ID: 77-4.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/77

FROM: HOWARD DUGOFF FOR JOAN CLAYBROOK -- NHTSA

TO: Charles Wilson; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 19, 1977, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. M. M. Davis, concerning the remanufacture of school buses.

The manufacture that Mr. Davis proposes to undertake would mount an old school bus body on a new school bus chassis. The regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that Mr. Davis enclosed in his letter explicitly state that the use of a new chassis in the remanufacture of a motor vehicle results in the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Such motor vehicle would be required to comply with all safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis or final manufacture of the vehicle or any time between those two dates. In the case of a remanufactured school bus using a chassis manufactured after April 1, 1977, the bus would be required to comply with all of the Congressionally mandated school bus regulations that became effective on April 1.

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

October 19, 1977

Joan Claybrook Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Mr. M. M. Davis, Superintendent of the Newton Independent School District in Texas, in which he describes a problem regarding the rebuilding of their school buses.

I would appreciate your examination of the situation to see if the buses in question may be overhauled, as planned, in the Texas Department of Correction and still meet the Federal Safety Standards. Please advise me of your decision.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance.

Charles Wilson

cc: M. M. DAVIS

NEWTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

October 10, 1977

Hon. Charles Wilson I am enclosing a copy of the Highway Standard that Mr. Corbell of the State Board of Control and Mr. Biel of Texas Department of Corrections says will keep our Public Schools in Texas from buying new School Bus Chassis and having our old bus bodies rebuilt at Texas Department of Correction which would save from $ 1000 to $ 3500 on each bus.

We have five buses in the Prison System Bus Repair Facility now to rebuild bodies to be remounted on new chassis. This would save us $ 5000 to $ 15,000 on these five buses.

M. M. Davis, Supt. Newton ISD

(Graphics omitted)

GA-9502 GLIDER

NOTE: Frame and Cab height dimensions shown are with std. tires.

DIMENSIONS IN INCHES FOR SINGLE AND TANDEM REAR AXLE APPLICATIONS Cab Maximum CE Typical Maximum Series WB All OL 54 in. 74 in. 86 in. For Applications Std. Cab Cab Reference Only GA9732 255 201 181 169 165 GA9782 308 254 234 222 195

To determine max. AF for physical limitation with 36 inch upper kingpin setting and 5 inch corner deduct 62 inches from effective CA. Additional dimensional restructions of up 46 inches behind the cab for engine transmission (non-sleeper cab only) or up to 14 inches behind the cab for exhaust, air intake or oil filter (sleeper or non-sleeper) must be considered when determining effective CA.

ID: nht89-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1989

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

TO: TAYLOR HONG -- PRESIDENT, FAIR SUN INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., TAIPEI, TAIWAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Letter dated August 4, 1988 from Taylor Hong, Fair Sun Industrial Co., Ltd., to U.S. Dept. of Transportation is attached; [OCC-2718].

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter with reference to motor vehicle flashers that you wish to sell in the United States.

You have asked the following questions:

1. "How do we get DOT approval?"

2. "Should ask for an application forms from you and sent one lot of samples for your test?"

The Department has no authority to "approve' flashers, and no laboratory of its own in which it tests them. Under our law, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer of the flashers, not the Department, determines in the first i nstance whether or not they comply with the SAE materials incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. If the manufacturer is convinced that they comply, it certifies that the flashers meet Standard No. 108, either with a statement o n the container in which the flashers are shipped, a tag attached to each flasher, or a DOT symbol on the flasher itself. From time to time, the Department buys flashers for testing. In this manner, the Department has discovered that a number of those manufactured in Taiwan have not met Federal requirements, and lacked the required certification. In some instances, civil penalties have been imposed against the manufacturer or importer of the flashers.

3. "We may send samples to any other Laboratory and get an approval?"

To aid you in reaching a conclusion whether the flashers are designed to conform with Standard No. 108, you may send samples to any test laboratory you wish. Although the standard deems a flasher compliant if not less than 17 of 20 flashers tested meet the requirements, we caution you that you should not accept such a result as a guarantor of compliance. Because of the tolerances involved in production of flashers, we believe that a manufacturer wishing to ensure that at least 17 of 20 flashers will p ass whenever the government tests them should not be satisfied until 20 of 20 flashers submitted for test meet both the performance and durability requirements of Standard No. 108. Further, even obtaining this result on a single occasion is not a guarant ee that flashers will continue to meet Standard No. 108 over time. Accordingly, we urge flasher manufacturers to test their products periodically as an assurance that the flashers remain in compliance.

