ID: nht81-2.27

DATE: 05/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 19, 1981

Mr. H. Hayashi Manager for Safety Standards Tire Quality Assurance Dept. Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd. 2800-1, Ogawa, Higashi-Cho Kodaira-Shi, Tokyo, JAPAN

Dear Mr. Hayashi:

This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1981, requesting, an interpretation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR S575.104). You ask whether a tire designed for service as a temporary use spare tire, and labeled on its sidewall with the inscription: TEMPORARY USE ONLY FOR SPARE TIRE, INFLATE TO 40 PSI, MAX. SPEED 50 MPH, is exempt from the requirements of the UTQG Standards.

As you note, the "Application" section of the UTQG regulation does not apply to space-saver or temporary use spare tires. Thus, the UTQG Standards would not apply to the tire you describe, which is designed as a temporary use spare tire and is so labeled.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 26, 1981

Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street s.w., Washington,D.C.20590 U.S.A. Subject: Request for official advice in respect to the interpretation of Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49CFR 575.104)

Dear Sirs:

Recently we have a plan to manufacture a temporary use type spare tire with 185/70 R14 size designation for U.S.A. market at the request of some automobile manufacturer. This type temporary use spare tire is designed to comply all the requirements of FMVSS No. 109, including labelling requirements.

In addition, this spare tire is to have the following labelling letters molded on both sidewalls:

Letters to be labelled

1) TEMPORARY USE ONLY FOR SPARE TIRE

2) INFLATE TO 40 PSI

3) MAX. SPEED 50 MPH

Note:- Refer to the attached sheet.

In the section 49CFR 575.104(C), it is provided that "However, this section does not apply to deep tread, winter-type snowtires or to space-saver or temporary use spare tires."

We, therefore, understand that Uniform Tire Quality Grading requirements would not apply to our temporary use type spare tire.

We hope to have your official comments and/or advice on our interpretation of the application of UTQG Standards.

Your kind and early reply would be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

H. HAYASHI MANAGER FOR SAFETY STANDARDS TIRE QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPT.

ID: nht81-2.28

DATE: 05/21/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 21 1981

NOA-30

Mr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. 120 West Main Street Carmel, Indiana 46032

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your recent letter concerning S6.2.4 of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether section 5.2(d)(1) of Standard No. 209 is the relevant section to be used in testing the release force on buckles used on a child restraint system. The answer is yes.

Section 6.2 of Standard No. 213 sets out the test procedure for measuring the release force for buckles used in child restraint systems. Section 6.2.4 states that the buckle is to be operated in the manner described in section 5.2(d) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. S5.2(d)(1) of Standard No. 209 sets out the procedure for measuring the buckle release force. You are correct that S5.2(d)(2) and (3) set out the procedures for conducting several other requirements of Standard No. 209 which do not apply to child restraints and thus are not relevant to the buckle release force test.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 2, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Indiana Mills and Manufacturing, Inc. is a manufacturer of seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles. We make every effort to comply with the requirements of the motor vehicle safety standards set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), Child Restraint Systems, refers in S6.2.4 to S5.2(d) of Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209), Seat Belt Assemblies. The buckle release mechanism mentioned in S6.2.4 (213) is to be operated in the specific manner described in section 5.2(d) of Standard No. 209. We assume that only the portion of S5.2(d) of Standard No. 209 pertaining to the method of releasing the buckle mechanism is included by reference in Standard No. 213, and we believe that portion consists of paragraph (1) beginning with the words "The buckle release force shall be measured..." through the end of the paragraph. Because S5.2(d)(2) and S5.2(d)(3) deal with subjects other than the proper method of releasing the buckle mechanism, we interpret Standard No. 213 as excluding them while including only the portion of S5.2(d)(1) described above.

We would appreciate receiving from you an official written explanation of the intent of S6.2.4 of Standard No. 213.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours very truly,

William E. Lawler Specifications Manager

WEL/jr

ID: nht81-2.29

DATE: 05/27/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 27 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Jim Tydings Thomas Built Buses, Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point, North Carolina 27261

Dear Mr. Tydings:

This responds to your April 14, 1981, letter asking whether a fold-up seat that you plan to build in a school bus would comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You state in your letter that the seat would comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. If the seat complies with that standard and if its location in the bus will not interfere with the requirements applicable to emergency exits, then the seat should comply with all of the Federal safety standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 14, 1981

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 S.W. 7th St. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Roger Tilton

Subject: FMVSS 217-76, Bus Window Retention and Release

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Enclosed is our print #46-009627, Sketch - Fold Up Seat Cushion at Emergency Exit, plus photos.

