ID: nht80-3.48

DATE: 09/12/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Raphael Musto; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 22, 1980 concerning an inquiry regarding regulations for off-road vehicles, which was referred to us by Kenneth S. Birnbaum, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Department of Transportation. Your constituent, Mr. Steve Schwika, asked about regulations for off-road vehicles (terrane vehicles - 6 wheel).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues both fuel economy standards and Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As explained below, six-wheel terrane vehicles are not subject to fuel economy standards. However, without more detailed information concerning the vehicles, we cannot give a definitive answer as to whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards would be applicable. Nonetheless, we can provide guidelines for use in determining the status of these vehicles.

Pursuant to Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. @ 2001), this agency has promulgated regulations which establish the categories of motor vehicles that are subject to fuel economy standards. The regulations (49 CFR Part 523) state that fuel economy standards are applicable only to automobiles, light trucks, and automobiles capable of off-highway travel. Under the definitions set forth at 15 U.S.C. @ 2001 and in the regulations, fuel economy standards are only issued for four-wheeled vehicles. A six-wheel terrane vehicle would not, therefore, be subject to fuel economy standards.

Our safety standards apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a "motor vehicle" under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 102(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391(3)) defines "motor vehicle" as: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer has reason to expect will use public highways at least part of the time. We are enclosing an information sheet which gives further guidelines on which vehicles are subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as well as an information sheet explaining where copies of the regulations may be obtained.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

August 22, 1980

Kenneth Birnbaum, Acting Director of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation Dear Mr. Birnbaum:

Mr. Steve Schwika of Box 167, Penn Lake, White Haven, Pennsylvania 18661, has asked me to help him obtain formation on the regulations for off-road vehicles (terrane vehicles - 6 wheel).

Please be good enough to favor me with your comments.

RAPHAEL MUSTO, Member of Congress

ID: nht80-3.49

DATE: 09/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Uniroyal Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1980, requesting interpretation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR @ 575.104) with regard to the assignment of treadwear grades. You report that Uniroyal has encountered variations in treadwear test data derived from UTQG tests conducted by different testing organizations. You ask whether a tire manufacturer is obligated under the UTQG treadwear grading procedure to base its grades on those test results which produce the lowest treadwear grade, or may use any available test data as the basis for grade assignment.

Uniform Tire Quality Grading, as with other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations, involves a self-certification process in which manufacturers bear the primary responsibility for assuring that their products conform to required levels of performance, in this case the levels represented by their assigned grades. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) conducts testing to verify that various tires actually provide levels of performance consistent with their grades. When OVSC testing produces results at variance with assigned grades, the manufacturer involved is given an opportunity to provide justification for its grade assignments.

In determing that a product achieves a particular level of performance under the UTQG procedures, a manufacturer may exercise a considerable degree of discretion as to the amount of testing necessary to assure that its conclusions regarding compliance will withstand NHTSA scrutiny. In evaluating the performance of a product, NHTSA does not require that a manufacturer base its judgment on any particular piece of test data or on all available data. In fact, a manufacturer may disregard data from a particular source entirely, if the manufacturer can establish that other data provides a reasonable basis for grading.

However, a manufacturer cannot establish compliance by arbitrarily picking and choosing among available data to select results of that test which happened to produce the most favorable result. Data used to establish compliance must be reliable and consistently reproducible, and cannot have been derived through manipulative devices, e.g., abusive driving, or unexacting test procedures. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to base its conclusions on data demonstrably developed in full conformance with the requirements of the regulation.

NHTSA will provide confidential treatment for your letter of August 14, 1980, and the accompanying data.

ID: nht80-3.5

DATE: 06/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 17, 1980, to Mr. Vladislav Radoich concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You asked if a child restraint has "shoulder straps that attach to a shield or barrier, and these straps in turn are connected to a crotch strap in continuous loop by way of going behind and then coming up from below the shell, would these belts then be considered an integral part of the shield and would attaching the crotch strap to the shield by means of a buckle be allowed?"

Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. The principal misuse involves the failure to attach buckles and latches. To ensure that children using child restraints are afforded protection notwithstanding such misuse, the standard specifies that the belts are to be attached to restraining shield during testing only if they are an integral part of the shield. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines "integral" as meaning "formed as a unit with another part." Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they are intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and thus are not subject to the type of misuse described above. The crotch strap you describe is not an integral part of the movable shield. The movable shield is a complete unit by itself. The crotch strap is a separate device that must be manually connected to the shield every time the unit is used.

You also asked if belts that must be adjusted to fit a child are prohibited by the standard. The standard does not prohibit adjustable belts. Section 5.4.2 of the standard does, however, establish requirements for any belt adjustment hardware used in the restraint.

Finally, you asked whether a surface, which is contactable by the test dummy head, that "is not a rigid surface but instead is a soft flexible part or sling type of surface" would have to be covered with energy absorbing foam. Section 5.2.3.1 provides that each child restraint system, other than a harness, which is recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with the performance requirments of section 5.2.3.2. Section 5.2.3.2 provides that "Each surface, except for protusions that comply with S5.2.4, which is contactable by the dummy head when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1 shall be covered with slow-recovery, energy-absorbing material" of specified characteristics. The requirement for padding applies to any surface contactable by the test dummy's head, regardless of whether the surface is rigid or flexible. If the contactable surface is made of a flexible material that would meet the thickness and performance requirements for energy-absorbing padding set in section 5.2.3.2(a) and (b), the surface would not have to have a separate layer of energy-absorbing padding placed on top of it.

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

SINCERELY,

COSCO

Vladislav. Radovich Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

April 17, 1980

Dear Mr. Radovich:

We are in the process of evaluating various new concepts for future car seats we may produce. In this evaluation, we find that we are uncertain what will or will not be allowed when attaching fixed or movable surfaces directly forward of the child.

In the 213-80 Juvenile Car Seat Standard, under Section S6.1.2.3.1(c), it says "For a child restraint system with a fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2.2 which is being tested under the conditions of test configuration II, do not attach any of the child restraint belt unless they are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface." Would you more clearly define what would be considered as "belts . . . (that) are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface."

If there are shoulder straps that attach to a shield or barrier, and these straps in turn are connected to a crotch strap in a continuous loop by way of going behind and then coming up from below the shell, would these belts then be considered an integral part of the shield and would attaching the crotch strap to the shield by means of a buckle be allowed? Further, would it be considered within the Standard if these belts required adjusting to fit the child? I am attaching a sketch of the type of car seat I am describing.

Another clarification is needed concerning areas that are contactable by the head requiring energy absorbing foam. Under Section S5.2.3.2, it says, "Each system surface which is contactable by the dummy's head when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1 shall be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material . . ." if the area that is contactable is not a rigid surface but instead is a soft flexible part or even a sling type of surface, would such surfaces also require being covered with energy absorbing foam?

Now that we have a Standard that gives us a starting point, we are eager to develop a new generation of car seats that will be even safer and easier to use. To do such innovative development takes considerable time. The earlier we can get your official answers to our questions to unclear parts of the Standard, the earlier we can get better car seats on the market. We hope you will be able to give these questions and those we have submitted to you earlier your immediate attention.

Roy Knoedler Senior Industrial Designer

ENC.

Crotch strap is a continuous loop attached to the shoulder straps. The crotch strap detaches by means of a buckle.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-3.50

DATE: 09/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 24 1980 NOA-30

Mr. H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Miyazawa:

This responds to your August 4, 1980, letter asking whether several vehicle components would be required to comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. In particular you ask whether a headlining lamp, a courtesy lamp installed on a door panel, or various pilot indicator lamps and meters installed in the front panel must comply with the requirements.

As you stated in your letter, Section S4.1 of the standard lists the components required to comply with the standard. Further, that section states that materials designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants must comply with the standard. Since the components that you mention are not listed in S4.1 and since they do not appear to be designed to absorb energy on contact by an occupant, we conclude that they are not required to comply with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 4, 1980

Att.: Mr. James B. Gregory Administrator

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

Re.: The Components to which FMVSS No.302 is Applied

Dear Mr. Gregory,

In FMVSS No.302 S4.1., the following is prescribed and the components to which this standard applies are mentioned.

S4.1 The portions described in S4.2 of the following components of vehicle occupant compartments shall meet the requirements of S4.3: Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and 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.

We would like to ask you whether the following components are applied to by this standard.

1. Room lamp installed on the headlining

2. Courtesy lamp installed on the door panel

3. Various pilot indicator lamps and various meters installed on the front panel

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Yours faithfully,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ha/ha

ID: nht80-3.6

DATE: 06/20/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses - James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/26/88 letter from Erika Jones to Frank Reynolds (Std. 111; A32)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 28, 1980, concerning Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Your letter refers to section 9.1 of the standard, but the questions themselves are concerned with section 9.2 of the standard.

You asked whether the standard requires the use of more than one outside crossview convex mirror on a schoolbus. Section 9.2 provides, in part, "Each schoolbus, except those that are forward control vehicles, shall have a convex mirror . . . ." The use of the singular noun "mirror" means that only one convex mirror can be used to meet the requirements of section 9.2.

You also asked the agency to define the word, "view" as that word is used in the portion of section 9.2 that requires the outside crossview convex mirror to be "mounted so as to provide the driver a view of the front bumper. . . ." As explained in the notice proposing the use of crossview mirrors, the purpose of the requirement is to "address special problems of driver visibility associated with pupil transportation." The agency explained that "to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children it is necessary that the school bus driver have the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle, including the front" (40 FR 33829, August 12, 1975). Use of a crossview mirror allows the driver to see the area immediately in front of a stopped bus to be sure there are no children there, before moving the bus.

The agency used the word "view" in its ordinary, dictionary sense to mean within the range of sight. Thus, most, but not literally all, of the front bumper must be visible to the driver by use of the crossview mirror to ensure that he or she can see children standing in front of the bus.

Please note that the agency's November 6, 1978, proposal (43 FR 51657) to upgrade the standard would establish new field of view requirements for the crossview mirror. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

April 28, 1980

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

Subject: FMVSS #111-76 Rearview Mirrors

Dear Mr. Chief Counsel: The subject standard states in Section S9.1 that each school bus shall have a convex mirror.

Since the singular tense is used, a school bus having one (1) convex mirror would be deemed to be in compliance, is this correct?

Further on in this section, the Standard speaks. . . . "And mounted so as to provide the driver a view of the front bumper . . ."

We would appreciate it if you would furnish us a definition of the word "view" as used in this standard.

Thanking you in advance, we remain

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

James Tydings Specifications Engineer

ID: nht81-2.40

DATE: 06/29/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Devlin Associates

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 28, 1981, letter asking for information relating to the agency's recordkeeping requirements.

I have enclosed copies of the agency's major recordkeeping regulations and portions of one statute that requires the retention of information. This information describes the types of records to be retained and the periods that retention is required. The agency has not specified the form or location for record retention, but it has stated that records must be readily retrievable when necessary. The agency has not imposed a penalty for accidental loss of records. I can see no instance in which a penalty would be imposed for such an accidental loss.

Finally, you ask for any recommendations that we might have with respect to record retention. We only suggest that records be maintained in an easily accessible manner so that they can be used effectively in removing dangerous vehicles or equipment from the highway. Other than this general recommendation, the actual recordkeeping techniques that a company should use would depend upon the size and sophistication of the company.

If you have any questions concerning any of the materials that I have provided you, you may contact Roger Tilton of my staff (202-426-9511).

ENCLS.

DEVLIN ASSOCIATES, INC.

April 28, 1981

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Tilton:

RE: RECORDS RETENTION

We have been asked to identify "Records Retention" requirements for several clients. We have used the "GUIDE TO RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS" as a starting point. However, we do require additional information. Please forward any additional information which will assist us to determine:

1. Specific records to be retained and retention periods.

2. Acceptable retention media (paper, film, microfiche, magnetic tape, etc.)--requirements for above (i.e., computer equipment and programs to read magnetic tape, etc.) 3. Location for retention of all data.

4. Penalty for loss (in particular, in case of fire, or accidental loss.)

5.. Recommendations

We will appreciate any assistance and information you can provide in this regard. Please address your response to my attention.

Judith I. Robey Executive Vice President

ID: nht81-2.41

DATE: 07/01/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trelleborg AB, Tire Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking for information concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119), as it applies to motorcycle tires. Specifically, you asked what markings must be on the sidewalls of knobby motorcross tires (motorcycle tires designed for off-road use) to satisfy the requirements of Standard 119.

If your company designs the tires exclusively for off-road use, with no expectation that they will be used when the motorcycle is on the public roads, Standard 119 is not applicable to the tires. Therefore, no markings would be required on the sidewall of the tires. On the other hand, if you believe the motorcross tires will, in fact, be used on the public roads, as well as off-road, they must meet the marking requirements specified in section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed).

Standard No. 119 and its marking requirements apply to all new tires designed for highway use on non-passenger-car motor vehicles. In response to the petitions for reconsideration of Standard 119, the agency stated that manufacturers of motorcross tires would have to determine if the tires were designed for highway use (see 39 FR 5191, February 11, 1974, copy enclosed). In the absence of a showing to the contrary, however, this agency would assume that motorcycles equipped with motocross tires are ridden on the public highways to and from race competition or trail use, which would mean the tires are subject to the requirements of Standard 119.

Following the publication of the above-mentioned notice, a manufacturer of motocross tires requested an interpretation of Standard 119, and stated that its motocross tires are not suitable for use on public roads, and are not designed for such use. The agency responded that such tires are not subject to the requirements of Standard 119, based on this set of circumstances.

However, as noted above, each manufacturer must make this determination. Please note that if you decide that the tires are not subject to Standard 119, 49 CFR Part 574 prohibits the DOT certification label from appearing on the sidewall of the tire. Please further note that a manufacturer's determination of this point is not dispositive. That is, this agency has authority to independently re-examine the manufacturer's determination. If the manufacturer's determination was incorrect, the manufacturer would be liable for civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each tire imported into this country which did not meet all the requirements of Standard 119. If you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

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

FMVSS-119 Motorcycle Tires

Gentlemen,

Trelleborg AB, a Swedish Tire Manufacturer, Code no LW, plan to export motorcycle tires for motocross ( = Not for highway use) to USA.

Actual sizes are: 4.50-17 and 4.50-18.

Please tell us what we have to observe regarding the text on the tire walls.

Sincerely,

TRELLEBORG AB -- Tire Division;

Erik Sundelin -- Diplomengineer

ID: nht81-2.42

DATE: 07/01/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Airstream

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 26, 1981, letter asking for a clarification of the certification requirements applicable to vehicles that you manufacture. The units frequently are completed by you, but in some instances, they are shipped to a final manufacturer for completion of the interior work.

Your first question asks whether you should label the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer since your vehicle is road worthy and needs only the addition of an interior finish prior to sale. In order to certify the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer, the vehicle that you produce must be a completed vehicle (49 CFR Part 568). A completed vehicle is one that is finished and requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended functions with the exceptions of minor finishing operations or readily attachable components. If your vehicle is completed in a manner that it can perform its intended functions, you may label the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer. The person performing alterations on your vehicle may then be required to add an alterer's label.

If the finishing operation that will be made to your vehicle is more than the attachment of readily attachable components or minor finish work, the person doing the finishing work may label the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer. In determining whether the installation of a bathroom, kitchen, furniture, beds, appliances, or seats is an installation of readily attachable components, you should consider whether it requires special expertise or tools. If it requires either, it is not the installation of readily attachable components.

Your second question asks whether your vehicle would be considered a chassis-cab in those instances where another manufacturer might be attaching a final-stage label. The answer to this question is no. The definition of chassis-cab in part 567, Certification, states that it is a vehicle with a completed occupant compartment that needs only the addition of work performing or load carrying components to complete its function. It appears that your vehicle does not have a completed occupant compartment and, therefore, would not be considered a chassis-cab.

Finally, you ask what will happen if you label the vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer and a subsequent manufacturer significantly alters the vehicle. You ask whether you could treat the vehicle as an incomplete vehicle and furnish the documentation required by Part 568. If you label the vehicle as a final-stage vehicle, you cannot treat it as an incomplete vehicle. However, you may convey information similar to that conveyed in an incomplete vehicle document to the subsequent manufacturer to ensure that it can comply with all of the standards. In fact, that manufacturer may require such information in order to be able to make the necessary modifications.

ID: nht81-2.43

DATE: 07/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carabela USA, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 8, 1981 requesting "the candlepower rating on a moped headlamp."

I enclose a copy of SAE Standard J584 Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps April 1964, which contains the information that you request. Most mopeds develop 5 horsepower or less and thus qualify as a "motor driven cycle."

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

ENC.

Carabela USA, Inc.

6-8-81

Office of Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

Please quote me the candlepower rating on a moped headlamp, if any. Thank you.

Barry N. Aebischer Mktg. Coordinator

ID: nht81-2.44

DATE: 07/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Burlington Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehcile Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR @ 571.117). Specifically, you asked if the addition of "edger fabric strips", pursuant to a process covered by U.S. Patent 4,196,764, would violate the prohibition in section S5.2.2(b) of Standard No. 117 against adding belts to retreaded passenger car tires.

The described process is prohibited by section S5,2.2(b), because it is clearly adding a belt to the tire.

In the abstract of the subject patent, which you included in your request for an interpretation, is the following statement: "The invention relates to the use of reinforcing cords associated with the pneumatic tire . . ., and the method of applying such reinforcing cords woven in a warp and weft relationship cut in a bias shape to form a belt . . . ." Similarly, in the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments section of the patent, Section 3 begins, "The essence of my invention is achieved by providing an extra belt . . . ." Hence, the patent itself states that this process involves the addition of a belt to retread tires. Such an addition is expressly forbidden by section S5.2.2(b) of Stanard 117; "No retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing on which a belt or ply, or part thereof, is added or replaced during processing."

Your letter stated that this edger fabric should not be considered a belt for purposes of the Standard, because the addition of the edger makes a retreaded tire safer and longer lasting. While you may be correct concerning the performance of "edger fabric," the Standard as currently written does not permit its use. If you wish, however, you may file a petition for rulemaking requesting this agency to amend Standard 117 to permit the addition of a belt such as edger fabric by following the requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). If you choose to do so, please include all data showing that the addition of this extra belt makes the retreaded tire safer, and that the edger fabric belt would be compatable with the existing cords of the casing that is used.

Finally, let me point out that Standard 117 applies only to retreaded passenger car tires. There is no safety standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and the use of this patented process on those tires would not violate any requirements of this agency.

Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff sends his regards.

ENC.

May 1, 1981

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration Attention: Stephen Kratzke

Re: NHTSA Standard No. 117 - Retreaded Pneumatic Tires

Dear Sirs:

Upon suggestion by Mr. Stephen Kratzke, I am writing to request an interpretation of NHTSA Standard No. 117 relating to retreaded pneumatic passenger car tires. In particular I would appreciate a written opinion as to whether S 5.2.2(b) of the Standard would apply to a retreading process by which the tire was stripped and a recap containing "edger" fabric molded therein then bonded to the carcass. For your better understanding, please note that "edger" fabric is a narrow strip of fabric positioned on each side or shoulder of the recap around the entire perimeter of the tire. The strips are intended and believed to aid in the prevention of steel belts "turning up" and rendering the recapped tire unsafe.

A careful reading of Standard No. 117 convinces me that "edger" fabric strips which are molded into the retread prior to the retread being secured to the casing is not addition or replacement of a belt or ply to the casing as contemplated by Standard 117. In fact, the purpose of the "edger" fabric is entirely consistent with the purpose of Standard 117 in that it is intended to make a retreaded steel belted tire safer and longer lasting than if the fabric were not incorporated into the recap. To hold that the "edger" fabric falls within the language and intended scope of Standard 117 would therefore run counter to the purpose and policy considerations behind the Standard.

In order that you may more fully understand the nature of the recapping process utilizing an "edger" fabric incorporated into the recap, I have attached hereto a copy of a U.S. patent generally directed to the process and highlighted some of the more pertinent portions. I hope that the above is sufficient for full understanding of our request, but please do not hesitate to call me at (919) 379-4517 if I may offer further explanation.

We respectfully solicit an expeditious opinion on this matter and thank you for your assistance to us.

Richard E. Jenkins Assistant Patent Counsel

ATTCH.