ID: nht95-3.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 3, 1995

FROM: Thomas K. O'Connor -- Chief of Maintenance and Operations, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Verification of Seat Belt Regulations for Step Vans Over 10,000 Pounds GVW-Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 207, 208, 209, and 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS K. O'CONNOR (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: We are requesting written verification on the type of seat belt needed for our step van vehicles in order to comply with FMVSS 207, 208, 209, and 210. At issue is whether a lap-only seat belt versus a shoulder harness seat belt is needed for compliance. In a phone conversation between members of our respective staffs, we were informed that a lap-type belt would comply. We were further informed that written verification of this could be obtained by writing to your office.

In our field work, we use step vans with a Gross Vehicle Weight over 10,000 pounds, equipped with two front seats, a passenger's seat and a driver's seat. The passenger's seat is mounted on a metal pedestal which allows the seat to tilt forward, making e asier access to the rear. The driver's seat is stationary. If both the passenger and driver seats are certified by the manufacturer to comply with FMVSS 207, 208, and 210 when properly installed, and if a certified seat belt (FMVSS 209) is properly ins talled, the question arose as to whether a lap-only seat belt would comply with FMVSS 207, 208, 209, and 210, or whether a shoulder harness type belt had to be used.

If there are any questions concerning our request for written verification on this matter, please contact Sally Yagol of my staff at (708) 222-4080, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., CST, Monday-Friday.

Thank you for consideration.

ID: 00372Villeneuvedsp

Mr. Pierre Villeneuve
A. Girardin Inc.
Trans Canada Highway
Drummondville (Qubec) J2B 6V4

Dear Mr. Villeneuve:

This responds to your January 6, 2003, e-mail and subsequent telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). You ask several questions about a bus that has wheelchair securement devices and only one 34-inch wide forward-facing bench seat in the passenger compartment. You stated in your February 27, 2003 telephone call that the bench seat has two designated seating positions.

Number of Anchorage Systems

Your first question asks how many child restraint anchorage systems must be installed in the vehicle. Assuming the vehicle is subject to FMVSS No. 225 [1] , the answer is two if there are two forward-facing rear designated seating positions on your vehicle. S4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 225 specifies that, in vehicles with not more than two forward-facing rear designated seating positions, a child restraint anchorage system must be installed at each position. Accordingly, an anchorage system must be installed at each of the two forward-facing rear designated seating positions on your vehicle.

Location in Vehicle

Your second question asks whether the bench seat with the anchorage system must be positioned immediately behind the driver, or whether it can be installed in the rear of the bus. FMVSS No. 225 does not specify where a seating position must be located. Instead, the standard specifies locations for child restraint anchorage systems and tether anchorages based on the seating configuration of a particular vehicle. In the case of the subject vehicle, regardless of whether the seat is located directly behind the drivers seat or located at the rear of the vehicle, the seat is the "second row of seating" and therefore two child restraint anchorage systems must be installed on this two-person seat.

If the vehicle were installed with three or more forward-facing rear designated seating positions, then the requirements of S4.4(a) would apply. The requirements for location of child restraint anchorage systems and tether anchorages are determined by considering the number of designated seating positions, the seating row number (e.g., second, third, etc.) and the outboard or non-outboard location of forward-facing designated seating positions. The proximity of seating positions to the drivers seat is not a determining factor apart from the above criteria.

Flip Seat

Your final question asks whether FMVSS No. 225 requires the installation of a child restraint anchorage system in a "flip seat." The key to answering this question is whether the seat contains designated seating positions. "Designated seating position" is defined in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations regulations at 49 CFR 571.3 as:

Any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5^th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. (Emphasis added.)

The agency does not define auxiliary seating accommodations, but has addressed the issue in a number of interpretation letters. The agency has stated that the term "folding jump seat" applies "solely to the type of seat that is used from time to time in such vehicles as taxi cabs and limousines to accommodate, for short periods of time, an excess number of passengers. The usual form of jump seat is a seat that folds down from the rear of the front passenger seat."See April 28, 1971 letter to Mr. Keitaro Nakajima.

The fact that the seat is a flip seat is not determinative as to whether it is excluded from being a designated seating position. We understand that Girardin would installing either a Freedman Feather Weight AM or BV Foldaway. This seat is available from the manufacturer as a one- or two-passenger seat. That is, it does not appear that the seat is

just an auxiliary position. Without information indicating that the flip seats are not designated seating positions, we cannot concur that they would be excluded from having child restraint anchorage systems.

If you have further questions, please contact Dee Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.4/29/03





---

[1] Note that a vehicle is subject to the standard depending in part on its classification. In determining a vehicles classification, a wheelchair restraint position counts as either one or four designated seating positions depending on whether the vehicle is intended to be used for pupil transportation. See definition of "designated seating position" in 49 CFR 571.3.

ID: nht80-2.25

DATE: 04/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sleek-Craft Boats

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 30 1980

Mr. Warren Robbins Manager, Automobile Division Sleek-Craft Boats P.O. Box 3563 Santa Fe Springs, California 90670

Dear Mr. Robbins:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, as it would apply to a new sports car that your company intends to market. You state that the side doors of this vehicle design can meet the "intermediate" and "peak" crush resistance requirements of the standard but not the "initial" crush resistance requirement because of an outer fiberglass veneer component of the door. You ask whether the vehicle can be exempt from this "initial" requirement since the door can withstand the maximum forces required by the standard.

The answer to your question is no. Safety Standard No. 214 requires doors to comply with all three stages of the crush resistance requirements and there is no provision for an averaging of the crush resistance abilities. Although inboard mounted structures may be effective in preventing intrusion if the door has a large cross section, with a correspondingly large distance between the protective structure and the inner panel, the standard reflects a determination by the agency that doors afford the greatest protection panel as possible. Additionally, the "initial" crush resistance requirements are necessary to ensure that the entire door system is structurally sound. This is particularly important because of the risk of occupant ejection if door hinges and latches separated during an accident, allowing the door to fly open.

Although the relief you seek cannot be granted by interpretation of Safety Standard No. 214, there are provisions for temporary exemptions from Safety Standards or portions of safety standards under certain circumstances; such as economic hardship. I am enclosing a copy of the regulation governing temporary exemptions for your information (49 CFR Part 555). After reviewing this regulation, you may wish to petition the agency for a temporary exemption from the "initial" crush resistance requirements of the standard. The regulation explains the procedures you must follow.

If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 13, 1980

National Highway Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Office of Chief Counsel

Re: FMVSS #214

Gentlemen:

Our firm is in the process of building a limited production sports car. We expect the automobile to comply with all Federal Safety Standards. As the automobile is not designed, we anticipate a problem with FMVSS-214, "Side Door Strength." The purpose of this letter is to secure an opinion from the Office of Chief Counsel before the actual testing is done.

Definition of anticipated problem:

The standard required the structure of the door to withstand 2250 pounds of applied pressure over the initial 6 inches of travel, (53.1). We foresee no problem in complying and exceeding 53.2 and 53.3 of the standard.

The problem with compliance with 53.2 is that the side doors are 10" thick. The outer-most 5 inches are decorative fiberglass veneer and are used as air ducts for the radiators which are mounted in the rear.

The inner 5" of the door constitute the frame work and intrusion protection. This protection is very substantial consisting of a triangularly shaped structure constructed from .120 wall 1020 steel. The accompanyiny drawing clarifies this intrusion barrier's location and mounting relative to other frame structures. As the drawing demonstrates, our intent is to provide very substantial protection from side impacts.

The intrusion barrier (c), is supported vertically by the door support (d), which itself is a substantial member (11" x 2" channel, .090 thick 1020 mild steel). The barrier is prevented from entry into the passenger compartment by a roll bar in the rear and roll hoop in front. These members are also of .120 wall 1020 mild steel and are cross braced from the platform frame.

Opinion requested:

Petitioner, Performance Products Inc., requests that the requirements of FMVSS #214 section 53.1 be waived and that the automobile produced by Performance Products be deemed in compliance if the provisions of 53.2 and 53.3 of FMVSS #214 are successfully performed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kindest regards,

Warren Robbins Manager Automobile Division

Enclosure

WR/ca

ID: nht80-3.16

DATE: 07/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Niles Parts Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION JUL 10, 1980

NOA-30

Mr. Y. Koyama Chief of Technical Service Section Niles Parts Co-, Ltd. 4-9-16 Higashikojiya Ota-ku(44) Tokyo JAPAN Dear Mr. Koyama:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1980, which was forwarded to this office for reply about the identification required by Standard No. 101-80 Controls and Displays, for the rear window defogger switch. This office never received a copy of your earlier letter.

Section 5.2.1 of the standard requires that "any hand operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol". Based on the drawing submitted with your letter, Niles has used the identifying symbol specified in Table 1 for the rear window defrosting and defogging system switch. As we understand your letter, the identification will include the full outline of the required symbol colored in orange. However, due to the injection moulding procedure used for the switch, "about 1 mmm of outline of the symbol will be less colored in orange. " In other words, that area of the outline will be colored a dimmer shade of orange than that used on the rest of the outline. This is permissible since the standard does not require, uniformity in the coloring of the required identification symbol.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Motor Vehicle Programs, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington D. C. U. S.

Att: Mr. JOhn Carson Re: Symbol Mark on the Rear Defog Switch for Identification stipulated by FMVSS No. 101-80

Dear Sirs:

We wish to refer again to our letter dated April 10, 1980. We regret that we have not yet received your answer for this letter.

We herewith enclose once again the explanatory drawing.

Owing to Injection molding procedure of this product, in dark place, about 1 mm of outline of the symbol will be less colored in orange.

May we ask you whether the symbol mark will satisfy the require-ment of identification of FMVSS No. 101-80 or not.

Please let us have your answer by return, otherwise our engineer is too much nervous to proceed on his work further.

Thanking you for your good support and cooperation, we are.

Very truly yours,

NILES PARTS CO., LTD.,

Y. Koyama, Chief of Technical Service Section

ID: nht74-1.8

DATE: 10/16/74

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

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 16 1974 NOA-30 (ZTV)

Mr. Joseph W. Kennebeck, Manager Emissions, Safety & Development Volkswagen of America, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 07632

Dear Mr. Kennebeck:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1974. You informed us that Volkswagen intends to introduce a new model, the Rabbit, in January 1975 that meets all requirements of Standard No.105-75 except S5.3.1.(b), requiring a brake fluid reservoir capacity indicator, which it will meet as of September 1, 1975. You also informed us that "one version of the Rabbit which meets FMVSS 105-75 exceeds the currently required preburnish check permissible pedal force." You therefore asked for an "interpretation of whether the Volkswagen Rabbit could comply with FMVSS 105-75 except for S5.3.1.(b) prior to September 1975, in lieu of complying with FMVSS 105 in effect up to that time."

In our view, the fact that the Rabbit exceeds the maximum specified preburnish check pedal force does not by itself indicate a failure to comply with existing Standard No. 105. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 105 requires the performance ability of a passenger car service brake system to be "not less than that described in Section D of Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J937, 'Service Brake System Performance Requirements - Passenger Cars', June 1966." and tested in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J843c, 'Brake System Road Test Code - Passenger Cars', June 1966." Section D of J937, Preburnish check, subreferences "SAE J843, Section C item 1".

The subreferenced item says that the purpose of the preburnish check is "to allow for a general check of instrumentation, brakes, and vehicle function," rather than a test of the effectiveness of the service brake system. Thus the preburnish check is not actually a test requirement. Although the distinction between test requirements, conditions and procedures is not made in the SAE materials incorporated into Standard No. 105, the successor Standard No. 105-75 distinguishes the three. It makes brake burnish part of the test procedure and sequence. Burnishing appears in the test procedure section, S7.4, and Table I, showing test requirements and corresponding procedures, does not relate it to any of the requirements of S5.

A manufacturer's certification covers only the performance requirements of the standard, and is his representation that if testing is conducted in the manner the standard specifies, the vehicle will meet those requirements. Therefore, no "waiver" of Standard No. 105-75 or amendment to Standard No. 105 appears necessary for Volkswagen to certify that the Rabbit complies with Standard No. 105, assuming, of course, that it meets all actual performance requirements of that standard.

Yours truly,

Original Signed By

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-2.13

DATE: 06/02/78

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

TO: Minnesota State Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Jim Downey of our regional office has forwarded for reply your letter of May 3, 1978, in which you asked whether a single beam headlighting system is permissible on mopeds.

The answer is yes. The portion of SAE Standard J584 that you have quoted only establishes an option to the specific requirements of J584. Table 1 of J584 permits motor driven cycles to be equipped with a single (upper) beam headlamp. We consider mopeds to be "motor driven cycles" as defined by 40 CFR 571.3(b) and J584 as they are invariably powered by a motor developing less than 5 horsepower.

I hope this answers your question.

SINCERELY

STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

May 3, 1978

Jim Downey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regional Office

Dear Mr. Downey:

We are having difficulty in determining whether FMVSS 108 permits single beam road lighting for mopeds.

Page 32914 of Federal Register 39, No. 178, dated September 12, 1974, contains a reference to NHTSA exploring forward lighting needs of motor-driven cycles and indicates that a decision would be made as to whether a reduced minimum standard would be appropriate.

We are unable to locate any writings as to the conclusions arrived at beyond that point other than reference in FMVSS 108 (S4.1.1) that ". . . each vehicle shall be equipped with at least the number of lamps . . . specified in Tables I and III, as applicable. Required equipment shall be designed to conform to the SAE Standards or Recommended Practices referenced in those tables."

Table III indicates one (1) white headlamp for motorcycles and cites SAE Standard J584. This standard (J584) contains the general requirement of ". . . one 7-inch sealed beam unit or one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam units meeting the requirements of SAE J579 may be used on a motorcycle or a motor driven cycle."

Since compliance with either option of J584 results in having a high beam and a low beam we are unable to conclude that one (1) single beam headlamp on a moped constitutes compliance with FMVSS 108.

Our concern arises from the fact that our state recently adopted moped legislation requiring the same lighting equipment as is required of motorcycles and we must give due consideration to federal requirements in view of the fact that Minnesota law requires motorcycles to have both an upper beam and a lower beam.

Your assistance in this matter is deeply appreciated.

Colonel James C. Crawford Chief Minnesota State Patrol

ID: nht78-4.10

DATE: 09/05/78

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

TO: Vespa of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, whether turn signal systems installed on mopeds must meet the standard's requirements. One of NHTSA's engineers has informally advised you, in your words, "that because turn signal units on mopeds are not required devices. . . they are not required to meet the specific requirements in FMVSS 108 relative to motorcycles as long as they do not affect the operation of the other required equipment."

We are pleased that Vespa is considering installing turn signal lamps on motor vehicles that S4.1.1.26 excuses from having them. If you wish to install systems that you intend to comply with Standard No. 108 and which for one reason or another fail to do so, it is doubtful that NHTSA would take any action against Vespa since the equipment is clearly optional and added only at a manufacturer's discretion. We would also view as preempted under Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act any State action either to require turn signal lamps on mopeds or to establish requirements for such were they added at the option of the manufacturer.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

SINCERELY,

vespa of america corporation

July 3, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

It is suggested, by Mr. George Shifflet, that an official comment should be solicited from your office to verify our interpretation regarding voluntary equipment of turn signal systems on mopeds (motorized bicycles).

It has been the understanding of Vespa of America Corporation that if a piece of equipment is offered on a moped which is exempted from its requirement (as turn signal systems are exempted as specified - FMVSS 108 Sec. S4.1.1.26) than that piece of equipment must meet all requirements set forth in the respective FMVS Standard.

During my phone conversation with Mr. Shifflet, he offered information to the contrary. He stated, that because turn signal units on mopeds are not required devices under FMVS Standards, they are not required to meet the specific requirements in FMVSS 108 relative to motorcycles as long as they do not affect the operation of the other required equipment.

If Mr. Shifflet's statement is true, then existing State requirements would apply to moped turn signal units.

I am anxiously awaiting your comments as they are the basis for our action. I remain,

Donald Beyer National Service Manager

ID: nht89-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- DEPUTY DIRECTOR TIRE DIVISION RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 109, PART 575.104; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO E. H. GALLOWAY -- UNIFORM T IRE QUALITY GRADING TEST FACILITY, RE INFLATION PRESSURES FOR TRACTION GRADING PROCEDURES IN UTQGS

TEXT: Dear Sir:

On behalf of domestic manufacturers of tires, the RMA requests that you reconsider the NHTSA position taken in your August 30, 1989 letter to E. H. Galloway concerning UTQG traction test inflation pressures. Your interpretation that metric designated ti res (including P-metric tires) which are labeled for maximum pressure in both kilopascals (kPa) and common english (psi) units should be treated the same as those labeled with english values only is contrary to long standing industry interpretation and p ractice.

The following is offered in support of our request:

1. All tires designed using the metric system are required by FMVSS 109, para. S4,3,4(a) to show not only kPa pressure information, but the equivalent value in english units (psi) in parenthesis. Thus, no tires can be sold or offered for sale in the U. S. market with pressures specified only in kilopascals.

2. Load Range B alpha-numeric and numeric tires are labeled 32 psi maximum inflation pressure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 24 psi. Standard load P-metric tires are labeled 240 kPa (35 psi) maximum inflation pre ssure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 180 kPa (26 psi). Since P-metric tires are normally used at slightly higher pressures by consumers in accordance with vehicle manufacturers recommendations, it is logical that they be tested at slightly higher pressures.

3. Industry and private testing organizations have been testing P metric tires for UTQG traction using 180 kPa at the NHTSA test facility in San Angelo, Texas for 10 years with no prior comment from NHTSA.

4. In summary, our members sincerely believe the intent of the regulation is to test alpha-numeric tires at 24 psi and P-metric tires at 180 kPa. We ask your timely reconsideration of your August 30, 1989, interpretation to minimize confusion within th e industry.

5. NHTSA has specified variations in test pressures for UTQG treadwear and temperature tests and in FMVSS 109 bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance and high speed tests to accommodate the differences between P- metric (240 kPa) and alpha numeric /numeric (32 psi) tires. The same philosophy should apply to traction testing.

Sincerely,

ID: 7759

Mr. Kevin Mitchell
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Sun Prairie, WI 53590

Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This responds to your letter asking about the hydraulic brake hose labeling requirements (S5.2) of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses. You indicated that your current brake hoses have two stripes, on opposite sides of the hose. Each of the stripes is interrupted by a line of information. One line, which you call the "DOT print line," contains the information required by FMVSS 106. The other line, which you call the "SAE print line," contains certain information not required by FMVSS 106, including "batch and shift" information.

You asked whether it is permissible to place the batch and shift information (consisting of a mark such as "AA") on the DOT print line. You stated that moving the batch and shift mark to the DOT print line would improve the legibility of the SAE print line. This is because better print materials could be used in the SAE print line if that legend did not contain a mark that must be updated on a daily or more frequent basis, such as the batch and shift mark. As discussed below, the batch and shift information may not be placed on the same line as the required information.

NHTSA's longstanding position, stated in past rulemaking notice preambles (e.g., 39 FR 7425, February 26, 1974; 39 FR 24012, June 28, 1974), is that the DOT print line may only contain the required information. The striping requirement (S5.2.1) of FMVSS 106 states that one of the requisite stripes on a brake hose "may be interrupted by the information required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be interrupted by additional information at the manufacturer's option." We interpret this to mean that the stripe that is interrupted by the required information may not be interrupted by information voluntarily provided by the manufacturer. This conclusion is consistent with the preamble for the final rule establishing S5.2.1 (38 FR 31302, November 13, 1973), which refers to optional additional information as not being permitted in the legend that interrupts the first stripe. (That rule modified the labeling requirements to permit interruption of the second stripe with the optional information.) NHTSA did not permit optional information to be mixed with the required information because the mixture of optional and required labeling could obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or interfere with the appearance of complete labeling on some hose assemblies.

For your information, we have enclosed the Federal Register documents cited above. Please contact Ms. Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:106 d:11/25/92

ID: nht75-2.18

DATE: 09/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Company of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 22, 1975, concerning truck tires which do nt conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 and which are intended for export to Middle Eastern and African countries.

49 CFR Part 571.7(d) and Section 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, specify that no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 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 you manufacture for sale directly to a truck manufacturer who will mount them on trucks which will be driven directly to the port of export need not comply with Standard No. 119. When 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. A label need not remain on the tires after they have been mounted on the trucks, provided that the trucks bear similar labels.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BRIDGESTONE TIRE COMPANY OF AMERICA. INC.

May 22, 1975 Ref. No.: YT-926

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin.

Subject: FMVSS No. 119

Dear Sir:

We have an inquiry on the following size tires to be equipped on new trucks for exporting to the Middle Eastern and African countries by a truck manufacturer: 400-500 1100-20 14PR 150-200 1100-22 14PR 400-500 1100-24 14PR

Since the tire usage condition in these countries is completely different from that of the U.S.A., we have been supplying specially designed tires to them which do not comply with the FMVSS No. 119.

Therefore, we would like to supply the same type of tires now being supplied to the Middle Eastern and African countries to the truck manufacturer strictly for export.

In such a case, will you adopt an exception to FMVSS No. 119 on those tires?

The trucks will be driven without cargo to the ports of Newark or Baltimore after manufacture in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

I would greatly appreciate a reply regarding this matter, as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

Y. Toyoda -- Manager, Engineering Dept.

CC: M. Otsubo - T. Sato; 734-Tokyo; S. Nakajima-File