NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam1314

Dear Mr. Schroeter: This is in reply to you letter of October 24, 1973, in which you as the following questions:; 1. Is it true that Standard Nos. 109 and 110 are not applicable to 1/2-ton pickup truck with camper because such vehicle is not a 'passenger car' as defined in Standards 109 and 110?; 2. Is it true that in Appendix A of Standard 110 no 'alternative rims are listed for the L70-15 tire simply because no one has requested (in the manner provided in Appendix A to Standard 110) inclusion of such additional or alternative rim widths.; With respect to question 1, a pickup truck is not a passenger car but 'truck' (as defined in 49 CFR S571.3) for purposes of all the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard Nos. 109 and 110. Standard No. 110 (49 CFR S571.110) applies only to passenger cars, not to pickup trucks.; In response to your second question, the answer is not an unequivoca 'yes', and I regret that you may have drawn that conclusion from your conversation with Michael Peskoe of this office. In order for alternative rims to be listed with a tire size designation in the Appendix of Standard No. 110, data showing that the tire and rim combination meets the requirements of both Standard No. 109 and 110 must first be submitted to the agency. Once that data has been provided, the NHTSA will publish the alternative rim size in Standard No. 110, and if no objections are received within a 30-day period, the tire/rim combination becomes part of the standard. Thus, there are not one but two possible reasons way a rim size is not listed in Standard No. 110:; >>>The tire/rim combination fails to meet either Standard No. 109 o 110, or; It does meet both standards, but no one has requested approval of th combination. This could occur simply if the combination was not intended to be used as original equipment on a passenger car.<<<; Sincerely, Lawrence, R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5395

Dear Mr. Green: This responds to your letter to this agency askin whether there is a State or Federal regulation prohibiting the use of passenger radial tires on recreational 'pull type' trailers. I regret the delay in responding. You explain that you were told by various tire dealers that radial tires should not be used on trailers because the soft sidewalls of radial tires could cause an uncontrollable swaying that could result in a serious accident. You then state that while towing a trailer mounted with four radial tires, you were caught in a crosswind which caused the trailer to jackknife, resulting in a serious accident. To begin, I am sorry to hear about your accident but am thankful that no one was hurt. The tire safety standards and regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require tires to be able to safely carry the load on a vehicle and to be labeled with important safety information, such as tire size, construction, and inflation pressure. There is nothing in our standards or regulations that prohibits the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers. In fact, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, 'Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars,' expressly permits the use of passenger car tires on vehicles like trailers, provided that adjustment is made to the tire's load-carrying capacity. NHTSA also issues consumer advisories to alert consumers to certain practices that should be avoided, such as mixing radial and non-radial tires. However, we have never issued a consumer advisory on the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers, and we are not aware of any widespread hazard due to the use of such tires on trailers. Your State could have requirements for the use of tires on trailers. We suggest that you check with the California Highway Patrol for information on that issue. We regret we are unable to be more helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1729

Dear Senator Bayh: This is in response to your letter requesting information concernin correspondence from Mr. James A. Graham, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal bumper standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a *Federal Register* notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5-mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1979 model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency-sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5-mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a *Federal Register* notice that was published March 12, 1975, which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; In his letter Mr. Graham objects to the standard's regulation o surface damage, such as dents, stating that this is not the type of damage which should be addressed by an agency developing safety standards. The surface damage criteria are proposed as part of a standard being promulgated under Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513). The Cost Savings Act directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a bumper standard that will obtain the maximum feasible reduction of costs to the public and the consumer. As such, the standard is not to be limited to affecting safety- related damage. Factors such as insurance costs and consumer time and inconvenience are to be considered in the rulemaking as well.; Mr. Graham's comments will be placed in the public docket where the will receive every consideration.; We appreciate your interest and that of Mr. Graham in this area o motor vehicle safety and performance.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam2007

Dear Mr. Long: This is to confirm your telephone conversation of July 31, 1975, wit Mark Schwimmer concerning the treadwear test procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* (UTQGS).; You had previously pointed out that the A78-13 and other tires ar available neither as original equipment nor as recommended replacement options on any 1975 model passenger cars, although they are available as replacement options for the 1974 Ford Pinto. You had asked whether it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to conduct treadwear testing for such tires on a 1975 Pinto, in light of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) statement that; >>>tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which the are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. (40 FR 23076, May 28, 1975)<<<; As Mr. Schwimmer explained to you, the UTQGS rules does not dictate th method by which a tire manufacturer must conduct his testing to assign grades. It merely specifies the procedures which the NHTSA will follow when testing tires for compliance with the rule. While the surest way for the tire manufacturer to be confident of compliance would be to follow these procedures in every detail, he is not legally obligated to do so. His obligation is simply to ensure that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the specified procedures, his tires are capable of achieving the grades which he has assigned to them. He may fulfill this obligation by whatever means he believes reliable and necessary. Thus, for example, he might choose a 1975 Pinto to test an A78-13 tire, if he is confident that the model year change in the Pinto will have no effect on the tire's treadwear performance. This decision is his, however. The NHTSA, in its compliance testing, would test such a tire on a 1974 Pinto or on some other passenger car for which it is original equipment or a recommended replacement option.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2882

Dear Mr. Attenhofer: This responds to your July 10, 1978, letter asking whether it i permissible to label motorcycle tires with alternate speeds and load ratings appropriate for those speeds. You suggest that your tires be labeled with maximum speeds of 131, 137, and 143 miles per hour with the corresponding load ratings. The labeling of motor cycle (sic) tires is regulated by Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicle Other Than Passenger Cars.*; Standard No. 119 requires that tires be marked with, among othe things, the maximum inflation pressure of the tire and the load rating applicable to that inflation pressure. Speed qualifications are permitted on tires when, for example, the tires are speed restricted. Otherwise, tires are not marked with speed criteria although they may be marked with the symbols S, H, or V as part of the tire identification number. These symbols, established by the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO), indicate that the tire is an acceptable high-speed tire.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers i appropriate to permit the symbols S, H, or V to be marked on tires to indicate that such tires are appropriate for high-speed use. This permits, for example, a sophisticated purchaser of tires for emergency vehicles to know that the tires are suitable for the higher operational speeds necessary for those vehicles. The NHTSA, however, considers it inappropriate to mark motorcycle tires with maximum speeds of 131, 137, and 143 miles per hour with the corresponding safe load ratings. Such markings would appear to sanction the use of he tires at these speeds which far exceed the national speed limit.; Since Standard No. 119 regulates the permissible uses of spee designations on nonpassenger car tires, the agency interprets the standard to prohibit the marking of any other speed designations on a tire. The NHTSA considers the only appropriate speed designation on tires to be one that reflects a speed restricted tire or one that uses the symbols established by the ETRTO for tires that have been tested and can be operated at higher speeds.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0098

Dear Mr. Carlin: Thank you for your letter of July 22, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield concerning the applicability and effective date of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.; Standard No. 108 is applicable to new vehicles manufactured on or afte the effective date of the standard. Initial Standard No. 108 was published on February 3, 1967, and became effective January 1, 1968. The initial standard is applicable only to vehicles that are 80 inches or more in overall width. Revised Standard No. 108 was published on December 16, 1967, and becomes effective January 1, 1969. The revised standard is applicable to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles, regardless of overall width, however, the special requirements for vehicles that are 80 inches or more in overall width have been identified in the standard. Copies of the initial and revised standard are enclosed for your information.; In reply to your specific questions, information is provided a follows:; >>>1. With respect to your first question, Standard No. 108 i applicable to trailers manufactured for personal use by an individual and for commercial use.; 2. With respect to your second question, Revised Standard No. 108 effective January 1, 1969, specifies the lighting requirements for trailers that are less than 80 inches in overall width.; 3. With respect to your third question, the regulations of individua States and of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (for vehicles engaged in interstate commerce) presently govern the lighting required on trailers that are less than 80 inches in overall width. Effective January 1, 1969, these trailers will be subject to the requirements of Revised Standard No. 108. Installation and location requirements for the individual lamps are contained in the referenced SAE standards (see Table III of Standard No. 108) and in Table IV of Standard No. 108.<<<; Also enclosed is a copy of the notice of 'Certification Requirement, which provides information on the manufacturer's certification of vehicles that are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: nht76-1.44

DATE: 06/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your May 19, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

You were particularly concerned with one paragraph in the preamble of Notice 4 (41 FR 18659; May 6, 1976; Docket No. 71-19). That notice delayed the effective dates of certain requirements of the standard. The paragraph in question is:

Manufacturers should note that, apart from the changed effective date for the requirement in S5.1.1 that vehicles be equipped with properly marked rims, there is no delay in the September 1, 1976, effective date of the standard's basic requirement, S5.1 (Tire and Rim Selection).

Section S5.2, Rim Marking, is the only the section of the standard that applies directly to rims. Section S5.1 applies directly to vehicles. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, however, two aspects of S5.1 (both found in S5.1.1) involve rims as well.

The first sentence of S5.1.1 includes a "suitability" requirement:

. . . each vehicle . . . shall be equipped with . . . rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires . . .

The second sentence, as amended by Notice 4, reads.

On and after September 1, 1979, each such vehicle shall be equipped with rims that meet the requirements of this standard.

The paragraph in question is simply a reminder that the "suitability" requirement, among others, is effective September 1, 1976, as originally established in Notice 3 (41 FR 3478; January 23, 1976).

ID: nht90-2.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOSEPH R. WHEELER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/08/90 FROM JOSEPH R. WHEELER TO KEN WEINSTEIN -- NHTSA

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to Kenneth Weinstein of my staff requesting information about actions by the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). More spe cifically, you noted that S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 states that, "Except as provided in S4.1.5 [and another section not relevant to your inquiry], each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the [automatic restraint requirements]." S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and tha t are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars.

This letter expresses no opinion about the implications under Tennessee law of the absence of a determination by the Secretary of Transportation regarding any State's safety belt law.

ID: nht89-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GAY M. ARTHUR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/20/89 FROM GAY M. ARTHUR TO TAYLOR VINSON; OCC 3447

TEXT: Dear Ms Arthur:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked if "detachable, lighted novelty items are legally allowable on passenger cars," specifically "for the exterior roof."

You appear to have in mind an item of aftermarket equipment, that is to say, an item which is not original equipment on a car, but one that the vehicle owner purchases during the course of his ownership. There is no restriction under Federal law as to r oof-mounted novelty items if they are installed by the vehicle owner. If they are installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, they are permissible as long as they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, eq uipment that is installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. For example, if installation of the novelty light affected the wiring and hence the performance of lighting equipment installed on the vehicle by its manufacturer, that would be a "rendering inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition.

Use of the novelty light would be determined by the laws of a State in which it is operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that, for further information, you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-04.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/85

FROM: JACK H. MCDANIEL -- TRIM PLUS AUTOMOTIVE ACCESSORIES

TO: JEFFEREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/20/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JACK H. MCDANIEL LETTER DATED 01/09/86 FROM JACK MCDANIEL TO JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Miller:

Ours is a company specializing in the installation of automotive trim accessories. Most of our services are to the franchised dealers of the major automobile makers, installing accessories on their pre-delivered cars.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself and colleagues regarding the new safety standards for 1986 vehicles concerning the center high-mounted stop lamps which, I have been told, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Since some of my orders are for installing deck-mounted luggage racks with cross bars on 1986 vehicles, I wonder if you could give me some information about how the new safety standards might affect this. I will list the things I am particularly concerned about.

1. Will deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the new safety standards? It seems to me that many racks can be mounted and positioned so that the high-mounted stop lamp is still clearly visible from the rear. How can we determine if one would cause a violation?

2. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

I shall await your answers with great interest, Mr. Miller. Many thanks for any information you can give me. May I please here from you as soon as possible?

Respectfully,