ID: aiam3647

Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter asking about the definition of occupan compartment air space for purposes of determining the application of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. You asked whether the cargo areas of two cars must comply with the standard if these areas always or sometimes open into the occupant compartment.; The term 'occupant compartment air space' is defined in the standard a 'the space within the occupant compartment that normally contains refreshable air.' In previous interpretations regarding the applicability of the standard to a particular area of a vehicle, the question has turned upon whether people can and do ride in the area in question. In letters regarding vans, the agency has taken the position that the space to the rear of the rearmost seat was not part of the occupant compartment. The reasoning underlying those interpretations was that that area was not typically occupied by passengers. However, the agency came to a different conclusion regarding the space behind the rear seat in station wagons. Since passengers can and do ride in that area, the agency concluded that it was part of the occupant compartment. For this interpretation, see the last page of the enclosed letter.; The Case I car in your letter presents a situation seemingly similar t that of station wagons. The Case I car appears to be a liftback car with a cargo carrying area behind the rear seat. If passengers can ride in the area behind the rear seat, then that area would be part of the occupant compartment and would be subject to the standard. As to the Case II car, which appears to be a sedan with internal access to the trunk by means of the folding backs of the rear seats, the agency does not regard the trunk area as part of the occupant compartment. It does not appear from your diagrams that people would ride in that area.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2220

Dear Ms. Bortle: This responds to Viracon's December 13, 1975, and January 28, 1976 requests for a copy of Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*, and for a discussion of the distinction under NHTSA regulations between installation of a sunroof before and after 'original sale of the roof.' A copy of Standard No. 216 has already been mailed to Viracon under separate cover.; You suggest that there may be different regulations for installation o a sunroof prior to, and after, the sale of the roof, by which I understand you to mean the sunroof. The NHTSA does not regulate sunroofs as such, but it does regulate the roof strength of most passenger cars (Standard No. 216), and conformity with this standard can be affected by installation of the sunroof.; Section 108(a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a) (1) (A)) prohibits, among other things, the sale of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards. Anyone that modifies a passenger car roof by the addition of your product would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 216 at the time of sale. This would include alterations of the type made to a vehicle that has been certified by the manufacturer (49 CFR Part 567). This prohibition does not apply (except in cases of importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. S 1397(b) (1)).; The Act also prohibits, except in the process of repair, manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with applicable standards (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a) (2) (A)). This means that these classes of persons may not install one of your products, even after the first retail sale, if the installation takes the vehicle out of conformity with Standard No. 216 or any other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4147

Dear Dr. Delphin: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1986, enclosing description of your device to improve car signals, and asking about the regulations applicable to it.; According to the information that you furnished, the device 'cancel turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn'. The purpose of the device is to eliminate 'the need for drivers to cancel the signal manually when the turn is not sharp enough to activate the standard switch'. The effect of the device is 'to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents due to misinterpreted turn signals'.; As you know, pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, have been required to have self- cancelling turn signal indicators. However, there are no performance requirements for the self-cancelling feature. As a general rule, motor vehicle lighting equipment not required by Standard No. 108 is permissible as original equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and as aftermarket equipment if its installation can be accomplished without creating a noncompliance. The device as you have described it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the turn signal operating unit, or create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 (the requirements of SAE Standard J589 *Turn Signal Operating Unit*, April 1964, which is incorporated by reference). Since Standard No. 108 does not preclude its use, the question of its legality is therefore determinable under the laws of each State where it will be used.; Although there is no Federal safety standard that applies to it, th device is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1411) if its manufacturer or this agency determines that it incorporates a safety related defect.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rode & Qualey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: William J. Maloney, Esq. Rode & Qualey 295 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017

Dear Mr. Maloney:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @571.211). Section @3 of this standard states, "Wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose pas senger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections." You asked whether these components are permitted to incorporate winged projections if the winged projections do not extend beyond the wheel rim when mounted. As we have stated several times in th e past, winged projections are prohibited on wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs, regardless of whether the winged projections are recessed below the level of the wheel rim.

This issue was first raised in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking for the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, published on December 3, 1966 (31 FR 15212). That notice proposed language for Standard No. 211 that was identical with t hat which was adopted. In response to this proposal, a manufacturer commented that it did not consider its winged wheel nuts a hazard to pedestrians or cyclists, because the winged wheel nuts did not extend beyond the outermost projection of the wheel ri m. The final rule published on February 3, 1967 (32 FR 2408) did not make any change to the proposed language in response to this comment.

