ID: 11660ZTV

Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui
Manager, Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Section
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Matsui:

We have received your letter of March 13, 1996, asking for an interpretation of the word "replaceable" with respect to the replaceable light sources permitted by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for use in motor vehicle headlamps. This information will assist you in the development of HID headlamps.

You ask whether "replaceable" as used in paragraph S7.7 means that access should be provided for convenient replacement without the use of special tools, which is a specific requirement of Standard No. 108 for light sources for the center highmounted stop lamp. The answer is no; there is no requirement that replaceable light sources be replaceable without the use of special tools.

We recognize that HID light sources may be designed for the life of the vehicle on which they are installed, and, optimally, would require replacement only in the event of front end damage. However, NHTSA believes it is in the interest of safety that light sources that are not designed for such longevity should be replaceable in a simple manner. When the agency amended Standard No. 108 to permit replaceable light sources (48 FR 24690, June 2, 1983), the replaceable light sources that were initially produced had bayonet mountings, which provided positive one-way insertion of the bulb into the reflector assembly. This allowed owner-replacement of the light source, a safety benefit used in justification of the final rule: "The easy replacement of the bulb may result in faster replacement of burned out headlamps." Thirteen years later, headlighting systems have become more complicated in a way that the agency did not foresee then, but the principle of simplicity of replacement of the light source remains.

If you have further questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/96

ID: nht73-2.11

DATE: 08/28/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 21, 1973, in which you inquire whether British Leyland Motors Inc. may add to the consumer information leaflets for prospective purchasers, required by NHTSA regulations, the consumer information required by the Environmental Protection Agency.

As long as the information required by NHTSA is presented in conformity with 49 CFR 575, we have no objection to the inclusion within the same covers of additional information relative to EPA requirements. This would permit any format which include:EPA information without detracting from the clear and unconditional presentation of tabular information required under @ 575.6(a) of Part 575.

ID: nht88-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/88

FROM: JAY V. WRIGHT -- PAGE AVJET CORPORATION

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/11/88 TO JAY V. WRIGHT FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32(2), STANDARD 102(3)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

The Engineering and Aerospace Division, Page Avjet Corporation, manufactures and markets an aircraft fuel servicing unit referred to as a "Hydrant Truck". The unit is used to filter and meter aircraft fuels as fuel is pumped from airport storage into aircraft.

The Hydrant Truck is an assembly of an 11000 lb GVWR cab-chassis and an equipment platform mounted with the accessories necessary to perform its function. The assembly may or may not have a personnel lift attached depending on the size and type of ai rcraft it is intended to service.

The Hydrant Truck is mobile and may well be moved under its own power at its airport base. It is not a unit that is perceived as being moved over public roads or from airport to airport in its daily use.

We believe that because the Hydrant Truck is designed for use at a particular and very restricted type of installation it should not be considered a motor vehicle.

We respectfully request that a ruling be made as to whether the completed unit does comprise a motor vehicle under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Very Truly Yours,

[BROCHURE]

Aircraft Hydrant Service Vehicle 750 GPM Flow Rate

4 Models Available Specifications:

Chassis

GMC 3500 Series 1-Ton or Ford F350 1-Ton. Back-up alarm. 3 speed automatic w/oil cooler or 4 speed standard transmission. Standard equipment includes: amber beacon, twin spotlights and radio wiring/antenna.

Wide Body Lift Electro/hydraulic operation. 2 ea fueling nozzles to customer's specs. Deadman control.

Thiem Industries Primary and Secondary Pressure/Flow Control Systems provide smooth operation and accurate control.

Pressure/Volume Control System

Primary--Pressure Control Hydrant coupler to customer's specs. Thiem or J. C. Carter. Secondary--Thiem F370ACDE control valve w/Thiem F540-1 rate of flow pilot.

Filter/Separator

3-L model WAH2844 750 GPM. ASME vessel. IAW API 1581 Class C, Group II. Velcon coalescer and separator elements. Thiem F716CDE electronic water sump control. Pressure relief valve. Armstrong air eliminator. Gammon differential pressure gauge.

Extend Unit Service Life Rechassis the Compact, Modular Designed Fueling System.

The Fueling Module is designed to accept Ford, GMC, or Chevrolet 1-ton chassis. Bolt-on mounting allows quick replacement of a worn or damaged chassis. A cost effective alternative to replacing the complete unit.

Page Avjet's Engineering Division manufactures airline ground support and fueling equipment to customer specifications and refurbishes ground support equipment for civilian operators and the U.S. Government.

Detailed Specifications

PAHT-750-1

PAHT-750-2

PAHT-750-4

PAHT-750-8

Chassis

GMC 3500 Series 1-Ton or Ford F350 1-Ton 159.5" Wheel Base Auxiliary Springs/15,000 lb. Rear Axle Dual Rear Wheels Power Steering Power Brakes Dual Gas Tanks (GMC) Dual Batteris w/Isolator Heavy Duty Radiator 8.25 CFM Air Compressor Brakemaster Air Dryer w/Heater 3 ea 9.5" x 27" Air Reservoirs Air Filter Front Discharge Spark Arresting Muffler Back-up Alarm Hobbs Hour Meter Air System Pressure Gauge Interlock Warning Light 6 Cylinder or 8 Cylinder Engine 3 Speed Automatic w/Oil Cooler or 4 Speed Standard Transmission

Fueling System Type III Hydrant System 750 GPM Maximum Flow Primary and Secondary Pressure Controls Aluminum and Stainless Steel Plumbing Aluminum, Stainless Steel and Brass Components Deadman Control System Fuel Nozzle and Lift Interlock System Lighted Control Panel(s) Water Detection System Greer Bladder Type Surge Suppressor 20 Gal. Aluminum Waste Tank/w/Level Gauge Fuel Temperature Indicator Vapor Proof Electrical System Gammon Fuel Sampling Kits Emergency Fuel Shut Off Valves

Fuel Meter Liquid Controls - M60E-2 Fuel Meter Lightened Register and Printer to Customer's Specs.

Filter/Separator 3-L Model WAH2844 750 GPM ASME Vessel, IAW API 1581 Class C, Group II Velcon Coalescer and Separator Elements Thiem F716CDE Electronic Water Sump Control Pressure Relief Valve Armstrong Air Eliminator Gammon Differential Pressure Gauge

Pressure/Volume Control System Primary - Pressure Control Hydrant Coupler to Customer's Specs. (Thiem or J. C. Carter) Secondary -- Thiem F370ACDE Control Valve w/Thiem F540-1 Rate of Flow Pilot

Hoses, Reels, Nozzles 2 1/2" Certified Aircraft Fueling Hoses Hannay EPJ328-35-36RT Hose Reels 12V DC Electric Rewind w/50A Circuit Breakers OPW Swivels Servicing Nozzles to Customer's Specs. (Thiem or J. C. Carter) Twinweld Deadman Hose w/Thiem 13024KB Deadman Control Mounted on Hannay 617-19-20CTR, Spring Rewind Reel Twinweld Fuel/Air Sense Lines w/Quick Disconnects Mounted on Hannay 617-19-20CTR Spring Rewind Reel Hannay HGR100-100 Spring Rewind Static Ground Reels w/100' Cable and 100 Amp Clamp

Control Panel Lighted for Night Operation Nozzle Pressure Gauge w/Calibration Tap Gammon Differential Pressure Gauge Primary & Secondary Control Air Pressure Regulators (Tamper Proof w/Removable Key) Primary & Secondary Control Air Pressure Gauges Water Detection Indicator Light Emergency Interlock Override Valve

Page Model 43524 Wide Body Lift Electro/Hydraulic Operation 2 ea 2 1/2" x 11' Certified A/C Fueling Hoses 2 ea Fueling Nozzles to Customer's Specs. Deadman Control System Nozzle Holders w/Interlocks Lighted Control Panel Mast Interlock Switch Maximum Extension Interlock Switch Jammed Mast Limit Switch Work Light 36" x 96" Fueling Platform w/Safety Rails 500 lb. Capacity Emergency Down Valve

Additional Fire Extinguishers to Customer's Specs. Static Grounding Reels & Cables to Customer's Specs. Vehicle Finish Painted to Customer's Specs.

