipment manufacturer supplies his products is selling those products in the United States.

Please write if we can be of further assistance.

ID: nht95-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard J. Kinsey -- Manager, Fuel Economy Planning & Compliance, Ford Motor Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/28/94 LETTER FROM RICHARD J. KINSEY TO RICARDO MARTINEZ

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting our concurrence on a procedure for determining the domestic content and country of origin for foreign-sourced allied and outside supplier components. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you would like to obtain the relevant information from your present purchasing systems rather than by soliciting the information from your foreign suppliers. You stated that both processes will result in the same information, and that you believe requiring your foreign suppliers to respond to requests for information would impose costly and unnecessary burdens on those suppliers.

We are now in the process of completing our response to several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule on domestic content labeling. Your question is sufficiently related to some of the issues raised by the petitions that we believe it should b e addressed in the context of that response, rather than in a separate letter.

We realize, however, that manufacturers and suppliers have an immediate need for guidance regarding the procedures for making content determinations for the 1996 model year. In a recent letter (copy enclosed) to the American Automobile Manufacturers Ass ociation, we advised that NHTSA had decided to give manufacturers and suppliers for model year 1996 the same alternative they had last year, i.e., in lieu of following the required procedures, they may use other procedures that are expected to yield simi lar results. Therefore, your planned approach will not raise any concerns for model year 1996.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.