ID: nht92-1.13

DATE: 12/23/92

FROM: JAMES E. SHLESINGER -- SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY

TO: WALTER MYERS -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-23-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JAMES E. SCHLESINGER (A40; PART 575)

TEXT: Thank you for sending me the information with respect to safety standards for tires in accord with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Further to our discussions, we request that your office be kind enough to provide us with an opinion as to certain manufacturer and/or tire brand name owner requirements in the areas of treadwear, traction and temperature resistance (UTQG information) as set forth below.

Briefly, by way of background information, Companies A & B manufacture tires for Company C for sale and distribution in Canada. A & B have manufacturing facilities both in Canada and the U.S. It is believed that the tires manufactured for Company C are manufactured in Canada, however there is a possibility that some tires are manufactured in the U.S.

The tires manufactured for C carry C's brand name on them. These tires carry the "DOT" number and the Canadian National Tire Safety Mark which is evidenced by a maple leaf. Canada does not require that UTQG information be molded into the sidewall of the tire or be placed on the paper tread label for the tire. The tires manufactured by A & B for C do not contain UTQG information on the sidewall or paper tread label of the tire.

Pursuant to an oral understanding between manufacturers (A & B) and brand name owner (C), if there is an overrun of tires to the extent that C is unable to absorb the volume, then A & B may market and sell the tires in the United States or any other country except Canada. Also, C will not accept blem tires for sale through its stores in Canada. Blem tires would initially be offered for sale to an Associate in Canada, but if the Associate rejected the offer, A & B are free to dispose of these tires as they see fit, which would include sales to the United States.

Over a period of approximately 1 1/2 years, A moved 10,622 tires into the United States with a dollar value of U.S. $ 290,171.00. During the same period, B moved approximately 12,856 tires in the United States with a dollar value of U.S. $ 301,280.00. A's tires were all considered an overrun of tires to the extent that C was unable to absorb the volume. As for B, approximately 4,644 tires shipped into the United States were classified as blem tires.

All of the tires refer to passenger tires and we only request an opinion or information as to the requirements pertaining to passenger tires.

Based on the above facts, our questions are the following:

1. Is it unlawful to import, sell or distribute in the United States tires which do not have the UTQG information on the sidewall of the tire and/or on the paper tread label for the tire?

2. If it is unlawful to import, distribute or sell tires in the United States without said UTQG information, what penalties are imposed on the manufacturer and/or brand name owner?

3. Would any of the exceptions of 49 CFR Section 575.104 (c), apply in this case, and, if so, in what way? Is there any legislative history or interpretation of the meaning of "limited production tires" as noted in this section, and what effects, if any, this limitation might have on the above fact situation?

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

ID: nht92-1.14

DATE: December 23, 1992

FROM: James E. Shlesinger -- Shlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of the General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/21/94 from John Womack to James E. Schlesinger (A42; Redbook; Part 575.104), letter dated 12/2/93 from James E. Shlesinger to Walter K. Myers (OCC-9388) and letter dated 2/23/93 from John Womack to James E. Schlesinger

TEXT:

Thank you for sending me the information with respect to safety standards for tires in accord with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Further to our discussions, we request that your office be kind enough to provide us with an opinion as to certain manufacturer and/or tire brand name owner requirements in the areas of treadwear, traction and temperature resistance (UTQG information) as set forth below.

Briefly, by way of background information, Companies A & B manufacture tires for Company C for sale and distribution in Canada. A & B have manufacturing facilities both in Canada and the U.S. It is believed that the tires manufactured for Company C are manufactured in Canada, however there is a possibility that some tires are manufactured in the U.S.

The tires manufactured for C carry C's brand name on them. These tires carry the "DOT" number and the Canadian National Tire Safety Mark which is evidenced by a maple leaf. Canada does not require that UTQG information be molded into the sidewall of the tire or be placed on the paper tread n oral understanding between manufacturers (A & B) and brand name owner (C), if there is an overrun of tires to the extent that C is unable to absorb the volume, then A & B may market and sell the tires in the United States or any other country except Canada. Also, C will not accept blem tires for sale through its stores in Canada. Blem tires would initially be offered for sale to an Associate in Canada, but if the Associate rejected the offer, A & B are free to dispose of these tires as they see fit, which would include sales to the United States.

Over a period of approximately 1 1/2 years, A moved 10,622 tires into the United States with a dollar value of U.S. $ 290,171.00. During the same period, B moved approximately 12,856 tires in the United States with a dollar value of U.S. $ 301,280.00. A's tires were all considered an overrun of tires to the extent that C was unable to absorb the volume. As for B, approximately 4,644 tires shipped into the United States were classified as blem tires.

All of the tires refer to passenger tires and we only request an opinion or information as to the requirements pertaining to passenger tires.

Based on the above facts, our questions are the following:

1. Is it unlawful to import, sell or distribute in the United States tires which do not have the UTQG information on the sidewall of the tire and/or on the paper tread label for the tire?

2. If it is unlawful to import, distribute or sell tires in the United States without said UTQG information, what penalties are imposed on the manufacturer and/or brand name owner?

3. Would any of the exceptions of 49 CFR Section 575.104 (c), apply in this case, and, if so, in what way? Is there any legislative history or interpretation of the meaning of "limited production tires" as noted in this section, and what effects, if any, this limitation might have on the above fact situation?

Thank you for your assistance on this matter. other questions, please contact Mamitation might have on the above fact situation?

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

ID: 19071.wkm

Mr. Jeff Glasman
Post Office Box 1449
Russell, Manitoba, Canada
ROJ 1WO

Dear Mr. Glasman:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you stated that you would like to sell the small ATV trailers in the United States that you produce in Canada and asked whether they would require a "Department of Transportation (DOT) number" in order to be shipped into the United States. The answer is no.

You described your trailer and enclosed pictures of it in your letter. The trailer averages about 6 feet in length and has a wheelbase of 46 inches, measured from the outsides of the tires. You stated that the trailers are manufactured for off-road use, primarily for hunters to transport their gear into the bush and haul out their game, although the trailers can also be used around a farm for feeding livestock, yard cleanup, and the like. Hunters typically transport an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and the ATV trailer on a skidoo trailer to the hunting area. There they unload the ATV and the trailer, pack their gear in the trailer, then proceed with their hunting trip. The trailers have no lights and do not have a wide enough wheelbase to be towed behind a car or truck. They are equipped with off-road ATV tires, which are slow-speed knobby tires. The trailers have no suspension and if towed behind a car, would bounce off the road. You stated that you advertise them as ATV trailers at places that sell ATVs, and that you do not advertise or sell them at car dealers or for any other on-road use.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code (U.S.C), hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Based on the information you provided, including the pictures enclosed with your letter, it is our opinion that the ATV trailers that you produce are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition. As such, they are not subject to any of the Federal motor vehicles safety standards, including the requirement for a "DOT number." The trailers are manufactured primarily for use off-road for hunting, farming, and related purposes. They are small, light, and with their ATV tires and narrow wheelbase are not only not suitable for towing on the highway but, because of their tendency to bounce around, could cause a potentially serious safety hazard on the highway. This contrasts with a grain truck or trailer that could be used to transport grain to market over the public highways as well as being used off-road in the fields. In such case, the on-road use of the vehicle would be sufficient to classify it as a motor vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (2020) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.4/21/99

ID: nht95-4.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1995

FROM: Linda Stroud -- Executive Officer, Used Motor Vehicle and Parts Commission, Louisiana Dept. of Economic Development

TO: Walter K. Myers, -- Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 2/15/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Linda Stroud (A44; Std. 120)

TEXT: We have spoken several times in the past month regarding the sale of new trailers with used tires. I am requesting that you confirm the following information in writing to insure that I am understanding you correctly. The information you have given me regarding these sales is that a dealer shall not sell a new trailer with used tires, he can sell with either new tires or no tires.

In our conversation on November 6th, I expressed the concerns of this agency and our Louisiana dealers in the compliance of this regulation. The main problem appears to exist with the manufacturer who is shipping new trailers with used tires. You infor med me that in an instance such as this, the dealer would have to remove the used tires prior to the retail sale. When the retail sale occurred, in order for the customer to remove the trailer he would have to supply his own tires or purchase tires. In addition, the dealer could not put these tires on the trailer, the customer must perform the task himself.

