ID: nht90-3.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 10, 1990

FROM: Jeffrey P. Henderson -- Project Supervisor, Toy Laboratory, ACTS Testing Labs, Inc.

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeffrey P. Henderson (A37; Std. 213; Std. 302)

TEXT:

This letter is regarding whether plastic pouches that contain instruction sheets are applicable to the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 302 (MVSS 302).

In a conversation with Dee Fajita of N.H.T.S.A, she stated an interpretation has been made regarding instruction sheets as being not applicable to the requirements of MVSS 302, however, she was unaware of an interpretation regarding plastic pouches (simi lar to plastic sandwich bags).

Can you please determine whether a plastic pouch which may or may not be permanently attached to a child's car seat is applicable to the requirements of MVSS 302.

Thank you for your time and response.

ID: nht90-3.90

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harold Williams

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-3-90 from H. Williams to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 4640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements on marketing your product, an aftermarket mirror wiper for truck mirrors that hooks into the truck's air system. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had requ irements for materials to be used with such a product. You also requested the agency send any regulations about such a product. The following discussion and the enclosed information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Equipm ent" explain your responsibility under NHTSA's regulations.

As way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance. In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product or particular materials; the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary perf ormance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this provision in the law, NHTSA cann ot approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

Although NHTSA has no safety standard directly about a mirror wiper, the agency has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR S571.111; co py enclosed). This means that vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 111.

As for installation of your device on mirrors in the aftermarket, such installations are limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair b usiness from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as Standard No. 111. If installation of your mirror wiper resulted in a vehicle no lon ger complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed the mirror wiper would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed on the vehicle in compliance Cwith Standard No. 111. To a void a "rendering

operative" violation, you should examine your product to determine if installing your mirror wiper would result in the mirror no longer complying with the Standard's requirements.

Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the "render inoperative" provision.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any device they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whethe r that device renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111.

Other statutory provisions in the Safety Act could affect your product. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your mirror wiper are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) on the recall and remed y of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of th e safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the parts so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.91

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kent D. Smith

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-27-90 from K.D. Smith to S.P. Wood (OCC 4761)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 27, 1990, to Stephen P. Wood of this Office, as a follow-up to his letter of March 22 replying to your request for an interpretation on January 26.

Your device activates the backup lamps for a period of one second or less as a signal to the driver of a following car that (s)he should lower the headlamp beam. Mr. Wood informed you that use of backup lamps for any other than their intended purpose co uld be viewed as an impairment of the backup signal function, and would thereby be prohibited under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You now ask two further questions.

The first question is "What steps would have to be taken in regard to (SAE Standard J593e, Backup Lamps) which would permit me to test market this product?" You have cited paragraph 4.2 which states that "Backup lamps shall not be lighted when the vehic le is in forward motion." As a minor correction, let me note that the SAE Standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 is J593c, February 1968, and the paragraph cited appears with the identical wording as paragraph 2 under "Installation Requi rements." We have no specific authority under which an inventor can install a device on motor vehicles in use for test marketing purposes when the installation might result in a noncompliance. In fact, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifically prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on a vehicle pursuant to a Federal safety standard. Because the instal lation would result in a noncompliance by operation of the backup lamps while the vehicle was in forward motion, its installation for test market purposes on vehicles in use appears precluded by the statutory prohibition.

However, a manufacturer of motor vehicles may petition for a temporary exemption from paragraph 2 on the basis that an exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Such exemptions may be granted for a p eriod of up to two years, and they cover up to 2500 vehicles a year while the exemption is in effect. I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which contains our exemption procedures. Thus, to test market your device you would have to persuade a manufacture r of new motor vehicles to petition for its use.

Your second question is whether you would be in violation of Federal law by manufacturing and selling this device. The answer is no. This device is outside the coverage of Standard No. 108, and no one is prohibited from either selling the device or buy ing it. However, as noted earlier, its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle

repair business on a vehicle in use, would be prohibited by the Act.

Attached is a copy of 49 CFR Pt 555 (text omitted).

ID: nht90-3.92

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David G. Dick Acts Testing Labs, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-90 from D.G. Dick to NHTSA (OCC 4452)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the head impact protection requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.3.2(a) of Standard 213, Child restraint systems. I regret the delay in responding.

Paragraph S5.2.3.2(a) states that certain energy absorbing material used to cover child seat surfaces must have a 25 percent compression-deflection resistance of not less than 0.5 and not more than 10 pounds per square inch (psi). You ask whether a valu e slightly less than 0.5 (such as the 0.47 psi example you provided) would be rounded to 0.5 psi. If rounding were permitted, you point out that the rounded value would meet the 0.5 psi requirement of S5.2.3.2(a).

The answer to your question is no, NHTSA would not round the value to 0.5 psi when testing the child seat. Rounding is generally not used in the safety standards. The standards expressly specify when rounding is appropriate. Standard 222, School bus p assenger seating and crash protection, specifies that the number of seating positions in a school bus bench seat (S4.1) is determined by rounding. In view of the express reference to rounding in some safety standards, and since S5.2.3.2(a) does not expr essly state rounding is appropriate, the value for the compression-deflection resistance would not be rounded.

You also ask whether there is any situation in which a value of less than 0.5 psi would be acceptable. The answer is "no." The minimum of 0.5 psi is required by S5.2.3.2(a) for restraints (other than a harness) recommended for children weighing less th an 20 pounds. Any value less than the minimum required value is a noncompliance.

Your last question asks about the reasons for the 0.5 psi minimum. In the agency's notice adopting the compression-deflection requirements, the agency indicated that those requirements would allow the use of a wide range of materials which should enable manufacturers to provide protective padding without cost increases. A copy of that notice is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ID: nht90-3.93

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-22-90 from L.F. Henneberger to P.J. Rice (OCC 4927); Also attached to Ford Bulletin number 10 dated 12-15-89 entitled Splicing Into The Stop Lamp Electrical Circuit, signed by R.R. Chestnut; Also attached to memo date d 6-6-90 from Tekonsha Engineering Company; Also attached to letter dated 8-31-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 5-2-84 from F. Berndt to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 11-30-81 from F. Berndt to K.G. Moyer (A23; Redbook 3; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1990, on behalf of your client, Tekonsha Engineering Company, a subsidiary of Echlin, Inc., asking for confirmation of your interpretation that a provision of the California Vehicle Code conflicts with, and is preempted by, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment

Tekonsha has developed the "Commander Electronic Brake Control", which will allow the driver of a vehicle-trailer combination "to use the hand control to override the trailer brakes in an emergency mode to control swaying." The system has been designed specifically to avoid splicing into the stop lamp switch circuit. This eliminates electrical interference which can deactivate anti-lock brake system operation, or prevent the speed control from disengaging upon braking. The hand control activates only the trailer brakes, and not the service brakes of the towing vehicle.

You state that the California Highway Patrol has taken the position that the towing vehicle's stop lamps must be activated when the Commander Electronic Brake Control manual trailer brake override is used, even though the service brakes of the towing veh icle are not applied. Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code provides, in pertinent part:

Stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the service (foot) brake and the hand control head for air, vaccuum, or electric brakes...

You believe that this is in conflict with section S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108, which requires:

The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stop lamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes.

You argue that California is incorrect because the use of the device is not intended to and usually does not result in diminished vehicle speeds, does not involve application of the service brakes, and would provide an

"unsafe", false braking signal if connected to the stop lamp system.

In further support of your argument you cite past interpretations of this agency, specifically our letters to you of August 31, 1978, and May 2, 1984, with respect to the Jacobs device, and a letter of November 30, 1981 to Kenneth Moyer. I appreciate th e fact that you enclosed copies for our reference.

In reviewing this matter, I can understand the basis for a conclusion by California that section 24603(f) is not preempted by section S5.5.4. The second sentence of S5.5.4 restricts operation of the center stop lamp to application of the service brakes, but no such restriction exists in the first sentence. Although the first sentence requires operation of the stop lamps upon application of the service brakes, when considered in conjunction with the restriction stated in the second sentence, it can be read as implying that there may be other conditions under which activation of the stop lamps is permissible. However, the reason for the difference in the two sentences is otherwise. Commonly, in red rear combination lamps, the same filament serves bot h the stop and turn signal functions. If the turn signal is functioning when the brakes are applied, tbe first sentence of S5.5.4 ensures that the stop signal overrides the turn signal.

