ID: nht94-3.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Gerald Plante -- Manager, Product Compliance, Saab Cars USA, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from Gerald Plante to Barbara Gray

TEXT: Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the Saab 900 car line is a de minimis change to the device. The proposed mo dification is to be placed on the Saab 900 line beginning with the 1995 model year. As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed changes to the antitheft device are not de minimis.

As you are aware, in a Federal Register notice of July 26, 1993 (58 FR 39853), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device, to be placed as standard equipment on the MY 1994 Saab 900 line, was likely to be as effective as parts marking.

For the following reason, NHTSA concludes that the proposed changes to the antitheft device for the 1995 model year are not de minimis. In reaching this conclusion, we looked primarily at the antitheft device on which the exemption was originally based. For the MY 1994 device, locking the driver's door with the ignition key automatically locks all doors, arms the alarm system and activates the starter interrupt-relay. For the MY 1995 device, Saab plans to add a remote control device. The remote contr ol is separate from the ignition key that locks/unlocks the driver's door. Locking the driver's door with the remote locks all other doors, arms the alarm, and activates the starter interrupt-relay. While locking the driver's door with the ignition key will lock all other doors as before, it will no longer arm the alarm system or activate the starter interrupt-relay.

This is not an insignificant change like the substitution of new components for old components, each serving the same function. Further, the change does not simply involve adding a feature making the original device even more effective. With the existin g device, a single means (the ignition key) for locking the driver's door locked all other doors, armed

2

the alarm and activated the interrupt-relay. With the planned new device, the remote does not supplant the ignition key as the means for locking the driver's door; it supplements the key. Thus, there will be less certainty with the new device that lock ing the driver's door will arm the alarm and activate the interrupt-relay.

Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that Saab's proposed modification to the antitheft device in the MY 1995 Saab 900 car line is not a de minimis change.

If Saab wishes to place its proposed antitheft device on the 900 car line for MY 1995, it must file a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR @ 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for modification must provide the same information for the modified device as is required under @ 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in @ 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which an exemption is sought.

If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Gray or Rosalind Proctor at (202) 366-1740.

ID: nht93-1.20

DATE: January 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack --Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David H.B. Lee -- President, Lee Family, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/29/92 from David H.B. Lee to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8162)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 29, 1992, with respect to a "Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor", for which you have requested a review and testing. You have also asked for our comments and advice on the sale and promotion of this product. We assume that you would like to sell it in the aftermarket to vehicle owners.

We have reviewed the videotape you enclosed, and are able to advise you on this basis. The tape shows that the device is intended for installation by the owner of the vehicle, and, when installed, causes the center highmounted brake lamp to flash in proportion to braking effort (i.e., a panic or quick stop produces a higher flash rate than a stop made at a slower vehicle deceleration).

Motor vehicle lighting in the United States is subject to both Federal and State requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment are the Federal requirements to which I refer. Standard No. 108 prescribes requirements for center highmounted stop lamps that must be followed by the manufacturer of the vehicle, and met at the time the vehicle is sold by the dealer to its first owner. One of these requirements is that the center highmounted stop lamp be steady burning when it is in use. Because the Sensor creates a flashing light, a vehicle manufacturer would not be able to use it as original equipment on a vehicle subject to Standard No. 108's requirements for center lamps. These vehicles are passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, and light trucks and vans manufactured on and after September 1, 1993.

The Safety Act governs modifications to vehicles after their initial sale. This Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from modifications that affect compliance with Standard No. 108 (or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). Thus, a vehicle owner may install the Sensor without violation of Federal requirements. However, we interpret the Safety Act as prohibiting the installation of the Sensor by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Under the Act, these persons shall not "render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In our view, this forbids the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the Act does not forbid the sale of componentry such as the Sensor which creates a noncompliance once it is installed. In summary, under Federal law, any person may sell your device, but only a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may install it.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State prohibit the use of a flashing center highmounted stop lamp, and recommend that you consult

the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We are returning your videotape and sample Sensors.

ID: nht76-5.74

DATE: 01/22/76

FROM: S. L. TERRY -- CHRYSLER CORPORATION VICE PRESIDENT-PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

TO: JAMES B. GREGORY -- ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

COPYEE: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA DOCKET SECTION

TITLE: DOCKET 70-27; NOTICE 17 NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT MVSS 105-75, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO A LETTER DATED 2/10/76 FROM JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA TO S. L. TERRY PRESIDENT PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS CHRYSLER CORPORATION; N40-30; 70-27-N17-004-A

TEXT: Dear Dr. Gregory:

Chrysler Corporation is very pleased by the direction indicated in the recent notice to amend MVSS 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, that would permit either a gross loss of pressure indicator (GLPI) or a low brake fluid level indicator (BFLI) in satisfaction of the hydraulic failure indicator requirements of 85 3.1. We strongly support that proposed amendment. In our opinion adoption of the amendment will serve the best interest of the motoring public and will not adversely affect motor vehicle safety.

As Mr. Robert Sornson of my office discussed with Mr. Richard Dyson, your Assistant Chief Counsel, we recognize that it may have been necessary for you to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act since a substantive change in the standard is being proposed. However, the procedural delay in finalizing the change in the standard because of the rulemaking process will create a substantial hardship for Chrysler Corporation and probably for the rest of the industry. Since the notice did not cancel or delay the current requirements in the standard, we now find it necessary to continue to engineer and tool a fluid level indicator device in order to be certain that we will be able to build and sell cars conforming to the present standard after 9-1-76 in the event this proposal is not adopted. To insure against this possibility Chrysler Corporation will be spending approximately $ 150,000 per month for engineering and tooling of a fluid level indicator with a total program cost in excess of $ 600,000. In the event this proposed rulemaking is adopted most of the cost and manpower that will be expended on this program could be saved. However, we are naturally reluctant to stop work on this program on the basis of the new rulemaking where the consequences of another reversal could prevent us from building(Illegible Word)

We appreciate that NHTSA understands our problem and is willing to consider an approach that will allow manufacturers to keep their options open during the rulemaking process without incurring unnecessary and wasteful spending of manpower and money. As discussed with Mr. Dyson an acceptable method to do this would be for NHTSA to provide written assurance that the requirements of the current standard for a fluid level indicator, effective 9-1-76, will be delayed in the event that the proposed amendment is not adopted. In such an event we estimate that we would require 8 months lead time after the decision is published in order for us to reinstitute our tooling and engineering program and to get the necessary volume production required to equip the vehicles we manufacture with low brake fluid indicators.

In view of the time constraints involved we would appreciate written confirmation as soon as possible indicating that NHTSA will follow the procedure outlined above in the event MVSS 105-75 is not amended as proposed.

Sincerely,

ID: nht78-1.27

DATE: 06/15/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Minnesota Claims Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry concerning the steering wheel system on a 1972 Plymouth Cricket. You ask whether Federal safety standards permitted non-collapsible steering columns on that vehicle model, whether the steering columns met all safety standards, and whether the vehicle manufacturer was exempted from Federal safety standards on the 1972 Plymouth Cricket because of hardship.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR 571.203), became effective for all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. Therefore, a 1972 Plymouth Cricket had to meet the performance requirements specified in that standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 203 for your information, and you should note that the standard does not specifically require "collapsible" loads that can be imparted by the steering column during a dynamic impact test.

Under Federal motor vehicle safety regulations, manufacturers are required to determine for themselves that their vehicles are in compliance and to certify the vehicles as being in compliance. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration only conducts compliance tests on a "spot-check" basis for purposes of enforcement. Therefore, I cannot tell you whether the particular Plymouth with which you are interested was in fact in compliance with all safety standards. I can tell you that the agency has not made any determinations that the 1972 Plymouth Crickets failed to comply with Safety Standard No. 203.

Regarding your final question, no exemption from Standard No. 203 was granted for the 1972 Plymouth Cricket.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

April 4, 1978

Wayne C. Parsil Minnesota Claims Services

Dear Mr. Parsil:

This is in response to your March 29 letter regarding your investigation of an automobile accident involving a 1972 Plymouth Cricket, Serial Number 4C1L2R213949.

Your letter has been forwarded to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., for direct reply to your specific questions.

Ardella J. Pitts Highway Safety Management Specialist

MINNESOTA CLAIMS SERVICES

March 29, 1978

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTENTION: Safety Standards Department

RE: Vehicle Involved: 1972 Plymouth Cricket

Vehicle Serial No.: 4C41L2R213949

Gentlemen:

Presently we are investigating an accident in which the driver of the subject vehicle sustained fatal injuries when she collided with the steering wheel as a result of an accident.

Kindly supply us with the following information:

1) Do vehicle standards on this model permit non-collapsible steering column?

2) Did the steering column in these vehicles pass all of your safety requirements at the time?

3) Was the manufacturer permitted to relax steering column safety standards on these vehicles because of hardship?

We will appreciate your assistance in answering these questions and in supplying us with any additional information which may be pertinent on this vehicle.

Wayne C. Parsil

ID: nht75-5.10

DATE: 05/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bock & Jones

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1975, inquiring about the existence of regulations governing the manufacture, design, and on-the-road operation of trailers used to transport fertilizer while hitched to a pickup truck.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the responsibility of promulgating safety standards that set minimum performance requirements for vehicles manufactured and/or sold in the United States. There are five motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trailers. These standards relate to trailer lighting, tires, and braking systems (Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (49 CFR Part 571.106), Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (49 CFR Part 571.108), Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids (49 CFR Part 571.116), Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR Part 571.119), Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR Part 571.121)).

There is no safety standard that applies to the towing of a trailer. The use of a safety chain to guard against release of the trailer may, however, be mandated by State law.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BOCK & JONES -- ATTORNEYS AT LAW

May 2, 1975

CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURNED RECEIPT REQUESTED #466442

Legal Department -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

I am involved in a lawsuit in which a large fertilizer manufacturer-distributor furnished a four wheel pull-type fertilizer applicator, constructed very similar to a normal trailer, and was used for transporting bulk fertilizer from the distribution point, on the public highways, pulled by a pickup truck, to farms, for fertilizer application.

The trailer hitch was of a standard type which coupled to a hole in the rear bumper of the pickup truck.

For some unknown reason, the clevis pin probably broke, the trailer became uncoupled from the pickup truck, and crossed the centerline of the public highway, killing the driver of the approaching vehicle.

The trailer did not have the standard type of commonly used safety chains, which are also usually attached to the pulling vehicle to avoid accidents if the trailer hitch becomes uncoupled.

Since becoming involved in this litigation, we have determined that this is not uncommon in the area, as apparently these clevis pins through use, jolts, etc., do fracture or break, but fortunately the other accidents in the area were not fatal to other people.

My purpose in writing to your department is to determine:

(1) Whether or not you issue any type of regulations covering the manufacture or design of such trailers?

(2) Whether or not you have any type of regulations that set minimum standards for such trailers or applicators to be pulled or used on public highways?

If your agency should not be involved in such, perhaps you could advise us of another regulatory agency that might have such regulations.

Thanking you for this information, we are

Sincerely yours,

By: Harold D. Jones

ID: nht95-6.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Karen Coffey, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, Texas Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/22/95 LETTER FROM KAREN COFFEY TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11154)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Coffey:

This responds to your letter asking whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state,

"a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable."

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor.

By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .

It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law.

In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Consumer Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/16/95 letter from William Shapiro to John Womack (occ 11298)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 16, 1995, to John Womack, requesting that we confirm your interpretation of certain provisions in the Bumper Standard, 49 CFR Part 581. As described in your letter, Volvo is contemplating attaching a device to the bumper face bar of its vehicles that will be used for purposes other than mitigating the effects of a low speed collision. In a telephone conversation on November 22, 1995, Steven Kraitz of your Office informed Coleman Sachs of my staff that the device will be some form of radar equipment, and that Volvo has yet to decide whether it will be offered as optional or as standard equipment on its vehicles.

You are of the opinion that even though this device could be damaged or destroyed in a low speed collision, the vehicles on which it is installed will still be in compliance with the Bumper Standard because it is not one of the components or systems that are specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(1) through (6) as having to remain operational after Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. You further characterize this device as being "part of the bumper face bar" for the purposes of 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8). That section provides:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours . . . except where such damag e occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame.

We disagree with your opinion that the radar device that Volvo is considering for its vehicles is either an integral part of the bumper face bar, or a component that is needed to attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. Consequently, the device w ould not fall within the exception in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8) quoted above.

Conditions for Bumper Standard compliance tests are specified at 49 CFR 581.6. Paragraph (a)(5) of that section states that "[running] lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted on the bumper face bar are removed from the vehicle if they are optional equip ment." Therefore, if the radar device is to be offered as optional equipment, it must be removed from the test vehicle before Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. In this circumstance, the vehicle's compliance with the Bumper Standard would not be affected if the device were unable to withstand low speed collisions. If the device is to be offered as standard equipment, however, it must remain on the vehicle while Bumper Standard compliance tests are performed, and must withstand those test s free of damage to meet the protective criteria specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8).

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-4.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Karen Coffey, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, Texas Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/22/95 LETTER FROM KAREN COFFEY TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11154)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Coffey:

This responds to your letter asking whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state,

"a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable."

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in th e event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor.

By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that re quirement.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicl e safety standard . . .

It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the d ealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Fe deral motor vehicle safety standards.

While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected b y State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law.

In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht71-1.29

DATE: 08/01/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 23, 1971, in which you asked a question concerning the requirement in Standard No. 208 that the seat belt warning signals deactivate when the parking brake is applied.

Your question was whether the standard's requirement would be satisfied by a system in which the seat belt warning signals deactivate at the same point at which the parking brake warning light goes on, considering the fact that the warning light is generally set to go on at a point where the parking brake lever is partially extended but before the brake is actually engaged.

We would consider the standard's requirement to be satisfied by the system you describe. We agree that the presence of the parking brake warning light is a sufficient deterrent to driving the vehicle with the parking brake partially engaged.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 23, 1971

Lawrence R. Schneider Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Hwy, Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This is a request for clarification of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," Docket No. 69-7, Notice 10 (36FR12858).

Section 7.3.4(b) of the standard prohibits activation of the warning system when the parking brake is engaged on a vehicle that has a manual transmission. Monitors which detect whether or not the parking brake is engaged are necessary to meet this section. Therefore, for this purpose we intend to use a parking brake warning switch which actuates according to the position of the parking brake lever.

However, very often the parking brake lever position, where the parking brake begins to engage, is slightly different among cars because of adjustment, elongation of wire cables, and wear of brake shoes, etc. Therefore, the parking brake switch is adjusted so that the switch will be off at the bottom position of the parking brake lever, and it will come on when the lever is slightly pulled before the parking brake begins to engage. This adjustment is necessary to prevent the driver from unknowingly moving a car with a partially engaged parking brake.

The parking brake warning lamp could be on when the parking brake lever is not fully released and the brake itself is not engaged due to the adjustment or slack in this system, etc. In such cases, the seat belt warning system will not

2

actuate, regardless of the transmission gear selector position.

Our understanding is that if the parking brake warning lamp is on, it may be considered that the parking brake is engaged because no driver should attempt to move a vehicle when the parking brake warning lamp is activated. We, therefore, do believe this system would meet the requirement of section 7.3.4(b).

Is our interpretation correct? When considering this information, please take into account that we do not have much lead time due to the proximity of the effective date.

Your prompt consideration and response will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

Y. Kosaka Staff Engineer

cc: Mr. Hitchcock

ID: nht91-2.30

DATE: March 13, 1991

FROM: Jamie McLaughlin Fish -- Director, Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: Bill McCollum -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-18-81 from Frank Berndt to Roy Littlefield (Std. 119); Also attached to letter dated 1-7-90 from Perry E. Faulkner to William "Bill" McCollum

TEXT:

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Perry Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner requested a written interpretation about whether casings imported into this country are required to have the "DOT number." A "casing" means a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retreading. As explained more fully below, casing for retreaded passenger car tires must have the DOT symbol, but casings for tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars (referred to as "truck tires" in this letter) are not required to have the DOT symbol.

At the outset, I note that Mr. Faulkner's letter stated that the "DOT number" on a tire indicates that the Federal excise tax has been paid. That statement is inaccurate. The "DOT number" on a tire only represents the manufacturer's or retreader's certification of compliance with this agency's standards and regulations. If Mr. Faulkner wants further information about Federal excise taxes on tires, he may wish to contact the Internal Revenue Service, since that agency administers the Federal excise taxes.

Mr. Faulkner is mixing two different types of markings when he refers to a "DOT number." The first type of marking is the symbol "DOT." This marking by a tire manufacturer or retreader on a tire is a certification that the tire complies with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Federal safety standards applicable to tires include Standard No. 109 for new passenger car tires, Standard No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires, and Standard No. 119 for new truck tires.

Standard No. 117 (the retreaded passenger car tire safety standard) includes a requirement that all passenger car tire casings to be retreaded must include the symbol "DOT." See S5.2.3(a). Therefore, it is illegal to sell or import into this country any passenger car tire casings that are not marked with the symbol "DOT." However, none of our Federal safety standards set forth requirements for retreaded truck tires. Since there is no standard for retreaded truck tires, there is no requirement that casings for retreaded truck tires be marked with the DOT symbol. I have enclosed a June 18, 1981 letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield that offers a more detailed discussion of this issue.

The second type of marking to which Mr. Faulkner referred was the tire identification number specified in Part 574. This number identifies the manufacturer or retreader of the tire, along with the date of manufacture or retread and other attributes of the tire. A tire identification number is not required on any casing: Standard No. 117 does not require this marking on passenger car casings, and as explained above, there is

no Standard for casings for truck tires. Please note, however, that Part 574 requires all finished retreads, including retreaded truck tires, to be marked with the retreader's identification number.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject.