ID: nht76-1.34

DATE: 06/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your March 12, 1976, letter to Mr. Robert Aubuchon of this agency, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less.

You have inquired whether such vehicles may be equipped with tires that --

(i) "Carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH -- S.6.5."

(ii) "Have passed the endurance test -- S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III -- speed restricted service: 35 MPH"

(iii) "have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 -- in fact they are speed restricted . . ."

and otherwise comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119.

I assume that, where your letter refers to the marking "MAX SPEED", you intended "MAX SPEED 35 MPH". Although such labeling is not prohibited, the standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. Tires for motor driven cycles are subject to the same performance requirements as other motorcycle tires. In particular, the schedule for endurance testing is that found in the "motorcycle entry of Table III, rather than the "35 m.p.h." entry. Similarly, these tires are subject to the high speed performance requirements of S.6.3 without exception. An amendment of Standard No. 119 on this subject is being considered, but no firm decision has been made.

Standard No. 119 prohibits the manufacture of the tires that you have described on and after March 1, 1975. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, prohibits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles equipped with such tires on and after September 1, 1976.

SINCERELY,

PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION

March 12, 1976

NHTSA

Att: Robert Aubuchon

In reference to the phone conversation of March 9, 1976, we would like to have the following Information:

1) Is it permissible (with respect to the safety requirments stated in Standards 119 and 120) to equip motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 MPH or less (see definitions R571 paragraph 571.3 - B and references in part 571, ST 123 - PRE 5 ST 108 - S.4.1.1 26/27, St 122 - S.5.4/S/5.5) with tires meeting the requirements of Standard 119 inasmuch as they:

a) are indicated in ETRTO data book S.5.1.B

b) carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH - S.6.5.

c) have tread wear indicators S.6.4

d) have passed the strength test - S.6.2., S.7.3, in accordance with tables I and II - plunger 5/16

e) have passed the endurance test - S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III - speed restricted service: 35 MPH

f) have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 - in fact they are speed restricted, moreover they may be included in the requirements of Standard 120 - see paragraphs: S.2, S.5.1.1, S.5.1.2, S.5.3. D"

N.B. There is no indication anywhere in Standard 119 and 120 that the speed restrictions apply only to trucks.

2) As discussed by phone, we have requested that a copy of the letter sent by ETRTO to the DOT be forwarded to you as soon as possible. We would appreciate if you would look into this matter and inform us of the outcome.

Thanking you in advance for a prompt reply, we remain

Francesa Robinsons for Mr. Buzzi

G. Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager

Industrie Pirelli spa

MARCH 15, 1976

Robert Aubuchon N.H.T.S.A. Office of Standard Enforcement

We have been informed by Pirelli Tire Corporation N.Y. your request for a copy of the ETRTO Submission to NHTSA concerning an amendment to FMVSS 119 and precisely 'Tyres for low-power motorcycles with restricted speed capability'.

A copy of it is here with enclosed.

Recently, February 26th, Mr. Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel of NHTSA has promised to Mr. Trimble, ETRTO General Secretary, that a Federal Register notice on the subject will be issued in the near future.

(P.G. Malinverni) Tyre Standardization

EUROPEAN TYRE AND RIM TECHNICAL ORGANISATION

The Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RD/MS 048/75

SUBMISSION N degree 6/119

FMVSS 110 - TYRES FOR LOW-POWER MOTORCYCLES WITH RESTRICTED SPEED CAPABILITY

In the preamble to Docket 71-18 Notice 6, published in the Federal Register Volume 39, No.29 dated Monday February 11th 1974, page 5192, reference was made to an E.T.R.T.O. proposal for new test values for certain motorcycle tires, which proposal was deemed to be "unclear as to the meaning . . . "

For convenience of reference the paragraph in question is quoted as follows:

"The E.T.R.T.O. proposed new test values for some motorcycle tires, but the request was unclear as to the meaning of the 62 mph criterion and the unsupported request cannot be granted. If in future, the E.T.R.T.O. petitions for rule making to revise the table, an explanation of the criterion and a justification for the test values would permit an informed decision."

In response to the invitation, implicit in this paragraph, to E.T.R.T.O. to petition "for rule making to revise the table" by submitting explanation and justification of its requirements E.T.R.T.O. submits the following petition for consideration on this subject.

FMVSS 119 recognises all data standardised by the various international and national standards organizations (Illegible Words) (Illegible Line) (Illegible Words) in tables II (strength) table III (endurance) and in paragraph S7-1 (high speed).

In accordance with the "invitation" instanced (Illegible Word) ETRTO formally requests reconsideration of the requirements of Standard 119 insofar as two categories of light motorcycle tires are concerned, these being the speed-restricted ranges of such tires listed on pages (Illegible Word) through 119 of the 1974/75 E.T.R.T.O. Data-book.

In requesting certain (Illegible Word) from the terms of Standard 119, E.T.R.T.O. is evoking (Illegible Words) which resulted in amendments to the requirements of (Illegible Words) 122 (Illegible Word) 123, as published in the Federal Register Vol. 39 No. 72 (Illegible Words) 12th 1974, in that the existing Standard 119 is "not reasonable, (Illegible Words) appropriate" to the light motorcycle tires in question.

a) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles With Speed Capability up to 50 mph

These tires are especially designed to be fitted to motor-driven cycles with a (Illegible Words).

They can be recognised from having the word "Moped" (or alternatively "Cyclomoteur", or "Ciclomotore" or "Circlomotor") in the vicinity of the (Illegible Word) designation (e.g. (Illegible Word) - 17 Moped).

E.T.R.T.O. requests that for tires to be mounted on motor-driven cycles with a top speed capability of 30 mph of less, tires known as moped tires in Europe and with a speed restriction of 30 mph, the following specifications be adopted:

1. Strength: the minimum static breaking energy should be the one allowed for rayon cord tires even for other types of cords such as cotton, which is widely used for this tire range and which has breaking energy properties almost identical to rayon.

2. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 100 rpm

The test leads could be (in percent of maximum lead rating): 100% for 4 hours, 108% for 6 hours and 117% for 24 hours.

3. High Speed Test: no high speed test will apply to these tires since they are "speed restricted".

4. Treadwear Indicators: in view of the low speed usage and the fact that these tires have very shallow tread patterns, (circa 3 mm) similar to cycle tires, E.T.R.T.O. (Illegible Word) that the requirement to add treadwear indicators at 1/32" (0,8 mm) is unrealistic and against the interests of the consumer.

b) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles up to 60 mph (or 100 km/h)

This is the category of tires previously referred to as "up to 62 mph", this being strictly equivalent speed to 100 km/h.

These tires are specially designed to be fitted on lightweight motorcycles with maximum speed not exceeding 60 mph.

(Illegible Line) is considered that a (Illegible Words) rating for these tires (Illegible Words) in a restricted-speed category. In consequence E.T.R.T.O. requested (Illegible Word) (Illegible Lines)

1. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 200 rpm, the test load in percent of maximum load rating 100 for 4 hours, 108 for 6 hours, 117 for 24 hours

2. High Speed: since the first step of the high speed test is 375 rpm equivalent to a speed on highway largely in excess of 75 mph and that speed is higher than the maximum allowed for the tire we would propose that category to be considered a speed restricted category therefore the high speed test will not be necessary for them.

3. Treadwear Indicators: for the reasons outlined in paragraph (a) (4) above the requirement for treadwear indicators be waived for this range of tires.

c) For case of consideration of these requests it should be noted tha the (Illegible Line) ranges of (Illegible Words) -speed motorcycle tires by their size designation as follows: (i) light motorcycle tires, 30 or 60 mph category - the size designations are in inches and fractions of an inch e.g. 2 1/2 - 17.

(ii) unrestricted speed motorcycle tires - the size designations are in inches and decimals e.g. 2.75 - 17.

E.T.R.T.O. requests that early consideration be given to this petition in order that appropriate steps may be taken for implementation prior to the March 1st 1975 effective date of Standard 119.

Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration of the matter,

R. DERESSON General Secretary

ID: nht95-6.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert J. Ponticelli -- President, American International Pacific Industries Corp.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT J. PONTICELLI TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11082)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ponticelli:

This responds to your letter asking about how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations apply to your product. You described your product as an aftermarket anti-theft device that is installed between the steering wheel and the steering shaft. The device is activated by "a key switch" and causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling, thus preventing actual steering of the vehicle. In an August 29, 1995 meeting with NHTSA staff, you demonstrated this device and stated that you also have plans to market it to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment. For the original equipment version of the device, you plan to incorporate a starter interrupt that will prevent the vehicle from starting while the device is in the freewheeling mode. You also requested information on how our regulations apply to regulated parties such as new car dealers and aftermarket service businesses. I will respond to your questions below.

First, I will give you some background information. NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an item of motor vehicle equipment such as your anti-theft device. However, since the steering wheel, steering column, and the area in front of the driver are among the most closely regulated parts of a vehicle, your device could affect a vehicle's compliance with several safety standards.