Vehicle Configuration Single Side Mounted Dual Rear Mounted Elevating Platform Service Hose & Reel Service Hoses & Reels w/2 Service Hoses X X X X

PAHT-750-1

*PAHT-750-4

PAHT-750-8

* Model 43524 Elevating Platform may be added to this vehicle if needed at a later date.

Note: The PAHT-750-2 is a 4 wheel trailer mounted unit and may be ordered in any of the above configurations.

**All models can be ordered with custom specifications.

Standard features include 2-way radio antenna system and amber rotating beacon.

ID: nht88-3.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: HIROSHI KATO -- MMC SERVICES INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/19/88 FROM HIROSHI KATO TO ERIKA Z JONES; OCC - 1916

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kato:

This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1988, concerning whether a Mitsubishi Motors Corporation SH27 lightweight industrial truck that you intend to offer for sale in the United States should be classified as a motor vehicle under Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"). You stated that this vehicle is intended for "general or carrier work for off-road applications," and that it is capable of a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph. You further expla ined that your company planned to advertise, promote, and market this vehicle as an off-road vehicle. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the SH27 would not be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicl es and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a max imum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with

special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which th e vehicle is to be operated.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to standard trucks, can be registered for use on the highways of several foreign countries, and can obtain a a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph. These factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you stated that this vehicle is intended to be used only for off-road applications and that this vehicle will be advertised and promoted for off-road purposes only and will contain four warning labels stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only." These factors suggest that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

You noted that several foreign countries including Japan and Taiwan register for on-road use the general export configuration of this vehicle. This suggests that your vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle. You attempted to distinguish this fa ct by stating that the vehicle to be sold in the United States has different specifications than the general export vehicles. The differences are that the United States version has a maximum speed of 25 mph while the general export version can achieve s peeds of greater than 55 mph, the engine displacement in the United States version has an engine of 548 cc rather than the 796 and 783 cc for the general export version, and the United States version has an hourmeter (similar to agriculture vehicles) rat her than a speedometer. You stated that these differences mean that there is little basis for assuming that the experience in other countries would correlate to the likelihood of States permitting the vehicle to be registered for highway use in the Unit ed States. Since the vehicle closely resembles a small truck for highway use, we believe it is likely that States would permit it to be registered for highway use, just as other countries have. Therefore, this factor suggests that your vehicle should b e considered a motor vehicle.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

You stated that your advertising and promotional materials will state that your vehicle should be used only for off-road purposes and will not depict or suggest that the vehicle can be used on-road. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

You stated that your dealers will be instructed that this vehicle is to be used solely for off-road purposes and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in this country. Your company also will s tate on any ownership document that this vehicle is not intended for on-road use. Therefore, this factor would indicate that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

You stated that this vehicle will only be sold by dealerships that sell vehicles other than motor vehicles, such as material handling equipment like lifts and agricultural equipment. This factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a mo tor vehicle.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

You stated that four warning labels will be affixed to the interior and exterior of the vehicle body. Labels stating "Off Road Use Only" will be applied to the exterior front panel of the cab, the rear gate, and the instrument panel. Additionally, a label stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only" will be affixed to the exterior rear panel of the cab. This factor would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

Based on the representations in your letter, the agency believes that the Mitsubishi SH27 lightweight truck does not appear to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht88-1.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 7, 1988 EST

FROM: MAX J. MIZEJEWSKI -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOREIGN MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: ROADREADER

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-03-88 TO M. J. MIZEJEWSKI; FOREIGN MARKETING SPECIALISTS, INC., FROM E.Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to receive written confirmation that the interpretation of the rules and regulations covering the product described below is accurate. Our company is importing a device manufacturered in France that attaches to but is not a n integral part of automobiles and trucks. In reading the regulations it seems as if we fall outside of any specific legal requirement to obtain certification.

