ID: 10666

Mr. Stuart Sacks
Tradepro, Inc.
7350 N.W. 35th Street
Miami, FL 33122

Dear Mr. Sacks:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, in which you stated that you are considering importing tires from the Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which has been assigned NHTSA manufacturer identification number 7D. You stated that the tires do not display the "molded D.O.T. code numbers," and that Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), "clearly does not require [DOT code numbers] for non- passenger tires." Your reading of FMVSS No. 119 is not correct.

I assume from your letter that you are considering importing only non-passenger car tires. This letter, then, will address only the labeling requirements for non-passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 119 and 49 CFR 574. I further assume that by "DOT code numbers" you mean the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR 574.5.

49 U.S. Code '30112 provides that no person may sell in or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. With respect to non-passenger car tires, which are items of motor vehicle equipment, section S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires specific items of information to be marked on the tire sidewalls. Those markings must be no less than 0.078 inch high and must be "raised above or sunk below the tire surface" a specified distance. Among other things, the markings must include the TIN (S6.5(b)).

Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 requires the TIN to comply with part 574. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be permanently molded into or onto tire sidewalls as specified in Figure 1 of Part 574, and specifies what information the TIN must contain. The TIN can be branded into or onto the sidewalls of retreaded tires after the fact, but not new tires. On new tires, the TIN must be molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the original manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need 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:119#574 d:5/25/95

ID: milazzo.ztv

100 Page Road
Bow, NH 03304

Dear Mr. Milazzo:

You have asked for interpretations of two provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30141.

Your first request concerned the meaning of the phrase "substantially similar" in Section 30141(a)(1)(A). In context, the statutory phrase reads "(A) the vehicle is (i) substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for import into and sale in the United States; (ii) certified under section 30115 of this title; (iii) the same model year . . . as the model of the motor vehicle it is being compared to;"

The phrase has been defined through usage. NHTSAs first criterion is whether a vehicle of the same make, model, and model year has been sold in the United States as the vehicle covered by the petition. Even if the manufacturer used a different model designation but both vehicles have "a commonality in construction such as body [and] chassis," NHTSA would regard them as being of the same "model" in a family of vehicles. See definition of "model" in 49 CFR 579.4(c) and its application to a family of vehicles in the enclosed Federal Register notice (67 FR 61378 at 61379).

Your second request concerned the meaning of the phrase "capable of being altered" in Section 30141(a)(1)(B). This section relates to vehicles for which there are no substantially similar counterparts that have been certified for sale in the United States. If a vehicle has no substantially similar counterpart, a petitioner seeking a decision that it is eligible for importation must demonstrate that "the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with" the FMVSS. The absence of the word "readily" in paragraph (B) of this section reflects a Congressional awareness that vehicles without U.S.-certified counterparts may require more extensive modifications to bring them into compliance with some of the applicable FMVSS than vehicles that have substantially similar U.S.-certified counterparts. We judge "capability" on a factual case-by-case basis; i.e., we consider the FMVSS at issue and the arguments made by the petitioner and any comments on the petition.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:591
d.4/4/03

ID: nht68-1.5

DATE: 11/25/68

FROM: H. M. JACKLIN; CONCURRENCE BY R. M. O'MAHONEY -- NHTSA

TO: Firestone Tire and Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letters of July 12, 1968, October 10, 1968, and October 31, 1968, to the National Highway Safety Bureau requesting the addition of three 50 Series Centilevered Sidewall tire size designations to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

On the basis of the data submitted indicating compliance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 110 and other information submitted in accordance with the procedural guidelines set forth in Federal Register Volume 33, No. 195, page 14964, dated October 5, 1968, the E50C-16, F50C-16 and H50C-17 tire size designations will be listed within a new table to be established in Appendix A of Standard No. 109 and the 3 1/2 inch rim size will be listed within Table I of the Appendix to Standard No. 110. These changes will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.

The addition of new tire size designations to the tables is accomplished through an abbreviated procedure consisting of the publication in the Federal Register of the petitioned tire sizes or tables. If no comments are received, the amendment becomes effective after 30 days from the date of publication. If comments objecting to amendments are received, additional rule making pursuant to Part 216 of the Procedural Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will be considered.

ID: nht94-1.72

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 9, 1994

FROM: J.L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd.

TO: Dave Elias -- Office of the Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/29/94 from John Womack to J.L. Steffy (A42; Part 565)

TEXT:

I am writing to ask for an interpretation of CFR 565.4 with the possibility of gaining a waiver from NHTSA.

With respect to the VIN Label Table VI shows that a letter code is given for each MODEL YEAR. Currently our VIN labels have a letter code for the YEAR PRODUCED. Therefore, a 1994 model year vehicle could have letter code "P" for 1993 if it was produced in November 1993, for example. This assists us from a traceability standpoint. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN OUR PRESENT SYSTEM IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. I believe we agree with the spirit of 565.4, which is to match a time frame to a letter code within the VI N.

As we are currently preparing all items for entry into the U.S. this fall, I would like to hear from you as soon as possible. I appreciate your assistance.

ID: nht89-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/89

FROM: STEVEN P. ELLIOT -- CITY OF SPARKS ATTORNEY

TO: HARRY REID -- UNITED STATES SENATOR

TITLE: AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTOMOBILE AIR BAGS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/25/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; REDBOOK A33 [4]; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 03/08/89 FROM PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- DOT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; LETTER DATED 02/23/8 9 FROM HARRY REID -- SENATE TO DOT; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLE CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLAND, JULY 1-5, 1985; RESEARCH NOTES ON C RASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH 03/31/89, FROM VERNON ROBERTS

TEXT: Dear Senator Reid:

The City of Sparks Police Department just received delivery of six Plymouth Grand Fury police patrol vehicles. These automobiles are equipped with air bags and have a sticker on the dashboard stating that it is a violation of federal law to disconnec t the air bag. Since the Police Department is finding it difficult to engage in normal police activities with the air bags installed as they are and the City of Sparks does not want to violate a federal law, we are hoping you will help us obtain permiss ion to disconnect the air bags in our new vehicles.

The Sparks Police Department is finding it difficult to work with the air bags because police cars are often required to push disabled vehicles out of the travel lanes of a street or highway. The air bags are activated when the front bumper of the pa trol car receives a certain amount of pressure. We believe that the pressure threshold will be reached when a patrol car bumper is used to push another vehicle. This is particularly so if the disabled vehicle has been damaged so that its wheels do not turn freely or if the vehicles bump together due to an uneven surface. We have been informed that air bags are not reusable, and the replacement cost for an air bag is approximately $ 700.00.

We believe the United States Department of Transportation can authorize the City of Sparks to disconnect the air bags permanently or temporarily. We would like to receive authorization to disconnect the air bags on our police patrol vehicles so the v ehicles then can be safely and economically used to push disabled vehicles. Any assistance you can provide us in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht73-1.12

DATE: 10/23/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1973, responding to our reply of June 26, 1973, to your letter of May 28, 1973. We informed you in the June 26 letter that labeling a passenger car tire, "Max Load 1200 Lbs. At 36 psi," would not be consistent with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 because this label does not make it clear that 36 psi is the maximum permissible inflation pressure. In your letter of August 22 you state that you have already manufactured tires labeled in this manner, and ask whether such tires may be imported into the United States in their present form.

The answer to this question is no. As we have determined that this labeling does not conform to Standard No. 109, the tires in question cannot be imported into the United States unless the labeling is modified to conform to the standard.

Sincerely,

U.S. Department of Transportation att: Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration

August 22, 1973

Dear Mr Dyson:

Thank you for your letter of June 26, 1973. Our problem is that we already have manufactured a number of tires, labelled "Max load 1200 LBS at 36 PSI" without the word Max Press in front of 36 PSI.

My question: are we allowed to export these tires to the United States without any complications due to the not quite correct labelling? I can mention that we later on have changed to the correct labelling in accordance with your instructions.

Yours truly, TRELLEBORGS GUMMIFABRIKS AKTIEBOLAG Tire Development Department -- Erik Sundelin

ID: 17688.wkm

Mr. Sunarto Vanani
Quality Assurance Manager
P. T. Elangperdana Tyre Industry
J1n Elang, Desa Sukahati - Citeureup
Bogor 16810, Indonesia

Dear Mr. Vanani:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your inquiry to this office in which you request interpretation of regulations and standards regarding manufacture of new tires, particularly 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 569, 571, and 574. You stated that as new tire manufacturers you intend to go into the export business and you need to know the applicable standards.

For your 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, including tires. The law establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. Each manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that its products are free of 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. The manufacturer may also be subject to substantial civil penalties for violations of these requirements.

As you requested, please find enclosed copies of the following standards and regulations pertaining to the manufacture and importation of new tires:

• 49 CFR Part 569, Regrooved Tires
• 49 CFR 571.109 (Standard No. 109), New pneumatic tires
• 49 CFR 571.110 (Standard No. 110), Tire selection and rims
• 49 CFR 571.119 (Standard No. 119), New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars
• 49 CFR 571.120 (Standard No. 120), Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars
• 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping
• 49 CFR 575, Consumer Information Regulations

I am also enclosing 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, subpart D of which requires each importer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires, to designate a permanent resident of the United States as its agent for the service of legal process, notices, orders, decisions, and other applicable requirements. The resident agent must be designated and this agency so advised before tire codes can be assigned in accordance with Part 574.

For your additional information, I am enclosing copies of fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at 001 801 10 (202) 366-2992, fax 001 801 10 (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:109
d.6/5/98

ID: nht80-2.29

DATE: 05/01/80 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Hisakazu "Kazu" Murakami Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This responds to your April 8, 1980, letter asking how you should modify labels that you incorrectly installed on approximately 4,000 chassis-cabs. The labels that you installed state that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards, and this is not true. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff, you indicate that your company would be willing to install correct certification labels over the old incorrect labels by the use of adhesives.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that your suggested attachment of new labels over the old labels would be sufficient to bring the chassis-cabs into compliance with the regulations. As you know, the new labels must be permanently attached and not easily removable. Also, we would require that the new labels completely cover the old labels, and that the incorrect information from the old labels not be legible through the new labels. If your proposal meets these two requirements, we would accept this as a satisfactory solution. We do ask that you notify us when you have completed the relabeling process.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 8, 1980

Mr. Roger S. Tilton (NOA-30) Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This letter is regarding the telephone conversation you had with Mr. Hisakazu Murakami on April 7, 1980 concerning the problem written below.

We, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., mistakenly attached the wrong certification label, which is required by Part 567, on our 1980 Model Datsun Chassis-Cab Vehicle (Datsun 720). The wrong label reads: "This Vehicle Conforms to all Applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard in Effective in ." However, the label should read: "This Chassis-Cab Conforms to Federal Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. ."

We are sure that the correct labels will be attached on the Chassis-Cabs which are located at our assembly plants and also the ones that are now in the process of being shipped to the U.S.A. However, there are approximately 4,000 or less Chassis-Cabs which have been sold to dealers or so called body builders which have the wrong label. We believe it may be possible for us to submit all of the VIN numbers for the Chassis-Cabs which bear the wrong labels.

We would be willing to make our best efforts based on your recommendations concerning this matter. I would appreciate it if you would contact Mr. Hisakazu Murakami, a member of my staff, at (202) 466-5284 concerning what necessary steps we should take.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.

Teruo Maeda General Manager

ID: nht81-3.5

DATE: 08/06/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Saunders Leasing System, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of our requirements concerning the presence of a "DOT" symbol on retreaded truck tires. Specifically, you asked whether a retreader would be in violation of any regulations if the retreader purchases casings (used tires to be retreaded) from which the "DOT" symbol has already been removed, and whether the retreader itself has a duty to remove the "DOT" symbol.

The retreader is not liable for using casings from which the "DOT" symbol has been removed, although any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business other than a retreader which removes that symbol from the casings is violating Federal regulations. The retreader does have an affirmative duty to remove the "DOT" symbol from the sidewall of retreaded truck tires.

The "DOT" symbol is required to appear on new truck tires as a certification that those tires fully comply with all the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119), pursuant to the requirement of section S6.5(a) of that standard. Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who removes this symbol would be removing an element of design installed on the tire in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Such removal is expressly prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). However, there is no prohibition against subsequent use of these tires for further manufacturing operations, such as retreading. Hence, a retreader using these casings would not subject itself to any liability for violating section 108(a)(2)(A) or any other regulation.

The retreader has an affirmative duty to remove the DOT symbol from the tire during the course of the retreading operation. Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (copy enclosed) sets forth the basic tire making requirements for retreaders of truck tires. Section 574.5 imposes two basic duties on truck tire retreaders - (1) the retreader is required to mold or brand a tire identification number into the sidewall of each tire it retreads, except those retreaded solely for the retreader's own use, and (2) the "DOT" symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard is applicable. Since there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truck tires, it follows that no "DOT" symbol may appear on the sidewall of those tires.

Should you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, feel free to contact me again.

ENC.

SAUNDERS LEASING SYSTEM INC.

June 10, 1981

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Please advise us concerning the potential violations of your regulations for which a retreader of truck tires would be held responsible if a said retreader purchased tire casings on which the D.O.T. identification markings had been buffed off. Also, please advise as to a retreader's duty to remove said D.O.T. identification markings in conjunction with his retreading process.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned.

Brian T. Williams Assistant Counsel

CC: BILL JENKINS TRUCK CENTRAL/DIST. CENTER

ID: nht90-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. CHIKADA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING LIGHTING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8-9-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA, FROM T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., ATTACHED [OCC 3832]; ALSO ATTACHED FILE MEMO TO DOCKET SECTION FROM RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE, NHTSA, DATED JULY 21, 1989; [85-15-N08-011]

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1989, to the former Chief Counsel, Erika Jones. You have asked for an interpretation of two of the amendments of May 9, 1989, to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have delayed answering you u ntil action could be taken on petitions for reconsideration of the May 9 amendments. This action was taken on February 8, 1990 (copy of Federal Register notice enclosed), and the new amendments adopted then, effective March 12, 1990, include definitions of "Direct reading indicator" and "Remote reading indicator."

Section S7.7.5.2(a)(1)(iii) states in pertinent part that each graduation on a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) "shall indicate a linear movement of the scale indicator of not less than 0.05 in. (1.27 mm) if a direct reading analog indicator is used ," and "if a remote reading indicator is provided, it shall represent the actual aim movement in a clear, understandable format." Your letter depicts two devices identified as a "direct reading analog indicator" and a "remote reading indicator", and you ask for confirmation that each conforms with the requirements of the section.

Preliminarily, we observe that your drawings do not depict how the devices are determined to be "direct" and "remote". Our interpretation of your "direct indicator" is that the location of the bubble is proportional to the slope of the surface and the a djustment, i.e., as the angle of aim changes, so does the location of the bubble, and its location relative to the graduations changes in proportion to the angle of aim. Our interpretation of your "remote indicator" is that the location of the bubble re presents the difference between the correct setting and the actual setting of the adjustment, and the reading may or mau not be proportional to the difference. Based on these interpretations, either device would appear to be capable of meeting the recen tly adopted definitions of direct and remote reading indicators.

For example, if either device were mounted in its entirety on the headlamp to sense vertical attitude, the devices would both appear to be capable of directly reading the aim of the headlap and also appear to be capable of accommodating variations in flo or slope. In this case, each device would meet the definition of a "direct reading indicator". And if either device were mounted in whole or in part elsewhere than on the headlamp or its aiming or mounting equipment (e.g., mounted on the firewall, inne r fender panel, instrument panel), and linked mechanically to the headlamp such that its vertical aim was correctly displayed on the indicator, each device would also appear to meet the definition of a "remote reading indicator".

Paragraph S7.7.2 requires in pertinent part that each headlamp aiming mechanism allow aim inspection and adjustment, and be accessible for such uses "without removal of vehicle parts, except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." You have asked whether the protective cover mentioned includes the cover to protect the spirit level when it is a component of the VHAD. The answer is no. The protective cover mentioned is one intended to shield the entire VHAD, or a cover that is not tran sparent and inhibits the proper aim inspection and adjustment. A transparent cover or transparent portions of a cover protecting the indicator (in your case, the spirit level of your direct reading indicator) is not required to be removable. However, i f your remote reading indicator has a transparent protective cover, it would be required to be removable without the use of tools to gain access to the dial indicator, if the indicator is not adjustable with the cover in place.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ENC.