Mr. Glenn Aaron

Infant Product Engineer

3226 Quitman Street

Denver, CO 80212

Dear Mr. Aaron:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking our approval of a front-facing and a rear-facing harness restraint system you would like to sell to transport children in motor vehicles. You state that the harnesses are designed to attach to a vehicle seat by way of tethers attaching to the anchors of a child restraint anchorage system[1] and not by the vehicles belt system. You state that you ceased offering your harnesses for sale after being contacted by Mr. Zack Fraser of NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). Mr. Fraser informed you that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, requires harnesses to meet the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when attached to a vehicle seat assembly using a vehicle lap belt. You ask whether Mr. Frasers statement about FMVSS No. 213 is correct.

As explained below, we confirm Mr. Frasers statement. FMVSS No. 213 requires harnesses to attach to a vehicle seat by way of the vehicle lap (Type 1) belt. It appears from the information available to us that your harnesses can not be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213 since, among other reasons, the restraint systems are attached by a tether system and not by the vehicle lap belt. NHTSA prohibits persons from offering for sale or selling new child restraint systems that are not certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213.

Background

NHTSA administers Federal safety requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards under 49 U.S.C. Sections 30101, et seq. (the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)). Under the authority of the Safety Act, we issued FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), which establishes requirements for child restraint systems, i.e., any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less. (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds. Notice of proposed rulemaking, August 31, 2005,

70 FR 51720; supplemental notice, January 23, 2008, 73 FR 3901.)

Child restraint system manufacturers must certify that each of their new child restraints satisfies all requirements of FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA does not approve or certify child restraints.

OVSC enforces manufacturers compliance with the Safety Act and with the FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 213. Among other activities, OVSC purchases and tests child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the child restraint fails the test and is determined not to comply with FMVSS No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30120). NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

Discussion

In your letter to us, you do not describe your harnesses in detail or include photographs of the restraint systems. You instead generally state that your Rear-facing system is designed to attach to three rearward child restraint anchorage systems and, the evidently approved Swedish System (Britex) [sic] under the front seat.

From your description, we believe your harnesses do not meet FMVSS No. 213. Section 5.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213 requires each child restraint system to comply with the standards performance requirements when installed solely by each of the means indicated in the following table for the particular type of child restraint system. The table for S5.3.2 shows that for the type of harness you wish to produce, the harnesses must be capable of meeting the requirements of the standard when installed with a Type 1 seat belt assembly (i.e., a vehicle lap belt). (The table indicates that, for harnesses, a top tether may be used, if needed.) Your harnesses are not capable of being installed on a vehicle seat by the lap belt system. As such, they do not meet the requirements of the standard, and can not be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213.

It appears that your harnesses would not meet other requirements of FMVSS No. 213.[2] You refer to a Britex [sic] anchor under the front seat. Note that the requirement in S5.3.2 that harnesses must meet FMVSS No. 213 performance criteria when installed solely by the Type 1 belt system also means that, in our compliance test, we will not use a supplementary anchoring system forward of the child restraint. Your restraint must meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when attached to the test seat assembly as specified in the standard. OVSC will use only a lap belt and the top tether of the standard seat assembly specified in FMVSS No. 213 to attach your harness to the assembly (see S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) of the standard).

We would like to comment on some additional matters. At one time, you had a website (www.grandmaknows.org or www.grandmaknows.com, both presently defunct) that showed a rear-facing child restraint system positioned in a vehicles rear seat. It appeared to NHTSA staff viewing the website that the top of the rear-facing restraint was slung like a hammock from the head restraint of the front passenger seat to a ceiling anchor in the rear. Anchoring a restraint to or hanging it from the head restraint is not permitted by FMVSS No. 213. S5.3.1 of the standard specifies that each add-on child restraint system (including a harness) must not have any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat cushion or vehicle seat back. This requirement is intended to ensure that a child restraint is easy to install and does not impose excessive force on the seat in front of it. We are also concerned about the crash protection afforded a child when suspended from the head restraint of the vehicle seat in front of it. Forces imposed by the seat and/or by an occupant of the seat could degrade the safety of the child in a crash.

There appear to be a number of potential problems with this rear-facing restraint meeting FMVSS No. 213. For instance, NHTSA would not test a rear-facing restraint by suspending it from a ceiling anchor; a ceiling anchor does not exist on our test seat assembly. Further, it does not appear that the rear-facing system meets S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 213, which limits the angle between the systems back support surface and the vertical. You as the manufacturer are responsible for ensuring compliance of your product with each of the applicable requirements of the Safety Act and FMVSS No. 213.

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 2/16/10

Mr. Louis Siegel

VP Dometic Automotive, USA

P.O. Box 15299

Richmond, VA 23227-0699

Dear Mr. Siegel:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to a refrigerator mounted in a cabinet in the sleeper of a Class 8 truck (a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,969 kilograms (33,000 pounds)). You ask whether the standard would have to be met by just the front of the refrigerator door, and not the other exterior surfaces of the refrigerator. As explained below, our answer is yes.

Background

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

You provide the following description of the refrigerator. [T]he refrigerator is mounted in such a manner such that the front door is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space; the other surfaces are contained within a cabinet whose outer surfaces are in the refreshable air space, and the other surfaces of the refrigerator are greater than 13 mm from the cabinets inner surface. You ask: Does the standard apply only to the front door? Does the standard apply to the other five surfaces (not in the refreshable air space)?

The following response is based on our understanding of your letter and the description you provided.

Discussion

FMVSS No. 302 applies to particular components, listed in S4.1 of the standard, on new completed motor vehicles, including trucks of all GVWRs. The following components are listed in S4.1:

Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

Of these components, any portion of a single or composite material which is within 13 millimeters (mm) of the occupant compartment air space shall meet the flammability resistance requirements (S4.2).

A component such as a refrigerator door is not specifically enumerated in S4.1 of FMVSS No. 302. However, there are several considerations to bear in mind when answering your question. NHTSA has previously determined that a glove box door is not a component included in S4.1, unless it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash[1] or describes a component that closely resembles an enumerated component.[2] Further, a component that is incorporated into an enumerated component could be considered part of the enumerated component.[3]

We understand from your letter that the refrigerator is stored in a built-in cabinet, such that the front door [of the refrigerator] is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space. Applying the above considerations, the refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is incorporated into a listed component. The built-in cabinet and refrigerator face could be considered part of the vehicles trim panels, which is enumerated in S4.1. The refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. We are unable to be more specific with our answer without more detailed information about the configuration and appearance of the refrigerator and cabinet.

Even if the standard applies to the front door, it does not appear that the standard would apply to the other five surfaces of the refrigerator. According to your letter, those surfaces are more than 13 mm from the occupant compartment air space. Under S4.2 of the standard, only portions of material that are within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space are subject to FMVSS No. 302.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dated: 2/15/2010

Mr. Louis Siegel

VP Dometic Automotive, USA

P.O. Box 15299

Richmond, VA 23227-0699

Dear Mr. Siegel:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to a refrigerator mounted in a cabinet in the sleeper of a Class 8 truck (a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,969 kilograms (33,000 pounds)). You ask whether the standard would have to be met by just the front of the refrigerator door, and not the other exterior surfaces of the refrigerator. As explained below, our answer is yes.

Background

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

You provide the following description of the refrigerator. [T]he refrigerator is mounted in such a manner such that the front door is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space; the other surfaces are contained within a cabinet whose outer surfaces are in the refreshable air space, and the other surfaces of the refrigerator are greater than 13 mm from the cabinets inner surface. You ask: Does the standard apply only to the front door? Does the standard apply to the other five surfaces (not in the refreshable air space)?

The following response is based on our understanding of your letter and the description you provided.

Discussion

FMVSS No. 302 applies to particular components, listed in S4.1 of the standard, on new completed motor vehicles, including trucks of all GVWRs. The following components are listed in S4.1:

Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

Of these components, any portion of a single or composite material which is within 13 millimeters (mm) of the occupant compartment air space shall meet the flammability resistance requirements (S4.2).

A component such as a refrigerator door is not specifically enumerated in S4.1 of FMVSS No. 302. However, there are several considerations to bear in mind when answering your question. NHTSA has previously determined that a glove box door is not a component included in S4.1, unless it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash[1] or describes a component that closely resembles an enumerated component.[2] Further, a component that is incorporated into an enumerated component could be considered part of the enumerated component.[3]

We understand from your letter that the refrigerator is stored in a built-in cabinet, such that the front door [of the refrigerator] is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space. Applying the above considerations, the refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is incorporated into a listed component. The built-in cabinet and refrigerator face could be considered part of the vehicles trim panels, which is enumerated in S4.1. The refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. We are unable to be more specific with our answer without more detailed information about the configuration and appearance of the refrigerator and cabinet.

