ID: nht78-2.18

DATE: 12/04/78

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

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1978, to the Administrator questioning whether certain trucks procured by your Command comply with paragraph S4.5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That paragraph states "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You wrote that "when the hazard warning lights are activated the stop lamp cannot be activated upon application of the service brakes." The system you describe would be in compliance with Standard No. 108, if the stop lamps and signal lamps are optically combined, for the following reasons. Paragraph S4.4.1 allows combination of a stop lamp with a turn signal lamp (which provides the hazard warning signal). Paragraph 4.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970 (incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 as the operative standard for stop lamps) requires that "When a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing."

This, of course, means that in a combination lamp the stop signal cannot be given while the hazard warning signal is being operated. If the Army deems it desirable it could require a different circuitry in combination lamps by which the stop lamps and hazard warning signal lamps could operate simultaneously, as military vehicles need not conform to Federal safety standards (49 CFR 571.7(c)).

Because several jurisdictions require slow-moving vehicles to use the hazard lamps while in motion, I am asking our Office of Rulemaking to review this prohibition. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

US ARMY TANK-AUTOMOTIVE MATERIEL READINESS COMMAND

NOVEMBER 13, 1978

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin

Dear Ms. Claybrook

Reference is made to FMVSS 108, paragraph S4.5.4.

Reference paragraph states "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

Inspection of the lighting system in some commercial trucks recently procured by this Command disclosed that when the hazard warning lights are activated the stop lamp cannot be activated upon application of the service brakes.

While it is recognized that the primary purpose of hazard warning lights is to warn approaching traffic of a disabled vehicle, several states require the use of hazard warning signal for slow moving vehicles, i.e, NY Thruway, and Pennsylvania Turnpike. Application of the service brakes under this condition would not activate the stop lamps to warn following traffic.

Request this office be provided the DOT position as to whether or not the system described above meets the requirements of FMVSS 108, S4.5.4.

ROBERT J. SHIROCK Safety Director

ID: 1984-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/18/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Customs Service -- Paul Lorelli

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Lorelli Office of Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures U. S. Customs Service 300 S. Ferry Street San Pedro, California 90731

This is in reply to your request to Taylor Vinson of this office; by telephone on October 31, 1984, for an interpretation of 19 CFR 12.80, and other matters.

Section 12.80(b)(ii) of the import regulations refers to technical noncompliance of a vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards "because readily attachable equipment items which will be attached to the vehicle before it is offered for sale..." are not on the vehicle at the time it is offered for importation into the United States. You have asked the meaning of the phrase "readily attachable equipment items."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, at the time the importation regulations were being developed, importers commented to the drafters that their practice was to remove certain items from the exterior of a vehicle prior to shipping to prevent breakage or theft. The items mentioned were windshield wipers, wheel covers, and exterior rear view mirrors. Therefore, the final rule took into account the importer's practice by allowing unrestricted entry of vehicles that complied with the exception of "readily attachable equipment items." As bumpers and headlamps are not readily attachable in the sense that wipers, mirrors, and wheel covers are, we do not consider these equipment items to qualify for the exception. Because sale of nonconforming new vehicles is a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a dealer who sells a car without the windshield wipers or mirrors attached would be subject to a civil penalty; as a practical matter, a new car won't be sold with such equipment items missing.

You also asked how we insure that a manufacturer continues to produce vehicles that comply with the safety standards. As Mr. Vinson explained, while we have authority to enter places where vehicles are produced or are being held for sale, we do not position inspectors in factories, nor require submission of compliance documentation to us before production commences. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which a manufacturer must exercise due care in assuring the compliance of its vehicles with all applicable safety standards and must then attach a label to a vehicle at the completion of its manufacture certifying that compliance. The agency will purchase vehicles at random and test them for compliance. If a nonconformance is found, a manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties not only for the production of the noncomplying vehicle but also for providing certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. A tap civil penalty of $800,000 may be assessed for each of these violations. Further, a manufacturer of noncomplying vehicles is required to notify distributors, dealers, and purchasers of noncompliances, and to remedy the condition, by repair, repurchase of the vehicle, or replacement of it with an equivalent. The civil penalty sanctions and notification/remedy and requirements seem to have been successful in creating a climate under which manufacturers, on the whole, have met their obligations.

I hope that this information has been helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: flaherty

Lt. Col. Steve Flaherty, Director
Bureau of Administrative and Support Services
Virginia State Police
P.O. Box 27472
Richmond, VA 23261-7472

Dear Col. Flaherty:

This is in reply to your recent e-mail regarding "undercover type warning lights." By this phrase, we understand you to mean the system under discussion in our letter of July 3, 2001, to Col. Massengill of the Virginia State Police (the "Massengill letter."). When activated, that system, would cause the taillamps and side marker lamps of otherwise conventional passenger cars to flash as strobe lights.

You have informed us that there is "pre-filed" legislation in the Virginia House of Delegates which would permit the use of undercover type warning lights "on fire fighting apparatus and fire department vehicles." You have further informed us that "these are all classified under state law as emergency vehicles and are entitled to use traditional type warning lights." Present Virginia law "specifically requires conformance to federal requirements." You understood the Massengill letter to restrict undercover type warning lights to law enforcement vehicles, and have asked whether state-regulated fire fighting/department vehicles be equipped with these lights and still conform to Standard No. 108.

The question is not really whether such vehicles equipped with the strobe light system would still conform to Standard No. 108; clearly they would not because they are causing lamps to flash that Standard No. 108 requires to be steady burning. The real question is whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would provide the same interpretation regarding the use of strobe lights on state-regulated fire fighting/department vehicles as it had in the Massengill letter for police vehicles. And our answer is yes.

As noted in that letter, our traditional position is that we defer to the judgment of States as to the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on its vehicles. We also noted that, under Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122), the State, as the owner of a vehicle,

may itself modify a vehicle after its purchase even if this modification results in a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. With these factors in mind, we believe that a law allowing use of the strobe system on state-regulated fire fighting/department vehicles is acceptable.

The emergency vehicles discussed in the Massengill letter were not of a traditional nature. They were unmarked Ford Crown Victoria sedans identical in exterior appearance to Crown Victorias sold to the public and which were intended for sale to the public at the end of their useful life with the State Patrol. For these reasons, we developed the rationale expressed in the Massengill letter under which we could justify deferring to the judgment of the State for the use of these vehicles. Perhaps this led you to conclude that we had advised that the use of strobe lights should be restricted to law enforcement vehicles.

We contrast the Crown Victorias with fire fighting apparatus, the former often intended for undercover use, the latter, never. Thus, we surmise that fire fighting apparatus would not use strobe lights for "undercover" purposes, but as an added warning when they are endeavoring to reach a fire or other emergency site through traffic as rapidly as possible. We see no reason to question the judgment of the State in allowing strobe lights on fire vehicles, if such legislation is enacted in Virginia.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref.108
d.5/2/03

ID: 1983-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Velvac, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Jan 28 1983

NOA-30

Mr. Robert R. Brester Velvac, Inc. 2900 South 160th Street New Berlin, Wisconsin 53151

Dear Mr. Brester:

This responds to your November 18 letter to Roger Fairchild of this office. In that letter, you asked whether certain heavy duty trucks may have installed on each side of the vehicle two mirrors each of 25 square inches surface area. The dual mirrors would be mounted in a common bracket with a gap between the mirrors.

The language of FMVSS 111 clearly envisions that there shall be a single mirror of at least 50 square inches of surface area on each side of the vehicle. Section 7.1 of the standard provides that such trucks must have exterior mirrors "each with not less than 50 in2 of reflective surface...." (Emphasis added.) Further, the agency questions whether the performance of the dual mirror would be equivalent to that of a single mirror. For example, images could temporarily be lost in the gap between the two mirrors, potentially presenting a hazard to the driver. Further, the mirrors could have slightly different orientations in the common mounting, possibly misleading the driver as to the speed and location of an object viewed in the mirrors. Therefore, we conclude that the split system does not comply with FMVSS 111.

If you have further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 18, 1982

Mr. Roger Fairchild National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 Room 5219 United States Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Fairchild,

I am writing you this letter in response to a phone conversation I had with Mr. Kevin Cavey, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards in regards to compliance with F.M.V.S.S. 111 using a flat mirror split system.

Specifically, I addressed the question to Mr. Cavey, "Will two flat mirrors mounted on a common bracket with a combined square area meeting current F.M.V.S.S. specifications be equivalent to a single flat mirror?" (see example).

