Interpretation ID: 1984-3.39
TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA
DATE: 11/14/84
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA
TO: Mr. Anthony Lauro, President, Vredusu
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT:
Mr. Anthony Lauro President VREDUSA P.O. Box 766 South Plainfield, NJ 07080
This responds to your recent letter asking for an interpretation of the Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you sought an interpretation of the term "limited production tire," as set forth in 49 CFR S 575.104(c). That section specifies that the UTQGS applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars, but does not apply to certain types of tires . The tires excluded from the UTQGS include limited production tires, as defined in 49 CFR S575.104(c)(2). You noted that your company produces two different tread designs in fourteen different sizes, and asked if limited production tires are determined by the number of sizes, the number of tread designs, or both. The UTQGS specify that a tire may qualify as a limited production tire if the annual domestic production or importation of tires of both the same design and size as the tire in question does not exceed 15,000.
Subparagraph (c)(2) of 5575.104 specifies that a tire will be considered a limited production tire if the tire meets the four criteria set forth in that section. Two of those four criteria specify that no more than 15,000 tires of the same design and size may be manufactured in or imported into the United States. The tire design is defined as "the combination of general structural characteristics, materials, and tread pattern, but does not include cosmetic, identifying, or other minor variations among tires." Hence, if you wish to determine how to group these tires to see if they qualify as limited production tires, you must determine how many tires are imported with both the same size and tread pattern.
Judging by the last paragraph in your letter, however, it is not necessary for you to determine if these tires qualify as limited production tires to exclude them from the requirements of the UTQGS. You stated that all of these tires have a nominal rim diameter of 10 to 12 inches. 49 CFR S575.104(c)(1) excludes all tires with a nominal rim diameter of 10 to 12 inches from the requirements of UTQGS, regardless of whether those tires would qualify as limited production tires.
Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
October 10, 1984
Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Councel Office of the Chief Councel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building, Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Re: section 575.104 of title 49 Transportation Chapter V of the Code of Federal Regulations
Dear Mr. Berndt:
By way of correspondence with National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, manager of Regulatory affairs, Mr. K. Wayne Malbon, I am writing this letter to obtain your opinion to a specific area of concern-namely "limited production of tires".
Vredusa, Inc. is the U.S. Sales and Marketing office of Vredestein Banden B. V. Enschede, Holland, the Manufacturer of Vredestein tires. Our Dutch office has asked us to obtain a clearer understanding into the criteria of what is meant by "limited production tires". More specifically, if the manufacturer produces two different tread designs with fourteen difference sizes, how is the criteria detemined, is it per size, per design or a combination of both?
We raise this question with respect to tires we produce with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches, which the Dutch office is classifying as "limited production tires".
Your comments and early response would be greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Anthony Lauro President
AL/bf TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA
DATE: 11/16/84
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA
TO: Mr. Noel M. Torres
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT:
Mr. Noel M. Torres 2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, California 92704
Dear Mr. Torres:
This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1984 asking questions about the relationship of your "Panic-Stop Detection Brake-Lite System" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.
The photographs you enclosed show a segmented lamp mounted on the centerline of a passenger car directly below the rear window. Another picture shows the lamp installed on the rear of a motorcycle above the license plate. These pictures contain the notation "The harder you brake the faster the lite sweeping motion." Your questions are:
"(1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108?"
Section 108(a)(2) ((A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device, or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This would appear to preclude removal of the mandated center high-mounted stop lamp on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and replacement of it with your lamp.
"(2) Is it legally all right to use it now on cars and motorcycles?"
Standard No. 108 was recently amended to permit manufacturers to install the center high-mounted lamp on passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984, and General Motors is already equipping some of its 1985 models with it. Thus, a center high-mounted stoplamp already installed on a passenger car in accordance with Standard No. 108 would be subject to the prohibition in Section 108(a) (2) (A) discussed above.
As for other passenger cars, we assume that you wish to make your lamp available as an aftermarket device. In this circumstance, where it is installed on a vehicle in use, its permissibility is to be determined under local law; Federal law does not apply.
Finally, as to motorcycles, your photograph, by depicting your lamp mounted above the license plate, indicates that it substitutes for the original equipment stop/taillamp. Inasmuch as the stop/taillamp was installed in accordance with Standard No. 108, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) apply to it as well.
We are returning your tape to you and appreciate your interest in safety.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure
2521-C3 W. Sunflower Santa Ana, Ca 92704 September 25, 1984
Madam Diane K. Steed NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590
Dear Madam Steed:
I hope you don't mind my taking the liberty of sending you this letter together with a 10-minute videotape of a brake-lite system for cars and motorcycles which I thought you might want to review and evaluate, if you have the time.
I have been thinking for a while now that it is amazing in this day and age of space shuttles, maze of freeways and fast driving, our cars are still equipped with the most out-dated brake-lite system that have been in use for hundreds of years, and when driving on the road, there's no way of telling if a car braking in front of you is trying to make a panic stop.
An idea came to mind which I developed. I call it "PANIC-STOP DETECTION BRAKE-LITE SYSTEM", applicable for cars and motorcycles. I honestly believe it is a very effective system that would reduce more than 90% of rear-end collisions. You'll see what I mean when you view the videotape enclosed.
I would appreciate it if you could clarify two things for me: 1) If I install this as a retrofit on a 1986 car which will have a third brake lite, will it qualify legally as a tail/stop lite if it meets the photometric requirements of SAE-J186A and FMVSS 108? 2) Is it legally alright to use it now on cars and motorcycles?
Thank you so much for your kind consideration and I hope to hear from you.
Yours truly,
Noel M. Torres
P.S. If you think you might want to see the prototype samples, I'll be more than happy to ship them to you.
Encls./ 3-photos, 1-videotape