ID: 77-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/77

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

TO: J.A. Selsemeyer

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1977, letter asking several questions concerning a manufacturer's responsibility for tires installed as original equipment on a passenger car.

You asked the following questions in your letter:

1. Are there any laws now in effect which pinpoint responsibility for the quality of tires received as original equipment on a new car?

Section 159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places responsibility upon the vehicle manufacturer for compliance of original equipment with motor vehicle safety standards. However, Section 159 gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration the authority to shift to the tire manufacturer the responsibility for compliance of tires with Federal safety standards. You should note that the Act establishes responsibility for compliance with Federal regulations and does not establish remedies for litigants in private law suits.

2. Is it true that there is a federal law which makes it mandatory for United States auto manufacturers to buy original equipment tires in equal amounts from each domestic manufacturer of tires? If so, may I have a copy of this law?

There are no Federal laws of which we are aware that require vehicle manufacturers to purchase equal numbers of tires from each tire manufacturer.

3. What is the current status of safety testing as provided by law in 1966, but never implemented? This law was to be effective January 1, 1976 for radial tires, July 1, 1976 for bias-belted tires, and January, 1977 for bias-ply tires. Was it? If not, what are the prospects?

The regulation to which you refer is known as Uniform Tire Quality Grading and is found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 575. The effective dates for implementation of tire quality grading standards for the three tire types you mention have been delayed by litigation. The agency intends to establish new effective dates shortly.

4. Can a customer of General Motors ask for and receive a service agreement for the tires at the time of sale of a car?

This is a contractual matter between the purchaser of a motor vehicle and General Motors. Federal regulations neither encourage nor discourage such arrangements.

ID: nht94-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald P. Green

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/14/94 From Donald Green To U.S. Department Of Transportation (OCC-9679)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking 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 t owing 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 Mo tor 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.

2

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,

ID: nht93-3.18

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Arvind V. Rajan -- Vice President, Marketing and Planning, Solectria Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from Arvind V. Rajan to John Womack (OCC 8505)

TEXT: We have received your letter of March 30, 1993, asking for confirmation that Solectria Corporation is permitted to import nonconforming motor vehicles for conversion to electric power, provided that the vehicles will be exported immediately following conversion. The vehicle you wish to import is the Suzuki Swift, similar to the Suzuki Swift that has been certified by its manufacturer for sale in the United States, except that the steering column is on the right hand side, and that it has not been certified.

There is no section of the importation provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) that directly permit the importation of nonconforming vehicles for purposes of repair or alteration. Obviously, the failure of such vehicles to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards poses no risk of traffic accidents, or deaths and injuries resulting from such accidents if these vehicles are never driven on the public roads. In these instances, the agency tries to provide an interpretation of the Act that is consistent with both the purpose of the Act and the facts at hand.

Section 108 (b)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3)), in effect, allows importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle "intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle ... and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported." As the legislative history of this section makes clear, "(t)his legislation does not purport to establish standards for motor vehicles ... to be used entirely outside the United States." (House Report 1776, page 24). Section 108(b)(3) has been implemented by 49 CFR 591.5(c). We believe that, under the facts as described in your letter, it would be appropriate for Solectria to import nonconforming Suzuki Swifts for conversion to electric power pursuant to paragraph 591.5(c). The vehicles have not been imported for use on the American roads, but solely for export following their conversion. We assume that Solectria will label the converted vehicles and their containers, if applicable, in accordance with the regulatory requirement.

If we may help you in any other way, please let us know.

ID: nht74-4.24

DATE: 05/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 16, 1974, requesting an interpretation of the test procedure specified in Standard No. 301 (Docket 73-20; Notice 2) concerning the operation of the vehicle's fuel pump during testing.

Paragraph S7.1.3 of the standard requires that electrically driven fuel pumps be in operation during the barrier crash tests if they normally operate with the activation of the vehicle's electrical system. If the pump is incapable of functioning with the independent activation of the electrical system and requires the operation of the vehicle's engine, then the pump should not be running during the barrier crash tests.

Once the barrier crash tests have been completed, if the fuel pump was operating it may be desctivated, as the standard only requires that it operate during the crashes.

Thank you for your inquiry.

Volvo of America Corporation

April 16, 1974

Lawrence Schneider, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Volvo of America Corporation hereby requests an interpretation of the test procedure specified in ammended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, published March 21, 1974, 39 Federal Register 1050 (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 2). Section S7.1.3 of that standard specifies conditions under which electrically driven fuel pumps must be operating at the time of the barrier crash. Volvo requests an interpretation on the operating condition of the fuel pump after the barrier crash.

The electric pump used by Volvo normally ceases to operate when the engine speed drops below 70 RPM. On the basis that the engine is unlikely to remain running after a 30 MPH barrier crash, and that no condition is specified in FMVSS 301, Volvo requests that post-crash evaluation and testing be performed with the fuel pump de-activated.

Volvo thanks you for your consideration of this matter and requests a reply as soon as practical.

Rick Shue Product Safety Engineer

cc: E. Skarin

ID: 9679

Mr. Donald P. Green
809 Huasna Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420

Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking 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

ref:109#120 d:6/9/94

ID: nht87-2.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/09/87

FROM: RE MORGAN -- MILEAGE TIRE ENGINEERING

TO: R ROGERS -- MANAGER TECHNICAL SUPPORT REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

TITLE: GOODYEAR MILEAGE TIRES; BRUCE RUMAGE PHONE CALL

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 TO JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE FROM ERIKA Z ZONES REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119; LETTER DATED 09/13/88 TO LARRY COOK FROM JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE; OCC - 2539; LETTER DATE 08/26/88 TO MARVI N ORNES FROM RE MORGAN; UNDATED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION REPORT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rogers;

It has been brought to our attention by our Area Field Manager, Bruce Rumage, that some of your drivers have questioned the use of Goodyear DXT Tires, which have a Max speed of 35 MPH marked on them. The drivers report that they do exceed the max speed on certain areas of their runs.

Goodyear provides two different types of transit tires for stop/start operation, DXT and XT. Both tires are basically the same, primary difference is that the DXT has seven thirty-seconds more undertread than the XT tire. The same carcass with with sam e number of plies for the load requirements. Advantage to more undertread is more miles per tire, an advantage to both RTD and Goodyear to secure a longer lasting safe tire.

City Cruiser DXT Tires are marked Max Speed of 35 MPH to indicate they are not to be used in interstate service. They can be run on a local freeway; but it is not advisable to use in strictly freeway service. RTD did specify the DXT in their specificat ion and there is no reason why they would not be suitable for the RTD operation. Todate there is no sign to indicate a problem. The tire service personnel are knowledgeable to tire related conditions and have not reported any problems with the use of D XT tires in the RTD operation. Also, an advantage to using the DXT is the curbing problems in transit operations. The extra undertread also reinforces the shoulder area. Curbed tires are safe tires; but are removed when ply fabric is exposed.

Enclosed, for your information is a brochure explaining the different Mileage Tires. Please contact me if more information is needed to help ease the drivers the concerns.

ID: nht95-4.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 4, 1995

FROM: K.J. Sato -- President & CEO, Tekno - Info Corporation

TO: Kenneth O. Hardie -- Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: Request of Clarification for FMVSS No. 108 Requirements, S. 5.1.2

ATTACHMT: 2/1/96 letter from Samvel J. Dubbin to K.J. Sato (A44; Std. 108)

TEXT: This is to request you to clarify the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and associated equipment, paragraph S5.1.2.

Federal Register, September 5, 1995 Vol. 60, No. 171, page 46064 - 46067, announced the final rule to amend S5.1.2, effective from March 1, 1996. We would like to have your comments to clarify the requirement of S5.1.2(b).

Question on S5.1.2(b):

1) When plastics materials tested per SAE J576 JUL 91, and passed every criteria including the haze (and loss of surface luster) less than 30% (e.g. 10%) but failed to one of the appearance requirements (e.g. delamination) per J576 JUL 91, paragraph 4.2. 4 which says". . . shall not show physical changes affecting performance such as color bleeding, delamination, crazing, or cracking.", we need clarification whether or not the plastics materials are considered in compliance with S5.1.2(b) and can be used for lenses (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors). (We understand from S5.1.2(c) that the materials mentioned above cannot be used for reflex reflectors or lenses used in front of reflex reflectors since the materials failed to comply with the haze that exceeded 7%, and failed to comply with one of the the appearance requirements mentioned in S5.1.2(c)(("delamination")). But our question is asking if the materials can be used for lenses other than reflex reflectors or lenses used in front of, or incorporating, reflex reflectors). The reason for this question is that S5.1.2(b) does not mention those appearance requirements specifically but only mentions J576 JUL 91, although S5.1.2(c) specifically mentions those appearance requirements.

2) Since the final rule's S5.1.2(b) basically the same as the current S5.1.2(b), are we correct in assuming that your clarification of the above question 1) also applies to the current S5.1.2(b)?

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

ID: 77-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oaklahoma Department of Public Safety

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 16, 1976, letter concerning tires marked "Reno Farm Tire--Farm Use Only" that are appearing on some passenger cars in Oklahoma. I understand that the DOT symbol is also marked on the sidewalls of these tires, as a certification of conformity to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars.

Paragraph S6 of the standard precludes the manufacture of farm tires in passenger car tire sizes unless those tires conform to and are certified as conforming to all aspects of the standard. There is not, however, any provision in Standard No. 109 that prohibits the additional marking that you have described on a tire that is manufactured and sold for passenger car use. No safety issue appears to be presented by this situation.

You have also asked who is responsible for compliance with the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574, copy enclosed). That regulation creates various obligations for tire manufacturers, motor vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle dealers, and others. Where a tire manufacturer sells tires to a trailer manufacturer, the presence of the "Farm Use Only" marking has no effect on those obligations.

SINCERELY,

Oklahoma Department of Public Safety

December 16, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel NHTSA

In the State of Oklahoma, there is now appearing on some passenger cars tires which were manufactured by UniRoyal, Inc. These tires are labeled "Reno Farm Tire -- Farm Use Only". Apparently, these tires meet FMVSS 109, as they do bear DOT on the side wall. While we are fully cognizant that NHTSA has allowed the labeling "Reno Farm Tire", we would like to know why a tire manufacturer has the prerogative of labeling a tire with any type labeling such as Farm Use Only, Farm Implement, etc., even though the tire presumably meets FMVSS 109.

Additionally, assuming the tire manufacturer sold this type of tire marked "Farm Use Only" to a manufacturer of trailers, who becomes responsible for complying with Part 570 of FMVSS Tire Records and Identification?

Lt. C. R. Townsend, Director Motor Vehicle Inspection Division

ID: 02409GF

Robert E. Norton II, Esq.
Senior Staff Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
1000 Chrysler Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2766

Dear Mr. Norton:

This responds to your letter dated November 8, 2002, concerning the lease of specially ordered prototype vehicles to the United States Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command. In your letter you state that your company is entering into a contract to provide the vehicles for a military research program. The vehicles will be built in conformity with contractual specifications. It is our understanding that the vehicles will not be certified to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). You further state that DaimlerChrysler will retain the title to the vehicles and lease them to the Army. You ask us to interpret 49 CFR 571.7(c), which provides that no Federal motor vehicle standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications, as applying to this lease arrangement. 

It is our opinion that a transaction where a vehicle is manufactured for, and leased directly to, the Army in conformity with contractual specifications is tantamount to a sale directly to the Army for purposes of 571.7(c). We note that as a general matter, applicability of the FMVSS does not vary depending upon whether a vehicle is sold or leased to a consumer. That is, all FMVSS applicable to vehicles sold by manufacturers are also applicable to vehicles leased by manufacturers. Similarly, in applying 571.7(c), we see no reason to treat vehicles manufactured for, and leased to, the military differently from vehicles sold to the military.

Please be advised that upon the termination of this lease arrangement, DaimlerChrysler cannot sell these vehicles to the general public, unless they were originally certified to the FMVSS. If the vehicles were not originally certified to the

FMVSS, DaimlerChrysler will need to take the necessary steps to prevent the vehicles subsequent use on U.S. highways. For example, DaimlerChrysler may choose to destroy the vehicles, export the vehicles, or sell the vehicles to the military.

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Senior Assistant Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.1/16/03

ID: nht92-8.31

DATE: March 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herrn. Westermann u. Schmidt -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/9/91 from Hanno Westermann and Olaf Schmidt to Richard L. van Iderstine (OCC 7018)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of December 9, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You ask for a definition of two and four headlamp systems, stating that formerly "this definition was done under para. S4.1.1.36, but today there only remains figure 26, which explains the application of photometric requirements with respect to the bulb or bulb combination used." You have enclosed sketches of three replaceable bulb headlighting systems and ask for confirmation that each is a two or four headlamp system under Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 has never contained a specific definition of two or four lamp headlamp systems. Paragraph S4.1.1.36 impliedly defined these systems for headlamps incorporating replaceable bulbs by specifying requirements for the upper and lower beams of headlamp systems consisting of two or four lamps, each containing one or two standardized replaceable light sources. When Standard No. 108 was amended to delete S4.1.1.36, these provisions became part of new paragraph S7.5 Replaceable Bulb Headlamp System. Figure 26 Table of Photometric Requirements was added to illustrate photometric requirements for headlighting systems that use combinations of replaceable bulbs listed in S7.6 Standardized Replaceable Light Sources, and as the systems are described in S7.5.

The understanding expressed in your drawings of replaceable bulb headlamp systems is correct. A 4-lamp system is one in which each lamp contains one light source, usually HB3 or HB4 light source for a total of two HB3 and HB4 light sources per system. A 2-lamp system is one in which each lamp typically contains a single dual filament light source such as HB1 or HB5, and achieves both a lower beam and an upper beam; alternatively, each lamp may contain two light sources, typically one HB3 and one HB4 light source, each with individual reflectors, but together with a common housing and lens. This lamp achieves both a lower and an upper beam.