ID: 12375.wkm

Mr. C. O. Jung
Technical Manager
Hankook Tire America Corporation
Three University Plaza, Suite 430
Hackensack, NJ 07601

Dear Mr. Jung:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Jim Gilkey of this agency in which you asked whether the agency was planning to issue a regulation adding a symbol to the end of the tire identification number to designate the year of manufacture. The answer is no.

As you correctly pointed out in your letter, the fourth grouping of numerals in the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 Code of Federal Regulations 574.5 is a three-symbol code representing the week and year of manufacture. The first two numbers represent the week and the third the year. Thus, in the example you provided, the numbers "439" would represent the 43d week of 1989. As you further pointed out, however, that "9" could also mean 1979 or even 1969. For that reason, you stated that the Imported Tyre Manufacturers Association of the United Kingdom intends to add a fourth symbol to that grouping to identify tires produced in the decade 1990 to 1999. You asked whether this agency has any plans to do the same.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized the possibility that a single number representing the year of manufacture could cause some confusion because there is nothing to identify the decade to which that number belongs. That has not proven to be a significant problem, however, it being generally assumed that the number refers to the most recent year ending in that number. Because NHTSA only regulates new tires and newly-retreaded passenger car tires, that will generally be a valid assumption since it is extremely unlikely that a tire manufactured or retreaded in 1969 or 1979 will remain unsold on the store shelf in 1996. Accordingly, NHTSA has no present plans to add a symbol to the fourth grouping of the TIN to specify the exact year of manufacture.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Ref: #574

d:9/13/96

ID: 12391.MLS

Mr. Dick Grimsley
United States Marine Corps
Assistant Chief of Staff, Logistics
Motor Transport Department
Box 555014
Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5014

Dear Mr. Grimsley:

This responds to your letter asking whether recertification is required for compressed natural gas (CNG) containers used as a vehicle fuel tank. You state that you have several CNG containers that are marked "3 year recertification" that soon must be recertified.

As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment. Since NHTSA has no authority to regulate the reinspection of CNG containers, we cannot answer the other questions in your letter.

Please note that NHTSA recently issued a notice modifying the labeling requirements for CNG containers. (61 FR 47086, September 6, 1996). Containers manufactured on and after December 2, 1996 will be required to be labeled with the following statement: "This container should be visually inspected after a motor vehicle accident or fire and at least every 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first, for damage and deterioration."

I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:303

d:10/9/96

ID: 12411-1.PJA

Mr. Ronny D. Choate
C&J Enterprises
4024 Fiesta
Hobbs, NM 88240

Dear Mr. Choate:

This responds to your letter asking which Federal vehicle safety regulations you must comply with in producing your police patrol vehicle, a converted full size pickup truck. The bed of the pickup truck has been enclosed with a shell and outfitted along one side with bench seats that face sideways toward the centerline of the vehicle. These seats are outfitted with lap belts for two seating positions.

Along with general questions about Federal standards, you asked specifically about requirements for roof crush testing of the shell and installation of seat belts for the bench seats. The short answer to your question is that your altered vehicle would have to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to pickup trucks, including those for roof crush testing and occupant restraints in the bench seats.

Before addressing your specific questions, I will provide a summary of our regulatory system. This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under 49 USC Chapter 301 to issue FMVSSs and related regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or endorse products. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers are responsible for "self-certifying" that their products comply with all applicable standards. They must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

When sold to the first purchaser (in this case, a police department), a vehicle must meet all standards applicable to pickup trucks. A vehicle manufacturer must submit certain identifying information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR Part

566, Manufacturer Identification. The manufacturer must also meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and place on the truck a label with information specified in 49 CFR 567.4, including the vehicle's gross axle and gross vehicle weight ratings.

A person or business modifying a new pickup truck according to your plans would be considered an "alterer" of the truck, and therefore would have certain certification responsibilities. An alterer is a person who modifies a previously certified, new motor vehicle (i.e., before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale). Since the modifications you are planning involve the addition of components that would not be considered "readily attachable," under 49 CFR 567.7 (copy enclosed) the alterer must affix to the vehicle an additional label with the following statement: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year.)" If the modifications alter the vehicle in such a manner that its original weight ratings are no longer valid, the new weight rating information must be provided.

In addition, if the alterer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect caused by the conversion of the pickup, the alterer would be required to notify all owners of the defect and to provide a remedy without charge. (See sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning recall and remedy requirements).

Regarding your specific question on roof crush testing of the shell over the bed of the pickup, we believe that it would not have to be tested. The test procedures in FMVSS No. 216, Roof crush resistance, are designed to test the vehicle's roof crush strength at the front corners of the roof, in the area at the top of the A-pillars (the structural members on either side of the windshield). The test device (a rigid flat plate) is inclined forward at an angle of 5 degrees and outward at an angle of 25 degrees, so a relatively low profile shell would probably not be contacted during the test, and in any case would not be providing most of the resistance. However, you should be aware that modifications to the back of the pickup cab (for example, to create a passage to the bed area) may affect the strength of the roof over the front occupant compartment. Any decrease in strength could degrade performance in the roof crush test. In this case, the alterer would not be able to rely on the original manufacturer's basis for certification that the vehicle meets FMVSS No 216.

