ID: nht79-4.10

DATE: 03/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 1, 1979, letter asking whether any law or regulation prohibits the remanufacture of a school bus with an old chassis and a new body when the completed vehicle does not comply with the new safety standards.

As you are aware, the agency has stated many times that such a remanufactured vehicle need only comply with the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis as long as the remanufacturing process conforms to the guidelines established in Part 571.7(e) of our regulations. The agency does not view the remanufacturing problem as significant, because a vehicle's chassis normally wears out before its body. The recycling of noncomplying buses will cease when the supply of used chassis manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, disappears.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 1, 1979

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

The intent of Public Law 93-492, Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, and the subsequent regulations resulting from that law was to upgrade the safety of the national school bus fleet.

We have recently become aware of an industry which seems to be designed to circumvent the intent of public law 93-492. The industry (see enclosure) is involved in the restoration and remanufacture of complete school buses including body and chassis.

We are aware of the agency's recent interpretation regarding the manufacture of bodies stating that the bodies must meet the safety standards that were in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis.

However, we feel that this new industry could indefinitely recycle old buses into the fleet which do not meet the congressionally mandated safety standards for school buses.

In our opinion, we feel that this is a flagrant violation of the intent of the law. Therefore, we would like to ask you if there are any regulations or laws which would prohibit this practice.

Thank you for your early reply.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

School Bus Restoration Co.

511 SO. LINCOLN STREET ELKHORN. WISCONSIN 53121 (414) 723-4309

PRICE LIST

EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1978

School Bus Standard Type Forward Engine Cowl Mounted Specification 105

All body types, all lengths up thru 66 pass - Chevrolet Chassis $ 8950 *

All body types, all lengths up thru 66 pass - Ford Chassis $ 9250 *

All body types, all lengths up thru 66 pass - International Chassis $ 9250 *

All body types, all lengths up thru 66 pass - Dodge Chassis $ 8950 *

All body types, all lengths up thru 66 pass - G.M.C. Chassis $ 8950 *

Busses equipped with power steering additional 32500 *

* All Prices Plus Factory Rebult. Or New Engines. (Your Option)

Busses equipped with automatic transmission. Special Quote

School Bus Body Only

All body types, all lengths 48 thru 66 pass - Any Chassis 580000

Add-On eight light warning system 400

Please Add 20000 for each additional row of seats - Bus size over 66 pass. Restoration of internally mounted front engine and rear engine busses - will be on Special Quotation.

Any bus bearing unusual wear or damage will be on Special Quotation. All work performed is Guaranteed for 6 months or 6,000 miles. Guarantees on tires and batteries will be limited to mfg. Guarantee.

Engines are Guaranteed by the engine manufacturer in accordance with their individual policy and not by SCHOOL BUS RESTORATION. Or it's contract manufacturers.

All prices are subject to change without notice.

ID: nht79-4.11

DATE: 09/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the proper "designated seating capacity" for the "Dodge D-50" and "Plymouth Arrow" pick-up trucks. The trucks with which you are concerned have bench seats with 53.5 inches of hip room, with a contoured indentation at the center position for the gear shift lever. You believe that only two positions should be designed for this type bench seat.

As stated in the preamble to the recent notice amending the definition of "designated seating position", and noted in your letter, the presence of a floor gear-shift lever would not normally be sufficient to discourage or make use of a center position on a large bench seat impossible, even if the bench seat has a slightly indented contour for the shift lever (44 FR 23232, April 19, 1979). The notice did state that there could conceivably be a vehicle design in which the gear-shift lever would constitute an impediment to sitting. For example, if the lever extended to within a few inches of the seat back, the center position could not easily be used. This does not appear to be the case with the "Dodge D-50" or "Plymouth Arrow", however.

Since the bench seats in the subject vehicles have 53.5 inches of hip room, well over the 50-inch caveat in the amended definition, it is the agency's opinion that there should be three designated seating positions. The photographs enclosed in your letter show that three test dummies can be placed on the bench seat, even though somewhat crowded. Moreover, these photographs show two 95th-percentile male dummies and one 5th-percentile female dummy. If two (or three) 5th-percentile female dummies had been used in your demonstration, instead, you would have illustrated that there is more than ample room for three passengers to sit comfortably on a 53.5-inch bench seat. Also, human beings obviously have more flexibility than the stiff test dummies used in your demonstration. We believe that if you use human subjects in this same experiment (a 95th-percentile male driver and two 5th-percentile female passengers, for example), you will see that three persons can easily and comfortably occupy these bench seats.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

SINCERELY,

MMC SERVICES INC. July 12, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for Interpretation of "Designated Seating Position" on small pickup truck

Dear Sir:

MMC Services Inc., on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors corporation, would like to have your official interpretation as to "Designated Seating Position" on the small pickup truck, which Mitsubishi Motors corporation has been manufacturing and which has been sold with the name of "Dodge D-50" and "Plymouth Arrow" in U.S.A. marketed by Chrysler corporation. Each one is a derivative from a basic small pickup truck and the dimentions of both trucks are absolutely same.

The bench seat in the pickup truck was originally designed for two persons by the manufacturer and the pickup truck is equipped with a floor gear-shift lever just in front of the seat which has a indented contour for the shift lever.

In the Federal Register/Vol. 44, No. 77/ Thursday, April 19, 1979 "Designated Seating Position" which is applicable from September 1, 1980 is defined as:

"----. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating."

And there is a description in the same Federal Register as:

"--- the presence of a floor gear-shift lever would not normally be sufficient to discourage or make use of a center position or a bench seat impossible, even if the bench seat has a slightly indented contour for the shift lever."

According to the two descriptions relating the standard quoted above, the bench seat therefore seems to be for three persons.

However the bench seat on the D50 and Arrow pickup trucks is very uncomfortable with three people. This is evident when considering the position of the floor gear-shift lever. This gear-shift lever provide an impediment to the third person seated in the middle of the bench seat.

NHTSA interpretation is therefore requested as to whether or not the bench seat should not be designated for two persons.

As the data for your interpretation, we attach illustration (Fig. 1), pictures (Fig. 2 (A), (B), (C), (D) ) and sales catalogues for the pickup trucks.

We would appreciate your interpretation of this matter at your earliest convenience.

T. SHIMADA for T. Ohinouye President

cc: GUY HUNTER--OFC. OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, NHTSA Enclosures omitted

ID: nht79-4.12

DATE: 06/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Macdonald Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 2, 1979, letter asking whether it is permissible to mount a snow plow on a vehicle when the weight of the snow plow will cause the vehicle to exceed its gross axle weight rating (GAWR). The answer to your question is no.

The GAWR of a vehicle is determined and established by a vehicle's manufacturer and represents a manufacturer's assessment of the maximum weight that each axle can safely sustain. When this weight rating is exceeded by the addition of equipment to a vehicle, the safety of a vehicle is jeopardized. Over a period of time, the excessive weight borne by the axle could result in unusual wear and eventual failure of the axle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires manufacturers to label their vehicles with GAWR's to avoid the overload problem that you mention in your letter. The NHTSA has not granted exceptions from this requirement for snow plows. If you mount a snow plow on a new vehicle prior to first purchase, you must be sure that the vehicle continues to comply with all Federal safety standards and regulations. If the weight of the plow exceeds the GAWR of the vehicle, the vehicle would no longer comply with the certification regulation and would not comply with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Further, the compliance of other safety standards could be impacted by the addition of that weight.

In the case of used vehicles on which you mount a snow plow, a manufacturer, repair business, distributor, or dealer may not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with the safety standards. The attachment of a snow plow that exceeds the gross axle weight rating would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 120. Accordingly, whether a vehicle is new or used, the additional weight of a snow plow that would exceed the GAWR of a vehicle would not be permissible.

The NHTSA understands the budgetary constraints of municipalities. However, financial considerations must be balanced against the potential loss of life that can occur when vehicles are routinely overloaded. Accordingly, vehicles that have snow plows or other devices mounted on them should have sufficient GAWR's to carry their intended load.

Sincerely,

Macdonald Equipment Company

January 2, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We have talked with your people here in Denver as well as with Mr. Elliot in Washington concerning the mounting of snow plows on trucks and they recommended that we contact your office for an opinion.

We are a disbributor for both a snow plow manufacturer and for a snow plow truck manufacturer and in the course of business we have noticed a trend develop, which we feel needs some clarification. In recent years cities, counties and states agencies responsible for snow removal seem to be purchasing trucks with smaller front axle capacity ratings. This is the result of increased prices on trucks in recent years and the need of these agencies to stay within their budgets.

The result of this trend is that the front axle capacities of these smaller trucks will not allow us to mount a hitch and snow plow on the truck without overloading the front axle or severly limiting the Dump Body capacity to avoid overloading the front axle, which limits the units role in spreading sand on the icy roads.

We would like to know if the weight of the snow plow and hitch must be included when determining the weight on the front axle or if ther is some type of exemption for snow plows. Since snow removal is a necessity in much of our country during the winters and the snow plows are generally on the trucks only in the event of storm it would seem that if there is not an exemption for the snow plows at present, it is an area that some type arrangement needs to be worked out. If the trend to the smaller type trucks with front axles rated at 12,000 pound or less capacity continues and we feel it will, it will be impossible to mount snow plows on most trucks used by these agencies.

Since we feel that we are getting into a situation where front axle load is becoming a question, we would very much appreciate any information or instructions you can give us in this matter. If we can supply you with any further material we would be most happy to do so. Thank you.

Macdonald Equipment Company A. M. Dahm, President

ID: nht79-4.13

DATE: 07/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Education; Ohio

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 15, 1979, letter asking about the use of standard production vans for the transportation of school children to or from school or related events. In particular, you ask whether a 15-passenger Dodge Maxi-Van can be used for school transportation.

Whether a new vehicle sold for use as a school vehicle must comply with the Federal school bus safety standards depends on whether the vehicle meets our definition of a bus. Our definition provides that a bus is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3). Thus, a vehicle that transport 10 or fewer persons may be sold as a school vehicle and need not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, a Dodge Maxi-Van capable of carrying 15 persons is a bus. If such a vehicle is sold new for use as a school vehicle, it must comply with those standards.

ID: nht79-4.14

DATE: 06/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 23, 1979, addressed to Ms. Eileen T. Leahy of my staff, in which you provide further information in support of your earlier request for this agency's opinion as to whether a 1980 4WD Hatchback Sedan to be imported by Subaru of America can be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV).

As I stated to you in my letter of May 31, 1979, the fact that a vehicle is equipped with four-wheel drive is not, in itself, sufficient to qualify the vehicle as an MPV, as that term is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3. Your second letter lists six other features of the 1980 hatchback sedan which you state are designed to permit occasional off-road use. The additional features you describe are: a ground clearance of 8.07 inches, or 1.57 inches higher than a similar 2WD vehicle; adjusting devices to permit an additional 0.78 inches of ground clearance front and rear; an engine under-cover to protect the engine from rocks and other debris; a clutch cover to prevent entry of dust and sand; bumper overriders to protect front and rear bumpers; and a tubular guard in front of the air dam for protection from rocks and other debris.

The ground clearance you describe exceeds that specified in the definition of automobiles "capable of off-highway operation" contained in the fuel economy regulations (49 CFR @ 523.5 (b)(2)(iv)). In addition, the other features you describe appear to be designed to protect various parts of the vehicle from damage from rocks, sand and other types of debris that are more likely to be encountered in off-road driving. Therefore, all of the items you mention can be considered "'special features for occasional off-road operation" when determining the proper classification of the vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Since the vehicle as you have described it in your letters has several features in addition to four-wheel drive that make it suitable for occasional off-road use, it is the agency's opinion that the 4WD Hatchback Sedan would qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

SINCERELY,

May 23, 1979

Eileen Leahy Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Re: 1980 4WD HB Sedan MPV

Dear Ms. Leahy: On April 23rd, our letter No. 056-79C requested your office's opinion regarding MPV classification of this carline. Based upon our recent telephone conversation, we provide the following list of special features, which in addition to four-wheel drive, will permit this vehicle to be operated for occasional off-road use.

1. The ground clearance is 8.07 inches which is 1.57 inches higher than a similar 2WD vehicle.

2. It is equipped with adjusting device(s) to further increase the ground clearance, both front and rear by an additional 0.78 inches.

3. An engine undercover is installed to protect the engine from rocks and other debris.

4. A special clutch cover is provided to prevent the invasion of dust and sand.

5. Bumper overriders are provided on front and rear bumpers to protect bumpers.

6. A tubular guard is placed in front of the air dam for protection from rocks and other debris.

Should you have any questions, please contact this office.

John Cordner Technical Assistant Product Compliance

ID: nht79-4.15

DATE: 03/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We regret the delay in responding to your April 18, 1978, letter criticizing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation concerning the responsibility of a manufacturer for ensuring that its vehicles will not be overloaded when transporting materials for which they are designed. In that interpretation, the agency indicated that a vehicle whose tank cargo volume is of such size that it misrepresents the assigned GVWR and GAWR values of that vehicle, thus, inviting overloading might be considered to have a safety related defect. Please permit me to qualify the interpretation in the light of your criticism.

The NHTSA realizes that overloading is a problem created for the most part by the operator of a vehicle. Accordingly, it is not intended by the agency's interpretation or regulations to hold a vehicle manufacturer responsible for every situation in which a vehicle is overloaded. Most any type truck can be overloaded by the user. An operator should be aware of this possibility, however, given the amount of space on that vehicle on which cargo can be loaded and the broad range of cargo that can be transported by that vehicle. If a truck designed for the transportation of one specific cargo were misused by the operator to transport another type of cargo not intended by the vehicle manufacturer, then any resultant overloading would be the responsibility of the operator not of the manufacturer. However, when a vehicle designed to transport a specific cargo can be overloaded when filled to its capacity with that cargo, the NHTSA has determined this to be a problem created by the vehicle manufacturer and would consider taking action against a manufacturer to correct the problem. This agency's interpretation that a vehicle be able to safely transport its intended design cargo when fully loaded is an objective and unambiguous requirement and simply places the burden upon a manufacturer to ensure that the design cargo does not exceed the GAWR and GVWR.

Specifically we are concerned that a tank of fixed volumetric capacity could be loaded to exceed the vehicle's GAWR and GVWR values when filled with a commodity of design density simply because of the tank being too large.

When there is reason to believe that the density of a cargo likely to be transported could present a vehicle overloading problem, the manufacturer has a duty to provide a warning and information as a precaution in averting the potential hazard. The NHTSA does not object to the practice of partial loading of tankers and tank compartments for remaining within safe loading limits provided guidelines are furnished by manufacturers for performing approved loading operations. Prescribed precautions hopefully will counteract any tendency to perceive volume as the load limiting criterion. We would agree that loading information as contained in your enclosure would be a satisfactory means of conveying safety information and could be referenced on a conspicuous vehicle label.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

April 18, 1978

Joseph J.-Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

This is a response to your letter of July 1, 1977, your file No. NOA-30, written to Mr. Jerry McNeil of American Trailers (ref. other correspondence on the same subject), regarding the act of a user's exceeding a vehicle's GVWR possibly being considered a safety defect.

We take strong exception to this interpretation for several reasons:

(1) Your interpretation assumes a user to be either not knowledgeable or dishonest by overloading a tank with a commodity with too high a density for the tanks total capacity. We must design with the premise that a user is knowledgeable and honest.

(2) Your interpretation excuses overloading of certain types of vehicles but not volumetric type. Whereas overloading is the responsibility of the user, any type vehicle can be intentionally or naively overloaded.

(3) Your interpretation, if strictly enforced, would eliminate the use of one vehicle for more than one density commodity at great expense to the consumer. However, all State and Federal weight laws are written using weight in pounds; there is no reference to density.

(4) Your interpretation is so general that it defies any definitive objective evaluation. It would be impossible to clearly define literally the thousands of load types or combinations of load types that are possible. Your interpretation would hold one party responsible for another party's violation of the law. We doubt that this would hold up in court.

Partial loading of tank vehicles has been a general practice of our industry for over 50 years.

It is done safely and for good reason.

The most common example of partially loaded tanks is the typical 9000 gallon aluminum gasoline tank with 5 compartments. The tank weighs approximately 10,000 pounds and the typical GVWR of a vehicle such as this would be 70,000 lbs. Full loading with gasoline at 6.1 lb./gallon would provide a gross vehicle weight of 64,900 pounds (54,900 lb. of product & 10,000 lb. of tank), well within the vehicle's GVWR.

Partial loading with home heating oil at 7.2 lbs/gallon is achieved by leaving the third tank compartment empty (see attached sketch), reducing the total volume capacity to 7625 gallons and maintaining a gross vehicle weight of 64,900 lbs. - again 54,900 lb. product, 10,000 lbs. of tank.

This double purpose tank is versatile, practical, safe and very common. We estimate the total fleet of 9000 gallons tank to be about 3000 units. There are also many more gasoline tank both larger and smaller than 9000 gallons.

If we understand you correctly, your interpretation is that if an operator loads home heating oil into all five compartments overloading the vehicle and exceeding the gross vehicle rate rating (GVWR), the manufacturer may be held liable for a safety defect and be subject to a recall campaign. If, however, an operator loads a flatbed or van trailer with automobile batteries and causes the same overload and subsequent safety problem, this would not be considered a safety defect. It is just as likely that a volumetric type vehicle body, such as a tank grain trailer or dump truck, etc., could be incorrectly loaded as it is for flatbed trailer.

For instance, a grain trailer is sized to handle a safe legal payload of the lighter grains and have the sides high enough to safely retain the product while in transit. If an operator heaps a load of the heaviest grains he will more than likely exceed not only the GVWR, but also the local state weight laws.

If your interpretation is enforced it would require that we manufacture vehicles for single purpose use which would cause a tremendous duplication of equipment and would be a waste of our natural resources and energy.

You can see that a manufacturer has no control over the loading practices used on his equipment after the vehicle leaves his premises.

We would appreciate very much reconsideration of your position and would welcome the opportunity to make more detailed presentations of our position if you have further questions.

Charles J. Calvin President

PETROLEUM TANK TRAILER

A typical 9000 gallon aluminum petroleum tank trailer conforms to MC 306 and is designed to carry gasoline and/or fuel oil.

(Graphics omitted) Weight Summary Tank weight 10,000 lb GVW Trailer 64,900 lb Payload 54,900 Tractor weight 15,100 GCW 80,000lb

Loading Schedule Compartments Gasoline Fuel Oil Fuel Oil at 6.1 lb/gal at 7.17 lb/gal at 7.17 lb/gal 1 2000 gal 2000 gal 2000 gal 2 1875 gal 1875 gal 1875 gal 3 1350 gal EMPTY 1350 gal 4 1875 gal 1875 gal 1875 gal 5 2000 gal 2000 gal 2000 gal Total payload volume 9000 gal 7625 gal 9000 gal Total payload & trailer 64,900 lb 64,900 lb 74,530 lb GVWR 70,000 lb 70,000 lb 70,000 lb

Improperly loaded trailer results in a loaded weight which exceeds the GVWR by 4530 lb.

ID: nht79-4.16

DATE: 05/09/79

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK BERNDT, NHTSA

TO: Management Consulting in Product Assurances

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 9, 1979, letter asking how the agency will apply the reporting requirements of Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, to equipment manufacturers.

As the agency indicated in the preamble to the final rule, replacement equipment manufacturers that are required to notify owners and to remedy defective or noncomplying equipment would do so to the best of their abilities. The reporting requirement does not require them to manufacture their equipment so that it is easily identifiable nor does it require them to maintain lists of persons to whom equipment has been sold. Some equipment manufacturers may wish to upgrade their recordkeeping and identification systems to facilitate their statutory obligations to recall and remedy, but the reporting regulation does not require this.

With respect to the "flasher" incident to which you refer in your letter, if a vehicle manufacturer authorizes the use of incorrect flashers in its vehicles, problems resulting from the use of those flashers would be the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer not the equipment manufacturer. The problem that you describe is one of incorrect use of properly functioning equipment. It is not a problem of defective equipment.

Sincerely,

ID: nht79-4.17

DATE: 05/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yokohama Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1979, asking whether Yokohama Tire Corporation's point-of-sale information leaflet conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii). While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not typically issue advance judgments concerning compliance with agency regulations, your proposed point-of-sale leaflet appears to meet the requirements of section 575.104(d)(1)(ii), assuming the listing at the bottom of the page contains each tire manufactured by Yokohama which is offered for sale at the location where the leaflet is distributed.

SINCERELY,

YOKOHAMA TIRE CORPORATION

April 27, 1979

Richard Hipolit Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Attached is the information I talked to you on April 27, 1979. Please make any correction or changes so this letter will fall within the D. O. T. guideline.

Thank you for your assistance.

Jim Buck National Service Manager Yokohama Tire Corporation

DOT QUALITY GRADES ALL PASSENGER CAR TIRES MUST CONFORM TO FEDERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS IN ADDITION TO THESE GRADES TREADWEAR

The treadwear grade is a comparative rating based on the wear rate of the tire when tested under controlled conditions on a specified government test course. For example, a tire graded 150 would wear one and a half (1-1/2) times as well on the government course as a tire graded 100. The relative performance of tires depends upon the actual conditions of their use, however, and may depart significantly from the norm due to variations in driving habits, service practices and differences in road characteristics and climate.

TRACTION

The traction grades, from highest to lowest are A, B, and C, and they represent the tire's ability to stop on wet pavement as measured under controlled conditions on specified government test surfaces of asphalt and concrete. A tire marked C may have poor traction performance. Warning: The traction grade assigned to this tire is based on braking (straightahead) traction tests and does not include cornering (turning) traction.

TEMPERATURE

The temperature grades are A (the highest), B, and C representing the tire's resistance to the generation of heat and its ability to dissipate heat when tested under controlled conditions on a specified indoor laboratory test wheel. Sustained high temperature can cause the material of the tire to degenerate and reduce tire life, and excessive temperature can lead to sudden tire failure. The grade C corresponds to a level of performance which all passenger car tires must meet under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Grades B and A represent higher levels of performance on the laboratory test wheel than the minimum required by law. Warning: The temperature grade for this tire is established for a tire that is properly inflated and not overloaded. Excessive speed, underinflation, or excessive loading, either separately or in combination, can cause heat buildup and possible tire failure. Tire Size Load Tread Tubeless/ Trd Designation Range Pattern Tube Type Side Wall Wear Traction Temp. 155S13/6.15 $ 13 B Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B B 4PR 155-13/6.15-13 B Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B C 4PR 165S13/6.45S13 B Y205 Tubeless WhiteRibbon 80 B B 4PR 7.00-14-6PR C Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B C 7.00-14-6PR C Y205 Tubeless WhiteRibbon 80 B C H78-15 B Y820 Tubeless Black 80 B C

ID: nht79-4.18

DATE: 07/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Subaru of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 4, 1979, concerning Subaru's obligation to provide to prospective motor vehicle purchasers an explanation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). You ask whether Subaru must provide UTQG information to prospective purchasers prior to April 1, 1980, in view of the fact that all motor vehicles sold by your company are equipped with radial tires.

With respect to radial tires, the effective date for all requirements of the UTQG regulation, other than the molding requirement of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) and the first purchaser requirement of paragraph (d)(1)(iii), is April 1, 1980. Therefore, manufacturers, such as Subaru, which offer for sale only motor vehicles equipped with radial tires, need not provide UTQG information for examination by prospective purchasers prior to April 1, 1980.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 4, 1979

Richard J. Hipolit -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

In our telephone conversation on Friday, June 1, you confirmed my interpretation of the requirement for the date of publication of "Tire Quality Grading Information" for our prospective purchasers is dependent upon the effective date of the regulation. As we only use radial tires, the grading regulation effective date for which is April 1, 1980, our obligation to issue information to prospective purchasers is also April 1, 1980.

If this is still your opinion will you please confirm this in writing?

Thank you.

Yours very truly,

SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.;

D. J. Schrum -- Manager Product Compliance

ID: nht79-4.19

DATE: 03/30/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Michael M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Rubber Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of March 19, you pointed out that the tire industry has printed tire lables and consumer information materials based on Figure 2 of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), as published in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Docket 25, Notice 24 (43 FR 30542; July 17, 1978). That notice contained a typographical error in the text of Figure 2, which was corrected in Notice 31 (44 FR 15721, March 15, 1979) by substitution of the word "are" in place of the word "of" in the first line of the third section of Figure 2.

The labels and other materials printed prior to the issuance of Notice 31 may be technically in noncompliance with the UTQG regulation. To avoid the waste which would result if use of these materials were prohibited, however, NHTSA will permit use of tread labels and information materials containing the Figure 2 text as stated in Notice 24, where orders for printing of these materials were submitted prior to March 15, 1979, the date of publication of Notice 31.