ID: 77-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Brock Adams; NHTSA

TO: Hon. R. J. Lagomarsino - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 16, 1977, letter enclosing correspondence from Mr. (Illegible Word) Smith concerning the safety of radial tires.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the Department of Transportation, promulgates safety standards requiring that tires meet minimum levels of strength and endurance. Should a tire not meet the performance levels prescribed in the tire standards, its manufacturer would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. (Illegible Word) 89-563) and subject to the penalties specified thereunder.

The NHTSA has not concluded that radial tires produced in the United States are less safe than those produced elsewhere. All tires, sold in the United States, both domestically and foreign-manufactured, must comply with (Illegible Word) safety standards.

The problem to which your constituent refers, the so-called "phoney steel belted radial," concerns steel belted radial ply tires that use only a single steel belt in their construction. As cited above, our standards specify performance and not design requirements. Thus, tire manufacturers may use whatever materials they choose in constructing tires that meet the prescribed performance level. Within our standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, we require the tire manufacturer to identify the generic name of the material used in the ply cords, and we require that the actual number of plies in the tread area be specified. Therefore, when a consumer purchases a new passenger car tire, he can identify whether the steel belted radial ply tire has one or two steel belts.

Since your constituent describes a situation of misleading advertising, I believe his letter should also be reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission. I suggest that you contact that agency for an opinion on the issue.

ID: nht81-2.9

DATE: 03/25/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1981, asking whether the placement of a clear lens cover in front of a motorcycle headlamp would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions) Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of the standard as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Paragraph 5.2 of J580 states that, "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens."

The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584a Motorcycle Headlamps. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles. We therefore view the prohibition of J580 as applicable to use of any sealed beam headlamp, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is installed.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of additional equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicity permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.

The agency therefore has concluded that no motorcycle headlamp may have a glass shield in front of it when in use.

ID: nht80-3.36

DATE: 08/13/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 9, 1980, letter requesting clarification of the Federal requirements for door locks on fire trucks. Specifically, you ask whether Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206), is applicable to fire trucks.

As Mr. Oates of my office stated in his telephone conversation with you, Safety Standard No. 206 applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks. Since fire trucks are not specifically exempted in the standard, they would be considered "trucks" and would have to comply with the standard. There are certain types of doors on vehicles, however, that do not have to comply with the requirements of the standard. Section S4 of the standard provides:

Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. However, components on folding doors, roll-up doors and doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors need not conform to this standard.

Therefore, certain doors on fire trucks may not be required to have locks. For example, a door leading to a cat-walk or standing area on the fire truck that contains no seating position would not have to comply with the standard. Likewise, a passenger compartment door that is readily removable would also not have to comply. I believe that many fire trucks have these type doors. You should check with your sales people to see if the vehicles they saw at the Fire

Equipment Show would qualify under the exceptions mentioned above. If you are aware of specific models that should comply with the standard but which do not, we would appreciate being apprised of that information. I hope this has clarified the requirements of the standard.

ID: nht81-1.32

DATE: 03/10/81

FROM: STEPHEN W. MATSON -- TRADE SERVICES INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/25/81 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO STEPHEN W. MATSON; REDBOOK A22, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This letter is to formally request your review and interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 as it relates to the placement of a clear lens cover in front of a motorcycle headlamp. The attached drawings demonstrate the specific concept in question.

Information contained in SAE standards referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 indicates that a specific prohibition exists regarding a headlamp lens cover for passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, trucks and busses. The SAE Motorcycle Headlamp Standard (SAE J584) contains no such prohibition. It is our understanding that a component configuration such as the one illustrated would not conflict with SAE referenced requirements.

Another section of FMVSS 108 which could relate to this issue is Paragraph S4.1.3 which states that "No . . . . automotive equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." If, when the secondary lens in question is in place, the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 can be met or exceeded, the lens cover would then be compatible with the standard.

Detailed review of FMVSS 108 and the other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have revealed no other requirements germane to this issue.

Your review of our analysis will be most appreciated. We feel that the proposed concept is in keeping with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Hopefully your review will confirm our opinion. Should you have any questions on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ENC

ID: nht88-1.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1988

FROM: GARY EVANS -- PRESIDENT, WESTEX

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-18-88, TO GARY EVANS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA

TEXT: I have had 3 conversations with individuals in different departments within the NHTSA. These conversations have resulted in a recommendation to contact the NHTSA Legal Department for advice.

Westex is an Importer and Distributor of automotive parts for German made vehicles. Among the many manufacturers we do business with are several companies which produce original equipment taillights, side reflectors and headlight assemblies. These firm s are very familiar with DOT, SAE, etc.

One of these firms produces Warning Triangles as described in FMVSS-125. As you may know, Warning Triangles are required in all vehicles (including cars) in Germany. This company has a new innovative patented technique which allows a Warning Triangle t o be attached to the side window of a car. This side-mounted Triangle is about 20% smaller than the specification shown in FMVSS-125.

This idea has evolved for use by the elderly, handicapped or individuals who are afraid or unable to leave their car. It does not give advanced warning as the Triangles placed along the road do. However, it does give motorists a warning (day or night) that the vehicle is stopped and advises the Police someone needs help.

I would like to import and sell this item here in the U.S. Before I do so, I would like to have some degree of comfort that the Triangle complies with any standards which may affect it.

FMVSS-125 states it does not deal with devices attached to the vehicle. Logically, I guess I am looking for the standard(s) which deals with warning devices that are attached to the vehicle without self-contained energy sources, if indeed such standards exist.

I would appreciate your earliest reply so I may proceed with the sales of this item.

ID: nht76-5.45

DATE: 03/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

COPYEE: J. CARSON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, to Mr. Fred Vetter, expressing your concern about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is well aware of the importance of the VIN and its use in requirements for certification, defect investigation, recall campaigns, inspection and registration. We are also well aware of its importance to other users such as State administrations, law enforcement agencies, insurance companies and vehicle manufacturers. The VIN is crucial to the identification of stolen, junked and recycled vehicles.

It was NHTSA's intention with the initial issuance of FMVSS No. 115, to include within its scope all aspects of vehicle numbering relative to the vehicles to which it applied, and to leave any aspects for which there were no specific requirements to the discretion of the manufacturers until such requirements could be issued. This, of course, is the basis of our position that any state rules in this area must be the same as the Federal standards.

We agree, however, that the VIN may be more effective if it is standardized in structure, format, and information content. The NHTSA, through its personnel who are members of the Society of Automotive Engineers and International Standards Organization Committees, has been participating in the efforts to develop a worldwide VIN system for several years. The NHTSA plans to issue in the next few months an NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 115 that will specify requirements for a standardized, uniform identification numbering system for all motor vehicles on a worldwide basis. We welcome all help and recommendations in this action.

I sincerely hope that VESC will provide comments and recommendations to the docket as we proceed in our rulemaking action.

ID: nht78-1.23

DATE: 03/22/78

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

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 22, 1977, letter asking whether the tire information label required by Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, must contain the rim size of the rim that is mounted on the vehicle.

Paragraph S5.3.2. of the standard states that the label must contain "the size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for those tires." This paragraph specifically permits a manufacturer to equip a vehicle with rim sizes that differ from those listed on its tire information label.

SINCERELY,

December 22, 1977

Frank A. Brendt U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Dear Mr. Brendt:

On the behalf of the members of the Trailer Manufacturers Association, we request an interpretation in the matter following relative to FMVSS No. 120.

S5.1.2 permits the tire size mounted on the vehicle not to be disclosed on the certification label providing the tire mounted falls within GAWR requirements.

Boat trailer manufacturers commonly provide a number of tire options and often these tires have different rims. It is not clear if FMVSS No. 120 requires the rim which is mounted on the trailer to be disclosed on the certification plate. For example, at the customer's wish, a given trailer might be equipped with 12, 13 or 14 inch wheels.

We have sought clarification of this subject from Department of Transportation compliance personnel, but were told that this specific point had not been raised previously, and therefore we would have to seek a formal interpretation which we now do.