Because the purpose of your device is to prevent vehicle theft, I will first discuss FMVSS No. 114, the safety standard that deals with theft protection. The pertinent part of Standard No. 114 requires most vehicles to "have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both." Most motor vehicle manufacturers have chosen to comply with this requirement by installing a steering lock. Because a device that causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling prevents actual steering, or maneuvering of the vehicle, it could also be used to meet this requirement. However, to be used as a basis for certification with FMVSS No. 114, the device would have to be activated by removal of the key that controls engine activation.

In addition to possibly being used as a means of complying with FMVSS No. 114, your device could alternatively be operated by a separate key and installed in addition to a steering lock, assuming that it did not affect compliance of the vehicle with that or other safety standards. However, you should evaluate whether the device might pose a safety hazard if used without your planned starter interrupt. A driver who doesn't know (or forgets) about your device could start the vehicle in motion without realizing that the turning of the wheel is not affecting the vehicle.

Other standards that you should be concerned about include FMVSS Nos. 203 (impact protection for the driver from the steering control system), 204 (steering control rearward displacement), and 208 (occupant crash protection). As our engineers explained in our meeting, even small changes to the steering column can affect vehicle compliance with these standards.

Turning to the second part of your question, which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product is installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with your device installed complies with all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard Nos. 114, 203, 204, and 208. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g. by a new car dealer, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a commercial business, such as an aftermarket service business or new car dealer, that business would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners installed your device in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 11082-2

Mr. Robert J. Ponticelli
President
American International Pacific Industries Corp.
1040 Avenida Acaso
Camarillo, CA 93012

Dear Mr. Ponticelli:

This responds to your letter asking about how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations apply to your product. You described your product as an aftermarket anti-theft device that is installed between the steering wheel and the steering shaft. The device is activated by "a key switch" and causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling, thus preventing actual steering of the vehicle. In an August 29, 1995 meeting with NHTSA staff, you demonstrated this device and stated that you also have plans to market it to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment. For the original equipment version of the device, you plan to incorporate a starter interrupt that will prevent the vehicle from starting while the device is in the freewheeling mode. You also requested information on how our regulations apply to regulated parties such as new car dealers and aftermarket service businesses. I will respond to your questions below.

First, I will give you some background information. NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an item of motor vehicle equipment such as your anti- theft device. However, since the steering wheel, steering column, and the area in front of the driver are among the most closely regulated parts of a vehicle, your device could affect a vehicle's compliance with several safety standards.

Because the purpose of your device is to prevent vehicle theft, I will first discuss FMVSS No. 114, the safety standard that deals with theft protection. The pertinent part of Standard No. 114 requires most vehicles to "have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) [t]he normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) [e]ither steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both." Most motor vehicle manufacturers have chosen to comply with this requirement by installing a steering lock. Because a device that causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling prevents actual steering, or maneuvering of the vehicle, it could also be used to meet this requirement. However, to be used as a basis for certification with FMVSS No. 114, the device would have to be activated by removal of the key that controls engine activation.

In addition to possibly being used as a means of complying with FMVSS No. 114, your device could alternatively be operated by a separate key and installed in addition to a steering lock, assuming that it did not affect compliance of the vehicle with that or other safety standards. However, you should evaluate whether the device might pose a safety hazard if used without your planned starter interrupt. A driver who doesn't know (or forgets) about your device could start the vehicle in motion without realizing that the turning of the wheel is not affecting the vehicle.

Other standards that you should be concerned about include FMVSS Nos. 203 (impact protection for the driver from the steering control system), 204 (steering control rearward displacement), and 208 (occupant crash protection). As our engineers explained in our meeting, even small changes to the steering column can affect vehicle compliance with these standards.

Turning to the second part of your question, which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product is installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with your device installed complies with all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard Nos. 114, 203, 204, and 208. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g. by a new car dealer, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a commercial business, such as an aftermarket service business or new car dealer, that business would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners installed your device in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:114 d:9/19/95

ID: nht80-4.6

DATE: 10/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Excel Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 3, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. S. A. Spretnjak Excel Industries, Inc. 1120 North Main Street Elkhart, Indiana 46514

Dear Mr. Spretnjak:

This responds to your August 15, 1980, letter asking several questions about your responsibilities for complying with Federal safety standards. You state that you manufacture a sun roof that can be installed by either an original vehicle manufacturer or a subsequent vehicle alterer.

Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to note that Federal safety standards apply to different manufacturers depending upon the standard involved. Equipment standards are the responsibility of equipment manufacturers while vehicle standards fall within the responsibilities of a vehicle manufacturer or alterer. For sun roofs, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, is an equipment standard and might apply to an equipment manufacturer who manufacturers sun roofs if they contain any glazing materials. Some vehicle safety standards might be affected also by the installation of a sun roof. The installer of a sun roof would be entirely responsible for compliance with all of the vehicle safety standards affected by the sun roof installation.

Your first question asks who certifies the sun roof if it is installed as original equipment on a vehicle. The equipment manufacturer who manufacturers the glazing would be responsible for certifying the glazing in accordance with Standard No. 205. The installer of the sun roof, the vehicle manufacturer, would certify the vehicle in compliance with all of the safety standards.

Second, you ask the same question as above with respect to a van conversion or motor home construction. Again, the equipment manufacturer would certify to the glazing standard, and the van converter or motor home builder would certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, Certification.

Third, you ask who must certify if a dealer adds a sun roof before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser. The equipment manufacturer certifies to the glazing standard, and the installer of the device would attach an alterer's label to any vehicle in accordance with Part 567.7.

Your fourth question asks who certifies if a body shop adds the sun roof for a vehicle owner. As always, the sun roof glazing is certified by the equipment manufacturer. Businesses that modify used vehicles are not required to recertify those vehicles in compliance with any of the safety standards. Such businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard.

Fifth, you ask whether as a window manufacturer your only responsibility is to certify to Standards Nos. 205 and 217. As stated earlier, you would have responsibility to certify to Standard No. 205. However, Standard No. 217 is a vehicle standard, and only a vehicle manufacturer or alterer has responsibility for certifying compliance with that standard.

Your final question asks about testing for compliance with the safety standards. Testing is usually conducted by vehicle manufacturers for those standards that apply to vehicles. For standards that apply only to equipment, the testing is usually done by the equipment manufacturer. When a vehicle is altered and the alterer must attach a label indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards, the alterer can certify compliance through any means that, in the exercise of due care, he or she feels is sufficient to assure compliance with the safety standards. Methods available to alterers include: retesting, simulated testing, mathmatical modeling, or any other device appropriate for assesiing continued compliance with the standards.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 15, 1980

Roger Tilton ESQ Attorney Adviser Office of the Chief Council Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Per our telephone conversation on August 12, 1980, this formal request for assistance is forwarded to your attention.

Excel Industries is a manufacturer of aftermarket sunroof products and specialty windows. The product consists of a glass lite, aluminum frame and plastic handle (see attached sketch for more details).

The product would be sold thru and to auto body shops, van converters and aftermarket distribution centers. The installation of the product could be done at facilities of the afore mentioned sales outlets or by the general public. The ultimate end use of the product and type of vehicle installation after sales are not controlled.

Based on the above information the question of product liability with regard to compliance and certification to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards must be addressed.

Your assistance is required to answer the following questions:

ITEM #1 If a sunroof assembly is installed by an original equipment manufacturer (ie. Ford, GMC, Chrysler) on a domestic or Import vehicle, should the installer of the unit certify the product?

ITEM #2 If a sunroof assembly is installed by a motor home builder and/or van converter should the installer certify the product and label same per FMV regulation 567?

ITEM #3 If a vehicle is not titled ie. altered by dealer before sale, should the installer certify and label same per FMV regulation 567?

ITEM #4 If a body shop installs a sun roof for an individual should the installer certify and label same per FMV regulation 567?

ITEM #5 As a window manufacturer is it true that the certifications to FMVSS #205 and possibly FMVSS #217 are only FMVSS specifications that must be certified?

ITEM #6 Most FMVSS require testing on the final and completed vehicle. Does this place the burden of testing and/or certifying compliance on the OEM or final stage finisher? When a vehicle is altered can certification be attained by the following methods?

1) Retesting the entire vehicle 2) Simulate static testing the original vehicle versus the altered vehicle 3) Mathematically models 4) Can the installer by any other process, whereby, with due care provide evidence that the altered vehicle is as applicable to meeting the standard as the original vehicle.

A response prior to October 1, 1980, would be most appreciated.

Thank you for your cooperation,

EXCEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

S.A. Spretnjak

Attachment SAS/lmv cc: JEC PJT ALG

ID: 1985-01.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John L. O'Connell Department of Motor Vehicles State of Connecticut

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John L. O'Connell Department of Motor Vehicles State of Connecticut State Street Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109

This responds to your October 15, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about an emergency door which is installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Your first question asked whether this additional emergency exit is required to comply with Standard No. 217. In particular, you asked about the labeling requirements. FMVSS No. 217 requires that additional exits on school buses which are intended as emergency exits must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in buses other than school buses. These additional emergency exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with the requirements for exits in non-school buses.

Your second question asked whether the door may be sealed shut. You also asked whether sealing the door would have any effect on the compliance of the bus with FMVSS No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The answer to this question depends on who seals the door, and when this work is performed. As you probably know, NHTSA does not have the authority to prohibit an owner, such as a school, from modifying its own vehicle. A school may modify its own vehicle in any manner without assuring that the vehicle remains in compliance with motor vehicle safety standards. Of course, it may be more difficult to insure a vehicle which does not conform to the safety standards. The school can also expose itself to increased liability in the event that one of their noncomplying vehicles is involved in an accident.

After the vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, manufacturers, dealers, distributors or repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. The additional door could be sealed by a manufacturer or repair-type business as long as there were sufficient other emergency exits available on the vehicle so that it remains in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 217. Moreover, the door were sealed after the vehicle's first sale, FMVSS No. 221 would not be a factor. This is because doors are not considered "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of the standard. Since the additional door was not regulated by Standard No. 221, there would be no rendering inoperative of the compliance of the door with that standard.

If you decide to Seal the emergency exit shut, we would encourage you to remove the labels to avoid possible confusion in the event of an accident.

If the door was made inoperable prior to the vehicle's first sale, FMVSS No. 221 would be a factor. This is because the person sealing the door is an "alterer," and must attach a label indicating compliance of the altered vehicle with the standards. When the door is sealed, it becomes part of the bus wall structure. As such, any joints on the door that would fall within the ambit of Standard No. 221 would be required to comply with that standard. The alterer would also be required to remove any labels and operating instructions from the exit which was sealed, since labels indicating that a door can be used as an emergency exit when in fact the door is inoperative would not conform to Standard No. 217.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 15, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This correspondence relates to Thomas Built Buses, Inc., who manufacture a school bus with a right side emergency door, in addition to the emergency exits required by FMVSS No. 217.

If a school bus is manufactured in conformance with the emergency exit requirements of FMVSS No. 217, and additionally, a right side emergency exit is provided. must that additional exit be in compliance with all the requirements of FMVSS, including markings?

If it does not have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 217, may it be sealed shut? If yes, would a sealed door have any significant effect on the school bus's meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 221 for School Bus Body Joint Strength?

Your response to these questions will be a valuable assistance to us in guiding our inspection personnel.

Very truly yours

John L. O'Connell Public Transportation Administrator

JLO:ECP/k

cc: Howard Smith Bus Sales Ron Marion, Thomas Built Buses

ID: nht90-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/13/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HANK KMIECIK -- STEERABLE CARRIAGES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1-5-90 TO NHTSA FROM HANK KMIECIK, STEERABLE CARRIAGES, ATTACHED; [OCC 4333]

TEXT: This responds to your January 5, 1990 letter requesting our review of your rear wheel steering system for trucks, buses and special application vehicles. This system is intended to replace one rear axle on these vehicles, and when activated, enables the axle to rotate slightly on its vertical axis. It is intended to improve the maneuverability of these vehicles in low-speed situations such as making sharp turns.

During a February 9, 1990 telephone conversation with David Greenburg of this office, you explained that, while your product uses air from the vehicle's compressed air suspension system to operate the axle, it is isolated from the air brake system. You also explained that, as a result of this design, a failure in the air system connected to your product would not affect the operation of the vehicle's braking system.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 makes manufacture rs of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards.

In this instance, there are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for steerable rear axles. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a product would not have to certify that a steerable rear axle complies with any safety standard before offering it for sale to the public. However, the addition of a steerable rear axle to a vehicle before its first sale to the public could affect the vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. In such a case, the manu facturer or alterer that installed this product on a new vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle, with the steerable rear axle installed, complied with all applicable safety standards. For example, installation of the steerable axle could affect t he vehicle's

compliance with the applicable braking standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; Air brake systems) or the tire and rim selection standard (FMVSS No. 119; New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars).

Of course, you will need to consider other safety effects that operation of the steerable axle system could have. Among these considerations would be ensuring that the trailer's gross axle weight rating (GAWR) is not exceeded when the steering system is in operation and the trailer is supported by only the steerable axle instead of by both the steerable and fixed axles.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your steerable rear axle are subject to the requirements in section 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defe ct exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

In addition, the use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" a ny device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the steerable rear axle and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the steerable rear axle in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safet y standards. If the installation of the steerable rear axle would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the product can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether the installation of this steerable rear axle on vehicles would result in a "render inoperative" violation on your company. This agency may reexamine your determination in the conte xt of an enforcement action.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that State laws may apply to your product.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Enc.

ID: 2350y

Mr. Hank Kmiecik
Steerable Carriages
P.O. Box 211
Little York, NJ 08834

Dear Mr. Kmiecik:

This responds to your January 5, 1990 letter requesting our review of your rear wheel steering system for trucks, buses and special application vehicles. This system is intended to replace one rear axle on these vehicles, and when activated, enables the axle to rotate slightly on its vertical axis. It is intended to improve the maneuverability of these vehicles in low-speed situations such as making sharp turns.

During a February 9, 1990 telephone conversation with David Greenburg of this office, you explained that, while your product uses air from the vehicle's compressed air suspension system to operate the axle, it is isolated from the air brake system. You also explained that, as a result of this design, a failure in the air system connected to your product would not affect the operation of the vehicle's braking system.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 makes manufacturers of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment responsible for certifying that each of its products conforms with all applicable safety standards.

In this instance, there are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for steerable rear axles. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a product would not have to certify that a steerable rear axle complies with any safety standard before offering it for sale to the public. However, the addition of a steerable rear axle to a vehicle before its first sale to the public could affect the vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. In such a case, the manufacturer or alterer that installed this product on a new vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle, with the steerable rear axle installed, complied with all applicable safety standards. For example, installation of the steerable axle could affect the vehicle's compliance with the applicable braking standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; Air brake systems) or the tire and rim selection standard (FMVSS No. 119; New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars).

Of course, you will need to consider other safety effects that operation of the steerable axle system could have. Among these considerations would be ensuring that the trailer's gross axle weight rating (GAWR) is not exceeded when the steering system is in operation and the the trailer is supported by only the steerable axle instead of by both the steerable and fixed axles.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your steerable rear axle are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

In addition, the use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the steerable rear axle and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the steerable rear axle in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. If the installation of the steerable rear axle would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the product can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether the installation of this steerable rear axle on vehicles would result in a "render inoperative" violation on your company. This agency may reexamine your determination in the context of an enforcement action. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that State laws may apply to your product.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:VSA d:3/l5/90

ID: nht80-2.2

DATE: 04/15/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Warehouse Bus Parts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 April 15, 1980

Mr. Donald E. Lenda Executive Vice President Warehouse Bus Parts, Inc. 100 Gruner Road Cheektowaga, New York 14227

Dear Mr. Lenda:

This responds to your recent letter regarding a device to prevent siphoning of fuel from trucks and buses which your company intends to market. You seek a Federal endorsement stating that this anti-siphon device is in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

There are currently no Federal safety standards that are directly applicable to a device such as yours. Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301), applies only to completed motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. It does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems. Rather, the standard specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following barrier crash tests.

Although Safety Standard No. 301 would not be directly applicable to the anti-siphon device, use of the device may give rise to responsibilities under our regulations. Any person who alters a motor vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale (i.e., first purchase by a consumer) is required to place an additional label or tag on the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, continues to be in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). Therefore, if a vehicle is altered prior to its first purchase by the addition of your anti-siphon device, the person installing the device would have to certify that the vehicle is still in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. (Remember, however, that Safety Standard No. 301 applies only to vehicles having GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, so an alterer's label would not be required if the device is installed on a heavy truck or bus).

In addition to the requirements for persons who alter new vehicles prior to their first purchase, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1979 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with the Federal safety standards. Therefore, none of these persons could modify a used vehicle by installing the anti-siphon device if that installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301 or any other safety standards.

Whether or not the anti-siphon device could be installed on a vehicle without destroying the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301 is a determination which must be made by your company or by the person making the installation. The agency does not pass advance approval on motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine and certify the compliance, in accordance with statutory criteria.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 6, 1980

N.H.T.S.A. Office of Chief Counsel Room 400 7th Southwestern Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

In order to combat the ever increasing fuel theft problem that school bus and truck fleet operators are experiencing, we have designed and developed an anti-siphon device for these applications. Enclosed is a photograph of one of the early prototypes.

The final production model is similar but there are some subtle changes in the spring shape and cage design.

Installation of the device is as simple as screwing on a gas cap. A 2 cc vial of Loctite RC-680 will be supplied with each unit. This special grade of Loctite is unaffected by gasoline or diesel fuel. It serves a twofold purpose: (1) it forms an airtight seal between the threads of the filler pipe and the unit and (2) locks the threads to form a permanent installation. With this grade of Loctite on the threads, over 500 ft-lbs of torque is required to remove the unit. This is more-than one man can exert using a 6 foot bar.

We currently have six models ready to fit the various lengths and thread configurations of different fuel tanks. The following table shows their application:

Gas Cap with Gas Cap with Internal Threads External threads

Inside 3" to 4" SK-1-34 SK-2-34 Length of 6" to 7" SK-1-67 SK-2-67 Filler Pipe 9" to 10" SK-1-910 SK-2-910

When installed, the anti-siphon device becomes an integral part of the filler neck and adds only 7/8" to its overall length which is well within the protection of the tank's safety cage. Also, the original fused safety fuel cap is used the same as was before the installation of the anti-siphon device.

It is important that the proper model be applied for maximum security and ease of refuelling. The unit is designed to provide free flow of fuel into the tank when applied to the proper length filler pipe. If, however, the wrong length device is used, one of two situations can occur:

1 - A long anti-siphon device (SK-1-910) used in a short 3" filler neck: - no security will result.

2 - A short anti-siphon device (SK-1-34) used in a long 9" filler neck: - fuel security will be maintained however excessive back pressure may result when filling the tank causing automatic gas handles to kick off.

In both of the above cases, the safe operation of the vehicle will remain intact. Our tests of this device in actual vehicles has convinced us that this device meets all the requirements set forth in Federal Standard 301 with respect to fuel system integrity.

Since the majority of the potential users of this device operate vehicles which are subject to D.O.T. inspection (primarily school buses), I am seeking Federal endorsement to the effect that the use of our anti-siphon device is in full compliance with all Federal Safety standards.

If there are further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me at (716) 631-8130 or (716) 896-6105.

Please reply at your ealiest convenience. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

WAREHOUSE BUS PARTS, INC.

Donald E. Lenda Executive Vice President

DEL:gd

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Doris Hull -- Owner, Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 5/16/94: Letter from Doris Hull to Robert Hellmuth (OCC - 10035)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, addressed to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, whom you identified as Chief Counsel. For your future information, Mr. Hellmuth is Chief of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance of this agency. I am the Acting Chief Co unsel.

Your letter referred to a May 13, 1994 telephone conversation that you and Mr. David McCormick had with Walter Myers of my staff concerning new and used tires on trailers. You asked for confirmation of your understanding of what was said during that con versation, as follows:

(a) That as a trailer manufacturer you can sell to a dealer new trailers that are stacked one on top of the other, with new tires on the bottom trailer but no tires or wheels on the stacked trailers;

(b) That you can sell used tires and rims but not installed on the new trailers; and

(c) That you can separately sell used tires and rims to the purchaser of a trailer, then install them on the new trailer if the purchaser so requests.

FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed) provides that vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements either of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Other Than Passenger Cars. Both those standards specify requirements for new tires. As an exception to those requirements, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120 provides that:

[A] truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of the purchaser be equipped

at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, . . . Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbo l (emphasis added).

With that background in mind, your understanding (a) above is correct. You stated to Mr. Myers that it is common practice in the industry to stack completed trailers one on top of another for shipment, with the bottom trailer being equipped with new tir es. This office stated in a letter to Mr. Steve Thomas dated April 14, 1993 (copy enclosed), that new trailers may be sold without tires and wheels. Accordingly, it is permissible to ship trailers without tires and wheels, with new tires on the bottom trailer that is carrying the others.

Your understanding (b) is also correct, but with a caveat. No provision of Federal law or regulation prohibits you from separately selling used tires and wheels that you own to anyone you want, including dealers. However, the practice you describe impl ies that the dealer will be installing the used tires you've provided on the new trailers, which would amount to a violation of Standard No. 120. The standard specifically provides that used or retreaded tires may be installed on new vehicles only at th e place of manufacture; the dealer is not permitted to install used tires on new trailers, whether or not owned and requested by the purchaser. Further, a manufacturer that includes used tires with new vehicles, even though not installed on the new vehi cle, could be considered to be contributing to a potential violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards by the dealer.

With respect to understanding (c), S5.1.3, as noted above, requires that used or retreaded tires installed on a new vehicle be owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle. The standard, however, does not specify any length of time that the used or r etreaded tires must be owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser, nor does the standard specify the source(s) from which the purchaser must have acquired the used or retreaded tires. Therefore, there is no prohibition against the purchaser of a trailer p urchasing used or retreaded tires from a trailer manufacturer or from any other source, then requesting the manufacturer to install them on the new trailer.

However, we have the following observations about the practice. The used/retreaded tire exception in S5.1.3 was included in the standard to accommodate bus and truck fleets who either purchase or lease tires on a mileage contract basis or who maintain t ire banks. A mileage contract purchaser or lessor is one who purchases or leases tires on a per-mile basis. A tire

bank is composed of serviceable tires that have been removed from vehicles no longer in service. Mileage contract purchases and tire banks are standard practices in the transportation industry and the agency assumed that those purchasers would select on ly safe, serviceable tires from their inventories for installation on their new vehicles. The agency also assumed that those purchasers would have owned and used those tires for some length of time prior to their being selected for installation on new v ehicles. Thus, the practice of a new vehicle purchaser purchasing used tires from a trailer manufacturer and then asking the manufacturer to install them on the new vehicle was not envisioned by this agency when issuing Standard No. 120.

None of the above would relieve trailer manufacturers from their responsibility to attach the required labels with the recommended tire and rim sizes and inflation pressures in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567.

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

Enclosure

ID: 10035

Ms. Doris Hull
Owner
Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.
Route 2, Box 2291
Sikeston, MO 63801

Dear Ms. Hull:

This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, addressed to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, whom you identified as Chief Counsel. For your future information, Mr. Hellmuth is Chief of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance of this agency. I am the Acting Chief Counsel.

Your letter referred to a May 13, 1994 telephone conversation that you and Mr. David McCormick had with Walter Myers of my staff concerning new and used tires on trailers. You asked for confirmation of your understanding of what was said during that conversation, as follows:

(a) That as a trailer manufacturer you can sell to a dealer new trailers that are stacked one on top of the other, with new tires on the bottom trailer but no tires or wheels on the stacked trailers;

(b) That you can sell used tires and rims but not installed on the new trailers; and

(c) That you can separately sell used tires and rims to the purchaser of a trailer, then install them on the new trailer if the purchaser so requests.

FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed) provides that vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements either of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Other Than Passenger Cars. Both those standards specify requirements for new tires. As an exception to those requirements, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No.120 provides that:

[A] truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of the purchaser be equipped

at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, . . . Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol (emphasis added).

With that background in mind, your understanding (a) above is correct. You stated to Mr. Myers that it is common practice in the industry to stack completed trailers one on top of another for shipment, with the bottom trailer being equipped with new tires. This office stated in a letter to Mr. Steve Thomas dated April 14, 1993 (copy enclosed), that new trailers may be sold without tires and wheels. Accordingly, it is permissible to ship trailers without tires and wheels, with new tires on the bottom trailer that is carrying the others.

Your understanding (b) is also correct, but with a caveat. No provision of Federal law or regulation prohibits you from separately selling used tires and wheels that you own to anyone you want, including dealers. However, the practice you describe implies that the dealer will be installing the used tires you've provided on the new trailers, which would amount to a violation of Standard No. 120. The standard specifically provides that used or retreaded tires may be installed on new vehicles only at the place of manufacture; the dealer is not permitted to install used tires on new trailers, whether or not owned and requested by the purchaser. Further, a manufacturer that includes used tires with new vehicles, even though not installed on the new vehicle, could be considered to be contributing to a potential violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards by the dealer.

With respect to understanding (c), S5.1.3, as noted above, requires that used or retreaded tires installed on a new vehicle be owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle. The standard, however, does not specify any length of time that the used or retreaded tires must be owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser, nor does the standard specify the source(s) from which the purchaser must have acquired the used or retreaded tires. Therefore, there is no prohibition against the purchaser of a trailer purchasing used or retreaded tires from a trailer manufacturer or from any other source, then requesting the manufacturer to install them on the new trailer. However, we have the following observations about the practice. The used/retreaded tire exception in S5.1.3 was included in the standard to accommodate bus and truck fleets who either purchase or lease tires on a mileage contract basis or who maintain tire banks. A mileage contract purchaser or lessor is one who purchases or leases tires on a per-mile basis. A tire bank is composed of serviceable tires that have been removed from vehicles no longer in service. Mileage contract purchases and tire banks are standard practices in the transportation industry and the agency assumed that those purchasers would select only safe, serviceable tires from their inventories for installation on their new vehicles. The agency also assumed that those purchasers would have owned and used those tires for some length of time prior to their being selected for installation on new vehicles. Thus, the practice of a new vehicle purchaser purchasing used tires from a trailer manufacturer and then asking the manufacturer to install them on the new vehicle was not envisioned by this agency when issuing Standard No. 120.

None of the above would relieve trailer manufacturers from their responsibility to attach the required labels with the recommended tire and rim sizes and inflation pressures in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:#109#119#120 d:8/12/94