ID: GF000492

Mr. Guy S. Edington
Vice President, Technology
Kumho America Technical Center
3500 Embassy Parkway, Suite 150
Akron, OH 44333




Dear Mr. Edington:

This is in response to your January 16, 2006, letter and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding certain requirements in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, "New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars."As Mr. Feygin explained to you, this letter is limited to the discussion of the current regulations and does not address suggestions you made concerning how you believe certain tires should be tested.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues FMVSSs applicable to new vehicles and equipment, including tires. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. Thus, the tire manufacturer is responsible for self-certifying its product.

S6.2 of FMVSS No. 119 specifies certain tire strength requirements that tires must meet when tested according to the procedure specified in S7.3. As a part of this procedure, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into a raised tread element as near as possible to the centerline of the tread, at a rate of 2 inches per minute, until the tire breaks or the plunger is stopped by the rim. The diameter of the plunger depends on the diameter of the rim and is specified in Table I. You ask what diameter plunger is used to test tubeless 17.5 diameter code "medium duty truck" tires.

Table I of FMVSS No. 119 specifies that for tubeless tires with a diameter code of 17.5 or smaller, a plunger with a diameter of inches (19.05 mm) is used. Table I does not differentiate between different categories of 17.5 diameter code tires and does not provide for use of different plunger diameters for any 17.5 diameter code tires.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:119
d.4/7/06

ID: GF005903

Mr. Mark Jagow
Pacific Coast Retreaders
333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 705
Oakland, CA 94621-1463




Dear Mr. Jagow:

This is in response to your June 1, 2005, letter in which you ask about certain tire marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. Specifically, you ask if you are required to mark the maximum single load rating on tires intended to be used exclusively in tandem. Our answer is yes.

S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119 requires that the truck tires be marked on each sidewall with, among other things, the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure for the particular tire. This information must be "shown as follows":

(Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): Max load single __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold.

(Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold.

Different labeling requirements thus apply depending on whether tires are rated for "single and dual load" or "only for single load".We interpret this provision to require all tires to be rated and marked in one of these two manners; i.e., it is not permissible to mark tires as rated only for dual load. Thus, truck tires rated for dual load applications, including those produced solely for tandem use, must also be labeled with the maximum single load rating in addition to the dual load rating. This is because the tires intended for tandem use could nevertheless be purchased and installed in single application. We believe there is a safety benefit in informing vehicle operators who may use your tires in a way that you did not intend; i.e., in a single application, that the load ratings are different when the tires are not installed in tandem.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Assistant Chief Counsel
for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization

ref:119
d.9/7/05

ID: 7981-2

Emmett Koelsch Coaches
ATTN: Kim Welsh
926 Delaware
Longview, WA 98632

Dear Sir/Madam:

Your letter of November 5, 1992 addressed to the Department of Transportation Publications Department was forwarded to this office for response. In your letter you requested a copy of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards pertaining to school buses "and other Transit type vehicles."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), apply to all classes and categories of motor vehicles, including passenger cars, trucks, buses of all types including school buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and the like. Excluded from the definition of motor vehicles are such vehicles as farm tractors, earth-moving equipment, and other off-road vehicles. For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Also enclosed are copies of two fact sheets issued by this office entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

You did not elaborate on what was meant by "Transit type vehicles." If you were referring to intercity buses, you should contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Room 3404, this address for information on their pertinent standards and regulations. For information on intracity buses, you should contact the Federal Transit Administration, Room 9328, this address. Finally, for information regarding implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you should contact the Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.

I hope this information is helpful. If after examining this material you have more specific questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:571 d.12/10/92

ID: 7981

Emmett Koelsch Coaches
ATTN: Kim Welsh
926 Delaware
Longview, WA 98632

Dear Sir/Madam:

Your letter of November 5, 1992 addressed to the Department of Transportation Publications Department was forwarded to this office for response. In your letter you requested a copy of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards pertaining to school buses "and other Transit type vehicles."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), apply to all classes and categories of motor vehicles, including passenger cars, trucks, buses of all types including school buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and the like. Excluded from the definition of motor vehicles are such vehicles as farm tractors, earth-moving equipment, and other off-road vehicles. For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Also enclosed are copies of two fact sheets issued by this office entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

You did not elaborate on what was meant by "Transit type vehicles." If you were referring to intercity buses, you should contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Room 3404, this address for information on their pertinent standards and regulations. For information on intracity buses, you should contact the Federal Transit Administration, Room 9328, this address. Finally, for information regarding implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you should contact the Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.

I hope this information is helpful. If after examining this material you have more specific questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:571 d.12/10/92

ID: 2841yy

Mr. S.V. Kaaria
70 E. Heather #3
Midvale, UT 84047

Dear Mr. Kaaria:

Our Denver Regional Office has forwarded your letter of January 3, l99l, to this Office for reply. You are "the designer of the taillights placed near the rear window of passenger cars." In attempting to negotiate a settlement with vehicle manufacturers, you have been informed that because "elevated brake lights" are required by our agency, the government "should negotiate with me for l% of replacement cost of these taillights." You have asked that we clarify our position in this matter.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 requires that every passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985, be equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp, mounted on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle. The only requirement relating to design is that the lens have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, but the standard does not specify the shape of the lens. Within these parameters, manufacturers have located their lamps both inside and outside of the car, from the roof to the deck, and have equipped them with circular and rectangular lenses of varying sizes. Our standards are generally expressed in performance terms so that manufacturers have the freedom to design their vehicles in the manner most suited to them to meet the performance requirements, and so that a specification that appears to favor a proprietary device (e.g., mandating a specific design solution to a standard's requirements) is avoided.