Executive Secretary

Donald I. Reed

ID: nht74-4.37

DATE: 01/08/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: American Retreader's Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 20, 1973, asking under what conditions retreaded tires, which you describe as, "not first class mainly from the standpoint of appearance, may be sold. You state that the tires are not defective, and are being sold for non-highway use, such as for farm wagons and hay bailers.

Standard No. 117 (Retreaded pneumatic tires) applies to all retreaded tires manufactured for use on passenger cars. The sale of such tires for off-highway vehicular purposes does not remove them from the coverage of the standard. Consequently, the tires must comply fully with Standard No. 117, bear the manufacturer's identification number (49 CFR Part 574), and not be restricted to off-road operation.

November 20, 1973

Mike Peskoe Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A number of our members have written, asking us questions concerning the sale or disposition of retreads that are not first class, mainly from the standpoint of appearance. They are not defective.

(Illegible Word) retreads are being sold to implement dealers for non-highway(Illegible Word) such as on farmwagons, hay balers, etc.

1.) Should the retreader remove his assigned identification mark before selling it?

2.) Should he leave his assigned identification mark on the retread and brand or otherwise permanently identify it as being for farm or non-highway use?

3.) Should he remove his assigned identification mark and permanently identify it as being for farm or non-highway use?

Your help in clarifying these questions will be appreciated.

Arden H. Faris Assistant Director

ID: nht75-2.14

DATE: 08/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of April 10, 1975, requesting an interpretation of S4.3, the placarding requirement, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims -- Passenger Cars.

You have proposed a format for presenting vehicle capacity weights which is designed to accommodate, with a single placard, several different model configurations. The NHTSA has no objection to this format, provided that the weights listed are correct.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA INC.

April 10, 1975

Mark Schwimmer, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: N40-30 (MPP)

Dear Mr. Schwimmer:

This is in reference to our telephone conversation of Monday, April 7, concerning the format of our Standard 110 label. I am also referring to Mr. Dyson's letter of January 17, 1975, in which he suggested that we list on the same label alternate vehicle capacity weights applicable to models with or without optional equipment as long as we initially displayed the lowest vehicle capacity weight for the vehicle.

Our marketing representatives feel that the initial listing of the lowest weight may have competitive disadvantages in the small car market and have proposed a format which contains the vehicle capacity weight for each model configuration. I have enclosed for your review a copy of the new format which we plan to use and would appreciate your opinion concerning its acceptability pursuant to S4.3 of FMVSS 110.

Sincerely,

Gerhard P. Riechel -- Attorney

Enc.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-5.36

DATE: 04/16/74

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

TO: Domi Racer Distributors, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1974, request to know if aircraft hydraulic hose is suitable for motor vehicle use under Standard 106, Brake hoses.

Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, presently applies to hydraulic brake hose for use in passenger cars, and therefore sale of aircraft hydraulic hose for use in motorcycles is presently legal. However, Standard 106 has been recently amended to require extensive performance testing and labeling of all motor vehicle brake hose manufactured after September 1, 1974. Sale of an aircraft hose manufactured after that date which has not been certified to conform to Standard 106 would violate @ 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. This means that the hose must be properly tested for conformity to the standard, and labeled according to the standard, before it can be sold as motor vehicle hose.

Domi Racer

DISTRIBUTORS, Inc.

MESSAGE

TO NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM. SUITE 214 EXECUTIVE PLAZA 1010 DIXIE HIGHWAY CHICAGO HEIGHTS, ILL 60411

DATE 3-19-74

GENTLEMEN; WE HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO YOUR OFFICE BY THE LOCAL BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY.

OUR PRINCIPAL POINT OF CONCERN AT THE MOMENT IS FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FOR HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSES TO BE IMPRINTED WITH AN SAE SPECIFICATION. WE ARE PRESENTLY MARKETING A HYDRAULIC HOSE FOR MOTORCYCLE USE WHICH CARRIES A MILITARY AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATION H-8794, ALSO FAA APPROVED.

SPECIFICALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF AN FAA APPROVED HOSE WOULD NOT BE SUITABLE FOR USE ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS AS IT IS A MUCH STRONGER PART THAN THE STANDARD ITEM IT REPLACES.

SINCERELY, J. K. WHITE

REPLY