ID: nht72-1.28

DATE: 01/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Kelley-Springfield Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 18, 1971, concerning the use of the word "fits" in the secondary size stamping on the sidewall of Kelley-Springfield manufactured tires.

It is true, as you indicate in your letter, that the NHTSA prefers the use of the word "replaces," as opposed to "fits." This is because the former term is more specific in describing what both terms are intended to indicate, namely, that one tire size designation has superseded another.

However, the NHTSA is of the opinion that the term "fits" may presently be used under Standard No. 109 in labeling the primary and alternative size designations, if the tire meets the dimensional and maximum load carrying capacities for both sizes.

ID: nht72-1.29

DATE: 06/23/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Torino

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1972, inquiring whether the State of Maryland may require tires to be labeled with a "VI" marking. @ection 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 15 U.S.C 1992(d), provides in pertinent part:

"Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under 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."

This provision, considered with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, prohibits the State of Maryland or any State from imposing any safety labeling requirements, for passenger car tires other than these contained in that Federal standard. Any differing safety labeling requirements, including the "VI" you mentioned, are thus (Illegible Word) and void.

ID: nht72-1.3

DATE: 10/03/72

FROM: C. A. BAKER FOR E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA

TO: G. D. Stapley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1972, proposing "that legal standards for the performance of windshield defrosting systems be established and applied to vehicles manufactured in or imported into USA."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened Docket No. 1-3 to receive comments on extension of coverage of the passenger car defrosting and defogging system standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Ice or slush buildup on the windshield, as well as the overall performance of the defroster system, are among the problems and concerns currently being investigated by the NHTSA. We plan to combine all the problems associated with vision and precipitation into an Adverse Weather Visibility standard such as you suggest in your letter. This would also include wiping and washing requirements. At the present time research has been initiated to obtain data so that we can propose definite performance requirements for all types of weather conditions. Under our Program Plan such a standard would become effective September 1, 1976.

Your suggestion and the mention of the specific problems are appreciated and will be considered as we proceed in our rulemaking. Thank you for writing and if we can be of further service, please let us know.

ID: nht72-1.30

DATE: 06/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Michlin Tire Corporation - Technical Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In reply to your letter of May 16, 1972, your interpretation is correct that paragraph S4.3.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 requires either the manufacturer's name and his assigned code number, or the brand name and the manufacturer's assigned number to be labeled onto the tire. The code number must appear in either case.

ID: nht72-1.31

DATE: 02/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bandag Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 15, 1972, asking whether your "treadless" passenger car tire will be considered a new tire under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You enclose a diagram and explain that the "treadless" tire is a "brand new . . . tire that we will furnish our dealers and then they will apply a new Bandag tread to the tire and then sell the finished unit."

Based upon the description you have provided, we are of the opinion that your treadless tire is a new tire, and consequently subject to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. Also, as each dealer applies the tread to the tire, each would be considered a "manufacturer" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 at seq.), and be responsible for the requirements imposed upon manufacturers by the Act, and a standards and regulations issued pursuant to it.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht72-1.32

DATE: 02/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Garden Spot Oil Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your inquiry of December 21, 1971, to the Regional Representative of the Secretary of Transportation in Dallas, Texas, and undated letter to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety concerning the sale of tires branded "Unsafe for Highway Use."

By Notice No. 2, to Docket 70-2 (copy enclosed) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued an amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109 specifying the conditions under which tires that failed to pass the minimum performance requirements of FMVSS No. 109 could be sold. This amendment presently permits such tires to be reclassified as "Unsafe for Highway Use," and if properly labeled to be sold for farm wagons or other off-highway uses only. A dealer who sells such tires for passenger car use, or who removes or alters the legend "Unsafe for Highway Use" imprinted on the tire sidewall, in subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

It is proposed that on or after March 1, 1972, no tire of a type and size designation specified in FMVSS No. 109, Table 1 of Appendix A, shall be sold, offered for sale, imported, or introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce for any purpose unless it conforms to all the requirements of this standard. If implemented, this proposal will void the authority granted by Notice No. 2 to Docket 70-2 mentioned above.

If the Javelin Tire Company of Dallas, Texas, is representing the tires you have on hand as safe for highway use, we would appreciate any evidence to this effect which you can provide. An invoice or a statement from Javelin claiming these tires as suitable for highway use or an affidavit from you attesting to such claims by the Javelin Tire Company would be useful.

A copy of the proposed rule, published in Notice 3, Docket 70-2, is enclosed for your information. One of the matters being covered in the rulemaking is whether tires reclassified prior to the effective date of the proposed rule may be sold. Copies of your letters have been entered in the official Docket. When the final rule is issued, it will be published in the Federal Register with a definite effective date. Because of your interest in this matter, we will send you a copy of the amendment when finally issued.

Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

ID: nht72-1.33

DATE: 06/27/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Checker Motors Sales Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1972, asking whether you, as a selling dealer, may install steel-belted radial ply tires on an 8-passenger Checker taxicab. You state that the vehicle is normally delivered to you with tires having the "D" load range.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110, copy enclosed) requires each passenger car to be equipped at the time of sale to a first purchaser with tires of certain minimum load carrying capacity, based on the weight of the vehicle. Any steel-belted radial ply tire that meets these load carrying requirements with respect to your vehicles may be installed by a selling dealer.

Radial tires of similar or related sizes, but of different manufacture, however, may have different load ratings. We suggest, therefore, that you contact Checker Motor Corporation for their recommendations as to which radial ply tires may be installed on these vehicles without adversely affecting the vehicle's conformity with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

ID: nht72-1.34

DATE: 03/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Detroit Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 16, 1972, in which you ask whether the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" is the same as that for "'curb weight' plus optional parts," and whether the definition of "gross vehicle weight" is the same as that for "maximum loaded vehicle weight."

The two sets of definitions are expressed in substantially different terms. The new terms, "unloaded vehicle weight" and "gross vehicle weight rating" are more general than the older ones. The newer terms also eliminate some ambiguities in the definitions based on "curb weight," such as just what is (Illegible Word) by "standard equipment," and whether other vehicle fluids besides fuel, oil, and coolant should be included. Further, GVWR is a rating, not necessarily identical to any scale weight although some constraints have been placed on it in our Certification regulations (@ 567.4(g)(3)).

Thus, although the two sets of definitions are somewhat similar in their application, they are different enough that each must be interpreted and used in its own terms.

ID: nht72-1.35

DATE: 03/23/72

FROM: HARTMAN FOR DOUGLAS W. TOMS -- NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of February 18, 1972, dealt with three aspects of Standard 215 that continue to be of concern to Chrysler and with one feature of Standard 210 that you regard as inappropriate.

Your first problem with Standard 215 is the requirement for corner impacts at heights below 20 inches. Our response to the objections raised by Chrysler and others when this requirement was made a part of the standard was to grant an additional two years for compliance. We did this in the expectation that the additional time would permit the manufacturers to make the necessary changes within their normal tooling cycle.

The agency considered the corner impact requirement to be justified, and it is not now persuaded to the contrary. We would be willing, however, to review any additional information you can provide on the subject of the costs and the benefits of the improved corners.

Your second concern has also been expressed at several points in the rule-making process. In response to comments advocating the use of resilient materials in the bumper itself, the standard was amended to specify a broader impact ridge, rather than to specify the resiliency of material with which contact would be permitted. The agency has not considered the styling effects of the pendulum requirement to be sufficient to justify amending the standard to permit cosmetic additions of the type you describe. Of course you are free to submit additional information to support the need for such an amendment.

The photometric requirements from Standard 108 that are proposed for incorporation in Standard 215 have been the subject of several comments under Notice 10 in Dockets 1-9 and 1-10. The issue has not been resolved by issuance of a final rule and we will therefore consider your remarks as an addition to Chrysler's comments on Notice 10.

In the area of seat belt anchorages, the question of whether to use dynamic or static test methods was resolved in October 1970 by specifying a static test with a 10-second holding period. It was thought that this was the surest means of testing the basic strength of the metal and that it therefore carried out the original intent of the standard. Although it may be that the resulting anchorages are able to withstand barrier crashes at speeds considerably higher than 30 mph, we do not consider this to be sufficient cause for relaxing the anchorage requirement. If you have information concerning the force levels at which accidents are survivable, and the relation of these levels to anchorage strength, we would be glad to receive this information.

ID: nht72-1.36

DATE: 09/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 8, 1972, on the subject of the location of the anchorages for passive belt systems. We understand from your letter that you are considering using a door-mounted anchorage for your system, but we are uncertain as to the nature of your difficulties with Standard No. 210.

The standard does not prohibit door-mounted anchorages. If an anchorage can be placed on the door so that it directs the belt across the occupant at the angle specified in the standard, and if it also meets the strength requirements, then it would be considered to conform to the standard. It may be that the anchorage you are considering fails to provide the correct belt angle.

At this time there is no exemption provided for passive belts from the belt angle requirements of Standard No. 210. If you wish to petition for rulemaking to amend the requirements for passive belts, you should accompany your petition with full information concerning the system and the advantages of the proposed anchorage locations