ID: 12566-3.pja

Mr. John Breiland
Project Engineer
PIVCO AS
Stanseveien 4
N-0975 Oslo, Norway

Dear Mr. Breiland:

This responds to your letter of September 27, 1996, asking several questions about how the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, especially Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, would apply to the electric vehicle (EV) you produce. The vehicle has only one forward gear and a regenerative braking system, and weighs less than 4,536 kg. Our response follows your letter's organization in which you group questions into four categories: regeneration, symbols and displays, reverse, and transmission shift lever sequence.

Regeneration

You first ask whether regeneration would "violate[s] any regulations." Regeneration, or use of the engine as a generator to slow the vehicle and recharge the battery, does not violate any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulation, and Standard No. 102 does not require the regeneration system you described. The vehicle you described has only one forward speed, so the requirement for transmission braking effect in S3.1.2 of Standard No. 102 does not apply. As we indicated in our May 3, 1996 interpretation letter to you, the applicability of this requirement is restricted by the prefatory phrase "[i]n vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio . . . ."

NHTSA does not have any recommendations on how regeneration should be performed or on the need for a switch to disable regeneration. Whether to equip a vehicle with these characteristics is at the manufacturer's option. However, as you are aware, NHTSA has proposed to include the regenerative braking effect in the performance of the service brakes under Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems, only if the regenerative braking effect is actuated by the service brakes

(60 FR 49544, copy enclosed). We would consider a vehicle equipped with a disabling switch as not having the regenerative system actuated by the service brakes, since regeneration could be disabled. Therefore, if the final rule is issued as proposed, you would not be able to use regeneration in your braking performance tests.

Symbols and Displays

You also raised several questions about Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. There is no standardization of controls, displays, and symbols unique to EVs, and no special telltales that are required for EVs. Provision of a power or current gauge is at your option. NHTSA does not regulate use of the additional EV-related telltales mentioned in your letter, and you may provide them at your option, so long as they do not result in confusion with the required telltales. A complete response to your question "how should we proceed to ensure that illumination of telltales fulfills Standard No. 101" would merely be a recitation of S5.3.4 (not S5.3.3, as cited in your letter) that specifies requirements for illumination of telltales.

Reverse

NHTSA has no recommended maximum reverse speed. However, most vehicle reverse speeds are the lowest of any gear. This is appropriate, because visibility is limited by the necessity to turn around, and drivers are less accustomed to steering in reverse. Therefore, an unreasonable increase in reverse gear speed could result in a safety problem. There are no requirements for driver "warning" signals when the shift lever is in reverse, other than the requirement in S3.1.4 of Standard No. 102 to display the shift lever position.

Transmission Shift Lever Sequence

You stated that you were unsure of which regulations exist concerning the relationship between the ignition key, shift lever sequence, and the "park lock device" on EVs. There are no special requirements in these areas that pertain only to EVs. The regulations concerning the relationship of the "park lock device" to the shift position in automatic transmission vehicles are in S4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. Basically, they require that the key cannot be removed unless the vehicle is in the park position, and that the vehicle prevent mobility when the vehicle is in park. There is no regulatory problem with your ignition key positions (Off, Radio, On, Start). You proposed three transmission shift lever sequences and asked us to tell you if any of the proposals comply with our regulations. Note that the first sentence of S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102 requires "[a] neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions." Therefore your proposal A (P-R-N-D) complies with this requirement, while proposal B (P-R-D) and proposal C (R-D) do not comply. Note, however, that S4.3 prohibits the park-lock device from taking effect when the vehicle is in motion, as your description of proposal A seems to suggest.

Regarding your uncertainty on which office to send your inquiries to, it depends on the type of question you have. You should send all requests for interpretation of our standards to this office. Requests for standards or other technical information should be directed to the Office of Safety Performance Standards (that office's designation has been changed from NRM, as mentioned in your letter, to NPS). We advise against directing the letter to any particular person within the office, given reorganizations and personnel changes.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:102#101#135#114

d.12/17/96

ID: 12581.wkm

Mr. Stan R. Gornick, P. Eng.
Manager Engineering Quality
Western Star Trucks
2076 Enterprise Way
Kelowna, British Columbia
Canada V1Y6H8

Dear Mr. Gornick:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on October 10, 1996, and your letter of October 11, 1996, addressed to Mr. Myers. You asked whether emergency doors on sleepers manufactured by your company for installation on the back of truck cabs must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The answer is no.

You stated in your letter that your company offers a sleeper that can be mounted on the back of a truck cab. Access to the sleeper is provided through an opening in the back wall of the cab and the front wall of the sleeper. An emergency door 20.25 inches wide and 28 inches high may be installed as an option on the passenger side of the sleeper. Although the interior opening is the primary access, the emergency door provides a means of both ingress and egress to the sleeper from outside the cab. There are no seating accommodations in the sleeper, only a bed. The bed is equipped with 2 restraint straps to hold an occupant in place if the vehicle were to suddenly stop or to roll over. Nothing is provided, however, for anyone sitting on the edge of or at the back of the bed.

As you correctly pointed out in your letter, paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 206 provides that "[c]omponents on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" must comply with the

requirements of the standard. The key words here are "directly" and "one or more seating accommodations."

On July 28, 1972 this office issued a letter to Mr. J. Donald Waldman of Resources Applications, Designs & Control, Inc. (copy attached), in which we stated in response to a question similar to yours that even though the sleeper is a passenger compartment, it is a separate unit with no seating accommodations. Thus, FMVSS No. 206 would not apply. However, we went on to say that:

[I]f the sleeper berth equipment is installed in such a way that it is contiguous to the truck cab and can be entered by the driver from within the cab, then any side doors on the sleeper berth equipment would be side doors leading into a passenger compartment (the cab) containing seating accommodations and they would have to meet the requirements of the Standard.

This language could be interpreted to say that if there is any means at all of ingress or egress through the sleeper door into the cab, even if one must crawl through the sleeper compartment and over the bed to get into the cab, then the door must comply with FMVSS No. 206. We think that such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the plain language of the standard. Accordingly, in a letter to Mr. Jiro Doi of Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc., dated April 26, 1996 (copy enclosed), we stated that a back door "that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" means:

[A] door through which vehicle occupants enter from outside the vehicle directly into a vehicle compartment in which occupant seats are located, or exit the vehicle directly from a compartment in which they have been seated to the outside of the vehicle.

Thus, doors "leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" means just that, and does not include a compartment through which or over which a person must crawl or climb to reach a compartment containing seating accommodations. Accordingly, the small emergency door leading into or out of your sleeper compartment does not lead directly into a compartment containing seating accommodations, and is therefore not

required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. Any interpretation to the contrary that is stated or may be inferred in the Waldman letter is hereby rescinded.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206

d:11/18/96

ID: 12582.mls

Mr. Michael C. Horan
833 Hawks Hollow
Delafield, WI 53018

Dear Mr. Horan:

This responds to your inquiry asking whether there were Federal safety laws in 1968 or 1969 pertinent to side-mounted exhaust systems known as "heat shields" on passenger cars. You state that a Wisconsin State trooper ticketed you for not having the original-equipment heat shield.

Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to regulate the safety of newly manufactured motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment by issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards, it has never issued any Federal motor vehicle safety standard or other regulation applicable to heat shields. Thus, Federal regulations neither require nor prohibit them.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:mis

d.11/21/96

ID: 12583-2.pja

Allen F. Brauninger, Esq.
Regulatory Affairs Division
Office of the General Counsel
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington, D.C. 20207

Dear Mr. Brauninger:

This letter responds to your inquiry of whether PepperGas brand Defensive Pepper Spray (a defensive chemical spray used for protection from attackers) is an item of motor vehicle equipment. You forwarded a letter and some advertising literature from Mr. Dennis English, who after purchasing the "specially formulated automotive model" spray in a market, attached it to his sun visor, as illustrated in the advertising. While he was driving, the canister of spray leaked on him and on his child safety seat. The answer to your question is that this model of PepperGas defensive spray is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 USC 30102(a)(7) defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;

(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or

(C) any device or an article or apparel ... that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury, or death. (Emphasis added.)

The agency uses two criteria in determining whether a device is an "accessory." The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that

retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If a product satisfies both criteria, then the product would be an "accessory."

Applying these criteria to the "specially formulated automotive model" PepperGas spray, we conclude that it is an accessory. The advertising and product labeling state that "PepperGas brand for automobiles" is "designed for personal protection and safe storage in vehicles." It says it is needed "while driving your own automobile." It is allegedly "especially formulated" to withstand the extreme temperatures in parked vehicles, up to 200 degrees F. It is advertised and pictured as attached to the sun visor, map pouch, center console and other vehicle locations with the built-in clip or enclosed Velcro backing. Due to the advertising, special design, and labeling, we conclude that its expected use is related to the operation of the motor vehicle. Since Mr. English purchased it at a market, we conclude that the product is purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. We note that only this particular model which is marked to be used especially in motor vehicles is a motor vehicle accessory.

Mr. English may call NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline at (800) 424-9393 to report the incident. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Dennis English
ref:VSA
d:1/30/97

ID: 12600.drn

Mr. Vladimir Rabkin
Express Marketing Systems
1414 30th Avenue #5
San Francisco, CA 94122

Dear Mr. Rabkin:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your product, a warning device without a self-contained energy source, may be sold for use with motor vehicles that have a GVWR under 10,000 pounds. As explained below, although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot "approve" your product, the answer is yes.

In your FAX transmission, you asked for NHTSA's "review and approval" to market your product the "EMERSIGN" to the public and to car manufacturers. You stated, the "EMERSIGN is designed for vehicles that have GVWR under 10,000 pounds." A drawing enclosed with your transmission depicts a triangular object placed on one triangular point on a car roof. The words "Call 911" with a cross underneath the words are depicted on the triangle. Your product is described as having five basic signals for requesting "ambulance, police, fire engine, tow truck, and 'STOP'."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the triangles are flat and made of reflective material. A magnet is placed at one triangular point to facilitate placing the triangle on the vehicle. You stated that telescoping posts (which you described as "antennae") are also provided so that the triangle may be placed on the vehicle side, roof, trunk top or other places.

By way of background information, our agency NHTSA, is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

As you know, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 125 Warning devices. The application section (S3.) of Standard No. 125 states that: "the standard applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds."

Your FAX stated that the EMERSIGN is designed for vehicles that have a GVWR under 10,000 pounds. Thus, if the EMERSIGN is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds, Standard No. 125 would not apply, the EMERSIGN would not have to meet Standard No. 125's specifications, and you, the manufacturer, would not certify that the EMERSIGN meets Standard No. 125.

Even when sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds and no safety standard applies, other NHTSA laws may apply to the EMERSIGN. As an accessory to a motor vehicle, the EMERSIGN is an item of motor vehicle equipment. If either you or this agency should determine that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists in the EMERSIGN, you, the manufacturer, will be required to notify consumers and dealers, and remedy the safety related defect at no cost to the consumers and dealers.

The EMERSIGN may also be subject to the laws of the individual States. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but you can get information by contacting the Department of Motor Vehicles of each State in which you wish to market your product.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a NHTSA publication that provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:125
d:10/30/96

ID: 12607.ztv

Larry Keith Evans, Esq.
Evans & Evans
113 West Taylor Street
Griffin, GA 30223

Re: Ox Bodies, Inc.; Fayette, Alabama

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is in reply to your letter of October 9, 1996, with reference to the lighting design on the rear of a dump truck manufactured by Ox Bodies, Inc. Although you did not ask for a reply, I assume that you are interested in our comments regarding several observations you have made.

Your understanding of the pertinent requirements of 49 CFR 571.108 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment is essentially correct. A truck whose overall width is 80 inches or more must have two red clearance lamps mounted on the rear. Rear side marker lamps and rear clearance lamps may be combined providing that the minimum photometric candela requirements for each are met. Compliance of rear clearance lamps, combination or otherwise, with the photometric minimum candela requirements of SAE Standard J592e, Clearance, Side Marker and Identification Lamps, July 1972 (incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108) is determined with the H-V axis of the lamp taken as parallel with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Ox Bodies is correct insofar as it states that the lamp must meet the minimum requirements when tested in the laboratory, but incorrect when it states that "there is no requirement that the light meet any requirements as installed on the vehicle." While Section S5.3 Location of required equipment does not specifically state that photometric requirements must be met when the clearance lamp is installed on a vehicle, compliance upon installation is implicit in paragraph S5.3.1.1. This paragraph specifies that "no part of the vehicle shall prevent . . . any other lamp [e.g. a clearance lamp] from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable SAE

Standard. . . ." However, the issue in this case is whether a clearance lamp has been supplied in the first instance.

The photographs you enclosed clearly show that the side marker lamps on the truck in question are recessed in a side panel and cannot be seen from the rear. In our opinion, the truck has not been equipped with clearance lamps as required by Standard No. 108.

I note that you have furnished a copy of this letter to one of our standards enforcement engineers. The agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will give this matter the consideration it deserves, and we thank you for calling it to our attention.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:11/18/96

ID: 12625.wkm

Mr. Pedro Matos
Quality Manager
CNB/CAMAC
Portugal

Dear Mr. Matos:

This responds to your telefax of October 23, 1996, to this office in which you asked two questions about Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. You first asked why, in Table II of Appendix A, tires with a specified maximum load of 300 kiloPascals (kPa) are tested at a lower inflation pressure than tires for which the specified maximum load is 36 pounds per square inch (psi). You then asked why, in the kPa section of Table II, the test inflation pressures increase then decrease as the maximum kPa inflation pressures increase.

I have enclosed several notices that explain the reasons for these differing test inflation pressures. In 1977 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) and the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) petitioned this agency to amend FMVSS No. 109 to permit production of a new P-type tire that was designed to use a higher maximum inflation pressure than the standard 240 kPa then permitted by the standard, but with no increase in load levels. In response to those petitions, this agency amended the standard to include a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 300 kPa because tires with higher inflation pressures have less rolling resistance which may result in increased fuel economy. However, since there would be no increase in load levels, the agency specified that the inflation pressures at which those tires would be tested would remain the same, that is, 180 and 220 kPa respectively (Enclosures 1 and 2).

Then in 1988, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO) petitioned this agency to further increase the maximum inflation pressure, citing requests from member manufacturers. ETRTO petitioned this agency to amend FMVSS No. 109 to permit an inflation pressure of 340 kPa so that the standard maximum inflation pressure then in effect for reinforced tires, 280 kPa, could be increased for special performance requirements, but again, with no increase in tire load capacity. The agency granted the ETRTO petition citing the Goodyear/RMA petition as precedent. Again, because the requested higher inflation pressure carried no increase in load levels, the agency specified that the test pressures for the 340 kPa tires would remain at 220 and 260 respectively (Enclosures 3 and 4).

The latest maximum inflation pressure, 350 kPa, was added to the standard effective August 31, 1994. The test inflation pressures remain the same as the 240 and 300 kPa maximum pressures, namely 180 and 220 kPa respectively, for the same reasons as explained above (Enclosure 5).

I hope this explanation is helpful to you. For your information, I am also enclosing a copy of the latest version of FMVSS No. 109 (as of October 1, 1995) (Enclosure 6). If you have any further questions or need additional information with respect to our tire standards, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:109

d:12/5/96

ID: 12626.MLS

Mr. Eric M. Zimelman
6920 S.W. 44th Street, Suite 210
Miami, FL 33155

Dear Mr. Zimelman:

This responds to your letter asking whether your invention would "pose a problem" with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You met with our technical staff, including Mr. Jerome Kossar, Mr. George Mouchahoir, and Ms. Lori Summers, to discuss your invention, which is a retractable shield placed over safety seats for children up to 20 pounds. You state that the retractable shield "would be far enough away from the child's head that the child would not pitch forward enough to come in contact with it." You further state that the shield's material is a tough, flexible plastic that is transparent and has holes for breathing.

I note that you marked "confidential" on your letter. In a November 4, 1996, telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that as long as the diagrams remain confidential, you had no objection to our placing your letter in the public docket.

By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter.

There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to your product. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS No. 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (S4 of FMVSS No. 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as an aftermarket retractable shield.

While no Federal safety standard applies to the retractable shield, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 United States Code 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business is prohibited by our statute from installing the retractable shield if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard, such as FMVSS No. 213.

You should be aware that some elements of design incorporated in child restraint systems in compliance with FMVSS No. 213 might be affected by adding your retractable shield. In particular, under section S5.7, all child restraint systems are required to incorporate the flammability resistance requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302. Also, child restraint systems recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213. That paragraph requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your retractable shield by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business would impair features provided in compliance with these or other provisions of the standard, then the entities would make inoperative a Federally required element of design in violation of the statute.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to individual owners who install equipment on their own child restraints systems. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages owners not to degrade the safety of their child restraints.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213

d:12/2/96

ID: 12632.wkm

Mr. Tom Burkhardt
Dynastar International
25133 Anza Drive, Suite A
Santa Clarita, CA 91355

Dear Mr. Burkhardt:

This responds to your telefax dated October 21, 1996, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff and your telephone conversations with Mr. Myers on October 18 and 23, 1996. You stated that your company received a shipment of passenger car tires that were not marked with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) ratings and asked that this agency waive "the stamping of UTGQ (sic)." Please be advised that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has no authority to waive the UTQGS requirements.

You stated that on October 2, 1996 your company received about 5,000 Michelin MXF tires of two different sizes that you think were produced in Thailand, and that "this is the first time that this tire has been imported." In response to your October 18 telephone conversation, Mr. Myers telefaxed to you copies of four previous interpretation letters issued by this office explaining the various UTQGS labeling requirements and their exceptions. In your October 23 conversation, you told Mr. Myers that you had read the letters and asked if we had any advice for you.

The UTQGS, found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations, 575.104 (copy enclosed), require that all new tires sold in the United States be graded for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance, and that those grades or ratings be marked on the sidewall of each tire (575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)).

In addition, the ratings for each individual tire must be shown and explained on labels attached to the tread of each tire so as not to be easily removable ((d)(1)(i)(B)(2)). There are, however, two exceptions to the above requirements:

1. Tires of a new tire line need not have the UTQGS ratings marked on the sidewalls if the tires were manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line ((d)(1)(i)(A)). The tread label required by (d)(1)(i)(B)(2) is still required, however.
2. Limited production tires are excluded from all UTQGS requirements. In order to qualify as limited production tires, a tire must meet all the following criteria (575.104(c)(2)):
   1. Total annual domestic production or importation into the United States of tires of the same design and size by either the manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 15,000 tires;
   2. The tire's size must not have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for new motor vehicles domestically produced or imported in quantities greater than 10,000 during the year prior to the tire's manufacture; and
   3. The total annual domestic production or importation by the tire's manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 35,000 tires.

Since Michelin is a major domestic producer and importer of tires, it is unlikely that the tires in question could qualify as limited production tires (exception b). If they qualify as tires of a new tire line, however, you are free to prepare and attach tread labels to the tires in accordance with (d)(1)(i)(B)(2) and market them as described in exception a. If they do not meet either exception a or b, you may not market the tires in the United States until they comply with the UTQGS. Finally, if you are unable to bring these tires into compliance with the UTQGS, you are free to export them if the tires and the outside of their container are labeled for export (49 U.S. Code 30112(b)(3)) (copy enclosed).

One further matter. The tires must meet the strength, performance, and labeling requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (copy enclosed), and the letters "DOT" must be marked on the tire sidewalls to indicate such compliance. Like the UTQGS, those requirements are also prerequisite to the sale of any passenger car tires in the United States.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or require additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:575
d:11/6/96

ID: 12633.WKM

Mr. D. F. Paine
Quality Assurance Coordinator
Dunlop International Technology Ltd.
Post Office Box 504
Erdington, Birmingham B24 9QH, England

Dear Mr. Paine:

Your letter telefaxed on October 2, 1996 to Ms. Jeanette Greenfield of this agency has been referred to this office for reply.

You stated that one of Dunlop's overseas divisions, Dunlop Zambia Ltd., although not intending to export tires to the United States, wishes to "DOT mark its Light and Heavy Truck tire ranges to satisfy a local commercial requirement." You asked whether a manufacturer's identification mark can be assigned to Dunlop Zambia without a resident agent being appointed in the United States or prior to a resident agent being appointed. The answer is no.

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (copy enclosed), requires at section 574.5 that a tire manaufacturer place a tire identification number on the sidewall of each tire it manufactures. The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate the recall of tires that are found to be in noncompliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards or that are found to contain a safety defect. The first group of digits in the tire identification number is the manufacturer's identification mark or code, issued in accordance with section 574.6. That code is intended to provide both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the manufacturer the ability to identify the plant in which the defective tires were produced. Thus, issuance of a manufacturer's identification code to one that does not intend to market tires in the United States would not serve the purpose of the tire identification number.

You mentioned in your letter that you have a copy of 49 CFR Part 551, which in pertinent part requires each foreign producer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to appoint a resident agent in the United States for the service of legal process. To enforce that provision, it has long been NHTSA policy not to assign a manufacturer's identification mark unless the manufacturer has appointed a resident agent in the United States.

For the reasons stated above, NHTSA cannot at this time assign a manufacturer's identification code to Dunlop Zambia. If in the future Dunlop Zambia desires to export tires to the United States and files a valid designation of a resident agent, NHTSA will assign a manufacturer's identification code at that time.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:574

d:12/2/96