ID: nht78-1.15

DATE: 01/20/78

FROM: F. BERNDT FOR J. J. LEVIN -- NHTSA

TO: Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated November 29, 1977, asking about the procedures for obtaining approval of hydraulic brake hoses. Your company is altering the labeling on some of its hose and asks whether the hose must be retested and whether notice of the changes must be given.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve in advance motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. It is up to manufacturers to certify that their products comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations. The NHTSA conducts compliance testing for purposes of enforcement.

It is, therefore, up to your company to decide whether to test its hose according to the procedures specified in Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. The NHTSA only requires that you determine in the exercise of due care that the hose meets all requirements specified in the standard. Further, you do not have to give the NHTSA notice when you change the labeling information on your hose, unless you change the designation identifying your company. In that case, the new designation would have to be filed with the NHTSA according to the specifications of paragraph S5.2.2(b) of Standard 106.

You will have to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators directly to determine their requirements for approval and notification following your labeling changes.

Please contact me if our office can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

November 29, 1977

Richard B. Dyson -- Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson,

Subject: Inquiry about the procedure for equipment approval for hydraulic brake hose assembly

This company is a maker of brake hoses, and has received the following certificates of equipment approval from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators as the equipment approval of its products now. Certification No. Dated 741092 November 27, 1974 750423 April 8, 1975 750449 April 22, 1975 761132 November 12, 1976 761133 November 16, 1976

This company implements the labeling of brake hoses prescribed in FMVSS No. 106, S5.2, according to the following two ways.

a. One side: DOT NCRN (date) 1/8 HL

Other side: (stripe)

b. One side: DOT NCRN (date) 1/8 HR

Other side: NCRN 1/8 (date) SAE J1401

Other side: NICHIRIN RUBBER JAPAN 1/8 SAE J1401 AAA

(private lot No.)

In this connection, please instruct us in the procedure for this change.

1. In case of changing the indication of labeling from HR (Regular expansion hydraulic hoses) to HL (Low expansion hydraulic hoses),

(1) Is it necessary to obtain again the original report by the approval test organization?

(2) Or, is it enough to obtain the appendix report by undergoing the test of the concerned test item only (expansion test)?

(3) Or, the test report is not required, and is it enough only to submit the notice about the change?

2. In the FMVSS No.106, S5.2.1, of labeling on the other side, when the labeling prescribed as the additional information at the manufacturer's option is changed, this company interprets that the test is not required, but is it right?

Moreover, also in case of changing the content of labeling on the other side, is some notice required?

Would you please instruct and answer us in the above-described points?

Sincerely yours, Takashi Shimoda -- Technical department

ID: nht78-1.16

DATE: 02/14/78

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

TO: M. H. Hollaway

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 16, 1977, letter asking whether it is illegal to mount a tire labeled "Farm Tire" on a passenger car.

Tires manufactured for use on passenger cars or other motor vehicles designed principally for highway use must comply with all Federal regulations applicable to those tires. Tires designed for use on farm vehicles, on the other hand, are not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) a dealer may not "knowingly render inoperative" a device installed on a motor vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. A dealer who removes properly certified passenger car tires from an automobile and replaces them with tires that are specified for farm use would be in violation of section 108 in that the complying tires would have essentially been rendered inoperative by his actions. Section 108 does not apply to private individuals. Thus, a car owner would not be in violation of the law if he accomplished the tire replacement himself. Such action would be highly inadvisable, however, since these restricted use tires are not constructed in compliance with standards that ensure a minimum safe level of performance for highway operation.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

September 16, 1977

Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20013

Gentlemen;

Will you please answer the following question?

Is it unlawful to use tires on a passenger car that are marked "Farm tires"?

These tires are passenger car type tires with white sidewalls. However, a local tire store refused to install them because of the markings.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours Truly,

M. H. Hollaway

MARCH 7, 1978

M. H. Holloway

Dear Mr. Holloway:

This is in further reply to your September 16, 1977, letter asking whether it is illegal to mount a tire labeled "Farm Tire" on a passenger car.

We inadvertently neglected to point out in our February 14, 1978, response to your letter that any tire which is marked with a Department of Transportation (DOT) symbol is presumed to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to it. Any tire with such a symbol may therefore be mounted on a motor vehicle without violation of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act when the former tires are removed, regardless of the appearance of words associating the tire with farm use.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ID: nht78-1.17

DATE: 02/17/78

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

TO: Mr. Wirtz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 17, 1977, inquiring about tire endurance tests.

