ID: 9176

Mr. Timothy McQuiston
Vice-President Sales
California Dream
P.O. Box 11
Waukesha, WI 53187

Dear Mr. McQuiston:

This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company provides an aftermarket spoiler which incorporates a center stop lamp "that complies with SAE standards." You have asked us for a statement that you could provide your dealers that "would affirm that when the dealer installs a spoiler containing a high mount third brakelight meeting/exceeding SAE standards, they are, in fact providing an equivalent light source, thereby allowing them (dealers) to remain in compliance with federal regulations." You have also enclosed a November 1992 report from ETL Testing Laboratories rendered to Leegold Enterprise Co., Ltd. covering the lamp that we assume to be the one you are offering in your spoiler.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), in the fact situation you present, the dealer has the following obligations with respect to new and used vehicles. It is obliged to deliver a new vehicle to the buyer with a center highmounted stop lamp that is in full compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and if it does not, it may be in violation of section 108(a)(10(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). With respect to a vehicle in use, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, it may not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, the original center highmounted stop lamp unless it provides a conforming equivalent (agency interpretation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

Therefore, as a general principle, we affirm your understanding that a dealer may knowingly render an original equipment center highmounted stoplamp inoperative on a vehicle in use, or cause it on a new vehicle to become noncompliant with the requirements of Standard No. 108 if the dealer provides a substitute lamp that meets Standard No. 108's requirements. The test report you provided indicates that the Model LG 03-60B lamp that was tested meets requirements specified in Standard No. 108 and SAE Recommended Practice J186a, and that that particular lamp is an equivalent in performance to an original equipment light source.

Having said that, however, we feel that further comments are in order. The first comment is to clarify a misunderstanding reflected in your letter. The lamp must comply with Standard No. 108, and not with SAE specifications as you have stated. Although Table III of Standard No. 108 does incorporate by reference SAE Recommended Practice J186a, "Supplemental High Mounted Stop and Rear Turn Signal Lamps," September 1977, certain provisions of J186a, such as photometrics, do not apply because they have been modified by the text of Standard No. 108 itself. We are pleased to note that the summary of the test report appears to recognize this distinction.

Our second comment is that, in addition to the assurances that you as the spoiler manufacturer provide the dealer, both you and the dealer are afforded a degree of protection from violations of the Act if Leegold's lamp, in fact, fails to meet Standard No. 108. This is true whether the dealer installs the spoiler either as original equipment or as aftermarket equipment.

With respect to original equipment (i.e., installed before delivery of the vehicle to its first purchaser), Leegold, as the manufacturer of the lamp, is required by section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) to certify to its dealers and distributors that the lamp complies with Standard No. 108 (which may be signified by the symbol "DOT" on the lamp). If the lamp is later discovered to be noncompliant, those who have sold the lamp and any new vehicle on which it has been installed are in technical violation of the Act, but are protected by section 108(b)(1) of the Act from civil penalties, unless they have actual knowledge that the lamp does not meet Standard No. 108 (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

With respect to a nonconforming lamp installed after the vehicle's first sale, the original lamp may have been disconnected or partially blocked by the aftermarket lamp, resulting in either case in a "rendering inoperative" of required equipment within the meaning of the prohibition. However, we would not view this as a "knowingly" rendering inoperative because the dealer's intent is to install a conforming lamp, as indicated by the lamp's certification.

One final comment, one directed more to Leegold than to your or your dealers. As a result of our experience over the years, we have come to realize the value of surveillance testing of production lamps to assure that the lamps continue to comply with Federal requirements. Periodic testing may be regarded as evidence of the manufacturer's exercise of due care in the event of noncompliances. If the November 1992 ETL test is of a prototype lamp, Leegold may wish to have new tests conducted on production lamps. Even if that test were of production lamps, sufficient time has elapsed, in our view, for Leegold to conduct a new test, to ensure that design tolerances have been maintained in production and that the lamp continues to conform to Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d.1/26/94

ID: nht92-5.15

DATE: July 20, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tim Flagstad

COPYEE: Joan Moniz

TITLE: FAX 617-477-6249

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/19/92 from Jim Flagstad to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7417)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of June 20, 1992, with respect to importation of a 1981 Kenworth truck from Canada. This vehicle bears VIN M911042. You state that you imported the truck on February 12, 1990, through "a licensed broker and all necessary declarations and papers were properly submitted." You have enclosed a letter from Kenworth of Canada dated March 6, 1991, stating that this truck was "in compliance with the U.S. federal laws . . . at the time of delivery", which was August 31, 1981.

Although you experienced no difficulty in titling the truck in California, the purchaser of your truck, resident in another state, is "having a problem registering it" because the VIN has only seven characters. Joan Moniz, the daughter of the purchaser talked with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 23, 24, and 25, 1992, and explained that the problem is that the State of Hawaii is requiring registration as a 1975 vehicle. According to her copy of the HS-7 importation form under which the truck entered the United States, Box 2 was checked, the declaration that the vehicle was manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bears a certification label to that effect. However, according to her, the truck bears no U.S. certification label, and her records indicate that the date of importation and clearance was January 31, 1990. We are furnishing Ms Moniz a copy of this response.

You ask whether paragraph S2 of Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, exempts this vehicle from the 17-character requirement of paragraph S4.2, "and make it legal in the United States with a seven digit number." Paragraph S2 of Standard No. 115 applies to trucks and other motor vehicles, and states in pertinent part that "Vehicles imported into the United States under Sec. 591.5(f), other than by a corporation which was responsible for the assembly of that vehicle, or a subsidiary of such a corporation are exempt from the requirements of S4.2 . . . ." Section 591.5(f) corresponds to Box 3 on the HS-7 importation form, the declaration that the vehicle to be imported was not manufactured in conformity with the safety standards but will be brought into conformity with them. However, S2 makes it clear that conformity does not require the nonconforming vehicle to meet the requirement of Standard No. 115 that VINs be composed of 17 characters. Indeed, S4.9(a) specifically requires passenger cars imported under part 591 to retain their original VINs.

We note that the truck in question was imported under section 591.5(b) (Box 2), as a conforming vehicle, and, in a legal sense, is not eligible for the exclusion provided for vehicles imported under section 591.5(f). However, importation under section 591.5(b) was erroneous, since the truck bore no certification of compliance. Furthermore, in spite of the letter from Kenworth of Canada stating that the truck was "in compliance with U.S. federal laws" at

the time of its delivery on August 31, 1981, it manifestly failed to comply with Standard No. 115 which, as of September 1, 1980, required trucks to have 17-character VINs. Ms Moniz believes that is also lacks an air brake system as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. Lacking a certification label, the truck should have been imported under section 591.5 (f), which would have excused it from compliance with the 17-digit requirement. I shall shortly address a possible resolution of this dilemma.

You have also asked whether this truck should have been imported through a "registered importer". You state that Taylor Vinson told you in a recent telephone conversation that "as U.S. Customs had accepted the vehicle's compliance to U.S. Safety Standards and had not required a bond, a registered importer was not required."

This opinion was based on the assumption that the letter from Kenworth of Canada attesting to the truck's conformance with U.S. safety standards had accompanied the vehicle's importation, and was accepted by Customs (for the record, NHTSA currently permits importation of Canadian vehicles without bond or reference to a registered importer provided that a conformance letter from the manufacturer has been submitted for the agency's approval before importation). However, we see that our assumption was incorrect; Kenworth's letter is dated March 1991, and could not have accompanied the truck when it was imported in 1990.

If a Canadian-manufactured vehicle is not accompanied by such a letter (or a permanently affixed label certifying compliance to U.S. standards), the vehicle must be entered under section 591.5 (f) (Box 3) by a registered importer or by an importer who has a contract with a registered importer who will assure compliance with all the standards. Therefore, the truck in question was subject to the requirement that it be imported by a registered importer, or by a person who had a contract with a registered importer.

Furthermore, the truck could not have been admitted into the United States unless the Administrator of this agency had determined that it was capable of conformance to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the Administrator had made no such determination. However, the effective date of section 591.5 (f) , the registered importer requirement, and the vehicle capability requirement was January 31, 1990, the date that the truck appears to have been imported into the United States. Both Customs personnel and brokers should have been aware of the new requirements that became effective on that date. However, as of that date (and for some months thereafter), no registered importers had been appointed, and no vehicle capability determinations had been made. Thus, even if the truck had been imported pursuant to section 591.5(f), this could not have been accomplished until much later in 1990 when the agency made a blanket capability determination concerning canadian vehicles.

Because of the passage of time and the apparent present location of the truck in Hawaii, the agency has no interest in requiring re-entry of this vehicle at this date to conform with regulations that went into effect the date that it was imported. As for the problem of the truck's registration, it is curious that Hawaii would wish to register as a 1975 model-year truck a vehicle that was manufactured in 1981. Perhaps the State simply wishes to treat it as a vehicle that conforms to standards in effect in 1975, and does so by assigning it a model year reflecting a time before Standard No. 115 required a

17-character VIN, and before the effective date of Standard No. 121. In any event, Hawaii has recognized that S2 of Standard No. 115 permits the importation of a truck to which the 17-character VIN requirement of S4.2 does not apply.

ID: nht88-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM K. BALDWIN,

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-7-88, "THE BALDWIN REAR-VIEW MIRROR SAFETY SYSTEM" PARTLY COVERED BY U.S. PAT #3,667,833

TEXT: This responds to your May 7, 1988 letter, concerning the "Baldwin Rear-View Mirror Safety System." You stated that this mirror system contains both a flat mirror of unit magnification and a convex mirror, and stated your belief that this mirror system "o ffers the latest in technology and safety." You requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) evaluate and approve your mirror system. We have no authority to approve any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, as explaine d below.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety s tandards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance . In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product; the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary performance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1 403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this provision in the law, NHTSA cannot approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for new vehicles in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR @ 571.111; copy enclosed). As you will see, Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle. This means that vehicle manufacturers must certify

that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. Standard No. 111 does not apply to rearview mirrors as items of equipment. The effect of this is to place the certification responsibility for original equip ment rearview mirror systems entirely on the vehicle manufacturer. You as the manufacturer of the mirror are not required to certify that your mirrors comply with Standard No. 111 or any other standard.

With respect to your new mirror system, NHTSA has said in many previous interpretations that vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself comp lies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle type on which the mirror system is installed.

Assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on new vehicles of that type.

Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on such installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section p rohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The rearview mirro r system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with Standard No. 111. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that removed a complying system and replaced it with the noncomplying system would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) speci fies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of the "render inoperative" provision.

Again assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on used vehicles of that type. If y our mirror system does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for a vehicle type, it cannot be installed on used vehicles of that type by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they want to their own vehicles, regardless o f whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111.

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

ENCLOSURE

ID: 2833o

William K. Baldwin, Sr.
14219 Decatur Drive
Magalia, CA 95954

Dear Mr. Baldwin:

This responds to your May 7, 1988 letter, concerning the "Baldwin Rear-View Mirror Safety System." You stated that this mirror system contains both a flat mirror of unit magnification and a convex mirror, and stated your belief that this mirror system "offers the latest in technology and safety." You requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) evaluate and approve your mirror system. We have no authority to approve any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, as explained below.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance. In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product; the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary performance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this provision in the law, NHTSA cannot approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for new vehicles in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111; copy enclosed). As you will see, Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle. This means that vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. Standard No. 111 does not apply to rearview mirrors as items of equipment. The effect of this is to place the certification responsibility for original equipment rearview mirror systems entirely on the vehicle manufacturer. You as the manufacturer of the mirror are not required to certify that your mirrors comply with Standard No. 111 or any other standard.

With respect to your new mirror system, NHTSA has said in many previous interpretations that vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle type on which the mirror system is installed. Assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on new vehicles of that type.

Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on such installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with Standard No. 111. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that removed a complying system and replaced it with the noncomplying system would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the "render inoperative" provision.

Again assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on used vehicles of that type. If your mirror system does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for a vehicle type, it cannot be installed on used vehicles of that type by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ref:VSA#111 d:8/26/88

ID: nht79-1.27

DATE: 02/15/79

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

TO: City of Royal Oak

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 15 1979

NOA-30

Mr. William J. Baldridge City Manager City of Royal Oak P.O. Box 64 Royal Oak, Michigan 48068

Dear Mr. Baldridge:

This responds to your December 21, 1978, letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit the City of Royal Oak, Michigan to obtain a waiver from the safety standards applicable to one of its vehicles. In particular, you ask that several standards be waived because the vehicle, as altered by the addition of an aerial bucket, would no longer comply with them.

Your letter does not clearly indicate the cause of the noncompliance with Federal safety standards. The NHTSA concludes that the noncompliance probably arises because the altered vehicle will exceed the "unloaded vehicle weight" that is used in determining its compliance with several of the agency's standards. Although the agency appreciates the problems that your city has with obtaining a complying vehicle, the NHTSA has no authority to grant exemptions from safety standards for individual vehicle users.

The manufacturer and alterer of the vehicle are responsible for certifying that it complies with all Federal safety standards. The Federal government does not issue certificates that any vehicle complies with safety standards. The manufacturer or alterer, as part of its certification, must insure that its vehicle does not exceed the weight restrictions that are appropriate for the vehicle. Accordingly, if a vehicle alterer has informed you that an alteration cannot be done without exceeding the manufacturer's established weight restrictions, then the alterer could not truthfully certify the vehicle for compliance.

The NHTSA regrets the problems caused to Royal Oak by the implementation of the safety standards. The agency has received a petition from the Truck Body and Equipment Association asking for rulemaking to prevent future problems such as yours. The NHTSA currently is evaluating that petition. To resolve your problem, the agency suggests that you consider selling the chassis and utility body that you currently own and purchase another chassis and body that has a sufficient "unloaded vehicle weight" to accommodate the alteration you intend. This will enable the vehicle that you finally obtain to comply with the safety standards. These standards improve vehicle safety, and we are sure that Royal Oak would not want to purchase an unsafe vehicle.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 21, 1978

Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

The City of Royal Oak, Michigan has encountered a problem with the new "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, MVSS 212, 219 and 301, which reduce the maximum unloaded weight of trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Apparently these new standards were issued September 1, 1978.

The City of Royal Oak advertised in August 1978 for bids on a one (1) Ton Cab and Chassis with a G.V.W.R. of 8,000 pounds or greater, which was adequate to mount an aerial bucket weighing 2,120 pounds. An aerial bucket was not bid at that time, since an application was pending with the Office of Highway Safety Planning for a matching grant.

The low bidder on the truck, bid a 1979 G.M.C. one (1) Ton Cab and Chassis, with utility body, with a 10,000 pound G.V.W.R. The intent was to mount a twenty-four (24) foot articulating aerial bucket on this vehicle. This would provide us with a small truck which could be used for emergency repairs to traffic signals. The aerial bucket was to be powered with a small, self contained engine for energy savings.

We have now been informed by the local company that mounts aerial buckets, that it cannot install the bucket on the one Ton truck already received, because the vehicle does not meet the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Nearly $7,400 has been spent for the utility body truck, which is of no value to the City except for mounting the aerial bucket.

Therefore, it is requested that the National Traffic Safety Administration allow the City of Royal Oak to mount the proposed twenty-four foot aerial bucket on the 1979 GMC one (1) Ton truck in accordance with the Safety Standards that were in effect at the time the truck was bid. It is further requested that your office issue a certificate that will allow an installation company to mount the aerial bucket on the new vehicle and issue the required certification.

Your immediate attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

CITY OF ROYAL OAK

William J. Baldridge City Manager

ID: nht80-4.17

DATE: 10/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Coded Electronics Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1980 asking whether your emergency hazard signaling system conforms with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You also asked as to the steps necessary to make it mandatory.

From the specifications provided in your letter, it appears that both modes of operation (hazard and distress) would comply with the flash rates and the percent of current "on" time required by SAE J945, the standard for hazard warning signal flashers incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If your device meets all other requirements of SAE J945 and SAE J910, the standard for hazard warning signal operating units also incorporated by reference, it should comply with Standard No. 108.

I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, setting forth the procedures under which you may petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would require a distress signaling system on vehicles.

SINCERELY,

FROM: (Illegible Lines)

TO: (Illegible Word)

SUMMARY: (Illegible Lines)

STATUS OF REPLY / REMARKS

DATE ON CORRES.: (Illegible Words)

DATE RECEIVED: (Illegible Words)

NHTSA CONTROL: (Illegible Words)

SUSPENSE DATE: (Illegible Words)

Based on the times stated in the "Product Specification for the Code II," the flash rates and the percent of current "ON" time will meet the requirements of SAE J945 and FMVSS 108 for both modes. For the hazard signal mode the flash rate will be 70 FPM for a normally closed type flashes and the current ON time is 59%. For the emergency distress signal mode, the flash rate will be 71 FPM for a normally open type flashes with an average current ON time of 65%. SAE J945 requires an average of at least three consecutive cycles. If this flashes meets all the other requirements of SAE J945 and J910, and maintains these flash rates, it should qualify.

John (Illegible Word) 9/23/80

MARKETING & MANUFACTURING DIVISION

CODED ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

August 20, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Legal Division N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

During my recent visit to Washington, I met with Taylor Vincent, Attorney, of N.H.T.S.A. Legal Division. The purpose of that meeting was to introduce an inovation to the Emergency Hazard Signaling System, which my company is presently preparing for promotion and distribution throughout the United States and foreign countries. Mr. Vincent was very receptive to the product and suggested that I submit information to you for your review.

Due to the product's specific nature, the primary function does conform to current D.O.T. Standards, however, the secondary function which provides an additional feature, is not regulated by any D.O.T. Specifications. Enclosed, I have provided the product's discriptions, application, and specification. After reviewing this material, it would be greatly appreciated if you could send to me your interpretation of its acceptability and also the steps necessary for Federal Manditory Legislation.

I would like to thank you for your time; and if you have any questions or would like to discuss any facet of the product, please feel free to call me at (415) 441-2411.

Robert A. Belcher President

ENC.

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

Coded Electronics Corporation is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of a Dual Signal Emergency distress and hazard flasher. The flasher is currently called "CODE II" and refered to from time to time as the product.

The product was developed to utilize the existing 4-Way Hazard Flash system standard on most vehicles in use today. The basic feature that the product provides is that a motorist will now have the option to designate his immediate situation as to a "warning," i.e. stopped to read a map, or "stranded/distressed." i.e. out of gas, or illness of some sort.

The distinction between the Hazard signal (primary function) and the Distress signal (secondary function) is simply a variation in the distress mode. Basically the Distress signal is a modification of the International Distress Signal, the "S.O.S." and is described in the specifications, i.e. short flash, long flash, short flash . . .

The product poses the ability to increase auto safety by clearly defining the existing situation of a stopped vehicle with a maximum of visual via the 4-way lights. It also provides the physically handicapped motorist the ability to designate his situation without having to leave his vehicle, and with a minimum of physical effort.

Our recent efforts have us in contact with California Law Enforcement Agencies which are willing to introduce and acknowledge the additional emergency signal provided by the product along with the hazard signal. Also, we are currently in final negotiations with a major National Auto Accessories Distributor and project introduction to the marketplace within the next few months.

PRODUCT APPLICATION

CODE II, Emergency Distress and Hazard Signal Flasher, is applicable to most vehicles with a standard 4-Way Hazard Signal Flash System.

CODE II installs simply by removing the existing Hazard Flasher, placing the CODE II Flasher in the place of the standard flasher and attaching the Signal selection switch provided with the flasher.

CODE II is a state-of-the-art all electronic flasher designed to meet all existing regulations and to exceed them in reliability and dependability.

Simply, CODE II requires no alternation of the electrical system and utilizes the Hazard Flashing Signal as the primary function along with the optional Distress Signal as the secondary function.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

CODE II

Dual Signal Emergency Distress & Hazard Flasher

HAZARD SIGNAL FLASHER (Primary Function Mode)

A = OFF Time in Seconds (NO FLASH) Sec. 0.36

B = ON Time in Seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.5

Hazard Signal Flash is within D.O.T. Standards. CODE II also meets and exceeds D.O.T. specifications for reliability.

EMERGENCY DISTRESS SIGNAL FLASHER MODE (Secondary Function)

C = OFF Time in Seconds (NO FLASH) Sec. 0.30

D1 = ON Time in Seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.36

D2 = ON Time in seconds (FLASH) Sec. 0.92

(Graphics omitted) NOTE: All on and off duration times can vary +/- 10% at most, and can be programmed for any sequence of flashes or any duration of flashes due to its sophisticated electronic design.

ID: nht75-2.49

DATE: 09/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Superindendent of Public Instruction, State Of Washington

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 15, 1975, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this agency asking whether the State of Washington's proposed school bus light warning system conflicts with S4.1.4(b)(ii) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That section requires an eight lamp signal system to be wired "so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened." Under the system Washington proposes, when a school bus stops, a "stop paddle sign" is extended by the operator, activating "a switching system which will terminate the yellow flashing lights and start the red flashing lights," before the door is opened.

Under the system you describe, the termination of the yellow lamps and activation of the red ones is dependent upon the operator extending the stop paddle sign. Should the operator forget to extend the sign, it does not appear that the system required by S4.1.4 would operate automatically when the door is opened. We therefore conclude that in order to meet S4.1.4 your school buses must be equipped with an override switch that would deactivate the amber lamps and activate the red ones when the door is opened, in the event that the stop paddle sign has not been extended.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 15, 1975

J. E. Leyseth -- Motor Vehicle Programs, NHTSA N41-31, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Leyseth:

The Transportation, Traffic and Safety Division of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Washington, has a problem concerning the use of an eight light warning system on school buses that requires some help or an interpretation from you. We had thought our problem was connected with Standard 17, but after contacting Dave Soule we learned from him that we need to contact you instead. Mr. Soule did indicate that our proposed system is not in conflict with Standard 17, but would be in conflict with Standard 108, S4.1.4 without an exception from you.

The State of Washington has for many years required their school buses to be equipped with a four light (red) warning system for use in loading and unloading school bus passengers. Motorists are required by law to stop and hold until the students are loaded or unloaded and the warning system is deactivated. In conjunction with the light system, the State has also required for many years the use of a "stop paddle sign" on the side of the bus. The red light warning system is activated and deactivated with the use of the stop paddle sign.

The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is currently engaged in activities to have the Washington State Legislature revise existing laws to permit the use of the eight light system. The proposal calls for the use procedure to be as follows: at a predetermined time or distance the driver will activate the yellow warning lights with a manual hand or foot switch. When the bus has stopped the driver will extend the stop paddle sign, which also has two flashing red lights mounted to it. The stop paddle sign, when extended, will activate a switching system which will terminate the yellow flashing lights and start the red flashing lights. When the stop paddle sign is retracted all flashing lights in the warning system are deactivated and the system is ready for the next cycle.

Two additional functions would be required. There must be a switch available to the driver to cancel the yellow warning lights once they have been started in the event that the paddle sign need not be used. The second requirement would be that the red flashing lights must activate when the paddle sign is extended, regardless of whether or not the yellow flashing lights are used.

This proposal conflicts with Standard 108, S4.1.4., (ii), which states that " . . . . the red signal lamps automatically activate when the bus entrance door is opened."

This State has not used the entrance door function in the warning light system for two reasons. Most importantly we wanted the driver to be able to engage the warning and traffic control system, make sure that traffic will indeed stop, before opening the door for students to load or unload. This provides a greater element of safety for the students. The loading cycle is also involved because we try to train students waiting for a bus on the opposite side of a street to hold and not cross the street or highway until the door is opened. This provides the driver with a signaling device to indicate to the students when it is safe to cross, and for them not to begin crossing when the paddle sign goes out or the red flashing lights come on.

The second reason is that many buses in the State of Washington are equipped with air powered entrance doors. Manual doors could possibly allow the driver to accomplish the above, but units with air doors could not accomplish the above procedure.

For the reasons stated this Office is hopeful that our proposed system is substantially in compliance with the spirit of Standard 108, and that an exception or variance could be granted to the State of Washington so that it may implement a system which will allow the stop paddle sign to activate the red flashing warning lights in the eight light system.

My office will be anxious to hear from you or to provide any further information that may be helpful to you on this request.

Thank you for your interest and consideration.

Sincerely, Superintendent of Public Instruction;

Jerry Toner, Consultant, Transportation, Traffic & Safety

ID: nht76-4.28

DATE: 09/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Frehauf Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 17, 1976, question whether the "no lockup" requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the "no lockup" performance is provided by means of an antilock system. Sections S5.3.1 (trucks and buses) and S5.3.2 (trailers) specify that the vehicle shall, under various load, road surface, and speed conditions, be capable of stopping

. . . without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 mph, except for:

(a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system. . .

(b) * * * * *

This basic requirement is stated in performance terms, permitting a manufacturer to choose any brake system design that will ensure that the wheels do not lock up under the specified conditions.

The exception to the "no lockup" requirement set forth above permits "controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system." Manufacturers demonstrated, during the course of rulemaking, that properly functioning antilock systems might be designed to allow wheel lockup for a fraction of a second, and that antilock design should not be inhibited by a prohibition on all lockup. The agency made the "controlled lockup" exception a part of the standard (36 FR 3817, February 27, 1971) and has subsequently interpreted the term to permit manufacturers latitude in the design of their systems.

2

In compliance with the basic requirement, most manufacturers have equipped each axle of a vehicle with a valve to regulate the air pressure that applies the brakes, sensors at each wheel to send a signal when a wheel is locking up, and a logic module that receives the signals and instructs the valve when to release air pressure to prevent lockup ("axle-by-axle control"). Recently, some manufacturers have simplified their systems by utilizing only one valve and logic module to modulate the air supply to both axles of the typical tandem axle system found on many trucks and trailers ("tandem control"). Two approaches to wheel sensor placement have been used for tandem control systems. If it is possible to predict which of the two axles will lock first during braking, sensors may be placed on this axle only, knowing that reduced air pressure in response to a signal from the "sensed" axle will also release the brakes on the "unsensed" axle. In other cases, where it is not possible to predict which axle will lock first, tandem control systems may have sensors on all four wheels of the tandem.

In November 12, 1974, and March 7, 1975, letters of interpretation to Dana Corporation, the NHTSA confirmed that a manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. Thus, tandem control is not prohibited by the standard, regardless of the number of wheel speed sensors provided. When Dana asked if lockup on the unsensed axle of a single-axle sensor system would qualify for the "controlled lockup" exception of the requirement, the agency said that it would not, reasoning that the logic module would not exert effective control over the lockup of the unsensed axle without benefit of input signals from wheels on that axle. Therefore, according to the Dana interpretation, the unsensed axle in a single-axle sensor system could not be allowed to lock at all, even momentarily, during the service brake stopping test. No data of actual performance was submitted with the Dana letter.

Your letter argues that the NHTSA's interpretation of "controlled lockup" (to Dana Corporation) creates an anomalous and unjustified restriction on the use of "tandem control." Your submission, and data received by the agency from other interested persons, demonstrate that the Dana interpretation does not adequately reflect the degree of control which a single-axle sensor system actually can exert over the unsensed axle of a tandem system. Based on analysis of the submitted data, it appears that the amount of lockup permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the available antilock systems. While there is a measurable difference in stopping performance between "axle-by-axle"

3

control and "tandem control," the standard already permits either of these means to satisfy the requirements. When the narrower question of the performance difference between sensors on one or both axles is analyzed, it is apparent that virtually no difference exists in the stopping distance of vehicles equipped these two ways. The effective lateral stability available during a stop also appears comparable regardless of placement of sensors on one or both axles. A technical report summarizing these findings will be placed in the public docket as soon as possible.

For this reason, and based on review of test data unavailable at the time of the Dana interpretation, the agency concludes that its interpretation of "controlled lockup" in response to the question posed by Dana should be, and is hereby, withdrawn. It is the agency's interpretation that the "controlled lockup" exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

FRUEHAUF DIVISION / FRUEHAUF CORPORATION

August 17, 1976

Chief Counsel NHTSA Gentlemen:

RE: 49 CFR 571.121

In our evaluation of anti-lock systems, Fruehauf has become convinced that a considerable economic improvement can be made in the system provided for FMVSS 121. A system involving sensors on one axle, a logic controlling that axle, and a second axle of the suspension controlled by the same logic, performs identically to a system on the same suspension that uses sensors on each wheel and a logic for each axle. The economic gains for trailer users is very attractive. This system conforms with the 121 standard in its entirety and no change in the standard is requested.

We have exhibited in many tests, that our suspension provides mechanical control of lock-up. The momentary lock-up of the second axle of the suspension is always initiated at a slightly later time than the front axle. When we use an air and electrical system as described above, we can assure that the release of air to the two axles is simultaneous. Therefore, the second axle performance in lock-up is equal to or slightly better than the first axle. See charts in Appendix B of typical tests.

Both axles are under the control of an anti-lock system. The control is such that any momentary lock-up on the axle without sensors is equal to or shorter than momentary lock-up with sensors. This is possible through the geometry of the suspension. The suspension has equal loads on the axles at rest. However, with the application of brakes, one axle reduces load, transferring load to the second axle momentarily. This transfer assures that the first axle always locks or reduces speed faster than the second axle. The effect of this system of anti-lock is that the average of the two wheels of the front axle controls both axles. No wheel is allowed more than momentary lock-up.

2

The suspension described above is different from that on which Dana Corporation requested an interpretation some time ago. However, the letters of interpretation in answer to Dana are general enough that they should be clarified so they do not restrict our use of this system. Those interpretations say that an axle must have sensors if it is to be allowed to have momentary lock-up. This requirement does not seem justified in this instance since it requires the axle without sensors to perform better than the axle with the complete sensor and logic system. Certainly, we agree that the axle-by-axle complete control system adequately controls the braking function and stability of a trailer. Wheel-by-wheel systems were not significantly better. We believe that a "slave" axle that performs as well as those controlled axles in all respects, should be adequate even though mechanical control is used rather than sensors in each wheel.

While stopping distances is not a test requirement on trailers, it is an important safety factor. Considerable testing with measured stopping distances has been done with both bogie control and axle-by-axle control. Best stopping distances are secured with systems which allow momentary zero wheel speed intervals on low mu surfaces. A system tuned to give no lock-up or zero wheel speed would give longer stopping distances. While there are differences in some instances with one system having shorter distance than the other, the variations are not as great between bogie control and axle control of a given anti-lock system on a given trailer, as they are between two manufacturers' anti-lock systems. See Appendix A. Therefore, the use of bogie control does not change the stopping distance beyond the ranges already exhibited by variations in anti-lock systems.

In all of the testing that has been done with bogie control, we've had no indication of lack of stability.

Air consumption, which is not a test requirement but is a factor in the selection of systems, is not significantly different.

Systems on which we have seen test data using four sensors with a single logic, do not perform better than the bogie control described here.

In the interest of providing the most economical system that meets the requirements and intents of FMVSS 121, Fruehauf is considering production of the described system of anti-lock where any momentary lock-up on any wheel is of equal or shorter time than any momentary lock-up on the wheel using electrical speed sensors.

3

We request your prompt confirmation that the described system complies with FMVSS 121. If NHTSA has any questions about this systems' compliance, Fruehauf would request an early response to avoid any economic loss or inconvenience to the trailer customers.

Sincerely,

A. F. Hulverson Vice President Engineering

(Enclosures Omitted.]

ID: 1982-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Malcolm J. McCalmon -- International Sales Manager, CENTRA Leichtmetall - Rader GmbH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff concerning the Federal requirements for vehicle wheels that are to be imported into the United States. You noted in your letter that the wheels would be for "original equipment on passenger vehicles and non-passenger vehicles (recreation vehicles)." There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which apply to wheel rims. There are no standards applicable to the rest of the wheel assembly, however.

The two applicable standards are No. 110, Tire selection and rims - passenger cars, and No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both standards, along with Standards Nos. 109 and No. 119, which are applicable to tires. For those passenger car rims you manufacture there are two requirements, specified in section S4.4 of Standard No. 110. First, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional specifications shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire & Rim Association, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, or the Deutsches Institut fur Normung. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle travelling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.

For those rims you manufacture for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explainted above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, since only it knows what size tires will actually be on the vehicle. The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim must be marked with certain specified information.

When a rim manufacturer determines that its rims comply with the requirements outlined above, it may certify the rims and sell them in the United States. In your letter, you inaccurately stated that there is no a specific DOT certification for rims. While there is no specific DOT certification number, as required by some other standards for items of equipment other than rims, a manufacturer must always certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1403) (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the certification for items of motor vehicle safety equipment, including rims, may be in the form of a label or tag on the item, or on the outside of a container in which the item is delivered. All of your rims to be sold in this country must contain such a certification.

The United States does not use a certification process similar to the EEC, in which the manufacturer delivers the item to be certified to the governmental entity, and that entity tests the item to determine if it can be certified. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that the product complies with all applicable standards. Further, this agency does not require that a certification be based on actual tests of the equipment; we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer to determine in the first instance exactly what data or information it needs to allow it to certify that the equipment meets all applicable Federal standards. Obviously, with respect to the requirements for rims, a manufacturer is not expected to test if the rims have the necessary markings or if the rim size is listed in one of the publications of a standardization organization.

Should you have any further questions about these standards, feel free to contact me. If you need further information about the actual process of importing the rims into the United States or the form for the certification, you can contact the U.S. Customs Service Duty Assessment Division at 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229.

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

STEVEN KRATZKE -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Safety Adm

JANUARY 25, 1982

Dear Mr. Kratzke,

We are a wheel manufacturing corporation in West Germany and we wish to insure that our wheels also comply with the U.S. D.O.T. requirements, specifically for original equipment on passenger vehicles and non-passenger vehicles (recreation vehicles).

In a phone conversation with Mr. Art Casanova from the N.H.S.A. I found out that there is not a specific D.O.T. certification, there is only a specific marking requirement, as written in Article No. 571-120. Mr. Casanova stated that as long as we marked our wheels as required, we comply with D.O.T. standards, he suggested that I write to you to get an official letter stating the same.

If there are more rigid requirements please let me know exactly what is required and send me instructions on how to accomplish what ever needs to be done.

Thanking you in advance I remain

Sincerely Yours,

Malcolm J. Mc Calmon -- Intern Sales Manager, CENTRA GMBH

ID: 77-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. K. Hofferberth for R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volkswagen's March 9, 1977, petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

Procedures for processing petitions for reconsideration are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 553. Part 553.35(c) states that "[the] Administrator does not consider repetitious petitions." Your March 9 petition raises two issues that were also discussed in your February 20, 1976, petition for reconsideration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) carefully considered those issues in our February 7, 1977 (42 FR 7140) response to petitions for reconsideration. Since the agency has considered these issues previously, the NHTSA declines to consider them again as you suggest.

SINCERELY,

Volkswagon of America, Inc.

March 9, 1977

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: Docket 71-19, Notice 06; Docket 75-32, Notice 02 -- Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, FMVSS 120, Petition for Reconsideration

We respectfully submit enclosed the petition of Volkswagen-werk Aktiengesellschaft and Audi NSU Auto Union AG with respect to "Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars," as called for by the above docket.

Joseph W. Kennebeck Manager, Emissions, Safety and Development

VOLKSWAGEN PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, FMVSS 120, DOCKET 71-19, NOTICE 06; DOCKET 75-32, NOTICE 02

In our Petition for Reconsideration of February 20, 1976, Volkswagen requested, among other things, that the Administration reconsider those parts of FMVSS 120 that required rims be marked:

1. With the letter "D" for DIN, and, 2. With a rim size designation having the diameter preceding the width.

Docket 71-19, Notice 06; Docket 75-32, Notice 02 (42FR7140) denied our requests for amendment.

In the following, we present new facts and ask that the administration reconsider its decision not to amend the standard.

Specifically, we request that S 5.2 be amended so that the full letter abbreviation of the source organization be required to designate the organization, and that in the rim size designation, the width be required to proceed the diameter.

Attachment "A" shows a wheel we marked to comply with German law and our suggested changes to S 5.2 of FMVSS 120. As can be seen there is extremely little flat space on the disc to accept additional markings. Marking the other side of the wheel would require new tooling, and might interfere with the wheel/drum interface. In our previous petition, we explained the reasons for not being able to mark the rims.

In spite of the fact that ISO is considering a standard that would recommend specifying rims by diameter x width, which may or may not become part of the final standard, the DIN still specifies that one-piece, single-manufacturer wheels have their discs marked with the rim size and type, with the width preceding the diameter, (Ref. attachment 4 of our petition of February 20, 1976). This is in addition to the other DIN information.

In its response to Volkswagen's petition of February 20, the NHTSA stated, "This order of information is being considered as the uniform practice to be adopted by the International Standards Organization. For reason of uniformity, the requests are denied." According to our information, the draft proposal submitted by the U.S. delegation to ISO has not been voted upon, and there are other proposals from European delegates which would specify the designation order as width x diameter. This uniformity argument, then, does not apply.

In its denial of permission to use the letters "DIN" to designate the source organization, the Administration stated that ". . . they are undesirable in the interests of maintaining uniformity and comprehension." We submit that the addition of a new letter, e.g., "D", would upset the current uniformity achieved by accepted practice of using the letters "DIN," and interfere with comprehension since the "DIN" letters are well known in automotive circles around the world, while the letter "D" would not be understood, and, in fact, might be confused with load ratings. We note that under Notice 2, which proposed the use of "a designation to indicate the source of the published dimensions to which the rim conforms . . .," the "DIN" letters would have been acceptable. If the full letters of the abbreviation for the source organization were now required by the NHTSA, a greater uniformity would be achieved.

We suggest that it is contrary to logic for a standard to require that the acronym for an organization recognized by that standard be abbreviated when that acronym is already in use on subject equipment.

Regarding the rim designation, in 41FR3478, it is stated, "The tires must be fitted to rims which have been designated by the tire manufacturer, in accordance with S 4.4 of Standard No. 109 or S 5.1 of Standard No. 119, as suitable for use with those tires. The designations are made by listing the tire-rim matching information in one of seven industry-maintained publications . . ." In the case of the DIN maintained publications, the rim size is designated width x diameter. Further, S 5.1.1, states, ". . . each vehicle . . . shall be equipped . . . with rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires . . ." In the case of German tire manufacturers, the subject listing will be width x diameter.

We ask for your answer to this petition for reconsideration as early as possible because production lead time in wheel manufacturing is such that if retooling is required, it must be started no later than April 1 in order to comply with this standard's deadline of September 1, 1977.

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)