ID: nht93-1.40

DATE: 02/18/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH B. GORDON -- MANAGER OF ENGINEERING, EIS BRAKE PARTS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-6-92 FROM JOSEPH B. GORDON TO RICH VAN IDERSTINE (OCC 8261)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1993, to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency. It has been forwarded to this office because you have, in essence, requested a legal opinion as to the acceptability of a product that your company is considering manufacturing. As you describe it, the product provides an intermittently blinking stop lamp function when the brake pedal is applied. You are concerned that such a device "might be confused with hazard warning lights", and that there may be "other problems/restrictions connected with its manufacture. You have asked for our advice.

Motor vehicle lighting in the United States is subject to both Federal and State requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment are the Federal requirements to which I refer.

Standard No. 108, which was issued under the authority of the Safety Act, prescribes requirements for stop lamps and other lamps that must be followed by the manufacturer of the vehicle, and met at the time the vehicle is sold by the dealer to its first owner. One of these requirements, set forth in S5.5.10 (d) of the standard, requires stop lamps to be steady-burning. Because your product would create a flashing light, it could not be used as original equipment on a motor vehicle, whether installed by the manufacturer, or by the distributor or dealer after the vehicle has left the factory and before its first sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale.

The Safety Act includes a provision which governs modifications to vehicles after their initial sale. This Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from making modifications that affect compliance with Standard No. 108 (or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). Thus, a vehicle owner may install your product without violation of Federal requirements. However, we interpret the Safety Act as prohibiting the installation of such a product by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Under section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)), these persons shall not "render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In our view, this forbids the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the Act does not forbid the sale of componentry such as your product which creates a noncompliance once it is installed. In summary, under Federal law, any person may sell your device, but only a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may install it.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State prohibit the use of flashing stop lamps, and recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht93-1.41

DATE: 02/18/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DALE E. DAWKINS -- DIRECTOR, VEHICLE COMPLIANCE AND SAFETY AFFAIRS, CHRYSLER CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-16-92 FROM P. E. DAWKINS TO MARION C. BLAKEY

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 16, 1992, to the Administrator informing the agency about the intent of Chrysler Corporation to manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV) under NHTSA Temporary Exemption 92-1.

According to your letter, these vehicles are "almost identical" to the TEVans for which the agency granted the temporary exemption, except that they will utilize an AC electrical motor, while the ones which were the subject of the exemption petition will be powered by a DC electrical motor. You seek no broader exemption as the combined volumes of CCEVs and TEVans "will not exceed the maximum units of the petition that was granted." You have submitted this information to us so that NHTSA will have a clear understanding of the content of your electric vehicle development program and the extent of the exemptions under which these vehicles will be manufactured.

It appears that you would like confirmation from NHTSA that the CCEV vehicles are covered by Temporary Exemption 92-1. In order for the agency to provide this confirmation, it must determine that CCEV and TEVans are essentially the same vehicle and that none of the minor differences between the vehicles affects the findings made by the agency in issuing the TEVan exemption. In granting Chrysler's exemption petition covering three standards, the Administrator first found that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle. We do not believe that the change in electrical propulsion from DC to AC affects this finding. The Administrator next found that an exemption from the three standards would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle. You state that "[based] on our engineering judgement, there is no significant difference between the CCEV or TEVan in terms of overall vehicle safety." While you may have used the work "significant" in an excess of caution, it implies that there are differences between CCEV and TEVan and that there is a difference in overall vehicle safety between the CCEV and TEVan, although not an important one from Chrysler's viewpoint. We would appreciate your identification of the differences between the vehicles, and of the differences, if any, in the safety between the CCEVs and TEVans that may have led to Chrysler's engineering conclusion. With this information, we shall be better able to evaluate whether the two vehicles are essentially the same and whether there is any undue degradation in safety that might render it inappropriate to consider the CCEVs covered by the TEVan exemption.

We appreciate your calling our attention to this matter.

ID: nht93-1.42

DATE: 02/19/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KENNETH A. GALLO -- HOWREY & SIMON

TITLE: MICHO INDUSTRIES AND SAFETY RESEARCH MANUFACTURING INC. EXEMPTION PETITION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-18-92 FROM KENNETH A. GALLO TO MARION C. BLAKEY (OCC 8128)

TEXT: This responds to your petition of December 18, 1992, on behalf of your clients, Micho Industries and Safety Research Manufacturing, Inc. The petitioners are manufacturers of an item of motor vehicle equipment called the "R-Bar Restraining System." They asked for an exemption for the R-Bar

from compliance with the testing procedures set forth in 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.222 subsections S5.1.4(c) and S5.1.4.1 & 2 (1991) for purposes of determining whether the R-Bar (when attached to a passenger seat) deflects to within four inches of any part of another passenger seat.