In a report issued on March 17, 1967 on the development of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency summarized the comments on the proposed standards and its response to those comments. have enclosed a copy of the summary of Standar d No. 211 for your information. As you will see, this summary recited the manufacturer's comments on winged projections that were located inside the outermost projection of the wheel rim and tire. The summary goes on to say, "The Agency did not agree, an d retained the prohibition of even such recessed winged structures lest the clothes of child pedestrians and others be caught." Hence, arguments about the unobjectionability of recessed winged projections were considered and rejected by the agency more t han twenty years ago. We have repeated this position in our subsequent interpretations of Standard No. 211. I have enclosed copies of an August 26, 1970 letter to Mr. James S. Campbell ("...any winged projection is prohibited, even if recessed."), a November 25, 1975 letter t o Mr. James J. Schardt ("Our interpretation of Standard No. 211 is that @3 prohibits winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the tire or rim, as well as those that do."), and a January 31, 1980 letter to Mr. Doug Smith ("...the sta ndard prohibits the use of all winged projections regardless of the extent to which they extend from a rim.").

After examining the history of this requirement, we have concluded that the language of the standard itself draws no distinction between winged projections that do not extend beyond the outer edge of the rim and those that do. Instead, section @3 provide s that the identified components "shall not incorporate winged projections." We reaffirm our previous interpretations, which concluded that this language prohibits all winged projections on the identified components, not just those that extend beyond the outer edge of the rim.

You concluded by asking me to state that recessed winged projections may be imported, offered for sale, and sold in the United States. I cannot make such a statement. Since those winged projections are prohibited by Standard No. 211, section 108(a) (1) ( A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A)) makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United St ates" any wheel discs, wheel nuts, or hub caps that incorporate winged projections. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a), and we would consider each sale of wheel dis cs, wheel nuts, or hub caps with winged projections to be a separate violation of section 108(a).

If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Attention: Ms. Erika Jones, Office of Chief Counsel Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter is submitted to request a letter ruling from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning any prohibition which may exist with respect to the use of the enclosed articles which are referred to in the automobile accessory trad e as "spinners." On Monday, September 21, 1987, we spoke with Mr. Stephen Kratzke, Senior Attorney for Rule Making, concerning regulations, particularly standard number 211, which may apply to certain wheel accessories. Th rule prohibits the use on passe nger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles of certain wheel nuts, hubcaps, and wheel disks which incorporate winged projections.

We respectfully submit that the sample articles enclosed herewith are not subject to the prohibition of rule 211 since they do not project beyond the wheel rim when mounted. Consequently, they do not project beyond the tire or the wheel well of the vehic le. Enclosed are pictures which show a spinner mounted on a correct wheel which is 9 1/2 inches in width. As can be seen from the pictures, the spinner does not project beyond the wheel rim. In light of the fact that the enclosed spinners will not projec t beyond the wheel rim and wheel well, we do not believe that they are the type of article prohibited pursuant to rule number 211. That rule is clearly intended to prohibit certain articles which project beyond the wheel well, or at least beyond the whee l rim, thereby creating a potential hazard to pedestrians. The instant articles, since they do not project beyond the wheel well, could not rationally be considered such a hazard. In order for the pedestrian to come into contact with the spinner, that pe destrian would certainly have to be in an extremely precarious position vis-a-vis certain lethal and dangerous parts of the vehicle. Indeed, it is difficult to perceive how the spinner in the pictures enclosed could be considered a greater "hazard" than the slotted portions of the wheel which clearly is not prohibited.

Furthermore, it is noted that spinners such as those enclosed herewith are readily available at this time in the United States. Enclosed is a brochure of an automobile accessory company which clearly depicts spinners similar to those which we have enclos ed. As with the sample spinners which we have enclosed, the "spinners" depicted in the brochure do not appear to extend beyond the wheel rim when mounted.

For the reasons set forth above, we do not believe that the enclosed spinners pose a hazard when used in passenger vehicles Furthermore, we do not believe that the enclosed spinners fall within the prohibition of rule number 211 since they do not project beyond the wheel rim; therefore, we submit that they may be imported, offered for sale, sold and used in the United States and your ruling to that effect is requested.

If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. We request that the enclosed spinners be returned to us after your review.

Very truly yours,

William J. Maloney

WJM:sr

Enclosures

ID: 86-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. O. Sornson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. O. Sornson Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis Chrysler-Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit, MI 48288

Dear Mr. Sornson:

This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking this agency to "delay" its final selection of the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and Dodge Lancer car lines as "high theft lines" for the purposes of 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Section 603(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3)) requires that all selections of lines initially introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541 (April 24, 1986) as high theft lines must be made final within one year after enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act. Neither that statutory requirement nor the implementing regulations adopted by this agency contain any provision that would allow this agency to "delay" its final selection. Accordingly, your request is denied.

In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3) and 49 CFR Part 542, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) informed Chrysler of its final selection of the LeBaron and Lancer lines as high theft lines by letter dated October 25, 1985. That letter was a final agency action on this question, again in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3). There is no provision in the law allowing us to "delay" final selections, so there is no basis for entertaining your request.

You stated in your letter that the best test of whether a car line should be treated as a high theft line is its actual theft rate. We agree with that statement. However, it does not address the issue of how to treat car lines, such as your LeBaron GTS and Lancer, for which sufficient theft data are not available.

This agency has been told repeatedly by law enforcement groups that the theft rate for a car in its initial year of introduction is almost always lower than its theft rate in subsequent model years. This is because the vehicle population is relatively small, and experiences a lesser exposure to accidents and other damage than do lines which have been available for more than one model year. Accordingly, lines are less desirable targets for chop shops in their first year of introduction than they become in subsequent model years. Because of this phenomenon, NHTSA did not believe it appropriate to make selections of high theft lines based solely or primarily on preliminary theft data.

Under section 603(a)(3) of the Cost Savings Act, the agency was required to select not later than October 25, 1985, (one year after the date of enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act) the high theft lines from among air lines introduced between January 1, 1983, and the effective date of the theft prevention standard. To meet this statutory deadline, NHTSA published a proposal to establish a new Part 542, Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard. at 50 FR 25603. June 20, 1985. Section 542.1 set forth six proposed criteria to be used in selecting likely high theft lines from lines such as the LeBaron GTS and the Lancer, which were introduced after January 1, 1983, and before the effective date of the theft prevention standard. These criteria were:

1. Retail price of the vehicle line.

2. Vehicle image or marketing strategy.

3. Vehicle lines with which the new line is intended to compete, and the theft rates of such lines.

4. Vehicle line(s), if any, which the new line is intended to replace, and the theft rate(s) of such line(s).

5. Presence or absence of any new theft prevention devices or systems. 6. Preliminary theft rate for the line, if it can be determined on the basis of currently available data.

Chrysler's comments on the proposal stated, "We generally concur with the proposed procedures. In our opinion the information which the NHTSA is requesting from manufacturers in order to establish anticipated theft rates for their various car lines appears reasonable." General Motors commented that the agency should adopt some weighting of these criteria, so that the process of selecting a line as a high theft line would be more objectively defined. General Motors specifically commented, "Probably the only criterion which could be used with any degree of certainty in selecting vehicles ... is theft data." In the final rule establishing Part 542, NHTSA responded to this comment as follows:

As noted in the NPRM, these judgments of likely high theft lines are partially subjective judgments. NHTSA concurs with GM's statement that neither price nor vehicle image alone can be strictly correlated to vehicle theft rates. However, NHTSA believes that the six criteria set forth in Appendix C considered together do form an objective basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. 50 FR 34831, at 34834, August 28, 1985.

NHTSA continues to believe that the six criteria form an objective basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. When these criteria were applied to the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines, we concluded that criterion 1 did not point to the cars being either high or low theft, criteria 2 and 3 indicated the lines would be high theft, criteria 4 and 5 were not applicable, and criterion 6 indicated the cars would be low theft. On balance, then, the criteria indicate the lines will be high theft lines.

Accordingly, even if there were some authority to allow us to delay the October 25 final selections, we would still conclude that the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines are likely high theft lines.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 13, 1985

Ms. Diane K. Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

RE: Request for Reconsideration, Final Determination of Car Lines Subject to Part 541

Dear Ms. Steed:

Chrysler Corporation hereby requests the NHTSA to delay its final ruling concerning the theft ratings of the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and the Dodge Lancer relative to Part 541 - Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Existing theft data for the first six months of the 1985 calendar year clearly indicate these two car lines should not be on the high theft rate list. Additional theft data will be available soon and we believe the final decision on the theft ratings should be deferred until that data is available.

In keeping with the purpose of the law, the best test or whether a car line should be marked is its theft rate. In determining the theft rate of a car line, we believe it is much more realistic and reasonable to use the actual theft data results for that car line rather than to use subjective criteria such as image and suggested competitive car lines. Actual theft data for the full calendar year 1985 should be available from the NCIC by the middle of January. We propose that this actual theft data be used to determine the theft status of these two car lines.

In order to protect the slim lead time remaining for 1987 models, we shall continue preparations to mark the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and the Dodge Lancer. When the NCIC theft data becomes available in January, we request that the theft rate for these two car lines be recalculated to determine whether they remain below the median theft rate and therefore will not be required to have their parts marked.

Sincerely,

R. O. Sornson RSA/jal

ID: nht78-3.20

DATE: 08/18/78

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

TO: Alfa Romeo, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/13/88 TO PAUL UTANS FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 STANDARD 208, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM PAUL UTANS, OCC - 2405; LETTER DATED 12/01/86 TO FRANCOIS LOUIS FROM ERIKA Z JONES, STANDARD 208

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter concerning Alfa Romeo's proposed designs for Type 2 seat belt assemblies to be used on convertibles. You ask for clarification of the anchorage location requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 210, as they would apply to your proposed designs.

Paragraph S4.1.1 of Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, specifies that anchorages for a Type 2 belt shall be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars other than convertibles. Manufacturers are permitted to install Type 2 belts in convertibles, however, under paragraph S4.1.2 of the standard which specifies that either a Type 1 or Type 2 belt may be installed for designated seating positions not required to have Type 2 belts under the previous section.

Since convertibles are only required to have Type 1 belts, only the pelvic portion of your proposed Type 2 designs must meet the anchorage location requirements of the standard. These location requirements are specified in S4.3.1, and the pelvic portion of your two proposed designs (Figures 2 and 3 in your letter) appear to fall within the 20 degrees - 75 degrees acceptable range. The upper torso portions of the belt designs do not have to comply with the 40 degrees acceptable range specified in S4.3.2, since those portions are in addition to what is required by the standard.

In response to your general question, "seat belt anchorage" is defined in Standard No. 210 as the "provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." For purposes of determining compliance with the anchorage location requirements of the standard, the agency interprets anchorage to include any load-bearing element of the seat belt assembly that is capable of meeting the force requirements of Standard No. 210. For example, in your Figure 1 you state that the lap belt is anchored "at point 'C' within the 40 degrees zone and then passes through a webbing guide anchorage." The 40 degrees zone is not the applicable location requirement for lap belts and if this were the only anchorage, the belt would not comply with the standard. However, since the "webbing guide anchorage" appears to be within the applicable 20 degrees-75 degrees zone, the belt would be in compliance if that anchorage is capable of meeting the force requirements of the standard. The agency considers an assembly to be in compliance if there is one force-complying anchorage within the acceptable ranges specified in the standard, and that anchorage is determinative of the angle the belt crosses the vehicle occupant.

To summarize, both of your proposed Type 2 seat belt assemblies would comply with the location requirements of Standard No. 210 if used in convertibles, since only the pelvic portions of the assemblies would have to meet the requirements of the standard and the anchorages for those portions appear to be within the acceptable ranges. Further, either assembly design can be used in hard-top automobiles if it has one anchorage capable of meeting the force requirements of the standard that is located in the 40 degrees acceptable range for upper torso portions of Type 2 belts.

Please contact Hugh Oates of this office if you have any further questions concerning this subject (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Alfa Romeo, Inc.

May 12, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Office of Chief Council U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: LOCATION OF ANCHORAGE FOR UPPER TORSO RESTRAINT REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Dear Mr. Levin:

Due to recent changes in European law, the upper torso restraint anchor on the Alfa Romeo Spider (roadster) will have to be redesigned. Ideally, an upper torso restraint anchor that complies with both U.S.D.O.T. F.M.V.S.S. and European law in one common design is preferred.

To keep this request brief, we prefer to use graphic references:

DRAWING 1: (Figure 1)

This depicts presently produced U.S. model (115.41) Spider having a "type 1" belt assembly. This lap belt is anchored at point "C" within the 40 degrees zone and then passes through a webbing guide anchorage at outboard points and "B".

Unfortunately this system will not comply with the new European law. Therefore, we consider two alternate substitute designs described below.

DRAWING 2: (Figure 2)

This shows a proposed installation of a "type 2" (3 point) torso/lap harness. Here we see the retractor mounted on the floor (outside the 40 degrees zone) at point 4. The webbing is then fed through a guide anchorage at point 3 (within the 40 degrees zone) up to another webbing guide on the seatback at point 1.

In this proposal, while the retractor is outside the 40 degrees zone, the "anchorage guides" 3 and 1 are well within the acceptable zone. This poses the question as to what is the "anchorage" (i.e., the retractor or the "anchor"?). In mechanical theory the retractor could be outside the 40 degrees zone while the "anchorage" remained within the 40 degrees zone. Our view is that the intent of N.H.T.S.A.'s design limitation is to prevent the torso webbing from attaining a loadline of more than 40 degrees (for well known reasons). This proposal achieves the "intent" of the author of F.M.V.S.S. 210, even though in a "roundabout" manner.

We would like N.H.T.S.A.'s opinion as to whether or not this proposal demonstrates compliance with 210's "40 degrees Fig. 1 zone" by design.

DRAWING 3: (Figure 3)

This proposed design eliminates the point 3 roller of the previous design, for simplicity. Instead, the retractor is mounted "direct" but slightly outside the 40 degrees zone.

Now, at point 1 on the seatback, this guide is well within the acceptable zone. It is in reality the point that determines the position of the webbing in relation to the occupant's torso. (This point is referred to as the "effective point" in the European law. It is the last point at where the webbing changes direction).

Needless to say, the point 1 guide does have sufficient load bearing capability to consider it as an anchorage. It is not merely a "convenience loop" as used on some U.S. vehicles, but an integrally designed part of the seat back.

F.M.V.S.S. 210 S4.1.1

This requirement specifically states that anchorages for Type 2 belt assemblies "shall be installed . . . . . in passenger cars other than convertibles." Does this by exclusion ("shall - other than convertibles") prohibit the installation of Type 2 belt assemblies in convertibles - or does it infer Type 2 as an option?

If the Type 2 is prohibited in convertibles, then we must try and define the word "convertible." What determines "convertibility" and what are we "converting" (the top?). If we are "converting" from a closed to an open vehicle, when and what degree of "open-ness" determines that the vehicle is in fact "open" or a convertible. We feel this is academic and use it only as a means to demonstrate the vagaries of F.M.V.S.S. 210 requirements. We realize that we also are among the minority by virtue of our almost exclusive production of "convertibles".

Our design management would appreciate N.H.T.S.A.'s legal opinion as to the compliance capabilities of our proposals 2 and 3 as soon as is possible as we are delaying tooling pending your decision.

Should the enclosed drawings require clarification or further discussion, please let us know.

D. Black Manager U.S. Engineering Office

cc: ING. FOGLIATA -- DIPRE/LEGO ING. DIMORA -- DIPRE/CARR DIPRE/ESPE ESCA

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Illegible Word) Present location SEAT BELT ANCHORAGES A-B-C SEAT BELT TYPE "1" PRESENT No DISEGNO Legn 115L1 ed 79 fg1

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted) (Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted) (Illegible Lines)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 10621

Mr. Glyn Thomas
Thomas Tire
13342 - 72d Avenue
Surrey, B.C. Canada
V3W 2N5

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This responds to your letter of December 19, 1994, and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on that date, in which you requested a waiver enabling you to import into the United States truck tire casings without the DOT symbol on the sidewalls but with more than 2/32 inch tread depth for the purpose of retreading. You stated that casings with less than 2/32 inch tread depth are usually not of sufficient quality to be retreaded.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The statute requires that all newly manufactured motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment comply with all FMVSSs applicable to that product on the date of manufacture. Generally speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or item of equipment becomes a matter of state regulation.

However, 49 U.S.C. '30112(a) provides:

[A] person may not . . . import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard . . . .

In your telephone conversation, you asked about importing used passenger car tires from Canada into the United States. The effect of section 30112(a) with regard to passenger car tires is to require that such tires which are manufactured after the effective date of FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires (January 1, 1968), must be certified as complying with the requirements

of that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. That certification is exhibited by molding the letters "DOT" into or onto the sidewall of the tire. To be legally imported into the United States, therefore, used passenger car tires must either display the DOT symbol on the sidewall of the tire or be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured before January 1, 1968.

With respect to tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, became effective March 1, 1975. That standard also requires display of the DOT symbol as the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, in order for such tires to be imported into the United States, they also must either display the DOT symbol on the tire sidewall or be accompanied by proof that the tires were manufactured prior to March 1, 1975.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars which have less than 2/32 inch of tread depth and which are imported solely for retreading may be imported without the DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported. In determining that these tires are not motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA found persuasive that those tires cannot legally be used on the public highways, and require remanufacturing before they can be operated on the highways.

Although this agency has statutory authority to grant exceptions to compliance with the FMVSSs in certain specific categories of situations, NHTSA does not have the authority to waive requirements such as the one at issue here. Therefore, any used tire imported into the United States must either display the DOT symbol, be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable FMVSSs, or in the case of tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, have less than 2/32 inch tread depth and be imported solely for retreading.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:591#109#119 d:2/27/95

ID: 7135

Mr. Michael J. Sens
Researcher
S.E.A., Inc.
7349 Worthington-Galena Road
Columbus, OH 43085

Dear Mr. Sens:

This responds to your letter to me dated March 26, 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 214, Side Door Strength; and 216, Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars,, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ- 7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a "sport utility vehicle" and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., 1381, et seq., as amended, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3.

The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions.

While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a "sport-utility vehicle," it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of 33o, departure angle of 25o, breakdown angle of 18o, axle clearance of 7.8", and minimum running clearance of 8.1", and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation.

With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it.

Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: ". . . [C]omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, . . . need not conform to this standard." You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:571#567#206 d:4/17/92

ID: nht95-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 27, 1995

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

TO: Glyn Thomas -- Thomas Tire

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/13/81 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO ROY LITTLE FIELD (STD. 119) AND 12/19/94 LETTER FROM GLYN THOMAS TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10621)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 19, 1994, and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on that date, in which you requested a waiver enabling you to import into the United States truck tire casings without the DOT symbol on the sidewalls but with more than 2/32 inch tread depth for the purpose of retreading. You stated that casings with less than 2/32 inch tread depth are usually not of sufficient quality to be retreaded.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The statute requires that all newly manufactured motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment comply with all FMVSSs applicable to that product on the date of manufacture. Generally speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first re tail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or item of equipment becomes a matter of state regulation.

However, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a) provides:

[A] person may not . . . . import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date and applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . . takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the s tandard . . . .

In your telephone conversation, you asked about importing used passenger car tires from Canada into the United States. The effect of section 30112(a) with regard to passenger car tires is to require that such tires which are manufactured after the effec tive date of FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires (January 1, 1968), must be certified as complying with the requirements of that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. That certification is exhibited by molding the letters "DOT" into or onto the sidewall of the tire. To be legally imported into the United States, therefore, used passenger car tires must either display the DOT symbol on the sidewall of the tire or be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured before January 1, 1968.

With respect to tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, became effective March 1, 1975. That standard also requires display of the DOT symbol as the manufacturer's ce rtification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, in order for such tires to be imported into the United States, they also must either display the DOT symbol on the tire sidewall or be accompanied by proof that the tires were m anufactured prior to March 1, 1975.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars which have less than 2/32 inch of tread depth and which are imported solely for retreading may be imported without the DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. R oy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported. In determining that these tires are not motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA found persuasive that those tires cannot legally be used on the public highways, and require remanufacturing before they can be operated on the highways.

Although this agency has statutory authority to grant exceptions to compliance with the FMVSSs in certain specific categories of situations, NHTSA does not have the authority to waive requirements such as the one at issue here. Therefore, any used tire i mported into the United States must either display the DOT symbol, be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable FMVSSs, or in the case of tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, have less than 2/32 inch tread depth and be imported solely for retreading.

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

ID: nht92-7.37

DATE: April 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael J. Sens -- Researcher, S.E.A., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/26/92 from Michael J. Sens to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7135)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to me dated March 26, 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 214, Side Door Strength; and 216, Roof Crush Resistance -- Passenger Cars, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ-7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a "sport utility vehicle" and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., S1381, et seq., as amended, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3.

The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions.

While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a "sport-utility vehicle," it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of

33 degrees, departure angle of 25 degrees, breakdown angle of 18 degrees, axle clearance of 7.8", and minimum running clearance of 8.1", and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation.

With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it.

Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: ". . . (C)omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, . . . need not conform to this standard." You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.