ID: nht95-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 13, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott E. Peters -- Director, Regulations & Compliance, U.S. Electricar

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/21/94 LETTER FROM SCOTT E. PETERS TO PHIL RECHT

TEXT: This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan.

You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of inte rnal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that "the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to pro longed operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher." Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars "in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration." You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, ma nufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limi ts:

S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire.

S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire.

The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall.

With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars.

Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation.

As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Stand ard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiti ng the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam0253

Dear Mr. Finkel: The Office of Trade Regulation Rules of the Federal Trade Commissio has forwarded your letter of July 30, 1970, concerning tires marked 'Radial' that have casing cord angles that vary as much as 15 degrees from 90 degrees.; Paragraph S3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 -- New Pneumati Tires, Passenger Cars -- defines a radial ply tire as a 'pneumatic tire in which the ply cords which extend to the beads are laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread'.; The Bureau does not consider cords laid a 75 degrees to the centerlin of the trend as 'Radial' tires and tires marked as much(sic) would not be incompliance with the tire standard.; Persons importing tires that do not comply with the standard would b violating section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1397).; For your information enclosed is a copy of the Passenger Car Tir Standard and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3131

Dear Mr. Maugh: Re: Distribution of Imported Vehicles Brought Into Conformity Wit Applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; This is in reply to Mr. Eckhold's letter of September 28, 1979, to Mr Vinson of this office asking for our concurrence in Ford's wish to sell 60 1978 model Ford Fiestas on the American market.; According to Mr. Eckhold's letter, 56 of the cars did not comply wit the Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time they entered the United States for use by Ford in testing and training programs. Ford represents that all these have now been brought into compliance. The four remaining Fiestas conformed at the time of entry but, presumably, because of the execution of the HS-7 importation form, were not certified.; We concur with Ford's opinion that all conforming vehicles may now b sold in the United States. However, since such sales are to first purchasers for purposes other than resale, a certification label must be attached to each that meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2678

Dear Mr. Reider: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1977, to Don Williamso of our Ohio regional office.; You enclosed information on an automatic warning flasher lamp that i designed for installation on the parcel shelf inside the rear window of automobiles. You asked whether such a device would be legal on U.S. cars or U.S. highways, and 'what steps might be required to obtain an endorsement for the generic device from the N.H.T.S.A.'; The unit appears to be designed for sale as a motor vehicle accessor in the aftermarket. There are no Federal prohibitions against the sale of the warning device or its installation in motor vehicles. Whether it is legal to use such a device however is a question to be answered under the laws of the jurisdiction where the motor vehicle in which it is installed is registered and/or operated.; The NHTSA does not issue approvals or endorsements of propriety safet devices.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Deputy Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2346

Dear Mr. Sikes:#This is in response to your May 10, 1976, communicatio enclosing a letter from Mr. John C. Richardson concerning the importation of passenger cars with 'metric instrumentation.' Your communication was forwarded to this agency by the National Bureau of Standards for reply.#Mr. Richardson has encountered difficulty in importing a 1976 model 911 Porsche with metric instrumentation. He has received a letter from Volkswagen of America, Inc., suggesting that 'such instrumentation would be illegal and not certified with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies.' While the precise meaning of 'metric instrumentation' is not clear from either letter, I assume that Mr. Richardson is referring to the marking of the speedometer (in kilometers per hour) and the calibration of the odometer (in kilometers traveled).#The Federal motor vehicle safety standards administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not presently require any particular form of marking for speedometers or odometers. While we are considering the establishment of a requirement that English units be used, such a rule would permit metric units as an optional addition. Furthermore, such a rule would only be applied prospectively.#Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1402

Dear Mr. Welebir: Thank you for your letter of December 28, 1973, File No. 1041 requesting information on the Federal installation requirements for safety belts in a 1971 Toyota Land Cruiser.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection* (formerly titled 'Seat belt installation'), required safety belts in all designated seating positions of all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. Similar requirements were instituted for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured after July 1, 1971. The Toyota Land Cruiser is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. If it were manufactured before July 1, 1971, no installation requirement would have applied. It should be noted that seat belts were not factory-installed in some Land Cruisers, and we know of one Arizona dealer who failed to install seatbelts in a Land Cruiser built after that date.; In answer to your second question, the Land Cruiser did not have an exemption under 15 U.S.C. S1410 or any other section of the Act.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel.

ID: aiam3320

Dear Mr. Haenchen: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1980 asking for information of your interpretation of Section 4.31 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This section states that lamps 'shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle...that is not designed to be removed except for repair.' It is your belief that this section would allow a configuration in which back-up lamps and license lamps could be mounted on the deck lid. We concur with this interpretation. The requirement for rigidity is meant to ensure that lamps and reflectors do not sway in the wind on hinges or flexible mud flaps when the vehicle is in motion. The passenger cars you propose to manufacture will normally be operated with the deck lid closed and the lamps in full view on a rigid part of the vehicle as the standard requires. However, placement of a stop lamp and taillamp on a deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance, and hence a safety related defect requiring notification and remedy. Sincerely Frank Berndt Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3204

Dear Mr. Hagie: This is in response to your letter of January 24, 1980, to Mr. Schwart of my office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.; I understand from your letter that Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, intend to comply with S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 115 by placing the vehicle identification number (VIN) on the certification label of the motorcycles it manufacturers. Since the standard specifies the precise placement of the VIN only for passenger cars and trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.4), placing the VIN on the certification label of motorcycles is authorized.; You also wish to know whether Standard No. 115 precludes Kawasak stamping a model designation and production sequence into the frame near the certification label. As long as the number which you stamp into the frame cannot be mistaken for the VIN because of its length or other factors, this would not be prohibited.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3130

Dear Mr. Maugh: Re: Distribution of Imported Vehicles Brought Into Conformity Wit Applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; This is in reply to Mr. Eckhold's letter of September 28, 1979, to Mr Vinson of this office asking for our concurrence in Ford's wish to sell 60 1978 model Ford Fiestas on the American market.; According to Mr. Eckhold's letter, 56 of the cars did not comply wit the Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time they entered the United States for use by Ford in testing and training programs. Ford represents that all these have now been brought into compliance. The four remaining Fiestas conformed at the time of entry but, presumably, because of the execution of the HS-7 importation form, were not certified.; We concur with Ford's opinion that all conforming vehicles may now b sold in the United States. However, since such sales are to first purchasers for purposes other than resale, a certification label must be attached to each that meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2578

Dear Mr. Fleischman: This is in response to your letter of March 15, 1977, concernin Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard no. 114, *Theft Protection*, as it relates to a device you wish to market called 'Remote Auto-Start.'; Standard No. 114, *Theft Protection*, which applies to passenger cars requires that when the key is removed, normal activation of the car's engine and either steering or forward self-mobility of the car is prevented (49 CFR 571.114, S4.1(a) and (b)). According to the material which you forwarded, your device results in the following characteristics which differ from what we consider to be normal activation:; >>>1. The engine deactivates when a door is opened. 2. The steering column and gear shift remains locked until the actua key is inserted.; 3. The logic circuitry deactivates the engine after 15 minutes.<<< Consequently, we have determined that your device does not result in 'normal' activation of the car's engine.; Thus, it appears that the characteristics of the 'Remote Auto-Start system are not in conflict with Standard No. 114.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel