ID: 77-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Clarence D. Long - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of May 9, 1977, to the Federal Trade Commission, on behalf of Mr. Edward L. Armstrong, Sr., Baltimore, Maryland, expressing his concern that new passenger car manufacturers will discontinue supplying spare tires, has been referred to this office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, for additional consideration and reply.

We believe that Mr. Armstrong's concern deals with the recently approved "temporary use" spare tire that will be manufactured and used with some of the new 1978 model automobiles. The use of a temporary use spare tire is not a new concept. These tires have been used with compact sport cars, such as Firebird and Camaro, since 1967. The further development of these spare tires has been fostered by the desire of the U.S. automobile manufacturers to produce small, lightweight cars in furtherance of the national energy conservation program. I am sure that you have noticed the new 1977 models by some domestic automobile manufacturers are, in fact, smaller. Of course, the development of these smaller, lightweight, energy-efficient automobiles has resulted in a substantial reduction in usable car trunk space, and therefore, providing a second reason to develop a spare tire which takes less storage space than a conventional tire.

Since this spare tire is designed for use on the nation's highways, it must conform to the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, for strength, endurance and high speed performance. For your information, we have enclosed a copy of this standard.

ID: 77-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/77

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

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 20, 1977, letter asking whether your certification labels comply with Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As stated to you in an earlier letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not issue approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The agency has determined that the two labels that you submitted do not follow the format established in the regulations and, therefore, do not comply with the requirements. If "R" denotes radial ply and "F" denotes load range, the tire designation should be 10.00 R 20 (F).

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

July 20, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

SUBJECT: NOA-30 (RST)

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of July 19, concerning Mr. Levin's letter of July 13, 1977.

We are enclosing two new samples certification labels which have been modified from the original as submitted May 25, 1977. It is our understanding that the changes in the wording for the tire and rim size, and the deletion of the wording "maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below" will give apparent compliance with the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120.

Jerry McNeil Director of Engineering

ENCLS.

ID: nht73-3.24

DATE: 02/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Orin D. Miner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Contact 6 of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has sent us a copy of your letter asking that we respond to your questions.

In your letter you inquire as to the distribution of fines collected from tire manufacturers as a result of their manufacturing tires that do not comply with the requirements of the Federal standard for passenger car tires (Standard No. 109).

Monies collected as settlement offers are transmitted to the general funds of the United States Treasury.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including the passenger car tire standard, are minimum standards vehicle manufacturers and equipment manufacturers are required to meet. They are issued to give assurance that if the product in question meets the standards the public will have some protection against unreasonable risk of death or injury.

In addition to the question of civil penalties, manufacturers of non-conforming vehicles or tires are usually required to issue a defect notification and are urged to replace the defective equipment. Your complaint does not appear to be concerned with a safety related problem but rather with tires that you believe have not given you adequate treadwear. This is not an area covered by existing standards, however, this agency has under consideration a quality grading regulation which would include grading requirements for the treadwear life of each tire manufactured after a given date.

Concerning your recommendation that Federal inspectors be placed in tire manufacturers' plants, this has been considered at various times and the agency's present thinking is that the cost and manpower involved would not warrant this course of action.

Thank you for your interest in auto safety and your views in this area.

ID: nht87-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/87 EST

FROM: S.L. LEPOSKY -- EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CO

TO: ALL DISTRIBUTORS AND SALESMEN.

TITLE: NON USE OF DUCK BILLED STEEL TIRE HAMMERS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/11/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO BETH WHITMAN; REDBOOK A31, STANDARD 110, 120; SA 19 AR STEELHAMMERS 2J; SA 29 STEELHAMMERS 2J; LETTER DATED 01/21/87 FROM S. L. LEPOSKY TO DISTRIBUTORS; LETTER DATED 07/09/87 FROM LEO CARE Y TO BETH WHITMAN

TEXT: We have just returned from the annual National Wheel & Rim Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona. The tone of the meeting from Wheel & Rim Manufacturers was one of concern and rightly so. They have all reprinted and issued their new Rim & Tire Service Manuals ou t-lining and telling tire dealers, fleets, mining and construction users that they MUST NOT USE steel hammers to disassemble or assemble truck rim components. The practice still goes on and probably will until more people are injured and more lawsuits f iled.

For your convenience we have enclosed two pieces of instruction material produced by Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) and National Highway, Traffic Safety & Health Administration (NHTSHA). Have your salesmen carry this with them and discuss it wit h your customers.

The logical alternative to the steel duck bill hammer is the "COMBI" Truck & Farm Tire Bead Breaker. If your people will talk about the regulations, your customers will soon start to buy the proper equipment to replace the hammer.

One of the best places to start is with local City, County, State and Federal service operations. They are very cognizant of the OSHA regulations.

ID: nht70-1.50

DATE: 04/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Florence L. Dawson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of March 2, 1970, to Mr. Douglas Toms concerning the failure of the electrical system in your 1968 Volkswagen has been forwarded to this office for reply.

Present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards include no specific requirement for electrical systems. However, there are minimum performance requirements for certain vehicle components--such as a brake system warning light and various lighting components--which necessarily rely upon a properly functioning electrical system for compliance with the applicable Standards.

I have enclosed for your information a booklet describing briefly the Federal Standards which are presently in force. A copy of the complete Standards publication and all supplements may be purchased at an annual price of $ 8.00 from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20102.

This Bureau does not become involved in individual contractual relationships, such as exists between you and(Illegible Word) Motors or Volkwagon of America, Incorporated. Accordingly, we cannot assist you in obtaining further repairs for your vehicle. We are, however, interested in your experience from the point of view that what you have encountered might occur in other 1965 Volkwagon vehicles. Presently, we have no knowledge of other related failure, but we have made note of your complaint and we will remain alert for any similar reports.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 does not create a right of action by which a vehicle owner way sue a vehicle manufacturer if a safety-related defect is discovered in a vehicle. I suggest you contact an attorney as to possible recourse under Pennsylvania law.

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review your experience.

ID: nht70-1.7

DATE: 03/28/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Industrija Gouijevih

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of January 8, 1970, the Department of Transportation hereby assign number 212 to Sava, Industrija Gouijevih,(Illegible Words) Jugoslavija as its approved code mark. The approved code mark is for use in identifying the tire manufacturer in accordance with S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1421(1)).

You are correct that all passenger car tires manufactured after August 1, 1968 must have permanently molded into or onto them the approved "DOT" recital. However, the application of the recital is not to import purposes only. The application of the(Illegible Words) by a tire manufacturer is the tire manufacturers self certification that his tire conforms to all of the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. Standard 109 specifies tire dimensions and laboratory test requirements for bend unseating resistance, strength, endurance and high speed performance; defines tire load ratings; and specifies labeling requirements. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

The National Highway Safety Bureau does not certify tires prior to the manufacturer's application of the "DOT" symbol. However, we do maintain a compliance test program by which certification of manufacturers are verified. Violations of this certification are subject to a fine of $ 1,000.00 per tire.

Your attention is directed to the requirements for designation of an agent in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Subsection (110(a)). This requirement is implemented by our General Procedural Rules, Subpart D - Service of Process: Agents. I have enclosed a copy of those requirements for your information.

ID: nht71-3.45

DATE: 07/21/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Rueck and Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1971, to the National Highway Safety Bureau (now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) concerning the requirements for sealed beam headlamp units.

The answers to your specific questions are as follows:

1. Sealed beam units must meet the photometric specifications in SAE J579 at the design voltage at or below the maximum amperes specified in SAE J573.

2. Tolerances are as follows:

Electrical power - the maximum electrical power is the product, in watts, of the design voltage multiplied by the maximum amperes at design volts. There is no specified minimum electrical power.

Maximum amperes - There is no tolerance. Maximum amperes is the maximum specified in SAE J573.

Design watts - There is no tolerance. There is, however, a tolerance on the actual watts or electrical power as described above.

3.4.4. The filament types and positions are illustrative of current practice only. Any type or position may be used to meet the specification of J579 and J573.

5. All glass sealed beam units are not mandatory. There are no restriction in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or the SAE Standards on the number of pieces or the materials which are used to complete the assembled sealed beam unit as long as the specifications, including those in SAE J571, are met. Caution should be used, however, to ensure that a good and durable seal is obtained between the metal back, if used, and the other parts to optimize the useful service life of the sealed beam unit.

ID: nht69-2.13

DATE: 07/17/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1969, in which you ask whether a form that you enclose satisfies the requirements of Consumer Information section S75.106, Acceleration and Pusint Ability.

Your placement of the words "not capable" in the figure conforms to the requirements of the section. It is not necessary to include the words in the diagram also. In reference to your question concerning line spacing: In presenting the information "in essentially the form illustrated in Figure 1" (section 375.106(c)), it is not necessary that the manufacturer's presentation be an exact copy of the figure in respect to type face, line spacing, and so forth. The presentation in your enclosure would be adequate in those respects.

In answer to your question about teduction of the figure. The regulation did not specify a type size, but the information is required to be exactly legible. The size in which the figure appeared in the Federal Register would appear to approximate the minimum in this regard.

Finally, I should note that the "Description of Vehicles to which this Table Applies" is required by section 375.106(c)(1) to be "in the(Illegible Word) by which they are described to the public by the manufacturer". This would normally be in terms of the model designation,(Illegible Word) equipment, or other common description, not the regulatory type of "motor-driven(Illegible Word) as you indicate (unless, of course, this is your company(Illegible Word) designation of this type).

I am pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht95-5.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1995

FROM: Ricardo Martinez -- M.D., NHTSA

TO: Shih-Chiang Chen -- President, Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM SHIN-CHIANG CHEN TO DOT MINISTER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to the Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the "brake condition warning sensor." You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country.

The sensor causes flashing in "the third brake light" keyed to the rate of deceleration.

Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or "center highmounted stop lamp" as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use.

After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash.

However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We are not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511.

ID: nht76-1.30

DATE: 03/01/76

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

TO: Leisure Time Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1976, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, as they apply to the manufacture of mobile homes with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds.

The standard requires that these vehicles be equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 in<2> of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. While you are free to provide additional mirrors, the standard clearly requires two mirrors each of which has at least 50 in<2> of reflective surface. Substitution of a number of small mirrors for one or both of the 50 in<2> mirrors is impermissible, even if a total reflective area of 50 in<2> is provided.

If you require any further assistance, do not hesitate to write.

SINCERELY,

Leisure time PRODUCTS, INC.

January 29, 1976

Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111

As a manufacturer of motor homes of over 10,000 pounds GVWR, I am not certain on how to interpret Section S6 of Standard No. 111. I understand the minimum requirements for mirror size, capability, and location which would be applicable. The item which I question is the 50 in<2> of reflective surface. Are the mirrors required to be of one piece instead of possibly two piece? For example, two mirrors one with 40in.<2> reflective surface and additional mirror of adequate size to meet the 50in.<2> requirement for each side of vehicle.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be appreciated. Thank you.

Tommy Watson Engineer of Codes and Standards