ID: aiam4823

"Dear Mr. Chairman: Your letter of July 10, 1990 about th applicability of NHTSA's safety standards to replacement parts was misplaced. This is indeed unfortunate, embarrassing, and I can assure you extraordinary. You asked me to review an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter from our Office of Chief Counsel to Mr. Rowghani, which indicated that Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, applies only to new vehicles, and not to doors sold as replacement parts. In view of your concern about replacement parts, we have reviewed that interpretation, and our authority regarding replacement parts. Many of our safety standards apply only to complete vehicles, while others apply only to the individual components (whether original or replacement equipment). Some apply both to vehicles and to the components involved. Each of our standards includes an 'Application' section, which clearly defines the scope of coverage, based on the nature of the safety issue and the vehicle/equipment items involved. NHTSA's standards which apply to equipment (both original and replacement equipment) generally cover those types of items which can be used in many different vehicle lines, which are frequently replaced or sold separately, and which can be independently tested. These include such items as brake hoses (Standard 106), lamps and reflectors (Standard 108), tires (Standards 109, 117 and 119), windows and windshields (Standard 205), safety belt assemblies (Standard 209), child safety seats (Standard 213), and motorcycle safety helmets (Standard 218). Other safety systems require testing in a full-vehicle context, and our safety standards are applied to the vehicle rather than the component. Examples include brake performance (Standards 105 and 121), occupant crash protection (Standard 208), head restraints (Standard 202) and roof-crush resistance (Standard 216), as well as side-door strength. As noted in the April 9 letter, Standard 214 applies only to whole cars, not to replacement parts, as stated in the application section (see S2 of Standard 214, copy enclosed). While most manufacturers have chosen to meet the Standard by adding reinforcement beams, we are aware of at least one vehicle (a gray-market imported Mercedes-Benz) which passed the standard's compliance test without such a beam. Further, while intuitively it seems that doors without a reinforcement beam are not as safe as ones with a beam, efforts to document a safety problem have been unsuccessful. The current compliance procedures specify testing a door as part of a new vehicle (see S4 of Standard 214), since it does not appear feasible to specify an appropriate procedure for testing an individual new door (whether original or replacement) by itself. The reason for this is that a door's performance in resisting intrusion is dependent not only on the structure of the door itself, but also other factors such as the vehicle frame into which the door fits, and the hinges and latches which hold the door in place within the frame. In addition, vehicle seats may help resist intrusion and protect occupants. The current standard reflects these factors. While the current standard does not apply to replacement doors, NHTSA has full authority to pursue any alleged safety problems with doors or any other vehicle components under the 'defects' provision of the Safety Act. If evidence demonstrated that certain replacement doors presented an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, the agency could order the manufacturer of such doors to repair or replace such doors. At the present time, however, we are not aware of a safety problem with replacement doors that would warrant the commencement of a defects investigation. I appreciate your interest in the safety of vehicle parts and hope this information is helpful. For further discussion of the legal issues regarding the applicability of standards, your staff should feel free to contact our Chief Counsel, Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, at 366-9511. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosure";

ID: aiam5122

"Dear Mr. Chaudhari: This responds to your follow-up letter of Novembe 16, 1992, subsequent to our response, dated August 12, 1992, to your earlier letter. I am pleased that the information given you in our previous letter is proving helpful in your work. In your current letter you request information regarding DOT certification of automotive components in general, and 'brake hose ends' in particular. I would like to clarify the relevant points made in our last letter to clear up any misunderstandings. Neither the Department of Transportation (DOT), nor the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, a part of DOT) conduct any certification testing. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), a copy of which I have enclosed, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its components or vehicles are in compliance with NHTSA's safety standards. Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products is also subject to civil penalties. With respect to your specific question about 'brake hose ends,' Standard No. 106, 'Brake Hoses,' applies to new motor vehicles and to 'brake hoses' (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. A copy of the standard is enclosed. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties and the recall responsibilities mentioned above. I have enclosed a copy of the test procedure manual used by the agency in its tests to verify compliance of the brake hoses. However, please see the Note on page 1 of the procedure manual regarding a manufacturer's certification testing. NHTSA does not authorize testing agencies to perform certification procedures. Therefore, we cannot provide a list of the agencies in India or elsewhere that are capable of certifying motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. I hope this information clarifies NHTSA's role in the certification process. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Our fax number is (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 21708.ztv

Ms. Carol Morton
Washington State Patrol
Equipment and Standards Review Unit
P.O. Box 42614
Olympia, WA 98504-2614

Dear Ms. Morton:

This is in reply to your fax of May 23, 2000, addressed to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked "Can Washington State legally license . . . off-road motorcycles for road use if they comply to our equipment requirements and are issued a 'state assigned vin'?" You report that Luke Loy of this agency sent you "information indicating that for our state to license off-road motor-cycles for road use appears to be a violation of 49 USC 30112."

Under the pertinent portion of 49 U.S.C. 30112, "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States," any motor vehicle unless it complies with, and is certified as complying with, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Federal law does not address the licensing or operation of motor vehicles, which is left to the States. Under Section 30103(b), however, a State is expressly preempted from having a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a FMVSS unless the State standard is identical to the Federal requirement. We have interpreted this as preventing States from adopting or enforcing operational or licensing requirements that would preclude the operation of vehicles that comply with the FMVSS. Thus, for example, a State could not prohibit a motorcycle from being equipped with a modulating headlamp system in order to be licensed or operated because there is a FMVSS (Standard No. 108) that expressly allows such a system.

Federal law does not prohibit Washington from registering a motorcycle meeting such requirements as the State may have imposed for licensing either new or reconstructed motor vehicles, provided that the State's requirements applicable to an aspect of performance regulated by the FMVSS are not more stringent than those of the FMVSS.

The letter you enclosed from Baja Designs of San Diego states that the company manufactures and sells modification equipment to help vehicle owners bring their motorcycles "up to State Department of Transportation criteria." In the company's opinion, 49 U.S.C. 30112 "was not intended to stop the individual vehicle owner from modifying a vehicle to comply with specific State DOT requirements and re-titling the vehicle under a state's reconstructed vehicle titling process."

Baja's interpretation of Section 30112 is not on point. To be sure, Section 30112 was not intended to "stop" a vehicle owner from complying with State requirements. Its intent is to prohibit "a person" from failing to comply with Federal requirements that apply to the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles. The issue with which we are concerned under Section 30112, then, is the Federal requirements that may apply to the conversion of an off-road motorcycle to on-road use.

For purposes of this discussion, an "off-road motorcycle" is one that was not manufactured and certified as meeting the FMVSS that apply to motorcycles, because, under our interpretations, it was not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. The act of conversion for use on the public roads creates a motor vehicle to which new-vehicle FMVSS will become applicable at the time of the conversion. The FMVSS that apply to motorcycles are Standards Nos. 106 (brake hoses), 108 (lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment), 111 (rearview mirrors), 119 and 120 (tires and rims), 122 (brake systems), 123 (controls and displays), and 205 (glazing materials, if the motorcycle has a windshield). Therefore, the converted motorcycle must meet, and be certified to meet, all these FMVSS.

For purposes of compliance with DOT laws and regulations, we regard the converter as the manufacturer. However, under our interpretations on kit cars, a person who supplies all the equipment required to create a motor vehicle is also regarded as a "manufacturer." Baja has related that it supplies customers with "DOT approved lighting, DOT approved tires, mirrors, speedometers, custom wiring harnesses and other equipment to facilitate compliance with state and federal standards for street vehicles." From this list, we surmise that, at the least, Baja may be providing equipment that purports to bring off-road motorcycles into compliance with FMVSS Nos. 108, 111, 119, and 123. However, we cannot conclude on the basis of this correspondence that Baja is providing all equipment needed for on-road use, and specifically that required to comply with FMVSS Nos. 106, 120 and 122 . Therefore, it appears that the converter is the manufacturer and responsible under Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30112, for the compliance of the vehicle and its certification of compliance. We encourage all States to refuse to license vehicles for use on their roadways unless they are certified by their manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS.

