ID: 1982-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: CAPACITY OF TEXAS INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your letter of October 11, 1982, concerning regulations specifying the type of steering system required in vehicles. In particular, you asked if a mechanical link is required in the steering system or whether a hydraulic system is acceptable. As explained below, a manufacturer can use either a mechanical or hydraulic system to meet the requirements of the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to vehicle steering systems: Standard No 203, Impact Protection for the Driver Steering Control System, and Standard No. 204, Steering Column Rearward Displacement. Both standards, copies of which are enclosed, establish performance requirements to protect the driver from steering column-related injuries in a crash. Any type of steering system, either mechanical or hydraulic, can be used as long as it meets the applicable requirements of those standards.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400-7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

I have been investigating all regulations pertaining to the type of steering required in vehicles for (trucks, tractors) highway and off-highway use.

It is my understanding there is no type of regulations requiring a mechanical link in the system, and that a straight hydraulic system is acceptable.

I contacted Steve Oesch, from your department and he researched the issue and found no reference to the type of system allowed.

I would appreciate a letter from you confirming that there are no regulations or requirements that require any certain type of steering arrangement.

Thank you, Sincerely yours,

Gene Wright Vice-President, Manufacturing CAPACITY OF TEXAS, INC.

ID: 1982-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/07/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Performance Vehicles Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1982, to Mr. Fairchild of this office, asking how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration classifies the "Trihawk" three-wheeled motor vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) defines a motor vehicle, in pertinent part, as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways . . . ." (1391(3)). From the brochure you enclosed, the Trihawk appears to be manufactured for use on the public roads and, hence, is subject to the Federal safety standards, and to other regulations such as those requiring notification and remedy in the event the vehicle fails to comply with any applicable safety standard or incorporates a safety-related defect (1411 et seq.).

Agency regulations (49 CFR Part 571.3(b)) define a "motorcycle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." The standards applicable to "motorcycles," therefore, are those that the three-wheeled Trihawk must meet.

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

PERFORMANCE VEHICLES INC.

November 15, 1982

Roger Fairchild -- Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Fairchild,

Please recall our telephone conversation of 11/16/82. In that exchange we discussed the state of Illinois' view on the classification of our Trihawk motor cycle.

Enclosed you will find Trihawk sales brochures for your inspection.

This letter is written in request of you, on behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to state the classification of our vehicle with respect to existing F.M.V.S.S. and other applicable statutes.

Our hearing date is 12/13/82 in Springfield, I1. Please attend to our request at your soonest possible convenience, as our attorney needs preparation time with your document and others.

Please telephone me if there are any questions or problems with this request.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Richard M. Kleber -- Engineering Manager

ID: 1982-3.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1982

FROM: Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel

TO: M.B. Mathieson -- Director of Engineering, Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-29-90 from C. Karl to M. Shaw (OCC 4403); Also attached to letter dated 1-18-90 from R.E. Meadows; Also attached to letter dated 1-8-90 from R. Marion to C. Karl; Also attached to memo dated 11-28-8? from C. Karl to All School Bus LCR II's; Also attached to letter dated 11-27-90 from P.J. Rice to C. Karl (A36; Std. 217)

TEXT:

This responds to your September 13, 1982, letter concerning your "vandalock" system and Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Section S5.2.3.2 states that "the engine starting system of a school bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus. For purpose of this requirement, "locked" means that the release mechanism cannot be activated by a person at the door without a special device such as a key or special information such as a combination." You state that your locking mechanism, which is a bolt device, doesn't meet the definition of "locked" since it requires neither a key nor special instructions. You further indicate that the engine will not start until the bolt is withdrawn.

We disagree that your bolt when in the closed position would not meet the definition of locked. The door would not be capable of opening from the outside without the use of special devices when the bolt was closed. Accordingly, the door would be considered locked.

However, nothing in Standard No. 217 prohibits the installation of locking doors as long as the vehicle cannot be started with the door in the locked position. As you noted, your vandalock system is designed to prevent the starting of a vehicle in such circumstances.

ID: 1982-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Don Vesco Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1982, asking about the legality of "covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover."

You reported that manufacturers of motorcycles and fairings are producing such covers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration views this practice as prohibited and will take appropriate steps to make it views known. The legal authority for this is based upon a requirement of the SAE incorporated by reference in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or, alternatively, paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard.

SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions), Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A paragraph in each version states that, "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens." SAE J580a applies to all sealed beam headlamps, while the scope of J580b is considerably narrower, including only those not covered by SAE J579c.

The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584a Motorcycle Headlamps. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of additional equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicitly permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.

For the reasons stated above, the agency has concluded that no headlamp may have a glass or plastic shield in front of it when in use, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is used.

As for the turn signals, no part of the vehicle may impair their visibility through horizontal angles 45 degrees to the right and left of the vehicle (for right and left turn signals respectively) measured at the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. An unobstructed illuminated area of outer lens surface of at least 2 square inches excluding reflex is necessary to meet this requirement. You will have to judge for yourself whether the turn signal requirements are met with your planned cover in place.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

SINCERELY,

DON VESCO PRODUCTS, INC.,

September 15, 1982

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

To whom it may concern;

We are a small manufacturing firm and we produce various motorcycle products. Our main product at this time is a motorcycle fairing as shown in the photo on this letterhead. I am in the redesign stage of this fairing and would like to produce a product with flush fitting turn signals and possibly a covered headlight. I cannot find any D.O.T. specifications on the covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover. Many motorcycle accessory companies are producing fairings with this feature and, at least two motorcycle manufacturing companies are producing motorcycles with this feature. I have enclosed a number of copies showing the headlamp coverings as now produced.

What I want to know is what specifications are required to add this feature, or, is there simply nothing stating that such a feature is permissible?

I also would like to know what specifications will be required to add a clear covering over normal D.O.T. approved turnsignals. I can find no ruling that in any way prohibits or even mentions any clear covering that does not interfere with the operating of the lamp or the visability. We have limited funds and cannot afford to tool up for a special flush fitting turnsignal. However, our experiments have added up to a 23% increase in fuel economy on our test motorcycle using the new design and we feel that the commuter can use any gain possible. A 23% increase in fuel economy with no mechanical changes and only aerodynamic improvements is significant.

Time is of the essense. We must have some information on this within the next 4 weeks. Thank you for your cooperation.

Matt Guzzetta, Vice-President

ID: 1982-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 5, 1982 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting reconsideration of the agency's letter of July 22, 1982, advising you that a certain Volvo truck Model F12 had exceeded the three-year limit for nonconforming vehicles temporarily imported for purposes of test or experiment.

I have reviewed this file and determined that the agency's earlier letter was based upon the erroneous assumption that Mack Trucks was the importer of the truck in question. The facts appear to be that the truck was imported not by Mack but by Volvo of America on May 4, 1978 under the declaration that it conformed to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and was so certified (19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(ii)).

However, on December 13, 1979 Mack Trucks informed us that it had purchased the vehicle from Volvo, both parties being aware that it did not meet Federal safety regulations, that Mack had "recently" learned that the vehicle had come into the country under a mistaken declaration, and that Volvo should have entered it under the testing exemption provided by 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). Since then the agency has treated Mack as if it were the importer of the vehicle.

We are sorry for this error. Volvo appears to be in technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by importing and selling a nonconforming motor vehicle, and by mistakenly declaring that it did conform. Because Volvo never filed an amended declaration form the testing exemption never came into effect; had one been in effect, Volvo could have leased the truck to Mack but its sale would have been a violation.

Mack's status is only that of a purchaser of a nonconforming truck imported by another person. The Act does not prohibit such purchase or regulate the use of such vehicles. Further, we find that the 3-year limit has never applied to this vehicle, and that Mack may make indefinite use of it and dispose of it as it wishes.

SINCERELY,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

August 5, 1982

Taylor Vinson Office of Chief Counsel (NOA-30) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Vinson: Subject: Volvo F-12 Truck-Tractor VIN5122230 Imported for Test & Evaluation In May, 1978, Mack Trucks, Inc., purchased from the Truck Division of Volvo of America Corporation a Volvo model F-12 Truck-Tractor to be used as part of a competitive chassis engineering evaluation program in conjunction with the development of a new model series. This vehicle was not in compliance with all applicable safety standards and was, therefore, imported in accordance with 19CFR12.80(b) (1) (vii).

Under the provisions of 19CFR12.80(b) (2), Mack Trucks, Inc. was granted permission to operate the vehicle on the public road only until May 4, 1982. We have attached for your information all relevant correspondence pertaining to the importation and use of the subject vehicle to date.

Due to circumstances beyond our control, we have not been able to maintain our evaluation program schedule and are, therefore, requesting permission to operate the vehicle on the public highways until May 4, 1983. This should allow us to complete the program as planned.

In support of our request, we wish to offer the following relevant facts which prompted us to seek this extension or deviation:

(a) Economic conditions over the past several years, and the resultant down turn in our industry, have forced us to re-evaluate, and, in some cases, delay our new model programs. In light of this condition, we have not been able to utilize the subject vehicle on a continuing basis as initially planned.

(b) Since May, 1978, Mack has accumulated only 4,730 miles on the vehicle in question and we expect to add only another 1300 miles before May, 1983. As can be seen, this is very limited exposure on the public roads, particularly in light of the fact that part of the distance travelled was and will be on our own test track.

(c) Mack Trucks, Inc., as one of the largest exporters of heavy-duty trucks from the U. S., feels very strongly about retaining and expanding our overseas markets with suitable, indeed, superior products. At this point in our new model program, we are concentrating on an export version of our new COE vehicle which will compete in the world marketplace against such vehicles as the Volvo. It is, therefore, imperative that we complete a full and meaningful evaluation of the vehicle in question to develop a truly competitive product.

(d) With the probable introduction of heavy-duty Volvo trucks into the North American marketplace in the near future, due to the acquisition by Volvo of the White Motor Company, it becomes important for us to complete the evaluation and testing of this vehicle in order to appraise our competitiveness in the domestic market.

In view of the above facts, we request a deviation from the requirements of 19CFR12.80(b) (2) to allow us to use the subject vehicle on the highways until May 4, 1983. We would be only too pleased to discuss this matter further if you so desire in order to obtain a timely decision.

S. Robson Executive Engineer of Vehicle Regulations

CC: FRANCIS ARMSTRONG, DIR. OFC. OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT

ID: 1982-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1982, regarding an interpretation of the "lens area requirements of FMVSS No. 108" as applied to the high contrast lamp whose design you enclosed.

We understand that your design applies to rear lamps. The measurement for the illuminated area of a rear lamp as specified in SAE J585e, "Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps)," for example, is stated in part as follows:

. . . "To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface. . . ."

This applies to the installation requirements, i.e., the device as used on a vehicle. It is not part of the laboratory test procedure.

Further, with regard to photometric requirements of a lamp, no measurement for the illuminated area of a rear lamp is specified in SAE test procedures.

In summary, Standard No. 108 does not prohibit Lucas from manufacturing the lamp in question, but the vehicle manufacturer must be careful to insure that the lamp, when installed, conforms to the standard's requirements for visibility of lens area.

SINCERELY,

NOVEMBER 1, 1982

Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108

Our sister company, Lucas Electrical Limited, of Birmingham, England, has developed a "high contrast" lamp design for multifunction rear lamps on motor vehicles. The purpose of this letter is to seek your confirmation of our interpretation of the lens area requirements of FMVSS 108 as applicable to this design.

The Lucas high contrast design uses a conventional rear lamp bulb and reflector to direct light on to convex cylindrical lensing which is colored red, yellow or white according to the function. An opaque screen of any color having slits running in the same direction and parallel to the flutes of the lens is positioned between the inner and an outer lens. The outer lens has fluting at right angles to that of the inner lens and can be clear, tinted or of neutral density. A copy of U.S. Patent 4,241,388 is attached for more explicit information.

In operation, light from the bulb is directed as parallel rays onto the inner cylindrical lensing which focuses it through the slits in the opaque screen. After passing through the slits in the screen, the rays of light diverge and then strike the outer lens where they are refracted in a plane at right angles to the slits. To an observer, the light emitted by the lamp will be the color of the inner lens and will be in contrast to the appearance of the unilluminated lamp.

It is our interpretation that with such a lamp the projected luminous and illuminated areas requirements of FMVSS 108 are those of the outer lens rather than those of the slits behind it. We hope you will confirm this opinion.

LUCAS INDUSTRIES INC

A J Burgess Vice President (Technical)

United States Patent [19] Green

[11] 4,241,388 [45] Dec. 23, 1980

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

FIG.6.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1982-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenji Tashima Project Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Tashima:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether various vehicle seating designs being considered by your company would qualify as auxiliary seating positions and not be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These seats would be installed in extended-cab pick-up trucks behind the driver's and front passenger seats and would include storage space beneath the seating accommodation.

A seating accommodation is subject to the vehicle safety standards (e. g., Standards Nos. 207, 208) if it qualifies as a "designated seating position". That term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

"any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats..."

In our opinion, most of the seat designs included in your illustrations would be considered to be designated seating positions. We would not consider the seats to be "auxiliary seating accommodations" since, as you stated in meeting with us, they would be present as a cushioned seat a majority of the time, i.e., without having to fold the seats down or move them around as is necessary with a temporary jump seat. The fact that the seats are not "auxiliary is further evidenced to a certain extent by the fact that the cab of the pick-up trucks would be extended to accommodate the seats so that four persons could ride inside the vehicle. You do not suggest that the cab would be extended for the primary purpose of providing the small amount of storage space that would be beneath these seats.

In your illustrations, seat designs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H have an overall seat configuration such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle likely to be used as seats since design D does not have a cushion (just a board) and design E does not have a seat back. If these two designs were combined, i.e., no seat back and no seat cushion, the agency would consider the positions to be auxiliary seating positions, depending on the agency's assessment of the seat together with the total passenger compartment design. I would like to emphasize, however,that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine whether or not its vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and to certify that compliance. Therefore, your company would have to make its own determination concerning whether any of these designs would qualify as designated seating positions. the agency can only offer its opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The agency would make its own final determination only during an enforcement investigation involving a certified vehicle.

You also asked the following general questions regarding all of the designs illustrated in your letter: are seat belts required, is seat size a factor in determining whether a seat is auxiliary, and is there a distinction in the determinations if a bench seat is used instead of two separate cushions? As mentioned earlier, seat belts are required if a particular accommodation is determined to be a designated seating position. Seat size is a factor in determining whether a particular position is a designated seating position to the extent that the definition of that term specifies, as a threshold, a space capable of accommodating at least a 5th percentile adult female (your letter notes that all your designs are capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female). Whether or not a particular positions is designed as a bench weat or as separate cushions is generally irrelevant to the determination of whether the seat qualifies as a designated seat position.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Patrick J. Tyler; Englander

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT:

Mr. Patrick J. Tyler Englander 3429 West 47th Street Chicago, Illinois 60632 Dear Mr. Tyler:

This responds to your September 8, 1982, letter asking whether a mattress that you manufacture for use in a truck cab would be required to comply with Standard No. 302. Flammability of Interior Materials.

Standard No. 302 lists the components that are covered by the standard. That list states that mattress covers must comply with the standard's requirements. The agency has interpreted the mattress cover language to mean both mattress covers and the permanent mattress ticking. Accordingly, your mattress to the extent that it is designed for use in new vehicles must comply with the requirements.

You should be aware that nothing prohibits a vehicle owner from purchasing noncomplying equipment as replacement equipment if he so chooses. You did not indicate whether your operation is for new vehicles or replacement equipment. In the instance of noncomplying replacement equipment, no manufacturer, repair business, or distributor could install such noncomplying equipment. The installation would have to be made by the vehicle owner himself. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transamerica Transportation Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which you requested information on any requirements concerning the use of imported casings for regrooving and imported casings for retreading. When retreaded or regrooved, these tires would be used on your company's trailers ("intermodel piggyback equipment"). Following are the answers to the four questions in your letter.

(1) May tires be imported for regrooving and, if so, are there any conditions necessary, such as DOT number or "regroovable tire" parking on the casing? To answer your question about importing tires for regrooving, it is necessary to explain the conditions under which tires may be imported for retreading. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a June 18, 1981 letter I sent to the National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, which sets forth the conditions under which used casings may legally be imported into the United States for purposes of retreading. The letter explains that tires with less than 2/32 inch of remaining tread which are imported solely so that they can be retreaded are not considered "items of motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Therefore, the DOT certification symbol need not appear on the sidewall of these casings.

Further, there is no NHTSA standard applicable to retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Hence, there are not requirements which the imported tires must meet in order to be retreaded or after they are retreaded.

The same reasoning set forth above regarding casings to be retreaded would apply to casings imported for regrooving. Thus, no DOT certification symbol would be required to appear on the sidewall of the casings in order for the tires to be imported.

There is, however, an important distinction between retreaded tires (not for use on a passenger car) and regrooved tires. While the former are not subject to any NHTSA regulations, the latter are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 569, Regrooved Tires (copy enclosed). That regulation specifies that the only tires which may be regrooved are those which are marked "regroovable" on both sidewalls by the manufacturer (or retreader) (@ 569.9), and sets forth certain requirements which the tire must meet after regrooving (@ 569.7(a)(2)). Any tire not marked with the word "regroovable" on both sidewalls cannot legally be regrooved, so all casings imported for regrooving are required to have this marking.

Hence, there are three conditions which must be met by all casings imported for regrooving. These are: (a) the actual tread pattern remaining on the casing must be less than 2/32 of an inch deep;

(b) the casing must be imported solely for regrooving, and will not be used or sold "as is"; and

(c) the word "regroovable" must be marked on both sidewalls of each casing.

If you require further information on the actual mechanics of clearing these casings through customs, and the applicable duties, I suggest you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U. S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229. Mr. Feese's telephone number is (202) 566-8651.

(2) If regroovable imported tires are legal, are there any limitations on the types of trailers they may be put on, that is, original or used equipment? Yes, there are limitations on the installation of regrooved tires. This agency's regulations apply only to new vehicles, so they are applicable to the use of regrooved tires as original equipment on new trailers. Specifically, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.120), (copy enclosed) applies to all new trailers. Section S5.1 of that standard sets forth the tire and rim selection requirements applicable to new trailers equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service. For the manufacturer to install regrooved tires on a new trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that three conditions must be satisfied. These are:

(a) the regrooved tires to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser;

(b) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle; and

(c) the regrooved tires must have a DOT certification symbol on the sidewall to show that the tire, when new, was certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. This third condition arises because regrooved tires are considered "used tires" within the meaning of section S5.1.3.

The third condition just mentioned makes it unlikely that regrooved tires produced from imported casings could be mounted by a trailer manufacturer on a new trailer, because those casings are unlikely to have a DOT certification symbol on the sidewall. Please note, however, that Standard No. 120 applies only to trailers which are equipped with tires for highway service. Your company, as a purchaser, is free to order the new trailer delivered to you without any tires installed. The purchaser is then free to install any tires he may choose, without violating this agency's requirements.

Regarding your question about limitations on the use of regrooved tires on used trailers, that area is not regulated by this agency. However, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration has issued an applicable regulation for equipment used in interstate commerce. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR @ 393.75, which sets forth the requirements for tires used in interstate commerce. This regulation prohibits the use of regrooved tires above a certain load-carrying capacity on the front wheels of trucks and truck tractors, but it does not appear to prohibit the use of regrooved tires on trailers. You may want to check with Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, to confirm that regrooved tires may be mounted on trailers to be used in interstate commerce.

(3) Are there any restrictions on the type of equipment capped foreign casings can be put on? The same provisions set forth above regulating the use of regrooved tires on new and used equipment are applicable for determining whether retreaded tires may be mounted on new and used equipment. For the manufacturer to install retreaded tires on a new trailer, section S5.1.3 sets forth two conditions which must be satisfied. These are:

(a) the retreaded tires to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser; and

(b) The sum of the maximum load ratings of the retreaded tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle.

You will notice that retreaded tires to be used on new equipment do not have to meet the third condition specified above for the use of regrooved tires, i.e., retreaded tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on the sidewall. The reason retreaded tires are not required to meet this condition is that NHTSA has interpreted the term "used tires" in section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 as not including retreaded tires.

Regarding the use of retreaded tires on used equipment to be employed in interstate commerce, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety does not appear to have any restrictions on the use of retreaded tires on trailers. The general restrictions that the sum of the load ratings of the tires mounted on an axle be at least equal to the load on the axle applies regardless of whether the tires are new, retreaded, or regrooved (49 CFR @ 393.75(f)(2)). Again, you may want to confirm this with that agency.

(4) Are there structural or physical (marking) requirements on foreign casings imported for recapping? As noted in response to your first question, there is no requirement that casings imported for retreading have a DOT symbol on the sidewall. Further, since there is no NHTSA standard applicable to the retreading of these tires, there are no structural requirements which the casings must satisfy. I would, however, urge your company to take all reasonable steps to assure the structural integrity of any casings which are imported for retreading for your company.

After the casing has been retreaded, 49 CFR Part 574.5 (copy enclosed) requires that the retreader of the imported casing put its identification number on the sidewall of each tire it retreads. This permits the agency to identify the retreader of the tire should that be necessary. The identification number need not appear on tires which are retreaded solely for the retreader's own use, since it is obvious who retreaded those tires.

You should note that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety prohibits retreaded tires without load markings from being mounted on the front wheels of trucks used in interstate commerce, except for two particular types of vehicles. Again, if you have any further questions as to that agency's regulations concerning the use of retreaded tires, you should contact that agency directly.

I would be happy to help if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

ENCLS.

Transamerica Transportation Services Inc

November 8, 1982

Stephen Kratzke U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Transamerica Transportation Services is the largest lessor of intermodal piggyback equipment and, as such, purchases a large number of tires for the equipment.

We have been recently looking into the feasibility of using recapped Japanese casings and regrooved Japanese casings on our equipment and it seems the more people we talk to concerning the legality of these tires, the more varied opinions we receive. Specifically, we are looking for the answers to the following questions and we would appreciate your opinions, be they legal or otherwise, and any pertinent DOT laws:

1. May tires be imported for regrooving and, if so, are there any conditions necessary such as DOT number or "regroovable tire" marking on the casing?

2. If regroovable imported tires are legal, are there any limitations on the type of trailers they may be put on, that is, original or used equipment?

3. Are there any restrictions on the type of equipment capped foreign casings can be put on?

4. Are there structural or physical (marking) requirements on foreign casings imported for capping?

Any information on these questions would be greatly appreciated.

Neil Mark Manager, Technical Services

ID: 1982-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tokai Rika Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Asai Manager Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. New York Office One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, New Jersey 07094

Dear Mr. Asai:

This responds to your letter of October 15, 1982, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your letter concerned the symbols specified by that standard for the windshield defrosting and defogging system control and the rear window defrosting and defogging system control. You asked whether it is permissible to use the symbols specified by EEC Directive 78/316/EEC for those controls, stating that there are only slight differences between the symbols specified by Standard No. 101 and the EEC directive. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.

The preamble to the final rule establishing current Standard No. 101 explained that minor deviations are allowed from the symbols designated by the standard, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard. 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978. (This statement was noted in your letter.)

For the windshield defrosting and defogging system control, both our standard and the EEC directive specify three curving arrows (representing rising air) superimposed on a form representing a windshield. For the rear window defrosting and defogging system control, both documents specify three curving arrows superimposed on a form representing a rear window. The forms representing the windshield and the rear window are the same for both Standard No. 101 and the EEC directive. Further, the three curving arrows are superimposed over the windshield or rear window by both documents in the same manner. The only apparent difference between the symbols specified by the two documents is the number of curves in each of the three arrows. The arrows specified by the EEC directive have the curves each, while the arrows specified by Standard No. 101 have three curves.

In our opinion, the deviation you described falls within the intent of the June 1978 statement to permit symbols that are identical to the pictured ones except in some minor respect. The deviation is indeed minor since one must closely examine the two EEC symbols in question and those specified by Standard No. 101 to determine if there is any difference at all.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 15, 1982

Mr. Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

We wish to inquire about the identifying symbols of windshield and rear window defrosting and defogging system.

We are presently supplying vehicle manufacturers with defrosting and defogging switches which will be mounted on the vehicles intended for U. S. and European markets. As you may know, however, there are slight differences between the identifying symbol designated in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 - Controls and Displays and those in EEC Directive 78/316/EEC - Identification of Controls. Tell-Tales and Indicators. The waved arrows on the symbols bear much resemblance, but are not identical, as you can see from the attached copies, which were taken from the standards.

We would like to know if the identifying symbols designated in the above mentioned Directive are acceptable for use in the U.S., although, they vary slightly. In fact , it was stated in an early notice (Docket No. 1-18: Notice 13, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) that "minor deviations are allowed as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard."

If our proposal proves unacceptable, hopefully, in the future steps will be taken to implement the harmonization of both these standards.

Your prompt consideration will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

T. Asai Manager

TA:dt Attachment