This print shows a side (left) emergency exit and the location of a seat wherein the cushion is spring loaded to maintain the cushion in an upright position when the seat is unoccupied.

The advantage being that this seat configuration provides greater egress to the side door. This seat naturally would meet all requirements of FMVSS-222 School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

It is our opinion that this arrangement meets the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Standards.

We would appreciate it if you would review this material and advise us of your conclusions.

Thanking you in advance, I remain

Sincerely,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

Jim Tydings, Specifications Engineer

JT/jf

Enclosure

ID: nht81-2.30

DATE: 06/01/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning section 4.2(d) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Section 4.2(d) provides that after seat belt webbing has been subjected to an abrasion test, it must have not less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraded webbing set in section 4.2(b) of the standard. You pointed out that section 5.2(d) is inconsistent with section 4.2(d). As explained below, section 4.2(d) correctly states the requirement intended by the agency and section 5.2(d) needs to be corrected.

The abraded webbing strength test procedure set forth in section 5.2(d) of the standard is incorrect. It specifies that the median value of the breaking strengths of the abraded and unabraded webbing are used to determine the percentage of breaking strength retained. Such a test procedure unfairly penalizes a manufacturer that produces webbing with an unabraded breaking strength far in excess of the requirements specified in section 4.2(b).

For example, section 4.2(b) specifies that Type I webbing is to have a breaking strength of 6,000 pounds. Assume that the unabraded webbing has a median breaking strength of 8,000 pounds and the abraded webbing has a median breaking strength of 5,600 pounds. The median breaking strength of the abraded webbing is substantially more than 75 percent of the 6,000 pound breaking strength specified in section 4.2(b). However, the median abraded breaking strength is only 70 percent of the median unabraded breaking strength.

The agency intends to modify the standard so that the abraded webbing strength test procedure specifies that the median breaking strength of the abraded webbing is compared to the breaking strength specified in section 4.2(b) to determine the percentage of breaking strength retained.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

British Standards Institution

JANUARY 6, 1981

F. BERNDT -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sirs

FMVSS

Many thanks for your letter of 12 December 1980 on the above subject.

You say in your letter that Standard Number 209 requires abraded webbing in manual belt systems for use in motor vehicles to have not less than 75% of the strength of unabraded webbing.

Clause @ 4.2(b) at the end states 'the median value shall be used for determining the retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of this section'.

Clause @@ 4.2(d) states that 'after abrasion, the webbing shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the breaking strength listed in @@ 4.2(b). For clarity surely this should read - not less than 75% of the median value obtained during tests to clause @@ 4.2(b)'.

I would appreciate your comments.

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM SENIOR TEST ENGINEER

British Standards Institution

FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sirs

FMVSS - 209 SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES

Clause 5.1 (b) reads . . . . the median value shall be used for determining the retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (d) (e) and (f) of the section.

Clause 4.2(d) reads . . . . shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the breaking strength listed in Clause 4.2(b) for that type of belt assembly.

Please clarify the level to which the webbing strength after abrasion is to be compared. Is it:-

1. 75% of median breaking strength found under clause 5.1(b) or

2. 75% of minimum breaking strength listed in clause 4.2(b)

I have written to you on this subject before and would appreciate a speedy reply.

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM -- SENIOR TEST ENGINEER, MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY COMPONENTS SECTION

ID: nht81-2.31

DATE: 06/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: North American Classics Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 1981, asking two questions with respect to the temporary exemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410) and implementing regulations (49 CFR Part 555).

Your first question is:

(1) Assuming North American Classics designs the total engineering of the Thunderbird reproduction; selects all components to be incorporated therein; retains primary control over quality control, testing, FMVSS compliance in design; and manufacturing assembly sequence; and markets the produced vehicles on its behalf to its customers, does North American Classics remain eligible to apply for exemption from meeting certain FMVSS requirements for this vehicle in the event that the actual responsibility for the assembly of the vehicles is contracted by North American Classics to a manufacturer which produces more than 10,000 motor vehicles per year?

Although you have not said so, I understand from Taylor Vinson that the manufacturer with whom you would contract is a foreign corporation which has never produced motor vehicles for the American market. We also understand that it may be less expensive to have your car built abroad than at home.

