ID: 3233yy

Carl Miller, O.E. Sales Manager
DICO Tire, Inc.
520 J.D. Yarnell Industrial Parkway
Clinton, TN 37716

Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your letter asking about the application of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Information and Recordkeeping, to new tires sold in the replacement market. You indicated that, as a manufacturer of boat trailer tires, you believed that Part 574 required you to provide recall information cards for every new tire, whether that tire was to be installed as original equipment or sold in the replacement market. You added, however, that you heard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had recently restricted the application of this requirement to tires sold as original equipment. Accordingly, you requested the agency to confirm that information. NHTSA has made no amendments to Part 574 that would restrict the requirement that tire manufacturers provide recall information cards only for those tires sold as original equipment. Hence, tire manufacturers remain subject to the requirement that they provide such cards to every distributor and dealer that sells the manufacturer's new tires, regardless of whether those new tires are sold as original equipment on a vehicle or as an individual replacement item.

Part 574 sets forth tire information and recordkeeping requirements to facilitate notification of purchasers in the event that a manufacturer must recall a tire to remedy a safety-related defect, or a noncompliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Among Part 574's requirements, 574.7 specifies requirements for tire registration forms. I believe these forms are what your letter refers to as "recall information cards." 574.7 requires each new tire manufacturer and each new tire brand name owner (or its designee) to provide tire registration forms to every distributor and dealer of its tires which offers "new tires for sale or lease to tire purchasers." [49 CFR 574.7(a)(1)] Part 574 defines "tire purchaser" as "a person who buys or leases a new tire, or who buys or leases for 60 days or more a motor vehicle containing a new tire for purposes other than resale." [49 CFR 574.3(5)]

Thus, 574.7(a)(1) explicitly requires that tire registration forms be provided to every distributor or dealer that offers a manufacturer's new tires for sale to the public. 574.7 makes no distinction between tires to be sold as original equipment and tires sold as replacement products. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 574 and have highlighted the provisions that relate to your question. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref: Part 574 d:ll/l5/9l

ID: 3234o

Ms. Claire Haven
Vice President
Quadwest
27833 Avenue Hopkins
Valencia, CA 91355

Dear Ms. Haven:

This responds to your letter seeking further agency assurances that installation of one of your company's products will not take the safety belt system out of compliance with applicable Federal standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. Your product is a nylon covered foam pad intended to be attached to the shoulder belt portion of a safety belt to enhance the comfort of the occupant. In keeping with our statutory responsibilities, this agency does not offer any such assurances.

If this pad is installed as original equipment on any new vehicle, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the vehicle manufacturer to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208), that the safety belt system complies with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209), and that certain vehicle components, including the safety belts, comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR /571.302). Each of these certifications must be valid with the pad installed on the safety belts. Since the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to make this certification, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, such as your shoulder belt pad.

If the pad is sold as an aftermarket item, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The safety belt systems installed in vehicles are generally an element of design installed in compliance with Standards No. 208, 209, and 302. If the installation of your shoulder belt pad results in the vehicle no longer complying with any or all of these standards, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installed the belt pads would have violated this section of the law. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), and each installation of a shoulder belt pad that rendered inoperative compliance with Standard No. 208 would be a separate violation. Please note that the prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual consumers. Thus, under Federal law, individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherise modify existing equipment without violating the "render inoperative" provision.

As noted above for aftermarket items, the Safety Act obliges manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses not to knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design in vehicles installed in compliance with applicable safety standards. As with new vehicles and items of equipment, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, not this agency, to determine in the first instance that the use of its product will not result in a "render inoperative" violation of Federal law. Because of this statutory scheme, NHTSA makes determinations of whether the installation of products results in a "render inoperative" violation only in the context of enforcement proceedings, when it reexamines the initial finding made by the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business. In an earlier letter to you about this product, Dr. Clark, the inventor contact for NHTSA, advised you that the installation of this pad prevents the retractor from reeling up the belt completely or in part. This agency would be very likely to find a "render inoperative" violation with respect to a device whose installation prevented the retractor from functioning as designed.

Assuming this pad will be marketed as an aftermarket item, you could comply with your legal obligations as the manufacturer of this pad by examining the requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 302, to determine if the installation of your shoulder belt pad would result in a noncompliance with these standards. If the installation would not do so, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses can install these pads without violating any provisions of Federal law.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that explains how to obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:VSA#208#209#302 d:l1/22/88

ID: 3234yy

Sgt. Danny Wilkinson
Texas Department of Public Safety
Motor Vehicle Inspection Service
350 West IH-30
Garland, TX 75043

Dear Sgt. Wilkinson:

This responds to your letter of October 17, 1991, informing us that Texas has adopted Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for State safety inspections. You report that motorists wish to repair rear lighting devices with patch kits, rather than replacing them with new equipment, and ask whether Standard No. 108 affords a basis for making use of repair kits illegal. You mention in particular the following sections of Standard No. 108: S5.1.3 ("additional equipment," with attention to impairment of effectiveness), S5.3.1.1 ("location of required and other equipment"), and S5.7 ("replacement equipment.")

I am afraid that Standard No. l08 does not contain a completely satisfactory answer to your question, primarily because the standard deals with the performance of new vehicle equipment, and not the maintenance of that performance after the vehicle is in use, which is the thrust of the Texas requirement. Under the regulatory scheme of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a motor vehicle is not required to remain in compliance with Standard No. l08 (or any Federal safety standard) after the vehicle is sold to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. It is possible, of course, that a vehicle could suffer damage to its rear lighting assemblies before its first sale, requiring repair by the dealer. Assuming, for the sake of argument, the not-very likely scenario that the new car dealer selling the car chose to use a patch kit rather than to replace a damaged lens or lamp, the legal question is not whether the patch is additional lighting equipment that could impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S5.1.3). The legal question is whether the repaired vehicle meets Standard No. l08: for example, would the repaired lamp meet the photometric requirements with the patch in place; would it meet the environmental tests (moisture, dust, corrosion) that the lamp and vehicle originally met in order to be certified as conforming to Standard No. l08? If the answer to these questions is affirmative, the patch would be acceptable under Federal law; if negative, then the patch would not be acceptable under Standard No. l08.

The Safety Act does not directly address repair of damage after a vehicle has been sold. Although paragraph S5.7 of Standard No. l08 requires replacement lighting equipment to meet the same standards as original equipment, neither it nor the Safety Act specify how a vehicle is to be repaired. The Safety Act does prohibit motor vehicle repair businesses (and dealers, distributors, and manufacturers) from creating a noncompliance after a vehicle has been sold, but if that noncompliance is already in existence, such as could occur with a broken lens, there is no statutory obligation to repair the vehicle so that it once again complies with Standard No. 108.

Under the Safety Act, a State is preempted from establishing or continuing in effect a motor vehicle safety standard that is not identical to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering the same aspect of performance. The purpose of this requirement is to remove the burden on interstate commerce that would be created if the standards to be met by a vehicle or equipment manufacturer varied from State to State. However, the preemption clause does not preclude a State from regulation of modifications to vehicles after sale. Thus, the State of Texas may prohibit the use of patch kits to repair any lighting devices without violating the Safety Act. Furthermore, if Texas laws for the operation of vehicles in use are identical to Standard No. l08, the State could prohibit any original equipment which impairs the effectiveness of the performance of any original equipment lamp or reflective device required by Standard No. l08, or replacement lighting equipment that is not certified to the same requirements as the original lighting equipment.

I hope that this information has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:l08#VSA d:ll/20/9l

ID: 3235o

Mr. M. Iwase
Technical Administration Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken
JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is to provide you with a clarification of my letter to you dated March l6, l988. Your second question was whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamps and tail/stop lamps is required on a rear lighting array for motorcycles. I responded that "The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement."

In actuality, the agency has required this separation only where a single motorcycle stoplamp/taillamp is mounted on the vertical centerline, and not when dual lamps are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline, the configuration depicted in your letter of January 25, 1988. Therefore, I am advising you that there is no legal requirement that the 4-inch separation distance be maintained in the configurations you depicted, and that we appreciate your continuing efforts to understand and comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

I enclose a copy of a letter from this Office dated November 2l, l984, which explains our views on motorcycle rear lighting configurations in more detail.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure Ref:l08 d:l2/l/88

ID: 3235yy

Herbert J. Lushan
Regalite Plastics Corporation
300 Needham Street
Newton Upper Falls, MA 02164

Dear Mr. Lushan:

This responds to your letter concerning the use of tinted flexible plastic glazing in certain jeep-type vehicles. You explained that a customer has asked you to manufacture a bronze-tinted clear plastic flexible window for installation in the rear side and rear windows of its vehicles. You indicated that this glazing material would not satisfy the minimum light transmittance requirement of Standard No. 205 and requested confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits the use of such glazing for rear and side windows in these vehicles. Further, during two telephone conversations on October 29, 1991 and October 30, 1991, you informed Elizabeth Barbour of my staff that your question specifically refers to the use of this glazing on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and the two-door Geo Tracker. You also confirmed to Ms. Barbour that the glazing materials to which your letter refers would be installed as original equipment, but added that your company is also involved with after-market products. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANSI Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Among Standard No. 205's requirements are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance, measured by Test 2 in ANSI Z26. A minimum of 70% light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars.

In trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying sections S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111) and thus, subject to the minimum light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Thus, Standard No. 205 permits the use of tinted glazing materials (i.e. items of glazing that are not subject to Test 2) for windows to the rear of the driver in such vehicles when they are equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars.

As stated above, you described the product you wish to manufacture as tinted flexible plastic, Item 7 glazing, which would be installed in the rear side and rear windows of the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker. According to the agency's information about these vehicles, the rear side and rear windows are part of a removable soft-top. Standard No. 205 permits glazing used for readily removable windows in these locations to be manufactured out of flexible plastic glazing (Items 6, 7 and 13), among other types of glazing. Thus, since these specific window locations on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker are not subject to the light transmittance requirement, and since Standard No. 205 permits use of flexible plastic glazing for readily removable windows, the Standard would permit you to manufacture the bronze-tinted flexible plastic glazing for the use your customer requested.

You also stated that your company is involved with after-market glazing materials. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. According to this provision, your company, for example, could install the Item 7 glazing in the rear side and rear windows of a Suzuki Sidekick or Geo Tracker after that vehicle is first sold to a consumer. This provision would, however, prohibit the after-market installation of tinted flexible plastic glazing in the front side windows of that vehicle because such installation would cause the glazing of the front side windows to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners themselves. No section of the Safety Act prevents vehicle owners themselves from installing any product on their vehicles, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. The actions of individual vehicle owners may be regulated or precluded by individual States, which have the authority to regulate owner modifications and the operational use of vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref: 205 d:ll/20/9l

ID: 3236o

Mr. Andrew E. Woolner
General Manager
Austin Rover
U.S. Liaison Office
8953 N.W. 23 Street
Miami, Florida 33l72

Dear Mr. Woolner:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. You asked about the illumination requirements applicable to a trip computer display. According to your letter, the trip computer display is provided in addition to a fuel gauge and a speedometer/odometer. The trip computer is able, among other functions, to display supplemental information concerning fuel consumption, fuel used, average speed, trip distance and distance to arrival. As discussed below, this letter confirms your understanding that illumination is not required for the trip computer display, but, if illumination is provided, it is subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5 of the standard. This letter also addresses the illumination requirements applicable to a vehicle condition monitor.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. l0l requires that vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. See section S5. Among the displays listed in Standard No. l0l are the fuel level telltale, fuel level gauge, speedometer and odometer. See section S5.l and column l of Table 2.

It is our opinion that a trip computer provided in addition to a fuel gauge and speedometer/odometer is not considered a fuel level gauge, speedometer or odometer within the meaning of Standard No. l0l. Moreover, a trip computer is not otherwise included among the displays listed in the standard. Since Standard No. l0l's illumination requirements other than those of section S5.3.5 only apply to displays listed in the standard, they are not applicable to the trip computer.

As you suggest in your letter, if illumination is provided for the trip computer display, the illumination is subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. That section specifies requirements for any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by the standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, Mr. Marx Elliott advised that you are also interested in what illumination requirements may be applicable to a vehicle condition monitor. According to the information provided with your letter, the vehicle condition monitor indicates the following: door or trunk lid not shut, low outside air temperature, lamp failure, low washer fluid, and low engine coolant.

Each of the displays included in the vehicle condition monitor is a telltale. However, none of the telltales are among the displays listed in the standard. We note that the information provided with your letter indicates that the vehicle condition monitor illustrates, using a vehicle map, the operation of several lamps. If a lamp fails, the vehicle condition monitor causes the appropriate segment in the vehicle map to extinguish. While the headlamp high beam is among the lamps for which the vehicle condition monitor provides information, Mr. Elliott has advised us that this information is supplemental to the traditional high beam telltale provided on the instrument panel. It is our opinion, based on these facts, that such a supplemental display is not considered a high beam telltale within the meaning of Standard No. l0l.

The telltales included in the vehicle condition monitor are not subject to any illumination requirements. Since none of the telltales included on the vehicle condition monitor are listed in Standard No. l0l, they need not meet the illumination requirements specified by that standard for telltales. Moreover, as indicated by the language of section S5.3.5, quoted above, the illumination requirements of that section do not apply to telltales.

Sincerely

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:101 d:ll/23/88

ID: 3236yy

Mr. D. E. Graham
Engineering Manager
Regulatory, Test & Service
Engineering
ASC, Incorporated
One Sunroof Center
Southgate, Michigan 48195

Dear Mr. Graham:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power Windows (49 CFR 571.118). As you noted in your letter, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 118 in the April 16, 1991, edition of the Federal Register (56 FR 15290). You requested clarification of certain requirements in that final rule.

The agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule amending Standard No. 118. The agency is currently reviewing the merits of each petition. The agency will issue a notice in the Federal Register granting and/or denying the petitions. In that notice, the agency will also address the concerns raised in your request for an interpretation on Standard No. 118. Please let us know if you have any questions about the issues raised in your letter after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

If you need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:118 d:ll/20/9l

ID: 3237o

Mr. T. J. Brown
General Manager, Product Services
Mohawk Tire Company
l500 Indiana Avenue
P.O. Box 3250
Salem, Virginia 24l53

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter requesting an opinion concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l09, New Pneumatic Tires. According to your letter, you are considering purchasing for resale a group of metric size tires from a foreign manufacturer. The maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls of the tires are indicated in kilograms and kilopascals only, without any indication of the maximum pounds and PSI pressure. The actual stamping on the tires is as follows:

l65SRl5 Load Range B Maximum Load 530kgs - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA l85SRl4 Load Range B Maximum Load 600kgs - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA l75SRl4 Load Range B Maximum Load 560kgs - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA l65SRl3 Load Range B Maximum Load 475kgs - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA l55SRl3 Load Range B Maximum Load 420kgs - Maximum Pressure 220 KPA

You stated that you question whether the omission of the load designation and pressure in pounds prohibits the tires from being sold in the United States and requested our opinion on the matter. As discussed below, it is our opinion that tires without the maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls in English units do not meet the requirements of Standard No. l09 and therefore cannot be imported into the United States for use on passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

All tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l09. The standard specifies performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed, and resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements which must be satisfied by each tire sold in the United States.

Section S4.2.l(b) of Standard No. l09 requires that the maximum permissible inflation pressure of each tire "shall be either 32, 36, 40 or 60 psi, or 240, 280, 300 or 340 kPa." Thus, no value other than those listed may be used for the maximum permissible inflation pressure of a passenger car tire. Sections S4.3(b) and (c) of the standard specify that each tire shall have permanently molded onto the sidewalls the maximum permissible inflation pressure and the maximum load rating for the tire.

Section S4.2.l(b) originally listed only three permissible maximum inflation pressures, all in English units (32, 36 and 40 psi). The agency interpreted sections S4.3(b) and (c) to require that the maximum permissible inflation pressure and maximum load rating be in English units, since this is the system of measurement which will be used and understood by most consumers.

The first permissible metric maximum inflation pressures, 240 and 280 kPa, were added to Standard No. l09 in l977. 42 FR 12869, March 7, l977. In permitting metric-series tires, the agency established a requirement that the metric unit inflation pressure and load rating be supplemented by English system equivalents on the tire sidewall. That requirement, set forth in section S4.3.4, now reads as follows:

S4.3.4 If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300 or 340 kPa, then:

(a) Each marking of that inflation pressure pursuant to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next whole number; and

(b) Each marking of the tire's maximum load rating pursuant to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Thus, each tire must have a maximum inflation pressure of either 32 psi, 36 psi, 40 psi, 60 psi, 240 kPa, 280 kPa, 300 or 340 kPa. If the maximum inflation pressure is 32 psi, 36 psi, 40 psi, or 60 psi, the maximum permissible inflation pressure and maximum load rating provided pursuant to sections S4.3(b) and (c) must be in English units. I would note that so long as the information appears in English units, there is no reason that it cannot also be expressed in equivalent metric units, if the presentation of the additional information does not cause confusion about the required information. If the maximum permissible inflation pressure is 240 kPa, 280 kPa, 300 or 340 kPa, the maximum permissible inflation pressure in kPa provided pursuant to section S4.3(b) must be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number, and the maximum load rating provided pursuant to section S4.3(c) in kilograms must be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Since the tires you are considering purchasing do not have the maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls in English units, they do not meet the requirements of Standard No. l09 and may not be imported into the United States for use on passenger cars. I have also enclosed for your information a copy of a December l2, l985, letter, addressed to Mutual Trading Corporation, which provides a general discussion of issues related to the importation and sale of tires in the United Sates.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:109 d:ll/23/88

ID: 3237yy

Mr. William J. Lewandoski
National Accounts Manager
Wheels/RV Products
Kelsey Parts Business
38481 Huron River Drive
Romulus, MI 48174

Dear Mr. Lewandoski:

This responds to your letter of July 9, l99l, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency, regarding an apparent conflict between an interpretation furnished you by this Office on May 23 of this year, and a Memorandum of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) dated May 30, 1991. The subject is whether the Tekonsha Voyager and Commander electronic brake controls ("the Brake Control") are permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The Brake Control incorporates a "manual override" slide bar that activates the trailer brakes without a corresponding activation of the trailer stop lamps. On May 23, we responded to your question whether activation of "the trailer brakes and non-activation of the tow vehicle/trailer stop lamps comply" with Standard No. 108. We informed you that Standard No. l08 does not so permit, and that, because the Brake Control "applies the service brakes to diminish vehicle speed," the stop lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to be activated.

However, on May 30, CHP issued Management Memorandum No. 91-80 stating that this agency had issued a ruling that the Brake Control was "legal" under the preemption authority of l5 U.S.C. 1392(d), and that CHP personnel should consider the device to be in compliance with State requirements. You have asked for a clarification of the apparent conflict between our May 23, 1991 interpretation and the CHP memorandum.

The Patrol informs us that its Memorandum was based upon an interpretation that this office furnished on September 10, l990, to Lawrence F. Henneberger. Describing the Tekonsha Commander as a device which would allow the driver of a tractor-trailer combination "to use the hand control to override the trailer brakes in an emergency mode to control swaying," Mr. Henneberger had stated last year that California had taken the position that the vehicle's stop lamps must be activated when the Brake Control is used, "even though the service brakes are not applied at the time." It appeared to us from Mr. Henneberger's statements that the purpose of the Brake Control was "to control trailer sway and not 'to stop or diminish speed by braking.'" The basis for California's position was its interpretation of Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code which states, in pertinent part, that stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the hand control head for electric brakes. We responded to Mr. Henneberger in our September 1990 letter that the California requirement conflicted with the requirement in Standard No. l08 that stop lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes, and that therefore, under the preemption clause of l5 U.S.C. 1392(d), Section 24603(f) was preempted "to the extent that it may be read as requiring stop lamps to be activated on motor vehicles equipped with the Commander Electronic Brake Control, when the Control is hand activated in an emergency mode to provide sway control."

We have reviewed the interpretations of September 10, 1990, and May 23, l991, as you have requested, and we have concluded that our interpretation letter to Mr. Henneberger was in error. Although Mr. Henneberger informed us that the Brake Control "does not involve application of the vehicle's service brakes" (Henneberger letter, June 22, l990, page 2; there are also three similar representations on page 4), the Tekonsha product literature that you supplied us clearly states that "The Voyager will not apply the trailer brakes unless the manual override slide bar is applied." (Item 5 under "Important Facts to Remember"), demonstrating that application of the Brake Control results in application of the trailer's service brakes. We have talked with Sergeant Cox of the California Highway Patrol about the operation of the Brake Control. We understand that operation of the Brake Control sends an electric impulse to the trailer brakes without going through the main tractor/trailer brake actuation system. The activation of the trailer brakes without a simultaneous activation of the tractor brakes allows the tractor to proceed with undiminished speed in order to take the slack out of the connector by increasing the distance between it and the trailer, which has slowed due to the activity of the electronic brake control, and thereby reduce the sway of the trailer.

This information about the Brake Control is the basis for our reconsideration of the interpretation of September 10, 1990. Although use of the Brake Control does not involve application of the "vehicle's service brakes" through the service brake control, it nevertheless does "apply the trailer brakes" as that phrase is used by Tekonsha in its product literature. Although the immediate intent of the driver may be to control sway, that intent is realized by creating a differential in speeds between towing and towed vehicles. That differential is created, not by increasing the speed of the towing vehicle, but by diminishing the speed of the towed vehicle through braking. As we noted in the September l0 letter, a stop lamp is defined in part as a lamp that indicates the intent of the driver to diminish speed by braking. We therefore find that Standard No. l08 and 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) do not preempt Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code. We confirm our interpretation of May 23, that installation of the Tekonsha systems, under the conditions and by the persons therein described, appear to violate Standard No. 108 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Device.

Our letters to both you and Mr. Henneberger may have left the impression that operation of the Brake Control on the brakes of the towed vehicle also requires activation of the stop lamps of the towing vehicle. Sgt. Cox has clarified that the Brake Control activates only the brakes of the towed vehicle, not the towing one. Consequently, Standard No. l08 would not require activation of the towing vehicle's stop lamps when the Brake Control alone is used to apply the brakes of the towed vehicle to diminish sway.

A copy of this letter is being provided the Department of California Highway Patrol, and Lawrence Henneberger, attorney for Tekonsha.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

cc: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Sgt. Larry Cox, CHP

/ref:l08#VSA d:ll/22/9l

ID: 3238o

Mr. Garry Gallagher
Vice President
Metzeler Motorcycle Tire
4520 107th SW
Everett, WA 98204

Dear Mr. Gallagher:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.119). More specifically, you asked whether the letter "B" must appear as part of the size designation of a motorcycle tire if that tire is of bias belted construction. The answer to your question is no.

As you noted in your letter, section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 sets forth the marking requirements for tires used on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, including tires for use on motorcycles. Subsection S6.5(c) states that each such tire shall be marked with "The tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Section S5.1, in turn, specifies tire and rim matching information that must be provided to the public. Generally speaking, the size designation of a tire shows only the physical dimensions of that tire, not necessarily its construction. Thus, the common meaning of the term "size designation" does not necessarily include an indication of the tire's construction type. Further, no provision of Standard No. 119 requires a tire's size designation to indicate the tire's construction type. The only reference in section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 to a tire's construction type is in subsection S6.5(i), which requires the word "radial" to appear on the tire's sidewall if the tire is of radial construction. Therefore, in response to your question, Standard No. 119 does not require the letter "B" to be included in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires.

You noted that your company sometimes adds the letter "B" to the size designation of these tires as an internal code. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to include additional information on the sidewall of their tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information. In this case, the addition of the letter "B" to the size designation would not appear to confuse or obscure the meaning of the size designation. Hence, there would be no apparent violation of Standard No. 119 by including the letter "B" in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, 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

/ref:119 d:l2/l/88