ID: nht88-1.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/88

FROM: GARY M. CEAZAN -- RIKEN AMERICA, INC.

TO: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Attn: Tire Division

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GARY M CEAZAN; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 109, 119; LETTER DATED 02/16/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO MIKE KAIZAKI; STANDARD 119; UNDATED LETTER FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO E.W. DAHL

TEXT: Dear Commissioner:

Riken-America, Inc. is the importer, and national distributor, of Riken Tires for the United States. Riken Tires are manufactured in Japan by Okamoto Industries, Inc., Tokyo, Japan (D.O.T. Code No. ED).

The purpose of this letter is to obtain from your office a ruling on the following question:

...If a tire carries both the E.T.R.T.O. and the I.S.O. size markings, would this tire be considered by U.S. -- D.O.T. as a dual sized tire; and, therefore, not allowed to be sold in the United States?

Specifically, Okamoto Industries, Inc. is currently producing a line of metric size radial tires for sales in both Europe and Japan and both the E.T.R.T.O. and the I.S.O. size markings appear on the tires, at different locations, for example, the size marking 165/80R13 (I.S.O.) appears mid-way on the sidwall, and the size marking, 165R13 (E.T.R.T.O.) appears above the bead (see attached sketch).

Please advise if these tires could be imported into the United States with the size markings mentioned above. You may write to me at Riken-America, Inc., P. O. Box 3698 Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California 90051, or telephone me at 1 (800) 421-1838. Thank you for your consideration of and response to this inquiry.

ID: nht71-4.12

DATE: 09/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Greenbaum; Soloff & Earnst

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1971, requesting an official interpretation of certain provisions of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You ask whether @ 573.5 requires quarterly reports to contain information on defect notification campaigns initiated prior to the regulations effective date, which is now October 1, 1971 (36 F.R. 14742, August 11, 1971). If not, you ask whether an automobile manufacturer must provide any information concerning campaigns begun prior to the regulation's effective date.

The answer to your first question is no. Quarterly reports required pursuant to @ 573.5 are not required to contain information regarding notification campaigns initiated before October 1, 1971.

With reference to your second question, manufacturers are required to provide certain information regarding notification campaigns initiated before the regulation's effective date. Section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1402(d)) requires manufacturers to furnish NHTSA a copy of all notices, bulletins, and other communications to dealers or purchasers regarding any defect in a vehicle of item of equipment sold or serviced by the dealer. In addition, @ 573.7 of the Defect Reports regulations requires a copy of certain notices, bulletins, or other communications to be furnished to NHTSA monthly. Both of these requirements apply to notices, bulletins, and other communications regarding defects discovered or determined to be related to motor vehicle safety before as well as after the regulation's effective date. Furthermore, the agency may, should the need arise, request information from manufacturers regarding past campaigns under the authority of section 112(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1401(d)).

If you have further questions please write.

ID: nht80-2.4

DATE: 04/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sholz Oldsmobile, John Galotti

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne

TEXT:

Mr. John B. Galotti Service Manager Sholz Oldsmobile 35 West Post Road White Plains, New York 10606

Dear Mr. Galotti:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the legal requirements applicable to the installation of fuel separators and auxiliary fuel tanks in motor vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of a letter the agency issued last year which discusses the Federal requirements and implications that would be involved with such activities. That discussion should answer all of your questions. If, however, you require further information, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

[8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne omitted here.]

March 10, 1980

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel NOA 30

Re; Installation of Diesel engine fuel and dirt separators and auxiliary Diesel fuel tanks in trunks of passenger cars.

Dear Sir;

We have received many requests and inquires from car owners concerning the installation of Fuel separators and Auxiliary fuel tanks in their vehicles.

Before we oblige them we would like to know officially what difficulties and liabilities we might run into as far as Federal Laws are concerned.

Any assistance you may give us pertaining to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

John B. Galotti Service Manager

ID: nht92-4.11

DATE: September 11, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Arye Addady -- Maaco

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/22/92 from Arye Addady to U.S. Dept. of Transportation, NHTSA (OCC-7582)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 22, 1992, concerning an invention that you are developing. You stated that your idea would involve installation of a device in the hydraulic brake system of a vehicle and asked whether permission is required from our agency. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers are not required to seek permission from NHTSA, and this agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards.

I am enclosing a pamphlet which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I am also enclosing copies of a January 4, 1985, letter to Deco International Corporation, and a January 5, 1982, letter to Cariben, Inc., which discussed Federal requirements applicable to certain aftermarket devices that were installed in the braking systems of vehicles.

I hope this information is been helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 21883.ztv

Mr. Arman Asinmaz
611 Golden Harbour Drive
Boca Raton, FL 33432





Dear Mr. Asinmaz:





This is in reply to your e-mail of July 1, 2000, in which you ask "what color lights are permitted inside the headlight." We are unsure whether you are asking about the color of the headlamp beam or whether headlamps may incorporate a colored light source for a function other than headlighting, but we shall answer both questions.

The color of light from headlamps is specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. A state may not prohibit or allow any color for a headlamp other than that specified by Standard No. 108. The Federal standard requires that the light emitted by headlamps be white and comply with SAE Standard J578c, Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February 1977. The SAE standard defines colors in terms of spectral coordinates, and the coordinates of white are such that near the boundaries the color white may be perceived as having a bluish cast. This bluish cast is especially noticeable in the light emitted by high intensity discharge headlamps.

Standard No. 108 also allows turn signal lamps and front side marker lamps to be incorporated "inside the headlight," to use your phrase, that is, to be in the same housing as headlighting sources. The color of light from these lamps is required to be amber. The amber light can be produced by an amber bulb emitted through a clear lens. Thus, amber is a color permitted "inside the headlight " (amber light can also be produced by the combination of a clear bulb and amber lens).

If you have further questions, you may e-mail Taylor Vinson of this Office as you did before

(tvinson@nhtsa.dot.gov).





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref.108
d.8/11/00

ID: 77-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

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

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1977, petitioning for temporary exemption, on behalf of an electric truck, from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 102 and 301.

Your petition is inadequate for consideration at this time. A manufacturer may apply for temporary exemption upon only one basis, while AM General's petition is an attempt to apply both on grounds of hardship (49 CFR 555.6(a)) and of low-emissions vehicle development (555.6(c)). On either basis the petition lacks the full complement of information required by Part 555.

In view of the fact that AM General has previously received an exemption (NHTSA Exemption No. 74-4) under 555.6(c) I suggest that you reapply on that basis, using the company's previous petition as a guide. Your present petition is inadequate under 555.6(c) because it does not provide "reasons why the failure to meet the standard does not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle" (555.6(c) (2) (iv)). It also does not supply the results of tests conducted on conforming vehicles to substantiate certification to Standards Nos. 102 and 301-75 (555.6(c) (2) (ii)); you have morely stated that AM General manufactures vehicles that meet these standards.

Under our general requirements for petitions, AM General must also provide its views why the granting of the petition would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (555.5(b) (7)).

We shall be pleased to consider your petition further when you have furnished the information requested.

ID: 20014.ztv

Mr. Joel Sacher
Director of Product Development
Italjet U.S.A.
302 Spring Street
New York NY 10013

Dear Mr. Sacher:

We have received your letter of May 11, 1999, asking for a temporary exemption for "a small number of Italjet scooters" from one requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays.

I am sorry to inform you that the petition does not meet our procedural requirements, and we request that you revise and resubmit it in accordance with the following comments. Our regulation, 49 CFR 555.5(b)(3), requires that a petition

state the full name and address of the applicant,

the nature of its organization (individual, partnership, corporation, etc.) and the name of the State or country under the laws of which it is organized.

Italjet U.S.A. appears to be petitioning on behalf of Italjet S.p.A. If our assumption is correct, please provide the identifying information for Italjet S.p.A. that the regulation requires. If Italjet U.S.A. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Italjet S.p.A., we ask that you confirm this as well. If Italjet U.S.A. is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of Italjet S.p.A., we would like to have a copy of the authorization from Italjet S.p.A. to you to petition on its behalf.

In order that any possible exemption be limited in scope, please inform us of the model name or number of the vehicle for which you are requesting exemption.

Finally, we call your attention to 49 CFR 555.5(b)(2) which requires that temporary exemption petitions be filed in three copies; we received only one copy.

When we have this information, we shall be pleased to consider your request.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:555
d.6/3/99

ID: 7479

Mr. Richard Hamlin
401 Redding Road, #21
Lexington, KY 40517

Dear Mr. Hamlin:

This responds to your letter of June 26, 1992 to Secretary Card, inquiring whether maintenance of school buses in safe operating condition is prescribed by Federal law or regulation. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it applies to school buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA does not have authority over the use and maintenance of school buses. However, the individual states do have such authority. For details on what requirements your state has in this area, you may wish to contact Mr. Mike Roscoe, Director of Pupil Transportation, Kentucky Department of Education, Frankfort, KY 40601. School buses used in interstate commerce may also be subject to standards issued by the Federal Highway Administration. For information on those standards, you may contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Suite 3404, this address.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, you may contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref:#571 Schoolbuses d:9/l4/92

ID: nht92-4.6

DATE: September 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Hamlin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/26/92 from Richard Hamlin to Andrew Card (OCC-7479)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 26, 1992 to Secretary Card, inquiring whether maintenance of school buses in safe operating condition is prescribed by Federal law or regulation. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it applies to school buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA does not have authority over the use and maintenance of school buses. However, the individual states do have such authority. For details on what requirements your state has in this area, you may wish to contact Mr. Mike Roscoe, Director of Pupil Transportation, Kentucky Department of Education, Frankfort, KY 40601. School buses used in interstate commerce may also be subject to standards issued by the Federal Highway Administration. For information on those standards, you may contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Suite 3404, this address.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, you may contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht74-1.47

DATE: 11/12/74

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

TO: Oshkosh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 8, 1974, question whether a front axle automatic pressure limiting valve may be removed during the burnish procedure to permit effective burnish of the front brakes.

The answer to your question appears in Notice 6 to Docket 74-10 in response to a similar inquiry from International Harvester. A copy of that notice is enclosed for your information. It amends S6.1.8.1 to require that any automatic pressure limiting valve be in use except in the case where the temperature of the hottest brake on a rear axle exceeds the temperature of the hottest brake on a front axle by more than 125 degrees F. A bypassed valve is reconnected if the temperature of the hottest brake on a front axle exceeds the temperature of the hottest brake on a rear axle by 100 degrees F.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

October 9, 1974

Richard Dyson -- U.S. Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: 49 CFR Part 571, FMVSS 121 - Air Brake Systems

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Per Federal Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, Part 393, Section 393.48, use of automatic devices for reducing front wheel brake effort is permitted on vehicles complying to FMVSS 121.

With the automatic pressure reduction valve in the front axle, Oshkosh Truck Corporation has found that during burnishing of some vehicles per Section 6.1.8.1 of FMVSS 121, the rear brakes reach 500 degrees F, much earlier than the front axle brakes because of the automatic reduction of brake force to the front axle and, therefore, effective burnishing of the front brakes is not achieved.

Please advise if the automatic device to reduce the front wheel brake force can be removed during the burnishing procedure.

Very truly yours,

P. K. Kamath -- Sr. Safety Engineer