Finally, we come to the question of whether the State may assign a VIN to a vehicle which we view as required to meet the FMVSS. One purpose of the Federal VIN, as expressed in section S565.1 of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, is "to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns." As noted above, the converter has become the manufacturer, and, as the manufacturer, it is also responsible for conducting recall campaigns. Where an individual has only modified his or her own motorcycle, we would not insist that the single converted vehicle be furnished with a VIN meeting Part 565, as compliance is not needed to achieve the purpose of the regulation. In this instance, a State may assign a VIN to the motorcycle. Our answer would differ, of course, if we had concluded that Baja is the manufacturer. In that event, Baja would have to furnish VINs that meet the requirements of Part 565.

One final point. In its letter, Baja uses the term "DOT approved." This term has no basis in either fact or law. We have no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment. If a "DOT" symbol appears on an item of equipment or its container, the "DOT" is the equipment manufacturer's certification that the equipment conforms to all applicable FMVSS. Such certification may be found as an indication of conformance with FMVSS Nos. 106, 108, 119, the rim requirements of 120, and 125. We do not know what Baja means by use of the term "DOT-approved mirrors," because FMVSS No. 111 does not apply directly to mirrors but specifies performance requirements that a motorcycle mirror system must meet when it is installed.

You have Taylor Vinson's e-mail address; please consult him if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/26/00

ID: nht93-2.28

DATE: March 25, 1993

FROM: Jose M. Gonzalez -- Engineering Manager, Kustom Fit

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Ed Jetner -- NHTSA 208 Engineer; Ron Belk -- KF President; Bob Barras -- KF of Ohio

TITLE: Re: Baseline Sled Testing Evaluation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to Jose M. Gonzalez (A41; Std. 208; VSA 108(b)(2)

TEXT: We are a manufacturer of seating products for the recreation industry. We have been in business since 1956. We do follow and test our products for your established standards. Since early 1991, we began testing our products dynamically using HIGE Sled Testing laboratories. We have been successfully obtaining good results that are under 20% or more than the maximum requirement criteria with one exception, the General Motors G Van. We have done 4 tests using Hybrid III dummies and we have improved the results with every test. However, we can't achieve the same levels of confidence that we have achieved with other vehicles. We would like to hear your opinion for the following approach:

We would perform two tests: The first being a baseline HIGE sled test using all OEM hardware and seats and the second one with OEM hardware and our seats. The results would then be compared as follows:

If the results of the test using our seats are equal or better than those obtained values with the OEM seats and hardware, does this test prove that our seats are safe to use instead of OEM? Can these results and procedures be acceptable as do diligent and can our seats then be certified for use in these vehicles regarding FMVSS 208?

Your response to this request will be highly appreciated.

ID: 1985-01.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro, Meguro-Ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of January 18, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for three interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to motorcycle lighting.

Your first question is about the location of rear turn signals. Table IV of Standard No. 108 requires that rear turn signal lamps on motorcycles have a minimum horizontal separation distance "centerline to centerline" of 9 inches. You have asked whether this may be interpreted as filament center to filament center. The answer is no. The phrase means the distance from the geometric center of one lamp to the geometric center of the other.

Your second question concerns the permissibility of an arrangement of lamps on the rear of a motorcycle. There would be a two-compartment combination stop/tail lamp on the vehicle centerline with separate combination lamps below it on either side of the centerline. The distance between filament centers of the separate lamps would be a maximum 16 inches, and there would be the same distance between the filament centers of each separate lamp and the compartment above it belonging to the two-compartment lamp. You have asked whether this is permissible if the minimum design candlepower complies with requirements for three lighted sections in SAE J585e and SAE J586c, and the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp is at least 3 1/2 square inches. This arrangement, though unusual, appears to be acceptable. SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps and SAE J585e Tail Lamp state that if multiple compartment or multiple lamps are used, and the distance between filament centers does not exceed 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements, the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections. Your design has four lighted sections, whereas the SAE Tables provide values for only three. In our opinion, your design would be acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections.

Your final question concerns a combination stop/taillamp of four sections, two each on either side of the vertical centerline. Though no distance is given for the filament centers, they appear to be closer than 16 inches. You have asked if this design is permissible provided it meets the requirements for three lighted sections, and the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment is not less than 3 1/2 square inches. The answer is yes, this is acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 18, 1985

Att. : Mr. Taylor Vinson Lawyer

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re: Required Lighting Equipment for Motorcycle

Dear Mr. Vinson,

1) Location of Rear Turn Signal Lamps

1-. By Table III in FMVSS 108, it specifies, is applicable SAE Standard or recommended practice to follow SAE J588e, September 1970. 2-. by 4.2 in the above SAE Standard it reads "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." 3-. Whereas by Table IV in FMVSS 108, when rear turn signal for motorcycle, it specifies, "having minimum horizontal separation distance (centerline of lamps) of 9 inches."

Our interpretation of the above -3 is between filament center to filament center. Please confirm.

As a matter of information, please refer to 6.1 in SAE J131 83MAR, Motorcycle Turn Signal Lamp - SAE Standard.

2) Location of two (2) Multiple Lamp Arrangement including one (1) Multiple Compartment Lamp and minimum design candlepower requirements of Stop/Tail Lamp (rear combination lamp) .

1-. By Table III in FMVSS 108, it specifies as applicable Standards to follow SAE J585e September 1977 for Tail Lamp and SAE J586c August 1970 for Stop Lamp. Would an arrangement on the next page be allowed to use when minimum design candlepower requirements complies with 3 lighted section in the above SAE Standards and the effective projected luminous Stop lens area of each compartment or lamp meets at least 3 1/2 sq. inches?

"INSERT GRAPHICS"

3) Four (4) or more Multiple Compartment Lamp of Tail/Stop Lamp (rear combination lamp).

1-. Would the following lamp as long as minimum design candlepower requirements complies with 3 lighted section in the SAE Standards in the (2) on the page 1 and each effective projected luminous stop lens area of each compartment or lamp meets at least 3 1/2 sq. inches be allowed to use?

"INSERT GRAPHICS"

We would appreciate it very much having your reply as early as possible.

Sincerely,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

KW/es

ID: aiam4475

Dear Mr. Kadoya: This is in reply to your letters of July 14, l988 with respect to an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and a request for confidential treatment of it. We understand that you orally withdrew this request during a telephone conversation with this Office on August 23, l988. You have asked whether Standard No. 108 permits the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors, or the use of such lamps as fog and/or cornering lamps. Although Standard No. 108 defines a replaceable bulb headlamp as one with a bonded lens-reflector assembly, this definition does not preclude a design with an adjustable reflector, as the bond may be applied to a portion of the reflector assembly that is not adjustable. However, a headlamp with an adjustable reflector must be designed to conform with all applicable photometric requirements with the reflector in all positions in which it may be adjusted. As for its use as a fog or cornering lamp, you are correct that it is acceptable provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Whether the device impairs the effectiveness is determined by the vehicle manufacturer before it certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The decision, however, may be questioned by this agency if it appears erroneous. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3752