I am also in need of answers to the following questions:

1. What is the definition of a trailer manufacturer?

2. Is a Utility Trailer included in this safety standard or does it relate only to certain size trailers?

3. Could you indicate those trailers which are governed by this regulation?

4. Is there a specific length or width that falls under this safety standard?

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter and I await your immediate response.

ID: nht80-3.4

DATE: 06/16/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association's May 27, 1980, "petition for extension of time in which to file a petition for reconsideration" and its petition for a stay of the effective date of this agency's rule on Information Gathering Powers, 49 CFR Part 510 (45 FR 29032; May 1, 1980). Both of the petitions are denied. If MVMA proceeds with its plans to file a petition requesting changes in Part 510, the petition will be treated as a petition for rulemaking and be given serious consideration.

Requirements regarding the timing of the submission of petitions for reconsideration and regarding the treatment of untimely reconsideration petitions are set forth in 49 CFR Part 553. Section 553.35(a) provides, in pertinent part:

The petition must be received not later than 30 days after publication of the rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Petitions filed after that time will be considered as petitions filed under Part 552 of this chapter.

Under this section, interested persons could have submitted a petition for reconsideration of Part 510 at any time between May 1, 1980, the date of publication, and June 2, 1980 (30 days plus an allowance for the weekend). The section does not provide for any extension of that period. Instead, it establishes the blanket rule that late petitions are to be treated as petitions for rulemaking.

The MVMA has not filed a timely petition for reconsideration. Your association had 32 days in which to file such a petition. It might have followed the almost unvarying practice of petitioners in this agency's rulemaking proceedings and submitted a petition setting forth its specific objections and arguments in full detail within the allotted time. Alternatively, it might have outlined each of its objections and the underlying arguments within the same period, leaving the details to be submitted subsequently in a supplementary submission. This alternative would have minimized MVMA's reported time difficulties. MVMA took neither course of action. Instead, it took the simple and unusual step of submitting a "petition" for the agency to set aside its regulations and accept a late petition for reconsideration. This approach is inconsistent with the purpose of Part 553 which is to ensure the administrative process moves forward in an orderly and timely fashion.

Although agencies can modify their procedural regulations in certain limited circumstances, the MVMA has not made an adequate showing to justify modification in this instance. In exceptional cases where the ends of justice are shown to so require, this agency can modify its procedural requirements. MVMA has not attempted to make any such showing. Your association has not adequately explained why it was unable to submit a petition within the available time. Similarly, it has not provided any basis for determining the likelihood of MVMA's success in having its petition granted.

With respect to your request for a stay of the effective date of Part 510, section 553.35(d) of 49 CFR provides that the filing of a petition for reconsideration does not stay the effective date of the final rule in question unless the agency provides otherwise. When a petitioner is able to make a clear and convincing showing under section 553.35(a) that compliance with the rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest, the agency could exercise its discretion to stay the effective date of the rule. Your petition for a stay of the effective date did not make any showing regarding any of these matters. Therefore, the agency will not take the unusual step of staying the effective date.

Again, as noted above, the denial of your petitions leaves open the opportunity to submit a petition for rulemaking detailing the desired changes in Part 510 and the arguments supporting those changes. NHTSA would fully consider such a petition under the procedures set forth in Part 552.

SINCERELY,

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION of the United States, Inc.

May 27, 1980

The Honorable Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Information Gathering Powers; 40 CFR Part 510, 45 Fed. Reg. 29032; Petition for Extension of Time in Which to File Petition for Reconsideration; Petition for Stay of Effective Date

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

By this letter the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. (MVMA) * petitions for an extension of 60 days -- to August 1, 1980 -- in which to petition for reconsideration of the above referenced rule and for a stay of its effective date from June 16, 1980 until 30 days following NHTSA's response to a petition for reconsideration.

* MVMA members are: American Motors Corporation, Checker Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Freightliner Corporation, General Motors Corporation, International Harvester Company, PACCAR Inc, The Nolan Company, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Walter Motor Truck Company, and White Motor Corporation.

On May 1, 1980, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule governing the issuance and use of compulsory process, 49 CFR Part 510 (Docket No. 78-01; Notice 3; 45 Fed. Reg. 29032) ("Rule"). The Rule is quite extensive, covering the rights and duties of persons and entities from whom NHTSA seeks information by subpoena, general or special order, or written request in public or private hearings.

This rulemaking was initiated by a notice published December 27, 1977 (Notice 1, 42 Fed. Reg. 64628) which announced Part 510 and designated it to be an interim rule purportedly effective on that date. The same notice invited comments and indicated NHTSA's intention to promulgate a final rule in due course. MVMA and others filed extensive comments in response to NHTSA's invitation.

Notice 3, setting forth the final rule, would impose new and burdensome obligations on recipients of process from NHTSA. In MVMA's view, those obligations are not in each instance supported by statutory authority in the Safety Act, the Cost Savings Act or the Administrative Procedures Act.

MVMA and its member companies are studying Notice 3 with great care. The Association intends to address several aspects of the Rule by Petition for Reconsideration. In this particular instance, the 30 day period provided by 49 CFR Section 553.35(a) is not adequate for careful preparation of a petition.

NHTSA expended more than two years in preparation of a final rule. An extension of only 60 days in which to allow careful and deliberate preparation of comment on the final rule by MVMA is therefore entirely reasonable.

To MVMA's knowledge there is nothing in the experience of government or industry personnel since the enactment in 1966 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to suggest that a delay of a few weeks of the effective date of Part 510 will disrupt or impair any function of NHTSA.

For the foregoing reasons, we therefore petition that the effective date of final rule, Part 510, be postponed until 30 days following NHTSA's response to a petition for reconsideration filed by MVMA, and that time for filing a petition for reconsideration be extended to August 1, 1980.

Finally, we respectfully request that NHTSA inform MVMA promptly of the disposition of this petition.

William H. Crabtree Vice President and General Counsel

ID: nht89-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: CARLOS CHAVEZ R. -- GENERAL MANAGER FRENOS HIDRAULICOS AUTOMOTRICES, S.A. (FHASA/WAGNER)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM CARLOS CHAVEZ R -- FHASA WAGNER TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chavez:

This responds to your letter requesting information on a DOT "registration" to enable you to sell your products in this country. You state that you manufacture brake fluid, hydraulic brake rubber cups and boots, brake hose and flashers. I regret the de lay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal standards for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake fluid, brake hose, and automot ive lamps) sold in or imported into this country. These standards are issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), which establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certi fying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' re sponsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.)

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) that would apply to the products you list are FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, and FMVSS No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. These standa rds are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. (Please note that the October 1988 revision of 49 CFR inadvertently omitted Standard No. 116's requirements in paragraphs S5.2.2.2(a) through (g), and S5.2.2.3(a) through (e), with w hich a packager still must comply. These paragraphs are reprinted at the end of the 1988 revision of 49 CFR @ 571.116.)

Your products must meet all applicable requirements of these FMVSS's, and be free from safety-related defects, to be sold in or imported into this

2

country. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle ma nufacturer in cases in which your products are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject t o a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

We aren't sure what you mean by the DOT "registration," but we believe you are referring to one of several procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification . This rule requires manufacturers of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ("covered equipment" -- e.g., brake fluid and hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA within 30 days after i t first imports its products into the United States.

Second, 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules (Subpart D) requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

Third, Standard No. 106 (Brake hoses) requires brake hose manufacturers to label their hose with a designation (consisting of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The designation assists NHTSA in ide ntifying the manufacturers of noncomplying or defective brake hoses. You would file the designation in

3

writing with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

I hope this information is helpful. I have also enclosed an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's standards and regulations. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: 1981y

AIR MAIL

Mr. Carlos Chavez R. General Manager Frenos Hidraulicos Automotrices, S.A. (FHASA/Wagner) Apartado Postal 404 Centro C.P. 06000, Mexico, D.F. San Juan Ixhuatepec, Edo. de Mexico

Dear Mr. Chavez:

This responds to your letter requesting information on a DOT "registration" to enable you to sell your products in this country. You state that you manufacture brake fluid, hydraulic brake rubber cups and boots, brake hose and flashers. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal standards for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake fluid, brake hose, and automotive lamps) sold in or imported into this country. These standards are issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), which establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.)

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) that would apply to the products you list are FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, and FMVSS No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. These standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. (Please note that the October 1988 revision of 49 CFR inadvertently omitted Standard No. 116's requirements in paragraphs S5.2.2.2(a) through (g), and S5.2.2.3(a) through (e), with which a packager still must comply. These paragraphs are reprinted at the end of the 1988 revision of 49 CFR 571.116.)

Your products must meet all applicable requirements of these FMVSS's, and be free from safety-related defects, to be sold in or imported into this country. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your products are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

We aren't sure what you mean by the DOT "registration," but we believe you are referring to one of several procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires manufacturers of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ("covered equipment"--e.g., brake fluid and hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

Second, 49 CFR Part 55l, Procedural Rules (Subpart D) requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

l. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

Third, Standard No. 106 (Brake hoses) requires brake hose manufacturers to label their hose with a designation (consisting of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturers of noncomplying or defective brake hoses. You would file the designation in writing with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

I hope this information is helpful. I have also enclosed an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's standards and regulations. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:106#566 d:8/l7/89

ID: 13969.wkm

Mr. Glen L. Bobst
2910 North St. Helena Highway
St. Helena, CA 94574

Dear Mr. Bobst:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to

Mr. Stuart Seigel of this agency requesting DOT approval for your wheel safety rim. Your letter and enclosed drawings describe a metal belt that fits inside the wheel well so that "a driver can, after a blowout, continue to drive to a rest stop or service station and not be stranded on a lonely stretch of road."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market. The agency enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing motor vehicles and equipment and testing them for compliance with applicable standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompliance or defect at no charge to the customer.

Turning now to the wheel safety rim, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.), 30102(a)(7)(B) as any "part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." Specifically, the wheel safety rim is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

1. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and
2. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

After reviewing your letter and its enclosed illustrations, we conclude that the wheel safety rim is an accessory. It was designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor vehicles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the illustrations make it clear that the wheel safety rim is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles since its stated purpose is to enable motorists experiencing tire failure to continue driving until a safe place can be found to change the tire.

While the wheel safety rim is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, the manufacturer, whether you or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 - 30121 (copies enclosed)which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d:7/24/97

ID: 1982-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/20/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Phil Sharp - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Mark Lecher. Mr. Lecher is under the impression that there is some new law "banning cars with dark-tinted windows." He is particularly concerned that he will have to replace the windows on his Datson pickup.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. There is a safety standard which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials used on motor vehicles (Standard No. 205). However, the requirements of this standard as they relate to tinting have not changed in years. The standard currently requires the windshield and front side windows in cars and trucks (i.e., windows necessary for driving visibility) to have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. Other windows may be tinted as darkly as the manufacturer wishes. If the windows in Mr. Lecher's pickup were factory-installed, they are presumably in compliance with Standard No. 205. Therefore, Mr. Lecher should not worry about having to alter his windows. There is no new Federal law or regulation, nor any proposed rule, to change the requirements of Standard No. 205 in this regard.

Mr. Lecher might be referring to a State law or regulation. We understand that some states are considering prohibitions against the use of dark tinting films which can be applied to existing vehicle windows. Such State laws would not require Mr. Lecher to alter the windows on his pickup, however, if the windows are the original glazing installed by the manufacturer in compliance with the Federal standard. This is because Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392, et seq.) pre-empts any State law which is applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard.

Standard No. 205 would pre-empt any State law which attempted to specify the amount of tinting that a piece of new motor vehicle glazing could have. Standard No. 205 would not pre-empt a State law which prohibits the applications of films or decals on existing glazing, however, since Standard 205 does not apply to the use of glazing after it has been purchased by a consumer. I suggest that Mr. Lecher contact his State Department of Motor Vehicles to find out about any activity in this area.

I am enclosing a copy of the Vehicle Safety Act for Mr. Lecher's information.

Sincerely,

2 Enclosures; Constituent's Correspondence; Vehicle Safety Act

ATTACH.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

December 7, 1981

Joe LaSalla -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Lafalla:

I was recently contacted by a constituent, Mr. Mark Lecher, who is concerned about a ban on the use of tinted glass in trucks.

I am enclosing a copy of the letter that I received from Mr. Lecher. I would appreciate an explanation of any action your agency has taken or information of which you are aware in any other agency which would result in the banning of the use of tinted glass.

Your assistance in complying with this request will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Phil Sharp -- Member of Congress

Enclosure

NOVEMBER 22, 1981

Dear Congressman Shop,

My name is Mark Lecher, originally from Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Now I'm living in the Bargersville area, South of Indianapolis. I work as a Cabinet maker, earning $ 5.00 per hour.

I don't feel the Social-Security problem will have much hope of helping me, by my time of retirement. I'm 28 years old now. All a person hears about is how the government is running out of money.

This company I work for has no retirement pension plan. So, if Social Security runs out, I'll only wonder, where did all that money go that I put into it for my own future.

There are alot of people who feel that way.

But it seems helpless to worry about.

Also in this letter, mainly why I wrote, is about this new law banning cars with dark - tinted windows. (Excluding windshields)

Last year I bought a new Datson pickup truck, great gas mileage.

When I bought it it had dark-tinted side windows, and back window. Now I hear they're going to (Illegible Word) the dark-tint. If I have to remove this tint it will ruin my window. The substance is not made to come off. And there is no way I could afford to buy new clean windows.

So if you can, please, stop that Bill! and good luci- with the Social Security System.

Sincerely, Mark E. Lecher

ID: 1983-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: TOPAC International Trading Company -- Robert J. Ainsworth

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert J. Ainsworth President TOPAC International Trading Company 325 N. Baldwin Park Blvd. City of Industry, California 91746

Dear Mr. Ainsworth:

This is in response to your letter of July 12, 1983, with respect to UTQGS requirements and tires you intend to import from Shanghai, China. You have asked whether it is permissible, as an interim step to cover your initial order, if the factory affixes a label stating the traction and temperature ratings assigned to its "Warrior" tires; subsequent tires will have this information molded into the sidewalls.

We understand from Mr. Vinson's phone conversation with you on July 26 that the tires have not been imported for sale previously and indeed are the product of a new factory which has recently opened. According to the UTQGS regulation, a tire need not have information molded into its sidewalls if it is "a tire of a new tire line, manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line" (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)). We interpret this time frame as meaning within six months of the initial production of the tire line for export to the United States. Therefore, your initial shipment would appear to come within the exception established by the regulation.

If you have any further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 12, 983

USA Importation Re: "Warrior" Brand Tires

Dear Attorney Berndt,

My company has entered into negotiations with China National Chemicals Import and Export Corporation, Shanghai Branch, China toward the purchase and importation of "Warrior" brand steel belted radial tires, manufactured by TSEN TAI Rubber Factory, Shanghai, China.

My company has already signed two (2) sales contracts and issued Letters of Credit for the following quantities of tires on our initial order. These orders represent the 1st shipment (1983) of "Warrior" brand tires that will be imported into the USA market.

(1) Sales Contrart 834SA-191 - (5,284 units) Highway tread passenger steel belted tires.

(2) Sales Contract 834SA-192 - (5,000 units) Mud/Snow passenger steel radial tires.

The "Warrior" brand tires produced by Tsen Tai factory are in strict compliance with D.O.T. FMVSS No 109-119 standards. Please reference the attached letter received from Tsen Tai rubber factory for confirmation.

My question relates yo the present U.T.Q.G. requirements for labeling these "Warrior" tires specifically on the initial order/shipments to Topac International Trading Company as described above.

(1) Is it permissable for Tsen Tai factory as, an interim step only to cover our initial order, to affix a tire label clearly stating the traction and temperature ratings assigned to their "Warrior" brand tires, and effect shipment of this initial tire order to the U.S.A. market for Topac International Trading Company. The Tsen Tai rubber factory will, I understand, undertake to begin engraving their existing tire molds in order to incorporate their assigned U.T.Q.G. traction and temperature values on the "Warrior" tire sidewall and be in full compliance with the U.S.A. U.T.Q.G. requirements immediately after this initial order/shipment. Enclosed for your reference, please find the following reference documents.

(1) Two (2) Tsen Tai "Warrior" catalogs. (2) Copies of Topac Int'l Trading Co. P/D RJA-001C (3) Copies of two (2) Sales Contracts 834SA-191/192 (4) Letter from Tsen Tai Factory regarding U.S.A. D.O.T. compliance.

I would appreciate your earliest comment on this matter since the facthoy has now scheduled delivery to Topac before August 1, 1983 Very Truly yours,

Robert J. Ainsworth President

Encl.

RJA:ws