Even if the standard applies to the front door, it does not appear that the standard would apply to the other five surfaces of the refrigerator. According to your letter, those surfaces are more than 13 mm from the occupant compartment air space. Under S4.2 of the standard, only portions of material that are within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space are subject to FMVSS No. 302.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dated: 2/25/10

Mr. Lawrence N. Lavigne

Vice President Operations/General Counsel

Foreign Tire Sales, Inc.

2204 Morris Ave., Suite L-5

Union, NJ 07083

Dear Mr. Lavigne:

This letter responds to your September 29, 2009 request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and motorcycles. You ask whether you may import a particular size special trailer tire. You note that the tire is not listed in the publication of a tire organization listed in S5.1(b), but that an identically sized light truck tire is listed. As we explain below, there may be a way for you to import such a tire for sale in the United States.

By way of background, S5.1 of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire manufacturer ensure that a listing of the rims suitable for that manufacturers tires is provided to the public. There are two ways of complying with this requirement. First, a document listing suitable rims is made available by the manufacturer to tire dealers, NHTSA, and other parties upon request. If this approach is chosen, each rim listing must include dimensional specifications and a diagram of the rim. Second, the listing of suitable rims can be made available in publications of one of the following organizations: (1) The Tire and Rim Association; (2) The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation; (3) Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association, Inc.; (4) Deutsche Industrie Norm; (5) British Standards Institution; (6) Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization; and (7) The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia. If the latter method is used, the listing need not include dimensional specifications or a diagram of a rim if the information is contained in the publication.

You ask specifically about an all steel radial special trailer tire size ST235/85R16 14-ply rated. You note that this designation is not found in the Tire and Rim Association yearbook. We note that there are seven different organizations whose publications may have the necessary information. Also, that information can be submitted to NHTSA. Although you have not stated that you consulted all seven organizations publications or NHTSAs database, we will presume for the purpose of this letter that the information about the tire in question has not been provided to NHTSA or published in any of the seven organizations publications.

Nevertheless, you may request that the tires manufacturer provide the rim listings and specifications to NHTSA. Alternatively, you may obtain the necessary information from the tires manufacturer and provide it to NHTSA. As the importer of the tire, you would fall under the statutory definition of manufacturer of the tire. If either you, as the importer, or the tires original manufacturer provides the necessary information to NHTSA (or, alternatively, has the data published in one of the listed organizations publications), and the tire meets all of the other requirements of FMVSS No. 119, including performance, treadwear indicator, and tire marking requirements, you may import the tire for sale in the United States.

Although you state that your engineer has verified the loads and pressures of the tire in question, the fact remains that the tire manufacturer has not provided the information required by S5.1. You note that the Tire and Rim Association yearbook lists tire size LT235/85R16 14-ply rated. This tire is a light truck tire. You ask us to allow you to interpret FMVSS No. 119 to allow you to import a special trailer tire that is the same size. We cannot do so. The exact tire you wish to import must be in NHTSAs database or one of the tire organizations publications. The light truck tire you refer to is not the same tire you wish to import. The tire you wish to import is subject to a different Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 49 CFR 571.139. The tire you wish to import and sell is for special trailers and, based on your representation, is not in the appropriate publication. Accordingly, you cannot import for sale in the United States the tire in question based on the appearance of this light truck tire in the Tire and Rim Association yearbook.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

11/19/2010

Mr. Jacques Bolduc

Technical Advisor

National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA)

3327 W. Bearss Avenue

Tampa, FL 33618

Dear Mr. Bolduc:

This letter responds to your letter dated June 17, 2009 regarding phase-in compliance periods for new or amended Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as related to the make inoperative provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). I sincerely apologize for the delay in this response.

You note that, in the case of many new or amended standards, there is a 100 percent compliance date for vehicles produced in a single stage and a later compliance date (usually one year later) for vehicles produced by alterers and final-stage manufacturers.[1] By way of example, you refer to the upgraded rear impact crash requirements of S6.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. The 100 percent compliance date for manufacturers of vehicles produced in a single stage was September 1, 2008. The compliance date for alterers and final stage manufacturers was September 1, 2009 (S8.2, FMVSS No. 301).

You ask about the example of a company that is both an alterer and a modifier of vehicles modified to accommodate disabled persons. You state that the company performs the same manufacturing process on vehicles. When the company performs the process before the first retail sale, the company is an alterer.[2] You note that, as an alterer, the company had until September 1, 2009 to meet the upgraded rear impact crash requirement of FMVSS

No. 301. On the other hand, had the company performed the process after the first retail sale, the company would be a modifier. (Modifier is not defined in the regulations issued by the

agency, but we would say in the context you present, the term generally refers to an entity adding, substituting, removing, repairing, or reworking components on a used vehicle.) There is no express provision in the upgraded FMVSS No. 301 that addresses modifiers.

You ask about FMVSS No. 301s phase-in period between September 1, 2008 and September 1, 2009. You ask whether NHTSA considers a modifier of a vehicle equivalent to an alterer for purposes of S8.2.1 of FMVSS No. 301.

Short Answer

Our response to your question is no. A modifier of a vehicle is not the same as an alterer. A modifier that is performing processes between the compliance date applicable to original manufacturers and the compliance date applicable to alterers on a vehicle certified by its original manufacturer as meeting the upgraded rear impact requirements of S6.2(b)) must ensure that its modification does not make inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with S6.2(b).

Background

The make inoperative provision of the Safety Act (49 USC 30122(b)) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative, in whole or in part, any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. An alterer is responsible for continued compliance with the FMVSSs and is required by 49 CFR

567.7 to affix a label, similar to the certification label affixed by the original manufacturer, certifying that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs affected by the alteration.

FMVSS No. 301 specifies requirements for the integrity of motor vehicle fuel systems and serves to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes. As provided by S6.2(a), vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2006 were required to meet the fuel spillage requirements when impacted from the rear by a barrier moving at 48 km/h (30 mph). As provided by S6.2(b), vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2006, are required to meet the fuel spillage requirements when impacted from the rear by a barrier moving at 80 km/h (50 mph).

The upgraded requirements of S6.2(b) were phased in, such that specified percentages of each manufacturers fleet manufactured on or after September 1, 2006 were required to meet the new requirements, with full compliance, with some exceptions, being required for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2008. Special provision was made for vehicles produced by alterers and final-stage manufacturers (see S8.2 of FMVSS No. 301). Alterers and final-stage manufacturers had the option of a September 1, 2009 compliance date for their vehicles (S8.2). That is, vehicles produced by these manufacturers before September 1, 2009, were not required to comply with the upgraded requirements of S6.2(b). The vehicles they manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, must comply with the upgraded requirements.

Discussion

In your letter, you wish to equate alterers with modifiers. We cannot do so. S8.2 of FMVSS No. 301 provides special accommodation for alterers, a term defined in 49 CFR  567.3. S8.2 provides no special accommodation for modifiers.

We believe that there are sound reasons for not equating alterers to modifiers for purposes of S8.2 and 49 CFR 571.8(b). There are legally significant differences between alterers and modifiers that justify the need to treat them differently. As discussed above, an alterer has an affirmative certification obligation. An alterer that performs a manufacturing process on a vehicle must certify the vehicles continued compliance with applicable FMVSSs. This certification must be placed near the original manufacturers certification label. In contrast, a modifier has no certification obligation. The modifiers sole obligation is to ensure that it does not violate the make inoperative provision of 49 USC  30122(b).

Because of their certification responsibilities, alterers and final-stage manufacturers are provided additional time to meet a new or upgraded standard. Incomplete vehicle manufacturers often do not provide final-stage manufacturers with information necessary to certify their vehicles until shortly before, and in some cases, after the effective date of the standard in question. See 70 FR 7418. If a vehicle manufacturer waits until the last possible moment to certify vehicles, alterers and final-stage manufacturers will not be able to conduct any engineering analysis to determine if the alterations and manufacturing processes affect compliance. See 70 FR 7425. The additional time provides more time for engineering analysis of the vehicles to be produced by alterers and final-stage manufacturers.

Since a modifier has no certification obligation, the need for more time to meet a new or amended standard does not apply to modifiers. NHTSA views with disfavor vehicle modifications, performed after first retail sale, that take a vehicle out of compliance with the FMVSSs, except as permitted under 49 CFR Part 595. See 70 FR 7427. It does not seem reasonable to permit modifiers, during that one-year period between the full phase-in of a standard or a requirement and the compliance date for alterers, to make inoperative a device or element of design that has been installed to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 301 requirements. Doing so would permit anyone, as a modifier, to make inoperative a device or element of design installed to meet the new or upgraded standard until the compliance date for alterers and final-stage manufacturers is reached. This would, in effect, annul the compliance date of the standard as applied to vehicles manufactured in one stage for a year, which would be contrary to sound public policy.[3]

Previous Interpretation

You also refer to an April 7, 2006 interpretation letter to Mr. Dick Keller, Director of Business Development for Bruno Independent Living Aids. In that letter, we concluded that, if an FMVSS offers multiple compliance options for manufacturers, it would not violate the make inoperative provision for a modifier to substitute equipment in vehicles certified to one compliance option with equipment enabling vehicles to meet a different option.

