ID: 77-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

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

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 25, 1977, letter asking whether two sample certification labels you submitted comply with the requirements of Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The two labels you submitted do not follow the format required by Part 567 for certification labels. Therefore, they do not appear to comply with the requirements. Your method of stating tire and rim sizes differs from that required in Part 567 and Standard No. 120. For example, you state your tire and rim information as follows: "10-20-F-Tires-7.5 Rims at 75 PSI Cold Dual." By the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 as they apply to certification labels, this information should read: "10.00-20(F) tires, 20x7.5 rims, at 75 psi cold dual." Further, the statement after GAWR "maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below" should be deleted from the certification label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 for your information.

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

May 25, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. U.S. Department of Transportation

We would appreciate an opinion on the following proposed certification plates for compliance with FMVSS-120. Effective September 1, 1977.

PLATE "B" - This plate would service 98% of our production, in that 10:00-20 "F" tires are the lowest capacity-rated standard tires installed-the other option, i.e. 11-22.5, 10:00-22, 11-24.5 "F" tires are all capacity rated above the 19,040 lbs. GAWR that we certify on the plate. The 10:00-20 "R" tires are included because the psi rating changes, we still rate the "R" tires at the same 19,040 lbs. which is consistant with the GVWR shown on the plate.

PLATE "C" - This plate would be used in the other 2% of our production. The tire selection in these cases is always of a lower capacity-rated tire than the 19,040 lbs. GAWR for the 10:00-20 "F" tire shown on Plate "b". The GAWR used on this plate would be according to the tire manufacture's rating and the GVWR would be decreased accordingly.

We feel that Plate "B" meets the full intent of FMVSS-120, in that it states the maximum GAWR for the smallest standard tire used in the majority of our production. Even though the trailer is equipped with a higher capacity-rated tire we do not increase the GAWR above the 19,040 lb. figure The use of the term "All Axles" readily identifies, and would be much clearer to the end user.

With a 45 day leadtime on procurement of certification plates, your timely response will be appreciated so that compliance requirements may be achieved by the September 1 deadline.

Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering

American trailers, inc. OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.

ID: 1984-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J.N. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. N. White 1300 California Drive Rolla, MO 65401

This is in response to your January 3, 1984, letter to Roger Fairchild of this office regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 (Rearview Mirror Systems). You have requested information on the applicability of that standard, particularly in regard to aftermarket mirrors.

FMVSS 111 is a rule or regulation (the terms are generally used interchangeably) establishing requirements for rearview mirrors on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and motorcycles. Aftermarket mirror manufacturers do not have to certify compliance with our standards. However, the addition of an aftermarket mirror to a motor vehicle may be subject to certain legal requirements. Section 108(a)(2)( A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses cannot remove a rearview mirror installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard and replace that mirror with a noncomplying aftermarket mirror. Replacement by other individuals or organizations or replacement with a complying aftermarket mirror would be permitted.

With regard to your final question as to requirements applicable to the use of non-glare glass in mirrors, this agency issued on November 6, 1978, a notice of proposed rulemaking on possible upgrading of rearview mirror requirements (copy enclosed). One part of this proposal would establish image luminance criteria for rearview mirrors. The agency has not yet determined whether this requirement should be implemented, and no action is imminent on that proposal.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

January 3, 1984

Mr. Roger Fairchild Legal Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: FMVSS-111 -- Rearview Mirror Systems

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

I have some questions regarding FMVSS-111 and Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, suggested that I write to you for the specific answers.

1. Is FMVSS-111 a rule, regulation or law?

2. Does it apply only to new car/truck manufacturers?

3. As far as the sections that apply to rearview mirror systems, specifically convex mirrors, does it apply to "after market" manufacturers, where their product is sold through warehouse distributors, jobbers, mass merchandisers, etc., to the general, public?

4. Is there any pending "legislation" that might prohibit the use of "non-glare" glass in rearview mirrors?

I want to thank you in advance, for your time and efforts in helping me, with the answers to the above questions.

Sincerely,

J.N. White 1300 California Drive Rol1a, MO 65401 cc: J. L. Levenberg & Associates

ID: nht87-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Lynn Walker -- Sales Manager, Panamasia West Coast, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Lynn Walker Sales Manager Panamasia West Coast, Inc. 16205 Distribution Way Cerritos, CA 90701

This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 1986, to Mr. Vinson this office asking whether a lamp you wish to import "is legal for highway use in the U.S." The lamp is an aftermarket auxiliary turn signal that is mounted on top of each front fender. The lens is green, but could be any color that is legal for highway use. The lens is visible "from all directions" but could be designed so that it is visible only to the rear, i.e. to the driver.

Federal motor vehicle lighting requirements do not currently apply to aftermarket lamps of this nature. Whether the lamp is legal, therefore, is a question to be answered under the laws of each State in which it will be sold and operated. While we are no t familiar with State lighting laws you nay find that there is a greater likelihood that the auxiliary turn signal lamp will be acceptable if it has a yellow lens, or if its green lens is visible only to the driver.

I hope that this is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

PANAMASIA WEST COAST, INC. 16205 Distribution Way Cerritos, CA 90701 (213) 926-5591

Sept. 17, 1986

Dear Mr. Vinson,

We are an Import-Export Company specializing in Automotive Parts and Accessories.

We are interested in importing the automotive lamp which is described on the following page.

We wish to know if this type of lamp is legal for highway use in the U.S. If any alterations are necessary to make this lamp legal, please advise us of them.

If we can give you more information please don't hesitate to contact us at the above address or telephone number.

With our best regards, PANAMASIA WEST COAST, INC.

Lynn Walker Sales Manager Auto Parts

DIRECTIONAL LAMP - 12 VOLT

APPLICATION:

THIS IS AN ADD-ON ACCESSORY FOR PASSENGER CARS.

INSTALLATION:

IT IS INSTALLED ON TOP OF THE FRONT FENDERS ABOVE THE HEAD LAMP. APPLICATION IS STICK-ON. THE WIRE CAN BE RUN INTO THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT AS IN THE ILLUSTRATION, OR THE INSTALLER MAY DRILL A HOLE IN THE FENDER DIRECTLY UNDER THE LAMP AND RUN THE WIRE THR OUGH IT.

VISABILITY:

THE LENSE IS VISIBLE FROM ALL DIRECTIONS. THE LENSE AREA IS THE AREA HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IN DIAGRAM 1. ALSO, PLEASE ADVISE US OF THE LEGALITY OF THE SAME LAMP IF IT WERE VISIBLE ONLY TO THE REAR (VISIBLE TO THE DRIVER).

MATERIAL: THE BASE IS OF FLEXIBLE PLASTIC. THE HOUSING AROUND THE LENSE IS OF METAL. THE LENSE IS PLASTIC. LENSE COLOR IS GREEN, BUT COULD BE ANY COLOR THAT IS LEGAL FOR HIGHWAY USE.

INSERT GRAPHICS HERE

ID: nht80-3.15

DATE: 07/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1980, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the spacing required between headlamps and turn signal lamps on motorcycles.

You cited Table IV of Standard No. 108 which requires that the "minimum edge to edge separation distance between [turn signal] lamp and [headlamp] is 4 inches." You also cited paragraph 4.2 of the referenced SAE standard on turn signal lamps, J588e, which mandates that "the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." Finally, you have cited an agency interpretation of November 5, 1979, to Bajaj Auto Limited as support that the provisions of 4.2 prevail, and you asked for confirmation of this opinion.

The Bajaj letter does not provide the support you seek. The interpretation it provides is that the separation distance must be not less than the minimum under all motorcycle operating conditions.

We view Table IV as controlling in this instance as it contains a specific locational requirement for motorcycles. Since that specific requirement is lacking in Table IV for other motor vehicle, paragraph 4.2 of J588e would then apply with respect to separation distance for lamps on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles.

SINCERELY,

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

June 9, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

Dear Sir

We request interpretation of the interlamp spacing requirements specified for motorcycles in Table IV of FMVSS 108.

A four-inch spacing is required between turn signal lamps and the edge of the headlamp in front, and between turn signal lamps in the rear. However, while subject table uses the words, "edge to edge", SAE J588e, referenced in Table III, specifies measuring turn signal distance from the filament center.

Acceptance of the filament center of a turn signal lamp as the measuring point is underscored by your letter of November 5, 1979 to Mr. Keshav of Bajaj Auto Limited.

A closely related question concerns the method of measurement, i.e., whether the required four-inch separation dimension is a physical measurement between lamps or a distance between lamp projections. This is questioned because the measurement method is not specified in Table IV, and because S4.3.1.1 of the standard, and section 4.3 of SAE J588e otherwise require unobstructed photometric compliance.

In view of the above, we interpret the standard to mean that the four-inch dimension is a physical measurement to a turn signal's filament.

We would appreciate receiving your interpretation as soon as convenient.

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

ID: nht94-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 21, 1994

FROM: Ralph Harpster -- Laguna Mfg, Inc., Turlock, CA

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-15-94 from John Womack to Ralph Harpster (A42; STD. 208)

TEXT: I have been referred to your office for clarification of a program that utilizes the retro-fitting of seat belts in the rear of police vehicles.

Our company manufacturers a replacement rear seat used for the transport of prisoners in police cars. Police vehicles face special needs in the equipment they use and the methods they use to transport arrestees.

As you can well imagine, a great number of persons placed in the rear of a police car, under arrest, are not co-operative, nor do they particularly wish to go to jail, therefore, it is of significant importance that they be solidly restrained and unable to get loose in the rear of the vehicle, for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately the seat belt system used by the car manufacturer, while adequate to the task in a collision, will not restrain the prisoner under transport conditions due to the inertia reel retractor system. This allows the person belted in to exercise great range of motion and thus they can extricate themselves from the belt system. They can not only cause a great deal of damage to the vehicle, themselves and the police officer in an attempt to kick out the windows and escape, but can expose themselv es to a significant risk of injury should a collision occur while they are out of the belt.

In an effort to simplify the transport process, we furnish a molded seat that accomplishes several tasks. First, the seat will hold a prisoner upright and in place due to its molded configuration. Secondly, the seat eliminates the ability of the prison er to hide contraband, i.e. drugs, weapons etc. Thirdly the molded seat can be washed or disinfected thus helping a police dept. in its policy to overcome the problems associated with blood borne pathogens. Our query lies in the first task enumerated a bove. We retrofit the car with a seat belt system that overcomes the problem associated with the inertia reel retractor system. In our system we utilize a belt that pulls snugly, in a positive restraint mode and does not use a retractor. When the offi cer places the prisoner in the seat, the belt system is latched in place just as any seat belt would be, then the belt is manually pulled tight and remains in that position until manually released. We use a shoulder lap combination belt for meeting the 3 point fastening criteria, and we use only belts certified to meet M.V.S.S. 209-302. Additionally we use factory seat belt mounting locations. We desire that you review our stated use and render an opinion regarding the use of this system and, if in y our opinion, it fits the criteria established for retrofitting.

I would also, separately, like an opinion if a single shoulder belt could possibly meet any of the requirements. I realize that, like many agencies today, you have to deal with an increasingly heavy workload, but I would be extremely grateful if your of fices could give this the earliest possible consideration as we are trying very hard to do things in the most straight forward and compliant manner that we can.

I will take the liberty of thanking you in advance for any courtesy and consideration you can tender us.

ID: nht94-7.3

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc. (Pittsview, AL)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/2/94 from Scott Slaughter to Marv Shaw (OCC 9654)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a logging trailer known as the "knuckle boom loader trailer" that you manufacture is a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You explained that your trailer stays in the woods the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety, Act ("Safety Act" 13 U.S.C. S 1392 et seq.) under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and brochures that this equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. Since your trailer is not a motor vehicle, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

If the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer is a motor vehicle, then the trailer would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle

Identification Numbers, Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 121 Air Brake System which requires automatic slack adjusters and brakes to act on all wheels.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.11

DATE: April 21, 1993

FROM: Steve Reeder -- President & General Manager; Trails West Manufacturing of Idaho Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-28-93 from John Womack to Steve Reeder (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: I am writing your office for clarification of national standards for motor vehicle lighting equipment. We are a manufacturer of livestock trailers, and in reviewing the regulations that apply to our industry, I am confused on a couple of issues.

First, would our products be considered to be over 80 inches wide inasmuch as the box itself is 78 inches, but when you add the fenders to the box, it then exceeds 80 inches. Safety Standard Part 571; S-108 refers to table 2, a copy of which is enclosed, wherein clearance lamps are required on the front and rear of the vehicle to indicate overall width if it is over 80" wide. At the point where clearance lamps would be installed, the vehicle is less than 80 inches in width, but as stated earlier, the overall width including fenders does exceed the 80 inches.

Also, in regards to side marker lamps, would table 2 apply wherein there is no height restrictions, or would table 4 apply (copy enclosed) which requires rear side marker lamps to fall between 15 inches and 60 inches. In regards to the length of a trailer for purposes of determining the need for intermediate side marker lamps is the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer which extends over the tow vehicle to be included in calculating overall length. Also, would front clearance lights be required where the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer extends over the tow vehicle.

The second issue I am concerned about relates to safety chains. Could you provide our company with current regulations for safety chains as they relate to the products we manufacture. It is my understanding that safety chains are not required where a 5th wheel hookup is used, but are required on products such as ours where the attachment point is typically inside the box of a pickup or light duty truck bed and the method of attachment is a ball and coupler.

It seems inconsistent that a recreational type vehicle such as a travel trailer which utilizes a 5th wheel connection on a pickup or a light duty truck would not require safety chains, but a stock trailer which we refer to as a gooseneck that utilizes a ball and coupler and attaches similarly in the bed of a pickup or light duty truck would require safety chains.

I am enclosing a brochure of our products for your information. If the clarification I am asking for is not clear, could you please call me at the office number of (208) 852-2200 at your convenience. We appreciate any help and insight you are able to provide.

Attachments:

- Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 -- Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, and Motorcycles (Docket No. 69-18) (S1.-S5.1.1.4)

- Table II -- Location of Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment

- Table IV -- Location of Required Equipment

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-3.26

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: Scott R. Dennison -- Vice President-Production, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/93 from John Womack to Scott R. Dennison (A41; VSA Sec. 102 (illegible)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 19 in response to my fax to Mr. Robert Helmuth. I apologize if I misled my intentions of the letter. I am fully aware that the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1972 is quite clear and concise. I am also proud of the fact that Excalibur Automobile Corporation has been one of the manufacturers to comply with the Act as a specialty car, low volume manufacturer.

The point of my letter is that as one of the most well known specialty car manufacturers, I am constantly contacted by other low volume manufacturers and builders, as an "expert," who ask questions regarding compliance with both the FMVSS and EPA. My response is always the standard that if a person builds a vehicle to enter into commerce in the U.S., it must comply with the current standards in effect as of the year of manufacture. The most difficult area to offer more advice and direction is the treatment of FMVSS with regards to a '23 T-Bucket Hot Rod for instance. This is a car that would never comply yet there is a demand and someone will build one to sell.

My goal in all of this is to help all of the people in our industry comply with the standards and stay in business. It is just that at times I do not feel I have the right answers for some of these manufacturers and I would like to have some additional direction from Mr. Helmuth's office. Many of these builders, of course, will call me or someone like me, because they are afraid to call you for fear of reprisal. I would appreciate any advice you may have for me to pass one.

The "debate" I refer to in my letter is perhaps a misnomer but refers to the development of policy as currently being pursued by the National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) lobbyists and the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) regarding hot rods, muscle cars, and replicars. The debate appears to be more of can a new, more specific policy be developed which will allow these builders to produce an authentic replica and stay within the standards?

I would reference the policy which was developed by the U.S. EPA in order to allow specialty car builders the ability to utilize previously certified engine systems and not have to go through the expensive and intricate certification procedure. I have enclosed a copy of this policy for your review.

After you have had an opportunity to reflect on the situation that I face with these builders and manufacturers, please let me know your thoughts and any advice that you might offer me. I thank you for your time and effort

and hope that my requests do not place an undo burden on you or your department.

Enclosure (EPA KIT CAR POLICY) omitted.

ID: nht78-1.21

DATE: 10/02/78

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

TO: Dunlop Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 10, 1978, letter asking whether it is permissible to label motorcycle tires with alternate speeds and load ratings appropriate for those speeds. You suggest that your tires be labeled with maximum speeds of 131, 137, and 143 miles per hour with the corresponding load ratings. The labeling of motor cycle tires is regulated by Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other (Illegible word) Passenger Cars.

Standard No. 119 requires that tires be marked with, among other things, the maximum inflation pressure of the tire and the load rating applicable to that inflation pressure. Speed qualifications are permitted on tires when, for example, the tires are speed restricted. Otherwise, tires are not marked with speed criteria although they may be marked with the symbols S, H, or V as part of the tire identification number. These symbols, established by the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO), indicate that the tire is an acceptable high-speed tire.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers it appropriate to permit the symbols S, H, or V to be marked on tires to indicate that such tires are appropriate for high-speed use. This permits, for example, a sophisticated purchaser of tires for emergency vehicles to know that the tires are suitable for the higher operational speeds necessary for those vehicles. The NHTSA, however, considers it inappropriate to mark motorcycle tires with maximum speeds of 131, 137, and 143 miles per hour with the corresponding safe load ratings. Such markings would appear to sanction the use of the tires at these speeds which far exceed the national speed limit.

Since Standard No. 119 regulates the permissible uses of speed designations on nonpassenger car tires, the agency interprets the standard to prohibit the marking of any other speed designations on a tire. The NHTSA considers the only appropriate speed designation on tires to be one that reflects a speed restricted tire or one that uses the symbols established by the ETRTO for tires that have been tested and can be operated at higher speeds.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 10, 1978

J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation has been asked to manufacture tires for new Honda motorcycles with several load designations appearing on the tire sidewall. The loads vary according to the speed imposed on the vehicle as follows: (These are all V rated tires).

Front Tire Rear Tire Inflation Pressure Max. MPH 3.50V19 4.25V18 Maximum 131 515 Lbs. 655 Lbs. 42 psi 137 490 Lbs. 620 Lbs. 42 psi 143 465 Lbs. 585 Lbs. 42 psi

I have discussed this subject briefly by telephone with Mr. A. (Illegible Word) who urged me to write for your legal interpretation of FMVSS 119 and how to identify these supplementary loads on a tire sidewall.

As I will be out of the office until July 24, please contact Mr. A. M. Mills if additional information is required. His direct phone is (716) 879-8397.

Very truly yours, DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION; Richard H. Attenhofer -- Manager - Tire Technical Relations

cc: A. M. Mills

ID: nht76-3.36

DATE: 03/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Inoue Rubber International Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office on February 25, 1976, concerning tires that you export to the United States and to the Soviet Union.

I understand that you export tires from Japan to the Soviet Union, to be mounted on motorcycles that are in turn exported to the United States. Representatives of the motorcycle manufacturer have requested a certification that the tires comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked Mr. Schwimmer how to obtain such a certification from the Department of Transportation.

This Department does not certify or otherwise issue advance approvals of motor vehicles, tires, or other motor vehicle equipment. Certification, under the applicable law and regulations, must be done by the manufacturer. The symbol "DOT", molded in the tire sidewall by you, pursuant to S6.5(a), constitutes your certification that your product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., in this case, Standard No. 119). If it is subsequently determined that your product does not comply with the standard, then the tires are subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The "DOT" symbol on the sidewall may very well be the certification that your Soviet customer has in mind. Please note that Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made. Our records indicate that Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. has not complied with this requirement.

The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agent pursuant to the Act require:

(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding on Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

(2) The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd;

(3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products of Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. that do not bear its legal name;

(4) A provision that the designation remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd.; (5) A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

(6) The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

Copies of these regulations and of Standard No. 119 are enclosed for your information and guidance.