ID: nht79-4.1

DATE: 05/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 23, 1979, in which you requested the agency's opinion whether a four-wheel drive hatchback sedan could be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV).

As was stated by Eileen Leahy of my staff in telephone conversations regarding your request, the agency cannot give an opinion regarding this vehicle's classification for purposes of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards without knowing whether the vehicle has any special features for off-road use other than four-wheel drive. An MPV is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3(b) as "a motor vehicle with motor power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Since the vehicle you describe is not constructed on a truck chassis, it must have "special features for occasional offroad operation" in order to qualify as an MPV. The agency interprets this language as requiring that the vehicle contain more than a single feature designed for off-road use. This interpretation is based on the use of the word "features" in the plural rather than the singular in the definition, and on the fact that a vehicle's total design determines its likely use. Four-wheel drive would be useful in snow on public streets, roads and highways, so this feature cannot be determinative of the vehicle's classification if there are no features for off-road use.

Also, the agency is reluctant to exempt a vehicle from compliance with any of its safety standards purely on the grounds that it is equipped with four-wheel drive. There is little likelihood that a vehicle that is identical to a passenger car in every other respect will be used differently than other passenger cars. Under these circumstances, the agency sees no reason for treating such vehicles any differently from other passenger cars with respect to the applicability of safety standards.

Therefore, unless you can provide us with additional information (including, but not limited to, pictures or drawings of the vehicle) concerning other special features of this vehicle that would make it suitable for off-road operation, the agency cannot concur with the opinion expressed in your letter that this vehicle should be classified as a multipurpose vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Also, I would refer you to 49 CFR @ 523.5(b)(2) for a description of some of the characteristics that would be considered as "special features for off-road operation" although that section relates primarily to fuel economy.

If you will provide us with additional information, we will be happy to offer a final opinion.

SINCERELY, SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.

April 23, 1979

Our Ref. No. 056-79C

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Gentlemen:

As part of a new car line for 1980, Subaru of America is going to import four-wheel drive hatch back sedans.

This new four-wheel drive sedan was designed for occasional off-road operation. In consideration of the vehicle's various uses we feel it should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Please provide your opinion as to whether or not this vehicle can be classified as an M.P.V.

Should you have any questions, please contact this office.

John Cordner Technical Assistant Product Compliance

ID: nht81-2.35

DATE: 06/18/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Roy Littlefield, Director, Government Relations, National Tire Dealers & Retreader Association, Inc.

COPYEE: AMERICAN RETREADERS' ASSOC., INC.; HARRISON FEESE -- U.S. CUSTOMS SERV.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/7/90 LETTER FROM PERRY FAULKNER TO WILLIAM MCCOLLUM; 3/13/91 LETTER FROM JAMIE MCLAUGHLIN FISH TO BILL MCCOLLUM (STD. 117; A37; STD. 119)

TEXT: This responds to your March 27, 1981, letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff. In your letter, you requested a clarification of a statement in my March 11, 1981, letter to Mr. Harry Shirai, concerning the importing of used tires into this country. Specifically, I had indicated that one means by which used tires could legally be imported into the United States would be for the tires to be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, met the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). You have asked for more information on what steps would have to be taken to ensure that the imported tires complied with all of the requirements for this alternative.

Since receiving your letter, this agency has re-examined this subject. We recognize the severe supply problems facing the industry at this time and the possibly grave adverse price effects on consumers if such shortages are not eliminated. Bearing in mind the serious safety concerns which are involved, the agency has concluded that precedents exist for another alternative solution that would achieve the desired result without compromise of safety.

Used tires imported for retreading are unquestionably "pneumatic tires," as that term is defined in Standard 109. They cannot, however, legally be used on the public highways, since the tread on casings is almost always well under 2/32 of an inch. The use of tires with such minimal tread on trucks in interstate commerce is prohibited by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR @ 393.75(c)) and would violate this agency's specifications for State vehicle inspection standards (49 CFR @ 570.9(a) and 49 CFR @ 570.62(a)). Hence, the majority of States would not certify a vehicle as passing inspection with these tires and trucks with these tires cannot be used in interstate commerce.

Further, it is important to examine the intent of the importers of these tires. According to the representations made by your organization and some individual members, it is our understanding that these tires would be imported solely for retreading purposes. In other words, these casings are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment (retreaded truck tires), rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). Objective proof of this intent can be found in the fact that significant numbers of used foreign truck tires were imported into this country between 1975 and 1980, yet this agency has no information indicating that these tires, which did not meet the requirements of Standard 119, were used or sold without being retreaded.

Based on these considerations, we conclude that truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread and which are imported, introduced into interstate commerce, offered for sale or sold solely for the purpose of retreading are not "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of that Act. Precedent for the use of such criteria is found in action by the agency in 1969 when it decided that mini-bikes were not "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That decision was made because mini-bikes were prohibited from highway use in the vast majority of States, and because the manufacturers' subjective intent, proven by several objective factors, was not to build vehicles for use on the public roads (34 FR 15416, October 3, 1969).

As you know, there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truck tires. I urge you to stress to your members the need to assure the soundness of the casings used for retreading, so that no safety problems arise from retreading these tires. Should such a problem arise, this agency would consider rulemaking to establish a safety standard for retreaded truck tires, as well as exercising its authority with regard to items containing a safety-related defect.

Should you have any questions on the actual mechanics of importing these casings, and the duties which would be applicable, I suggest that you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U.S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229. He can be reached at (202) 566-8651.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS & RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

March 27, 1981

Stephen Kratzke Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

NTDRA would like to again thank you for taking the time to work with us and the industry regarding the importation of used truck tires, that do not bear the DOT symbol, into the United States.

We are at this time requesting a clarification of the March 11, 1981 letter from Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of your agency, to Mr. Harry Shirai. A copy of that letter is appended. On page two of the letter, in discussing ways that used tire casings can be brought into the United States, the third option states that the tires must "be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the requirements of Standard No. 119." Does that mean that a foreign manufacturer can mail to both the NHTSA and the Customs Department a "blanket" certification stating all tires produced of a certain size and type at a given time had met, at the time of manufacture, the requirements of Standard No. 119 and thus satisfy the legal requirements of NHTSA and Customs for entry into the United States? If so, would it be necessary for each importer to bear a copy of such a letter with each shipment or tires, or would the letter on file at NHTSA and Customs be adequate?

As you know, there exists in this country a severe shortage of used truck tire casings to be used for retreading. NTDRA congratulates NHTSA's efforts to insure that only safe casings be used in the retreading process. Hopefully we can work together to find a solution to bring into this country safe casings that were made for use in foreign countries and subsequently do not bear the DOT symbol.

Thanks again for your efforts.

Roy Littlefield Director, Government Relations

ID: nht81-2.36

DATE: 06/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bajaj Auto Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1981 with regard to turn signal pilot indicators on motorcycles.

You noted that the front turn signal lamps are directly in front of the operator and are fully visible. You therefore believe that a separate pilot indicator is unnecessary. You are correct. Pursuant to SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, no separate pilot indicator is required for Turn Signal Lamps that are "readily visible to the driver."

You have also pointed out that the motorcycle controls and displays standard, No. 123, "does not indicate the provisions and location of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator." That is correct. Standard No. 108 and J588e establish the requirements for this item of vehicle equipment. I enclose a copy for your information.

ENC.

Date May 25, 1981

To

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400, Seventh Street, S. W.,

Dear Sir,

We are manufacturing scooters which fall under the catagory of Class I Motorcycles. The scooters are provided with Turn Signal Lamps both at the front and rear. The front turn signal lamps are directly in front of the rider and are fully visible to the rider. In view of the fact that the front turn signal lamps are visible to the rider, we feel the same lamps can serve as a pilot indicator and provision of seperate pilot indicator is not necessary. Please let us know whether our contention is proper from the standards point of view.

In this connection we would like to bring to your kind attention that Standard No. 123 - Motorcycle Controls & Displays as well as the statement of compliance does not indicate the provision and location of the turn signal pilot indicator.

We are enclosing herewith the pamplet which shows the photograph of the vehicle. Thanking you

For BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED (M. S. KESHAV) MANAGER (R&D)

ID: nht81-2.37

DATE: 06/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter regarding several new kinds of plastic vacuum brake hoses that you plan to manufacture. The plastic brake hoses are flexible nylon tubes for use in a vacuum braking system. You indicate that these hoses cannot comply with several provisions of Safety Standard No. 106, and ask whether the plastic hoses could qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors."

Safety Standard No. 106 (49 CFR 571.106) specifies performance and labeling requirements for brake hose, which is defined in the standard as:

"a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes."

Since the nylon tubes which you plan to manufacture will transmit the vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, the tubes would qualify as "brake hose" under this definition and would be subject to all requirements of Safety Standard No. 106. Moreover, it appears that the nylon tubes would not qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors," which are excepted from compliance with the standard in the definition of brake hose. Section 4 of Safety Standard No. 106 defines "vacuum tubing connector" as:

"a flexible conduit of vacuum that (i) connects metal tubing to metal tubing in a brake system, (ii) is attached without end fittings, and (iii) when installed, has an unsupported length less than the total length of those portions that cover the metal tubing."

According to the illustrated drawings included in your letter, the nylon flexible tubes with which you are concerned would have an unsupported length which is greater than the total length of those portions that cover metal tubing. Therefore, the nylon tubes would not qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors" under subsection (iii) of the above definition. The purpose of the definition is to except from compliance with the standard only those vacuum connectors that have unsupported lengths short enough that they will not sag or deflect because of their own weight. While your nylon tubes may be sturdy enough to meet this intended purpose, as the definition is currently written, the tubes cannot be considered vacuum tubing connectors.

If, as your letter indicates, the nylon brake hose does not comply with all requirements of Safety Standard No. 106, you would not be permitted to sell it in the United States. You may wish to petition the agency to amend Standard No. 106 to establish separate performance requirements specifically designed for nylon vacuum tubing such as that produced by Tokai. I am enclosing a copy of the procedures which explain how you can file a petition, in case you are interested.

Sincerely,

ID: nht81-2.38

DATE: 06/23/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Midwest Polychem, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have examined the proposed label for "GRC" brake fluid you have submitted to us for comment.

Generally, the label appears to meet the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 (36 F.R. 11937, June 24, 1971, as amended, 36 F.R. 21594, November 11, 1971). The words "or(Illegible Word)" in your conformity statement are redundant; since the standard is a minimum requirement, "conforming to" and "exceeding" it mean exactly the same thing. If the fluid packager is an entity other than Curley, the packager's name or code identification must appear either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can. We assume that the required serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging will be stamped either below Gurley's name or on the bottom of the can.

GRC

SUPER HEAVY DUTY

BRAKE FLUID DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID 284 degrees F Min. Wet Boiling Point

GRC

HYDRAULIC BRAKE FLUID

DIRECTIONS

FILLING: Check fluid each month or every 2000 miles. Fill Mailer cylinder to within one-half inch of top.

BLEEDING: Remove plug from bleeder screw and insert bleeder hose. Place other and of bleeder in clean container partially filled with G.R.C. Brake Fluid. Lossen bleeder screw and pump brake pedal slowly until air bubbles stop and fluid is clear. Tighten blender screw and follow same instructions on all four wheels, Moster cylinder fluid level must be checked after bleeding each wheel and keep fluid level to within 1/2 inch of top.

CAUTION: FOLLOW VEHICLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN ADDING BRAKE FLUID.

KEEP BRAKE FLUID CLEAN AND DRY. Contamination with dirt, water petroleum products or other materials may result in brake failure or costly repairs.

STORE BRAKE FLUID ONLY IN ITS ORIGINAL CONTAINER. KEEP CONTAINER CLEAN AND TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ABSORPTION OF MOISTURE.

CAUTION: DO NOT REFILL CONTAINER AND DO NOT USE FOR OTHER LIQUIDS.

(Illegible Lines) GURLEY REFINING DESIGN GCR SUPER HEAVY DUTY BRAKE FLUID (Illegible Word) 2700-1 S.O. 244-3191 SIZE 211 X 407.5 C.E. 4.595 X 8.364 B.P. DATE 10-19-71

(Illegible Lines) (Illegible Word) AS DETAINED APPROVED AS SUBMITTED CUSTOMER SIGNATURE: DATE NO. PROOFS 20 PROOF DATE 11-3-71 CHANGE A CHANGE B CHANGE C ARTIST D/TCA

ID: nht81-2.39

DATE: 06/25/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, your association wants to know if Standard 109 permits tire manufacturers to include the letters "H," "S," or "V," as appropriate, in the tire size designation required to appear on the sidewall of passenger car tires by S4.3(a) of the Standard.

Such labeling is permitted by Standard 109. The speed rating symbols ("H," "S," or "V") established by the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, indicate that a tire is an acceptable high-speed tire. This permits, for example, a knowledgeable purchaser of tires for emergency vehicles to know that these tires are suitable for the higher operational speeds necessary for those vehicles. Use of these symbols in the size designation would not likely confuse the less sophisticated consumer, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the labeling information. Accordingly, use of these symbols is permitted under Standard 109.

If you have any further questions, or need further information on this matter, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff (202-426-2992).

ID: nht81-2.4

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Williamsen Truck Equipment Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. F. E. Stephens Vice President, Marketing 1925 Indiana Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84125

Dear Mr. Stephens

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 8, 1980

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

ATTENTION: VIN coordinator Gentlemen:

We submit herewith our VIN number for the trailers we build as follows for your approval.

Williamsen manufactures end dump trailers, bottom dump trailers and trailer chassis as semi trailers, full trailers, and pony trailers in tandem axle, two axle, triple axle and four axle configerations as per drawings and pictures enclosed.

The Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. has assigned to Willamsen a (WMI) code of 1W9 with the 3rd, 4th and 5th characters of the vehicle identifier section as: 004

Our model years starts October 1, 1980 through September 30, 1981 so our VIN number is constructed as follows:

1st, 2nd 3rd characters 1W9=Assignment from Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

1 = Full trailer 4th Character 2 = Semi-trailer 3 = Dolly (no body) 4 = Pony trailer

B = FRP Bottom dump C = Chassis only (no body) D = Steel Bottom dump 5th Character E = Steel end dump F = Aluminum bottom dump G = Aluminum end dump H = Steel sand master

6th & 7th Characters = Length, feet

8th Character = Number of Axles

9th Character = Check digit

10th Character = Year model

11th Character = S = Salt Lake City, Utah plant 0 = Ogden, Utah plant D = Dallas, Texas plant 12th, 13th, 14th Characters = 04 - Assignment from Society of Automotive Engineering, Inc 15th, 16th 17th Characters 001 thru 090 = Starting of production at beginning of our 1981 production year October 1, 1980 for each type and length of trailer. Then continuing each year thereafter with consecutive numbering until we reach 999 at which time we will start over again 001 thru 050. This should take several years.

Our Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) for trailers manufactured by Williamsen starting with first trailers of each type and size on October 1, 1980 will be as follows:

Two axle full trailer with:

Steel end dump body - 16' 1W9 1E162 0 BS004001 Aluminum end dump body - 16' 1W9 1G162 8 BS004001

Four Axle full trailer with:

FRP bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 1B294 6 BS004001 Steel bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 1D294 3 BS004001 Aluminum bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 1F294 0 BS004001 Chassis only (no body) - 20' 1W9 1C204 3 Bs004001

Tandem axle semi-trailer with:

FRP bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 2B292 2 BS004001 FRP bottom dump body - 37' 1W9 2B372 1 BS004001 FRP bottom dump body - 40' 1W9 2B402 1 BS004001

Steel Bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 2D292 X BS004001 Steel Bottom dump body - 37' 1W9 2D372 9 BS004001 Steel Bottom dump body - 40' 1W9 2D402 9 BS004001

Aluminum Bottom dump body - 29' 1W9 2F292 7 BS004001 Aluminum Bottom dump body - 37' 1W9 2F372 6 BS004001 Aluminum Bottom dump body - 40' 1W9 2F402 6 BS004001

Sandmaster Steel bottom dump body-41' 1W9 2H412 5 BS004001 Sandmaster Steel bottom dump body-47' 1W9 2H472 6 BS004001 Sandmaster Steel bottom dump body-51' 1W9 2H512 8 BS004001 Dolly:

Single axle - 06' 1W9 30061 5 BS004001 Tandem axle - 08' 1W9 30082 X BS004001

Two axle pup or pony trailer:

With steel end dump body - 25' 1W9 4E252 5 BS 00401 With aluminum end dump body - 25' 1W9 4G252 2 BS004001

Triple axle pup or pony trailer:

With steel end dumkp body - 24' 1W9 4E243 2 BS004001 With aluminum end dump body - 24' 1W9 4G243 X BS004001

We trust this meets with your approval and we may receive same shortly.

Sincerely,

WILLIAMSEN TRUCK EQUIPMENT CORPORATION

F. E. Stephens V. P. Marketing

FES/sr

enc. 03/17/81

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.