ID: nht79-1.30

DATE: 01/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 17 1979

Clarence W. Woody Maryland Department of Transportation 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E. Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062

Dear Mr. Woody:

This is in response to your letter of December 5, 1978, asking whether the abbreviated odometer disclosure statement currently used on Maryland certificates of title may also be used on a Uniform Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Motor vehicle manufacturers are not required to provide dealers with odometer disclosure statements for new vehicles. Section 580.5 of Title 49 specifically exempts these transactions. Therefore, since there is no Federal requirement that any odometer disclosure statement be issued, you may include the abbreviated statement on the Uniform Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Manufacturers, however, would not be required by Federal law to complete it.

You should be interested to know that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will shortly issue a proposed notice of rulemaking that will allow use of the abbreviated form on all transfer of ownership documents, not merely the certificate of title.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.31

DATE: 01/23/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Illinois Department of Administrative Services

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 23 1979

Mr. Ben Bagby Illinois Department of Administrative Services 716 Stratton Office Building Springfield, Illinois 62706

Dear Mr. Bagby:

This is in response to your letter of November 28, 1978, requesting our interpretation of the Federal odometer law. Your questions and answers are as follows:

1. Is the State of Illinois required to furnish odometer disclosure statements to purchasers of used vehicles which are sold by the State at public auction? Yes. For purposes of the Federal odometer law, it is irrelevant where or how vehicles are sold. The State is the transferor of the vehicles and as such is required under 49 CFR Part 580 to provide every transferee with an odometer disclosure statement.

2. If the Federal government donates to the State surplus vehicles, is the Federal government required to provide odometer information to the State? Is the State required to furnish odometer information to other governmental units and not-for-profit institutions to whom it sells these vehicles? The answer to both questions is yes. The Federal government has incorporated the odometer disclosure statement onto Standard Form 97, which is the form which officially transfers a vehicle and evidences its release from the custody of the Federal government. In some instances a separate form is used and is attached to Standard Form 97.

Part 580.3 of Title 49 defines "transferor" as "any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest." Therefore, it is irrelevant that the vehicles were donated by the Federal government rather than sold. The State as the new owner must, likewise, provide the purchaser with a disclosure statement.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 28, 1978 Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Kathy DeMeter

Dear Ms. DeMeter:

The Chicago Heights Office suggested that I contact you for a legal opinion on the following facts and questions.

1. The State of Illinois sells at public auction a number of surplus vehicles each year. For the most part the vehicles are purchased by dealers for resale, but a number are for the purchasers' personal use. Under these circumstances, is the State of Illinois required to furnish odometer information to the purchasers of the used vehicles?

2. The federal government donates to the State of Illinois a number of surplus vehicles. The State then sells these vehicles for a service charge to governmental units and select not-for-profit institutions. Under these circumstances, is the federal government required to provide odometer information to the State? Is the State required to furnish odometer information to other governmental units or not-for-profit institutions?

Let me thank you in advance for your help. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 217/782-4217.

Sincerely,

Ben Bagby Assistant Counsel

BB:ms

ID: nht79-1.32

DATE: 02/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Pennsylvania Notaries

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

22 FEB 1979

S. B. Aronson Pennsylvania Notaries 625 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Dear Mr. Aronson:

This is in response to your letter of January 4, 1979, requesting our opinion as to whether a rubber stamp which contains the odometer information on the newest Pennsylvania title could be applied to older titles in lieu of having a separate form attached.

There are no legal bars to your recommendation. In fact, the stamp you recommend makes more sense than a separate form. A separate form can be removed and replaced with another sheet. A stamp cannot be so abused.

We appreciate and support your recommendation.

Sincerely,

John Womack Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.33

DATE: 01/12/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Lori Malinovsky

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

12 JAN 1979 NOA 30 (KDe)

Lori Malinovsky Gladiator Southeast 1250 8th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205

Dear Ms. Malinovsky:

This is in response to your letter of October 30, 1978, requesting information on the Federal Odometer Mileage Statement. Section 580.5(b) of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations provides

A transferor of a new vehicle prior to its first transferor for purposes other than resale need not disclose the vehicle's odometer mileage.

Manufacturers of vehicles fall within this section and are exempt from the disclosure requirements because they sell vehicles to dealers who intend only to resell the vehicles. Since Gladiator, Inc. purchased the vans new with the intent to resell them and since the vans are being sold to dealers only who also intend only to resell them, Gladiator is likewise exempt from the disclosure requirements. The dealerships, however, will be selling the vans to customers who will use them for some purpose other than resale. Consequently, the dealerships are required to issue disclosure statements each time they sell a van.

Sincerely,

John Womack Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.34

DATE: 11/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: SEV Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 9 1979

Mr. H. J. T. Young Vice president - Technical Affairs SEV Corporation 33201 Harper Avenue St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office in which you requested an interpretation of S4.1.1.19 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.1.1.19 states:

A lamp manufactured on or after January 1, 1974 and designed to use a type of bulb that has not been assigned a mean spherical candlepower rating by its manufacturer and is not listed in SAE Standard J573d "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units", December 1968, shall meet the applicable requirements of this standard when used with any bulb of the type specified by the lamp manufacturer, operated at the bulb's design voltage. A lamp that contains a sealed-in bulb shall meet these requirements with the bulb operated at the bulb's design voltage.

It is noted that this paragraph consists of two sentences. You have asked whether the "lamp" and "bulb" of the second sentence are the same "lamp" and "bulb" of the first sentence.

The answer is no. The first sentence would require testing, at the bulb's design voltage, of bulbs used in sealed beam headlamps but not of bulbs used in, for example, taillamps; the former, though listed in J573d (Table 2), is not assigned a mean spherical candlepower rating since these bulbs emit shaped beams while the latter are both listed in J573d and have assigned mean spherical candlepower ratings. However, if the latter is used in the sealed lamp, it is tested at the bulb's design voltage rather than using the rated mean spherical candlepower. Furthermore, the rulemaking history of the paragraph clearly indicates that the two requirements are separate. As the agency noted in the preamble to the proposal, "The proposal specifies that when no rating has been assigned by the bulb manufacturer or the SAE or if the lamp is sealed and the bulb cannot be replaced, the bulb shall be operated at design voltage" (emphasis supplied) (38 FR 16230).

You noted that your question relates to the voltage required by Standard No. 108 for the photometric testing of a sealed beam headlamp that utilizes a European halogen bulb that meets ECE Regulation 37.

Since J579c requires the test voltage to be 12.8 volts for all the sealed beam bulbs, the photometric tests should be at 12.8 volts and not at the so-called "system voltage" of 12 volts.

I hope this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Taylor Vinson Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street S W WASHINGTON DC 20590 September 24 1979

Dear Mr Vinson

Request for Interpretation

With reference to S4.1.1.19 of FMVSS 108, are the "lamp" and "bulb" of the second sentence the same as these two items referred to in the first sentence, that is to say, is the bulb of the second sentence one to which the two conditions attaching to the bulb of the first sentence also apply?

This question relates to the voltage required by FMVSS 108 for the photometric testing of a sealed beam headlamp that comprises, in part, a "sealed-in bulb" that is an H1, H2, H3 or H4 halogen bulb that bears the E-mark signifying that it is in compliance with E/ECE/TRANS/505/rev.1/Add.36 Regulation 37 of the Geneva Agreement of 20 March 1958 as adopted by the several European governments. Yours sincerely

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

ID: nht79-1.35

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 22 1979 NOA-30

Mr. C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company State Route 7, P.O. Box 766 Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Newman:

This is in reply to your letter of February 15, 1979, asking for an interpretation of S4.3.1.1.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have informed us that dimensional changes in refrigeration units on the front of commercial trailers mean that clearance lamps are no longer visible at 45 degrees inboard if they are mounted as they have been in the past. You have proposed three alternate solutions to the problem.

