NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam2521OpenMr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Engineering, 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, CO 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Engineering 5990 N. Washington Street Denver CO 80216; Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTS regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, *Certification* and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; As you are aware, Part 567 of our regulations requires a statement b the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufactures (S 567.4(g)(4)). The term 'GAWR' is defined in S 571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire- ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.; Standard No. 120 specifies that 'each vehicle . . . shall be equippe with tires that meet specified requirements ' (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for the delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.; In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery o vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.; With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty ne trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires that (sic) necessary to conform to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and S 567.4(g)(4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1377OpenMr. Richard Wright West, West & Wilkinson, P.O. Box 257, 2815 Huntington Avenue, Newport News, VA 23607; Mr. Richard Wright West West & Wilkinson P.O. Box 257 2815 Huntington Avenue Newport News VA 23607; Dear Mr. West: This is in response to your letter of January 2, 1974 requestin information concerning the legal permissibility of an automobile dealership furnishing private passenger motor vehicles with add-on gasoline tanks of modifying existing gasoline tanks.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity* establishes minimum performance requirements for motor vehicle fuel systems. Compliance with the level of performance mandated by the standard is enforced by Section 108 (a)(1) of the National Traffic Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet the requirements of applicable safety standards. Therefore, if your client modified a motor vehicle fuel tank in such a manner that it no longer complied with Standard No. 301 and then offered it for initial sale for purposes other than resale he would be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and would be subject to civil penalties of not more than $1,000 for each such violation. If, however, your client performed a fuel tank modification on a vehicle that was already owned by and in the possession of a buyer who purchased the vehicle for purposes other than resale, no violation of the Act could result. The installation of an add-on fuel tank would be considered a modification. Therefore, the fuel system would have to comply with Standard No. 301 with the add-on fuel tank considered as part of the system.; There are no Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to add-o gasoline tanks since these are items of motor vehicle equipment and Standard No. 301 restricts its application to motor vehicles. Section 113(e)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If the Secretary finds that a safety-related defect exists, your client may be compelled to notify all purchasers of vehicles with the add-on fuel tanks of the attendant hazard.; The action of installing add-on gasoline tanks in motor vehicle exposes your client to the requirements of yet another safety regulation (49 CFR 567.7). If the vehicle in which he installs the fuel tank is a certified and complete vehicle that has not yet been purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale, your client will be considered an alterer of the vehicle, and he must provide a certification that the vehicle as altered still conforms to the standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0471OpenMr. Charles O. Verrill, Jr., Patton, Blow, Verrill, Brand & Boggs, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Charles O. Verrill Jr. Patton Blow Verrill Brand & Boggs 1200 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Verrill: This is in reply to your letter of October 12, 1971, in which you mad several requests with respect to the Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR Part 574) and Certification (49 CFR Part 567) regulations.; >>>1. You suggested that the Tire Identification and Record Keepin regulation be amended to provide that where tires are not shipped on or in a vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer's record keeping obligation be limited to three years from the date of sale. We will take this request into consideration, and let you know when a decision is made. It appears that since the minimum time would apply to all vehicle manufacturers, such a requirement should appear in a regulation other than Part 574.; 2. You requested the deletion of the requirement that information o the certification label be placed 'in the order shown.' We have previously denied petitions relating to the order of information on the label (36 F.R. 19593), and this request is also denied. The requirement that the label information be placed in a definite order has been in effect for over two years, and has been found to enhance the readability and hence the usefulness of the label. Now that further numerical information is to be required on the label, we consider that it will be even more important that this requirement be maintained.; 3. You requested 'an interpretation that a multi-column label or label in two parts each with an information column, will meet the requirements of [Part] 567,' because of the space limitations on some trailers. As long as the information appears in the order specified in the regulation, the NHTSA has no objection to a multi-column label or a label in two parts.; 4. Finally, you requested that a trailer manufacturer be allowed to us up his existing supply of labels, by affixing a supplementary label with the additional required information. As stated above, we have decided to adhere to the requirement that the information on the label be in the order specified, although it may be in more than one column or part. To the extent that the action requested would allow a manufacturer not to conform to that requirement, the request is denied. Although the deviation might appear small, it would seriously detract from the integrity and enforceability of the regulation to allow incidental nonconformity without amending the requirement. The other vehicle manufacturers have undoubtedly already incurred costs similar to those cited by your client, and it would be distinctly unfair not to enforce the regulation evenhandedly as to all parties.<<<; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator |
|
ID: aiam1515OpenMr. Ronald C. Dobbyn, Program Manager, Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234; Mr. Ronald C. Dobbyn Program Manager Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards Washington D.C. 20234; Dear Mr. Dobbyn: Your May 1, 1974, letter to Mr. Clyde Roquemore has been forwarded t me for reply. You ask for our comments on a draft standard on crash helmets developed by the National Bureau of Standards' Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, which was enclosed in your letter. You point out that this draft standard 'is intended for voluntary use by state and local law enforcement agencies in their equipment selection and procurement process.'; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Governmnent or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Pursuant to his statutory authority under the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, 49 CFR Part 571.218, on August 9, 1973. Since Standard No.218 establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets manufactured for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users, any differing State or municipal requirements in the form of laws or regulation applicable to the design or performance of motorcycle helmets which have a bearing on safety would be void in accordance with the preemption provision of the Act cited above.; On the other hand, if a law enforcement agency (or any other person wishes to establish higher requirements for its own procurement purposes, for helmets that nevertheless conform to Federal standards, nothing in the law would prohibit that.; I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vecle Safet Act of 1966 and copies of each of the four notices issued by the NHTSA on motorcycle helmets. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1516OpenMr. Ronald C. Dobbyn, Program Manager, Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 20234; Mr. Ronald C. Dobbyn Program Manager Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards Washington D.C. 20234; Dear Mr. Dobbyn: Your May 1, 1974, letter to Mr. Clyde Roquemore has been forwarded t me for reply. You ask for our comments on a draft standard on crash helmets developed by the National Bureau of Standards' Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, which was enclosed in your letter. You point out that this draft standard 'is intended for voluntary use by state and local law enforcement agencies in their equipment selection and procurement process.'; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Governmnent or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Pursuant to his statutory authority under the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, 49 CFR Part 571.218, on August 9, 1973. Since Standard No.218 establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets manufactured for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users, any differing State or municipal requirements in the form of laws or regulation applicable to the design or performance of motorcycle helmets which have a bearing on safety would be void in accordance with the preemption provision of the Act cited above.; On the other hand, if a law enforcement agency (or any other person wishes to establish higher requirements for its own procurement purposes, for helmets that nevertheless conform to Federal standards, nothing in the law would prohibit that.; I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vecle Safet Act of 1966 and copies of each of the four notices issued by the NHTSA on motorcycle helmets. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2817OpenMr. R. O. Sornson, Manager, Environmental Relations, Office of Public Responsibility and Consumer Affiars (sic), Chrysler Corporation, P.O. Box 1919, Detroit, MI 48231; Mr. R. O. Sornson Manager Environmental Relations Office of Public Responsibility and Consumer Affiars (sic) Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit MI 48231; Dear Mr. Sornson: This is in reply to your letter of May 4, 1978, to Howard Dugof requesting confirmation of two interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have cited our letter of December 29, 1976, to your Mr. Weil as support for your views.; With respect to your first concern, you have stated your understandin that in a multiple compartment taillamp the manufacturer has the option of using one or more compartments to meet the minimum photometric requirements specified for taillamps, but when the intensity ratio of the turn signal lamp to the taillamp is computed, the ratio must be determined with all taillamp compartments lighted.; As we interpret Standard No. 108's requirements for taillamps (SA Standard J585d, *Tail Lamps (Rear Position Light)*, August 1970), a single compartment lamp may be used as a taillamp, but if a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements, S3.1 of J585d requires that the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding numbers of lighted sections (Table 1, J585d) in those instances where the distances between filament centers do not exceed 22 inches for two- compartment or lamp arrangements, and 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements. If these distances are exceeded, each compartment or lamp must comply with the photometric requirements for one lighted section. Therefore your interpretation is incorrect that a manufacturer may use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp when considering compliance with the photometric requirement for taillamps.; Your second concern is the requirement for multiple lamps in excess o three. You have noted that Table 1 of SAE J585 makes no provision for candlepower requirements where there are more than three lighted sections. Noting that the maximum candlepower permissible rises in increments of 5 per section (15 for one section, 20 for two sections, 25 for three sections) you have asked for confirmation of your opinion that 'it appears logical that the allowable candle-power for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower.'; Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements for compartments o lamps in excess of three. If you wish to use a four compartment or lamp system you are legally free to distribute the candlepower as you deem appropriate. Accordingly we have no objection to your belief that 30 candlepower is allowable provided that the multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamp arrangement meets all other requirements of J585d.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1379OpenMr. Richard Wright West, West & Wilkinson, P.O. Box 257, 2815 Huntington Avenue, Newport News, VA 23607; Mr. Richard Wright West West & Wilkinson P.O. Box 257 2815 Huntington Avenue Newport News VA 23607; Dear Mr. West: This is in response to your letter of January 2, 1974 requestin information concerning the legal permissibility of an automobile dealership furnishing private passenger motor vehicles with add-on gasoline tanks or modifying existing gasoline tanks.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity* establishes minimum performance requirements for motor vehicle fuel systems. Compliance with the level of performance mandated by the standard is enforced by Section 108(a)(1) of the National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of vehicles or mtor vehicle equipment that do not meet the requirements of applicable safety standards. Therefore, if your client modified a motor vehicle fuel tank in such a manner that it no longer complied with Standard No. 301 and then offered it for initial sale for purposes other than resale he would be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and would be subject to civil penalties of not more than $1,000 for each such violation. If, however, your client performed a fuel tank modification on a vehicle that was already owned by and in the possession of a buyer who purchased the vehicle for purposes other than resale, no violation of the Act could result. the installation of an add-on fuel tank would be considered a modification. Therefore, the fuel system would have to comply with Standard No. 301 with the add-on fuel tank considered as part of the system.; There are no Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to add-o gasoline tanks since these are items of motor vehicle equipment and standard No. 301 restricts its application to motor vehicles. Section 113(e)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If the Secretary finds that a safety-related defect exists, your client may be compelled to notify all purchasers of vehicles with the add-on fuel tanks of the attendant hazard.; The action of installing add-on gasoline tanks in motor vehicle exposes your client to the requirements of yet another safety regulation (49 CFR 567.7). If the vehicle in which he installs the fuel thank is a certified and complete vehicle that has not yet been purchased ingood faith for purposes other than resale, your client will be considered an alterer of the vehicle, and he must provide a certification that the vehicle as altered still conforms to the standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2518OpenMr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Engineering, 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, Colorado 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Engineering 5990 N. Washington Street Denver Colorado 80216; Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTS regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, *Certification* and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; As you are aware, Part 567 of our regulations requires a statement b the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufacturers (S567.4(g) (4)). The term 'GAWR' is defined in S571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire-ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.; Standard No. 120 specifies that 'each vehicle...shall be equipped wit tires that meet [specified requirements]' (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.; In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery o vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirements that the tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such a avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.; With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty ne trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires than necessary to confirm to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and S567.4(g) (4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2283OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P. O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P. O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 29 and 31, 1976, an April 14, 1976, requests for confirmation of several interpretations you have made regarding the new safety standards for school buses and the definition of 'school bus' as they become effective in October 1976.; Your interpretation is correct that 'bus passenger compartment' as use in S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, means that portion of the bus that is rearward of the forwardmost point on the windshield.; You request confirmation that the requirement in S5.7(a) of Standar No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, to open emergency exits during the application of force to the bus roof are inappropriate and therefore not applicable in the case of roof exits. Your interpretation is correct, and the NHTSA intends to modify the language of Standard No. 220 appropriately.; You request confirmation that the knee impact requirement of S5.3.2. of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, does not apply to the rear row of seating in a school bus because there is no passenger seating behind this row. Your interpretation is correct. I would like to point out that the seat back of the rear row of seating also is not subject to the requirements of S5.3.1.1 for the same reason. Your are also correct that 'school bus passenger seat' as defined in S4 does not include a wheelchair that is placed in a school bus to transport non- ambulatory bus passengers. Our response on other issues concerning special arrangements for handicapped passengers will be forthcoming as a response to the outstanding Sheller-Globe petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 222.; In your March 31, 1976, letter you asked whether a bus that is sold fo purposes that include carrying kindergarten and nursery school children to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus under the redefinition of 'school bus' that becomes effective October 27, 1976 (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The answer to your question is yes, because the statutory definition underlying the NHTSA definition of school bus specifically lists preprimary students as passengers of school buses. See 15 U.S.C. S 1391(14).; In your April 14, 1976, letter you ask whether the requirement o S5.3.1.3 of Standard No. 222 for a minimum 'contact area' on a described spherical head form refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the spherical head form, or the area of contact on the head form as seen in projected view. The 'contact area' refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the head form.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3191OpenMr. John B. White, Engineering Manager, Technical Information Department, Michelin Tire Corporation, One Marcus Avenue, Lake Success, New York 11042; Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Department Michelin Tire Corporation One Marcus Avenue Lake Success New York 11042; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your November 16, 1979, letter in which you requeste an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically, you asked if it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to label its tires with information about other tire sizes which the labeled tire could be used to replace. For example, you stated that Michelin would like to label its tires with the alphanumeric tire size which its P-metric tire sizes could replace and that Michelin would like to label its 230-15 tires as replacements for the 225-15 tires. Such labeling is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 109.; Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall b labeled with '*one* size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used.' With respect to the alphanumeric sizes and the P-metric replacements and the 225-15 and 230-15 sizes, the suggested replacements sizes have different section widths and minimum size factors than the sizes they would be replacing. In other words, they are not equivalent size designations, and S4.3(a) prohibits the tire from containing more than one size designation in these circumstances.; Labeling of the sort you have requested has been commonly referred t as 'dual-size markings.' Dual-size markings are a representation that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of two separate tire size designations. In fact, such tires do not satisfy the physical dimension criteria in Standard No. 109 for both size designations. As a consequence, labeling of this type was specifically prohibited when the labeling requirements o Standard No. 109 were amended at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been repeated in subsequent notices which addressed the question of tire labeling under the Standard, *see* 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974 and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.; I should note that prohibition of dual-size markings does not mean tha NHTSA believes that the replacement tires would perform inadequately if installed on the rims. However, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to attempt to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The manufacturer must provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, technical information necessary for the safety of the consumer's automobile. This should be the only purpose of the label.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.