The tire endurance test proposed in Docket No. 74-2, Notice 1, has not been adopted by this agency. Comments received in response to the notice were generally critical of the suggested amendment. The agency found the comments essentially meritorious and, thus, is at this time contemplating closing the docket on the proposed revision. The tire endurance test currently prescribed in Standard 109 remains in effect and should be regarded as establishing the performance level necessary for compliance.

If you wish to obtain copies of the SAE standards, you should contact the SAE directly at the following address:

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Docket Section -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

October 17, 1977

Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109) - Registration No. 74-2 notice from January 10, 1974

Passenger car tires which shall be labeled with the symbol DOT must among others be subjected to the tire endurance test. In the notice No. 1, registered under No. 74-2, the proposal was made to replace the tire endurance test defined in MVSS 109 by a new SAE-procedure showing some changes in the testing conditions compared with the test method defined in MVSS 109.

Would you be kind enough to inform me whether the new SAE test procedure (published under registration No. 74-2) was put into force for the performance of the tire endurance test according to MVSS 109, and which of both test methods is obligatory for the proof of tires to conform to the requirements of MVSS 109.

At the same time I ask you to place to my disposal all SAE standards regarding tire test procedures.

Sincerely Wirtz -- General manager

ID: nht78-1.18

DATE: 06/19/78

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

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 1, 1978, to Mr. Tilton of this office requesting our interpretation of the requirement of Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, that a placard displaying specified information be "permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location." (S4.3) Specifically, you inquire whether the back side of the lid of the center console box is an acceptable location for the placard within the meaning of S4.3.

We have interpreted "equally accessible location" as requiring a location where the placard (1) can be referred to easily, as it can when located on the glove compartment door; and (2) will be relatively free from exposure to substances which may destroy it or render it illegible, as it is when located on the glove compartment door. The back side of the lid of the center console box as depicted in the diagram attached to your May 1 letter fulfills these two requirements, and is therefore an "equally accessible location" within the meaning of S4.3.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

May 1, 1978

Roger S. Tilton -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This letter is to request your interpretation concerning a location of the tire placard which is specified in S.4.3. of FMVSS 110 "Tire selection and rims". We are planning to affix the tire placard to the back side of the lid of the center console box in one of our future models as shown in the attachment.

We would like to know whether this location is acceptable or not under the requirement of "A placard, permanently affixed to the glove box compartment door or an equally accessible locations" in S.4.3.

We would appreciate your reply as soon as possible

Thank you.

Very truly yours, Tokio Iinuma Staff, Safety

Enclosure

(Graphic omitted)

ID: nht78-1.19

DATE: 03/29/78

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

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms the discussion held among you, Mr. Roger Tilton, Mr. Guy Hunter, and Mr. Martin Paliokas on February 14, 1978, concerning the applicability of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, and Standard No. 113, Hood Latch Systems, to your vehicles.

In your first question, you asked whether the joint connecting a piece of metal that is attached to a body pillar and which is covered by the exterior body panels is a joint regulated by Standard No. 221. The standard regulates a "body panel joint" which is defined as "the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, . . . ." "Body panel" is defined as "a body component. . .used to enclose the bus' occupant space." The piece of metal to which you refer becomes a part of the pillar and serves no purpose in enclosing occupant space. Therefore, the joint connecting these two body members is not a body panel joint and is not subject to the standard.

In your second question, you ask whether a hood latch system can utilize two pin-type latches, one on each side of the hood, to comply with Standard No. 113. The standard specifically permits the use of two hood latch systems. The use of these two distinct pins would appear to comply with the requirements.

ID: nht78-1.2

DATE: 12/08/78

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

TO: Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Eugene D. Sambucetti Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales P.O. Box 626 1960 E. Main Street Woodland, California 95695

Dear Mr. Sambucetti:

This responds to your October 30, 1978, request to know how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expects a trailer manufacturer to provide the lateral stability necessary to remain within a 12-foot-wide lane while stopping from 60 mph in the absence of antilock installation. Your question follows from an interpretation of the recent Ninth Circuit ruling in which the agency stated its view that trailers are still required to stop from 60 mph within the 12-foot-wide lane, but without the capability of "no lockup" performance.

In interpreting the court's ruling that "no lockup" performance on trailers was invalid, the NHTSA recognized that the 12-foot-wide lane requirement would probably also be invalid if the requirement for 90 p.s.i. air pressure in the trailer control line during the stop remained effective. As you know, there is no stopping distance for trailers that would otherwise require a strong brake application and resulting loss of lateral stability. The agency therefore concluded that the 90 p.s.i. requirement was invalidated, stating in its October 19th interpretation,

It does appear that the requirement for 90 p.s.i. air pressure in the trailer control line during the stop constitutes a portion of the "no lockup" requirement and is therefore invalidated by the court.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 30, 1978

Mr. Tad Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

In looking over the interpretation of your department's views of what is valid and what was invalidated by the decision rendered by the Ninth District Court we have one question to present to you for an answer;

How can we, a trailer manufacturer, comply with the law when you state as valid "Remaining within a 12 foot lane while stopping" without "antilock" which you state has been invalidated?

We look forward to your prompt reply so we can assure ourselves to be in compliance.

Very truly yours,

WESCO TRUCK & TRAILER SALES

Eugene D. Sambucetti President

EDS:bw

ID: nht78-1.20

DATE: 04/24/78

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

TO: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 16, 1978, letter asking about the responsibility for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards when previously certified tires are modified by the addition of white sidewalls.

In your first question, you ask whether the person who modifies the tire must recertify it for compliance with safety requirements. The answer to your question is no. A modifier of a tire is not considered a manufacturer as that term is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). A modifier's status is analagous to that of an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle. However, unlike an alterer of a motor vehicle, there are no labeling or certification requirements for alterers of motor vehicle equipment. Persons who modify previously certified motor vehicle equipment are required to ensure that their modification does not render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a safety standard.

Since the modifier of previously certified motor vehicle tires has no labeling or certification requirements, the answer to your second question whether it would be required to obtain a manufacturer's identification code mark is no. Only a manufacturer or retreader of motor vehicle tires need obtain such identification marks.

In your final question, you ask who would be responsible for the registration of these modified tires. The original tire manufacturer would be required to conduct the tire

registration program. You assert that this might cause confusion in tire recalls since manufacturers might indicate that blackwall tires are being recalled when, in fact, some whitewalls would be included. Our regulation requires that tires be identified in a recall by their serial number. We are not aware of any instance where recalled tires have been additionally identified as "blackwall" by the manufacturers. Thus, although the problem you describe could conceivably occur, we at this time have no basis for viewing it as a real threat to effective recall campaigns.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

March 16, 1978

Joseph Levin, Esq -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration

Subject: Converting Blackwall Tires to Whitewall TIRE COSMOTOLOGY, INC 10920 Indian Trail - Suite 201 Dallas, Texas 75229

Dear Mr Levin:

The conversion of a new blackwall tire to whitewall prior to sale to the end consumer would appear to me to constitute a violation of the Safety Act of 1966 as amended, and non-compliance with FMVSS109 or 119 as the case may be, if the tire was not recertified after completing the whitewalling process. In addition it would appear to me that this procedure could and probably would result in frustration of the tire registration requirements in that, in the event of a recall, the tire in question would be identified by the manufacturer as a blackwall, whereas the consumer would have in his possession a whitewall. This problem becomes acute when the process is performed by an independent tire dealer or other organization not affiliated with or under the control of the tire manufacturer.

Attached is a copy of a Training Manual and other literature published by Tire Cosmotology, Inc explaining various of its procedures relating to several different conversion processes.

Aside from the legal and safety implications of these tire conversion processes, Goodyear has instructed its field organization that any Goodyear-brand tires altered or converted without our authorization and approval will not be eligible for adjustment consideration under our tire warranties.

The purpose of this letter is to ask for the NHTSA's official position on this subject. Specifically, we would like to know:

(1) If an independent tire dealer or other organization not affiliated with the tire manufacturer converts a new blackwall tire to a whitewall prior to sale to the end consumer, must that dealer or organization recertify such tire as meeting the applicable FMVSS?

(2) Must such dealer or organization acquire a manufacturer's identification code mark and apply it to the reprocessed tire? Would tire manufacturer's tire identification number have to be removed and a new number, including a new date code have to be applied?

(3) Whose responsibility is it after such reprocessing to comply with the NHTSA's tire registration requirements?

Please advise.

Sincerely, TOM CAINE -- Attorney, LAW DEPT.

Attachments

cc: Francis Armstrong -- Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration COSMO G-300

BASIC UNIT

TRAINING MANUAL

TIRE COSMOTOLOGY INC

ID: nht78-1.21

DATE: 10/02/78

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

TO: Dunlop Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 10, 1978, letter asking whether it is permissible to label motorcycle tires with alternate speeds and load ratings appropriate for those speeds. You suggest that your tires be labeled with maximum speeds of 131, 137, and 143 miles per hour with the corresponding load ratings. The labeling of motor cycle tires is regulated by Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other (Illegible word) Passenger Cars.