The device which we call Roadreader is designed to have two sensors mounted on the front of the automobile which are then tied into an on-board computer which is further wired into the left and right turn light wiring. The device is designed to give a v isual and audible alarm at the time that a vehicle would start to drift off of the highway, crossing either the yellow lane on the left or the white line on the right. It in no way is attached to or affects either the acceleration or braking and does no t in any way interfere with line of sight vision or vehicle lighting. The wiring to the turn indicators is only to allow the device to be shunted upon the turn indicator being put on in order to allow lane changes without the alarm going off.

I am aware that as an importer we assume the responsibilities of the manufacturer for such things as any product recall that might become necessary for some unforeseen reason.

The device is available for your inspection and we'd be most happy to forward it to any governmental agency that would require it, as well as to conform to any other request or requirements of yours or any other agency that we should check with.

I look forward to hearing from you and thank you in advance for your prompt response to this request.

ID: nht90-2.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1990

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

TO: Keith D. Kroll -- Vice President, Engineering., Hehr International, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-22-90 To Stephen P. Wood and From Keith D. Kroll; (OCC 4481); Also attached to letter dated 1-26-90 To John G. Sims and From Stephen P. Wood

TEXT:

This is in response to your request for an interpretation of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S571.217). More specifically, I understand your request to refer to buses that are not school buses and that have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, S5.5.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that: "... each emergency door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' ... followed by concise operating instructions d escribing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit,located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. S5.5.2 requires that emergency exit "markings" be visible to occupants in specified locations, under lighting and occupant visual acuity condit ions set forth in S5.5.2.

You suggested that S5.5.1 requires only the operating instructions, and not the emergency exit designation, to be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. Similarly, you suggested that the legibility requirements applicable to emergency exit "ma rkings" per S5.5.2 refer only to the emergency exit designation, and not to the operating instructions for that emergency exit.

We disagree with your suggested interpretation. I have recently discussed NHTSA's official interpretation of these provisions in Standard No. 217 in a January 26, 1990 letter to Mr. John G. Sims. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information.

Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information concerning this subject.

ID: 2454y

Mr. Keith D. Kroll
Vice President, Engineering
Hehr International, Inc.
3333 Casitas Ave
P.O. Box 39160
Los Angeles, CA 90039-0160

Dear Mr. Kroll:

This is in response to your request for an interpretation of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). More specifically, I understand your request to refer to buses that are not school buses and that have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, S5.5.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that: "... each emergency door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' ... followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism." S5.5.2 requires that emergency exit "markings" be visible to occupants in specified locations, under lighting and occupant visual acuity conditions set forth in S5.5.2.

You suggested that S5.5.1 requires only the operating instructions, and not the emergency exit designation, to be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. Similarly, you suggested that the legibility requirements applicable to emergency exit "markings" per S5.5.2 refer only to the emergency exit designation, and not to the operating instructions for that emergency exit.

We disagree with your suggested interpretation. I have recently discussed NHTSA's official interpretation of these provisions in Standard No. 217 in a January 26, 1990 letter to Mr. John G. Sims. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information.

Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information concerning this subject.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:2l7 d:5/l8/90

ID: nht90-4.74

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 4, 1990

FROM: Stanley S. Zinner -- Greene & Zinner P.C.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS Standard No. 123

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 to Stanley S. Zinner from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 123); Also attached to letter dated 2-16-82 to Brian Gill from Frank Berndt (Std. 123); Also attached to letter dated 10-26-73 to Brian Gill from Richard B . Dyson

TEXT:

At the suggestion of Taylor Vincent, we are respectfully requesting information concerning 49 CFR Section 571.123, S5.2.4 which provides:

Stands. A stand shall fold rearward and up-ward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward. We are requesting that your office issue an opinion as to the meaning, purpose and intent underlying the above cited Safety Standard. The reason for this request is that our office presently represents the estate of Jack Stein in a products liability ac tion against U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor Company Ltd. Dr. Stein was killed on June 2, 1988 and we contend that the motorcycle was defective and defectively designed because the sidestand failed to retract from the deployed (down) posi tion when it came into contact with the surface of the roadway as Dr. Stein's motorcycle moved forward at a moderate rate of speed around a left hand curve in the road. In consequence of the failure to retract, the sidestand prevented Dr. Stein from neg otiating the left curve of the roadway and forced him off the road into a fatal crash.

In light of the foregoing, we are requesting issuance of an opinion concerning the meaning, purpose and intent behind Safety Standard 123. In this fashion we can submit your response to Federal District Court Judge Kevin T. Duffy within the time frame f ixed by the court in its pre-trial order. The court has indicated a trial will be held shortly. Accordingly, given the press of time it would be greatly appreciated if your response could be issued within two weeks. To expedite matters I am transmitti ng this request via facsimile transmission.

If there is anything further that you require, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone. In the meantime, awaiting your reply, I remain respectfully yours.

ID: 1982-2.12

DATE: May 10, 1982

FROM: Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Martin V. Chauvin -- Chief, Carrier Safety Bureau, Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: 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)); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to E. Kultgen (A36; VSA 108(b)(1); VSA 102(14); Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from E. Kultgen to S.P. Wood (OCC 4843)

TEXT:

This responds to your April 9, 1982, letter asking whether vehicles used to transport children to or from day care centers and summer camps must comply with the school bus safety standards.

The agency has determined that vehicles used to transport children to day care centers need not comply with the school bus safety standards. This determination is based on the fact that facilities which are essentially custodial, even though they may have some educational components, are not considered to be schools.

With respect to summer camps, if the camps are associated with a school, the use of school buses would be required. On the other hand, camps with no school affiliation need not use school buses to transport their children. For the legislative history on the subject of camps, see the enclosed excerpt from House debates, 120 Cong. Rec. H8123 (daily ed. Aug. 12, 1974).

The agency has not developed a list of those facilities that are required to use school buses. As a general guideline, any operation associated with a school must, of course, use school buses. A head start facility is required to use school buses, since it is considered to be a preprimary school. Other facilities whose functions are primarily educational must also use school buses, since they are considered schools. As noted above, facilities that are essentially custodial need not use school buses.

I hope these guidelines will be useful to you.

ID: nht72-1.26

DATE: 04/24/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 28, 1972, asking whether passenger car tires that have been reclassified, under Standard 109, as "Unsafe for Highway Use" because they do not conform to the standard may be sold with, or for use on, a vehicle other than a passenger car. For the reasons given below, our answer to your question is no.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states that:

"No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section." (Emphasis supplied.)

We presume that the argument for allowing use of a nonconforming passenger car tire on another type of vehicle (in your case a boat trailer) would be that by so using the tire, it ceases to be a "tire for use on passenger cars" in the words of the application section of Standard 109, that the standard does not apply to it, and since there is currently no standard for tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, anything may be used on such vehicles.

We would reject this argument. We interpret Standard 109 as applying to tires that are designed and produced for use on passenger cars, and in this view a tire so designed and produced does not become something else because it is ultimately used for a different purpose. The effect of section 108, then, is not merely to prohibit nonconforming passenger car tires from being sold on passenger cars, but to prohibit them from being sold at all, as "motor vehicle equipment."

As an entirely separate matter, any reclassified tire sold as motor vehicle equipment would be presumed to contain a safety-related defect within the meaning of sections 111 and 113 of the Act.