ID: GF003903

Mr. Daniel A. Bensman
Faulkner, Garmhausen, Keister & Shenk
Courtview Center - Suite 300
100 South Main Avenue
Sidney, OH 45365




Dear Mr. Bensman:

This responds to your May 4, 2005, e-mail asking the agency to clarify certain requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (Part 574). Specifically, you ask if 574.10 requires vehicle manufacturers to record the Tire Identification Number (TIN) for each tire they install on motor vehicles prior to first sale.

Part 574, sets forth two separate tire identification and recordkeeping requirements designed to facilitate notification of tire or new vehicle purchasers of defective or nonconforming tires, and to enable tire or new vehicle purchasers to identify tires subject to a recall. The first requirement, 574.7, applies to tire manufacturers and requires them to maintain tire registration records that they receive from tire dealers and distributors. The second requirement, 574.10, applies to motor vehicle manufacturers and requires them to maintain registration records on tires that they install on motor vehicles prior to first sale.

The registration record required by 574.10 must include the information identifying the tires, and the name and address of the first purchaser of each vehicle equipped with such tires. The information that identifies the tires need not include the TIN. As explained in the response to the petitions for reconsideration of the final rule adopting the tire recordkeeping requirements, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration did not require vehicle manufacturers to record the TIN of every tire they install on motor vehicles prior to first sale because such a requirement would be extremely burdensome and costly (see 36 FR 1196 at 1197, January 26, 1971). We note, however, that some vehicle manufactures chose to use the TIN in order to identify the tires installed on their vehicles, while others use different methods that enable them to identify the size, brand, and batch or lot of tires installed on the particular group of vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:574
d.9/19/05

ID: nht74-4.28

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 29, 1974, request for approval of your banding designs to meet the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, for labeling brake hose assemblies.

The NHTSA interpretes a band as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. From these statements, you should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of any design.

Yours Truly,

Bendix

Heavy Vehicle Systems Group

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Docket Section, Room 5219

400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

April 29, 1974

Subject: Docket 1-5, Notice 8 & 10, Standard 106

Reference: @ 5.2.4 of Notice 8; Page 7426, Second Paragraph of Notice 10

Gentlemen:

Attached are prints of our Dwgs. 247650 and 245353 showing a date band and a date ring for hose assemblies as used to date. The band is wrapped around the hose, the narrower portion fed into the slot and folded over. The ring is slid over the hose prior to assembly of the fittings.

In both cases, the part is held captive between the fitings of the hose assembly.

An interpretation would be appreciated as to whether both dating methods fulfill the intent of Standard 106 referenced material.

Yours truly,

F. R. Schubert

Enclosures

(Graphics omitted)

DATE BAND BLANK

HOSE ASSEMBLY

BENDIX-WESTEICHO AUTOMOTIVE AIR BRAKE CO.

(Graphics omitted)

DATE RING FOR HOSE

BENDIX-WESTINCHOUSE AUTOMOTIVE AIR BRAKE CO.

ID: 1985-03.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/09/85

FROM: JOHN LOVSTEDT -- HAWAII DOT MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY OFFICE

TO: JERE MEDLIN -- OFFICE OF RULEMAKING NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/12/85 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LARRY HIROHATA, REDBOOK A28, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Medlin:

We request a clarification to the final rule for modulating headlamps on motorcycles, which was published in the July 22, 1985, Federal Register.

The amendments to 49 CFR 571-108 shall permit the headlamps and side marker lamps to be wired to flash for signalling purposes. Does this mean that the headlamps on any motor vehicle can be wired to operate as a turn signal light in conjunction to general illumination of the area immediately ahead of the vehicle?

We question the requirement because the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard J580 defines a sealed beam headlamp assembly (J580, Section 2.1) as: "A major lighting assembly which includes one or more sealed beam units used to provide general illumination ahead of the vehicle". Also, SAE standards J588f, entitled, "Turn Signal Lamps" and J1221, entitled, "Headlamp - Turn Signal Spacing", both recommend that the spacing between the turn signal lamp and headlamp lower beam be at least four inches apart.

49 CFR, Section 393.22(b)(1), entitled, "Prohibited Combinations" (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety) states in part: "A turn signal lamp must not be combined optically with either a headlamp or other lighting devices or combinatin of lighting devices that produces a greater intensity of light than the turn signal lamps."

Hence, we conclude that the headlamps of a motor vehicle should not be wired to incorporate the turn signal system or provide other functions when lamps are required to be illuminated during hours of darkness.

Your prompt response to this request is appreciated. Please send your response to:

Larry Hirohata

Vehicle Equipment Safety Specialist

Department of Transportation

Motor Vehicle Safety Office 79 South Nimitz Highway

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours very truly,

ID: 1984-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Yamaha Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Michael J. Schmitt, Counsel Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA 6555 Katella Avenue Cypress, CA 90630

Dear Mr, Schmitt:

This is in response to your letter asking for an interpretation, of the permissibility of using two type 2A1 headlamps mounted symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.

Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment states in S4.1.1.34 that a motorcycle may be equipped with one of the following headlamp systems, one of which is the "A" type neadlamp system described as follows:

Type 1A1 or Type 1A . . . . 1 lamp and either Type 1A1 or Type 2A . . . . 1 lamp

The standard is specified this way because the 2A1 lamp is a lower beam lamp and the 1A1 is an upper beam lamp. While the 2A1 lamp does have an "upper beam", photometrically it provides only "fill-in" light. The 1A1 lamp provides the high output upper beam. It is not possible to achieve safe upper beam light using only the 2A1 lamp, regardless of how many are used. Therefore, your proposed headlighting application would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108.

Sincerely, Barry Felrice Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

November 21, 1983

Mr. Charles Kaehn Head, Lighting and Visibility Group National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Kaehn,

Yamaha would like to incorporate a headlamp system featuring two type 2A1 headlamps. The lamps will be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline of the motorcycle. Is such a system permissible? We appreciate your assistance and response in this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Schmitt Counsel

MJS/ts

cc: Shin Kubono

ID: nht93-4.8

DATE: May 21, 1993

FROM: Carl W. Vogt -- Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board

TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-11-93 from Howard M. Smolkin to Laura J. Platter (A41; Part 571)

TEXT: Enclosed is correspondence received from Honorable Barbara Mikulski on behalf of Mrs. Laura J. Platter regarding the classification of minivans.

We have advised Senator Mikulski that her correspondence would be forwarded to you for your review.

Thank you for your time and attention.

May 11, 1993

Mr. Brent Bahler Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs 490 L'Enfant Plaza East, S.W. 6th Floor Washington, DC 20594

Dear Mr. Bahler:

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached correspondence from Laura J. Platter is requested. Please respond directly to Ms. Platter and send a copy to Chip Paucek of my staff.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Barbara A. Mikulski United States Senator

BAM:cjp

Enclosure

6662 Mohawk Court Columbia, MD 21046

January 29, 1993

Dear Senator Mikulski:

In reference to minivans: rather than impose a tariff on imported minivans, I think all such vehicles should be reclassified as passenger vehicles so that they come under the same safety regulations as passenger cars. We have driven vans since 1970, and we continue to be angry at Congress for catering to the auto manufacturers, and at the manufacturers for using the "truck" classification to get away with providing less in the way of safety features for their passengers. This is becoming even more of a potential scandal as more and more young families use minivans.

Please take the lead in moving to classify minivans as passenger cars. And please don't let us get into the vicious circle of punitive tariffs. Times are changing, and industry has to make painful changes too.

Sincerely,

Laura J. Platter (Mrs. John Platter)

ID: nht93-4.48

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: Kenneth P. Simons -- Lawyer

TO: Department of Transportation -- Trucking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to Ken Simons (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I would like an answer or information as to whether or not over the road trailers (as in tractor trailer) of recent manufacture are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles.

The "maxi" brake I am referring to is found on all road tractors and sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level.

Thank you for you anticipated cooperation.

ID: nht69-2.37

DATE: 11/21/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 4, 1969, to Mr. J. K. Leysath of this Office concerning the flashing of side marker lamps with the turn signal lamps.

The flashing of side marker lamps is permitted under paragraph S3.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Side marker lamps may be combined with turn signal lamps providing the requirements of paragraph S3.3 of MV33 No. 108 are net.

ID: nht71-3.18

DATE: 06/09/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Lynd-Talin Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 10, 1971, concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation. Please accept my apology for not responding earlier.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers each enforcement case on an individual basis. If a retreader could demonstrate that good faith attempts had been made to obtain the tin plate by May 22, 1971, and due to circumstances beyond his control he was unable to mark tires manufactured after May 22, 1971, with the required information, we would certainly take this into consideration before beginning any enforcement action.

ID: nht88-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 30, 1988

FROM: ROBERT W. STUCHELL

TO: MR. VINSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-13-88 EST., TO ROBERT W. STUCHELL, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A32, STD 108

TEXT: I was referred to you by Mr. Kevin Cavey at D.O.T. and would appreciate an official statement as to whether there are any Federal regulations governing sale and/or use of lighted signs of any shape placed on the inside of the rear window of aftermarket c ars. Such signs would not be connected with any new car purchase.

I would also appreciate any information you may have regarding individual State regulations in this area.

ID: nht72-4.38

DATE: 07/27/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1972, requesting information on steps to be taken under the Certification regulations when a manufacturer considers a fifth wheel to be a "readily attachable component," and certifies the vehicle as a complete vehicle before the attachment of the fifth wheel. You ask what responsibilities apply to the person who ultimately attaches the fifth wheel when that person also affixes other components to the vehicle. You list as other components a third axle, the substitution of an air ride suspension for the regular suspension, and the addition of a "drum" unit (we assume that this is a dromedary unit).

The situations you have listed appear to resemble situations similar to those involving the possible use of the "altering distributor label" which we discussed in our letter to you of June 20. We said in that letter that if a person altering a completed vehicle does not make changes significant enough to make him a remanufacturer, he may satisfy the requirements by allowing the existing label to remain in place. If he does make significant changes, however, he must recertify the vehicle, but he may rely on the previous manufacturer's certification for those aspects of performance that are not affected by his alterations.

We would consider the addition of a third axle to be remanufacturing, and you were correct in advising your member to recertify the vehicle, utilizing the information on the existing label except as to the third axle. Strictly speaking, however, your member as the remanufacturer is responsible for the conformity of the entire vehicle. While he may rely on the information on the original label, if a noncompliance were discovered the burden in the first instance would be on him to show that his alterations were not responsible.

We cannot determine from the information you provide whether the "Substitution of an air ride suspension" would constitute remanufacturing. You can probably infer the answer based on your own knowledge of what is involved.

With reference to the drum unit we advised you by letter of March 24, 1972, that we consider the addition of a dromedary unit to be remanufacturing. A person who installs such a component on a new vehicle would be required to recertify the entire vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer. He may also rely on the previous certification for those aspects of performance which he does not affect.

You also ask whether, if the installation of the fifth wheel alters a component covered by a safety standard, the installer should recertify the vehicle. As you are assuming that the fifth wheel is a "readily attachable component," no further certification is necessary. However, the person installing the fifth wheel must ensure that the vehicle conforms to all standards when the work is completed.