FLAT MIRROR

**INSERT** Would this be acceptable under the current FMVSS 111?

Mr. Cavey said he is not in the position to comment on this matter verbally and that I should contact you in writing.

Please give this matter your prompt attention as we have a customer desiring to purchase this split system to eliminate a blind spot that is caused by one large mirror.

If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at 1-414-786-0706.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Brester-Chief Engineer

c.c. W. Sandham R. Hosmer

ID: GF003817

Mr. Jim McCann
Blok-Mor Sunvisors, LLP.
3101 South Tyler
Amarillo, TX 79109

Dear Mr. McCann:

This responds to your letter of April 27, 2004, asking whether any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to sun visors.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

There are two FMVSSs that are applicable to sun visors. FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact (copy enclosed), establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. With respect to sun visors, section S5.4 of the standard requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visors mounting must "present no rigid material edge radius of less than 3.2 mm that is statically contactable by a spherical 165 mm diameter head form."The purpose of this requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when occupants strike the visor or visor mounting with their heads. We note that the diagram attached to your letter appears to show certain visor components or attachments that may not be constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material. In addition, S8.5 allows sun visors to be placed in any adjustment position as long as one side is in contact with the vehicle interior surface during a free-motion headform (FMH) impact test. Thus, depending on the placement of the sun visor, it could be impacted by the FMH during testing. The performance requirement is that the head injury criterion, calculated from the resultant acceleration of the FMH in accordance with S7, shall not exceed 1,000.

In addition to FMVSS No. 201, a sun visor must conform to the flammability resistance requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (copy enclosed). This standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including sun visors.

Please note that any sun visor designed for use on a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" and is subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In certain circumstances, a manufacturer of a noncomplying product may also face a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each noncomplying item it produces.

Additionally, under 49 U.S.C. 30122, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle" pursuant to an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Depending on the circumstances, installation of a noncomplying sun visor after the initial sale of the motor vehicle could be viewed as a violation of this "make inoperative" provision.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:201
d.7/8/04

ID: 8125a

W.C. Burke, Captain
Department of California Highway Patrol
P.O. Box 942898
Sacramento, CA 94298-0001

Dear Mr. Burke:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). This interpretation is based on my understanding of the statements in your letter as well as statements made by Mr. Greg Bragg of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in a telephone conversation with Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff.

You ask about the marking responsibilities of glass installers who put replacement glass in school buses. CHP personnel have found school buses with replacement glass that is not marked. You ask whether an installer who cuts sections of glass from a larger, marked section is required by S6.4 of FMVSS No. 205 to mark each individual smaller section (if not already marked) prior to installing them as replacement windows. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.

The person who cuts a section of glazing to size for installation in a motor vehicle is considered a manufacturer of the glazing. This is because the item of glazing is not considered manufactured until it is in the form that it will actually be sold for installation into a motor vehicle. This position that the person cutting the glazing is a manufacturer was stated early in the history of Standard No. 205, in a letter to Donald Counihan (May 9, 1968). The agency has stated frequently since then that persons cutting sections of glazing are manufacturers, most notably in a preamble for a 1972 rule on Standard No. 205 adopting the requirements of S6.4. (37 FR 24035, November 11, 1972) NHTSA stated that S6.4 requires "persons who cut glazing" to include the markings required by Standard No. 205 "on each cut piece."

S6.4 requires each person who cuts glazing to mark the piece with the markings required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26. Section 6, ANS Z26 requires the following information: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 205 also requires that person to certify the material in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

While your letter refers to persons cutting sections of glazing from larger sections, we note that it is possible that an item of replacement glazing was designed for a specific vehicle by a "prime glazing material manufacturer" (i.e., "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material," see S6.1 of Standard No. 205). If the item was so designed by such a manufacturer, the item must be marked and certified in accordance with S6.1 and 6.2 of Standard No. 205. A person other than a prime glazing material manufacturer installing the glazing without cutting it would have no marking requirement under Standard No. 205.

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:3/31/93

ID: nht93-2.39

DATE: March 31, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W. C. Burke -- Captain, Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-7-92 from W. C. Burke to Paul Rice (OCC 8125)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of FMVSS No. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS (49 CFR S571.205). This interpretation is based on my understanding of the statements in your letter as well as statements made by Mr. Greg Bragg of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in a telephone conversation with Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff.

You ask about the marking responsibilities of glass installers who put replacement glass in school buses. CHP personnel have found school buses with replacement glass that is not marked. You ask whether an installer who cuts sections of glass from a larger, marked section is required by S6.4 of FMVSS No. 205 to mark each individual smaller section (if not already marked) prior to installing them as replacement windows. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.

The person who cuts a section of glazing to size for installation in a motor vehicle is considered a manufacturer of the glazing. This is because the item of glazing is not considered manufactured until it is in the form that it will actually be sold for installation into a motor vehicle. This position that the person cutting the glazing is a manufacturer was stated early in the history of Standard No. 205, in a letter to Donald Counihan (May 9, 1968). The agency has stated frequently since then that persons cutting sections of glazing are manufacturers, most notably in a preamble for a 1972 rule on Standard No. 205 adopting the requirements of S6.4. (37 FR 24035, November 11, 1972) NHTSA stated that S6.4 requires "persons who cut glazing" to include the markings required by Standard No. 205 "on each cut piece."

S6.4 requires each person who cuts glazing to mark the piece with the markings required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26. Section 6, ANS Z26 requires the following information: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 205 also requires that person to certify the material in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

While your letter refers to persons cutting sections of glazing from larger sections, we note that it is possible that an item of replacement glazing was designed for a specific vehicle by a "prime glazing material manufacturer" (i.e., "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material," see S6.1 of Standard No. 205). If the item was so designed by such a manufacturer, the item must be marked and certified in accordance with S6.1 and 6.2 of Standard No. 205. A person other than a prime glazing material manufacturer installing the glazing without cutting it would have no marking requirement

under Standard No. 205. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht80-2.1

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Moped Associates

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 11, 1980, forwarding to Mr. Schwartz of my office the proposed vehicle identification number (VIN) scheme for American Moped Associates, and in confirmation of your subsequent telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz.

Your VIN scheme complies with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, with the following exceptions. The fourth through eighth characters of the VIN are required by S4.5.2 and Table I of the Standard to encode certain descriptive characteristics of the vehicle. For motorcycles, which include mopeds, this information is (1) type of motorcycle, (2) line, (3) engine type and (4) net brake horsepower. While the information which American Moped Associates proposed to encode in the fourth through eighth characters will undoubtedly be useful to your company, it is not necessary to advise the agency of your internal coding. Further, while much of the information the Standard requires to be decoded from these characters is self-evident because of your product line, it is none-the-less necessary to forward this information to the agency as specified in the Standard.

Based on your discussions with Mr. Schwartz, it appears this may be easily accomplished utilizing essentially the same format as you currently propose. It is my understanding that you no longer intend to encode the color in the fifth position of the VIN, but rather utilize a single "filler" character such as an "M". Further, I understand that all your mopeds utilize the same engine and comprise two lines characterized by the number of speeds. Consequently, based on your product line, your submission to the agency might read:

Characters 1-3 LAM: WMI assigned to American Moped Associates. Character 4 (internal use) Character 5 M: Indicates moped type; gasoline, one cylinder engine with a displacement of ; net-brake horsepower measured at the crankshaft of . Character 6 (internal use). Character 7 1 indicates one-speed Indian line. Character 7 1 indicates two-speed Indian line. Character 8 (internal use) Character 9 Check digit. Character 10 Model year. Character 11 T: Indicates Taipei plant of manufacture.

Y: Indicates Yuanlin plant of manufacture. Characters 12-17 Sequential number.

Please feel free to contact Mr. Schwartz should you have any further questions on this matter. Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AMERICAN MOPED ASSOCIATES

March 11, 1980

Frederic Schwartz -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

Pursuant to our recent telephone conversation concerning implementation of our VIN number, please find below for your approval a sample VIN number with notes explaining our coded identifiers.

LAMMB11A - AT123456

LAM - WMI assigned to American Moped Associates

M - Carburetor Type - alternate would be K

B - Color Black - G; Green - R; Red - W; White

1 - Wheel Type 1; Spoke - 2; Mag

1 - Number of Speeds 1; 1 Speed - 2; 2 Speed

A - Series changes letter from A to Z --- Check digit

A - Year of manufacture

T - Plant of mfr. T; Taipei - Y; Yuanalin

12346 - Numerical Sequence

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 1-800-854-6213.

Sincerely,

Bart Achille -- National Sales Manager

ID: nht76-3.38

DATE: 12/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: NAFDEM

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 23, 1976, request for clarification of certification responsibilities in the case of trucks that are manufactured in two or more stages. By virtue of our earlier correspondence, you are aware of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) regulations for the assignment of these responsibilities (Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages).

With regard to the first two questions in your letter, the NHTSA considers the mounting of a used body on a new cab-chassis to be the manufacture of a motor vehicle that requires certification. In these cases, the incomplete vehicle document is provided along with the new cab-chassis. The replacement of a used body with a new one is not considered to be a manufacturing operation that requires certification of the vehicle as completed.

Your second and third questions ask whether the final-stage manufacturer of a tank truck may assume what commodity will constitute the cargo (e.g., bulk milk) as the basis for assiging the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Section 567.4 (g) (3) specifies that the GVWR determination be based on the "rated cargo load" which is determined by the final-stage manufacturer. It would appear reasonable for the final-stage manufacturer to use the weight of bulk milk as the basis for its calculation of rated cargo load, particularly where the tank was used for milk previously, and when the vehicle is completed by a member of a trade association specializing in food and dairy equipment manufacture.

Your fourth question raises the difficulty of certifying a completed vehicle in the case where the incomplete vehicle document is missing from the cab-chassis. You object that the final-stage manufacturer bears "the ultimate burden" of certification, when he does not have control over the entire manufacturing operation.

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403) mandates that the manufacturer of a vehicle certify compliance, and this constitutes a statutory requirement which is not subject to the control of the NHTSA. Part 568 requires provision of the incomplete vehicle document and represents the agency's judgement of the means by which the final-stage manufacturer can best be assisted in meeting the statutory obligation to certify compliance. The agency believes that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be in a position to supply a substitute document in the event the original document is lost.

In answer to your last question, @ 568.5 of our regulations provides that an intermediate-stage manufacturer (such as a person that adds or moves an axle) shall, if such changes affect the validity of statements in the incomplete vehicle document, furnish an addendum to the document that indicates appropriate changes that should be made in the document. Thus the intermediate-stage manufacturer that affects the weight rating set forth in the incomplete vehicle document must provide an addendum explaining the effect of the modifications. The responsibility for certification continues to remain with the manufacturer, who is the person exercising ultimate control over the components used in the axle system.

If, after having digested these comments, you still feel a meeting is necessary, please get in touch with our Engineering Systems Staff ((202) 426-2817) and one will be arranged.

ID: nht70-1.14

DATE: 05/18/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Calhoun & Phelan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of April 29, 1970, to the National Commission on Products Safety, that has been referred to this office.

In your letter you ask for our advice as to whether or not there are any accepted standards for passenger car automobile tires such as weight and size limits. We do have standards for passenger car tires such as weight limit versus ply rating and there are accepted tests to determine the reliability of tires. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 has been established for that purpose. The Standard's requirements are for labeling, which includes maximum inflation pressure and maximum load rating, strength, continuous load-carrying endurance and high speed performance under load.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims - Passenger Cars, requires, among other things, a placard, permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location. The placard must contain all of the information spelled out in Part S.4.3 of that Standard, a copy of which is contained in the enclosed booklet on page 19. Tire labeling requirements along with test procedures are listed under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, on pages 12 through 19.

The tire to which you refer is a 2-ply 4-ply rated tire. The load ratings for a 855-14 tire can be found on page 15 of the enclosed booklet. The maximum load rating is 1,770 lbs. at the maximum inflation pressure of 32 p.s.i.

It is important for you to note that the test procedures have to do with new tires. We have no procedures for testing tires that have failed.

Although we do not become involved in private litigations, there is a publication for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, under the title, "Automobile Accident Litigation - A Report to the Federal Judicial Center to the Department of Transportation," that might be of interest to you. The price for the publication is $ 2.75.

We are also enclosing the following publications:

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966

Summary of 1968 Compliance Tests Arranged by Standard, that includes a General 855-14 tire and, a form letter explaining the Bureau's position relative to test results and where they might be obtained.

We trust this information will be useful to you.