ID: nht94-7.10

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. Mark Willingham, Esq. -- Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, L.C. (Austin, TX)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/94 from Mark Willingham to John Womack (OCC 9640)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 1, 1994, letter to me about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) consumer information regulation for utility vehicles (49 CFR 575.105, Utility Vehicles). The regulation, Part 575.105, requires manufacturers to permanently affix a prescribed sticker in a prominent location of each utility vehicle to alert drivers of the handling differences between utility vehicles and passenger cars.

You asked about the meaning of the word "permanent" as used in Part 575.105. In a May 1984 final rule establishing Part 575.105 (copy enclosed), NHTSA said that the label "should be of a permanent nature" and concurred with a comment on the proposed rule that the label should be permanently affixed so that, among other reasons, subsequent vehicle owners are made aware of the utility vehicle's handling characteristics. NHTSA believed specifying precisely how the label is to be permanently affixed would be design restrictive. However, we stated in the enclosed final rule that stickers such as the placard required by paragraph S4.3, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, would be considered adequate.

You also asked "to whom is Part 575.105 directed (i.e., manufacturer, distributor, dealership)...(or) a seller of a used vehicle." The regulation applies to the manufacturer and seller of a new vehicle, not to a seller of a used vehicle. The regulation was issued under sections 103, 112 and 119 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C S1381, et seq. (hereinafter Safety Act). Section 103 authorizes NHTSA to issue and amend Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 112(d) (15 U.S.C. S1401(d)) authorizes NHTSA:

"(T)o require the manufacturer (of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment) to give such notification of such performance and technical data as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act in the following manner --

(1) to each prospective purchaser of a motor vehicle or item of equipment before its first sale for purposes other than resale . . .; and

(2) to the first person who purchases a motor vehicle or item of equipment for purposes other than resale . . . .

Section 119 confers general rulemaking authority to issue rules to effectuate the express grants of authority and the obligations imposed by the Safety Act.

Sections 103, 112, and 119 of the Safety Act authorize NHTSA to require the consumer information label up to the delivery of the new vehicle to the consumer who first purchases the vehicle "for purposes other than resale." NHTSA cannot require sellers of used vehicles to restore missing labels prior to sale of the used vehicles, or prohibit a vehicle owner from removing or defacing the label.

You also asked for documents regarding the drafting and interpretation of Part 575.105. Please find enclosed copies of the following: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58323); final rule, dated May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20016); final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration, dated August 10, 1984 (49 FR 32069); and letter to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq., dated August 15, 1984. For future reference, copies of NHTSA's interpretation letters can be obtained from the agency's docket section. The address for the docket is 400 Seventh St., S.W., Room 5108, Washington, D.C., 20590, telephone (202) 366-4949.

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

ID: nht95-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 13, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott E. Peters -- Director, Regulations & Compliance, U.S. Electricar

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/21/94 LETTER FROM SCOTT E. PETERS TO PHIL RECHT

TEXT: This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan.

You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of inte rnal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that "the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to pro longed operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher." Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars "in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration." You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, ma nufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limi ts:

S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire.

S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire.

The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall.

With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars.

Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation.

As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Stand ard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiti ng the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads.

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.

ID: 10440

Mr. Scott E. Peters
Director, Regulations & Compliance
U.S. Electricar
5355 Skylane Boulevard
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Dear Mr. Peters:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan.

You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of internal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that "the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher." Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars "in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration." You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limits:

S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire.

S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire.

The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall.

With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars.

Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation.

As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Standard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiting the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads.

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,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:110 d:2/13/95

ID: 12292.drn

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings
United States Senate
1835 Assembly Street
Columbia, S.C. 29201

Dear Senator Hollings:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. John Horsley, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, at the U.S. Department of Transportation. Since you request an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations, Mr. Horsley has asked me to respond.

Your letter informs us that your constituent, Mr. Pritchard, wishes to disable a "dashboard warning light" on his motor vehicle. Mr. Wyeth Ruthven of your Columbia office has informed my staff that Mr. Pritchard owns a model year 1992 Chrysler Town and Country minivan. After the vehicle is driven 60,000 miles, a light actuates on the front dashboard, as a reminder that the vehicle should undergo a maintenance inspection. Mr. Pritchard apparently wishes to disable the maintenance inspection reminder display light.

NHTSA has issued a number of safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles. None of our standards, however, regulates a maintenance inspection reminder display. Thus, our requirements do not restrict anyone from disabling the display or arranging with a commercial business to disable it. We would like to note, however, that certain other displays, such as an air bag readiness indicator, are required by our safety standards and thus could not be disabled by a commercial business. In addition, state laws may restrict the changes a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. Mr. Pritchard might want to contact South Carolina state officials for information on that issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any other information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:101
d:8/29/96

ID: 1982-2.40

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. M. Price; NHTSA

TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 16 1982

AIR MAIL

Mr. Fukuo Takata, Manager Certifications Regulations Section Ichikon Industries, Ltd. 80 Itado, Isehara City Kanagawa 259-11 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Takata:

This is in reference to your letter of June 30, 1982, to Mr. Elliott of this agency concerning the effective luminous lens area of a front turn signal lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 with respect to three proposed designs.

We assume that you wish to know what is the effective projected luminous lens area for a front turn signal on vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width. The SAE Standard No. J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," which you quote, imposes no additional requirements for a two compartment front turn signal lamp. Thus, it appears that so long as you meet the minimum of 3.5 square inches for a single compartment lamp, your proposed designs (Case 1 and 2) meet the necessary requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Case 3 would not conform as neither of the two section compartments meets the 3.5 square inch minimum.

Sincerely,

Courtney M. Price Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

L57/30 June 30, 1982

Mr. Marx Elliott Program Manager Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Effective projected luminous area of Front Turn Signal Lamp

Dear Mr. Elliott,

We would like to inquire as follows. FMVSS 108 references SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, and SAE J588e prescribe Effective Projected Luminous Area as follows.

SAE J588e

3.2 The effective projected luminous area of a single compartment lamp measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of a lamp must be at least 8.0 sq in. for a rear lamp and at least 3.5 sq in. for a front lamp.

3.3 If a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal lamp, the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp shall be at least 3 1/2 sq. in. provided the combined area is at least 8 sq in.

That is, in the case of front turn signal lamp, section 3.2 provide that Effective Projected Luminous Area should be more than 3.5 sq in.

But when we want to take into account of two compartments of front turn signal lamp, may we understand that the following cases are acceptable for FMVSS 108.

*Insert artwork

Condition of Effective Projected Luminous Area

Area A Area B A + B

Case 1 >/3.5 in.2 >/3.5 in.2 >/3.5 in.2

Case 2

/3.5 in.2

Case 3 < 3.5 in.2 <>/3.5 in.2

We await your early reply.

Very truly yours, ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.

Fukuo Takata, Manager Certifications Regulations Section

ID: nht94-3.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 20, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samson Helfgott -- Esq., Helfgott & Karas, P.C.

TITLE: Your Ref. No.: 12.065

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/94 from Samson Helfgott to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-10165), letter dated 3/30/89 from Erika Z. Jones to Samson Helfgott, and letter dated 9/17/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Samson Helfgott

TEXT: We have received your letter of July 1, 1994, to Paul Jackson Rice, former chief counsel of this agency, on behalf of your client Harold Caine, with respect to whether a certain supplementary lighting system would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehic le Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed copies of two previous letters that this Office has sent you on other supplementary lighting systems developed by Mr. Caine.

You state that "Mr. Caine is considering the possibility of utilizing [a] combination of red and amber lighting arrangement to be placed along the side of trucks and other vehicles." Since you later ask "whether the presence of the red and amber lights o n the sides of the vehicle would be permissible under Standard No. 108", we interpret this as meaning that the red and amber lamps would be in addition to those red and amber lamps that are presently required on the sides of vehicles (the side market lam ps) by Standard No. 108. However, your letter fails to state the number and candela of the lamps, and how they would be arrayed along the side of the vehicle.

As we understand it, during normal vehicle operation, the amber side lamps of the system would be activated. When the brake pedal is applied, the amber lamps are extinguished and the required stop lamps and red side lamps of the system would be activate d. As you know from previous correspondence, supplementary lighting equipment is prohibited only if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 specifies that front and intermediate side mar ker lamps (those at or near the midpoint of the length) shall be amber, and that rear ones shall be red. If, in the Caine system, the amber supplementary lamps are mounted to the front of the vehicle side and the red supplementary lamps to the rear of t he

2

vehicle side (i.e., amber from front to and including the midpoint; red, after the midpoint to the rear), we do not see that the supplementary system would have an impairing effect upon the stop lamps or rear side market lamps and reflectors. If, howeve r, the system consists of alternating red and amber lamps displayed along the side of the vehicle, then the potential for confusion as to orientation of the trailer could result, impairing the effectiveness of the color code of the required side market l amps. We assume that the candela of the lamps in the Caine system is no greater than that permitted for the side marker lamps that are required by Standard No 108, but if the candela is greater, that would also create the potential for impairment if the array alternates red and amber lamps.

You have also asked "whether there are any prohibitions that might prevent utilization of this structure on the sides of the vehicles." We know of none, however, it is possible that some States might have laws that would affect this. As we are unable to advise you on State law, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: 0160

Samson Helfgott, Esq.
Helfgott & Karas, P.C.
60th Floor
Empire State Building
New York, NY 10118-6098

Re: Your Ref. No.: 12.065

Dear Mr. Helfgott:

We have received your letter of July 1, 1994, to Paul Jackson Rice, former chief counsel of this agency, on behalf of your client Harold Caine, with respect to whether a certain supplementary lighting system would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed copies of two previous letters that this Office has sent you on other supplementary lighting systems developed by Mr. Caine.

You state that "Mr. Caine is considering the possibility of utilizing [a] combination of red and amber lighting arrangement to be placed along the side of trucks and other vehicles." Since you later ask "whether the presence of the red and amber lights on the sides of the vehicle would be permissible under Standard No. 108", we interpret this as meaning that the red and amber lamps would be in addition to those red and amber lamps that are presently required on the sides of vehicles (the side marker lamps) by Standard No. 108. However, your letter fails to state the number and candela of the lamps, and how they would be arrayed along the side of the vehicle.

As we understand it, during normal vehicle operation, the amber side lamps of the system would be activated. When the brake pedal is applied, the amber lamps are extinguished and the required stop lamps and red side lamps of the system would be activated. As you know from previous correspondence, supplementary lighting equipment is prohibited only if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 specifies that front and intermediate side marker lamps (those at or near the midpoint of the length) shall be amber, and that rear ones shall be red. If, in the Caine system, the amber supplementary lamps are mounted to the front of the vehicle side and the red supplementary lamps to the rear of the

vehicle side (i.e., amber from front to and including the midpoint; red, after the midpoint to the rear), we do not see that the supplementary system would have an impairing effect upon the stop lamps or rear side marker lamps and reflectors. If, however, the system consists of alternating red and amber lamps displayed along the side of the vehicle, then the potential for confusion as to orientation of the trailer could result, impairing the effectiveness of the color code of the required side marker lamps. We assume that the candela of the lamps in the Caine system is no greater than that permitted for the side marker lamps that are required by Standard No 108, but if the candela is greater, that would also create the potential for impairment if the array alternates red and amber lamps.

You have also asked "whether there are any prohibitions that might prevent utilization of this structure on the sides of the vehicles." We know of none, however, it is possible that some States might have laws that would affect this. As we are unable to advise you on State law, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:7/20/94

ID: nht95-5.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: Arthur N. Arschin, Esq

TO: Wilart Banks -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, U.S. DOT

TITLE: Vee Rubber Co., Ltd. and Vee Rubber International Co., Ltd.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ARTHUR N. ARSCHIN (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 574)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Banks:

I am writing as the attorney and agent for the captioned companies, which are tire manufacturers based in Thailand. Previously, in 1987 I had made an inquiry to your office to obtain DOT identification numbers for those two Thailand corporations for the purpose of importing new and retreaded tires into the United States.

By your agency letters of November 3, 1987 and August 24, 1988 (copies enclosed), the DOT assigned identification marks to my client as follows: YRV for Plant No. 1 and YRV for Plant No. 2. In addition Plant No. 1 was assigned the code 4A and Plant No. 2 was assigned 5A for purposes of new tire manufacturing.

What I need from your agency is a written confirmation that such assigned codes are still valid and may be validly used by my client.

If you are not able to do that, I would need a letter stating that once such codes are assigned, they remain valid for an indefinite period unless abandoned by the manufacturer.

Please contact the undersigned if additional information is needed.

Your prompt and considered attention will be greatly appreciated.

Attachments

LETTER # 1: 8-24-88

Mr. Arthur N. Arschin 233 Broadway - Suite 730 New York, N.Y. 10279

Dear Mr. Arschin:

We have registered the Vee Rubber Co., LTD., Inc. of Bangkok area retreed manufacturer with you as their agent.

The identification marks assigned to this company are: FOR PLANT NO. 1 YRU FOR PLANT NO. 2 YRV

These marks identify the Vee Rubber Co. as the retread manufacturer of both plants.

If you should no longer represent them or if there is a change in the company location or ownership, please notify us immediately.

Note: The code YPV, previously assigned to you is error, is not to be used as it is retained by another retreader.

Sincerely,

Nelson Gordy Motor Vehicle Requirements Division Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

LETTER # 2:

11/3/87

Mr. Arthur N. Arschin Attorney at Law 233 Broadway - Suite 730 New York, NY 10279

Dear Mr. Arschin:

This is in reply to your request for assignment of tire manufacturer identification codes for the Vee Rubber Co., Ltd. and Vee Rubber Int. Co., Ltd. plants located at Samutsakorn, Thailand.

We are assigning the code 4A to Plant No.-1 and code 5A to Plant No.-2. Our records show the address of these plants and your main office as follows:

Plant Plant No.-1: B7/5 Gp. 4 Sethakij Road, Ban Koh Muaug District, Samutsakorn Province - Thailand Plant No.-2: 22/3 MOO 2 Tambal Chaimongkol Ampher * Samutsakorn, Thailand Main Office Plant No.-1: Vee Rubber Co., Ltd.

142/37 Sol Suksavithaya Sathorn Nua Road, Bangrak Bangkok, Thailand 10500 Plant No.-2: Vee Rubber International Co., Ltd.

142/35 Sol Suksavithaya Sathorn Nua Road, Bangrak Bangkok, Thailand 10500 * Denotes Illegible Word

We are enclosing the following publications for your information:

Regulation Part 574

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 119

The use of the DOT symbol molded into or onto a tire constitutes a certification by the manufacturer and signifies that the tire meets applicable Federal safety requirements. While it is not required that tires be tested prior to using the DOT symbol, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does maintain a compliance test program to enforce safety standards, and any tires that are found not to meet the Federal standards, are subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1000 per tire but not to exceed $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

Your tire manufacturer's identification code mark is required on all new pneumatic tires sold in the United States for highway use. This code mark and other tire identification labeling are specified in Regulation Part 574.

Sincerely

Stanley R. Scheiner, Chief Crash Avoidance Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

3 Enclosures

ID: nht95-3.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1995

FROM: Arthur N. Arschin, Esq

TO: Wilart Banks -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, U.S. DOT

TITLE: Vee Rubber Co., Ltd. and Vee Rubber International Co., Ltd.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/20/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ARTHUR N. ARSCHIN (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 574)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Banks:

I am writing as the attorney and agent for the captioned companies, which are tire manufacturers based in Thailand. Previously, in 1987 I had made an inquiry to your office to obtain DOT identification numbers for those two Thailand corporations for the purpose of importing new and retreaded tires into the United States.

By your agency letters of November 3, 1987 and August 24, 1988 (copies enclosed), the DOT assigned identification marks to my client as follows: YRV for Plant No. 1 and YRV for Plant No. 2. In addition Plant No. 1 was assigned the code 4A and Plant N o. 2 was assigned 5A for purposes of new tire manufacturing.

What I need from your agency is a written confirmation that such assigned codes are still valid and may be validly used by my client.

If you are not able to do that, I would need a letter stating that once such codes are assigned, they remain valid for an indefinite period unless abandoned by the manufacturer.

Please contact the undersigned if additional information is needed.

Your prompt and considered attention will be greatly appreciated.

Attachments

LETTER # 1: 8-24-88

Mr. Arthur N. Arschin 233 Broadway - Suite 730 New York, N.Y. 10279

Dear Mr. Arschin:

We have registered the Vee Rubber Co., LTD., Inc. of Bangkok area retreed manufacturer with you as their agent.

The identification marks assigned to this company are: FOR PLANT NO. 1 YRU FOR PLANT NO. 2 YRV

These marks identify the Vee Rubber Co. as the retread manufacturer of both plants.

If you should no longer represent them or if there is a change in the company location or ownership, please notify us immediately.

Note: The code YPV, previously assigned to you is error, is not to be used as it is retained by another retreader.

Sincerely,

Nelson Gordy Motor Vehicle Requirements Division Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

LETTER # 2:

11/3/87

Mr. Arthur N. Arschin Attorney at Law 233 Broadway - Suite 730 New York, NY 10279

Dear Mr. Arschin:

This is in reply to your request for assignment of tire manufacturer identification codes for the Vee Rubber Co., Ltd. and Vee Rubber Int. Co., Ltd. plants located at Samutsakorn, Thailand.

We are assigning the code 4A to Plant No.-1 and code 5A to Plant No.-2. Our records show the address of these plants and your main office as follows:

Plant Plant No.-1: B7/5 Gp. 4 Sethakij Road, Ban Koh Muaug District, Samutsakorn Province - Thailand Plant No.-2: 22/3 MOO 2 Tambal Chaimongkol Ampher * Samutsakorn, ThailandMain Office Plant No.-1: Vee Rubber Co., Ltd. 142/37 Sol Suksavithaya Sathorn Nua Road, Bangrak Bangkok, Thailand 10500 Plant No.-2: Vee Rubber International Co., Ltd. 142/35 Sol Suksavithaya Sathorn Nua Road, Bangrak Bangkok, Thailand 10500 * Denotes Illegible Word

We are enclosing the following publications for your information:

Regulation Part 574

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 119

The use of the DOT symbol molded into or onto a tire constitutes a certification by the manufacturer and signifies that the tire meets applicable Federal safety requirements. While it is not required that tires be tested prior to using the DOT symbol, t he National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does maintain a compliance test program to enforce safety standards, and any tires that are found not to meet the Federal standards, are subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1000 per tire but not to exce ed $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

Your tire manufacturer's identification code mark is required on all new pneumatic tires sold in the United States for highway use. This code mark and other tire identification labeling are specified in Regulation Part 574.

Sincerely

Stanley R. Scheiner, Chief Crash Avoidance Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards

3 Enclosures

ID: 7981-2

Emmett Koelsch Coaches
ATTN: Kim Welsh
926 Delaware
Longview, WA 98632

Dear Sir/Madam:

Your letter of November 5, 1992 addressed to the Department of Transportation Publications Department was forwarded to this office for response. In your letter you requested a copy of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards pertaining to school buses "and other Transit type vehicles."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), apply to all classes and categories of motor vehicles, including passenger cars, trucks, buses of all types including school buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and the like. Excluded from the definition of motor vehicles are such vehicles as farm tractors, earth-moving equipment, and other off-road vehicles. For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Also enclosed are copies of two fact sheets issued by this office entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

You did not elaborate on what was meant by "Transit type vehicles." If you were referring to intercity buses, you should contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Room 3404, this address for information on their pertinent standards and regulations. For information on intracity buses, you should contact the Federal Transit Administration, Room 9328, this address. Finally, for information regarding implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you should contact the Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.

I hope this information is helpful. If after examining this material you have more specific questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:571 d.12/10/92