ID: 0437

Mr. Bryan J Williams
Director, International Operations
Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co Inc.
1111 East Louisiana Street
Evansville, IN 47711

FAX 812-467-2388

Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your FAX of October 24, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting an interpretation regarding the relationship of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to an AAMVA list.

Your company manufactures UV coatings for polycarbonate headlamp lenses. These "provide abrasion resistance properties as well as protecting the plastic lens from the deleterious effects of outdoor exposure." One of these coatings, UVT200, is used by Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler on headlamp lenses. However, "UVT200 does not appear on the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) 'Listing of Acceptable Plastics for Optical Lenses and Reflectors Used on Motor Vehicles.'" You inform us that some overseas headlamp manufacturers believe that appearance on the list is required by Federal law and is a prerequisite to certification. The question you ask is:

Must a coating for plastic (polycarbonate) headlamp lenses appear on the AAMVA "Listing . . ." in order to meet the requirements of FMVSS 108?

The answer is no. Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires that plastic materials used in lenses (which include headlamp lenses) conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts, Such as Lenses and Reflectors of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices, May 1970. Under SAE J576c's outdoor exposure test, the luminous transmittance of the material must not change by more than 25% from its performance before the test. In appearance, the headlamp lens material must not show surface deterioration, crazing, dimensional changes, or delamination. Also, under paragraph S5.1.2(b), after the outdoor exposure test, the haze and surface luster of the material must not be greater than 30

percent haze, as measured by ASTM D-1003-61. Manufacturers have found that a coating is required for the plastics used in headlamp lenses to meet Standard No. 108's outdoor exposure requirements. However, neither SAE J576c or Standard No. 108 require the coating, let alone specify what coating is acceptable. The decision to coat, and the choice of coating, is that of the manufacturer in determining compliance with and certification to Standard No. 108. Therefore, the AAMVA list has no legal relationship to Standard No. 108 and it is immaterial to NHTSA whether the coating used is or is not on the AAMVA list.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/7/94

ID: nht93-7.17

DATE: October 8, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Price -- President, Strait-Stop Manufacturing Co., Inc.

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Senator Boren; Senator Nickles; Representative Bill Brewster

TITLE: Re: Docket N. 93-69; Notice 1 and Docket No. 92-29; Notice 2

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/3/94 from John Womack (signed by Kenneth Weinstein) to Thomas D. Price (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I am hereby requesting immediate definition of specific technical terminology used in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) issued in FR/Vol. 58, No. 186/Tuesday, September 28, 1993. You indicated on the telephone, this week, you could not give assurance of a timely response to any questions for terminology definition. However in view of the scope and significance of the proposed standards, it seems mandatory, and in the best interest of all affected parties, that all commenters have a common basis of knowledge as to the intended meaning of specific technical terms, upon which they can base their responses required on or before November 29, 1993.

I questioned three professors of mechanical/electrical engineering at the University of Oklahoma as to the meaning of the terminology listed below and was unable to receive a comfortable commonality of definition. This would indicate that the listed terminology may have some specific meaning for the Agency that is not readily discernible by engineers who lack the prior association with the persons or entities which have developed specific understanding regarding definition.

1. On pages 50757 and 50760 of the reference documents, there are proposed amended definitions to S571.105, S4 and S571.121, S4 which delete the definition of "antilock system", and add the definition "antilock braking system". In the latter definition, in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) the terminology "rate of angular rotation of wheels" and "rate of wheel angular rotation" are used, but lack definition. Please define this terminology.

2. There is a definite ambiguity as to the precise meaning of the term "performance". In some places it is obviously talking about the vehicle's ability to meet the standards of "stopping distance" and "lateral stability". However, in other places it is, just as obviously, referring to a step by step functional pattern designed to achieve the prior "performance" criteria, the achievement of which becomes a verification that the prescribed functional pattern is effective. Please define the terminology "performance" as it applies to the GOAL of the Agency to be accomplished by the proposed rules.

We urgently and respectfully request that the Agency provide the two definition clarifications specified above by November 8, 1993, which is one month from the date hereof.

ID: nht88-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GARRY GALLAGHER -- VICE PRESIDENT, METZELER MOTORCYCLE TIRE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: FEBRUARY 11, 1988 LETTER FROM GALLAGHER TO COOK IS ATTACHED

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of February 11, 1988 that requested "written confirmation and approval" to add the word "reinforced" to the sidewall of the Metzeler Motorcycle ME88 Marathon model motorcycle tire. As discussed below, it is our op inion that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 does not prohibit the addition of the word "reinforced."

It is important to note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S .C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product.

Standard No. 119; New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars establishes performance and marking requirements for tires for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. Paragraph S6.5 of Standard No. 1 19 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to this standard. The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and s traightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. Standard No. 119 permits tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscur e or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. Assuming that the addition of the word "reinforced" is not made in such a way that it obscures or confuses the meaning of the required information, Standard No. 119 d oes not prohibit the addition of the word "reinforced" to the motorcycle tire sidewall.

I hope the information provided above will be useful to you and to Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. If there are any further questions or if you need more information, please do not hesitate to write to me.

ID: 23815

Mr. Drew Larson
5414 Martin Road
Erie, PA 16509





Dear Mr. Larson:

This is in response to your e-mail expressing concerns about your motorcycle helmet with a plastic visor and mouth guard. In your e-mail, you state that, while you were riding a four-wheeled all terrain vehicle, you fell off the vehicle, and the helmet's visor broke. You claim that the helmet was "DOT approved" but "did not hold up to many of the standards."

Your letter describes some of the injuries you suffered as a result of your fall. I hope that you have recovered from those injuries and that you suffered no permanent injuries.

By way of background information, Federal law (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. Neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation approves motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Motorcycle helmets are subject to FMVSS No. 218 (49 CFR 571.218), which specifies performance requirements for helmets to ensure that helmets reduce the likelihood of head injuries in crashes. The DOT symbol on the helmet is a certification by the helmet manufacturer, not the DOT, that the helmet conforms to FMVSS No. 218. The standard does not specify performance requirements for motorcycle helmet visors. There currently is no FMVSS that applies to the visor.

NHTSA investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. For information about our defect programs or to file a complaint report, you can log into http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/ or call the DOT Auto Safety Hotline at 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236). A NHTSA representative will record your report.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:218
d.2/11/02

ID: 2886o

Mr. Garry Gallagher
Vice President
Metzeler Motorcycle Tire
Agent Gregg, Inc.
4520 - 107th S. W.
Everett, Washington 98204

Dear Mr. Gallagher:

I am writing in response to your letter of February 11, 1988 that requested "written confirmation and approval" to add the word "reinforced" to the sidewall of the Metzeler Motorcyle ME88 Marathon model motorcycle tire. As discussed below, it is our opinion that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 does not prohibit the addition of the word "reinforced."

It is important to note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product.

Standard No. 119; New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars establishes performance and marking requirements for tires for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. Paragraph S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to this standard. The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. Standard No. 119 permits tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. Assuming that the addition of the word "reinforced" is not made in such a way that it obscures or confuses the meaning of the required information, Standard No. 119 does not prohibit the addition of the word "reinforced" to the motorcycle tire sidewall. I hope the information provided above will be useful to you and to Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. If there are any further questions or if you need more information, please do not hesitate to write to me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:119 d:5/31/88

ID: nht71-4.30

DATE: 10/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will serve to confirm your understanding that a retractor capable of meeting the requirements for a vehicle-sensitive emergency-locking retractor under Standard No. 209 conforms to the Standard even though it is provided with a back-up webbing-sensitive retractor that locks only at webbing accelerations greater than those specified in Standard No. 209.

ID: nht90-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1990

FROM: SUSAN BIRENBAUM -- ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITES STATES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 5-25-90 TO SUSAN BIRENBAUM FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD (A35; VSA 102(4)); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-12-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM DAVID SCHMELTZER, U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, AND LETTER DATED 6-29-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM. TEXT:

On July 29, 1989, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Office of General Counsel wrote to your office seeking an opinion as to whether aerosol tire inflator/sealer sold to consumers is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined by t he National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act. Our Office of General Counsel renewed the request in October. To date we have received no response.

This letter is to advise you that the Commission's Directorate for Compliance and Administrative Litigation is continuing to investigate manufacturers and sellers of this type of product. We have learned of several deaths and serious injuries resulting from the ignition of the gas from these aerosol products contained in tires that were being repaired. The injured and dead include mechanics (or other employees of a repair facility) as well as consumers.

As we investigate this product area, we are encouraging makers and sellers to seek alternate, non-flammable propellants in their tire sealing products. We are attempting to address the potential substantial product hazard we have identified as expeditio usly as possible. This is appropriate in view of our preliminary assessment of the extremely serious risk of injury to consumers using these aerosol products.

This office will seek voluntary corrective action plans from makers and sellers of the various products as the facts show to be appropriate. If voluntary action is not obtained where needed, we will consider the enforcement options available to seek to c ompel corrective measures.

If you need additional information about the product under consideration or any other aspect of this inquiry, please call Allen F. Brauninger of this office at 492-6980.

Thanks again for your assistance with this matter.

ID: nht75-3.46

DATE: 09/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peerless Division - Royal Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 15, 1975, question whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires "hold back valves" on air brake system reservoirs to guard against loss of air pressure through auxiliary equipment installations.

The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 121 does not contain a prohibition on the use of air pressure from the air brake system for powering auxiliary devices. The vehicle must, of course, conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of any auxiliary devices, if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. For example, the compressor build-up pressure must still meet S5.1 of the standard whether or not auxiliary equipment is installed.

Although not a requirement of the standard, the NHTSA does consider it appropriate that a pressure protection valve be placed in the line to an auxiliary device so that rupture of an auxiliary line does not cause depletion of air pressure in the brake system.

SINCERELY,

July 15, 1975

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

For auxiliary air equipment such as an air ride suspension, we have been utilizing a brake system hold back valve to protect the complete brake system at about 90 p.s.i. We are attempting to get a 100 p.s.i. hold back valve but there does not seem to be one available. We are working with an air valve supplier to develop such a valve. To get a 90 p.s.i. hold back valve, we have to modify an existing valve. Only 60 p.s.i. hold back valve, we have to modify an existing valve. Only 60 p.s.i. hold back valves are available through our normal sources of supply.

It has been brought up by some of our people that they think that we are required to protect only the spring brake release tank and that on some manufacturer's brake system this is provided in their spring brake valve.

I would like to get your legal interpretation on this matter as soon as is reasonable.

PEERLESS DIVISION ROYAL INDUSTRIES

C.J. Baker Director of Engineering

ID: nht76-3.28

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United Recreational Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 16, 1976, request for information on the requirements for a manufacturer of a light utility trailer which is designed to carry snowmobiles. I regret that we have not responded sooner.

The information you request appears in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and I enclose an information sheet which explains how this material may be acquired.

Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR Part 566), specifies identification information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of vehicles and equipment regulated by our standards.

Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), specifies the content and location of the certification label or tag which must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards.

At this time the only Federal safety standards applicable to all trailers are Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and Standard No. 120, Tire and Rim Selection for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The enclosed information sheet also explains how to acquire those regulations.

Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, became effective on January 1, 1975, in the case of trailers which the manufacturer has decided to equip with air brakes. Thus trailers which you manufacture on or after January 1, 1975, which utilize air brakes must meet the air brake standard.

After you have reviewed the regulations I have referred to, please contact me if you have any further questions.

ID: 2518y

Mr. Pat Crahan
Director, Government Relations
U-Haul International
2727 North Central Avenue
P. O. Box 21502
Phoenix, Arizona 85036-1502

Dear Mr. Crahan:

Thank you for your letter to Dr. August Burgett of this agency, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number -- Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you stated that U-Haul manufactures its trailers itself and never sells those trailers to any other party. You asked if Standard No. 115 requires trailers that are used exclusively by the party that manufactures them to be identified with a vehicle identification number (VIN). The answer to your question is yes.

S2 of Standard No. 115 specifies that the standard applies to trailers, and makes no exception for trailers that are used exclusively by the manufacturer. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 provides that: "Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer." Again, no exceptions are set forth for vehicles that will be used exclusively by the manufacturer. Because those regulatory provisions do not include any special exceptions, every new trailer must have a VIN, irrespective of whether the trailer will only be used by the same party that manufactured it.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:115 d:7/9/90