The petition was submitted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (B). Alternatively, you request consideration pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1410 (a) (1) (B). Preliminarily, let me note that the provisions of section 1397 (a) (2) apply to vehicles originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards but which are subsequently modified before or after their sale to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Section 1410 (a) applies to a vehicle at the time of its manufacture.

Section 1397 (a) (2) (A) provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . .

Section 1397 (a) (2) (B) provides that:

The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from [subparagraph (A)] if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this chapter. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term "render inoperative".

Thus, your petition asks, in effect, that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses be permitted to install the R-Bar in a school bus in use, even if the installation may cause the vehicle to no longer comply the installation may cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 222. Although section 1397 (a) (2) (B) was added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Act") in 1974, yours appears to be the first formal request for an exemption that the agency has received, and is therefore a case of first impression. Although NHTSA has provided advisory letters over the years interpreting "render inoperative," the NHTSA has not prescribed any "regulation" pertinent to section 1397 (a) (2).

Congress did not write into the statute any limitation on the use of the section 1397 (a) (2) (B) exemption authority apart from specifying that any exemption must be consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. However, the committee report in the House, where the exemption provision arose, suggested a limited scope of authority. The report stated that "exemptions may be warranted for owners with special medical problems, who require special controls, or for emergency vehicles or police cruisers." While these purposes were not expressly incorporated in the statute as limitations on the exemption authority, the agency believes that it would not be appropriate to issue an exemption based on other grounds unless there were a strong, compelling reason to do so.

NHTSA does not believe that there is a strong, compelling basis for granting your clients' petition under section 1397 (a) (2) (B). Indeed, NHTSA believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns that would need careful evaluation before the agency would take any action to facilitate their use.

One concern is whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. This is a complicated issue involving many variables, including type of crash (e.g., frontal, rear), positioning of occupants (sitting up straight, leaning forward, slouching, etc.), what happens when a large occupant is seated next to a small occupant (which could affect the position of the bar relative to the small occupant), and what happens if books, brief cases, lunch boxes, etc. are placed beneath the bar or on top of the bar (thereby affecting the position of the bar relative to the occupants and/or movement of the bar during a crash). Another concern is whether the bar could result in excessive loading of occupants' heads during a crash, from head contact with the seat back in front of the occupant, instead of loading that is spread more evenly over the occupant's body.

I note that NHTSA does not have the information that would be necessary to assess your client's product in relation to these safety concerns. The agency has not conducted any testing of safety bars, and the very limited test information submitted with your client's petition does not provide a basis to make such an assessment. It is clear, however, that Standard No. 222 has been effective in ensuring a high level of occupant protection in school buses. NHTSA believes it would be inappropriate to take any action to facilitate the use of a device that potentially could reduce school bus occupant protection.

Please note, as we have advised others, the prohibition in section 1397 (a) (2) (A) does not extend to the owner of the vehicle. If a school bus authority has its own private service facilities, the installation of the R-bar by the service facilities would not violate the prohibition. However, in view of our discussion above, we would not encourage a school bus authority to make that installation.

The petitioners have also asked to be exempted pursuant to section 1410 (a) (1) (B). This section excuses a noncompliance if the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety features which provide a level of safety which is equal to or exceeds the level of safety established in the standard from which exemption is sought. However, a petitioner under section 1410 (a) must be the manufacturer of the new motor vehicle for which an exemption is sought. Thus, NHTSA can not consider your clients' petition under that section. The agency would be able to consider a petition under section 1410 (a) (1) (B) that is submitted by a school bus manufacturer which wished to install the R-Bar in its vehicles. However, any such petition should address the safety concerns discussed earlier in this letter.

We are returning the videotapes and two of the three copies of the petition that accompanied your letter. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263), who spoke with you previously on this matter.

ID: nht93-1.43

DATE: 02/19/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: BEVERLEY SILVER-CORBER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-29-93 FROM BEVERLEY SILVER-CORBER TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA (OCC 8303)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to the agency with respect to your wish to import into the United States a 1992 Honda Accord, which was not manufactured to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. You would like to use the car for a two-year period in the U.S. while your husband is in graduate school. You have asked whether you qualify for an exemption, and whether you will be allowed to import the car for the two years of study.

Under regulations of the Department of Transportation that govern the importation of motor vehicles, you, as a nonresident of the United States, are permitted to import your nonconforming Honda for a period of up to one year, provided that the importation is for your personal use, that you will not sell it during that time, and that the vehicle will be exported not later than the end of one year after entry (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 591.5(d)). The reason for the one-year limitation is that, under the Road Traffic Convention (1952) and the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles (1957), Conventions to which the United States is a party, an imported vehicle may be subjected to all the laws of any country in which it has remained longer than one year, including import duties and taxes. In recognition of the effect of these Conventions, we have adopted a one-year limitation on the temporary importation of nonconforming vehicles by nonresidents, and we do not grant waivers or exemptions from this requirement. However, if you return in the Honda to Canada at the end of the first year of your husband's studies, we would regard the export provisions as having been met, and a new one-year period would begin when the car is re-imported into the U.S. for your husband's second year of studies.

Although our regulations do provide for indefinite entry of nonconforming vehicles that are imported for "research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training" (Section 591.5(j)), we do not interpret this as applying to importers who come to the U.S. to study. Rather, it applies to the importer who wishes to import a vehicle so that it may be studied.

ID: nht93-1.44

DATE: February 22, 1993

FROM: A. L. Bragg -- Laboratory Manager, Truck-Lite Co., Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

COPYEE: R. Kotsi; D. Gerringer; B. VanRiper; T. Kouchi

TITLE: Subject: Letter of Interpretation to Mr. T. Kouchi at Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. Re: Grouping of light emitting diodes into three or more lighting sections. Response dated December 30, 1992 from Mr. Paul Jackson Rice

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-24-93 from John Womack to A. L. Bragg (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 12-30-92 from Paul Jackson Rice to T. Kouchi (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 11-23-92 from T. Kouchi to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8081)

TEXT: We read your response to Mr. Kouchi with interest. While we certainly agree that SAE J1889 is not incorporated into standard 108, we feel that present standards, such as J586 and J588 do allow the manufacturer to include several lighted section of lens area which may be separated by opaque or non -emitting lens areas. There are numerous examples of rear automotive lights where the light emitting area is intentionally divided by decorative strips or sections.

With this in mind, we would see no reason why the three sections shown in the attached drawing of Mr. Kouchi's letter could not act in concert to perform a single photometric function, that is, as a single compartment light. Could you comment further regarding this?

You also noted that "each of the lighted areas would constitute a three section device because it contains three or more LED's." Because of the relatively low output of an individual LED, almost every lighting device would certainly contain several LED's working together to perform a function. Your response seems to equate individual LED's with lighted sections.

If we understand your letter of interpretation correctly, it creates several problems. One of these you have alluded to in the same letter where the comment is made that a three section or compartment device could result in "glare in the eyes of the following driver." Another "problem" which would result would be the increased cost and complexity of lighting devices incorporating diodes.

It is possible that this is a problem in semantics. We would be most appreciative of any comments or clarification you might offer on the above.

ID: nht93-1.45

DATE: 02/22/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HARRY CAMERON -- SAFETY, LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-23-92 FROM HARRY CAMERON TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 8096)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 23, 1992 requesting information on "the procedure to obtain certification for the repair and recertification of motor vehicle passenger restraints to comply with DOT 206-3206." When you were contacted by Mary Versailles of my staff for clarification on what DOT 206-3206 is, you explained that you are also unfamiliar with this requirement but had been told that you had to comply with it. Based on your request, this letter will explain the laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the responsibilities of your company when you repair motor vehicle safety belts by replacing worn or frayed webbing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 209, Seat belt Assemblies, (49 CFR 571.209) which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements.

The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new item of motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). If you were manufacturing new seat belt assemblies to replace those with worn or frayed webbing, you would be required to certify that the new assemblies complied with Standard No. 209. If you were installing replacement assemblies, the manufacturer of those assemblies would have certified that the assemblies comply with Standard No. 209.

The requirement that an item of motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the item's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the item is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This section would prohibit you from replacing the worn or frayed webbing in a manner that would negatively affect the seat belt assembly's compliance with Standard No. 209. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition are subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

We urge you to exercise care when repairing safety belts. The belts you repair will fail to achieve their intended purpose if the webbing breaks or separates from the hardware or vehicle in a crash. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-1.46

DATE: February 22, 1993

FROM: Cleo Betts -- Director of Engineering, Coachmen Recreational Vehicle Company

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-30-93 from John Womack to Cleo Betts (A41; Std. 207; Part 571)

TEXT: Thank you for your assistance in answering my questions relative to free standing furniture in a motorized vehicle and I appreciate your offer to provide a written interpretation of the standards. As we discussed, my questions deal with a dinette and associated chairs in a moving motorhome.