Dear Mr. Marcus: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release* (49 CFR S 571.217). You stated that your company's transit bus models use eight large windows as large as emergency exits to satisfy the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217, and that the entrance and exit doors are not classified as emergency doors. Accordingly, you stated that the entrance and exit doors do not 'have to be tested for Standard No. 217 requirements.' This is not wholly correct.; Standard No. 217 sets forth two basic requirements. These are (1 window retention requirements, which must be met by *all* windows in a new bus, except for the windshield, and (2) requirements applicable to emergency exits. As I pointed out in a letter to Mr. Moss, of your staff, the window retention requirements apply to all front door glazing which exceeds 8 inches in diameter, and this agency does test such glazing for compliance with the standard. Hence, while you may be correct in asserting that a door not designated as an emergency door would not be tested for compliance with the emergency exit requirements, you are incorrect if you are asserting that the glazing on such a door would not be tested for compliance with the window retention requirements.; Your letter went on to state that, although your entrance and exi doors are not classified as emergency exits, most local transit authorities have requested you to add a decal instructing people how to open the doors in case of an emergency. You then stated your opinion that the addition of these decals would not change the status of the doors to emergency exits, so the doors would not be required to meet the Standard No. 217 push force requirements applicable to emergency doors. This conclusion is incorrect.; Standard No. 217 specifies minimum criteria for emergency exits whic must be met by all new buses, and your letter states that your transit bus models do not need to count the entrance and exit doors on the buses to satisfy these criteria. Thus, absent other factors, those doors would not be required to comply with the portions of the standard applicable to emergency doors. However, affixing a decal, such as the one enclosed with your letter, in the area of those doors is labeling the door as an emergency exit. It is reasonable for riders of the bus to assume that a door which is labeled by the manufacturer with instructions in case of an emergency and which is intended by the local transit authority to be used as an exit in case of an emergency is in fact a door which can be used as an emergency exit. Given the likelihood of the use of the door as an emergency exit when it is so labeled, it is important that the door comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, and this agency has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in case of an emergency.; For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a letter reaching thi same conclusion which was sent to another manufacturer. Contrary to the understanding expressed in your letter, this agency has never sent a letter to a manufacturer stating that doors labeled with emergency instructions were not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 217 applicable to emergency doors.; Should you need any further information or have further questions o this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0126

Dear Mr. Tydings: Thank you for your letter of November 19, 1968, to Mr. E. Leysath o this Bureau, concerning a clarification of the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; As you indicated, paragraph S3.4.3 of initial Standard No. 108, whic was published in the *Federal Register* on February 3, 1967, required that tail lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated. The effective date of the initial standard was January 1, 1968. However, on December 16, 1967, an amendment to the initial standard was published in the *Federal Register*. This amendment delayed the effective date of paragraph S3.4.3 until May 1, 1968, and in addition revised that paragraph to require, as a minimum, that the fail (sic) lamps be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated. Therefore, the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 were not applicable to vehicles manufactured during the period of January 1, 1968 through April 30, 1968. During that period, selection of the lamp switching arrangement was at the option of the vehicle manufacturer.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam0895

Dear Mr. Kearney: This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1972, asking, amon other things, whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts the recent California law requiring motorcycles made on or after January 1, 1975, to be wired so that their headlamps are lit whenever the engines are running. In light of the answer to this question, it is not necessary to deal with the other ones.; It is the opinion of this agency that the California law in question i preempted in accordance with section 103(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and is therefore void. Standard No. 108, 49 CFR S 571.108, establishes requirements for motorcycle headlighting, along with special wiring requirements for motorcycles and other vehicles. It is our position, therefore, that the California requirement is within the scope of the aspects of performance covered by Standard No. 108. Since it is not identical to a Federal requirement, it is rendered void by operation of the Act.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator

ID: aiam2006

Dear Mr. Long: This is to confirm your telephone conversation of July 31, 1975, wit Mark Schwimmer concerning the treadwear test procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* (UTQGS).; You had previously pointed out that the A78-13 and other tires ar available neither as original equipment nor as recommended replacement options on any 1975 model passenger cars, although they are available as replacement options for the 1974 Ford Pinto. You had asked whether it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to conduct treadwear testing for such tires on a 1975 Pinto, in light of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) statement that; >>>tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which the are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. (40 FR 23076, May 28, 1975)<<<; As Mr. Schwimmer explained to you, the UTQGS rules does not dictate th method by which a tire manufacturer must conduct his testing to assign grades. It merely specifies the procedures which the NHTSA will follow when testing tires for compliance with the rule. While the surest way for the tire manufacturer to be confident of compliance would be to follow these procedures in every detail, he is not legally obligated to do so. His obligation is simply to ensure that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the specified procedures, his tires are capable of achieving the grades which he has assigned to them. He may fulfill this obligation by whatever means he believes reliable and necessary. Thus, for example, he might choose a 1975 Pinto to test an A78-13 tire, if he is confident that the model year change in the Pinto will have no effect on the tire's treadwear performance. This decision is his, however. The NHTSA, in its compliance testing, would test such a tire on a 1974 Pinto or on some other passenger car for which it is original equipment or a recommended replacement option.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel