ID: 3259o

Mr. Donald N. Stahl
District Attorney
Office of District Attorney
Bureau of Investigation
Court House
P.O. Box 442
Modesto, CA 95353

Dear Mr. Stahl:

Re: McCoy Tire Service Center D.A. No. CF696

This responds to your letter asking about requirements concerning the importation of tire casings. According to your letter, a routine inspection by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) of a local school district's buses disclosed recapped tires on a bus which did not have DOT markings on the tires. The CHP learned that the tire casings were originally designed for use by a rubber tire train in Japan and were new tires that had been imported for recapping purposes. The tire casings were imported as slicks (no tread design), and the slick was removed. The tires were then recapped using the "bondag" process and sold to the school district. You asked whether it is permissible to import this type of tire casing and, if so, whether the particular type of tire casing meets Department of Transportation standards. Your questions are responded to below. Our opinions are based on the facts provided in your letter.

Before addressing your specific questions, I will provide background information about requirements for tires. All tires which are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must have the symbol "DOT" molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standards.

New tires for use on school buses are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. ll9 (49 CFR 571.119). Section S6.5(a) of the standard requires that all new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not be legally imported. This is also true for used tires manufactured on or after the effective date of Standard No. ll9, March l, l975, with one narrow exception.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are imported solely for the purpose of being retreaded in this country prior to resale may be imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a June l8, l98l letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirements that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported.

No Federal safety standard is applicable to retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. They may be imported without certification of compliance by the retreader. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574.

Your first question is whether it is permissible to import the type of tire casing at issue. As indicated above, new tires for use on school buses may not be imported without the DOT symbol. However, it is our opinion that the casings at issue are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment, rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). This opinion is based on the fact that the casings are being imported as slicks, which generally cannot be used on the public highways under state laws since they have no tread, and since the casings are being imported for purposes of recapping.

Your second question is whether the casings at issue meet Department of Transportation standards. A key issue in answering this question is whether the tires are considered to be retreaded tires or new tires subject to Standard No. ll9. It is our opinion that any tires manufactured by applying new tread to new casings are considered new tires rather than retreaded tires, and are subject to the same requirements as any other new tires.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines "retreaded" as "manufactured by a process in which a tread is attached to a casing." The term "casing" is defined as "a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retreading." See 49 CFR Part 57l.ll7 and 49 CFR Part 574.3(b).

In the situation you described in your letter, the casings were not used tires at the time the "recapping" took place. Instead, they were simply new tires (originally designed for use on a rubber tire train) which were imported for recapping purposes. These casings would not be considered used tires until they have actually been used (presumably on a train prior to importation, or on the highway, with the new tread attached, in the United States.)

Since the tires at issue were not used tires at the time they were recapped, they are not retreaded tires but are instead new tires, subject to Standard No. ll9. The tires would appear not to comply with Standard No. ll9, given the absence of the DOT symbol. Your letter states that the original manufacturer of the tires has stated that the tires are not suitable by any means for highway use. If the tires are not suitable for highway use after they have been recapped, they may contain a safety-related defect. See l5 U.S.C. l4ll et seq. We note that the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of whether there is an applicable safety standard.

We hope this information is helpful, and we are referring your letter to our Office of Enforcement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#574#119 d:l2/9/88

ID: nht71-1.19

DATE: 04/01/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Leasor & Leasor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1971, concerning regulations pertaining to automobile windshields.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses, a copy of which is enclosed, specifies the requirements of automotive glazing materials manufactured on or after January 1, 1963. ANSI Standard Z26.1-1966, incorporated by reference, can be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10013, at a cost of $ 4.00.

The marking of the windshield that you depict in your letter of March 26 is not sufficient to identify its manufacturer. However, based on the "63" in the marking and the fact that the windshield shape fit the 1969 Plymouth, it can be hypothesized that the material in question is a laminated windshield of the improved design that has been used in 1966 and later models of U.S. automobiles.

There is not a requirement that windshields of this type completely shatter leaving no jagged fragments upon collison.

Sincerely,

ID: nht71-1.2

DATE: 07/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1971, regarding the definition of "curb weight" in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

The air conditioner and the additional weight optional engine are to be included in "curb weight" if the motor vehicle is equipped with these items. If the motor vehicle is not so equipped, then the items are not to be included in the "curb weight" or the "accessory weight".

ID: nht71-1.20

DATE: 06/26/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: D.C. Transit System, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1971, to Mr. Roy J. Dennison, concerning the use of Abcite coated acrylics in side windows of D.C. Transit buses.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials-Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses presently allows the use of AS-4 or AS-5 rigid plastics in the side wiodows of buses when the side windows are readily removable. Readily removable windows are defined in ANSX Standards ZZ6.1-1966 as "windows that can be quickly and completely removed from the motor vehicle without tools."

If this provision of the Standard is not adequate to satisfy your needs, we will be pleased to meet with you to discuss the matter further.

Office of the General Counsel D.C. Transit System. Inc.

June 15, 1971

Roy A. Dennison,

Safety Standards Engineer

Code 41-42

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dennison:

Pursuant to our conversations regarding the use of acrylic coated with Aboite, I enclose herewith for your consideration two letters from the Dupont Company relative to certain tests made.

I wish to request that you give this matter your prompt consideration for the reason that this organization would like to be able to use this material in certain new buses that it intends to order as part of its fleet together with the use of same in windows on our used buses. I am arranging for a sample of the material to be sent to you under separate cover.

What we hope to obtain from you is a statement to the effect that the material does meet the safety standards of your department and in turn this would allow us to take this matter up with the District of Columbia authorities in order to be able to use this material as windows in our fleet.

I will await your reply after your investigation of this matter.

Very truly yours,

May 28, 1971

R. Dennison, Office of Crash Injury Reduction, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety Bureau,

Dear Mr. Dennison,

I have been having difficulty trying to contact you over the last two weeks, probably because of your vacation, but hope that you can give me a very quick answer to two questions arising out of the proposed modifications to Standard 205.

The first question concerns the date when the marking modifications become effective. My own reading of the Standard is that, since it is a Standard for glazing materials, then the effective date applies to the manufacture of the glazing material and not to the fitting of the glazing material into the automobile. If I am wrong in my assumption, then we have to bring our whole modification process very much more forward, because a glass to be, fitted in January must have been made by September, because of the large number of glasses already in the pipe line.

The second problem concerns the actual form in which the DOT certification appears. Triplex has been allocated symbol DOT 17 and that is the symbol which we put on the glass. The proposed modification to 205 calls for a hyphen to be placed between DOT and the number (17 in our case). Will you accept the marking DOT 17 without the hyphen, because all our stencils and master plates have been made in this form and we should be put to both considerable expense and delay in getting all the master plates modified.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Clue to Mr. D. Ferguson in case you are still on vacation, as I am urgently needing advice.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

A. J. HOLLAND--TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS CO. LTD.

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company

PLASTICS DEPARTMENT

May 7, 1971

H. T. Smyth

Vice President Purchasing - Contracts

D. C. Transit System, Inc.

Dear Mr. Smyth:

In your letter of March 25, 1971, you asked me to certify to the following:

Du Pont Abcite abrasion resistant sheet - acrylic satisfies the requirements of Items 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the ASA Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for glazing motor vehicles operating on land highways - Z26.1 - 1966.

I am pleased to advise that our tests and investigations are now completed to an extent where we certify our material (Abcite abrasion resistant sheet - acrylic) does meet all of the ASA Z26.1 - 1966 requirements for the above items.

I hope this certification is in time for you to specify Abcite for your new coaches, and you will now proceed with additional usage on your current fleet.

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Russell H. Berry, Jr.--

Development Specialist

Abcite Venture

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company

PLASTICS DEPARTMENT

March 29, 1971

H. T. Smyth

Vice President, Purchasing - Contracts

D. C. Transit System, Inc.

Dear Mr. Smyth:

Thank you for your letter of March 25, and we are pleased to hear of the satisfactory results of your tests with windows of acrylic coated with Abcite (Registered). Your decision to convert your fleet to Abcite (Registered) pending governmental approval is also exciting news.

You asked for a letter "stating that this material satisfies the requirements of: Items 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the ASA Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for glazing motor vehicles operating on land highways - Z26.1 - 1966".

All our data indicate that acrylic coated with Abcite (Registered) abrasion resistant coating satisfies all of the requirements in the above items of the ASA Code. We are submitting sample material to an outside testing laboratory for certification to verify our data. Tests run by an independent testing laboratory at the request of the Department of Transportation show a non-compliance in the weathering tests with which we seriously disagree. All our weathering data, both in lab tests and outside weathering tests, show essentially no change in optical quality, light transmission and haze levels. (See Page 3 of attached product bulletin.) However, as I stated, we are having these tests run at our request for certification.

I hope the above satisfies your requirements but if there are any questions or if you need additional information, please contact me. My telephone number is 302//4-4639.

Sincerely,

Russell H. Berry, Jr. --

Development Specialist

Abcite (Registered) Venture

Enclosure

ID: nht71-1.21

DATE: 09/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Sierracin Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1971, in which you enclosed a copy of the manufacturer's symbol that would be used to identify windshields manufactured by the Sierracin Corporation, and ask whether the symbol is acceptable as illustrated. You also request our comments on requirements for the label location on the product.

The symbol you have enclosed complies with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" and, except for the omission of a hyphen between the "DOT" symbol and the manufacturer's code mark, also with the marking requirements proposed in the notice of January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 326), which would amend certain provisions of the standard. We would consider this deviation to be inconsequential.

With reference to location requirements, the present standard does not specify a location for the windshield marking. The proposed amendment, which is still under consideration, would require the mark to be placed in the lower left hand corner of the windshield.

Sincerely,

August 4, 1971 Ref: SD7108-5

Lawrence R. Schneider Acting Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

Enclosed is a copy (SK-2137) of the Sierracin Corporation's manufacturing symbol to be used to identify automotive windshields of our manufacture.

May we please have your comments regarding its acceptance as shown and an expression of the label location requirement on the product.

Very truly yours,

SIERRACIN CORPORATION

William H. Lawson, Jr., Manager, Market Development

Enclosure

ID: nht71-1.22

DATE: 05/01/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Harvey R. Rosen, Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 2, 1971, to Mr. Douglas Toms, in which you inquired about Federal requirements governing the interaction of passenger car door locking mechanisms and door opening capability.

I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, entitled Door Locks and Door Retention Components, which applies to the area you have discussed. Please further note that paragraph 54.1.3.1 is applicable to the point in question, and requires that only the outside latch release control become inoperative on front doors when the locking mechanism is engaged. In the case of rear doors, addressed by paragraph 54.1.3.2, both inside and outside release mechanisms are affected. For your clarification, this standard was issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563).

As you point out, certain manufacturers have included the inside and outside feature on front as well as rear doors; however, the inside application to front doors was not required by the standard.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht71-1.23

DATE: 12/20/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mechanism Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of November 4, 1971, concerning the compliance of two dual rear door locking systems with Standard 206, has been forwarded to this office for reply.

Both systems consist of

. . . a primary locking system which when engaged renders the outside rear door handle and the inside rear door handle inoperative and a special locking device accessible from the door shut face, which when engaged renders the inside door handle imperative but does not affect the outside door handle.

The systems differ is that engagement of the special locking device in the first system prevents the engagement of the primary locking system, while engagement of the special device in the second system does not have this effect.

As stated in the preamble to the April 27, 1968 amendment (33 F.R. 6465) to the standard, S4.1.3 does not preclude the installation of a special locking mechanism in addition to the required locking mechanism. However, the required locking mechanism must be engageable or disengageable regardless of whether any additional locking mechanism is engaged or disengaged. If the special locking mechanism does not interfere with the operation of the required locking mechanism, it will not constitute a failure to comply with the standard.

Under these criteria, the first dual system would not comply with the standard since engagement of the special locking mechanism would interfere with the operation of the primary locking mechanism.

The second dual system would comply if engagement of the special locking mechanism would prevent neither the engagement nor the disengagement of the primary locking mechanism.

Please write if I can be of any further assistance.

ID: nht71-1.24

DATE: 08/16/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 1971, in which you raised a question concerning the application of Standard 206 to doors on recreational vehicles.

Standard 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, states that "Side door components referred to herein shall conform to this standard if any portion of a 90-percentile two-dimensional manikin as described in SAE Practice J826, when positioned at any seating reference point, projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view." The term "seating reference point" corresponds to a "designated seating position," which is defined as "any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodations while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats." The question you asked is whether a seating accommodation that the manufacturer labels as "not for use while the vehicle is in motion" may be disregarded in determining which vehicle doors must comply under the Standard 206 provision quoted above.

The relevant question is whether the seating position in question is "intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion." While Standard 207 will require all seats intended by the manufacturer not to be used while the vehicle is in motion to be so labeled, it does not necessarily follow that the label will be accepted in all cases as conclusive evidence of the manufacturer's intent. The design of the seat and its location in the vehicle must also be considered. As an example, if it were found that a manufacturer had previously intended that a particular seat be used while the vehicle is in motion, and that he now attached the label merely to evade the Standard 206 requirement without changing his design, the application of Standard 206 to the vehicle would not be barred. The ultimate question in such cases is whether the label clearly is in accord with the manufacturer's intent, in light of all the facts.

The above statement is our general position on the application of Standard 206, in answer to your question. It is not intended to change the interim agreements that we made with respect to the current Standard 206 compliance problems of some of your member manufacturers.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE INSTITUTE, INC.

July 27, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Larry:

We appreciate very much the time you, Dave Schmeltzer and Dick Dyson spent with us the morning of July 26th on the door lock problem.

In addition to the possible courses of action proposed in those discussions to resolve the current problem, we have reexamined the specific language of Standard No. 206 to see if an appropriate interpretation of the standard would be helpful. We have reached the conclusion as to proper interpretation of the standard set forth below and would appreciate your confirmation of this conclusion if you are in agreement with it.

Paragraph S4. Requirements, requires that side door components conform to the standard "if any portion of a 90 - percentile two - dimensional manikin . . . when positioned at any seating reference point, projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view . . ." (underscoring supplied). "Seating reference point", as defined in Part 571 - Section 571.3, seems clearly to be locatable only with reference to a "designated seating position". "Designated seating position", in turn, is defined as "any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodations while a vehicle is in motion . . ." (underscoring supplied). Standard No. 208 (as published September 30, 1970 - 35 F.R. 190, p.15222) prescribes this amended definition and in the preamble states that "the amended definition of designated seating position in Section 571.3 does not include seats that are not intended for use while the vehicle is in motion" (underscoring supplied). Standard No. 207, effective January 1, 1972, prescribes that seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect.

These cited provisions, and the specific requirements of Standards Nos. 207, 208, and 210, seem clearly to contemplate that in some vehicles subject to these standards there will be seating accommodations but which are not intended by the manufacturer for use while the vehicle is in motion. This is particularly true of motor homes since manufacturers provide seating for dining and for other uses while the vehicle is not in motion.

We have concluded, therefore, that current Standard No. 206 is not applicable in either of the following situations:

(1) Where there is no seating accommodation at all projecting into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view.

(2) Where there is a seating accommodation but the manufacturer of the vehicle has specifically designated as not for use while the vehicle is in motion any portion of such seating accommodation which would fall within the specific language of paragraph S4. of Standard No. 206.

It necessarily follows that, if the foregoing interpretations of the standard are correct, then a manufacturer, dealer or distributor, may manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or introduce into interstate commerce a motor vehicle, without violation of the Safety Act, which either does not have any seating accommodation at all or does not have designated seating positions falling within the specific language of paragraph S4. of Standard No. 206. A similar conclusion applies to certification labeling as to conformity with applicable Federal safety standards. Although the labeling requirements of Standard No. 207 are not effective until January 1, 1972, we presume that any labeling by the manufacturer of each seating position which might otherwise make the vehicle subject to Standard No. 206 as "not for use while the vehicle" would make the standard inapplicable to such vehicle. We, of course, would recommend to manufacturers at the time these conclusions are communicated to them that such labeling be conspicuous and designed to attract the attention of the vehicle occupants. We would recommend also to the manufacturers, as an added safety feature, that they provide dead bolt locks where feasible for each such motor home where there are seating accommodations which, while designated as not for use while the vehicle is in motion, would otherwise fall within the language of paragraph S4. of Standard No. 206.

Your expeditious consideration of these conclusions and their confirmation would be appreciated. We would like to be able to incorporate them in the contemplated general memorandum from RVI to the industry which will provide information regarding the Bargman Company part replacement program. These interpretations of the standard will aid the situation to some degree, hopefully, and together with your favorable action on the other ideas for resolution of the matter which we discussed may well alleviate much of the worst of the considerable adverse economic impact on the RV industry.

Very truly yours,

David J. Humphreys

cc: F. M. Radigan; Philip N. Shrake

ID: nht71-1.25

DATE: 07/00/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht71-1.26

DATE: 05/16/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Mitsubishi Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 17, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W. Torns, regarding positioning of the anthropornorphic test devices for use in the crashes described in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

I am enclosing a copy of the newly revised version of the standard as well as an accompanying press release.

In regard to your specific inquiry, Standard No. 208 does not contain specifications for the alignment of the dummy's head once positioned in the vehicle. Paragraph S8.1.11(a) specifies that the dummy head is aligned prior to positioning in the vehicle. Paragraphs S8.1.11(b) through (c) specify the procedure for positioning the dummy in the vehicle seat. If the procedures in S8.1.11 are followed as specified, the dummy's neck and head may actually be inclined because of contact with the roof or other vehicle components.

Thank you for your interest in our motor vehicle safety programs.