ID: nht79-4.2

DATE: 10/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wanger Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. J. W. Kourik Chief Engineer, Brake Products Wagner Electric Corporation 11444 Lackland Road St. Louis, Missouri 63141

Dear Mr. Kourik:

This responds to your September 17, 1979, letter asking whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, permits manufacturers to install antilock devices on only one axle of a multi-axle vehicle. The answer to your question is yes.

As you know, the decision in PACCAR v. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632 (9th Cir. 1978); cert. den'd, 439 U.S. 862 (Oct. 2, 1978) invalidated the antilock requirements as they apply to trucks and trailers. Accordingly, the anti-lock provisions of the standard no longer apply to those vehicles. A manufacturer that desires to install anti-lock devices can do so at its own discretion and to any extent that it considers appropriate. This includes the installation of antilock devices on only one axle. Of course, any installation of devices affecting braking must not impair the brake system's compliance with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 17, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Wagner agrees with the NHTSA position recognizing the benefits of antilock in their recommendation that antilock systems on existing vehicles be maintained in proper working condition.

In regard to existing and newly manufactured equipment, Wagner is aware that according to Notice 26 of Docket 75-16 dated 8/9/79:

"...the court's remand (9th District Court of Appeals, PACCAR vs. NHTSA and DOT)...precludes the agency from enforcing compliance with any road test requirement for trucks and trailers at any speed on wet or dry surfaces."

And also, as stated in Notice 01 of Docket 79-03 dated 2/15/79:

"...users...may order antilock according to their choice on new vehicles."

Wagner interprets that it is acceptable for manufacturers to equip fewer than all axles of a multi-axle vehicle for antilock control. Therefore, users who do elect to use antilock may choose, for example, a single anti-lock system for only one axle (in lieu of tandem control or axle-by-axle control) on a tandem axle trailer.

Wagner requests confirmation on our interpretation regarding acceptability of installations where fewer than all axles on a vehicle are under antilock control.

Very truly yours,

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

J. W. Kourik, Chief Engineer Brake Products

JWK:DSQ:san

ID: nht79-4.20

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Federal Trade Commission/PC

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1979, asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has adopted the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) definition of mud and snow tire or has made any official statement regarding the validity of that definition. NHTSA has not adopted the RMA definition for use in any agency regulations, relating either to safety standards or to tire quality grading, nor has NHTSA made any official statement regarding the validity of the definition. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION/PC

SEPTEMBER 11, 1979

Dick Hipolit, Esquire -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Agency

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Pursuant to our conversation of September 11, 1979, I would appreciate if you would inform me whether N.H.T.S.A. has adopted the industry standard of the Rubber Manufacturers Association's definition of a mud and snow tire or has offered any opinions regarding its validity.

The definition states that: "The characteristics of a mud and snow tire are:

(a) A substantial portion of the lug, block, or rib edges in the tread design are at an angle greater than 30 degrees to the tire circumferential center line.

(b) On at least one side of the tread design, the shoulder lugs protrude at least 1/2" in a direction generally perpendicular to the direction of travel."

The above information may be sent to Jeff Jacobovitz, Federal Trade Commission/PC, 6th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Jeff Jacobovitz -- Legal Intern, Division of Compliance

ID: nht79-4.21

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 19, 1979 asking for clarification of the tire manufacturer's responsibility, as of April 1, 1980, for providing Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) point of sale information for radial tires sold as original equipment on new passenger cars. You also ask what the original equipment tire manufacturer's responsibility will be for providing UTQG information as of October 1, 1980.

The UTQG Standards (49 CFR 575.104) require that tire grading information be made available to consumers by several means. Grading information must be molded on the tire sidewall (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)), contained in a label affixed to the tread surface (49 CFR 575.104 (d)(1)(i)(B), and furnished under 49 CFR 575.6(a) and (c) to motor vehicle first purchasers and to prospective purchasers of vehicles and tires (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii) and (iii)).

For radial tires, the effective date for sidewall molding is October 1, 1980, regardless of whether the tire is sold for use as original equipment on a new vehicle or as a replacement tire. However, the tread labeling requirement, effective April 1, 1980 in the case of radial tires, specifically exempts tires sold as original equipment on new vehicles. Therefore, the tire manufacturer is not responsible for the attachment of UTQG tread labels to tires which are in fact sold for use as original equipment on new vehicles.

Motor vehicle and tire manufacturers are responsible under 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii) and 575.6(c) for providing certain UTQG point of sale information to prospective purchasers of their products. This requirement, which in the case of original equipment tires does not necessitate display of the specific UTQG grades applicable to particular tires; takes effect April 1, 1980, for radial tires.

Pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(iii) and 575.6(a), first purchasers of vehicles equipped with radial tires manufactured after October 1, 1980 must be supplied with an explanation of the UTQG system containing a statement referring the reader to the tire sidewall for specific UTQG grades. However, responsibility for supplying this information rests with the motor vehicle manufacturer rather than the tire manufacturer.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 19, 1979

DICK HIPLETT -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir: Would you please clarify for us what the original equipment manufacturers' responsibility will be as of April 1, 1980 regarding point of sales UTQG information for radial tires.

Also, what will the original equipment manufacturers' responsibility be regarding consumer UTQG information as of October 1, 1980.

Thank you.

Yours truly, MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group; John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht79-4.22

DATE: 02/07/79

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We understand that a question has arisen concerning the testing of "P-type" tires under the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)). Under the terms of the regulation, candidate tires are to be inflated to 24 psi prior to the traction test (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D), and (f)(2)(viii)), and are to be loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), for the tires' size designation, at a cold inflation pressure of 24 psi (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(viii)). However, Appendix A lists cold inflation pressures for "P-type" tires in kilopascals, with no stated inflation pressure corresponding precisely to 24 psi.

NHTSA chose 24 psi as the stated inflation pressure for UTQG traction testing since it represents the recommended tire inflation pressure for most passenger cars. In the situation where no cold inflation pressure exactly equivalent to the specified pressure of 24 psi is stated in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 for a tire size designation, the tires to be tested are inflated to the pressure, listed for the tire size designation in Appendix A, which is nearest to 24 psi, i.e., 180 kPa for tires with inflation pressures measured in kilopascals. The tires are then loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A for the inflation pressure thus determined. The agency plans to issue an interpretive amendment to the regulation clarifying this point.

ID: nht79-4.23

DATE: 10/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Uniroyal GmbH

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 12, 1979, asking whether the character height of 5/32nds of an inch, stated in the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104, Figure 1), is considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to specify the only acceptable height for UTQG sidewall molding, or whether the agency interprets this measurement as a minimum value.

The specification of 5/32nds of an inch tire sidewall characters was intended by NHTSA to establish a minimum requirement to assure readability of the UTQG information presented. The agency has no objection to the use of characters of a height greater than 5/32nds of an inch, so long as all characters used to convey UTQG information are of the same height.

ID: nht79-4.24

DATE: 08/14/79

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Uniroyal GMBH

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 20, 1979, concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTGQ) Standards (49 CFR 575.104). You ask whether it is permissible under the regulation to mold UTQG grades on only one sidewall of a tire and, in the case of a symmetrical black sidewall tire, whether the grades may be molded on the same sidewall as the tire identification number required by 49 CFR 574.5.

The UTQG Standards require that tire grades need be molded on only one sidewall of a tire. Since the regulation presently does not specify the sidewall on which tire grades must be molded, Uniroyal is legally permitted to mold UTQG grades on either sidewall of its tires. However, in order to facilitate consumer access to the grading information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) encourages manufacturers to mold tire grades on the sidewall intended to be visible when the tire is mounted on a vehicle. NHTSA will monitor the placement of tire trades to determine whether further action is necessary to assure the accessibility of the grading information.

ID: nht79-4.25

DATE: 05/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oestreicher; Sternberg & Manes

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1979, asking whether your client, a tire brand name owner, is permitted to bill its dealers and distributors directly for the costs of supplying Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) information pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104 and maintaining records of tire sales pursuant to 49 CFR 574.7.

The UTQG regulation requires that tire manufacturers and brand name owners "provide" grading information for each of their tires (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)). Similarly, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation requires these parties to "provide" upon request tire registration forms to dealers and distributors (49 CFR 574.7(a)) and directs tire manufacturers and brand name owners to maintain or have maintained for them records of the information acquired on these registration forms (49 CFR 574.7(b)).

A billing arrangement of the type your client suggests would in effect make the tire manufacturer or brand name owner the agent of the dealer or distributor for purposes of grading and registering tires. Such a practice would run counter to the intention of the agency that manufacturers and brand name owners bear primary responsibility for implementation of tire grading and registration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will take whatever action is necessary, including possible revision of the regulations, to prevent manipulation of the tire regulations in this manner.

Apart from the legal implications of your client's proposa, NHTSA would question the soundness, from a business standpoint, of a plan for direct billing of UTQG and tire recordkeeping costs. Your client's proposed course of action appears to have the aim of generating dissatisfaction with Federal tire regulations among dealers and distributors, and could, by lessening cooperation at the retail level, interfere with your client's ability to fulfill its obligations under the regulations.

SINCERELY,

OESTREICHER, STERNBERG & MANES

March 13, 1979

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This office represents a corporation, which distributes private brand tires through its dealers on a wholesale basis. Grade labeling and registration of tires is an extremely expensive administrative procedure. My client certainly will comply with the law, however, answer to our inquiry would be appreciated.

Can the cost of grade labeling and registration be passed on directly to the wholesaler or purchaser of our dealers? The question is one of direct billing for such items rather than burying the cost of such administrative work in the cost of the tire.

Your prompt answer would be appreciated and any other information you feel might be helpful.

MARVIN G. MANES ATTORNEY AT LAW

ID: nht79-4.26

DATE: 10/12/79

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Harley-Davidson Sales Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking how long you should retain certain records relating to the sale of motorcycles and motorcycle parts.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has some record retention requirements that apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Dealers are required to aid manufacturers in the maintenance of their records. For example, you must supply manufacturers with information relating to the purchasers of motor vehicles that you sell so that the manufacturer can maintain a list of purchasers.

Dealers are not required by the NHTSA to maintain records on vehicles or equipment they sell. Accordingly, with respect to the records indicated in your letter, you may use your own business judgment as to when to dispose of them.

SINCERELY,

Bob Maxant's

ILLINOIS HARLEY-DAVIDSON SALES, INC.

Dear Mr Tilton,

We are a dealer selling Harley Davidson Motorcycles and Parts. We are in process of cleaning out our old files but not sure how long things have to be held.

Do you have any list giving time to hold items like cycle sales to customers, cash receipts for sales of parts over counter, paid accounts receivable for parts bought by other dealers and cities.

Any help you can be would be appreciated.

Mary Ann McClure Secretary

PS I already have to Record Retention Gick 1979

ID: nht79-4.27

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Bureau of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to memorialize the telephone conversation you had with Kathy DeMeter of my staff on Thursday, October 4, 1979, concerning the motor vehicle manufacturers' certificate of origin. You indicated to Ms. DeMeter that the new standard certificate of origin has an assignment form on the reverse side for the transfer from the first dealer to the consumer. This assignment contains odometer information, including identifiers of the vehicle, a reference to Federal law, a statement of the odometer reading, a statement that the reading is actual unless one of two other statements (mileage not actual or mileage over 99,999 miles) is checked, the names and addresses of the buyer and the seller, and the signature of the seller. Ms. DeMeter informed you that in order for the certificate to substitute for a separate Federal odometer disclosure statement, it must include the signature of the buyer. Ms. DeMeter also indicated that when the assignment form is being used to transfer the vehicle from the dealer to another, the odometer information is not required under Federal law.

ID: nht79-4.28

DATE: 02/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 19, 1978, asking whether the odometer statement is required for transfers between dealers which take place price to the sale of a vehicle to an individual. The answer is no. Exemption 580.5(b) (49 CFR @ 580.5(b)) states

A transferor of a new vehicle prior to its first transfer for purposes other than resale need not disclose the vehicle's odometer mileage.

This statement is intended to exclude all transfers of new vehicles prior to the first sale to a customer. For example, when the manufacturer transfers the vehicle to a dealer, no statement needs to be issued because the transfer is for resale purposes. If that dealer makes a trade with another dealer, no disclosure statement needs to be issued because this transfer is also for resale purposes. The second dealer is purchasing the vehicle merely to resell it. If that dealer then sells the vehicle to a customer, private or commercial, who is going to use that vehicle for some purpose other than reselling it immediately, then a disclosure statement needs to be issued. This transfer is the first transfer of the vehicle for a purpose other than resale. Beginning with this first transfer to a customer, each transfer of the vehicle from then on must be accompanied by a disclosure statement.

The Federal law does not, however, prohibit the State from requiring such disclosures. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration supports all affirmative steps which the States take with regard to combating odometer misrepresentation.