Although you have no obligation to obtain "approval" from the Department,

there are two requirements that manufacturers of flashers must meet before offering their products for sale in the U.S. You must designate an agent for service of process (49 CFR 551.45) and file an identifica- tion statement (49 CFR Part 566). I enclo se a copy of these regulations for your information.

If you have any further questions we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht95-1.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Echt -- President, Saline Electronics, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/12/95 LETTER FROM JEFFREY ECHT TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10649)

TEXT: This replies to your letter of January 12, 1995, with respect to Federal requirements for stop lamps as they affect a stop lamp system developed by Saline Electronics.

As you describe the system, "during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration, the system flashes the stop lamps it controls on and off." The stop lamps could either be the original equipment lamps, or one or more supplementary ones.

You have asked the following questions, based upon your understanding of the letter sent by this Office to the Virginia Transportation Research Council ("Virginia") on July 30, 1993:

"1. May states specifically permit (by statute or regulation) the use of deceleration warning systems which are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment? For example, may states specifically permit the use of an aftermarket de celeration warning system which a) permits all original equipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 to operate in a normal steady burning mode, and b) flashes one aftermarket center-mounted stop lamp or two side-mounted stop lamps, on vehicles not req uired to be so equipped?"

A State may enact a statute or regulation that specifically permits the use of deceleration warning systems that are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment if these systems are permissible as original equipment under FMVSS No. 108. As we informed Virginia, a deceleration warning system that is not permissible as original equipment under FMVSS No. 108 would also not be permissible as an aftermarket system because its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner would be in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2) (now recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)). This section prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device installed on a motor vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

After careful review, it is our opinion that the system you describe is indirectly prohibited by two paragraphs of FMVSS No. 108. Because paragraph S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires original equipment stop lamps to be steady burning in use, the addit ion of flashing aftermarket stop lamps make the original equipment stop lamps inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition because of the potential of a flashing lamp for detracting from the full effectiveness of the steady burning original equipmen t stop lamp signal by drawing an observer's attention away from it. A flashing aftermarket stop lamp also has the potential for confusion with the hazard warning system, whether the original equipment system operates through red or amber lamps.

The second paragraph of FMVSS No. 108 that would prohibit installation of your system as original equipment is S5.1.3. This paragraph prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting equipment that impairs the effectiveness of original lighting equi pment.

In summary, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) effectively prohibits a State from enacting a law permitting the use of your system, unless that system is designed to be installed by the vehicle owner. However, a State may permit the use of any aftermarket deceleration warning system that is allowable under FMVSS No. 108.

"2. In the absence of state regulation of flashing deceleration warning systems, is it lawful for individuals, states or municipalities to install such systems on their vehicles, provided they do not alter the steady burning operation of the original eq uipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108? For example, may mass transit districts operate buses with flashing deceleration warning lamps, if the systems are installed by their own mechanics and the steady burning operation of the original equipment stop lamps is not altered? May individuals install such equipment on their own vehicles?"

"3. May individuals, states or municipalities, who are not manufacturers, distributors or motor vehicle repairs businesses, lawfully install flashing deceleration warning systems which would prevent the original equipment stop lamps from steadily burnin g during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration? For example, may a mass transit district install a deceleration warning system which would flash some or all of the original equipment stop lamps during and after rapid deceleration due to hard braking, if the system were installed by its own mechanics?"

The answer to all these questions is yes. As noted under Question 1, Sec. 30122(b)(1) does not prohibit vehicle owners or their employees from installing aftermarket equipment such as flashing lamps that may "make inoperative" (in the sense discussed ab ove) equipment that is required by FMVSS No. 108. In Question 2, the inoperability is created by an indirect effect upon the required lighting equipment, while in Question 3, the required equipment itself as well is made to operate in a manner different than prescribed by FMVSS No. 108. But the answer is the same under Sec. 30122(b)(1) in either case.

ID: 0649

Mr. Jeffrey Echt
President, Saline Electronics, Inc.
13379 Michael Road
Highland, IL 62249

Dear Mr. Echt:

This replies to your letter of January 12, 1995, with respect to Federal requirements for stop lamps as they affect a stop lamp system developed by Saline Electronics.

As you describe the system, "during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration, the system flashes the stop lamps it controls on and off." The stop lamps could either be the original equipment lamps, or one or more supplementary ones.

You have asked the following questions, based upon your understanding of the letter sent by this Office to the Virginia Transportation Research Council ("Virginia") on July 30, 1993:

"1. May states specifically permit (by statute or regulation) the use of deceleration warning systems which are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment? For example, may states specifically permit the use of an aftermarket deceleration warning system which a) permits all original equipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 to operate in a normal steady burning mode, and b) flashes one aftermarket center-mounted stop lamp or two side-mounted stop lamps, on vehicles not required to be so equipped?"

A State may enact a statute or regulation that specifically permits the use of deceleration warning systems that are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment if these systems are permissible as original equipment under FMVSS No. 108. As we informed Virginia, a deceleration warning system that is not permissible as original equipment under FMVSS No. 108 would also not be permissible as an aftermarket system because its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner would be in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2) (now recodified as 49 U.S.C.

30122(b)). This section prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device installed on a motor vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

After careful review, it is our opinion that the system you describe is indirectly prohibited by two paragraphs of FMVSS No. 108. Because paragraph S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires original equipment stop lamps to be steady burning in use, the addition of flashing aftermarket stop lamps make the original equipment stop lamps inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition because of the potential of a flashing lamp for detracting from the full effectiveness of the steady burning original equipment stop lamp signal by drawing an observer's attention away from it. A flashing aftermarket stop lamp also has the potential for confusion with the hazard warning system, whether the original equipment system operates through red or amber lamps.

The second paragraph of FMVSS No. 108 that would prohibit installation of your system as original equipment is S5.1.3. This paragraph prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting equipment that impairs the effectiveness of original lighting equipment.

In summary, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) effectively prohibits a State from enacting a law permitting the use of your system, unless that system is designed to be installed by the vehicle owner. However, a State may permit the use of any aftermarket deceleration warning system that is allowable under FMVSS No. 108.

"2. In the absence of state regulation of flashing deceleration warning systems, is it lawful for individuals, states or municipalities to install such systems on their vehicles, provided they do not alter the steady burning operation of the original equipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108? For example, may mass transit districts operate buses with flashing deceleration warning lamps, if the systems are installed by their own mechanics and the steady burning operation of the original equipment stop lamps is not altered? May individuals install such equipment on their own vehicles?"

"3. May individuals, states or municipalities, who are not manufacturers, distributors or motor vehicle repairs businesses, lawfully install flashing deceleration warning systems which would prevent the original equipment stop lamps from steadily burning during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration? For example, may a mass transit district install a deceleration warning system which would flash some or all of the original equipment stop lamps during and after rapid deceleration due to hard braking, if the system were installed by its own mechanics?"

The answer to all these questions is yes. As noted under Question 1, Sec. 30122(b)(1) does not prohibit vehicle owners or their employees from installing aftermarket equipment such as flashing lamps that may "make inoperative" (in the sense discussed above) equipment that is required by FMVSS No. 108. In Question 2, the inoperability is created by an indirect effect upon the required lighting equipment, while in Question 3, the required equipment itself as well is made to operate in a manner different than prescribed by FMVSS No. 108. But the answer is the same under Sec. 30122(b)(1) in either case.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:3/2/95

ID: nht74-5.20

DATE: 02/21/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Patrick; Anderson and McDonald

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 30, 1974, requesting information concerning odometer disclosure requirements.

The Federal odometer disclosure regulation requires each transferor of a motor vehicle to furnish to the transferee a written statement signed by the transferor containing the odometer reading at the time of transfer. If the transferor knows the registered mileage to be incorrect, he must include a statement in the disclosure document that the mileage is unknown.

In order for a transferor of a motor vehicle to be subject to the sanctions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, the mileage must be incorrectly disclosed with the transferor's knowledge of the inaccuracy.

As you requested, I am enclosing the relevant portions of the Act and the regulation. You also might be interested in the enclosed consumer affairs fact sheet. Responding to your request concerning information that has been provided to the auto industry in general, the National Automobile Dealers Association has been involved in an active campaign to make the auto industry familiar with the Federal odometer requirements. They may be able to provide you with the information you desire.

We would be pleased to answer any further inquiries you may have.

ENCLS.

PATRICK, ANDERSON AND MCDONALD

January 30, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: U. S. Department of Transportation Rules requiring disclosure of odometer reading and true mileage of automobiles

I have been retained by Jerry R. Freed to represent his son, Daniel E. Freed, in a civil suit brought in the Federal Court for the Northern District of Indiana against McHenry Olds-Cadillac, Inc., a new car dealer, and Walter R. Moon, d/b/a Moon Motor Sales, a used car dealer. (Civil No. 73-S-238).

This civil action was filed under Sub-chapter 4 Odometer Requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Costs Savings Act, Public Law 92-213, now incorporated in the U. S. Code at Title 15, and, more specifically, at Sections 1981 through 1990.

Prior to my entry into this case, Mr. Jerry R. Freed, received a letter in response to his many inquiries from the U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway and Safety Administration, Region 5, at Chicago Heights, Illinois. Enclosed you will find a copy of that letter suggesting further inquiry to you concerning further technical questions regarding this law.

The pertinent facts of this case are as follows:

1. On July 16, 1973, Clara Dale Bennett, bought a new car from McHenry Olds-Cadillac, Inc. and traded in an automobile showing 47,000 miles on its odometer.

2. On August 13, 1973, McHenry Olds-Cadillac, Inc. sold said used car to Moon Motors and presented to Moon Motors an odometer (mileage) statement purportedly signed by Clara Dale Bennett, a copy of which is attached hereto.

3. On August 24, 1973, Moon Motors sold said subject used car to Daniel Lee Freed and exhibited to Mr. Freed the attached odometer (mileage) statement purportedly signed by the original owner, Clara Dale Bennett.

4. Within a few days from this last sale, Daniel Freed noted that the odometer failed to log the miles properly, showing only tenths of a mile and no units or further miles.

5. Three disinterested parties in the used car business have estimated the actual mileage of the subject vehicle to be somewhere between 70,000 and 10,000 miles.

My specific question in regard to these facts is the following:

Is each transferor of an automobile required by(Illegible Word) S. Code Title 15, Section 1988, and the Department of Transportation Rules thereunder, to give a written disclosure of mileage based upon his own personal knowledge and with his own signature?

I would very much appreciate your opinion in regard to this fact pattern as well as a copy of the department's rules in regard to mileage disclosure and copies of any information disseminated to the Auto Sales Industry in general.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Rett F. Donnelly

Enclosures

cc: Gordon G. Lindquist, Regional Administrator U. S. Department of Transportation; Jerry R. Freed

590.6 DISCLOSURE FORM

ODOMETER (MILEAGE) STATEMENT

FEDERAL REGULATIONS REQUIRE YOU TO STATE THE ODOMETER MILEAGE UPON TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP. AN INACCURATE STATEMENT MAY MAKE YOU LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO YOUR TRANSFEREE, PURSUANT TO S 409 (a) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE INFORMATION AND COST SAVINGS ACT OF 1972, PUBLIC LAW 92-513.)

I, 47000 STATE THAT THE ODOMETER MILEAGE ON THE VEHICLE DESCRIBED BELOW IS

CLARA DALE, BENNETT (CHECK THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT, IF APPLICABLE)

I FURTHER STATE THAT THE ACTUAL MILEAGE DIFFERS FROM THE ODOMETER READING FOR REASONS OTHER THAN ODOMETER CALIBRATION ERROR AND THAT THE ACTUAL MILEAGE IS UNKNOWN.

MAKE: BUICK

BODY TYPE: 2H

YEAR: 67

MODEL: G487

VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 4948 77H941149

LAST PLATE NUMBER:

STATE:

YR.:

TRANSFEROR'S (SELLER'S) CURRENT ADDRESS:

CLARA DALE BENNETT

DATE OF THIS STATEMENT

ORIGINAL TRANSFEREE (BUYER)

ID: nht90-2.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 9, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Patrick S. Baran -- I.D.E.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-21-89 To Taylor Vinson and From Patrick S. Baran; Also attached to letter dated 8-2-82 To William R. Harris, Jr. and From Frank Berndt; Attachment SAEJ586c not included.

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this office, with respect to "D.O.T. guidelines for tail light brightness" with respect to a "brake light for the back of a motor cycle helmet. I regret the delay in responding.

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove items of equipment, but we can provide guidance on the relationship of equipment to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose a copy of a 1982 interpretation with respect to a simila r device, a headlamp intended for installation on a motorcycle helmet. It also represents our views with respect to your device. I enclose also a copy of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, which our Rulemaking office promised you.

We note that you use the term "tail light" and "brake light" interchangeably. In seeking State guidance you should be clear as to whether your device indicates the presence of the cyclist (taillamp), or the application of the brakes of the motorcycle (st op lamp), or both.

ID: nht87-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John F. Doerr

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John F. Doerr 100 Lefferts Ave. 4D Brooklyn, NY 11225

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1986, to Secretary Dole on your "Safety Light Warning System." You have asked if your system "could legally be implemented" and for advice "how I may go about marketing this system."

The patent drawing of your device depicts a light bar mounted in the rear window area with a green lamp in the center flanked by amber lamps, with two red lamps at the end. This system would be acceptable neither as original equipment on passenger cars, nor as replacement equipment on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. As of that date, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be manufactured with a red stop lamp in the approximate location of your green lamp. There is no Federal prohibition against offering the system in the aftermarket for retrofitting on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, but the system would be subject to the laws of each State in which it would be sold or us ed. I understand that Oregon and California allow green-amber-red deceleration warning systems when the lamps are mounted on the rear of the car, but restrictions may exist as to their mounting in a vehicle's interior.

I hope this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 12, 1986

Mrs. Elizabeth Dole Secretary of Transportation Department of Transportation 400 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mrs. Dole:

Subject: SAFETY WARNING LIGHT SYSTEM

I know you are concerned about rear end collisions, extra "eye-level stop light" confirms this.

I have a patent on this system which I believe will be more effective. This system consists of a small green light st eye-level which burns when you are gaining or maintaining speed. When you release the accelerator the green light goes off and the yello w or amber caution goes on, on each side warning the driver behind you to be alert which gives the driver a second or more to react, then, if you apply the brakes, caution lights goes off and normal stop light, lights go on, on each side at eye-level.

This information was sent to all auto makers in the United States and some abroad. They like the idea but are not interested in negotiating with me, as they don't accept ideas from anyone other than their own engineers.

I am interested to know if this could legally be implemented and if you could give me any advice or information as to how I may go about marketing this system.

Enclosed, is a brief description and my patent # 4,470,036.

Sincerely,

John F. Doerr Inventor

ID: nht94-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Doris Hull -- Owner, Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.

TO: Robert Hellmuth -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/12/94 Letter from John Womack to Doris Hull (Std. 109, 119 & 12)

TEXT:

This letter is in regards to a phone conversation with Mr. Walter Meyers on May 13, 1994 that David McCormick and I had. The conversation was concerning trailers with new and used tires. The understanding that we got that we are allowed to do is includ ed in this letter. I would appreciate a quick response from you.

We understood that we, as manufactures, can sell to a dealer, who picks up a load of trailers, the trailers being stacked on top of each other; we can install new tires on the bottom trailer that would meet the requirements of standard 120 and for the ot her trailers that are stacked we can sell the used tires and rims mounted but not installed on trailers. That if a tractor trailer loaded with trailers was sold we could sell the used tires and rims but not installed on the trailers. All used tires and rims would meet the D.O.T. Standard 120 qualifications. We understood that an individual can request used tires and rims, we can sell them to them and install them if requested by the individual.

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. We have also talked with George Shifflett concerning what Mr. Meyers informed us.

Please do not hestitate calling me at the number listed above if there are any questions I may be able to help with.

ID: nht80-4.3

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 4, 1980 letter to this office in which you requested confirmation that a certain tire size was listed for use with a particular rim size in a tire publication recognized by this agency for purposes of Standard 110. Page 1-11 of the 1980 Yearbook of the Tire & Rim Association lists a 5 1/2 inch rim as appropriate for use with 185/7OR14 tires. Thus, use of the 5 1/2 inch rims with that size tire would satisfy the requirements of paragraph S4.4.1(a) of Standard 110.

If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, feel free to contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOBILE IMPORTERS OF AMERICA, INC.

September 4, 1980

Steven R. Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Please confirm that radial tires sized 185/70HR14 are listed in an NHTSA-recognized tire publication for use with a 5 1/2J x 14 wheel rim and that this combination therefore meets the tire and rim matching requirements of FMVSS 110.

Thank you for your assistance.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

Bruce Henderson

ID: nht94-5.35

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Doris Hull -- Owner, Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.

TO: Robert Hellmuth -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/12/94 Letter from John Womack to Doris Hull (Std. 109, 119 & 12)

TEXT:

This letter is in regards to a phone conversation with Mr. Walter Meyers on May 13, 1994 that David McCormick and I had. The conversation was concerning trailers with new and used tires. The understanding that we got that we are allowed to do is included in this letter. I would appreciate a quick response from you.

We understood that we, as manufactures, can sell to a dealer, who picks up a load of trailers, the trailers being stacked on top of each other; we can install new tires on the bottom trailer that would meet the requirements of standard 120 and for the other trailers that are stacked we can sell the used tires and rims mounted but not installed on trailers. That if a tractor trailer loaded with trailers was sold we could sell the used tires and rims but not installed on the trailers. All used tires and rims would meet the D.O.T. Standard 120 qualifications. We understood that an individual can request used tires and rims, we can sell them to them and install them if requested by the individual.

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. We have also talked with George Shifflett concerning what Mr. Meyers informed us.

Please do not hestitate calling me at the number listed above if there are any questions I may be able to help with.