The meaning of the first sentence of S5.5.4 has been set forth and explained in long-standing letters of interpretation. These letters demonstrate that the agency's clear intent is that stop lamps be activated only when fulfilling their definitional pur pose. Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J586 FEB84 Stop Lamps, which defines a stop lamp as one that gives "a steady light to the rear of a vehicle to indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Most recently, in a letter of January 25, 1990, to Larry S. Snowhite, the agency stated that an aftermarket device that activated the stop lamps when it sensed that pressure was being released from the accelerator did not necessarily indicate that the operator would subsequently apply the brake pedal, and that, therefore, it would render the stop lamps partially inoperative within the prohibition of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) applicable to vehicles in use. This is consistent with the Moyer inte rpretation of 1981 where the stop lamps were activated when all pressure had been released from the accelerator and the agency expressed its opinion that the use of required lighting equipment for a purpose other than the defined one created an "impairme nt" within the original equipment prohibition of section S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 (now S5.1.3). To the same effect is our 1978 letter to you which held that activation of the stop lamps by use of the Jacobs brake foundation control device was permissi ble as the effect of the device was to diminish the speed of the vehicle by braking it.

For the reasons expressed above, we confirm your interpretation that section S5.5.4 of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment preempts section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code to t he extent that it may be read as requiring stop lamps to be activated on motor vehicles equipped with the Commander Electronic Brake Control, when the Control is hand activated in an emergency mode to provide sway control. The authority for our conclusi on is Title 15, United States Code, Section 1392(d) which states

in pertinent part:

(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State . . . shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard."

With best regards.

ID: nht90-3.94

TYPE: Interpretation--NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward Kultgen -- Secretary, Bird-Kultgen Ford-Volkswagen

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from E. Kultgen to S.P. Wood (OCC 4843); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from F. Berndt (Signature by S.P. Wood) to M.V. Chauvin; Also attached to letter dated 3-27-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to B. Nanninga ( VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 8-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J.L. O'Connell (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 7-12-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J. Thomason (VSA 102(14))

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter to Stephen Wood of this office concerning the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to the sale of used vehicles used to transport students. Specifically, you asked whether sec tion 108(b)(1), or any other section of the Safety Act, applies to the retail sale of used vehicles. As an example, you gave a small, church-related school seeking to buy a used 15 passenger van for purposes that included the transportation of students. You also requested a definition of "student" as that term is used in determining the applicability of Federal requirements relating to school buses.

For purposes of this discussion, it is helpful to distinguish between two separate sets of regulations which may be applicable to school buses. The first set consists of the motor vehicle safety standards we issued under the Safety Act, and which apply t o the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to certify that their new vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and sellers and lessors of new motor vehicles are required to sell or lease only complying vehicles.

Since NHTSA's standards do not apply to used motor vehicles-- i.e., motor vehicles that have been purchased for the first time in good faith for purposes other than resale--or to the use of motor vehicles, sales transactions involving used school buses a re not covered by Safety Act requirements. Thus, the used vans you asked about are not required by federal law to comply with the FMVSS when they are sold to subsequent purchasers.

The second set of regulations which may be applicable to school buses are a set of guidelines issued by this agency for State highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program G uidelines, cover a wide range of subjects. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of these guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. In particular, Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, could affect t he use of used vehicles to transport students. A review of state law would determine which of the Guideline's recommendations have been adopted by Texas as a part of its highway safety program.

Your second question asked whether students enrolled in an MHMR developmental learning program, community college, church youth groups or after-school or summer day camps would be considered "students" in determining the applicability of the Federal stan dards. Although I cannot address the first example without knowing the nature of a "MHMR children's developmental learning program," I believe the remaining examples are discussed in the enclosed letters of interpretation issued by this office, includin g the May 10, 1982 letter to Martin Chauvin, the March 27, 1978 letter to Bill Nanninga, the August 3, 1977 letter to John O'Connell, and the July 12, 1977 letter to Jim Thomason.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.95

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to D.W. Vierimaa (A36; Std. 115, Part 565)

TEXT:

The attached TTMA Recommended Practice Number 56, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number," is being submitted to our Board of Directors for Publication approval on September 28, 1990. We would appreciate your review of this publication and assurance tha t it is consistent with your regulations and interpretations. Please advise us if it is consistent or requires any changes to be consistent with your regulations and interpretations.

ID: nht90-3.96

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 12, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Guy Dorleans -- Manager, Regulatory Affairs Department Division Elairage-France, Valeo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-19-90 from G. Dorleans to P.J. Rice (OCC 503); Also attached to a study entitled Aiming Concept for Headlamps, Solution 3; Also attached to drawing (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in further reply to the letter you and Monsieur Ravier sent on July 19, 1990, with respect to the acceptability of "Aiming concept for headlamps. Solution 3" under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Ms. DeMeter informed Monsieur Ravier on A ugust 8, 1990, that your request for confidentiality of the drawing enclosed had been granted. You did not make a similar request for treatment of your two-page description of Solution 3, and accordingly we are incorporating it by reference in this lett er, and it will be made a part of all public copies of this interpretation.

