ID: nht70-1.45

DATE: 03/17/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Sofica

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret our delay in responding to your letter of December 2, 1969, which evidently became lost after it reached us.

In your letter you ask three questions. The questions, and our answers to them, are as follows:

1. If a European concern manufactures seat belts for installation in vehicles imported into the United States, is the vehicle manufacturer or the seat belt manufacturer responsible for compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 with respect to those seat belts? It is our view that both manufacturers are responsible for compliance with the standard. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale in the United States of a nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. A seat belt manufactured for installation on a motor vehicle to be sold in the United States is itself manufactured for sale in the United States. The manufacturer of the motor vehicle in which the nonconforming seat belt is installed would be in violation of section 108(a) because Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires certain motor vehicles to be equipped with seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard No. 209.

2. Is a foreign manufacturer of seat belts which will be imported into the United States required to test the belts at approved facilities in the United States to demonstrate that they conform to Standard No. 209? The answer is no. There is no requirement in the law or the standard that seat belts must be subjected to approved tests before they can be imported and sold. The manufacturer must certify that the belts conform to the standard. In order to do so, a manufacturer would ordinarily make tests of his products. This is particularly the case because compliance with some of the standard's requirements can be ascertained only by actual tests of seat belts. However, there is no requirement that any particular test be made at any specific test facility.

3. Must a European seat belt manufacturer designate an agent for service of administrative process under section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if he is merely supplying the belts for installation as original equipment in motor vehicles to be imported into the United States. It is our view that a foreign manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment who knows or has reason to know that his products will be imported into the United States, whether as original equipment on motor vehicles or otherwise, is obligated under section 110(e) to designate an agent for service of process in accordance with that section. Section 110(e) is not limited in its scope to manufacturers who actually import their products; it also applies to manufacturers who are "offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States". The quoted language seems broad enough to cover suppliers of motor vehicle equipment who know or should know that the vehicles in which their products are installed will be imported for sale into the United States.

Again, let me express my apologies for the delay in responding to your inquiry. If you have any further questions about your obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht68-3.32

DATE: 05/02/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Weslock Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of April 22, 1968, to Mr. Bridwell has been referred to me for reply.

You state that it is your understanding that the proposed rule making in Docket 2-16 will require door locks on trailers and mobile homes to be so constructed "as to be recessed flush on exterior doors." Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 206, Door Latches, Hinges, and Locks - Passenger Cars, was originally issued on January 31, 1967 and became effective on January 1, 1968. An amendment to this standard was issued on April 24, 1968 with an effective date of January 1, 1969.

Neither the standard as presently written or the proposed amendment in Docket 2-16 is applicable to trailers and mobile homes. Moreover, there is no provision either in the standard or in the proposed amendment which requires that door locks must be so constructed "as to be recessed flush on exterior doors," even as to those motor vehicles to which the standard applies presently or to which it is proposed to apply in Docket 2-16. For your information, we are enclosing a copy of the recent amendment to Standard No. 206 as attachment No. 1, and a copy of the proposed amendment for Docket 2-16 as attachment No. 2.

In view of the foregoing, you may wish to reconsider your request that we forward to you the comments contained in Docket 2-16. The cost to you for forwarding those comments would be fifty cents a page and the number of pages contained in Docket 2-16 is considerable. Since your understanding of the thrust of Docket 2-16 is not correct, your request for an extension of time to May 25, 1968 is denied.

WESLOCK COMPANY

April 22, 1968

Federal Highway Administration Room 316, Donohoe Building 6th & D Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20591

Attention: Lowell K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator

Although we have not received Docket 2-16, an amendment to Standard 206, we are told that all interested persons have until April 25, 1968 to file comments.

As manufacturers of locks for trailers and mobile homes, we have reason to believe we are affected by Docket 2-16. By hearsay, we understand that this Docket will require that locks be so constructed as to be recessed flush on exterior doors.

If our understanding is correct, we fear that we, and many other lock manufacturers, may be seriously damaged by this requirement. We respectfully request an extension of time until May 25, 1968 to file comments and shall appreciate your sending us Docket 2-16 for study.

May we also suggest that serious consideration be given to the danger of entrapment in trailers arising from the use of locks which do not open automatically upon turning of the inside knob. To prevent loss of life, it may be wise to require panic-proof locks; that is, those which unlock and open merely by turning the inside knob and which do not depend upon the performance of some precedent operation.

Sincerely,

Ernest Cipriano President

ID: nht70-2.51

DATE: 01/02/70

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

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of November 25, 1969, to the National Highway Safety Bureau requesting the addition of the 4-J and 4 1/2-J rims for use with the 5.60x15 tire size designation and the 4 1/2-J rim for use with the 6.00x15L tire size designation to Table I, Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

The addition of these rims to Standard No. 110 is not necessary, as these combinations are listed within the references cited in S.J of Standard No. 109. The fact that you have changed the hump configuration on these rims requires no action on our part as we do not list variations from the basic Tire and Rim Association's contours. We consider only the rim width and flange coutour designation at this time when listing rims in the standard.

Manufacturers who modify rims are, of course, responsible to see that their product will perform satisfactorily to the requirements of Standard No. 109 and No. 110.

ALBA TIRE COMPANY

NOV. 24, 1969

NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU

We unfortunatley were unable to attend the Convention in Atlanta, and to hear your address, delivered to those interested, at the convention. However I have reviewed your address carefully, as reported in the November issue of Modern Tire Dealer, and have some questions.

Will Off the Read New Tires, and Retreads(say Racing Tires) come under the Regulations which are proposed for New Tires- and Retreads? If they are going to be included we wonder why-sincethis Deal is a different Ball game from the other phases of the Tire Business. The reason I say this is because of the difference in the original construction of the Tires (new at the factory). There is also a vast difference in the performance of the Tires-as regards heat buildup-and heat dissipation factors,. For ourselves we have been retreading Racing Tires for some 6 years now, and I have my First complaint-with one of my Retreads coming loose. My 45 years experience in Retreading may not make me an expert- but(Illegible Word) have learned a few things about the performance of Retreaded Tires on the Tracks-as opposed to New Tires. I cannot find any difference in the performance-or the satisfaction of the Users of a new Tire-as opposed to Retreads.

I ship my retreaded Race Tires all over Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebrasks, as well as New Mexico. These Tires are run on both Paved, and Dirt Tracks, and by(Illegible Word) slow cars to sprint cars which turn up to 145 mph on the Straightway- NO PROBLEMS.

I buy my Retrenching Rubber Tax Free-since it is not going to be used on Hiway Type Tires- and of course should be Tax free.

I am 100% for a Fine quality Retread-and have for many years been critical of the Marginal Retreader-who had nothing but price- and POOR Quality to recommend his product-but as I say-I am wondering WHY The Race Tire deal should be included in any Guidelines that apply to Highway type Tires?

We will appreciate greatly your consideration of our concern-and thank you for an early response.

ID: nht71-1.12

DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1971

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: E. W. Kintner, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Re: Petition for Rulemaking - Proposed Amendment of S4.5.6, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109, As Revised, October 31, 1970.

This is in response to the petition for rulemaking of January 19 submitted on behalf of your client, Ideal Corporation, for an amendment of S4.5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10, Lamps, Reflective Dev cos, and Associated Equipment, 35 F.R. 16840.

It is our understanding, based upon the meeting held on February 2 between representatives of your firm, Ideal Corporation, and NHSTA, that you client wishes to continue its established marketing practice of selling variable load flashers in the after market and of advertising these flashers as "all purpose" flashers. We understand further that variable load flashers frequently are purchased as replacements for fixed load flashers. When a variable load flasher is installed as a replacement for an original equipment fixed load flasher, it does not provide the outage indication required by S4.5.6. Your client therefore questions whether, under these circumstances, it could properly certify compliance with Standard No. 10 when the standard becomes applicable to replacement equipment.

The amendment proposed in the petition would add the following sentence to S4.5.6:

"Variable load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment by Standard 10 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 herein, where such devices shall operate in accordance with Tables I and III, as applicable."

In our view Standard No. 108 permits your client to continue its practice and to properly certify compliance. S2 states in pertinent part that the standard applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies." This means that equipment must comply with applicable requirements regardless of whether it is used as original or replacement equipment. For example, original and replacement variable load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J570b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers," October 1). It is not intended that a variable load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by S4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher.

Although there presently is no legal prohibition on the advertising and sale of variable load flashers, we believe that your client should, in the interest of safety, either market variable load flashers only as replacements for like items or call prospective purchasers' attention to the fact that the flashers do not provide an outage indication. While the owner of a vehicle originally equipped with a fixed load flasher should be free to balance the merits of a fixed load flasher (such as the outage indication) with those of a variable load flasher (such as the continuing flash), he should not be misled as to the characteristics of each type, including the one with which his vehicle was originally equipped.

Please advise us within 10 days of the date of this letter if you wish to pursue this petition further; otherwise we shall consider the petition withdrawn.

ID: nht71-1.18

DATE: 09/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Roger Levin, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1971, concerning certain aspects of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials."

You are correct in your statement that Standard No. 205, which has been in effect since January 1, 1968, and was amended on September 19, 1968 (33 F.R. 14163) and March 1, 1969 (34 F.R. 3688), applies to a manufacturer of automobile sunroofs, "either in kits for installation by others, or for direct installation by the sunroof manufacturer, in either case after the car has been completed." To comply with the standard the sunroof material must meet the requirements for either AS1, AS2, AS3, AS5, AS10, or AS11 glazing material, as specified in ANSI Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z26.1-1966, July 15, 1966. The 1969 amendment to this standard has not, as you state, been incorporated into Standard No. 205. However, a notice of proposed rulemaking published January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 326), proposed to include that amendment. This matter is presently under consideration.

You are also correct in stating that a sunroof is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle. Certification may be made, pursuant to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), by the statement you submit, "Material Certified to Comply with U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205", followed by the name of the manufacturer.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

July 23, 1971

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This is an inquiry about certain aspects of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. I would appreciate your advising me if your interpretation of the statute and regulation is different from mine.

In the manufacture of automobile sunroofs, either in kits for installation by others, or for direct installation by the sunroof manufacturer, in either case after the car has been completed, Standard No. 205 applies and requires the manufacturer to comply with ASA Standard Z26.1-1966, specifically with the requirements of Item 5 glazing materials. Standard No. 205, as amended in 1968 and 1969, is now in effect.

The manufacturer of the sunroof is required by sec. 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to certify to its customer that the sunroof complies with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205; since the sunroof is a piece of equipment, not a motor vehicle, that certification may be made by a tag or sticker attached to the sunroof, in language equivalent to the following:

"Material Certified to Comply with U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205",

followed by the name of the manufacturer.

The 1969 amendment to ASA Standard Z26.1-1966 has not yet been incorporated into Standard No. 205.

Thank you in advance for your help in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Roger Levin

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: nht71-2.39

DATE: 05/04/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1971, regarding the March 10, 1971, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

The following are answers to your questions:

1. Question:

Standard to be effective as of August 15, 1973, through August 14, 1975, second option (S4.1.2.2) --- How many dummies should be used for frontal crash? Is the use of dummies necessary for roar and front seats or for front seat only?

Answer:

S4.1.2.2 (b) and (c) specify that the frontal barrier crash requirements of S5.1 shall be met for each front designated seating position. Thus, a dummy must be placed in each front designated seating position for these tests.

2. Question:

Same standard (S4.1.2) --- For a two seater car, what options for passive seat belts for both occupants should be taken? (First or Second option or one of these)

Answer:

A passive belt system may be used to meet the requirements of either the first or the second option under S4.1.2. If the passive belt system is intended to get the second option, however, it must employ a Type 1 seat belt assembly either as a part of the passive belt or as a separate component. This Type 1 belt must be separately usable, and must in addition meet the requirements of S7.1 and S7.2 and have a seat belt warning system.

The risk that the presence of a latch in the system may cause occupants to leave the belt unfastened while the vehicle is in motion is of concern to the NHTSA. At the same time, it is evident that some method of release is necessary for passive belt systems as well as for other passive restraints. We are therefore considering additional rulemaking on the subject of passive belts.

3. Question:

In regard to the Volkswagen Mini bus, which is the category of this automobile? (Multipurpose Passenger or Passenger)

Answer: It in a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

4. Question:

I understand that the convertible type automobile has partial exemption before August 15, 1973. What exception would be taken after that date? Also, through rumor, I have heard that this automobile will be included in the Multipurpose Passenger Car category. Is the correct?

Answer:

Because the multipurpose passenger vehicle may be manufactured in convertible form, the standard refers to convertibles under the multipurpose passenger vehicle requirements. A clear distinction is intended between such convertible multipurpose passenger vehicles, which are regulated by S4.2, and convertible passenger cars, which are regulated by S4.1. There is no plan to treat a convertible passenger car as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Convertible passenger cars are not distinguished from other passenger cars other than to exempt them from shoulder belt requirements in the January 1, 1972, to August 14, 1973, time period. They must thereafter meet the passive system requirements applicable to passenger cars, with no special exceptions.(Illegible Word) the multipurpose passenger vehicle category, convertibles are given the option of meeting lesser passive requirements than other multipurpose passenger vehicles (S4.2.2 and S4.2.3).

Please advise us if further clarification is needed.

ID: nht72-2.1

DATE: 07/18/72

FROM: CHARLES H. HARTMAN FOR DOUGLAS W. TOMS -- NHTSA

TO: Consumers Union

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 28, 1972, forwarding to us a report to be published in the August issue of Consumer Reports, which raises numerous issues concerning child restraints and the efficacy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." You contend, based on testing you performed, that the static performance tests of the standard are meaningless, and that dynamic tests should be adopted.

We agree that a dynamic test should be included in the standard, and we discuss below our efforts and intentions in this regard. We also believe, however, that devices which conform to Standard No. 213 provide significant impact protection for children which is not available otherwise, and that the present standard has served a useful purpose in the development of effective child restraints and the removal from the marketplace of marginal products. We have pursued a vigorous enforcement policy with respect to the standard which has discovered and corrected numerous cases of noncompliance.

The 1,000-pound static test imposed by Standard No. 213 was determined by the NHTSA to be an adequate first step in the development of standards for child seating systems. This determination was based, in part, on the state of the art of the development of these devices, and the financial resources of the affected industry. The limitations of the static test have been known for some time, and in the NHTSA Program Plan for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, published in October 1971, the NHTSA made clear its intention to develop a dynamic test to measure the performance of all child restraint devices.

We believe the most effective way to utilize a dynamic test is to couple it with realistic injury criteria that reflect the ability of children to withstand crash impacts. This is the approach taken for adults by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Although we have developed adult injury criteria as part of our work on that standard, further work must be done to correlate these criteria with the protection needed for children.

Rather than delay dynamic testing until this work is completed, however, the NHTSA plans to propose interim dynamic tests using other performance criteria which are presently being developed through research at the University of Michigan. We are also sponsoring othe research on the problem of the development of realistic child dummies. Another problem in the development of a dynamic test for child seating systems, or any other performance requirements for them, is that the performance of the child seat is in large measure dependent upon the design and construction of the vehicle in which it is placed. Because manufacturers can market these devices economically only if they are suitable for large numbers of vehicles, an endless number of variables occur, with a resultant difficulty in prescribing reasonable "worst case" test conditions.

We are presently working to provide answers to these questions, and are hopeful that the research projects presently under way will provide data in the near future on which we can proceed. You mention that you will be submitting to us a petition for rulemaking regarding the standard. We request that you also submit to us any data which you have available, including data from your testing program, which might assist us in solving these problems.

ID: nht72-2.25

DATE: 03/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letters of January 27, February 8 and February 9, 1972, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, regarding questions on headlamp mounting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The following comments relate to the specific questions in the letters of each date.

Question 1 - January 27, 1972

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and referenced SAE standards do not preclude the headlamp aiming adjustment by direct sliding contact of the headlamp back (Illegible Word) to the housing.

We're concerned however that headlamps of different manufacturers may not always (Illegible Words) properly in such an arrangement because of non-specific dimensional requirements of SAE J571 for the headlamp back envelope. Also in this arrangement pressure is applied to areas of the headlamp not designed for such mechanical pressures. This may result in a high incidence of lamp breakage particularly with some of the "thin walled" lamps.

Question 2 - January 27, 1972

The arrangement of the headlamp mounting ring as shown on Figure 3. conforms to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Question 3 - January 27, 1972

The arrangement of the headlamp mounting ring as shown on Figure 4 conforms to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Question 4 - January 27, 1972

The arrangement of the headlamp mounting ring as shown on Figure 5 conforms to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your letter of February 8, 1972, relates to the request of January 27 1972, and is therefore answered by the above comments.

The question in your letter of February 9, 1972, relates to a modification of the headlamp (Illegible Words) as described under question 1 in your letter of January 27, 1972, whereby you propose a single locating lug match in the headlamp retaining ring. The requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 are for three-lug indexing. The retaining ring-housing as shown on Appendix - I of your letter of February 9, 1972, does not, therefore, conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This Administration has been concerned about problems of accurate headlamp aim and aim retention capabilities, and currently has a research contract titled "Stability of Headlamp Aim" contract DOT-HS-024-1-202 scheduled for completion in July 1972. In general one of the problem areas seems to relate to insufficient strength and life of headlamp aim and retention mechanisms, along with (Illegible Word) that cause field service problems by shifting or actually falling out when replacement of the headlamp is attempted. If you desire, you may contact Mr. Roger Benion of the Southeast Research Institute, (Illegible Words) Road, San Antonio, Texas, 73284, who manages our stability of headlamp Aid contract, for additional technical contracts on your proposed headlamp aiming mechanism.

We have enclosed a copy of report DOT-HS-(Illegible Words) on "Vehicle Forward Lighting Performance and Inspection Requirements" which includes preliminary research information on headlamp aim.

ID: nht72-3.2

DATE: 04/28/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 5, 1972, concerning the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, published March 23, 1972 (Docket 1-8; Notice 7, 37 F.R. 5950). In your letter you protest against the labeling requirements of the standard. It is not clear from your letter, however, whether you are referring to both the requirements for affixed labels (S6.3.1), or for permanent labeling (S6.3.2), or both, and as a consequence we have treated your comments as referring to the labeling requirements in general.

You state in your letter that retreaders, particularly small retreaders, cannot meet the labeling requirements "on any reasonable and practical basis." You state further that you have demonstrated how the labeling requirements will force retreaders to hire additional personnel, increase production time, and consequently increase the retreaders' cost per tire. You also claim that the labeling issue is a "fairly simple problem" whose solution can be easily found within the statutes.

Congress, in enacting section 201 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, made it clear that motor vehicle tires should be permanently labeled with specific items of information dealing with their safe use. The labeling requirements of Standard No. 117 are based on this statutory mandate and do recognize and allow for difficulties retreaders might have in meeting all of the requirements for labeling set forth in section 201. For example, Standard No. 117, in not requiring that the generic name of the cord material or the actual number of plies be included in the labeling information for retreaded tires, recognizes that this information will not be available for some casings which are allowed to be used.

The NHTSA considers the labeling requirements of Standard No. 117 to be both reasonable and practical, and believes they can be met by the overwhelming majority of retreaders, if not all, in an economical manner. Each item of information is now available to the retreader should the need to relabel arise. By using the procedures and technology developed for compliance with the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574), by combining labeling information on the same label where appropriate, and by careful sorting of casings before retreading, the NHTSA believes that even the smallest retreader can meet these requirements. While the requirements will no doubt cause some changes in existing production techniques, with a possible slowing initially of the production process, there is no reason to believe that these changes, once instituted, will result in significant permanent increases in the costs and time needed for the production of retreaded tires.

Finally, you cite figures showing what you claim is an abnormally high number of retreaded tire manufacturers who have gone out of business in the past year, and ask, "How many more will be lost before we get reasonable and practical and understandable regulations?" We understand your concern for retreading companies that have gone out of business. But since Standard No. 117 has not yet become effective, these closings are obviously not the result of NHTSA regulations.