Standard No. 119 requires that tires be marked with, among other things, the maximum inflation pressure of the tire and the load rating applicable to that inflation pressure. Speed qualifications are permitted on tires when, for example, the tires are speed restricted. Otherwise, tires are not marked with speed criteria although they may be marked with the symbols S, H, or V as part of the tire identification number. These symbols, established by the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO), indicate that the tire is an acceptable high-speed tire.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers it appropriate to permit the symbols S, H, or V to be marked on tires to indicate that such tires are appropriate for high-speed use. This permits, for example, a sophisticated purchaser of tires for emergency vehicles to know that the tires are suitable for the higher operational speeds necessary for those vehicles. The NHTSA, however, considers it inappropriate to mark motorcycle tires with maximum speeds of 131, 137, and 143 miles per hour with the corresponding safe load ratings. Such markings would appear to sanction the use of the tires at these speeds which far exceed the national speed limit.

Since Standard No. 119 regulates the permissible uses of speed designations on nonpassenger car tires, the agency interprets the standard to prohibit the marking of any other speed designations on a tire. The NHTSA considers the only appropriate speed designation on tires to be one that reflects a speed restricted tire or one that uses the symbols established by the ETRTO for tires that have been tested and can be operated at higher speeds.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 10, 1978

J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation has been asked to manufacture tires for new Honda motorcycles with several load designations appearing on the tire sidewall. The loads vary according to the speed imposed on the vehicle as follows: (These are all V rated tires).

Front Tire Rear Tire Inflation Pressure Max. MPH 3.50V19 4.25V18 Maximum 131 515 Lbs. 655 Lbs. 42 psi 137 490 Lbs. 620 Lbs. 42 psi 143 465 Lbs. 585 Lbs. 42 psi

I have discussed this subject briefly by telephone with Mr. A. (Illegible Word) who urged me to write for your legal interpretation of FMVSS 119 and how to identify these supplementary loads on a tire sidewall.

As I will be out of the office until July 24, please contact Mr. A. M. Mills if additional information is required. His direct phone is (716) 879-8397.

Very truly yours, DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION; Richard H. Attenhofer -- Manager - Tire Technical Relations

cc: A. M. Mills

ID: nht78-1.22

DATE: 09/22/78

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

TO: Dunlop Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 2, 1978, letter noting two standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that you consider to be in conflict. You suggest that Part 569, Regrooved Tires, conflicts with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, in their requirements for the size of the molding of the word "regroovable".

Standard No. 119 specifies all of the labeling of tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. The size of that required labeling is set at not less than .078 inches. This size provision applies generally to all of the various information required to be labeled on a tire. The information labeled on the tire includes the tire identification number and word "regroovable" if appropriate. Both of these requirements, however, are subjects of their own regulations. The tire identification number is specifically regulated by Part 574 and regroovable tires are regulated by Part 569. Each of these Parts further specifies the size designation of the information that it requires. For example, Part 569 specifically requires the word "regroovable" to be in letters .38 to .50 inches in height.

The two standards do not conflict. The size requirement in Part 569 falls within the acceptable size levels of Standard No. 119. Part 569 merely further restricts the size of the word "regroovable" beyond that specified in Standard No. 119. Accordingly, the two are consistent. To understand both requirements, apply the general size requirements of Standard No. 119 to all information that is not otherwise regulated elsewhere. For information specifically regulated elsewhere, apply the size criteria specified in the applicable regulation.

ID: nht78-1.23

DATE: 03/22/78

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

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 22, 1977, letter asking whether the tire information label required by Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, must contain the rim size of the rim that is mounted on the vehicle.

Paragraph S5.3.2. of the standard states that the label must contain "the size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for those tires." This paragraph specifically permits a manufacturer to equip a vehicle with rim sizes that differ from those listed on its tire information label.

SINCERELY,

December 22, 1977

Frank A. Brendt U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Dear Mr. Brendt:

On the behalf of the members of the Trailer Manufacturers Association, we request an interpretation in the matter following relative to FMVSS No. 120.

S5.1.2 permits the tire size mounted on the vehicle not to be disclosed on the certification label providing the tire mounted falls within GAWR requirements.

Boat trailer manufacturers commonly provide a number of tire options and often these tires have different rims. It is not clear if FMVSS No. 120 requires the rim which is mounted on the trailer to be disclosed on the certification plate. For example, at the customer's wish, a given trailer might be equipped with 12, 13 or 14 inch wheels.

We have sought clarification of this subject from Department of Transportation compliance personnel, but were told that this specific point had not been raised previously, and therefore we would have to seek a formal interpretation which we now do.

Executive Secretary

Donald I. Reed