ID: nht80-1.12

DATE: 02/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Brotherhood Racing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your conversation with Mr. Hugh Oates of my office concerning the manufacture and installation of replacement fuel tanks.

Enclosed please find (1) a copy of a letter concerning the legal implications of replacing a vehicle's fuel tank with a larger tank, (2) a copy of a letter concerning the legal implications of building and installing auxiliary fuel tanks which discusses issues also relevant to replacement fuel tanks and (3) a notice describing how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

In addition to the points raised in the enclosed letters, I would like to point out two additional factors. First, please note that if you go into the business of manufacturing replacement fuel tanks you must submit identifying information and a description of the items you produce to this agency in accord with 49 CFR Part 566 (copy enclosed).

Second, as you will note from the enclosed letters, a manufacturer or other person specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act who installs an auxiliary or replacement fuel tank in a new or used vehicle must not compromise the vehicle's compliance with relevant safety standards. Thus, in installing replacement fuel tanks you should be aware not only of any effect that your installation may have upon the vehicle's fuel system (see Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301-75, Fuel System Integrity), you should also be aware that your installation might affect, among othert things, the vehicle's braking system (see Safety Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems) or the vehicle's weight as it relates to safety standards concerning tires (see Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, applicable to passenger cars, and Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars).

I hope that you will find the enclosed material helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Ms. Debra Weiner of my office at 202-426-2992.

ENCLS.

ID: nht79-1.45

DATE: 03/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your letter of October 17, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls, and Displays. You asked whether placing the turn signal symbol on the turn signal switch handle so that the arrows are vertical would comply with the standard.

The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear preceptually upright to the driver. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure quick and accurate identification of the vehicle controls. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle.

SINCERELY,

OF AMAERICA, Inc.

October 17, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: @ 571.101 101-80

Dear Sir:

Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd, the manufacturer of Subaru motor vehicles, is working on their 1980 Model Year car lines for the U.S. market. Last week via telephone we contacted NHTSA's Mr. John Carson for an opinion about the identification symbol markings which will be required on our turn signal switch. Mr. Carson informed us that we are not the only auto manufacturer to inquire about vertical arrows but that we should write for an interpretation.

Fuji plans to identify their turn signal switch handle by using arrows as shown in Table One of the standard, but plans to have the arrows in a vertical mode rather than horizontal. If we (FHI) do display the "arrows" in a vertical axis will our symbol be in compliance?

John Cordner Technical Assistant Product Compliance

CC: FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD; FUJI LIAISON OFC.

ID: nht75-4.42

DATE: 05/14/75

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

TO: Massachusetts Department of Public Health

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your request of April 4, 1975, I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, several Federal Register notices which have modified the basic standard, and the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. Also enclosed is a circular explaining how all the safety standards and regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may be obtained.

Until October 29, 1974, section S4.1.2 of the standard required recognition interlock on 1974- and 1975-model passenger cars. As noted in the enclosed amendment (Docket 74-39, Notice 1), recent legislation mandated the deletion of this requirement, which was accomplished by NHTSA on October 29, 1974.

Manufacturers may now meet Standard No. 208 by providing (1) lap and shoulder belts at front outboard positions and lap belts at other positions, and (2) a continuous or flashing remainder light that operates only during the 4- to 8-second period after the ignition is operated and a continuous or intermittent audible warning signal which operates only during the 4- to 8-second period after the ignition is operated if the driver's lap belt is not in use. They may also provide certain types of "passive restraint" devices in place of the seat belt assemblies. Although the seat-belt interlock system is not prohibited, it is no longer a means of complying with the standard.

YOURS TRULY,

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Department of Public Health

April 4, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Please send to me a copy of your motor vehicle safety standard requiring ignition interlock for new cars. I would appreciate your sending, also, a copy of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974.

Thank you for your help.

Benjamin Sachs, M.D., M.P.H. Associate Director Division of Local Health Services

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: 1983-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Empire Construction Co. Inc. -- H.J. Lindekugel, Consultant

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. J. Lindekugel Consultant Empire Construction Co., Inc. East 10310 Montgomery Box 11012 Spokane, Washington 99211

Dear Mr. Lindekugel:

This responds to your recent letter asking if the rim marking requirements of Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle Other Than Passenger Cars, apply to "remanufactured truck wheels." They do not.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 sets forth rim marking requirements applicable to all new rims manufactured on and after September 1, 1977, and designed for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Remanufactured wheels are considered used wheels instead of new wheels for purpose of Standard No. 120, and so are not subject to the rim marking requirements.

Should you need any further information or have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202)426-2992.

Sincerely, Original Signed by Frank Berndt

Attention: Attorney for Rulemaking

Re: DOT number for remanufacturing process

Greetings: This writer was referred to you by Lauretta Carlson, Highway Safety Program Area Director, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Seattle, WA.

The point of inquiry is whether or not a DOT identification number is necessary for a re-manufactured truck wheel, not a repaired wheel. The review made with Lauretta Carlson showed no such standards as a pre-requisite. She sent me a copy of the Code of Federal Regulations, 57-119 and 57-120 which confirmed her judgement she suggested this letter.

Please advise the writer if the position she has taken is correct.

Very Truly Yours,

H. J. Lindekugel, Consultant

ID: nht76-1.23

DATE: 12/06/76

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

TO: The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 22, 1976, letter advising the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the tire standards of the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association (JATMA) are being translated into English. You request that consideration be given to referencing JATMA standards in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that regulate motor vehicle tire manufacture. I regret that we have not responded to your letter sooner.

Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, and Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, presently reference the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS). Because the JATMA standards appear to be updated more often than the JIS standards, and because the JATMA standards will be issued in English, the agency intends to substitute a reference to JATMA standards in its regulations for the existing reference to JIS standards.

Thank you for providing us with the English translation of the motorcycle tire standards. We request that you provide us copies of all English translations of the standards for all vehicle types as often as they are updated.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

THE JAPAN AUTOMOBILE TIRE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

J. B. Gregory -- National

J. B. Gregory -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir,

Re: The JATMA Standard.

The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association has established the JATMA Standard as an association standard for tires in Japan.

To circulate it widely to the world we are now preparing its English version. Recently the JATMA Standard for motorcycle tires in English has been completed and we are sending you copies of it under the separate cover.

As to the JATMA Standards for other tires (for Truck & Bus, Light Truck and Passenger cars) translation into English is now under way taking this opportunity we would want you to consider to add the JATMA Standard to S 5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 119 and S 4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 109.

Yours faithfully, Keigo Ohgiya, Executive Director

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: nht81-1.28

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Smith Industries Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. W. W. Bischoff Divisional Technical Director Smith Industries Limited Vehicle Instrumentation Division Cricklewood Works, London, England NW2 6NN

Dear Mr. Bischoff:

This responds to your letter of January 28, 1981 to John W. Carson regarding Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. You asked whether the encapsulation requirements of this standard (S4.2.5.2) are satisfied if a speedometer is housed in a metal case and sealed by a window and a spun-over metal bezel.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.) to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination.

The agency is willing to offer an opinion on whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. Such an opinion is not binding on the agency or on the manufacturer. However, the information you have provided in your letter does not give us a sufficient basis on which to form an opinion. We must see the equipment in question, or at least pictures or drawings of the equipment design, to render a judgment.

Please contact this office if you have more questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

28th January 1981

Mr. John W. Carson, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Sir,

Re: FMVSS 127, Speedometers and Odometers Final Rule (Docket 76-06, Notice 9)

Please advise by return whether the odometer tamper resistant requirement is satisfied relative to the 'Access to the odometer requirement', for a speedometer housed in a metal case and sealed by a window and spun over metal bezel.

Thank you.

Yours truly, for: Smiths Industries Limited

W.W. BISCHOFF Divisional Technical Director

ID: nht73-5.45

DATE: 11/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: R. H. Schroeter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1973, in which you ask the following questions:

1. Is it true that Standard Nos. 109 and 110 are not applicable to a 1/2-ton pickup truck with camper because such vehicle is not a "passenger car" as defined in Standards 109 and 110?

2. Is it true that in Appendix A of Standard 110 no "alternative rims" are listed for the L70-15 tire simply because no one has requested (in the manner provided in Appendix A to Standard 110) inclusion of such additional or alternative rim widths.

With respect to question 1, a pickup truck is not a passenger car but a "truck" (as defined in 49 CFR S 671.3) for purposes of all the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard Nos. 109 and 110. Standard No. 109 applies to tires for passenger cars. Standard No. 110 (49 CFR S 571.110) applies only to passenger cars, not to pickup trucks.

In response to your second question, the answer is not an unequivocal "yes", and I regret that you may have drawn that conclusion from your conversations with Michael Peskos of this office. In order for alternative rims to be listed with a tire size designation in the Appendix of Standard No. 110, data showing that the tire and rim combination meets the requirements of both

Standard No. 109 and 110 must first be submitted to the agency. Once that data has been provided, the NHTSA will publish the alternative rim size in Standard No. 110, and if no objections are received within a 30-day period, the tire/rim combination becomes part of the standard. Thus, there are not one but two possible reasons why a rim size is not listed in Standard No. 110:

The tire/rim combination fails to meet either Standard No. 109 or 110; or

It does meet both standards, but no one has requested approval of the combination. This could occur simply if the combination was not intended to be used as original equipment on a passenger car.