ID: nht91-2.28

DATE: March 12, 1991

FROM: David A. White -- Manager, Reliability, Grumman Olson

TO: Associated Administrator For Enforcement, NHTSA

COPYEE: A. Charney; K. Sexton

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David A. White (A37; Part 556)

TEXT:

Enclosed is a notification of a noncompliance to 49 CFR (567.4(g)(6) requiring the vehicle identification number be located on the vehicle certification tag. Grumman Olson is petitioning to have the noncompliance be deemed inconsequential and is seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility.

Enclosure

DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE REPORT 49 CFR PART 573

573.5(c)(1) Manufacturer name - Grumman Olson

(2) Identification of vehicles involved 1990 and 1991 walk in vans - Models Kurbmaster and Route Star

(3) Quantity - Approximately 380

(4) Percentage estimated to contain the defect - 100%

(5) Description of defect/noncompliance The certification tags of these vehicles listed the Grumman Olson body identification number in place of the vehicle identification number specified in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(6)

(6) N/A

(7) Bases on which the manufacturer determined the existence of the noncompliance Quality Control found the incorrect information during the normal inspection process.

(8) Description of manufacturers program to remedy the noncompliance.

Grumman Olson wishes to petition to have the noncompliance considered inconsequential. This request is based on the following information. 1) The vehicle identification is located on the VIN tag required by 49 CFR 571.115.4.6 even though this tag is required only on vehicles with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, Grumman Olson installs the tag regardless of GVWR.

2) Grumman's records are based primarlly on the body identification number and not the vehicle identification number. Vehicles involved in recalls are tracked by the body I.D. Since Grumman Olson manufacturers a body and installs it on a stripped chassis provided by another manufacturer the body I.D. is the only number Grumman Olson assigns and is more useful to Grumman than the VIN.

(9) Representative copy of communications None

ID: nht79-3.13

DATE: 11/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chief, Cleveland Fire Department

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 2, 1979, in which you asked for copies of any current or recommended standards concerning the use of plastic auxiliary fuel tanks. May I apologize for the delay in this response.

I have enclosed a copy of a letter, which was sent to a company which planned to manufacturer auxiliary fuel tanks and to do some installation, that details the ways in which the safety standards and statutes administered by this agency apply to the manufacture of auxiliary fuel tanks of all types. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that this agency issued with respect to a proposal to issue performance standards applicable to nonmetallic fuel tanks.

At this time the agency does not have any standards applicable to the use of auxiliary fuel tanks. However, several months ago we issued a consumer advisory warning against carrying fuel in portable containers in the trunks of cars. We consider this advisory applicable not only to portable containers but to any fuel container mounted in an area not normally consigned to such use. I have enclosed a copy of this advisory for your information. In addition, we are planning to issue a press release in the near future specifically addressed to the dangers of using auxiliary fuel tanks.

If you have any reports, case histories, photographs, or other material concerning any fires or fire problems caused by the use of auxiliary fuel tanks we would be most grateful if you would allow us to examine them. Your concern in this area of vehicle safety is deeply appreciated.

Sincerely,

City of Cleveland

July 2, 1979

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

Re: Auxiliary Fuel Tanks for Motor Vehicles

Gentlemen:

Due to the gasoline fuel shortage, we are facing a new problem in the fire service. The use of plastic auxiliary fuel tanks has become more prevalent and responsible for vehicle fires. The concern for fire fighters, fighting a fire in a vehicle containing one of these tanks is paramount.

A copy of any standards or recommendations in effect or being considered will be used to inform the fire suppression units of this Department.

Please furnish any product manufacturers that have approval for installation.

William E. Barry, Chief Division of Fire

CC: LT. DEIGHTON

ID: nht87-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable William Proxmire

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable William Proxmire United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Proxmire:

This is in reply to your recent inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Todd Suer of Janesville.

Mr. Suer, in his letter to you of April 15, 1987, refers to cars "that have extra clear head lights besides the ones that are built in" and asks if there is a law against them.

We are not familiar with the lighting equipment that Mr. Suer mentions. It is not part of the front lighting equipment required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It appears to be aftermarket, accessory equipment, and as such, its use is subj ect to regulation under State law. We suggest that Mr. Suer direct his complaint to State or local authorities.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Todd Suer Rt Dunbar Road Janesville, Wi. 53545

April 1, 1987

The Honorable William Proxmire United States Senate

Dear Senator Proxmire

I am writing to you about people that drive cars that have extra clear head lights besides the ones that are built in. Is there a law against them? If they have them they should only be on when the brights are on. When they have there dims on they should be off. The little lights are ok. Some people have fog littles on all the time, they should only be used in the fog. Some people have there dims on, and they shine right in your face.

I think the police should stop people that have these light problems because they blind you. Please inform me of this problem. Thank you very much.

Yours truly,

Todd Suer

ID: nht95-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: D. L. O'Connor -- Manager, Government And Customer Compliance, The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company

TO: Walter K. Myers -- Office Of The Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK (STEPHEN WOOD) TO D. L. O'CONNOR (A43; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Walt:

Goodyear is encountering difficulties in importing tires that meet all of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) into Colombia, South America. It appears that Colombia is attempting to regulate the quality and safety of all products being im ported into the country which is certainly a worthy goal.

Colombia recognizes and accepts the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as adequate to meet the quality and safety levels they desire. The problem Goodyear is encountering is verification that we are a company that complies with all the safety standa rds when we place the DOT symbol on a tire.

The Colombian Institute of Technical Standards (ICONTEC) requires a Certificate of Conformity which we provide. A copy of this Certificate is attached.

Per our conversation on July 12, 1995, reference this subject, we believe that Goodyear-U.S.A. will be permitted to continue exporting tires to Colombia if NHTSA would recognize/endorse the fact that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and the DOT stamping on our tires is valid.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Attachment

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

July 13, 1995

CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY

We certified that all tires manufactured by Goodyear-USA which are exported into Colombia are of first quality, and in compliance to the United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, either FMVSS # 109 for new pneu matic tires for passenger cars, or FMVSS # 119 for new pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

J C Whiteley Vice President Government Compliance & Product Quality

D L Knight Director, Tire Technology Latin America Region

ID: nht95-5.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1995

FROM: D. L. O'Connor -- Manager, Government And Customer Compliance, The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company

TO: Walter K. Myers -- Office Of The Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK (STEPHEN WOOD) TO D. L. O'CONNOR (A43; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Walt:

Goodyear is encountering difficulties in importing tires that meet all of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) into Colombia, South America. It appears that Colombia is attempting to regulate the quality and safety of all products being imported into the country which is certainly a worthy goal.

Colombia recognizes and accepts the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as adequate to meet the quality and safety levels they desire. The problem Goodyear is encountering is verification that we are a company that complies with all the safety standards when we place the DOT symbol on a tire.

The Colombian Institute of Technical Standards (ICONTEC) requires a Certificate of Conformity which we provide. A copy of this Certificate is attached.

Per our conversation on July 12, 1995, reference this subject, we believe that Goodyear-U.S.A. will be permitted to continue exporting tires to Colombia if NHTSA would recognize/endorse the fact that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and the DOT stamping on our tires is valid.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Attachment

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

July 13, 1995

CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY

We certified that all tires manufactured by Goodyear-USA which are exported into Colombia are of first quality, and in compliance to the United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, either FMVSS # 109 for new pneumatic tires for passenger cars, or FMVSS # 119 for new pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

J C Whiteley Vice President Government Compliance & Product Quality

D L Knight Director, Tire Technology Latin America Region

ID: nht94-4.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 16, 1994

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

TO: Matt Decker -- Project Engineer, Wenger Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/25/94 FROM MATT DECKER TO RICARDO MARTINEZ

TEXT: We have received your letter of October 25, 1994, petitioning for exemption from S5.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which establishes conspicuity requirements for large trailers.

Your letter states that Wenger Corporation "manufactures and sells a complete line of music education and performance equipment" including "Wenger Showmobiles, mobile performance stages in trailer form." The reason for your request is that "[the] additio n of the conspicuity striping is unacceptable for many of our potential customers because of how it would impact their graphics on the sides and rear of the product."

The agency's exemption authority is prescribed by statute, and has been implemented by a regulation, 49 CFR Part 555, a copy of which I enclose. Your letter does not contain the information needed for an exemption petition. There appear to be two bases upon which Wenger could apply for an exemption, under the hardship provisions of Sec. 555.6(a) and the safety level provisions of Sec. 555.6(d). If Wenger submits an application that contains the information required by Part 555, we shall give the matt er further consideration. The desire of manufacturers to use retroreflective logos as a substitute for conspicuity marking was considered in the rulemaking proceedings that established S5.7 but was not adopted because the agency saw greater safety benef its in adopting a standardized pattern.

We have studied the photo in your product literature that shows the trailer ready for performance. It would appear that the upper rear conspicuity treatment is not visible to an audience when the trailer is open. Noting that Wenger provides an optional skirt for the platform, we see that the skirt hides the lower side and rear conspicuity treatment required by S5.7. We believe that the simplest solution is to provide the skirt as standard equipment with the trailer.

ID: nht89-2.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 28, 1989

FROM: Anne M. Kennedy -- Customer Relations Representative, Volkswagen United States, Inc.

TO: Emory L. Lariscy -- President, Lariscy Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: Re #89026684

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from P.J. Rice to E.J. Lariscy (A36; Std. 108; Std. 124; Std. 301); Also attached to letter dated 8-28-89 from E.L. Lariscy to G. Shifflett (OCC 3910) with Patent Application for Vehicle Safety Light Assembly (gr aphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Mundy to E. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Staples to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from L. Baer to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

Thank you for your recent letter, concerning Vehicle Safety Light Assembly. Please be assured we appreciate the information in your letter, since it is through communications of this nature that changes and/or improvements can be brought about where it appears they are needed most. Your commentary will be called to the attention of all concerned parties.

We have taken the liberty of forwarding the information contained in your letter to our Product Planning Department. You should be hearing directly from them.

Thank you once again for taking the time to write and for giving us the opportunity to review and comment.

ID: 7396

Mr. Matt Decker
Project Engineer
Wenger Corporation
555 Park Drive
Owatonna, MN 55060

Dear Mr. Decker:

We have received your letter of October 25, 1994, petitioning for exemption from S5.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which establishes conspicuity requirements for large trailers.

Your letter states that Wenger Corporation "manufactures and sells a complete line of music education and performance equipment" including "Wenger Showmobiles, mobile performance stages in trailer form." The reason for your request is that "[t]he addition of the conspicuity striping is unacceptable for many of our potential customers because of how it would impact their graphics on the sides and rear of the product."

The agency's exemption authority is prescribed by statute, and has been implemented by a regulation, 49 CFR Part 555, a copy of which I enclose. Your letter does not contain the information needed for an exemption petition. There appear to be two bases upon which Wenger could apply for an exemption, under the hardship provisions of Sec. 555.6(a) and the safety level provisions of Sec. 555.6(d). If Wenger submits an application that contains the information required by Part 555, we shall give the matter further consideration. The desire of manufacturers to use retroreflective logos as a substitute for conspicuity marking was considered in the rulemaking proceedings that established S5.7 but was not adopted because the agency saw greater safety benefits in adopting a standardized pattern.

We have studied the photo in your product literature that shows the trailer ready for performance. It would appear that the upper rear conspicuity treatment is not visible to an audience when the trailer is open. Noting that Wenger

provides an optional skirt for the platform, we see that the skirt hides the lower side and rear conspicuity treatment required by S5.7. We believe that the simplest solution is to provide the skirt as standard equipment with the trailer.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108#555 d:11/16/94

ID: nht78-1.10

DATE: 12/05/78

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

TO: Yankee Metal Products Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 18, 1978, requesting a clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concurs in your interpretation of S5.3.1 that any hand operated control which is mounted on the steering column does not have to meet the illumination requirements of Column 4 of Table 1.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

September 18, 1978

KATHLENE DEMETER -- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA/DOT

Dear Ms. DeMeter:

I have been referred to your office for clarification of paragraph 5.3.1 on page 27543, of FMVSS No. 101 -- Controls and Displays; Docket No. 1-18; notice 13; part 571. It is my interpretation of the first sentence of the above paragraph that a hand operated steering column mounted control does not have to comply with the illumination requirements of Column 4 of Table 1.

It is imperative that we receive your written reply to this interpretation as soon as possible, since it could affect the design of a turn signal/hazard warning switch which we are about to release for production.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely, YANKEE METAL PRODUCTS; Walter J. Kulpa

ID: nht73-2.9

DATE: 09/10/73

FROM: Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cannon's Cycle Center Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Robert Aubuchon of this agency has asked us to respond to our recent inquiry whether the Solex motor bicycle is a "motor vehicle" under our regulations, and, if so, how we would categorize it. You are also interested in knowing how our views affect South Carolina's proposed redefinition of bicycle.

Since the Solex is manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, it is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, specifically a "motorcycle". As such, it must meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "motorcycles", and be so certified by its manufacturer. The only such standard currently in effect is No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, but standards on controls (No. 122) and braking (No. 123) will become effective January 1, 1974 and September 1, 1974 respectively.

While the proposed South Carolina redefinition of "bicycle" appears to encompass the Solex, the State by so doing could neither relieve the manufacturer from the obligation of complying with Federal motorcycle safety standards, nor impose requirements different from Standards Nos. 108, 122, and 123 as to those aspects of performance covered by the Federal standards.

I hope this answers your questions.