Section S7.7.5 of Standard No. 108 states that "When a headlamp system is installed on a motor vehicle, it shall be aimable with either an externally applied aiming device, or on-vehicle headlighting aiming devices installed by the vehicle manufacturer." Section S7.7.5.1 sets forth the requirements for external aiming, and section S7.7.5.2 those for on-vehicle aiming. Solution 3 features a lamp which has three aiming pads on the lens, for use with a mechanical aiming device in accordance with SAE requ irements. However, the lamp also has a movable reflector and various horizontal and vertical aim features that appear to be related to on-vehicle aiming. The horizontal and vertical aiming screws, while having markings of angles similar to that require d for on-vehicle aiming devices, are used exclusively in conjunction with the SAE mechanical aiming device. Therefore, we would consider Solution 3 to be a lamp system intended to be aimable by external means, as provided in section S7.7.5.1.

Since this system departs from the procedure normally used with the SAE mechanical aimers, we commend you in your intent to provide appropriate aiming instructions for such headlighting systems with the vehicles operator's manual, even though it is not r equired by Standard No. 108.

I hope that this is responsive to your question.

ID: nht90-3.97

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Erhardt -- Senior Project Engineer, Advance Transformer Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-90 from R. Erhardt to P.J. Rice (OCC 5113)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1990, received on the 21st. Although the ZIP code was correct, the address was not. For your future use, the agency's address is 400 7th Street SW.

You wish to road test engineering samples of a new type of headlamp system by equipping one to 10 private and/or company vehicles with them. The test would continue indefinitely for lifetime and reliability evaluation. You would like to be advised of th e laws concerning such an undertaking.

We assume that the experimental headlamp system is presently outside the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the Federal vehicle standard on lighting, and that the existing headlamp system that meets Standard No. 108 would be removed so th at the new one could be installed. Modifications to vehicles in use are directly addressed by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Under this section, "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle" pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defi ned by that section as any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation. The prohibition, you will note, does not extend to the vehicle owner.

With respect to your planned test procedure, removal of the vehicle's original headlamp system would render it inoperative within the meaning of the statutory language. However, if the vehicles concerned were owned by the company, and if the headlamp re moval were performed in a company garage by company personnel, the prohibition would not apply. In addition, if the vehicles were privately owned and either the owner or the company garage removed the headlamps, the prohibition also would not apply (ass uming that the company garage does not repair non-company vehicles for compensation).

The question of the legality of use of the experimental system after its installation is determinable under the laws of the States where the vehicles are registered and will be operated. Thus, we suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in Springfield for an interpretation under local law. If the modified vehicles will be operated in States other than Illinois, we recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Given your wish to begin the program as early as August 27, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) should you have any further questions.

ID: nht90-3.98

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1990

FROM: Roger C. Fairchild -- Esq., Shutler and Low

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to R.C. Fairchild (A36; Std. 109; Std. 110; Std. 119; Std. 120)

TEXT:

Our firm advises a number of motor vehicle industry clients regarding their obligations under various Federal statutes and regulations. On behalf of a client, we request your opinion regarding the proper interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 110 and 120 (49 C.F.R. 571.110 and 571.120), as they relate to certain recommendations for tire selection and pressure/load determinations contained in publications of the Tire and Rim Association ("TRA").

Background

The TRA Year Book is one of the tire industry standardization publications that are listed in section 4.4.1(b) of FMVSS 109 and in section 5.1(b) of FMVSS 119. Under section 4.2.1(c) of FMVSS 109 and section 6.6 of FMVSS 119, tires must have maximum load ratings (molded on the sidewall in accordance with section 4.3(c) of FMVSS 109 and section 6.5(d) of FMVSS 119) that are not less than the lowest of any specified values printed in the listed publications, for tires of that size designation. Under section 4.2.1 of FMVSS 110, the vehicle maximum load on a tire may not be greater than the maximum load rating on the tire sidewall. In addition, section 4.3.1(c) of FMVSS 110 provides that, if a tire pressure other than the maximum pressure is specified on a passenger car tire placard, the vehicle loading condition for that pressure must be specified, and that pressure must be one that will support the vehicle load on the applicable tire, as specified in the listed publications or in a separate submittal by the tire manufacturer. Moreover, it is our understanding that NHTSA has interpreted FMVSS 120 to require that, for vehicles other than passenger cars, the vehicle load on each tire (at the recommended inflation pressure) must not exceed the tire's load rating at that pressure, as specified in the listed publications.

Thus, NHTSA generally requires that the tire selection process and tire information labels must reflect pressure/load relationships that are determined by reference to publications such as the TRA Year Book. However, NHTSA standards do not specify the exact part of each of these publications that is to be used in determining compliance with NHTSA standards. In fact, the publications include some "advisory" requirements that do not appear to be used in determining compliance with the FMVSS.

Examples of TRA criteria that are not clearly referred to in NHTSA standards are those criteria relating to vehicle speed capability.

Although FMVSS 109 and 119 include tire high speed tests, we understand that, in general, no separate provision is made in the FMVSS to account for vehicle high speed capability.

Questions

We request that you inform us as to whether the following three TRA criteria are used in determining compliance with FMVSS:

1. Vehicle Load Adjustment for Speed (Passenger Cars)

The 1990 edition of the TRA Year Book provides that "for applications above 210 km/h (130 mph), both vehicle normal load and vehicle maximum load shall be multiplied by a factor" that is based on the vehicle's maximum speed capability (see Enclosure 1). The Year Book goes on to state that "the resultant vehicle normal load must not exceed 88 percent of the tire maximum load and the resultant vehicle maximum load must not exceed the tire maximum load. In addition, the resultant vehicle maximum load as determined above must not exceed the tire load corresponding to the inflation pressure specified by the vehicle manufacturer."

It is our understanding that the adjustment factor described above is not used in determining compliance with FMVSS 110 or 120. As with the TRA provisions, section 4.2 of FMVSS 110 requires that the vehicle normal load on a tire must not exceed 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating and the vehicle maximum load on a tire must not exceed the maximum load rating (as marked on the tire sidewall). However, unlike the TRA provisions, the terms "vehicle normal load" and "vehicle maximum load" are defined in section 3 of FMVSS 110 without reference to the speed capability of the vehicle. No explicit reference to the above described adjustment factor appears anywhere in the Federal standards. Therefore, we conclude that the vehicle speed adjustment factor is not applicable under the Federal standards.

2. Vehicle Speed Adjustment for Inflation Pressure (Passenger Cars)

The TRA Year Book also requires that the "speed category of the tire must match or exceed the theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle." The theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle is defined by TRA as the actual maximum speed, as adjusted for tire inflation pressure using another factor specified by TRA. (See Enclosure 2.) TRA also recommends minimum inflation pressures for vehicles of high maximum speed capability. We are aware of no reference anywhere in NHTSA regulations to tire speed categories. Therefore, it is our understanding that the TRA provisions set forth in Enclosure 2 are not used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards.

3. Load Limits at Various Speeds for Diagonal and Radial Ply Truck Tires

TRA also provides for adjustments in recommended tire inflation pressure and "service load" for tires used on trucks and buses, depending on the maximum speed capability of the vehicle (see Enclosure 3).

FMVSS 120 does not explicitly define the required tire pressure/load relationships for trucks and buses. However, section 5.1.2 of that standard provides that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires

fitted to an axle must not be less than the applicable GAWR. The maximum load ratings of truck tires are determined under section 6.6 of FMVSS 119 without reference to the vehicle application. The only explicit reference in FMVSS 120 to vehicle maximum speed capability is an exclusion from the requirements of section 5.1.2 for vehicles whose maximum speed attainable in 2 miles is 50 mph or less. Thus, we do not see a basis for using the TRA standard set forth in Enclosure 3 to determine compliance with Federal standards.

Conclusion

In our opinion, the TRA Standards described above should not be used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards. In general, using such private standards would have the effect of delegating to several distinct organizations the power to amend Federal standards in ways that are potentially inconsistent. Moreover, TRA standards are typically made effective on publication, so no advance lead-time would be provided to vehicle manufacturers with respect to new TRA standards. (If NHTSA determines that the above mentioned "advisory" requirements of the TRA standards must be used in determining compliance with the FMVSS, please inform us how NHTSA would deal with this lead-time concern, consistent with section 103(e) of the Safety Act.)

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 818-1320 (local number).

Enclosures

Selection of Tires for Passenger Cars and Station Wagons (Source: The Tire and Rim Association 1990 Year Book) (text omitted.)

Vehicle Speed Adjustment (for inflation pressure) (text omitted).

Load Limits at Various Speeds for Diagonal and Radial Ply Truck Tires Used on Improved Surfaces (text omitted).