ID: nht72-6.42

DATE: 08/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your petition for rulemaking, submitted July 30, 1971, to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109) and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping Regulations (49 CFR Part 574). Your petition requests that Standard No. 109 be amended to provide for a special tire category for folding sidewall-reduced tread tires, of which the "Space Saver Spare" tire you manufacture is an example. You request specifically that requirements for these tires differ from conventional tires as follows: lower minimum breaking-energy values in the strength test (S4.2.2.4, Table II); modified minimum size factors for certain tire size designations which you list; elimination of the condition that the tire be mounted without lubricant for the bead unseating test (S4.2.2.3); and allowing the tire identification number to be placed on the lower sidewall (49 CFR 574.5). For the reasons stated below, your petition is hereby denied insofar as it requests modifications to the strength and bead unseating requirements of Standard No. 109, and the requirements of Part 574. We make certain recommendations herein regarding your request for modification of the minimum size factors of Standard No. 109.

The basis for your request for lower breaking-energy values in the strength test is that the values you request represent a level of performance equal to that of a conventional tire having the same amount of tread remaining as a new folding sidewall-reduced tread tire. The NHTSA cannot accept this argument as a valid basis for specifying lower breaking-energy value requirements for folding sidewall-reduced tread tires The requirements specified for the strength test are considered to be necessary minimum requirements for all new passenger car tires. Consequently, persons who purchase new tires, regardless of their construction, are entitled to at least this level of performance, and not the level of performance represented by a used tire.

The NHTSA does not believe, similarly, that you have presented a sufficient basis for elimination of the condition, in the bead unseating test procedure, that the tire be mounted for the test without the use of lubricant. While the NHTSA concurs in the benefits of run-flat performance, which the "Space Saver Spare" appears to provide, we do not believe that this advantage outweighs the necessity that the tire conform to the bead unseating requirements when mounted without lubrication. The NHTSA believes the possibility that tires will be mounted without lubrication in the field is sufficiently great to warrant the retention of this condition in the standard's test procedure.

We also do not consider sufficient the justification you provide for your request that the identification number required pursuant to Part 574 be allowed to be placed on the lower sidewall of the tire. Your statement to the effect that no problems are presented if the number "wears off" ignores the fact that the number must be retained on the tire for purposes of identification should a defect notification or recall campaign be instituted.

With reference to your request for modification of the (Illegible Word) size factor for the tire size designations which you list, believe B. F. Goodrich should petition, in accordance with guidelines published October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964), to amend the Appendices of Standards Nos. 109 and 110 to provide that folding sidewall-reduced tread tires be added as a separate tire type, including new size designations and corresponding values for section width and minimum size factor that you consider appropriate.

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

[GRAPHICS OMITTED]

ID: nht81-2.20

DATE: 05/06/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. G. Frail

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

May 6, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. John G. Frail P.O. Box 581 Bronxville, New York 10708

Dear Mr. Frail:

This is in reply to your letter of April 9, 1981, to this agency asking, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp of 4 inches is measured outside of the lamp or inside of the lamp." You have asked this question in behalf of an "OEM supplier" in Germany.

The requirement in Table IV of Standard No. 108 is that the minimum edge to edge separation distance between a turn signal lamp and a tail or stop lamp be 4 inches while the turn signal lamps themselves must have a minimum separation distance of 9 inches between their centerlines. (Your design is somewhat confusing as it depicts centerlines of stop lamps and turn signal lamps at 9 inches.) We interpret this as meaning the minimum separation distance between the edge of lighted area to be 4 inches, as depicted in "B" in your design. Of course, final responsibility for compliance with this requirement rests on the vehicle manufacturer rather than the equipment manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

John G. Frail Post Office Box 581 Bronxville, New York 10708

April 9, 1981

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: FMVSS 108 interpertation.

Gentlemen:

The attachment from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations from ULO-WERK of West Germany questions the following:

The contents of the attachment are that of Table III & Table IV (Part 571; S 108 11/12). They are interested, as illustrated by the client, the interpertation as to whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp of 4 inches is measured outside of the lamp or inside of the lamp.

They have not specified their concern other than being OEM suppliers. This question may have risen as a result of two manufacturers supplying the lamp for one vehicle. The outside ornamentation of the lamp may be the question resulting in how one should measure the distance. Also, if we assume the distance is basically for light output of the lamp (night time driving) they may have a reasonable question.

So that I may inform our client, please advise in writing the proper interpertation of the subject specification as to wether the measurement of 4 inches regarding the distance between tail-stop-lamp and indicator lamp will be measured at the inside or outside of the spare lens.

Please forward your answer to my above post office box address at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

John G. Frail

Attachment Omitted

ID: nht91-1.4

DATE: 01/01/91

FROM: UNDER SECRETARY -- MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, KUWAIT

COPYEE: THE MINISTER'S OFFICE; THE UNDER SECRETARY; INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS; STANDARDS & METROLOGY DEPT.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (PART 574; STD. 109; STD. 119; A40; PART 571)

TEXT: We have studied your above mentioned standards with interst and we would appreciate if you please reply to following questions:

1) Do all tyres manufactured and sold in the US must bear the (DOT) mark?

2) What are the basises for granting the right to use the (DOT) mark by the manufacturer on their tyres?

3) Is the (DOT) mark required for local consumed and exported tyres also?

4) Is there a validity time for the use of the (DOT) mark?

5) What is the relation ship between your administnation and the Department Of Transportation concerning the implementation of the use of the (DOT) mark?

6) What are the legal responsibility of the manufacturer by using the mark.

7) What are the responsibility of the manufacturer in case of violation of mark's roles.

We would appreciate if you please kindly furnish us with all information and document concerning the above mentioned subject.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

ID: Mills.1

Robert G. Mills, Supervisor, Homologation
Triumph Designs Limited
Normandy Way, Hinckley
Leicestershire LE10 3BZ
United Kingdom




Dear Mr. Mills:

This responds to your March 22, 2005, letter in which you requested clarification regarding the proper method for measuring the required edge-to-edge separation distance between a motorcycles front turn signal lamps and headlamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter asked whether the minimum edge-to-edge separation distance is measured: (1) "In a 2-dimensional plane, viewed directly from the front of the motorcycle, that would only take account of the visible, vertical edge-to-edge distance between the two lamps" or (2) "In a tangential plane that would take account of the upward/downward or forward/rearward separation distance". As discussed below, our interpretation differs from the two you suggest. We interpret Standard No. 108s requirement for the separation distance between a motorcycles front turn signal lamps and headlamp as being the shortest distance between the edges of each lamps effective light-emitting surface as projected onto a two-dimensional vertical plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the motorcycle (i.e. , the view that would be perceived by oncoming drivers). This projection is defined within FMVSS No. 108 as the "effective projected luminous lens area".

By way of background, Table IV, Location of Required Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 requires motorcycle front turn signal lamps to have a minimum edge-to-edge separation distance of four inches between these lamps and the headlamp. Our interpretation that the distance is measured with a two-dimensional frame of reference is consistent with both the purpose of the standards separation requirement and at least one prior interpretation.

Standard No. 108 specifies a minimum separation distance between headlamps and turn signal lamps to minimize the possibility that an observer will not see the turn signal. A motorist approaching the motorcycle in oncoming traffic will perceive the required four-inch edge-to-edge separation distance in a two-dimensional plane. If measurement along a tangential plane were substituted, as in the second method identified in your letter, the perceived separation distance in this scenario may be reduced to less than four inches, as seen by the driver, and a situation could arise in which the conspicuity of the turn signal is masked by the headlamp beam. If the oncoming driver does not perceive the important information provided by the turn signal, traffic safety could be compromised.

The minimum edge-to-edge separation distance is the shortest distance between the edges of the effective projected luminous lens areas of the two lamps. "Effective projected luminous lens area" is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 108 as "the area of the orthogonal projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp on a plane perpendicular to a defined direction relative to the axis of reference". In this case, the defined direction is the longitudinal axis of the motorcycle.

This same reasoning and result were applied in our interpretation letter of April 23, 1986 to a party whose identity was kept confidential (see enclosure). That letter dealt with the plane of reference for measuring the separation distance between a motorcycles rear turn signals and stop/tail lamp and the view provided to traffic approaching from the rear. However, the principles and reasoning are otherwise identical to the forward-facing situation.

We would also point out an important additional requirement for motorcycle turn signal lamp placement contained in Table IV. That requirement is that the turn signal lamps must not be closer than 16 inches, as measured from their centers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d/5/3/05

ID: nht92-7.5

DATE: May 14, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Faist -- DAS Fleet Services Division, City of Seattle

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/4/92 from Chris Kuczynski to Manager, NHTSA (OCC 6983)

TEXT:

This responds to the letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from Chris Kuczynski of your Division, asking how the provisions of 49 CFR Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 pertain to "a municipal government agency that transfers, modifies and/or fabricates custom vehicle bodies for use by its own departments." In a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office, you stated that the operations referred to in the letter involve only trucks, both light and heavy; that you combine both new and used bodies with both new and used chassis, endeavoring to retain the old engines, power axles, and transmissions to the extent possible; that such operations include mounting equipment on truck chassis to create such specific-purpose vehicles as dump trucks, cranes, and the like; and that some of the operations are done in your own shops while others are contracted out to local body shops. The issues raised in your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et sec.; Safety Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA's safety standards are set forth at 49 CFR Part 571. The agency has also established a number of other regulations in carrying out its responsibilities under the Safety Act, including ones related to certification. All of the regulations cited in your letter apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act also prohibits commercial establishments such as repair businesses from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This provision does not apply to the situation of vehicle owners modifying their own used vehicles.

The issue of whether NHTSA's safety standards and other regulations would apply to your agency with respect to the operations it performs on a particular vehicle is dependent on the answers to two questions: (1) whether the vehicle in question is considered a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act, and (2) whether the operations are of such a nature that your agency is considered a "manufacturer" of the vehicle under the Safety Act.

With respect to the first of these questions, NHTSA has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by the Safety Act. I note that some vehicles which may be operated by a municipal agency are not considered motor

vehicles. These include airport runway vehicles and certain, but not all, construction and maintenance equipment. NHTSA's safety standards and related regulations do not have any applicability with respect to vehicles that are not considered motor vehicles. I have enclosed copies of two previous letters which should enable you to determine which of the vehicles you perform operations on are considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act (August 8, 1988 letter to Caterpillar Tractor Co. and February 25, 1986 letter to Richard F. Hahn, Esq.).

While NHTSA's safety standards and other regulations do not generally apply to modifications made by vehicle owners to their used vehicles, it is possible for such modifications to be so substantial that the resulting vehicle is considered a new vehicle instead of just a modified used vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle is required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed.

In order to enable vehicle modifiers to determine when the modifications are so substantial that the vehicle is considered a new vehicle, NHTSA established specific criteria at 49 CFR Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components. That section reads as follows:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

NHTSA has consistently interpreted that provision to mean that, by its terms, it applies only to new bodies and not to old ones, and that placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axles, as a minimum, are not new AND at least two of these three listed components were taken from the same vehicle. Conversely, a new vehicle would result by placing a new body on an old chassis utilizing new, a combination of new and used, or used engine, transmission, and drive axles no two of which were taken from the same vehicle.

A new vehicle would also result by placing a body, new or used, on a new chassis. In that case the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle which is defined at 49 CFR Part 568.3 as:

(A)n assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, powertrain, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

By adding a body to the new chassis, your agency would become a final-stage manufacturer, defined in Part 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." Final-stage manufacturers are required to certify that the completed vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final

completion, or a date between those two dates.

I hope this information is helpful. For your additional information, I am enclosing a NHTSA fact sheet entitled "INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT." If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam4203

Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of several o our standards. First, I would like to apologize for the delay in this response to your letter. I have set forth the responses in the order you asked the questions in your letter.; 1. Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*. Paragraph S5.2.1 of this standard provides that the parking brak system on a passenger car and some school buses shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary *(to the limit of traction on the braked wheels) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade. You stated that your understanding of this provision was as follows. During the tests to determine compliance with this provision, the axles of the subject vehicle must be locked by the parking brake. Your understanding is that the vehicle is permitted to slide down the 30 percent grade, and would be considered as complying with this provision of Standard No. 105 no matter how it slides as long as the vehicle's axles do not turn. This understanding is correct.; The parenthetical note in section S5.2.1 was included in the standar to address the situation where a particular 30 percent grade might have a low traction coefficient. In this situation, a vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system had held the vehicle axles locked for the required amount of time. NHTSA did not intend vehicle sliding because of a loss of traction by the tires to be considered a failure of the parking brake system. To make this item clear, section S5.2.1 specifies that the parking brake system must hold the vehicle stationary only 'to the limit of traction on the braked wheels.' This language allows the standard not to specify the traction coefficient for the 30 percent grade. Since no particular traction coefficient is specified, compliance testing may be conducted on *any* 30 percent grade that satisfies the requirement of S6.9. That section requires that the parking brake test surface be clean, dry, smooth Portland cement concrete.; 2. Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims.* Paragraph S4.3 of this standard specifies that a placard containin certain safety performance indication shall be permanently affixed to 'the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location.' You asked if the door latch post, the inner surface of the glove compartment box, and the inward-facing surface of the driver's side door would be considered 'equally accessible locations.' Each of these locations could be equally accessible locations.; In several past interpretations, we have explained that locations fo the placard would be considered equally accessible if two conditions were met. These were:; >>>1. The alternative location must result in the placard bein positioned so that the vehicle operator can readily refer to it, and; 2. The alternative location must keep the placard relatively free fro exposure to substances that could destroy the placard or render it illegible.<<<; If you position the placard on any of your three alternative location so that the vehicle operator can readily refer to it and where the placard would be protected from substances that could destroy it, we would consider each of those alternative locations as 'equally accessible locations' for the purposes of Standard No. 110.; 3. Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302 sets forth a listing of th components of vehicle occupant compartments that must be certified as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. You listed nine components not specifically listed in paragraph S4.1 and asked whether those components were required to be certified as meeting the flammability resistance requirements. The answer to your question depend on whether the components are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.; paragraph S4.1. represents a complete listing of all components in ne vehicles that must comply with the flammability resistance requirements. Any component not identified in paragraph S4.1 is not subject to the flammability resistance requirements. The only item on that listing that might be applicable to the nine components about which you asked is 'any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' Thus, you must determine which of the nine components you asked about are so designed. We would assume that knee bolsters are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. These and any other of the nine components so designed must be certified as complying with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. Any of the nine components not designed to absorb energy are to required to comply with the flammability requirements.; 4. Part 575.101, *Consumer Information Regulations, Vehicle Stoppin Distance.*; You noted that S575.101 requires vehicle manufacturers to disseminat information about the minimum stopping distance for groups of passenger cars. Section 575.101(c) requires that each passenger car in the group to which the stopping distance information applies shall be capable of performing at least as well as the information indicates, *under the test conditions and procedures specified in S6 an S7 of Standard No. 105* (emphases added). You noted that those sections of Standard No. 105 specify both pre-burnish and post-burnish tests, and that the braking performance varies considerable for the two tests. You asked whether the consumer information on stopping distance must reflect the pre-burnish stopping distance. It need not reflect pre-burnish stopping distance.; As you noted, S575.101(c) specifies that the stopping distanc information should be measured under the test conditions and procedures specified in sections S6 and S7 of Standard No. 105. This specification was added in an amendment published on January 6, 1976 (41 FR 1066). Before that amendment, S575.101 had specified separate test conditions and procedures for the stopping distance information. Those conditions specified that the vehicle's brakes were to be burnished and then the stopping distance was to be measured. In place of those conditions, S575.101(c) now specifies that the stopping distance information should express the *minimum* stopping distances that can be met or exceeded by each vehicle in the group to which the information applies, using the test conditions and procedures of Standard No. 105. Since stopping distances decrease after burnish, the post- burnish results represent the *minimum* stopping distances that can be met or exceeded by the vehicles. Therefore, the pre-burnish stopping distances need not be reflected in the stopping distance information manufacturers make available to consumers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5498

"Dear Mr. Getz: This responds to your letter asking whether certai operations that your company performs on used trailers result in the trailers being considered 'newly manufactured' for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You stated that you sometimes change the finishing and equipment of a used trailer for a new application. As an example, you stated that you recently took a 10- year old trailer, stripped the inside, and refinished it as a mobile marketing facility. You also stated that in some cases you may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you indicated that you have also changed trailers by adding heating or air conditioning units, or making the trailer usable as an auditorium. In your letter, you asked whether the trailers would be considered 'newly manufactured' if the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does change. You asked this question in light of the fact that change of ownership is relevant under 49 CFR part 571.7(f) in determining whether a trailer manufactured from new and used components is considered newly manufactured. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the operations you describe do not result in the trailers being considered newly manufactured. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section 49 CFR part 571.7(f) reads as follows: Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of the safety standards , unless, at a minimum, the running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer-- (1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number, and (2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle. This section only applies when new and used materials are used in the 'assembly' of a trailer. It is our opinion that the operations that you describe, i.e., where the running gear, VIN and the basic trailer structure do not change, do not constitute trailer assembly. Therefore, this section, including its provision concerning transfer of ownership, does not apply. We consider your operations to be in the nature of repair or refurbishment of a used trailer, which does not result in the trailer being considered newly manufactured. I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4512

Dear Mr. Rose: This responds to your letter, addressed to the Directo of the Office of the Federal Register, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the Federal agency which issued and administers that standard. Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l38l et seq. The term 'motor vehicle safety standard' is defined by the Act as 'a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria' (section l02(2)). NHTSA does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, section ll4 of the Act requires manufacturers to certify compliance of each motor vehicle and item of equipment with all applicable standards. The Act requires that manufacturers exercise 'due care' to ensure that their products conform to each applicable standard (section 108(b)(l)). I will address your first two questions together. The questions are: l. In the clause dealing with Test Sample, why are the batch size and sample size not mentioned? 2. Why does the standard make no reference to the frequency of testing. As indicated above, Standard No. 109 is a minimum performance standard. All tires must be capable of meeting the standard's requirements. The purpose of the test sample paragraph (S4.2.2.l) in Standard No. 109 is to indicate that a test set for a compliance test consists of three tires. One tire is checked for physical dimensions and is then subjected to resistance to bead unseating and strength, in sequence. The second tire is subjected to the endurance test, and the third tire is subjected to the high speed test. Paragraph S4.2.2.l is not intended to address the question of how many sets of tires a manufacturer should test as a surveillance procedure during production or what batch size the test sets should be drawn from. A manufacturer is not required to conduct any particular frequency of testing or even to run the actual tests specified by Standard No. 109. Instead, a manufacturer must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that each of its tires, if tested according to the requirements of the standard, would meet those requirements. (For test purposes, however, any one given tire would only be subjected to one of the three test sequences discussed above.) Since Standard No. 109 includes a number of specific test requirements, it is likely that a manufacturer would find it necessary to do some testing in order to ensure that a tire complied with the standard. For enforcement purposes, NHTSA would test a tire according to the specific test requirements of Standard No. 109. Your third question is as follows: 3. Why does the standard make no reference to tolerances for tyre concentricity? NHTSA's standards cover aspects of performance for which the agency has determined there is a safety need. To date, NHTSA has not determined that there is a need for requirements covering tire concentricity tolerances. We note that tire concentricity appears to be primarily an issue of occupant comfort rather than safety. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3535