To meet regulatory standards, must the dinette table and its associated chairs be secured to the floor? If the dinette chairs are not secured to the floor, do they qualify as a designated seat position? Should a dinette chair be attached to the floor, must it be a designed seat?

In our phone conversation, you indicated a free standing dinette and chairs would be viewed as temporary furniture and would not be required to meet the federal standards. I also understood labeling is not required but we did discuss that labeling may be more closely associated with product liability then federal regulations.

As you can tell by my questions, we are desirous of developing a motorized recreational vehicle with free standing dinette and chairs. We are very sensitive to complying with federal standards and want to understand how such furniture usage fits within or outside of the standards.

Please identify which sections and paragraph in the standard,that you selected in developing your response. If you would, please include information so I may order the most current standard book.

You were very helpful during our phone conversation and am looking forward to receiving your written reply.

ID: nht93-1.47

DATE: 02/23/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JAMES E. SCHLESINGER -- SCHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-23-92 FROM JAMES E. SHLESINGER TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 8159)

TEXT: This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of this office, requesting an opinion concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

You stated in your letter that two tire manufacturers, A and B, both with production facilities in both Canada and the United States, produced tires for a brand name owner, Company C, in Canada. A, B, and C agreed that in the event of overproduction or if some of the tires were "blems" (Company C refuses to accept blems, which are tires with minor cosmetic blemishes but structurally sound), A and B were free to market their tires elsewhere, including the United States. The tires manufactured for Company C contain the DOT number and the Canadian National Tire Safety Mark, but not the UTQGS information, which is not required in Canada. You stated that over a period of 1 1/2 years, A imported 10,622 tires into the United States while B imported 12,856 tires, including 4,644 blems, into the country. All were passenger tires and all sales occurred in 1990 and 1991. You then posed three questions based on those facts, which I will answer below in the order presented.

First, by way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. @@ 1381) et seq., as amended (hereinafter Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. Section 203 of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1423) directs the Secretary to prescribe, through standards established under Title I of the Act, a uniform quality grading system for motor vehicle tires. NHTSA issued the UTQGS under the authority of @ 203 and @ 112(d) (15 U.S.C. @ 1401(d)), which authorizes the Secretary to require manufacturers to provide performance and technical data to the first purchasers of motor vehicle equipment for purposes other than resale. The UTQGS may be found at 49 CFR @ 575.104.

The penalties for violation of the UTQGS are set forth in the Act. Section 108(a) (1) (E) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a) (1) (E)) prohibits any failure to comply with any rule, regulation, or order issued under @ 112. Sanctions for violation of @ 108 are set forth in @ 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1398(a)), which provides civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation of @ 108, up to a total maximum civil penalty of $ 800,000 for "any related series of violations." In addition, @ 110(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(a)) gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Title I of the Act, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS.

With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions: 1. Is it unlawful to import, sell or distribute in the United States tires which do not have the UTQG information on the sidewall of the tire and/or on the paper tread label for the tire?

ANSWER: Subject to the exceptions discussed in the answer to your question No. 3 below, 49 CFR 575.6(b) provides that:

At the time a motor vehicle tire is delivered to the first purchaser for a purpose other than resale, the manufacturer of that tire or, . . . the brand name owner, shall provide to that purchaser the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to that tire.

Subpart B includes @575.104 which, at (d) (1) (i) (A), requires that the UTQG information be molded onto or into the tire sidewall. Where a new tire line is introduced into the United States for the first time, however, the tire manufacturer or brand name owner may, for the first six months after the tire's introduction, provide the UTQG information by means of a paper label affixed to the tread surface of the tire. After that six-month grace period, the required information must be molded onto or into the tire sidewall.

Although both the Act and the UTQGS are silent as to whether tires can be imported or distributed without the UTQGS information, there would be no point in doing so since the tires cannot legally be sold without that information.

2. If it is unlawful to import, distribute and sell tires in the United States without said UTQG information, what penalties are imposed on the manufacturer and/or brand name owner?

ANSWER: As discussed above, civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 575.6(b) may be imposed, up to a maximum of $ 800,000. In addition, U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to restrain any such violations.

3. Would any of the exceptions of 49 CFR @ 575.104(c) apply in this case, and, if so, in what way? Is there any legislative history or interpretation of the meaning of "limited production tires" as noted in this section, and what effects, if any, this limitation might have on the above fact situation?

ANSWER: 49 CFR @ 575.104(c) provides that the UTQGS apply to new pneumatic passenger car tires. The standards do not apply, however, to deep tread, winter type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches, or "limited production" tires. In order to qualify as a limited production tire, @ 575.104(c) (2) establishes four criteria, all of which the tires must meet:

(i) The manufacturer's annual domestic production or importation into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;

(ii) The annual domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires;

(iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture; and

(iv) The total annual production or importation into the U.S. by the manufacturer or, if the tire is marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase or purchase for importation into the U.S. by the tire's brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of (i), (ii), and (iii) above, does not exceed 35,000 tires.

Section 575.104(c) also states that "tire design" is "the combination of general structural characteristics, materials, and tread pattern, but does include cosmetic, identifying or other minor variations among tires."

The factual scenario you described in your letter would suggest that the tires in question might meet the numbers criteria of (c) (2) (i) and (ii), but there is not sufficient information on which to base an opinion as to whether they meet the other two criteria. There is likewise insufficient information to determine whether the exceptions relating to deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, or tires with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches may apply to any or all the tires in question. The manufacturer(s) seeking to import those tires into the U.S. must make those determinations.

For your additional information, I am enclosing a copy of 45 FR 23442, dated April 7, 1980, the final rule which initially exempted limited production tires from the UTQGS. That notice explains the rationale for exempting limited production tires and other background information you may find helpful.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-1.48

DATE: 02/23/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: RICHARD LANGLAIS -- PRELCO INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM RICHARD LANGLAIS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 8067); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-26-91 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER TO RICHARD LANGLAIS

TEXT: This responds to your December 7, 1992, inquiry requesting information about the agency's requirements set forth in 49 CFR @ 551.45, Service of Process; Agents. In a November 26, 1991, letter to you, Ms. Kathleen DeMeter, NHTSA's Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, sent you a letter explaining your responsibilities pursuant to @ 551.45. You now have some additional questions related to Ms. DeMeter's letter. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your additional questions.

As our earlier letter explained, @ 551.45 sets forth this agency's requirements as they relate to the service of process on non-American manufacturers and importers. One such requirement provides that you must send a declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed and that agent must be a permanent resident of the United States. The agent may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation. You asked who could be appointed as your agent and whether we would recommend some agents or firms which specialize in this kind of service.

With respect to your first question, any individual, firm, or United States corporation may be an agent provided that it is a permanent resident of this country. With respect to your second question, this agency does not recommend or endorse entities which may serve as an agent. Nevertheless, the National Glass Association, a trade association whose members include automotive glass manufacturers, may be able to assist you. It is located at 8200 Greensboro Drive, Suite 302, McLean Va 22102, and its telephone number is (703) 442-4890. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-1.49

DATE: 02/24/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM R. WILLEN -- MANAGING COUNSEL, PRODUCT LEGAL GROUP, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM WILLIAM R. WILLEN TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 8112)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 7, 1992 requesting an interpretation of the definition of "designated seating position" in 49 CFR Section 571.3. You request confirmation of your belief that a proposed Honda seat design would have two designated seating positions. For the proposed design, "(t)he hip room is 44.2 inches over the length of the seat, and the seat width is only 39 inches. The seat is flat and does not have stiff inboard seat belt receptacles."

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100 (a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating.

If the seat has only 44.2 inches of hip room, the seat would probably qualify as having only two seating positions, since this value is below the 50-inch specification in the definition of "designated seating position." Please note, however, that the 50-inch specification does not mean that some vehicle seats with less than 50 inches of hip room should not also have more than two designated seating positions if the vehicle and seat design is such that three positions would likely be used. The specification is merely the amount of space the agency will consider as conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions.

You ask if our answer would be different if fixed or movable armrests were provided. A fixed armrest does affect the measurement of designated seating position, since a fixed armrest would impede a person from sitting in the center position. NHTSA has stated in the preamble to the rule adopting the definition of designated seating position that the space occupied by a fixed, stationary armrest "would not be considered hip room and would not be included in the measurement of the 50-inch limitation." 44 FR 23229; April 19, 1979. A fixed armrest on your seat would show your intent that the position is not intended to be used as a seat.

Your letter also asked if the interpretation would be different if the seat width was greater than 39 inches. The number of designated seating positions is determined by the hip room, therefore, if the hip room remained the same, the seat would have the same number of designated seating positions even if the seat width was increased. Finally, you asked if the interpretation would be different if the seat were installed in a wider vehicle or positioned differently in the vehicle. Again, those modifications would only require an increase in the number of designated seating positions if the hip room were increased by these changes.

Finally, I emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.