S4.3.1.1.1 provides in pertinent part that "clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of the vehicle...and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." Your first proposed solution is that "The lamps could be mounted on the front of the vehicle as normal and the 45 degree inboard visibility requirements waived in accordance with S4.3.1.1.1."

We believe that this is preferable to your other suggested solutions that utilize angle-mounted combination lamps. Standard No. 108 appears to prescribe alternate requirements for location and visibility of clearance lamps--preferably on the front and visible throughout 45 degree angles, but if not, elsewhere than the front and where they need not be visible through the 45 degree angles. Your first proposed solution comprises elements of each of Standard No. 108's alternatives, and while it is not expressly permitted by Standard No. 108, it does not appear to violate it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

February 15, 1979

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, DC 20590

Attn: Mr. J. J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

Recently there have been dimensional changes in the refrigeration units used on the front of commercial trailers and these new dimensions restrict the visibility of the front clearance lamps. These new refrigeration units are up to 80 inches wide, 83 inches high and extend out from the front of the trailer up to 23 inches. These larger units restrict the mounting location of the clearance lamps on the front of the vehicle.

With this obstruction the in-board 45o visibility angle cannot be met if the clearance lamps are mounted as they normally have been.

Section S4.3.1.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard states, "Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45o in-board".

Our interpretation of Section S4.3.1.1.1 would allow for three possible solutions to the problem described earlier.

The methods are as follows:

1. The lamps could be mounted on the front of the vehicle as normal and the 45o in-board visibility requirements waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #1.

2. A combination lamp meeting the requirements of both a side marker lamp and a clearance lamp mounted at 45o could be installed on the corner of the trailer and again the 45o in-board visibility requirements waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #2.

3. The front clearance lamps could be omitted completely from the front of the trailer and a lamp meeting the combination requirements for a side marker and clearance lamp could be mounted on the side of the trailer at the front. This lamp would then meet the requirements for a side marker lamp having 45o visibility each side of the center line and having light directly to the front of the vehicle. The 45o in-board visibility requirements would again be waived in accordance with Section S4.3.1.1.1. See Sketch #3.

Before making any recommendations to our customers regarding the possible solution to this problem, we would like to have your comments.

Yours very truly,

THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

C. J. Newman Vice President, Engineering

CJN/aj

Encl.

ID: nht79-1.36

DATE: 11/23/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 23 1979

Mr. T. Fujita Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd 2-9-13, Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Fujita:

This is in reply to your letter of October 17, 1979, asking for an interpretation for Paragraph S4.3.1.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.3.1.7 says in effect that a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp may be closer to each other than 4 inches "if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamp measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 1 is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps."

You have asked whether a motorcycle turn signal lamp should "satisfy the values specified in S4.3.1.7 or half those values. The answer is, the values specified in S4.3.1.7. Half those values would be "less than two and one-half times the sum specified ..." and impermissible under S4.3.1.7.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 17, 1979

Att.: Mr. Michael M. Finkelstein Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re: Photometric requirement of a motorcycle front turn signal lamp which is mounted closer to the low beam headlamp than 4 inches.

Dear Mr. Finkelstein,

Section 4.3.1.7 of FMVSS No.108 specifies as follows;

S.4.3.1.7

The requirement that there be not less than 4 inches between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp, specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970, shall not apply if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamp measured at the test points within each group listed in Figure 1 is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps.

When we apply this provision to a motorcycle turn signal lamp, we would like to have your opinion as to which one of the following requirements the lamp should satisfy.

A: the values specified in S.4.3.1.7

B: half the values of that specified in S.4.1.3.1.7

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Very truly yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Fujita Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

MF/mo

ID: nht79-1.37

DATE: 04/03/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 3 1979

NOA-30

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This responds to your letter of January 23, 1979, concerning a new design belt system for rear seat lap belts that you would like to use in future vehicles. You ask if the proposed design would comply with the requirements of Safety Standard No 208.

The answer to your question depends in which seating position in the rear seat of the vehicle the proposed belt system would be used. The new design would not comply with paragraph S7.1.1 of Safety Standard No. 208 if installed at outboard designated seating positions in the rear seat. That paragraph requires lap belts to adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor to fit persons whose dimensions range from those of a 50th-percentile 6-year-old child to those of a 95th-percentile adult male. In some cases your proposed design would not adjust automatically to fit a 95th-percentile adult male.

The proposed design would comply with the standard, however, if installed in the center seating position of the rear seat, since paragraph S7.1.1.2 specifies that a seat belt assembly installed at any designated seating position other than the outboard positions of the front and second seats shall adjust either by a retractor or by a manual adjusting device.

Since your new belt system design would currently be precluded for outboard designated seating positions, you may wish to petition for amendment of Safety Standard No. 208. Any petition should include an adequate description of the belt design, including: (1) seating positions for which the belt system would be applicable, (2) advantages of the system, (3) size of the belt system hardware, and (4) problems, if any, associated with automatic retraction of the belt system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hereby grants your request for confidentiality of the new belt system design described in your letter. Please notify us if the design becomes public in the future. Also, please note that if you petition for rulemaking in this area, the details of your belt design would probably have to be disclosed to the public, at least in general terms.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.38

DATE: 01/24/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 24 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Heinz W. Gerth Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive P. O. Box 350 Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Gerth:

This responds to your letter of December 19, 1978, asking whether a manually adjustable seat belt anchorage for the upper torso portion of a 3-point safety belt is permissible under Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You state that this new anchorage is adjustable over a certain range and is intended to increase wearing comfort by providing a better "fit" for all occupants.

We have reviewed the drawings and specifications enclosed with your letter and determined that the proposed adjustable anchorage design would not be precluded by Safety Standard No. 210 if the design meets the following two conditions: (1) the anchorage complies with the zone location requirements of the standard in any of the positions to which can be adjusted, and (2) the anchorage complies with the strength requirements of the standard at all times, even when the adjusting mechanism (bolt) is in its loosened status. There is nothing in the standard that prevents the use of adjustable anchorages, per se.

From discussions with your engineers, we found that the proposed design would require the use of a tool to tighten the adjusting bolt. We are concerned that this feature could reduce potential increases in belt use. For example, if driver A adjusts the belt anchorage to its lowest position, will driver B readjust the belt when he enters the car if the two drivers are of different sizes and the lowest position is uncomfortable for driver B? If the readjustment requires the use of a wrench to loosen and retighten the anchorage bolt, will driver B simply choose not to wear the belt? We believe that a manually adjusting anchorage that does not require the use of tools would be a preferable design in terms of potential seat belt use.

The agency is of course very interested in any seat belt design that will increase comfort and convenience and, thereby, seat belt use. Therefore, we encourage innovative designs. Please keep us informed about the progress of your work on your new anchorage system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hereby grants your request for confidential treatment of the drawings included in your letter (enclosures 1, 2 and 4). We have preliminarily determined that the drawings and specifications contain privileged commercial information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 19, 1978

Docket Section Room 5108 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Standard 210; Seat Belt Anchorages - Request for Interpretation

Gentlemen:

Statistics released by the NHTSA on December 15, 1978, again reflect the very low seat belt usage rate in the United States inspite of their known effectiveness. Earlier surveys have shown that approximately 50% of persons refusing to wear seat belts do so because they perceive them to be uncomfortable and inconvenient to manipulate and wear.

In an effort to overcame this wide spread public perception, our parent company, Daimler-Benz A.G., has devised 2 manually adjustable anchorage for the shoulder portion of the 3-point safety belt. The anchorage is adjustable over a range of 90mm and is designed to increase wearing comfort by providing a better "fit" for all occupants ranging from the 5 percentile female to 95 percentile male.

Daimler-Benz has tested this device and has concluded that it conforms to the strength requirements of standard 210. However, it is not entirely clear if such a device per se is permissable under the Standard.

We are including with this communication a written description of the device, and several drawings and photographs. We request your review of the material and advice if the manually adjustable seat belt anchorage is, in fact, permissable under Standard 210. If additional information is requested, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

In closing we would like to draw your attention to enclosures 1, 2 and 4 which we consider to contain proprietary information which would be damaging to our competitive interests if released to the public. We request that these enclosures be withheld from the public docket in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (b)(4).

Yours truly,

Enclosures

"Proprietary"

We request that the information designated 'proprietary' in the enclosure be treated by the agency as confidential and be exempted from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b) (4) because such information is a trade secret and contains privileged commercial information. Knowledge of this information to competitors could result in significant competitive damage to Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

Enclosure 3

Description

The upper safety belt anchorage consists of an "M" shaped base plate (1) which is attached with screws at points (6) and (7), and tabs at point (5) to the "B" pillar, and which holds the adjustable retaining plate (2) in place on which the mounting nut (4) for the belt sash is spot welded, and which also holds the spring-loaded belt arresting device (3).

The base plate (1) has, depending on the adjustment travel of the seat belt sash (8), an elongated hole (1a) in the middle to permit a screw (9) to pass through and fasten the belt sash to the retaining plate (2).

Within the elongated hole (1a) three indexes (10),(11), & (12) are arranged in pairs to receive the spring-loaded belt arresting device (3) and hold the retaining plate (2) in place. Because of the way the retaining plate (2), and the arresting device (3) are configured, it is assured that when loaded the arresting device (3) will lock into place as there is no arm between the projection (13), and the indexes (10),(11), & (12) which could cause a moment to be exerted on the arresting device (3). An additional pre-condition for the uninterrupted functioning of the arresting device (3) is that the restraining plate (2) to which the arresting device (3) is attached, does not lift off the base plate when loaded. This is achieved with the threaded (9) connection to the retaining plate (2), and by means of two tabs (2a) which, when loaded, rest against the B-pillar. This assures that the arresting mechanism (3) is loaded only by shear forces.

PS:Wkr 11/9/78

ID: nht79-1.39

DATE: 03/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 16 1979

Mr. Charles D. Hylton, III Director, Editorial Services National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc. 1343 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Hylton:

This is in response to your letter of February 27, 1979, asking whether tire dealers are responsible for supplying point-of-sale information concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQG) (49 CFR 575.104) to prospective tire purchasers.

Subpart A of Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations, provides in section 575.6(c) (49 CFR 575.6(c)) that,

"Each manufacturer of motor vehicles, each brand name owner of tires, and each manufacturer of tires for which there is no brand name owner shall provide for examination by prospective purchasers, at each location where its vehicles or tires are offered for sale by a person with whom the manufacturer or brand name owner has a contractual, proprietary, or other legal relationship, or by a person who has such a relationship with a distributor of the manufacturer or brand name owner concerning the vehicle or tire in question, the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to each of the vehicles or tires offered for sale at that location ..."

The UTQG Standards, contained in Subpart B of Part 575, specify the information which must be furnished to prospective purchasers by vehicle manufacturers, tire manufacturers, and tire brand name owners (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii)).

Thus, the Consumer Information Regulations place the responsibility for providing UTQG point-of-sale information to prospective tire purchasers on manufacturers and brand name owners rather than directly on tire dealers. The means by which tire manufacturers and brand name owners assure that UTQG information is provided for examination will be determined between these suppliers and their dealers and distributors.

You should also note that, in light of the 30-day stay granted by the U.S. Court of appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case of B.B. Goodrich Co. v. Department of Transportation, the effective dates for all requirements of the UTQG regulation, with the exception of paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(1)(iii) (49 CFR 575.104(d)(i)(A) and (d)(1)(iii), are now March 31, 1979 for bias-ply tires and October 1, 1979 for bias-belted tires. Paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A), the sidewall molding requirement, and paragraph (d)(1)(iii), the first purchaser requirement, now become effective October 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires and March 31, 1980 for bias-belted tires.

Sincerely,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel