ID: nht74-1.16

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1974 informing us that Volkswagen of America, Inc. has decided not to initiate a notification campaign as a result of a technical violation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110. You ask for our concurrence in your decision.

The designated seating capacity of the Dasher vehicle is 5 (2 in front, 3 in rear) and you have informed us that "some early production cars" bore tire inflation pressure labels stating that the capacity was 4 (2 in front, 2 in rear). The other required information (vehicle capacity weight, tire size designation, and recommended inflation pressures) are, you state, correctly indicated.

We agree with you that "religious observance of the instructions contained on the placard would provide the car with additional load capacity that would go unused", and have concluded that the situation you describe does not indicate the existence of a safety-related defect.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

June 18, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, Office of the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This will confirm my phone conversation with Mr. Taylor Vincent concerning the issue of recalling a number of early production Dasher vehicles bearing FMVSS No. 110 labels, which incorrectly state the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

Dasher models are manufactured with and equipped for five (5) seating positions. Inadvertently, some early production cars were fitted with placards required by S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, which erroneously state the designated seating capacity of the vehicle to be four (4) seats (two (2) front and two (2) rear), when in fact it has five (5) seats (two (2) front and three (3) rear). Sample of a correct label is attached. Vehicle capacity weight, recommended inflation pressures for maximum and half load as well as tire size designations are correctly indicated.

Mr. Vincent suggested that this error probably did not amount to a safety related defect within the meaning of Section 1402 of Volume 15 USCA, as amended, and regulations issued thereunder, because vehicle owners and occupants are not likely to be misled into using the vehicle in a manner that would make it less safe. In fact, religious observance of the instructions contained on the placard would provide the car owner with additional load capacity that would go unused.

Since inconvenience to the owner resulting from a recall would outweigh any benefits to be gained from a corrected label, we believe it would not be in the public interest for us to conduct a notification and recall campaign in this instance.

Your confirmation of our position would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Cerhard P. Riechel -- Attorney

Enc.

cc: Taylor Vincent

ID: nht74-1.42

DATE: 06/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of May 30, 1974, you ask whether a rear lighting configuration intended for your 1975 vehicles, based upon a proposal in Docket No. 69-19, would meet the current requirement that stop lamps be "as far apart as possible."

The photographs you enclose show that the intent of the proposed S8.10 has been met by providing a separation distance between turn signal and stop lamps that is 5 inches or more, and by placing the stop lamp so that its optical axis is inboard of a vertical longitudinal plane passing through the optical axis of the taillamps. Although it is obviously "practicable" for you to retain the stop lamps in their present location, we consider that the reasons you wish to introduce the change support a determination of practicability under the current requirements, even though the proposal remains under consideration and may not be adopted.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

May 30, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U. S. Dept. of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Dyson:

In the Federal Register Vol. 37, No 206, dated October 25, 1972, appeared a proposed change for FMVSS 108. This was identified as Docket 69-19, Notice 3. In paragraph S8.10 of this notice NHTSA proposed to physically separate the stop lamp, tail lamp and the turn signal functions. Blue Bird Body Company concurs with this proposed change and in fact, we would like to incorporate it into our 1975 model buses. The attached photographs show our current stop lamp location and our proposed stop lamp location. As you can see from the photographs, our proposed lighting configuration would physically separate the stop lamp and turn signal lamps by placing the back-up lamps between them.

Although we believe this lighting scheme will provide safer vehicles because of greater discrimination between the stop lamp and turn signal functions, we are concerned with the current requirement of FMVSS 108, table 2, which says that the stop lamps must be ". . . as far apart as practical."

Certainly NHTSA must be of the opinion that such a lighting configuration will provide safer vehicles or they would not have made this proposal. Therefore, it is our opinion that our proposed 1975 lighting configuration meets the intent of the current regulations as well as the proposed future regulation and request your approval of this change. Thank you for your consideration of this request and your early reply.

Yours very truly,

W. G. Milby -- Project Engineer

c Dave Phelps; Jim Moorman

ID: nht93-6.50

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS #108 INTERPRETATION REQUEST

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Dennis G. Moore (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am requesting an Interpretation of the term "at the same height" used in FMVSS #108 when referring to the mounting position of the three I.D. Lights required on Vehicles over 80" in width.

At least on two occasions in the past 20+ years, NHTSA has allowed the slight misalignment of I.D. lights because of "Practical" circumstances. I didn't copy these cases from the Federal Register or from NHTSA's Docket Files so unfortunately I haven't them to refer to.

I'm requesting copies of these Interpretative allowances or better yet, an entirely new Interpretation hopefully allowing the "Practical Misalignment" of I.D. lights used specifically on Boat Trailers.

We are trying to improve the widespread visibility (conspicuousness) and breakage problems associated with mounting "Sizeable" yet Submersible I.D. Lights on a Boat Trailer's rear cross member. To do this, we are offering an I.D. Light Bar that is slightly bendable which corrects the problems outlined in the sketches below.

When slightly staggered, the Vulnerability and Covering problems shown in the sketches are eliminated yet still guaranteeing a protected, longer lasting yet Conspicuous I.D. Light Cluster.

"Conspicuous" is the requirement term used in Section S2. "PURPOSE" of FMVSS #108 and I believe represents the original objective for mandating 3 I.D. Lights. The "Conspicuous" objective is better accomplished even if the three lights are allowed to be somewhat staggered. Also, safety is better served when these lights are protected from damage and/or from being knocked off.

It seems to us that "at the same height" could be defined as where the Top of the middle light is no higher than the Bottoms of the Outboard Lights... or where at least one portion of the three lights are "at the same height".

We hope you concur with our interpretation of this term so that this safety improvement is allowed to be made on Boat Trailers.

TYPICAL BOAT TRAILER I.D. MOUNT AREA Problem 1: Typical Roller or "AT THE SAME HEIGHT" Protective Pad Requirement makes OUTBOARD LIGHTS hang below the Frame Typical V making them "VULNERABLE" to Shaped Cross Frame being DAMAGED or KNOCKED OFF

Typical Roller or Problem 2: Protective Pad "AT THE SAME HEIGHT" Requirement Typical V also encourages the "COVERING" of Shaped Cross Frame the MIDDLE LIGHT

Solution: Typical Roller or ALLOWING SLIGHT STAGGERING Protective Pad yields a PROTECTED yet Typical V "CONSPICUOUS" 3 I.D. Shaped Cross Frame Light Cluster

I would appreciate a response as soon as possible.

ID: nht93-3.29

DATE: April 29, 1993

FROM: Bob Jones -- Director of Engineering, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc. (IMS)

TO: Mary Versailles -- Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

COPYEE: C. Flanigan; G. Anesi; R. Dumas

TITLE: Re: Compliance to FMVSS 220 with a Raised Roof Minivan

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-18-93 from John Womack (Signature by Ken Weinstein) to Bob Jones (A41; Std. 220)

TEXT: Although School Bus Rollover Protection does not apply to minivans, many states and/or municipalities are including this requirement in their bids for vehicles which are equipped to serve the handicapped.

We have tested and met the requirement with the OEM roof; however we are now faced with a new challenge as we are being asked to make available a raised roof model. We know how to build the roof, how to reinforce it with a cage, but what we don't know is how to do a FMVSS Bus Rollover Test.

I am enclosing a drawing of our prototype roof, including its steel cage support system and a photo copy of an installed roof. As you can see from the drawing, the raised roof starts at the 'A' Pillar with a plus 2.0 inches, builds up to 4.0 inches then 9.0 inches and finally at the 'D' Pillar it is plus 12.563 inches.

I have included excerpt pages from the FMVSS 220 Laboratory Test Procedure which, I believe, demonstrates our need for an interpretation as to how we should meet the legislation with this raised roof configuration.

Because we are less than 10,000 pounds GVW, our force plate will be 5 inches longer and 5 inches wider than the van roof. We must keep the force plate transverse axis level and make contact with the roof at not less than two points. The longitudinal axis of the force application plate may deviate from the level or horizontal position; however, deflection readings are to be taken as close to the four corners of the force application plate as possible and then extrapolated to provide corner readings.

When we evenly distribute the vertical force, we are going to get an unusual load path. The compression is going to be in the 41 inches to the rear of the 'B' Pillar. We would almost need a complete collapse of the roof before the load cylinders located at the front outboard positions on the plate register.

After reviewing the enclosed material, we would be most appreciative if you would offer us your interpretation of how we can satisfy this standard in a meaningful way.

I will be out of the country from May 4 to May 25. In my absence, you can address any questions or correspondence to Mr. Rocky Dumas at our New Mexico headquarters.

I thank you for your consideration and look forward to discussing the subject with you upon my return.

ID: nht74-2.48

DATE: 07/26/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

COPYEE: L. OWEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 11 in which you asked what standards will be applied to stop and turn signal lamps after September 1, 1974.

Parking, stop, and turn signal lamps are required by Section S4.1.1.11 and S4.1.1.12 to meet the grouped photometric minimum candlepower requirements specified in Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 108. Prior to September 1, 1974, multiple compartment or multiple lamps need only meet the group value total specified in Figure 1 for a single compartment or single lamp. After that date, however, the higher candlepower values for two and three compartments or lamps specified in Figure 1 are applicable.

Docket 69-19; Notice 3, published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1972, only proposed that SAE (Illegible Word) and (Illegible Word) be referenced in FMVSS No. 108. Until such time as Standard 108 is further amended, SAE J586b, June 1966, and J588d, June 1966, are applicable to stop lamps and turn signal lamps, respectively.

If the new revisions to the SAE standards are included as an amendment to Standard 108, sufficient lead time will be provided to allow the manufacturers to make any changes necessary to meet the new requirements.

Sincerely,

Not Controlled

ATTACH.

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

July 11, 1974

E.T. Driver -- Director Office of Operating Systems Motor Vehicle Programs,

U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: A lamp with two or three lighted compartments used in Stop Lamp and Turn Signal Lamp.

Dear Mr. Driver

According to S 4.1.1.12 in MVSS No. 108 a lamp with two or three lighted compartment is required to meet the minimum photometoric values at each test point specified in table 2 of SAE Standard J575d.

However, after September 1, 1974 a Stop Lamp has to be complied with SAE J586c by P.R. dated October 25, 1972 and SAE J508e for Turn Signal Lamp and further the standards of a lamp with two or three lighted compartments will be applied to a lamp with two or three lighted compartments and by F.R. dated April 9, 1974 the F.R. dated October 25, 1972 has been postponed.

Please let us know what standards will be applied to Stop, Turn Signal Lamp after September 1, 1974, the standards as they are now or the proposal as it is being planned will become effective.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Very truly yours, H. MIYAZAWA -- Director, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Dept.

ID: nht74-4.20

DATE: 07/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Imperial-Eastman Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 24, 1974, questions whether brake hose manufactured before September 1, 1974, to comply with all performance requirements of Standard 106-74, Brake hoses, may be marked with the DOT symbol after that date, and whether the DOT may be used on hose, fittings, and assemblies prior to that date.

The answer to your questions is no. The DOT symbol means that a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment was manufactured in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard and that it complies with the standard. Therefore, the DOT symbol can not be placed on hose, fitting, or assemblies manufactured before the date the standard becomes applicable to them, whether or not the DOT is actually placed on the hose before or after the effective date.

With regard to your supply of pre-106 vacuum hose, it may be used in assemblies as late as February 28, 1975, and in vehicles as late as August 31, 1975, if it is only clamped to the vehicle and not made into assemblies.

Yours Truly,

Imperial-Eastman Corporation

June 24, 1974

Legal Department National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: T. W. Herlihy

At the present time, Imperial-Eastman has a large quantity (about a two year supply) of 5/8 I. D. SAE J1403 Vacuum Brake Hose in inventory and it is evident this hose will not be sold before the DOT-106 goes into effect on September 1, 1974 or later. Our customers are already changing drawings and all new purchase orders call for brake hose that meets FMVSS 106.

It is impossible for any hose assembly supplier to sell unmarked hose up to the day 106 goes into effect and then switch to hose with the DOT layline without having a lot of old hose left over.

For this reason, it is imperative we get answers to the following questions as soon as possible.

1. Is it permissible for us to return the J1403 brake hose to the manufacturer and have it DOT branded? This hose meets all FMVSS 106 requirements and it would be marked with the original date of manufacture (Jan. 1972).

2. Is it permissible to purchase, couple and sell DOT hose and assemblies prior to the date 106 becomes effective? This is the only way we can balance our hose inventories and use up unbranded hose.

If it would be more convenient and less time consuming to discuss the above, please don't hesitate to call me collect.

M. A. Chermak

ID: nht75-4.38

DATE: 03/31/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1975, asking whether paragraph S5.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) permits the words "Emergency Exit" to be placed above the emergency door in a school bus, or whether they must be within six inches of the emergency door release mechanism. You argue that placing the nomenclature above the door provides a more prominent identification of the exit than does placing it within 6 inches of the release mechanism.

We believe the interpretation of S5.5.1 which you suggest is appropriate when applied to rear door emergency exists in school buses. We have not previously considered school buses containing this type of emergency exit labeling to fail to conform to the standard. In addition, our recent proposal regarding school bus emergency exits (39 FR 8569, copy enclosed) would specifically require emergency exit labeling of this type.

YOURS TRULY,

February 6, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Council U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

A question of interpretation has risen with regard to FMVSS 217. Paragraph S5.5.1 of that standard reads in pertinent part: "Each pushout window or other emergency exit shall have the designation "Emergency Exit", followed by concise operating instructions, located within six inches of the release mechanism. . .". The question is, must the words "Emergency Exit" be within six inches of the operating mechanism or is it sufficient to provide operating instructions within six inches of the release mechanism with the "Emergency Exit" marking shown in another and more prominent location?

We would point out that if the "Emergency Exit" designation must be within six inches of the operating mechanism, it is often not visible to occupants not in the immediate vacinity of the exit. This is because of the lettering size limit imposed by the spacial requirements of being within six inches of the operating mechanism.

Apparently there is some confusion regarding this matter since several states have asked our interpretation concerning it. Before FMVSS 217 became effective, most states required "Emergency Exit" or "Emergency Door" in letters at least two inches high immediately above each emergency exit. This system is well liked by those in the industry and, as shown in the attached photo, provides prominent identification of the exit for most occupants in the bus. We feel this method of providing emergency exit identification and operating instructions meets the requirements of S5.5.1 and would like to continue using this system.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

W. G. Milby

Staff Engineer

ID: nht91-6.39

DATE: October 24, 1991

FROM: Sue Ellen Russell -- Brand & Lowell

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert Hellmuth; Robert Krauss; Harry Thompson; Z Taylor Vinson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Sue Ellen Russell (A39; Std. 207; Std. 210)

TEXT:

This firm represents the Glaval Corporation, a company engaged in the business of van conversions.

Glaval recently notified NHTSA of its intention to conduct a notification and remedy campaign to respond to an apparent noncompliance with the safety belt anchorage strength requirements as they apply to the rear bench set in Glaval vans. These seats contain three designated seating positions, and each seat belt anchorage is mounted on the seat, not the floor.

In the course of evaluating potential remedies to ensure their compliance with the requirements of the standard, we became aware of a recent interpretation of FMVSS 210 (S4.2) issued to R.W. Schreyer of the Transportation Manufacturing Corporation (April 9, 1990). A copy is enclosed for your convenience. In this interpretation, the agency stated that ONLY FLOOR-MOUNTED anchorages common to a single seat and governing "adjacent seating positions" would be tested simultaneously for compliance with FMVSS 210. The letter reiterates that

"Even those anchorages common to one occupant seat would be tested simultaneously only if the anchorages were floor-mounted."

This interpretation raises several questions, because the Glaval bench seat in NHTSA's test was subjected to simultaneous loading of the anchorages for all three seating positions, although none of these anchorages is floor-mounted. Glaval's testing, conducted in accordance with the published test procedures in order to replicate the NHTSA test, also loaded the three seating positions simultaneously.

Glaval's questions are:

1. Consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, should the seat-mounted anchorages of the Glaval bench seat have been loaded sequentially in NHTSA's test? If so, how does NHTSA's test on the Glaval bench seat, where the loads were applied simultaneously, affect NHTSA's tentative conclusion of noncompliance?

2. Since Standard 207 requires simultaneous loading of the forces required by Standard 207 along with those required by Standard 210, does the Schreyer interpretation mean that, for a bench seat with seat-mounted anchorages, the proper loading for a

test pursuant to FMVSS 207 should be 20 times the seat weight, plus the proper load for one designated seating position on the bench seat?

We look forward to Your early response to these questions, as they will affect Glaval's on going work on this issue.

Attachment

Letter dated 3/5/90 from R.W. Schreyer, of Transportation Manufacturing Corporation to Harry Thompson, of NHTSA. (Text omitted)

ID: nht90-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/90

FROM: HIROSHI OZEKI -- EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT MAZDA

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

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF 49 CFR 571.108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER 06/05/90 ON STD 108 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HIROSHI OZEKI -- MAZDA; LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO JAMES R. MITZENBERG -- FLXIBLE CORP DATED 12/08/86 ON STD 108 INTERPRETATION; LETTER FROM FRANK BE RNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL TO CHUCK HOWARD -- SAFETY ALERT CO, DATED 06/17/83

TEXT: Mazda is exploring the possibility of installing a deceleration warning system on its future models. Such a system would operate using the vehicle's hazard warning system. Under certain circumstances, as of yet undetermined, the hazard lamps (amber in color and flashing) would be activated concurrently with the stop lamps to provide additional warning to vehicles to the rear.

In reviewing FMVSS No. 108 and previous interpretations concerning this standard and considering how each would apply to deceleration warning systems, Mazda has discovered, what its believes, are conflicting interpretations. For your convenience, the interpretations in question have been reproduced as Attachments 01-02. The purpose of this letter is to request your definitive interpretation of this standard with respect to S4.1.3 and the enclosed attachments.

An interpretation issued on June 17, 1983 (Attachment 01), and written by former NHTSA Chief Counsel Berndt, determined that the simultaneous activation of both the rear stop lamps (red in color and steady-burning) and the rear hazard warning system o r rear turn signal lamps (red or amber in color and flashing) is permissible provided, " . . . the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed." In Mr. Berndt's opinion the operation of the rear stop lamps, and the rear hazard warning lamps or turn signal lamps in this manner would not be in violation of S4.1.3. of FMVSS No. 108.

Conversely, an interpretation issued on December 6, 1986 (Attachment 02), and written by former NHTSA Chief Counsel Jones, expressly states that the described deceleration warning system, ". . . must be steady-burning in every mode. There is a good r eason for this requirement, as simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and

steady-burning (red) lamps have the potential for creating confusion. . .", thus, ". . .impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S4.1.3."

Could you please provide a definitive interpretation of the requirements of S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 as they pertain to the deceleration warning system under consideration by Mazda; as described above.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Rob Strassburger (313-930-2513) of my staff or Mr. S. (Ted) Kadoya (202-626-3263) at our Washington, D.C. office.

ENCLOSURES

ID: 8292

Mr. John B. White
Industry Standards & Government Regulations
Michelin
Post Office Box 2501
Greenville, SC 29602

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify our certification procedures for the information of some of your customers. Specifically, you stated that some customers believe that you are required to test your tires for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), and that this agency then certifies your tires after reviewing and evaluating your test results.

Those impressions are incorrect. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, New pneumatic tires, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, found at 49 CFR 571.119. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act) establishes a self-certification procedure applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. This means that the tire manufacturer, and not a governmental agency such as NHTSA, certifies that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. Each new tire must be certified as meeting the applicable FMVSSs regardless of whether the tire meets an equal or higher standard in another country.

The UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative ratings of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers. Again, that is the manufacturers' responsibility and NHTSA neither reviews nor approves the ratings prior to their assignments by the manufacturers.

Neither the Safety Act nor NHTSA standards and regulations require that a manufacturer base its certifications on any specific tests, any number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with applicable Federal safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before introduction into the U. S. retail market. Similarly, NHTSA does not approve or certify manufacturers' test results. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If they fail the tests and are determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer. Government compliance test results are available to the public upon request from the NHTSA Technical Reference Division (NAD 52), 400 Seventh Street SW, Room 5108, Washington, D.C. 20590; (202) 366-2768.

I hope this information will assist you in clarifying tire certification requirements to the satisfaction of your customers. If you have any further questions or desire further clarification, 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#119#575 d:4/27/93