Concerning requirements for installing seat belts for the side facing bench seat, each seat would be considered a "designated seating position" within the meaning of 571.3 since your design envisions bed mounted seats that would be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. As the seats are to be installed as an item of original equipment before the first sale of the vehicle to a retail purchaser, the designated seating positions on your product would have to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Your letter indicates that you plan to install lap-only (Type 1) safety belts at these seating positions to comply with Standard No. 208. This would be consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 208, which permits these designated seating positions to be equipped with either Type 1 or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) safety belts.

There are a few other standards to which I would like to draw your attention. If the shell you are going to add slides into place on the back of the truck, another standard that you should pay particular attention to is FMVSS No. 126, Truck-camper loading, because the shell that you will add would be considered a "camper." This standard has requirements for the provision of information about weight and loading. If you will be increasing the weight of the vehicle, you should consider FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and FMVSS No. 120, concerning tire selection and loading. Since you may be obstructing the view of the inside rearview mirror by adding the shell, you should ensure that the correct mirrors are installed pursuant to S6 of FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:216#208#126#119#111

d:11/26/96

ID: aiam2736

Dear Dr. Sturtz: Mr. Ralph Nader forwarded to me your letter dated November 23, 1977 concerning your difficulty in determining whether your 1977 Ford Econoline van is equipped with an energy absorbing steering column.; Ford Econoline vans are equipped with conventional steering column that are not energy absorbing. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 203, *Steering Control Impact Protection*, and No. 204, *Steering Control Rearward Displacement*, are currently only applicable to passenger cars, so manufacturers are not required to have energy absorbing steering columns on van vehicles. Ford has not voluntarily equipped its vans with such steering systems.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shares your concer in this subject. As a matter of fact, the agency has initiated high priority rulemaking proceedings to extend the applicability of Several passenger car standards, including Standards 203 and 204, to both vans and light trucks.; Please let me know if you would like further information on automotiv safety matters.; Sincerely, Howard J. Dugoff, Deputy Administrator

ID: aiam0064

Dear Mr. Tate: Thank you for your letter of December 19, 1967, to the National Highwa Safety Bureau, in which you request information governing vehicle width and safety glass installation requirements on the vehicles you manufacture.; Regarding your question on vehicle width, Safety Standard No. 108 relative to lamps, reflectors and associated equipment, for specified vehicles 80 or more inches wide overall, defines the term 'overall width' as the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rear view mirrors, flexible fender extensions and mud flaps, determined with doors and windows closed and the wheels in the straight ahead position. Therefore, if your vehicle measures less than the Safety Standard No. 108 requires, compliance is not required.; Your question regarding installation of safety glass as specified b Safety Standard No. 205, relative to Glazing Materials, can be answered by directing your attention to Standard No. 205. It specifies adherence by a multi-purpose Passenger Vehicle, a category into which your pick-up campers fall. A copy of the Federal Register, Volume 32, No. 23 and amendment to this regulation, Volume 32, No. 131, is enclosed for your information.; The application of Safety Standard No. 205 to pick-ups, is covered b the enclosed Federal Register, Volume 33, No. 59.; Thank you for your cooperation and response to the Federal Highwa Administration request regarding the certification requirement.; The label sample and information as to its location that you hav provided will be very useful to us, however, in accordance with Section 112 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, it would be appreciated if you would provide us with the serial identification system in order that vehicles manufactured (completed) after January 1, 1968, can be identified.; Your interest in the safety program of the Bureau is appreciated. Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam2059

Dear Mr. Toyoda: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 22, 1975 concerning truck tires which do not conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 and which are intended for export to Middle Eastern and African countries.; 49 CFR Part 571.7(d) and Section 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, specify that no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to; >>>a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment intended solel for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported.<<<; Therefore, tires which you manufacture for sale directly to a truc manufacturer who will mount then on trucks which will be driven directly to the port of export need not comply with Standard No. 119. When shipped to the truck manufacturer, the tires must bear a label or tag indicating intent to export. Such a label must also appear on the outside of the container, if any, in which the tires are shipped. A label need not remain in the tires after they have been mounted on the trucks, provided that the trucks bear similar labels.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5266

"Dear Mr. Backs: We have received your FAX of October 19, 1993, t Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a dump trailer manufactured by your company. With respect to the location of the horizontal side conspicuity treatment, you prefer not to place it on the rubrail because 'our present extrusions have raised ridges on the outer surface.' You propose to apply the conspicuity treatment between each side stake, resulting in 58% coverage of the trailer side. The tape is 'in full view' from a point perpendicular to the side of the trailer, but at approximately 30 degrees from perpendicular, the edge of the tape begins to be obstructed by the side stake. You ask for our concurrence that your proposed treatment is in accordance with Standard No. 108. We are pleased to provide our concurrence. The mounting height requirements of Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2 are specified in terms of practicability. The rule was amended on October 6, 1993, to specify a mounting height of 'as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface.' The determination of practicability, in the first instance, is that of the manufacturer certifying compliance with Standard No. 108. NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. Because of raised ridges, you deem the rubrail not as practicable a location as the slightly higher area. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2 allows discontinuities in the side treatment as long as not less than half the side is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable. Although the sheeting itself must meet the performance indicated at the observation angles specified in Figure 29, there are no visibility requirements that apply to it once it is installed on a trailer. This mean that the obscuring of the conspicuity treatment that begins at about 30 degrees from perpendicular under your proposed treatment is not prohibited by Standard No. 108. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0434

Dear Mr. Pracejus: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1971, concerning the recen amendment of Standard 108 concerning turn signal and hazard warning flashers (36 F.R. 17343, August 28, 1971).; You noted that test-condition temperatures are listed withou tolerances, and asked what tolerance is acceptable for testing.; In the case of motor vehicle safety standards, the testing that manufacturer may perform or have performed on its products is not an end in itself, but is done to enable the manufacturer to certify that the products meet the required performance levels under the specified conditions. Thus, the requirement that a product meet or exceed certain values at 75 degrees F. refers to a legal conclusion that is to be drawn from appropriate testing, and no tolerance is necessary or appropriate in the text of the standard. In practical terms, it is up to the manufacturer to determine what tests will enable him to certify his products as conforming. Normally, this is done by testing his products under slightly more adverse conditions than those specified in the standard. If, for example, higher temperatures constitute more adverse conditions for a flasher, the laboratory should test at a temperature slightly higher than that specified. In sum, the testing should be sufficient to support the *conclusion* that, if tested under the specified conditions, the product would perform as required.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2409

Dear Mr. Schiff: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 8, 1976 concerning odometer statements issued by auction companies.; As we have indicated in previous letters to you, the statement 'n mileage guarantee' does not conform to section 580.6 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, the disclosure form. Therefore, any transferor of a motor vehicle who gives such a statement to his buyer is in violation of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. This applies equally to all transferors of ownership in motor vehicles, including individuals, dealers, distributors, and auction companies.; At first glance, the odometer disclosure statement issued by Floy Hauhe Auto Auction appears to be in violation of the Federal law because it clearly states that mileage is not guaranteed. However, upon closer inspection, such is not necessarily the case. You will note that their statement says 'warranty and mileage are not guaranteed to be good or correct on any car purchased *thru* this auction.' (Emphasis added) Additionally, it says that 'this sale is solely a transaction between the buying and selling dealer.' This language changes the facts significantly. The vehicle appears not to be as you state in your letter, purchased 'from' the auction company. It was instead purchased *through* the auction, and Floyd Hauhe was not, apparently, a tranferor (sic) of ownership in a motor vehicle as defined in Part 580.3 of title 49.; The responsibilities of an auctioneer with regard to the Federa odometer law vary depending upon the capacity in which he is operating. If the auctioneer is conducting business with both the buyer and seller present, the seller is required to disclose the mileage to the buyer at the time of sale and the auctioneer is essentially a by-stander as far as the Federal requirements are concerned. If the auctioneer buys a vehicle, then auctions it, he becomes the transferor and must disclose the mileage. In this case, the auctioneer would not be permitted to state that mileage was not guaranteed. If the auctioneer is acting as consignee for a seller who is not present and who may have delivered the vehicle from hundreds of miles away, he will have to obtain some assurance from the seller concerning the mileage on the vehicle at the time it left the owner's premises before a disclosure is made. As owner, the seller is ultimately responsible for the disclosure statement, but he may have to rely on his driver or the auctioneer to make out the statement at the auction.; It is unclear from the Floyd Hauhe Auto Auction statement as to th capacity in which they are operating. The language on the fact of the statement appears to indicate that they are not tranferors (sic) and thus are not responsible for issuing odometer statements. If however, they are requested to do so by absent sellers, their form is in violation of the Act because it does not provide the transferor's name, address or signature, and because it states that mileage is not guaranteed.; I hope that this information clarifies your questions. If you have an further questions, please do not hesitate to write.; Sincerely, John Womack Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4924

"Dear Mr. Graham: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power Windows (49 CFR 571.118). As you noted in your letter, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 118 in the April 16, 1991, edition of the Federal Register (56 FR 15290). You requested clarification of certain requirements in that final rule. The agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule amending Standard No. 118. The agency is currently reviewing the merits of each petition. The agency will issue a notice in the Federal Register granting and/or denying the petitions. In that notice, the agency will also address the concerns raised in your request for an interpretation on Standard No. 118. Please let us know if you have any questions about the issues raised in your letter after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it. If you need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";