ID: nht78-3.2

DATE: 01/25/78

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

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 14, 1977, inquiring whether attaching mirrors onto the backs of sun visors on the passenger's side would violate S3.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact -- Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that paragraph S3.4.1 of Standard No. 201 does not prohibit the installation by manufacturers of vanity mirrors on sun visors. Consequently, so long as the mirror does not cause the visor to be hazardous or to interfere with the energy-absorbing requirement of S3.4.1, manufacturers are free to incorporate such mirrors into or onto sun visors, including fitting mirrors onto the backs of the sun visors on the passenger's side as in the diagram you enclosed.

SINCERELY,

Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

December 14, 1977

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

Dear Mr. Levin:

We are considering to attach a mirror to the sun visor for customers' convenience. However, since MVSS 201 provides for the following requirement, we would like to have your comment as to whether we can meet it by doing so.

MVSS 201 "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact"

S3.4 Sun visor

S3.4.1 Two sun visor shall be provided that are constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material.

The mirror will be fitted into the back of the sun visor on passenger's side as shown in the attached sheet. We consider that this would be in compliance with the above requirement on the grounds that the sun visor made of energy-absorbing material would not contact the occupant under normal condition, thus would not produce an adverse effect on the safety of the occupant.

We would appreciate hearing from you on this matter as soon as possible.

Moriyuki Watanabe Director and Assistant General Manager Research and Development

CC: TOYO KOGYO USA REP. OFC., DETROIT BRANCH

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-1.45

DATE: 12/02/92

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, TIRE DIVISION, RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO FRANK E. TIMMONS (A40; STD. 109; STD. 119; PART 574); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER (DATE ILLEGIBLE) FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.

TEXT: Your November 13, 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce Kuwait has just been brought to my attention (see attached). There are two statements in your letter that are incorrect. If the Kuwait government does not realize this, it is possible that US tire manufacturers could be adversely affected.

In your third paragraph, starting on line 3, you state" . . .all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119)." This is not true. Only those tires designed and offered for sale for use on highway vehicles, other than passenger cars, must be certified as being in compliance with FMVSS 119.

The other misstatement in your letter is in your response to their question No. 1. "Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the 'DOT' mark?". Your answer - "Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles." is not correct. Only those tires intended for use on highway vehicles must be labeled with the DOT mark. NHTSA has stated in the past on more than one occasion that the DOT may not be labeled on tires that do not have an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

It is requested that NHTSA send a follow-up letter to Kuwait clarifying that your response applied only to motor vehicles and their tires that are designed primarily for use on the highway.

As mentioned to Walter Myers of your staff yesterday, I will ask Mr. Ed Wunder to discuss this with his contacts in Kuwait. Mr. Wunder is stationed in Saudi Arabia and is supported jointly by industry and the Department of Commerce (NIST) to help US manufacturers sell their products in the Gulf countries.

ID: nht73-1.10

DATE: 07/23/73

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

TO: Mr. Gorou Utsunomiya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 11, 1973, regarding the application of section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403) to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107 "Reflecting Surfaces". You refer to language in a letter dated April 10, 1973, from this agency to Mr. Kazushi Sakashita of Toyo Kogyo., Ltd., in which we indicated that certification of replacement vehicle parts pursuant to section 114 is required only with respect to parts to which a safety standard specifically applies.

Standard No. 107 applies to motor vehicles -- passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses (paragraph S2 of Standard No. 107) -- and not to items of motor vehicle equipment. Consequently the certification of conformity to the standard required by section 114 is accomplished by the label affixed to each vehicle in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, "Certification". That label represents a certification of conformity to all standards, including Standard No. 107, applicable to the vehicle. There is no requirement that the individual components listed in S4 of the standard, i.e. the windshield wiper arms and blades, the inside windshield moldings, the horn ring and hub of the steering wheel assembly, and the inside rearview mirror frame and mounting bracket, be certified independently.

Yours truly,

June 11, 1973

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. Government of Transportation

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Re: Replacement Vehicle Parts.

Enclosed is a letter from NHTSA, which states:

"There are no requirements for the certification of replacement vehicle parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present, Standards Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act."

By the way, is MVSS 107 Reflecting Surfaces, a requirement under S. 114 of Safety Act, or not? Your answer to this question would be appreciated. Thank you.

Yours truly

Gorou Utsunomiya --

Branch Manager,

Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office

ID: nht75-6.17

DATE: 11/10/75

FROM: FRANK A. BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOHN B. WHITE -- ENGINEERING MANAGER TECHNICAL INFORMATION DEPT. MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION

TITLE: N40-30

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. White:

This is in response to your letter of October 17, 1975, concerning the importation into the United States of tires that will be mounted on trucks intended for export from the United States.

49 CFR Part 571.7(d) and Section 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 specify that no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to

a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported.

Therefore, tires which Michelin manufactures for sale directly to a truck manufacturer who will mount them on trucks which are intended solely for export need not comply with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. When imported and shipped to the truck manufacturer, the tires must bear a label or tag indicating intent to export. Such a label must also appear on the outside of the container, if any, in which the tires are shipped. Importation of such tires is permitted by 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(ii), provided they are so labeled. A label need not remain on the tires after they have been mounted on the trucks, provided that the trucks bear similar labels.

Because these tires are not subject to any FHVSS and are beyond the scope of any expected defect notification and remedy program, Michelin Tire Corporation is not subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, with respect to them.

Sincerely,

ID: nht75-2.10

DATE: 09/09/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 14, 1975, concerning the permissibility of placing arrow-shaped markings on tire sidewalls to show the locations of the treadwear indicators.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 specifies certain labeling requirements for passenger car tires. Standard No. 119 specifies similar labeling for tires designed for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. Although the arrows which you have described are not required by either of these standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to such markings provided that none of the required label information is omitted.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 14, 1975

Ref. No. H1/67

James Schultz -- Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schultz:

We have been informed that the Japan Automotive Tire Manufacturers Association has decided to issue a new standard on marking of wear indicators.

The standard requires that all kinds of passenger car tires and truck and bus tires, in Japan, have arrow-marks on both sides of the tire to show the locations of tread wear indicators.

The below shown drawings are details of the arrow-marks:

(Graphics omitted)

We assume that some of the tires with the arrow-marks will be exported to the United States, occasionally.

Therefore, we would like to ask you a favor by telling us whether or not the tires with arrow-marks are illegal in the U.S.A..

If they are illegal, please explain what law prohibits the tires with the arrow-marks.

We would very much appreciate it if you could give us the answer within this week.

If it is convenient for you, we would like to visit with you to discuss this matter at 2:00 PM on July 17, 1975.

Thank you for your cooperation, in advance.

Yours truly,

HIDEKIMI INOUE -- Manager-Technical Liaison

ID: nht70-1.6

DATE: 05/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Donald B. Haaversen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 9, 1970, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning our Federal motor vehicle tire standards.

The only tire standard promulgated to date is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires-Passenger Cars" which was effective January 1, 1968. This standard specifies minimum performance for size, strength, endurance, high speed laboratory testing and labeling. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 109 and No. 110 with amendments.

The replies to your specific questions are as follows:

1.Question: New American made tires have DOT load ranges, load capacity and inflation pressures molded into the sidewall. Is this required (that they be permanently marked), or is it sufficient to affix a temporary marking (such as a sticker) with this same information?

Response: Section S4.3 states that this information shall be permanently molded into or onto all new passenger car tires manufactured after August 1, 1968. If the tire was manufactured between January 1, 1968 and July 31, 1968 the labeling requirements may be met by use of a label or tag.

2. Question: How is load capacity information arrived at? Is it by manufacturer certification, government conducted tests, or some other method?

Response: The load/inflation schedule is calculated by use of empirical formulas and coordinated through the various Tire and(Illegible Word) Associations as well as the Society of Automotive Engineers.

3. Question: Is it necessary that these tires be subject to safety tests? These particular tires are already imported by another organization and may already have passed the necessary tests, if any.Response: The application of the "DOT recital to a tire, is the tire manufacturers self certification that his tire conforms to all the minimum performance standards of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

I have also enclosed for your review and information the following data:

1. U.S. Customs Regulations for Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment.

2. Automobiles Imported Into the United States.

ID: nht73-3.35

DATE: 03/01/73

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

TO: E.T.R.T.O.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your submission No. 65/109 of January 23, 1973, petitioning that temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 be provided for European tire manufacturers who manufacture high speed tires. Your petition points out that Standard No. 109 does not allow the manufacture of high speed tires designed to be inflated to relatively high inflation pressures, but which do not have commensurate load-carrying ability at those pressures. You indicate that such tires are commonly used in Europe for high speed passenger cars, and have not produced safety problems.

The temporary exemption regulations (49 CFR 555, copy enclosed), in accordance with the statutory authority under which they were issued (P.L. 92-548), apply only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. They do not apply to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and the relief which they provide is accordingly not available to tire manufacturers.

The NHTSA is of the opinion that the requirements of Standard No. 109, emphasizing the load-carrying as well as the high speed capability of passenger car tires, should be suited to driving conditions which predominate in the United States. Despite the facts, as you mention, that it is possible for motorists to exceed posted speed limits, and that areas do exist where speed limits are not posted, the NHTSA believes the high speed requirements of Standard No. 109 are sufficient to guard against tire failures under these conditions. At the same time, the NHTSA will consider petitions to amend Standard No. 109, submitted pursuant to NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR 553.31, .33), and E.T.R.T.O. is free to petition to amend the standard to include requirements for European-type high speed tires. Your petition should contain full supporting data for the amendments requested. We would expect you as well to include possible performance requirements for such tires.

You refer briefly in your letter to the performance of these tires when tested pursuant to the planned Uniform Tire Quality Grading regulation. The NHTSA plans to publish in the very near future a revised notice of proposed rulemaking regarding this regulation, and we will be pleased to receive your comments to that proposal when it is published.

ID: nht92-2.40

DATE: 11/09/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CHRISTOPHER LEONE -- NEWBOLD DESIGNS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-6-92 FROM CHRISTOPHER LEONE TO TAYLOR VINSON

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of August 6, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for rules and regulations of the Department on electric vehicles. I understand that you talked with Mr. Vinson later in the day, and received an overview of the matter. I further understand that you intend only the construction of a single experimental vehicle, and have no plans for its production.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the introduction into interstate commerce, by any person, of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a violation, for which a civil penalty of up to $ 1,00 may be imposed. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are set out in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. There are no standards that apply to your project car are those that apply to "passenger cars" in general.

However, the manufacturer of an electric vehicle may petition us for a temporary exemption (up to 2 years) from one or more of the safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle. The temporary exemption regulations are found at 49 CFR Part 555. An exemption covers up to 2,500 vehicles per year for any 12-month period that the exemption is in effect.

Regulations governing the licensing of motor vehicles are the prerogative of the individual States. Thus, you should inquire as to what Rhode Island requires for your contemplated vehicle.

There is a regulatory gap which your situation highlights, and that is the legal status of a person who intends to build only a single motor vehicle. Such a person is not a "manufacturer" under the Act, since the operative portion of the definition of "manufacturer" is one who manufactures or assembles "motor vehicles". The temporary exemption authority appears directed towards commercial enterprises and not single motor vehicles. Nevertheless, we believe we have the authority to exempt a single motor vehicle under these provisions.

If you wish to consult us further in this matter, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to help you.

ID: nht92-5.32

DATE: July 1, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth Lenz -- HME Incorporated

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/24/92 from Kenneth Lenz to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 7449)

TEXT:

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." (S 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 should 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.

Attachments

Copy of 49 CFR 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Copy of S 571.206, Standard No. 206; Door locks and door retention components. (Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: RMAmetric22869

Mr. Steven Butcher
VP Technical and Standards
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005





Dear Mr. Butcher:

This responds to your March 12, 2001 letter asking whether four labeling sample proposals, subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (571.119), are acceptable in terms of placement of the metric units under the Final Rule for the Metric Conversion of Tire Standards, Docket No. NHTSA-98-3837, Notice 1 ("Final Rule") (May 27, 1998, 63 FR 28912).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample markings appear to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 119, as amended by the Final Rule.

A review of the labeling illustrations you supplied indicates that you have used a different format than illustrated in our Final Rule of May 27, 1998. For example, the amended FMVSS No. 119 does not dictate repetition of the existing English measurement label after the metric measurement label, e.g. "MAX LOAD 1020 KG AT 350 KPA COLD (MAX LOAD 2250 LBS AT 50 PSI)" but, rather, the placement of the existing English measurement in parenthesis after the metric measurement, e.g. "MAX LOAD 1020 KG (2250 LBS) at 350 KPA (50 PSI) COLD". This specification resulted from comments by manufacturers that unnecessary words needlessly increase the amount of labeling required on the tires.

The example of marking information shown in S5.6 of FMVSS No. 119 in the Final Rule is intended only as a guide to manufacturers. A manufacturer can vary the illustrated format somewhat as long as the requirements of S5.6, as amended, are satisfied. Since the additional words in your proposed labels do not obfuscate the required markings, the labels appear to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 119, as amended by the Final Rule.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:119
d.5/3/01