ID: 77-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 8, 1977, question whether the use of a front-row two-passenger bench seat with a three-passenger seat back requires a forward restraining barrier for two or three designated seating positions according to the requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

The NHTSA answered this question on February 22, 1977, in response to a request for an interpretation from Blue Bird Body Company. I am enclosing a copy of that interpretation for your information. You will note that Blue Bird accomplished the modification of the front-row seat by the installation of a two-passenger bench seat. As the interpretation indicates, the NHTSA requires a restraining barrier only in front of designated seating positions.

You also ask what procedure is required to obtain approval from the NHTSA for a particular front-row seat design. Although the agency does not give formal "approval" of designs, it is willing to give an opinion as to whether your design appears to satisfy the requirements of the standard. We require that you submit full detail (including pictures if possible) of any proposed design. In particular, we would like to know how you intend to render the excess 13 inches of frame permanently inoperative as a seating position. We would also be interested to know why you cannot install a two-passenger bench seat to obviate the problem of excess seat frame.

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

February 8, 1977

Frank R. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

REF: FMVSS 222

Sheller-Globe Corporation is requesting an interpretation of S.5.2.2 barrier position and rear surface area of FMVSS 222 - School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Some states have for many years required a 24 inch clearance between the driver's stanchion and stepwell stanchion and are concerned about the 12 inch aisle between the barriers closing this area at the stepwell and entrance door.

Our question relates to the possibility of supplying front right-hand and/or left-hand seat with a 39 inch seat back and using a two passenger or 26 inch wide seat, cushion with a barrier width also of 26 inch width.

The 39 inch seat is used as an example with the understanding the same question also refers to other size seats such as 45, 36, 34, etc.

If this type seat and barrier will comply with your requirement and a method is devised to make the remaining 13 inches of the seat frame as to render it unusable as a seating area, what procedure is required to obtain approval from NHTSA that the particular design is determined to be a none seating position.

Your prompt attention is requested due to April 1, 1977, effective date and many questions from states reviewing their standards.

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: 77-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paulson and Humphrey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 3, 1977, letter asking whether the intersection of a plywood floor panel and the floor channel structure constitutes a "body panel joint" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (body panel) that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the joint you describe, it appears that the joint must comply with the requirements of the standard, because it is the connection of a body component (floor channel structure) with a body panel that encloses occupant space (plywood floor panel).

In your letter, you argue that the standard is not directed at these types of joints and that in fact the NHTSA stated that not all joints would be regulated by this standard. While it is true that not all joints are regulated by the standard, all joints between the edge of a body panel and a body component are regulated unless expressly excepted from coverage by the language of the standard itself. Since the joint you describe connects a body panel to a body component, it is exactly the type of joint for which coverage was intended.

Finally, you argue that all joints located below the floor are not covered by the standard. This is correct. However, the NHTSA has required floor panels regardless of composition to comply with the requirements of the standard, since these panels form the floor and do not fall below it.

SINCERELY,

PAULSON AND HUMPHREYS

February 3, 1977

Frank Berndt, Esquire Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is a request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, submitted on behalf of the Gillig Corporation of Hayward, California.

We have examined the standard, as published January 27, 1976 and the NHTSA interpretive opinions to Blue Bird Body Company of April 14 and April 26, 1976 (N40-30). The conclusions which we express are based substantially on the foregoing. It will be appreciated if you will inform us as rapidly as may be feasible whether you agree with these conclusions or whether another interpretation is appropriate.

Enclosed are diagrams illustrating a possible form of construction of the floor elements of a school bus design (View #1 and View #2). In both diagrams you will note that the floor structure is formed by use of laminated plywood abutting, on either side, a steel channel structure. Over this floor structure is added a rubberized floor covering. In View #1 the mechanism used to attach the plywood to the steel channel structure is exhibited as one of several screws. In View #2, an adhesive is added between the bottom of the particular plywood panel and the abutting flange of the steel channel structure.

Gillig believes that either of the forms of floor structure described will provide adequate structural integrity for foreseeable crash conditions. Gillig wishes, however, to be sure whether the requirements of the standard apply to this structure.

The question which arises is whether, in the form of floor diagrammed, either the edge of the plywood panel abutting the steel channel (shown in the diagrams as "Joint A") or the bottom of the plywood panel as it rests on the flange of the steel channel (shown in the diagrams as "Joint B") constitute "body panel joints" as defined in FMVSS No. 221, paragraph S4. In other words, is the standard applicable to either of such "joints"?

It is our conclusion that neither of the joints described is a "body panel joint" within the purview of FMVSS No. 221. We base this conclusion on several things:

First, the definition of "Body component", in paragraph S4, imports that a component to be a "body component" must be of a "single piece" of either homogenous material or a "single piece" of composite material such as plywood. The form of structure exhibited in the diagrams would not seem to constitute a "body component" and thus would not be subject to joint strength requirements at any point and particularly at "Joint A" or "Joint B".

Second, the forces which might be exerted in a vehicle crash and to which the standard is directed would not seem adversely to affect joints like "A" and "B". Further, attempting to achieve the type of increased joint strength to which the standard is directed, i.e. through the addition of more rivets or other fasteners, would probably be impracticable, if not impossible, in the type of joints illustrated in the diagrams. The standard obviously is directed toward achieving essentially a strengthening of those joints between side panels and between side panels and certain other body components, such as the roof or rear wall. The Preamble to the proposed rule, as published March 13, 1975 (40 FR 50, page 11738), substantiates this conclusion in that it states that regulation of all joints has been tentatively determined to be impractical.

Finally, an interpretation is stated in the third paragraph at page 2 of the letter to Blue Bird of April 26, 1976 that components located entirely below the level of the floor line are not subject to the standard; but that where a portion lies above the floor line that portion is subject to the requirements of the standard.

Your early reply will be appreciated since the standard becomes effective on April 1, 1977.

Edmund C. Burnett

cc: J. M. DABROWSKI -- DIR. OF ENGINEERING; GILLIG

View #1

(Graphics omitted)

View #2

FLOOR COVERING

ADHESIVE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 4, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, permits DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluids to be colored "fluorescent yellow."

The answer to your question is yes. Paragraph S5.1.14 of Standard No. 116 specifies that DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids manufactured on or after September 1, 1978, shall be "colorless to amber." The agency interprets this color range to include any "yellow," whether or not fluorescent. Although not required, we consider fluorescence to be an added safety factor since it would facilitate the detection of leaks in the braking system.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 - Brake Fluids

Girling Limited manufactures motor vehicle brakes in the United Kingdom and also markets brake fluid. Girling Limited, like ourselves, is a subsidiary of Lucas Industries Limited of England. Girling products enter this country as original equipment on imported vehicles and, also, we import and market their products.

We wish to know whether "fluorescent yellow" is an acceptable color for DOT 3 and DOT 4 motor vehicle brake fluids. The definition of clear-to-amber does not make this apparent.

Yours truly

LUCAS INDUSTRIES NORTH AMERICA INC;

A J Burgess -- Vice President (Technical)

cc: F Redler, NHTSA

ID: 77-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 9, 1977, letter asking whether 10 described intersections of bus body components qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (body panel) that encloses occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 10 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that none of them are required to comply with the standard.

The joints numbered 1 through 4 on page 1 of your letter refer to hanger straps, panels and pads involved in the installation of overhead storage racks. These items of equipment are not considered to have a function in enclosing occupant compartment space and, therefore, are excluded from the standard's requirements.

The exterior roof luggage rack described in paragraphs 5 and 6 is not considered to have a function in enclosing occupant space and, therefore, is not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which the rack is fastened, it should be modified as necessary to prevent it from affecting testing of the underlying joint.

The NHTSA agrees that the joints described in paragraphs 1 through 4 on page 2 of your letter, relating to the installation of air conditioning units, involve the type of ventilation space that is not subject to the requirements for joint strength.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 9, 1977

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 221

We would appreciate a ruling that FMVSS 221 does not apply to the following joints because of the definition of "body panel joint": Book Racks - Fig. 1

1. Hanger strap to headlining to bow 2. Panel (tray) to panel to hanger strap

Parcel Racks - Fig. 2

3. Hanger bracket to headlining to bow 4. Pad to hanger bracket

Roof Luggage Rack - Fig. 3

5. Panel to panel to roof sheet 6. Rail assembly to panel to roof sheet

We would appreciate a ruling that FMVSS 221 does not apply to the following joints because of the "ventilation clause" in the definition of "body panel joint".

Air Conditioner Joints

1. Saddle assembly to roof structural members - Figs. 4, 5, 6 2. Saddle assembly, structural joints - Figs. 7, 8 3. Duct section to duct section - Fig. 9 4. Duct assembly to roof sheet - Fig. 9

Thanks for your help in this matter.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

cc: LARRY HANSON

BODY TO SADDLE TRIMS

FIGURE #7

FIGURE #8

(Illegible Word) DUCT TO DUCT JOINTS

(Illegible Word) DUCT TO ROOF

FIGURE #9

(Illegible Word) AIR CONDITIONER COVER TO DUCT TRANSITION

(Illegible Word) AIR CONDITIONER COVER TO ROOF

(Graphics omitted)

Figure 1

Hanger Strap Tray

Overhead book rack available for conventent storage.

Figure 2

Pad

Hanger Bracket

Deluxe tubular steel parcel racks shown with upholstered aisel rail.

Figure 3

Rail Assembly

Panels

Roof luggage rack available in various lengths.

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE #4

AIR CONDITIONER SADDLE SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE TO BODY STRUCTURE

FIGURE $5

AIR CONDITIONER SADDLE TO SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE

FIGURE #6

BODY PANELS TO SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE

SADDLE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bohmer-Reed Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 25, 1977, letter asking whether your motor home conversions make you a manufacturer or an alterer for purposes of compliance with the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

In your conversion of motor homes, you install used bodies on new chassis. The NHTSA considers the mounting of a used body on a new chassis to be the manufacture of a new motor vehicle that requires certification. This makes you a manufacturer rather than an alterer. The rules for certification are found in Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. I have enclosed copies of these regulations for your information.

Your second question asks whether the converted vehicle must comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, even though the original body was manufactured prior to the effective date of the standard. Vehicles must comply with all standards in effect on the date of their manufacture. For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a new chassis, you are permitted to treat as the date of manufacture, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (as defined in Part 568), the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. Therefore, it appears that the vehicle you manufacture would be required to comply with Standard No. 302.

SINCERELY,

February 25, 1977

Chief Counsel NHTSA

Our's is a new company which was formed for the purpose of going into business converting customers 31' Airstream Trailers, from 1968 to present models, into Motorhomes.

We build the chassis and do the conversion. We do not use any of the airstream chassis or suspension.

Our chassis components have been designed by Bendix for rear suspension and brakes; Spicer Dana for the front axle; Firestone for the air suspension; Saginaw Gears for the steering system; and Ford Motors for the engine, transmission and cooling systems.

We are attempting to comply with the Federal Docket in all respects.

My first question is, are we to be considered a manufacturer or an alterer?

Second, on Airstream Trailers, 1968 through September 1, 1972, must 302 be complied with if it does not already comply?

I would appreciate any information you could furnish me on this matter.

John O. Bohmer President Bohmer - Reed, Inc. Motorhome Conversions

ID: 77-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Marchal America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1976, asking whether 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) permits the installation of quartz halogen headlamps on State-owned vehicles. It is understood that these headlamps are manufactured in France, and are not of sealed beam construction. Thus they do not conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your letter also commented that certain "state highway and law enforcement agencies . . . have indicated . . . that they prefer the quartz halogen units but are reluctant to install these units in their state vehicles because they are not of an approved type."

Importation and sale of nonconforming motor vehicle equipment is expressly forbidden by Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 may be imposed for each violation. Therefore, quartz halogen headlamps that do not conform to Standard No. 108 may not be imported into the United States and sold to State agencies.

Your inquiry appears premised that such may be allowable pursuant to Section 1392(d) which reads in pertinent part:

Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard.

Section 1392(d) reflects a primary purpose of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that there be uniform national safety standards for the manufacture of motor vehicles, and that the flow of interstate commerce not be burdened by differing requirements among the States. An exception is made, however, that allows the States to set higher standards for vehicles manufactured for State use. Section 1392(d) would be inapplicable to your fact situation which, as we understand it, involves a conversion after purchase, and does not involve a procurement specification affecting the vehicle manufacturer.

ID: 77-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bertolini Engineering Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 7, 1977, letter asking whether your proposed remanufacture of 573 trailer chassis would constitute the manufacture of new chassis which would be required to conform to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, or any other applicable regulation.

According to the remanufacture proposal you describe, Seatrain Lines will be the user of the chassis both before and after the remanufacture, although it will no longer own any of them. Fruehauf Corporation will become the owner of all of the chassis, whereas it currently owns none.

The NHTSA regulations pertaining to the remanufacture of chassis are found in 49 CFR Part 571.7. In that regulation the agency states that the chassis must be owned or leased by the same entity both before and after remanufacture. Since Seatrain is the current user of the vehicles (as owner and lessee) and will continue to be the user after remanufacture (as a lessee), it appears that the remanufactured vehicle will not be one that requires certification with motor vehicle safety standards.

It should be pointed out that if the transaction you describe for achieving remanufacture becomes a large-scale practice in the trailer industry, the agency will be compelled to reconsider the meaning of "manufacture" under its regulations.

SINCERELY,

BERTOLINI ENGINEERING CO., INC.

March 7, 1977

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

ATTN: Karen Dyson

Pursuant to our telephone conversation of March 4, 1977, I would appreciate an opinion on the following proposed remanufacture scheduled for immediate production.

The facts are as follows: Seatrain Lines is a container steamship operator who operates many thousands of chassis in the United States. They have in service now 573 chassis which they would like to have remanufactured into updated pieces of equipment by Bertolini Engineering Company, Inc. The reason for this move is that they have found that the old frames are not worthwhile maintaining any longer because of their inability to stand the gaff of their day to day operations.

Furthermore, these chassis will not meet Association of American Railroads Piggyback Regulations which are due to become effective in January 1985. However, the running gear on these chassis is sound and shows very little wear and usage, and will be retained in the remanufactured vehicle. Of these 573 chassis, Seatrain is the owner of 300, which they had purchased on a conditional sales contract. The remaining 273 are owned by Thriftway Leasing Company who is leasing the equipment to Seatrain. Seatrain would like all 573 chassis leased back to them by Thriftway Leasing Company.

Thriftway Leasing Company in turn has come to Fruehauf Corporation for financial assistance to finance the package. Fruehauf Corporation therefore proposes to buy all 573 chassis, turn them over to Bertolini Engineering Company for remanufacture, and then lease them back to Thriftway who in turn will sublease them to Seatrain.

It should be pointed out that Seatrain will be the user before and after the remanufacture and the Fruehauf Corporation will be the owner before and after remanufacture.

Also, the Vehicle Identification Number will be carried through after remanufacture so as to maintain its original identity.

This procedure, we feel, is totally in accord with the requirements of Docket No. 75-9, Notice of the Federal Register, July 1, 1976 and we therefore request your concurrence that these chassis will not be considered newly manufactured and will not have to be certified as being in compliance with MVSS 121 or other applicable safety standards established subsequent to their original date of manufacture.

Please let me have your opinion on this as soon as possible inasmuch as we are ready to go into production on these units and are merely awaiting your interpretation.

William A. Bertolini President

ID: 77-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Govmark Organization, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 10, 1976, letter asking whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to the living area of motor homes and mobile homes.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) no longer regulates mobile homes. The National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.) ("the Mobile Home Act") established within the Department of Housing and Urban Development a comprehensive program for the regulation of mobile homes. We have concluded that one result of that statute's enactment was the implied repeal of the NHTSA's authority with respect to mobile homes. Accordingly, we consider that the enactment had the effect of amending the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of "motor vehicle" to exclude "mobile homes" as the latter term is defined in the Mobile Home Act.

A motor home, on the other hand, is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (or a bus if it is designed to carry more than 10 persons) and is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 302. The standard mandates that certain enumerated components located within the vehicle occupant compartment meet specified burn test requirements. The living area of a motor home constitutes part of the vehicle occupant compartment, and therefore, any component listed in S4.1 of the standard and situated within the living area must comply with the standard.

SINCERELY,

THE GOVMARK ORGANIZATION INC.

November 10, 1976

Associate Administrator Traffic Safety Programs U.S. Department of Transportation Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Administration

re: Federal Motor Vehicle Standard #302

We are seeking a clarification of the type of vehicle and the classification of occupant space.

We specifically refer to a motor home which is a self-propelled vehicle containing living quarters.

To our mind, this would classify as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle.

Your standard restricts the flammability of materials in the occupant compartments of motor vehicles. We can see with a commercial freight trailer that the occupant compartment is clearly the cab of the tractor assembly.

In a motor home, either the driving section or the living quarters could be considered occupant compartments.

Therefore, the living quarters should also contain materials which conform to FMVSS #302.

Additionally, if a motor home is larger than 8 feet wide and 32 feet long it then becomes a mobile home. (We are seeking confirmation from HUD for this interpretation).

If it becomes a mobile home, are both standards in effect or will one department allow the other department to rule?

Salvatore Messina

ID: 77-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kelsey-Hayes Company's November 29, 1976, question whether an antilock valve (incorporating the function of a relay valve) is subject to the requirement of S5.7.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that a truck or bus be capable of stopping within a specified distance following failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (with the exception of certain parts that are common to both sides of a "split" service brake system).

From your description, the antilock valve in question, whether or not it incorporates the function of a relay valve, is a part of the service brake system designed to contain compressed air, and would be one of the components whose failure would be subject to the requirement of S5.7.1. I assume that the value would be in the subsystem to the front axle or to the rear axles of a truck or bus and, as such, would not be a value that is common to both sides of a "split" service brake system.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

November 29, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Request For Interpretation FMVSS-121 Air Brake Systems S 5.7.1 Emergency Brake System Performance

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Kelsey-Hayes Company hereby requests an interpretation of the above cited provision. Specifically, we ask whether an antilock air valve, which incorporates the function of a relay valve, constitutes a part designed to contain compressed air, such that a failure of this valve requires conformance to the emergency brake system performance requirements.

Your prompt attention to this request will be appreciated.

Very truly yours, John F. McCuen -- COUNSEL

ID: 77-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kurt Orban Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1976, asking how you may import motor vehicle tires "in sample lots of less than one hundred tires per design model" that "may not fully comply with the sidewall markings and/or treadwear indicator requirements."

Pursuant to Title 19 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(2)(vii), nonconforming tires may be imported into the United States for purposes of test or experiment if they will not be used upon the public roads. This section, however, does allow use of nonconforming vehicles, imported for purposes of test or experiment, upon the public roads for a specified time "where such use is an integral part of tests or experiments for which such vehicle is being imported," provided that the importer attaches to a form supplied at the port of entry (Form HS-7) "a description of the tests or experiments for which the vehicle is being imported, the period of time during which it is estimated that it will be necessary to test the vehicle on the public roads, and the disposition to be made of the vehicle after completion of the tests or experiments." Although this does not expressly cover equipment items, we see no reason why the provision cannot be interpreted as including tires, since nonconforming vehicles using the public roads for test or experiment may well be travelling on nonconforming tires.

We therefore conclude that you may import nonconforming tires for purposes of test or experiment upon the public roads, provided the statement described in 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(vii) is supplied.

SINCERELY

KURT ORBAN COMPANY, INC.

December 14, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel, Room 5219 National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration

I am writing to you at the request of Mr. Mark Schwimmer of your office.

We are fully aware of the requirements set forth in DOT 109 and DOT 119, particularly with respect to sidewall markings and treadwear indicators. However, from time to time we are offered tire samples of new European production which the manufacturers claim are in compliance with the strength and endurance requirements of DOT 109 or DOT 119, but which may not fully comply with the sidewall markings and/or treadwear indicator requirements.

Is there any way we can legally import these samples for road testing purposes without requiring the manufacturers to modify their molds, a time consuming and expensive process for them, particularly since their export business to the USA may never materialize to the extent that they'll be able to amortize their engraving costs?

Specifically, we desire to road test these tires in sample lots of less than one hundred tires per design model, after having first submitted samples of each design model to a recognized testing laboratory here to ensure (for our own protection) that the tires comply fully with the strength and endurance requirements of the applica DOT standard.

Your cooperation and advice on this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Martin P. Ronsen