Under the circumstances you describe, the foreign corporation appears to be nothing more than your agent in fabricating the vehicles and returning them for sale. This would not affect your eligibility for exemption. You would retain the responsibility for certification, as we understand it, even though the name of the foreign manufacturer would also appear on the certification label, as required by 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1).

Your second question is:

(2) In the event that North American Classics enters into an agreement to have such vehicles produced or assembled by a major automotive manufacturer, who would not be so eligible, and if such agreement provides for the sharing of profits derived from the sales of the finished product between North American Classics and such manufacturer, as a means of providing North American Classics assurance that projected costs of such manufacturer do not increase beyond North American Classics' ability to survive financially, in such event would North American Classics retain its eligibility status, assuming North American Classics retains control of the functions outlined in paragraph?

We do not believe that a profit-sharing agreement per se would affect your eligibility for exemption. Were the foreign company to receive a majority share of the profits or to purchase sufficient stock in your company to give it effective control, however, we would have substantial questions about which party actually exercises primary control.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

North American Classics Corporation

April 15, 1981

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel (NOA-30) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing on behalf of North American Classics Corporation, a Michigan Corporation, formed in July of 1980 for the purpose of initially engineering and designing; assembling; and marketing motor vehicles which resemble the 1957 Ford Thunderbird. In September 1980, as attorney for the Corporation, I met with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office concerning North American Classics' project.

The purpose of this letter is to request of your office a written opinion concerning the following inquiries:

(1) Assuming North American Classics designs the total engineering of the Thunderbird reproduction; selects all components to be incorporated therein; retains primary control over quality control, testing, FMVSS compliance in design; and manufacturing assembly sequence; and markets the produced vehicles on its behalf of its customers, does North American Classics remain eligible to apply for exemption from meeting certain FMVSS requirements for this vehicle in the event that the actual responsibility for the assembly of the vehicles is contracted by North American Classics to a manufacturer which produces more than 10,000 motor vehicles per year?

(2) In the event that North American Classics enters into an agreement to have such vehicles produced or assembled by a major automotive manufacturer, who would not be so eligible, and if such agreement provides for the sharing of profits derived from the sales of the finished product between North American Classics and such manufacturer, as a means of providing North American Classics assurance that projected costs of such manufacturer do not increase beyond North American Classics' ability to survive financially, in such event would North American Classics retain its eligibility status, assuming North American Classics retains control of the functions outlined in paragraph?

As the inquiries intimate, North American Classics is considering having the actual asembly work of the vehicle completed by an automotive manufacturer that now produces more than 10,000 vehicles per twelve calendar months. It is uncertain at this time what the agreed upon terms of such an agreement might be that satisfies the interest of both parties. My primary concern in requesting an opinion is to assure myself that North American Classics does not inadvertently contract away its rights to apply for certain exemptions from FMVSS should the need to do so arise.

I thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard.

Thomas W. Elkins Secretary

ID: nht81-2.32

DATE: 06/09/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Robinson L. P. Gas Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information regarding the conversion of school bus fuel systems to dual fuel carburetion running on propane gas. Specifically, you ask whether any regulations require that a protective cage be placed around a propane fuel tank, if propane carburetion is installed on a school bus.

The answer to your specific question is no. Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations do not require protective cages for propane fuel tanks. In fact, the Federal safety standard regarding fuel system integrity, Standard No. 301, is not directly applicable to propane fuel systems.

I am enclosing a fact sheet for your information which discusses the Federal implications of installing auxiliary fuel tanks and of converting fuel systems to use alternate fuels. From that fact sheet you will see that there may be certain responsibilities which must be met by persons converting school buses to use dual fuel systems. Please feel free to contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions after reviewing this information (202-426-2992).

You will have to contact your State department of motor vehicles to determine if there are any local laws or regulations which would require the installation of a protective cage around propane fuel tanks.

SINCERELY

May 12, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Roger Tilton Legal Counsel

I recently had a conversation with Billie Renyolds, Executive Director of the National School Transportation Association and she directed me to your office for information regarding the conversion of school buses to dual fuel carburetion running on propane fuel.

More specifically, I am interested in finding if the application of a cage around a propane tank is necessary for installation of propane carburetion on school buses. There has been much controversy regarding this subject during the past year. Because Robinson L. P. Gas Company will be converting school buses to propane, we, of course, are very interested in knowing what the proper procedures should be according to state and federal codes.

As of this date, all propane conversions done in the state of Pennsylvania have not had a cage around the fuel tank. The tanks have been installed according to Pamphlet 58 and we are using ASME motot fuel 312 PSI tanks.

Thank you for your consideration. I will be looking forward to your reply in the near future.

Carol Kirk Marketing Representative

CC: RICHARD C. MARTIN -- ROBINSON L. P. GAS CO.

ID: nht81-2.33

DATE: 06/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagon of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 27, 1981, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your company is considering, for fuel economy purposes, use of an engine stop/start system by which the engine would be switched off within a few seconds after a vehicle has come to a complete stop, and, to save battery capacity, the headlamps would also be deactivated. The parking lamps, however, will remain on. You believe that Standard No. 108 would not preclude such a system.

Although your letter does not mention it, we assume that when the parking lights are activated, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps would also be on, as required by S4.5.7(a) of Standard No. 108. The question then arises whether the system described is prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 which states that "No . . . motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard No. 108. Although the primary function of headlamps is to illuminate the roadway in front of the driver at night or under conditions of reduced visibility, they also serve to indicate the presence of the vehicle to traffic approaching from the opposite direction. In a situation where, on a two-lane road, a car has pulled to the shoulder temporarily, a headlamp will be perceived at a greater distance than a parking lamp to oncoming traffic. Headlamps also serve an illuminating function when people have paused in unfamiliar neighborhoods in an effort to discern their whereabouts. We believe, therefore, that your device could be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of headlamps within the meaning of S4.1.3.

This, however, is not a view dispositive of the issue. Compliance with Standard No. 102 would also appear to be affected as that standard requires that the engine starter be inoperable when the transmission shift lever is in the forward or reverse position. Last year the agency granted a rulemaking petition with respect to an engine stop/start system such as you have discussed. I enclose a copy for your information. Although no notice has yet been published on this question, we shall endeavor to include a reference to headlamp switching devices in any future rulemaking activity on this subject.

ENC.

MAY 27, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

In order to further improve fuel economy, Volkswagen is investigating the possibility of using an engine stop/start system. This system would automatically switch the engine off within a few seconds after the vehicle has come to a complete stop. When the accelerator is depressed the engine will start again automatically (or, on vehicles with manual transmission, it will start when the gear shift lever is put into first gear). We estimate a fuel savings of 6 to 10 percent, a significant reduction in exhaust emissions and noise pollution with the stop/start system in city driving conditions.

In order not to excessively burden the battery capacity, the stop/start system will have to use a switch mechanism which turns the headlamps off together with the engine. The parking lights will remain on. Once the engine is restarted, the headlamps will be switched on automatically.

When reviewing FMVSS 103, Volkswagen concluded that the standard would not preclude an automatic headlamp switching system as described above. We request your interpretation as to whether Volkswagen's conclusion concerning automatic headlamp switching systems is correct. Your early response to this will be greatly appreciated.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations

ID: nht81-2.34

DATE: 06/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the seat belt warning system requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. You ask whether the standard permits the audible warning system to activate even when the seat belt is buckled. If the agency's response is negative, you ask that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking.

The answer to your question is no. The audible warning system cannot activate if the seat belt is buckled. This same question was asked in a request for interpretation and petition for rulemaking submitted by American Motors Corporation in 1979. Enclosed is a copy of the agency's December 31, 1979, response to American Motors, which explains the rationale for this interpretation.

The agency's position has not changed since the response to American Motors, although as part of our regulatory review, we do plan to look closely at the warning system requirements of Standard No. 208 in their entirety. That review could lead to major changes in the warning system requirements, and we will give serious consideration to your request during our analysis. At the current time, however, we deny your petition for rulemaking since the requested change is inconsistent with the rationale for the existing warning system requirements.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

Raymond Peck -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Peck:

Chrysler Corporation requests interpretation of the requirements contained in MVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection, regarding the operation of the audible signal of the seat belt reminder system. Paragraph S7.3 requires:

A seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position shall be equipped with a warning system that activates for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" position), a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver, displaying the words, "Fasten Seat Belt" or "Fasten Belt" or the identifying symbol for the seat belt telltale in Table 2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80 when condition (a) exists, and a continuous or intermittent audible signal when condition (a) exists simultaneously with condition (b).

(a) - The vehicle's position switch is moved to the "on" position or to the "start" position.

(b) - The driver's lap belt is not in use, as determined, at the option of the manufacturers, either by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened or by belt not being extended at least four inches from its stowed position.

Specifically, we request an interpretation of the language of S7.3 as to whether continued operation of the audible signal is permissible during the remaining portion of the four to eight second time period after the driver has started the engine and buckled his seat belt.

A affirmative interpretation would not depreciate the reminder systems effectiveness, would be cost beneficial, and in our opinion, is permitted under the language of the standard. The only adverse effect of such an interpretation would be a slight annoyance to those drivers who "buckle up" before the four to eight second time period has elapsed.

The seat belt reminder system that Chrysler Corporation uses includes a switch in the driver's lap belt buckle to deactivate the audible signal whenever the driver's lap belt is in use. The inclusion of this switch made good sense when the provisions of the standard required that the audible signal activate for at least one minute if the driver's lap belt was not in use. Subsequently, the Congress and the NHTSA amended the standard to require the current four to eight second limitation. With this limitation, there is no longer a need to deactivate the audible signal since in any event it can only function for a maximum of eight seconds. Consequently, we do not believe that operation of the audible signal for this time period would be a major annoyance to those seat belt users who "buckle up" before starting the engine. Moreover, allowing the audible signal to function regardless of whether the driver's lap belt is in use would improve the systems effectiveness by alerting other vehicle occupants of the need to "buckle up". The removal of the driver's seat belt buckle switch would result in a product cost savings of from $ 0.94 to $ 1.86 on our passenger cars and obviously increase the cost effectiveness of the seat belt reminder system.

We understand the NHTSA has previously interpreted the provisions of paragraph S7.3 to require that the audible signal be deactivated whenever the driver's lap belt is in use. That interpretation appears to be primarily based on the agency's intent as discussed in the previous rulemaking notices. While these are important, the language of the standard should be the final criteria to guide any interpretation of the standard. Moreover, we believe the intent of the agency cited in the response to the previous request for interpretation of paragraph S7.3 was really related to the earlier rulemaking actions at a time when the audible signal was required to function continuously or for at least one minute. Under the current four to eight second limitation, we doubt the agency's stated intent applies to such a de minimus matter.

If the agency cannot issue an affirmative interpretation of paragraph S7.3, we ask that this request be considered a petition for rulemaking to amend S7.3 of MVSS 208 and tha the necessary changes in the standard be adopted as soon as possible. As pointed out above, the requirement for a buckle switch to deactivate the audible signal when the driver "buckles up" has no safety merit and continuing a requirement for it perpetuates cost without benefit. In view of these facts and the potential cost savings if the buckle switch can be removed, the regulations should not require it.

Sincerely,

R. O. Sornson -- Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis

ID: nht81-2.35

DATE: 06/18/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Roy Littlefield, Director, Government Relations, National Tire Dealers & Retreader Association, Inc.

COPYEE: AMERICAN RETREADERS' ASSOC., INC.; HARRISON FEESE -- U.S. CUSTOMS SERV.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/7/90 LETTER FROM PERRY FAULKNER TO WILLIAM MCCOLLUM; 3/13/91 LETTER FROM JAMIE MCLAUGHLIN FISH TO BILL MCCOLLUM (STD. 117; A37; STD. 119)

TEXT: This responds to your March 27, 1981, letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff. In your letter, you requested a clarification of a statement in my March 11, 1981, letter to Mr. Harry Shirai, concerning the importing of used tires into this country. Specifically, I had indicated that one means by which used tires could legally be imported into the United States would be for the tires to be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, met the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). You have asked for more information on what steps would have to be taken to ensure that the imported tires complied with all of the requirements for this alternative.

Since receiving your letter, this agency has re-examined this subject. We recognize the severe supply problems facing the industry at this time and the possibly grave adverse price effects on consumers if such shortages are not eliminated. Bearing in mind the serious safety concerns which are involved, the agency has concluded that precedents exist for another alternative solution that would achieve the desired result without compromise of safety.

Used tires imported for retreading are unquestionably "pneumatic tires," as that term is defined in Standard 109. They cannot, however, legally be used on the public highways, since the tread on casings is almost always well under 2/32 of an inch. The use of tires with such minimal tread on trucks in interstate commerce is prohibited by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR @ 393.75(c)) and would violate this agency's specifications for State vehicle inspection standards (49 CFR @ 570.9(a) and 49 CFR @ 570.62(a)). Hence, the majority of States would not certify a vehicle as passing inspection with these tires and trucks with these tires cannot be used in interstate commerce.

Further, it is important to examine the intent of the importers of these tires. According to the representations made by your organization and some individual members, it is our understanding that these tires would be imported solely for retreading purposes. In other words, these casings are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment (retreaded truck tires), rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). Objective proof of this intent can be found in the fact that significant numbers of used foreign truck tires were imported into this country between 1975 and 1980, yet this agency has no information indicating that these tires, which did not meet the requirements of Standard 119, were used or sold without being retreaded.

Based on these considerations, we conclude that truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread and which are imported, introduced into interstate commerce, offered for sale or sold solely for the purpose of retreading are not "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of that Act. Precedent for the use of such criteria is found in action by the agency in 1969 when it decided that mini-bikes were not "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That decision was made because mini-bikes were prohibited from highway use in the vast majority of States, and because the manufacturers' subjective intent, proven by several objective factors, was not to build vehicles for use on the public roads (34 FR 15416, October 3, 1969).

As you know, there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truck tires. I urge you to stress to your members the need to assure the soundness of the casings used for retreading, so that no safety problems arise from retreading these tires. Should such a problem arise, this agency would consider rulemaking to establish a safety standard for retreaded truck tires, as well as exercising its authority with regard to items containing a safety-related defect.

Should you have any questions on the actual mechanics of importing these casings, and the duties which would be applicable, I suggest that you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U.S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229. He can be reached at (202) 566-8651.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS & RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

March 27, 1981

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

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

NTDRA would like to again thank you for taking the time to work with us and the industry regarding the importation of used truck tires, that do not bear the DOT symbol, into the United States.

We are at this time requesting a clarification of the March 11, 1981 letter from Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of your agency, to Mr. Harry Shirai. A copy of that letter is appended. On page two of the letter, in discussing ways that used tire casings can be brought into the United States, the third option states that the tires must "be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the requirements of Standard No. 119." Does that mean that a foreign manufacturer can mail to both the NHTSA and the Customs Department a "blanket" certification stating all tires produced of a certain size and type at a given time had met, at the time of manufacture, the requirements of Standard No. 119 and thus satisfy the legal requirements of NHTSA and Customs for entry into the United States? If so, would it be necessary for each importer to bear a copy of such a letter with each shipment or tires, or would the letter on file at NHTSA and Customs be adequate?

As you know, there exists in this country a severe shortage of used truck tire casings to be used for retreading. NTDRA congratulates NHTSA's efforts to insure that only safe casings be used in the retreading process. Hopefully we can work together to find a solution to bring into this country safe casings that were made for use in foreign countries and subsequently do not bear the DOT symbol.

Thanks again for your efforts.

Roy Littlefield Director, Government Relations

ID: nht81-2.36

DATE: 06/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bajaj Auto Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1981 with regard to turn signal pilot indicators on motorcycles.

You noted that the front turn signal lamps are directly in front of the operator and are fully visible. You therefore believe that a separate pilot indicator is unnecessary. You are correct. Pursuant to SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, no separate pilot indicator is required for Turn Signal Lamps that are "readily visible to the driver."

You have also pointed out that the motorcycle controls and displays standard, No. 123, "does not indicate the provisions and location of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator." That is correct. Standard No. 108 and J588e establish the requirements for this item of vehicle equipment. I enclose a copy for your information.

ENC.

Date May 25, 1981

To

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400, Seventh Street, S. W.,

Dear Sir,

We are manufacturing scooters which fall under the catagory of Class I Motorcycles. The scooters are provided with Turn Signal Lamps both at the front and rear. The front turn signal lamps are directly in front of the rider and are fully visible to the rider. In view of the fact that the front turn signal lamps are visible to the rider, we feel the same lamps can serve as a pilot indicator and provision of seperate pilot indicator is not necessary. Please let us know whether our contention is proper from the standards point of view.

In this connection we would like to bring to your kind attention that Standard No. 123 - Motorcycle Controls & Displays as well as the statement of compliance does not indicate the provision and location of the turn signal pilot indicator.

We are enclosing herewith the pamplet which shows the photograph of the vehicle. Thanking you

For BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED (M. S. KESHAV) MANAGER (R&D)