ID: nht76-3.6

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Southern California Recreational Vehicle Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 15, 1976, letter concerning the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, on manufacturers of replacement and auxiliary fuel tanks.

You are correct in your understanding that this standard applies to completed vehicles, rather than fuel tanks or other fuel system components. Therefore, for example, an auxiliary fuel tank that you manufacture is not itself subject to any performance requirements. However, a person who mounts such an auxiliary fuel tank on a new motor vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is a vehicle alterer under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations. He is required by 49 CFR 567.7 (copy enclosed) to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards -- including Standard No. 301-75.

In addition, the mounting of an auxiliary or replacement fuel tank on a motor vehicle after the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is affected by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies in relevant part that

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . . (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, such a mounting of an auxiliary or replacement fuel tank must be performed in such a way that the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301-75 is not knowingly compromised.

SINCERELY,

September 15, 1976

Travis Armstrong, Director Office of Standards Enforcement National Hiway Traffic Safety Administration

We have a manufacturing plant in which our principal products are replacement and auxiliary fuel tanks for light trucks, vans and various recreational vehicles.

We have conformed to all our state emission control requirements for which we are fully accredited. We feel our products comply with all existing regulations. However, some of our customers have interpreted Federal Safety Standard FMVSS 301-75 to include our products thereby requiring test certification.

We have been advised by a Safety Engineer at the Automobile Club of Southern California that there were no standards for fuel tanks and that 301-75 does not apply to manufacturers of parts and other accessories for the aftermarket. He further advised us to write to you for confirmation of this fact.

We would, therefore, appreciate a reply clarafying the standard and to whom it applies.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PRODUCTS, INC.

Charles G. Atkinson President

CC: BOBBY A. BOAZ -- OFC. OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

ID: 1983-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 23, 1982, to Mr. Elliott of this agency asking whether you may distinguish between U.S. and Japanese-manufactured lighting equipment subject to Federal Standard No. 108 by marking the lenses "U.S.A. DOT" and "JAPAN DOT", rspectively.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted the SAE standard on equipment marking, J759c. This means that the only marking subject to Standard No. 108 is that which certifies compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the DOT symbol. We believe that the intended proximity of the words "Japan DOT" in your Japanese-manufactured equipment might create the impression that Stanley was certifying compliance to the requirements of the Japanese Ministry of Transport, rather than to those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Therefore, we suggest that you place the word "Japan" at the end of the line rather than adjacent to the "DOT" symbol.

SINCERELY,

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

November 23, 1982

Att.: Marx Elliott Office of Rulemaking

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Elliott,

We, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. corporated in Japan (hereafter reffered to as STANLEY-JPN) have estblished Stanley Electric U.S. Co., Inc. corporated in London, Ohio (hereafter reffered to as STANLEY-US) with 100 % investments, and we are in process of preparing to start producing, beginning with the lighting equipments for 1984 model vehicles.

In the work we are proceeding, we are faced with a problem, the first case for us, which relates to the identification marking to be indicated on the lighting devices. So, we would like to ask you whether or not our view is right.

Honda Motor Co., LTD. (Japan) will manufacture the same type of vehicles both in Japan and in U.S.A (HONDA OF AMERICA). Therefore, their lighting devices of the same design will be manufactured by STANLEY-JPN and by STANLEY-US, and supplied to the Honda plant in each area.

Because these lighting devices are of the same design (STANLEY-JPN keeps the original drawings. And only STANLEY-JPN takes proceedings for their modifications.), we intend to indicate the same indentification making to the products made in Japan and made in U. S. A. However, in order to make a country of origin clear, it is our intention to add the marking "JAPAN" or U.S.A." to the identification marking, though it is not explained in Lighting Identification Code-SAE J759c.

The following is an example:

For products made in Japan : "STANLEY 043-6371 SAE AIST 80 JAPAN DOT"

For products made in U.S.A.: "STANLEY 043-6371 SAE AIST 80 U.S.A. DOT"

Please let us know whether or not the above view has no problem.

Thanking you in advance,

H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ID: nht74-5.42

DATE: 03/20/74

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

TO: Western Auto Associate Store

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your request for information on Standard 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and on a "Petition #2" concerning exemption of "Mopeds" from the motorcycle regulatory category.

Standard 119 applies to tires, not vehicles, and therefore it regulates only the manufacturer of the tire, not a retailer of vehicles like yourself.

The "Petition #2" to which you refer was filed by Mr. Robert Smith of Ohio Bikes, 631 Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, asking for a redefinition of "motorcycle" to exclude Moped-type vehicles, and a change in the lighting standard to exclude Moped-type vehicles from the present motorcycle requirements.

Yours truly,

WESTERN AUTO ASSOCIATE STORE

RICHARD B. DYSON A'SST. CHIEF COUNSEL DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

I thank you for your responsive letter Feb 4, 1974 concerning my inquiry on Status of Solex reports. In your letter you(Illegible Word) to a new standard affecting tires on mopels. Standard #119 effective March 1, 1975. Could you please furnish me with the specific requirements of this standard.

Also(Illegible Words) of a new Petition, referred to as Petition #2 which is currently before the D.O.T. asking that some of these requirements on mopels be(Illegible Word) to the extent that they not be classified with motorcycles but more in the cycle classification. Could you please furnished us with more detailed information regarding this Petition.

THANK YOU.

ID: nht71-3.41

DATE: 06/04/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Williamsen Body & Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 1971, requesting an interpretation of the Tire Identication and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. Part 574) as it applies to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.

The final-stage manufacturer, as a vehicle manufacturer, under section 113(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, is required to keep a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and to maintain a record of the tires shipped on or in the completed vehicle (49 C.F.R. 574.10). Although the final-stage manufacturer may designate someone to maintain the records required under section 574.10 of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, the legal responsibility for maintaining the records remains with the final-stage manufacturer.

However, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediate manufacturer, may assume "legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by (the Act) with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured . . . " (49 C.F.R. 568.7). In such a case, the responsibilities for maintaining the records required by the Act and by the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation will be assumed by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediate manufacturer, and the final-stage manufacturer will be relieved of all liability for maintaining the records.

Under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, the manufacturer is not required to keep a record of tires manufactured before May 22 1971, but sold after that date. However, where feasible, we recommend that the manufacturer maintain some system whereby he can identify the type of tire on vehicles he sells as well as the purchaser of the vehicle.

For your convenience, we have enclosed copies of the Act with its amendments, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, and the Certification Regulation.

ENCLOSURES

ID: GF000492

Mr. Guy S. Edington
Vice President, Technology
Kumho America Technical Center
3500 Embassy Parkway, Suite 150
Akron, OH 44333




Dear Mr. Edington:

This is in response to your January 16, 2006, letter and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding certain requirements in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, "New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars."As Mr. Feygin explained to you, this letter is limited to the discussion of the current regulations and does not address suggestions you made concerning how you believe certain tires should be tested.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues FMVSSs applicable to new vehicles and equipment, including tires. 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. Thus, the tire manufacturer is responsible for self-certifying its product.

S6.2 of FMVSS No. 119 specifies certain tire strength requirements that tires must meet when tested according to the procedure specified in S7.3. As a part of this procedure, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into a raised tread element as near as possible to the centerline of the tread, at a rate of 2 inches per minute, until the tire breaks or the plunger is stopped by the rim. The diameter of the plunger depends on the diameter of the rim and is specified in Table I. You ask what diameter plunger is used to test tubeless 17.5 diameter code "medium duty truck" tires.

Table I of FMVSS No. 119 specifies that for tubeless tires with a diameter code of 17.5 or smaller, a plunger with a diameter of inches (19.05 mm) is used. Table I does not differentiate between different categories of 17.5 diameter code tires and does not provide for use of different plunger diameters for any 17.5 diameter code tires.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:119
d.4/7/06

ID: nht95-6.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael A. Knappo

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO: 7/01/95 (EST.) LETTER FROM MICHAEL A. NAPPO TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL; 6/8/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SHAWN SHIEH; 5/10/91 AND 3/21/91 LETTERS FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO CHRIS LAWRENCE; 8/17/89 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO ALAN S. ELDAHR; 7/8/85 LETTER FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO DON BENFIELD (STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Knappo:

This is in response to your letter regarding a product that you wish to offer for sale in the near future. You have asked for information on how this product might be affected by local and national laws.

According to your letter, "Auto Ad" is a portable advertising unit that is designed with a flexible screen that can be secured to a window with suction cups. The screen is illuminated with LEDs, controlled by a key pad mounted close to the driver. The unit will run off power from the car battery through the cigarette lighter, or "hardwired in." The diagram you enclosed shows "Auto Ad" mounted in the rear side window of a car and a van.

While we do not have information about State or local laws, I am enclosing copies of several letters we have issued in recent years concerning the applicability of Federal law to products which appear to be similar to yours (addressed to Mr. Shawn Shieh, dated June 8, 1993; Mr. Chris Lawrence, dated May 10 and March 21, 1991, Mr. Alan Eldahr, dated August 17, 1989, and Mr. Don Benfield, dated July 8, 1985).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Enclosures

ID: 1985-04.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David Gruenzner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 18, 1985 Mr. David Gruenzner President, Future Tech Inc. P.O. Box 26B Mankato, MN 56002 Dear Mr. Gruenzner: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to an aftermarket high-mounted stop lamp/turn signal lamp system. You intend to market three models, as more completely described in the next paragraph. All models are mounted in the interior of the car. Our primary concern is the possibility that the interior-mounted unit will cause undesirable reflections in the rear window, reducing the ability of the operator to judge conditions to the rear of his vehicle as seen through the rear view mirror. For this reason, Standard No. 108 requires the new center-mounted stop lamps mounted on the interior to be provided with means to minimize such reflections. These lamps now in production incorporate shrouds that abut the rear window glazing. Though your after market device would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108 since it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, we encourage you to incorporate design features which will prevent undesirable reflections. Also care should be taken to ensure that, when the device is installed, it does not impair the field of view required for rear view mirrors by Safety Standard No. 111. Your device consists of eight miniature lamps, four mounted on each side of the vertical centerline. We also have some additional concerns about the operation of one of your three models. In the first model, in the turn signal mode, the lamps operate sequentially from the center outward in the direction of the intended turn. In the stop lamp mode, the entire unit will illuminate, "sending a sequential (sic) flashing beam from the middle to both sides." We view the sequential flashing of the lights from the center outwards in the stop lamp mode as prohibited by paragraph S4.6 of the standard which requires all lamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. However, the stop function in the second model is indicated by a steady-burning in use, except for turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps, and headlamps and side marker lamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. However, the stop function in the second model is indicated by a steady-burning light, thus complying with our requirements. In the third model, there will be an additional amber colored lens mounted on top of the red lens. The brake signal will be indicated by a steady red light, while the turn signals will be indicated by flashing amber ones. This method of operation is also acceptable under Standard No. 108 which permits rear turn signals to be either amber or red.

We are unable to assist you with State laws that may affect your devices. We suggest you contact the vehicle administrators in the States where you intend to market your system. I hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 8907ar2

Mr. Richard G. Meier
Deputy Assistant
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20506

Dear Mr. Meier:

This letter follows up on the July 23, 1993, meeting in which you and Ms. Suzanne Troje discussed with representatives of this agency concerns of the Mexican Government that tires produced in Mexico for sale in the U.S. must be labeled in English and tested in Texas.

We would like to explain our regulations and correct an apparent misimpression of the Mexican government. Tires manufactured for sale in the United States must be labeled with safety and consumer information that is required by statute (the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) and by regulation. The regulations require that the information be in English.

There is no available exception to the English labeling requirement for the safety information, but there is an exception to the consumer information requirement of our uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS, copy enclosed). The UTQGS do not apply to "limited production tires," as defined in that standard. This exception could provide the basis for a Mexican tire manufacturer to import a limited number of tires into this country to assess the market. However, the annual importation of that tire into the U.S. must not exceed 15,000 tires. To qualify as a limited production tire, neither the annual production of that tire in the U.S. nor the importation of that tire into the U.S. by a manufacturer or brand name owner may exceed 15,000 tires (49 CFR 575.104(c)(2)(i) and (ii)). In addition, the tire's size cannot have been listed by a vehicle manufacturer as the recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture (49 CFR 575.104(c)(2)(iii)). Finally, while a manufacturer or brand name owner may produce or import several different types or sizes of tires as limited production tires, the total number of tires that the manufacturer or brand name owner may produce or import is limited to 35,000 tires.

The UTQGS do not require that manufacturers test their tires at this agency's test track at San Angelo, Texas. Manufacturers may test their tires where they choose, and may even choose not to test their products at all. However, the specification in the UTQGS regulations that testing is done at San Angelo means that NHTSA must use that track in any compliance testing of tires. In order to protect themselves against the possibility that the agency will find a noncompliance based on testing at San Angelo and initiate an enforcement action, it would be prudent for tire manufacturers to base their assigned grades on their own testing at San Angelo or on some substitute means whose results demonstrably correlate with the results of testing at San Angelo.

We hope this information is helpful. For your information, I have attached a general information sheet discussing NHTSA's requirements for new manufacturers. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure

ref:109#119#575 d:10/1/93

ID: nht88-3.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/88

FROM: THOMAS A COZ -- NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES LAW DEPARTMENT

TO: JIM LUTES -- KENTUCKY TRAILER

TITLE: CALIFORNIA CITATIONS-HIGH MOUNTED TRAILER STOP LAMPS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/88 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JAMES A. LUTES; REDBOOK A33 [4]; VSA 102; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 11/09/88 FROM JAMES A. LUTES TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Jim:

I understand you spoke by telephone on Friday, October 28, 1988, with Jack Sawrey, Vice President of NAVL's Fleet Service Division, concerning traffic citations which NAVL owner-operators have received in the state of California for pulling NAVL trail ers with high mounted lamps. Copies of four tickets are enclosed.

Based upon my conversation with Jack, I understand that you plan to contact the U.S. Department of Transportation and obtain written correspondence from DOT to the State of California regarding this issue. Specifically, I hope DOT is willing to write a letter which says that high mounted trailer stop lamps/turn signals are legal under federal laws and regulations. A question has been raised by California, for example, concerning the legality of such high mounted lamps under the terms of Federal Mot or Vehicle Safety Standard 108.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in soliciting such a letter from DOT. If possible, please send a copy of whatever letter is finally generated to both Jack Sawrey and to me at our NAVL address listed above.

Sincerely,

Enclosures [4 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL TRAFFIC TICKETS OMITTED]

ID: nht76-4.3

DATE: 01/15/76

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

TO: Burlington Management Service Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Burlington Fleet Service's December 9, 1975, question whether the combination of usable parts from several existing vehicles into one functioning vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The answer to your question is no. For an assembly operation to constitute manufacture, there must be a substantial proportion of new or fundamentally rebuilt parts. In this case, no new parts, other than minor materials such as hoses and gaskets, are involved in the assembly. The NHTSA therefore, does not consider the operation to constitute manufacturing subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.)

YOURS TRULY,

Burlington Fleet Services

December 9, 1975

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our organization is dedicated to keeping maintenance records for many fleets throughout the nation and as part of our service, we attempt to keep our customers advised of new government regulations and how these affect their maintenance practices. At this time, we require clarification of one of your new rulings -- namely, that pertaining to rebuilding trucks using new cabs (glider kits).

It is our understanding that when using glider kits, that two of the three power-line components must be from the same vehicle; otherwise the vehicle will be classified as new and require certification under such standards as 121.

My specific question is, what happens in the case of canabalization, that is, where two or more units are disassembled and reassembled as one, or remanufactured to make a 'new' vehicle?

In summary, when a cab, frame rail, and/or front suspension from one unit is used in conjunction with an engine, transmission and drive axle from one or more other units, does this comprise remanufacturing and will the vehicle be required to meet the same specifications as if a glider kit was used?

Today, with many fleets postponing the purchase of new equipment, extending the life of older units through such practices raises many questions, some of which are economical and, in your case, one which is specifically legal. This question is perplexing both for us and many of our fleets, and requires further clarification. Would you please advise this writer as to your ruling?

We would appreciate being on your mailing list for new or proposed rulings in these areas, for we believe that we have much to offer, especially with the large data base we maintain in this area.

J. E. Paquette Director