Because of the latitude in design that Standard No. l08 affords, we do not regard the lamp as having any single inventor or designer. While it is possible that you have designed a lamp with some proprietary elements, your search for recovery is properly directed towards lamp and vehicle manufacturers. You have been ill-advised to seek recovery from the government, for you have no legal basis to do so.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:2/ll/9l

ID: 7449

Mr. Kenneth Lenz
HME Incorporated
1950 Byron Center Avenue
Wyoming, MI 49509

Dear Mr. Lenz:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard." [ S4]

Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206.

You also asked about the possibility of obtaining an exemption from Standard No. 206 for fire trucks. The only provisions for exemptions from safety standards are those set forth in 49 CFR 555, a copy of which is enclosed. As you will note, the circumstances under which exemptions may be granted and the scope of such exemptions are very limited.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:206 d:7/22/92

ID: 7636

Mr. S. Watanabe
Manager
Automotive Equipment Legal
& Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This responds to your letter of August 7, 1992, with respect to the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of two configurations of rear stop/taillamps and center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL) on passenger cars.

In your Figure 1, the stop/taillamps are mounted at 72 inches height above the road surface, while the CHMSL is mounted 3 inches below the rear window. In your Figure 2, the stop/taillamps are again mounted at 72 inches while the CHMSL is mounted above the rear window and between the stop/taillamps. You believe that both Figures depict a conforming rear lighting scheme under Standard No. 108.

You are correct. Standard No. 108 does not specify any spatial relationship between the CHMSL and stop lamps or taillamps. It permits the CHMSL to be mounted anywhere on the vertical centerline of the passenger car, but not lower than 3 inches below the rear window. Standard No. 108 also permits stop and taillamps to be mounted not higher than 72 inches above the road surface. Your two Figures do not exceed these regulatory parameters, and thus, each is permitted by Standard No. 108.

However, the research that proved the efficacy of the CHMSL in addressing the problem of rear end collisions was based upon a triangular configuration of stop lamps in which the CHMSL was the apex. We note that the CHMSL in Figure 1 is at the apex of an inverted triangle, while in Figure 2 the CHMSL is simply a lamp in a horizontal array. It is possible that the benefits of the CHMSL would not be realized through use of the configurations depicted in Figures 1 and 2, even if they are permitted by Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/21/92

ID: nht87-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Tackett

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Tackett 859 South Main Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Tackett:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of December 1, 1986, with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, affects the installation of trailer hitches on cars. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements to reduce fuel system spillage in a crash. If a trailer hitch is installed on a new-car prior to the car being first sold to a consumer, the person installing the trailer hitch would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed, Under Part 567.7, a vehicle alterer is required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards.

The installation of a trailer hitch on a used car would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an appli cable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, in installing trailer hitches on a used car, a commercial business must ensure that it has not knowingly compromised the integrity of the fuel system.

In addition, a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, such as a trailer hitch, is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I hav e enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes how our defect regulations affect equipment manufacturers.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: nht81-2.10

DATE: 03/25/81

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: STEPHEN W. MATSON -- TRIAD SERVICES INC.

TITLE: NOA - 30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/10/81 FROM STEPHEN W. MATSON TO NHTSA STD. 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Matson:

This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 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 lamps 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 implicitly permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.

2

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht78-3.19

DATE: 04/05/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Flxible Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages, would be applicable to a Type I seat belt assembly used as a securement device for wheelchairs in an urban transit bus.

Safety Standard No. 209 is an equipment standard that is applicable to any seat belt manufactured for use on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses. Therefore, the seat belt in question would have to comply with the performance requirements of that standard.

Safety Standard No. 210, however, only specifies requirements for seat belt anchorages at the driver's position on buses. Since the assembly you are concerned with would be at a passenger seating position in the bus, it would not have to comply with the anchorage requirements of Standard No. 210.

SINCERELY,

GRUMMAN FLXIBLE CORPORATION

February 10, 1978

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Hugh Oats

Dear Mr. Oats:

The Grumman Flxible Corporation is using an extra-long, Type 1 seat belt as a wheelchair securement device in association with the wheelchair accessibility option required by 49 CFR 609.15(c) for installation in urban transit buses. This seat belt is used in conjunction with an adjustable, padded arm extending from the vehicle wall area which can be positioned in front of the forward facing wheelchair passenger.

Is this seat belt subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies?

Is the anchorage for this seat belt assembly, installed in a transit bus at a location other than at the driver's position, subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages?

We appreciate very much your assistance with the above.

R. L. Ratz, P.E. Product Safety Engineering