We do not believe that letter is applicable to the issue you raise. The standard at issue in the letter to Mr. Keller, FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints, offered manufacturers three options for compliance with head restraint requirements prior to September 1, 2008, the effective date of a new standard: (1) Complying with the existing NHTSA standard, (2) complying with the upgraded NHTSA standard, or (3) complying with the then current European regulations. Bruno wished to replace seats on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2008 that complied with the applicable European regulations with seats that met the existing NHTSA standard but not the European regulation. We concluded that the make inoperative provision did not prevent the substitution of seats.

In the case of the upgraded rear impact crash requirements of FMVSS No. 301, the standard did not offer manufacturers multiple options for compliance for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2008. Because the manufacturer of the vehicles did not have multiple compliance options with FMVSS No. 301, a modifier that modifies a vehicle in a manner such that it would not comply with the upgraded standard would violate the make inoperative provision of 49 USC 30122(b).

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Ref: FMVSS No.301

7/29/2011

Wesley R. Kliner, Jr.

Coker Tire Company

1317 Chestnut St.

Chattanooga, TN  37402

Dear Mr. Kliner:

This responds to your letter concerning labeling requirements for newly-manufactured and retreaded tires.  You ask several variations on the question of whether it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139, and 49 CFR Parts 574 and 575 to buff or polish off identifying information on the exterior wall of a tire to achieve a smooth, polished look.  Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, the answer to your question is that it would be a violation of the Safety Act to take a tire out of compliance with either FMVSS No. 109 or No. 139 by removing required information from the exterior sidewall.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act).  NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture.  NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action.

Your letter states that your company distributes new, period correct tires for vintage automobile collectors, and that you understand that some tire manufacturers, distributors, and retreaders engaged in that business might buff off all labeling and identification on the exterior side of a radial tire in order to achieve a glassy smooth appearance, or a smoothie.  You state that you understand that modifying tires that complied with the design requirements of FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139 would be a violation of the Safety Act, but ask whether NHTSA would consider light buffing or polishing to be a cosmetic design change that would be permitted.  You further ask whether it would be permissible to buff off some or all of the labeling and identification on a tire and also add a white or colored vulcanized rubber sidewall inlay over the buffed area, and whether it would be permissible for a tire retreader to do either of these things. 

We will consider the requirements of both FMVSS No. 139 and FMVSS No. 109, for purposes of completeness, and the tire labeling and grading requirements of 49 CFR parts 574 and 575.

FMVSS No. 139

FMVSS No. 139 applies to new radial tires, and requires certain tire markings on the exterior sidewall of the tire.  First, both sidewalls of the tire must be marked with (1) the symbol DOT; (2) the tire size designation; (3), the maximum permissible inflation pressure; and (4) the maximum load rating (and for LT tires, the letter designating the tire load range).[1]  These markings must be placed in a specific location on the tire, and cannot be less than 0.078 inches high and must be raised above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches.[2]  Tires must also be labeled with a tire identification number (TIN) required by

49 CFR Part 574.[3]

49 U.S.C. 30122(b) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.  You state that to create a smoothie tire, the manufacturer or distributor would buff off all labeling and markings on the exterior side of a radial tire in order to achieve a glassy smooth appearance, or alternatively, buff off some or all of the labeling and markings on the exterior side of a radial tire and then applying a white or colored rubber sidewall inlay.  Based on your description, it appears that both of these scenarios would presumably include removal of the markings and information required by FMVSS No. 139.  If those were removed, that would take the tire out of compliance with FMVSS No. 139, and would be a violation of 30122(b).

That said, we note that the new radial tires subject to FMVSS No. 139 are those for use on vehicles manufactured after 1975.[4]  To the extent that the vintage automobiles you mention in your letter are pre-1975, FMVSS No. 109 might be applicable instead.

FMVSS No. 109

FMVSS No. 109 applies to new radial tires for use on passenger cars manufactured before 1975, and also to new bias-ply tires, T-type spare tires, ST, FI, and 8-12 rim diameter and below tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948.  FMVSS No. 109 requires certain information on both sidewalls, roughly described as follows:  (1) one size designation; (2) maximum permissible inflation pressure; (3) maximum load rating; (4) generic name of each cord material used in the tire plies; (5) actual number of plies in the sidewall/tread area; (6) the words tubeless or tube type, as applicable; and (7) the word radial if applicable.[5]  One sidewall of the tire must also be marked with the DOT symbol and the TIN as required by 49 CFR Part 574.[6]

Given that FMVSS No. 109 requires those markings described above on both sidewalls of the tires described above, buffing or otherwise removing those markings from those tires would take them out of compliance with FMVSS No. 109, and, as for FMVSS No. 139, would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b).

Tire Identification Number Requirements

49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners to label conspicuously one sidewall of each tire a tire identification number (TIN) by permanently molding or laser-etching it into or onto one sidewall.  The required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers.  A tire distributor or dealer cannot legally remove any of the required information from new tire sidewalls.  The TIN is required to facilitate a recall or other action in the event of a defect.[7]  Even when a tire is retreaded, while the original TIN does not need to be maintained, the retreader must replace the original TIN with its own TIN.[8]  Because both FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139 include the TIN as part of their labeling requirements, removing the TIN would take the tire out of compliance with either of those standards (as applicable), and would be a violation of 49 U.S.C.

30122(b).

Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards

49 CFR 575.104 requires motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to provide information indicating the relative performance in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance of new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars.  The quality grade information required by 574.105 must be permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall between the tires shoulder and its maximum width.[9]  If that labeling is obliterated, as seems likely based on your description, then the tire would no longer be compliant with the UTQGS.  49 U.S.C. 30163 gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Chapter 301, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS.

Becoming a Tire Retreader

Finally, you asked whether these buffing processes could be performed on a new tire without violating any safety standards if your company became certified as a tire retreader.  A person who retreads tires is still considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act.[10]  Thus, a retreader, like any manufacturer, would still be subject to any applicable FMVSS.  If you were not actually retreading the tire, and were simply buffing the information off the sidewall of a new tire, then FMVSS No. 109 or No. 139 would still apply, and it would still be a violation of 30122(b) to take the tire out of compliance with those standards. 

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

                                                                                    Sincerely yours,

                                                                                    O. Kevin Vincent

                                                                                    Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Dated: 7/15/2010

Derek Yuen

X-Test, Inc.

2480 Precision Drive, Suite A

Minden, NV 89423

Dear Mr. Yuen:

This responds to your letter, dated October 9, 2009, asking whether the motorcycle rear lamp system you describe is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)

No. 108, which governs lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment on vehicles. I sincerely apologize for the delay in this response. As explained below, we believe that the system would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the Safety Act to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

The following is our interpretation of the Safety Act and the FMVSSs based on the description contained in your letter.

You describe the lamp system as consisting of two lamps, with one lamp located on either side of the rear vertical centerline of the motorcycle. The lamps are separated by a distance of 300 mm (11.8 in). Each of the lamps functions as turn signal, stop lamp, and taillamp. You indicate that the system has four functional modes:

1) Both lamps continuously illuminated as taillamps when the vehicle is on;

2) Both lamps illuminated at a higher intensity as stop lamps when the brakes are applied;

3) One lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a taillamp; and

4) In a situation where the brakes are applied at the same time as a turn is indicated, one lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated at a higher intensity.

You also submitted diagrams showing two configurations of this system using lamps with different effective projected luminous lens areas (EPLLA). In the first configuration (No. 1), each of the two lamps has an EPLLA of 25.5 cm² (3.96 in²). In the second configuration (No. 2), each of the lamps has an EPLLA of 50.3 cm² (7.8 in²).

You ask whether either of these configurations would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In particular, you express concern as to whether the first configuration would meet the EPLLA requirements for a stop lamp because, in Functional Mode No. 4, only one of the two lamps would be illuminated as a stop signal.

As you indicate in your letter, FMVSS No. 108 requires a motorcycle to have one stop lamp but permits it to have two stop lamps symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline. A motorcycle is also required to have two rear turn signal lamps, one on each side of the vertical centerline, with at least 9 inches separating the lamps. FMVSS No. 108 requires that the stop lamps must meet the requirements of Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J586, revised February 1984, and that the rear turn signal lamps must meet the requirements of SAE J588, revised November 1984.

The SAE standards permit the use of multiple compartment lamps or multiple lamps to meet the photometric requirements for stop lamps. The compartments or lamps in such systems are tested together as a unit so long as all the compartments or lamps are within a certain distance of each other. For a two-lamp system, the lamps must be within 560 mm of each other to be tested as a unit.

In previous interpretation letters addressing rear motorcycle lamp configurations, we have applied the distance requirements in the SAE standards to conclude that lamp systems consisting of lamps on either side of the rear vertical centerline can be considered single lamps for the purposes of meeting the stop lamp photometric requirements (See enclosed November 20, 1998 letter to Tadashi Suzuki).

In addition to the requirements contained in the SAE standards, FMVSS No. 108 states that [i]f a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements for stop lamps . . . the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp shall be at least 22 square centimeters, provided the combined area is at least 50 square centimeters. However, each motorcycle rear turn signal lamp is only required to have an EPLLA of 22.58 cm² (3.5 in²).

In your letter, the Configuration No. 1 lamp system consists of two lamps located 300 mm (11.8 in) apart, each of which has an EPLLA of 25.5 cm², for a combined EPLLA of 51 cm². Accordingly, we believe that this system would meet the EPLLA requirements for a single stop lamp and two motorcycle rear turn signal lamps. In response to your specific question, FMVSS No. 108 explicitly contemplates the optical combination of stop lamps and turn signal lamps. Therefore, we would not consider the stop lamp system to be noncompliant because only one of the lamps would function as a stop signal when a turn signal is flashing. Likewise, we believe

that the Configuration No. 2 lamp system, which consists of two lamps with individual EPLLAs of 50.3 cm², would meet the EPLLA requirements for two stop lamps and two motorcycle rear turn signal lamps.

However, the Configuration No. 1 lamp system raises another issue that we would like to address regarding the optical combination of the stop lamp and turn signals. The SAE standards state that when a stop lamp is optically combined with a turn signal lamp, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing. FMVSS No. 108 adopts the definition of optically combine found in SAE J387, revised November 1987. Under the SAE definition, optical combination results when 1) a lamp has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb), and 2) the lamps optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.

In the Configuration No. 1 lamp system, both lamps together constitute the required single stop lamp, and each individual lamp also acts as a turn signal. Under the definition stated above, the single stop lamp (consisting of both lamps) could be considered to be optically combined with both turn signals. Such an interpretation would mean that Functional Mode No. 4, where one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a stop signal, would not be permissible. Neither of the lamps could be illuminated as a stop signal if one of the turn signals is flashing. In other words, the vehicle would display no signal indicating that the brakes were being applied in such a situation.

In light of these consequences, we do not believe that such an interpretation of the term optically combine is appropriate for the unique situation presented by the lamp system you describe. Instead, we conclude that Functional Mode No. 4 is permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In that mode, the lamp that is flashing as a turn signal ceases operating as a stop signal. Nevertheless, the lamp system would continue to signal when the brakes are applied because the other lamp continues to operate as a stop signal. We caution that this interpretation is limited to the unique motorcycle rear lamp system described in your letter.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact William Shakely of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref: Standard No. 108

Mr. Richard L. Godsey

Continental Biomass Industries, Inc.

22 Whittier St.

Newton, NH 03858

Dear Mr. Godsey:

This responds to your letter dated December 4, 2009 asking whether the grinding, chipping, and shredding units you manufacture are motor vehicles regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Our answer is no.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

The following is our interpretation of the FMVSSs based on the description in your letter.

You state that Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (CBI) manufactures grinding, chipping, and shredding equipment units. The brochures you enclosed indicate that the units are used to grind, chip, and shred logs, forestry debris and wood waste wood products (e.g., trees, stumps, railroad ties). These units can be stationary or mobile. You state that the mobile equipment is non-motorized and relies on a tractor to be transported from the factory to the jobsites. CBIs website www.cbi-inc.com indicates that some of the units (e.g., the 8600 Magnum Force Series) are mounted on a tri-axle trailer frame with tires.

The Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6)) defines a motor vehicle as:

A vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it is regulated by NHTSA and must, among other things, comply with all applicable FMVSSs.

Whether the agency considers your work units to be motor vehicles depends on the use of the vehicles. In past agency interpretations, we have determined that vehicles which are primarily used off-highway and which only incidentally use the highways (to move between jobsites) are not motor vehicles under the Safety Act. An example of this is mobile construction equipment which use the highway only to move between jobsites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single jobsite. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

However, certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways and the agency has determined that such equipment are motor vehicles under the Safety Act. For example, dump trucks have been determined to be motor vehicles because they regularly use the highways to travel between jobsites and stay on such jobsites for only a limited period of time, thereby rendering their on-highway use more than incidental.

The photographs you enclose with your letter and on your website show the grinding, chipping, and shredding units to be fairly massive units. The jobsites are located where there are forestry debris and wood waste wood products present. You do not state how long a mobile unit may remain on a jobsite but we understand from the information you provided that the units are towed to the jobsites and remain there for a period of time. It appears that use of the units on streets or highways appears to be incidental to their use on jobsites. Based on the above information, we do not believe that the grinding, chipping, and shredding units are motor vehicles under the Safety Act.

This determination is based on the information provided. If in fact the grinding, chipping, and shredding units are using the roads and highways more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Date: June 2, 2010

Mr. Richard L. Godsey

Continental Biomass Industries, Inc.

22 Whittier St.

Newton, NH 03858

Dear Mr. Godsey:

This responds to your letter dated December 4, 2009 asking whether the grinding, chipping, and shredding units you manufacture are motor vehicles regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Our answer is no.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

The following is our interpretation of the FMVSSs based on the description in your letter.

You state that Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (CBI) manufactures grinding, chipping, and shredding equipment units. The brochures you enclosed indicate that the units are used to grind, chip, and shred logs, forestry debris and wood waste wood products (e.g., trees, stumps, railroad ties). These units can be stationary or mobile. You state that the mobile equipment is non-motorized and relies on a tractor to be transported from the factory to the jobsites. CBIs website www.cbi-inc.com indicates that some of the units (e.g., the 8600 Magnum Force Series) are mounted on a tri-axle trailer frame with tires.

The Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6)) defines a motor vehicle as:

A vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it is regulated by NHTSA and must, among other things, comply with all applicable FMVSSs.

Whether the agency considers your work units to be motor vehicles depends on the use of the vehicles. In past agency interpretations, we have determined that vehicles which are primarily used off-highway and which only incidentally use the highways (to move between jobsites) are not motor vehicles under the Safety Act. An example of this is mobile construction equipment which use the highway only to move between jobsites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single jobsite. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

However, certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways and the agency has determined that such equipment are motor vehicles under the Safety Act. For example, dump trucks have been determined to be motor vehicles because they regularly use the highways to travel between jobsites and stay on such jobsites for only a limited period of time, thereby rendering their on-highway use more than incidental.

The photographs you enclose with your letter and on your website show the grinding, chipping, and shredding units to be fairly massive units. The jobsites are located where there are forestry debris and wood waste wood products present. You do not state how long a mobile unit may remain on a jobsite but we understand from the information you provided that the units are towed to the jobsites and remain there for a period of time. It appears that use of the units on streets or highways appears to be incidental to their use on jobsites. Based on the above information, we do not believe that the grinding, chipping, and shredding units are motor vehicles under the Safety Act.

This determination is based on the information provided. If in fact the grinding, chipping, and shredding units are using the roads and highways more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/2/2010

Mr. S. Lafferty

Manager, Engineering

Maxon

10321 Greenleaf Avenue

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90760

Dear Mr. Lafferty:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223, Rear impact guards, and No. 224, Rear impact protection. Specifically, you ask whether the horizontal member of a rear impact guard may be composed of multiple pieces, as long as the guard passes the requirements of FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS

No. 224. Our answer is yes.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs.  If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

The following is our interpretation of the FMVSSs based on the description in your letter.

FMVSS No. 223 applies to rear impact guards as items of motor vehicle equipment. Nothing in the standard requires the horizontal member to be composed of a single piece. S5.1 of the standard specifies that the horizontal member of each guard, when viewed from the rear as it would be installed on a trailershall have a vertical height of at least 100 [millimeters (mm)] at each point across the guard width. If your guard is composed of multiple pieces, each horizontal member must have a vertical height of at least 100 mm at each point. S5.2 of the standard specifies strength and energy absorption requirements at test locations P1, P2, and P3. As long as your guard meets S5.2 at P1, P2, and P3 when tested according to S6 of the standard, the horizontal member may be composed of multiple pieces.

FMVSS No. 224 applies to trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. This standard requires the vehicles to be equipped with a rear impact guard that is certified as meeting Standard No. 223. We do not interpret FMVSS No. 224 to require the horizontal member of the guard to be composed of a single piece. If the vehicle can meet the requirements in the standard regarding the guards width, height and rear surface location, the horizontal member of the guard may be composed of multiple pieces.

If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/26/2010