Dear Mr. Gebhardt: This is in response to your letter of November 30, 1981, in which yo raised several questions concerning the application of the exemption for dealer-to-dealer transfers of new cars. We are sorry for the delay in responding. Specifically you wanted to know if a dealer transferring a new vehicle with fifty miles registered on the odometer to another dealer was required to issue an odometer disclosure statement. You also requested that the agency provide you with cases subsequent to *Lair v. Lewis Service Center*, 428 F. Supp. 778 (D.Neb. 1977) which address the enforceability of the exemptions to Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act ('Act') (15 U.S.C. 1981 *et seq.*); Purchasers of motor vehicles rely heavily on the odometer reading as a index of the condition and value of the vehicle. The purpose of the Federal odometer laws is to establish certain safeguards against odometer tampering and to provide purchasers of motor vehicles an accurate statement of the mileage traveled by a motor vehicle. Section 408 of the Act requires that each transferor of a motor vehicle furnish to the transferee a written statement certifying the accuracy of the mileage. 15 U.S.C. 1988. The Odometer Disclosure Requirements specifically detail the information that must be disclosed. 49 CFR 580.4. However, the agency has determined that the exemption of certain transactions and vehicles is consistent with the purposes and scope of the Act. 49 CFR 580.5.; 49 CFR 580.5(b) exempts all transfers of a new vehicle prior to th first transfer to a customer who actually plans to use the vehicle from the Odometer Disclosure Requirements. The exemption applies to the dealer-to-dealer transfer of new vehicles regardless of the odometer reading. However, the exemption does not preclude a dealer from requiring the transferring dealer to certify the accuracy of the mileage.; The exemption is consistent with the purpose and scope of the Federa odometer laws. It is customary for dealers to transfer new vehicles to other dealers who plan to immediately resell the vehicle to a customer. Generally, the frequency of odometer fraud in these transactions is minimal. Indeed, prior to the transfer of a vehicle to a consumer, the odometer reading should only reflect the mileage accumulated while the vehicle is being demonstrated to a potential buyer or driven a short distance, which might be occasioned by a typical dealer-to-dealer transfer. We are unable to establish by issuing an opinion letter what the limit of such mileage incidental to the sale of a new car should be. If a dealer doubts the accuracy of the odometer reading, he can readily inspect the car for evidence of odometer tampering. In the absence of such evidence, the first dealer to sell the vehicle to a non-resale purchaser should be free to certify the mileage as accurate. The agency therefore views the issuance of odometer disclosure statements in such dealer-to-dealer transactions as unnecessarily burdensome on dealers.; In addition to *Lair v. Lewis Service Center*, the agency has knowledg of one other case *Romeri Trucking, Inc. v. Boise Kenworth Sale*, No. 80-1252 (D. Iowa, February 11, 1981), that addresses the issue of the enforceability of 49 CFR 580.5(a)(1). To date the agency has not issued a formal opinion on either case.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0775

Dear Mr. Weirich: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1972, inquiring about the use o plastic for an automatically closing fuel cap for automobiles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has th responsibility for promulgating standards that improve the safety performance of new motor vehicles to minimize injuries and fatalities associated with the use of motor vehicles. Among the standards that have been issued is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, which specifies performance requirements for the fuel tank, fuel tank filler pipe, and fuel tank connections. Like other Federal standards issued by the NHTSA, this standard is performance oriented and does not specify design requirements. This standard will shortly be amended to specify additional performance requirements including rear-end collisions and rollover. In addition, other proposals will also be issued to considerably improve fuel containment to minimize the possibility of fuel spillage resulting from additional vehicle impacts. The essential requirements pertain to demonstrations of safe fuel containment as the result of standardized vehicle crash tests. how the results are to be achieved, what materials can or cannot be used, or other design features, are left to the discretion of the motor vehicle manufacturer in order that there should be the maximum freedom for innovation and inventiveness to meet the specified safety performance. We have no restrictions in the use of plastics or other materials that meet a specified safety performance requirement.; In view of present rulemaking action to amend FMVSS No. 301, there ha been much information assembled, which is part of the public record, concerning comments from manufacturers, the interested public, and from suppliers of components. Your components, including a self-closing fuel cap and a seal within the filler pipe are interesting developments having possible contribution to improved safety. We would be pleased to have more information concerning these developments and with your permission, we would like to have copies of descriptive information to put into our public record, Docket No. 70-20, for the public and for the motor vehicle industry to see.; We should mention also that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, whic regulates interstate commercial transportation of passengers and cargo, has regulations which include fuel caps. you may want to contact this organization for their current requirements. Their location is at the same address of NHTSA.; Relative to pollution, the current requirements for fuel evaporativ emission controls have resulted in motor vehicles being equipped with fuel caps that either have no vents or which vent only after certain stress develops from positive of negative internal tank pressure. You may want to contact the Environmental Protection Agency concerning their regulations. The address is 1626 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.; We are enclosing a copy of FMVSS No. 301, a copy of a notice proposin additional requirements, and a copy of Public Law 89-563.; We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;