ID: nht76-1.18

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated response to your May 14, 1976, letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognizes the designation "NCRN" as identifying Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co. on all brake hose and brake hose assemblies manufactured by Nichirin, regardless of whether these components are intended for use in hydraulic, air, or vacuum brake systems.

The NHTSA does not issue approvals of motor vehicle equipment prior to sale. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, certification of compliance with applicable safety standards is performed by the manufacturer. Standard No. 106-74 does not specify the testing which a manufacturer must do before certifying that his brake hose and assemblies comply; it does specify the performance levels which these products must meet when tested by the NHTSA for compliance. The manufacturer is required to exercise due care in assuring himself that his certification is neither false nor misleading.

SINCERELY,

NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

May 14, 1976

ATTENTION: Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

According to your letter on the 7th of Feb. in 1975, I understood that our designation "NCRN" had been entered in Office of Standards Enforcement.

I want to ask your advice for following point. May I interpreted it that designation "NCRN" is able to apply to all head that is written in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74?

Namely these are S5 Hydraulic Brake Hose, S7 Air Brake Hose, S9 Vacuum Brake Hose. Now, we apply to the Hydraulic Brake Hose. In the future We Want to apply to the Air Brake Hose and Vacuum Brake Hose.

Of course we think it is necessary that we complete regular process (AAMVA etc.) after test of TEST Laboratory in U.S.A. Will you please give me your advice that is necessary for me?

Etsuo Yamazoe Factory Manager

ID: nht76-1.19

DATE: 03/08/76

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

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 30, 1976, letter requesting clarification of my March 7, 1975, letter concerning the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and Military Specification MIL-H-3992C.

My previous letter indicated that brake hose and brake hose assemblies sold to the military in conformity with MIL-H-3992C are, because of the provisions of 49 CFR 571.7(c), subject to neither the labeling nor the performance requirements of Standard No. 106-74. While Part 571.7(c) appears to exclude from the requirements of Standard No. 106-74 only that equipment which is sold directly to the Armed Forces, the NHTSA interprets this section as also excluding that equipment which is sold to military contractors, under contracts requiring it to conform to military specifications such as MIL-H-3992C, for installation in vehicles which are in turn sold directly to the military. We are considering the issuance of an interpretive amendment of Part 571.7(c) to this effect.

YOURS TRULY,

MIDLANDROSS

February 3, 1976

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Further clarification of your March 7, 1975 letter to the undersigned (reference number N40-30 (MIS)) is requested with respect to the question of direct sales to the military. We, as a brake hose assembler, sell MIL-H-3992C specification hose to a vehicle manufacturer, the prime contractor for a military vehicle. Does this constitute selling "directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications?" Does this further place the end-use control of the hose assemblies with the prime contractor?

Rulings by you or your office would be appreciated on the above questions.

Leon C. Huneke Chemical Engineer

ID: nht76-1.2

DATE: 06/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1976, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, for identification of the headlamps and taillamps control.

Your letter presented two symbols specified by the International Standards Organization as alternatives for identification of the master lighting switch. One of these appears in Column 4 of Table 1 of the standard and the other does not appear anywhere in the table. The headlamps and taillamps control (master lighting switch) is required by S4.2.1 to be identified with the word "Lights". The manufacturer may supplement this identification with a symbol, but only with a symbol that appears in Column 3 or Column 4 of Table 1. In issuing the amendment to the standard published July 29, 1975 (40 FR 31770, copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered both ISO symbols and decided not to permit the one that does not appear in the table.

YOURS TRULY,

British Leyland Motors Inc.

March 29, 1976

Office of General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

RE: FMVSS 101

To commonize on switches used for master lighting controls worldwide, one of the Leyland Cars divisions would like to use the ISO light bulb symbol for master lighting switch.

We do not find this alternative provided in any recent proposals issued by NHTSA and we ask:

a) if you have considered this alternative symbol

b) if you have decided not to allow its use

c) would you consider its use.

Dianne Black Liaison Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-1.20

DATE: 06/16/76

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

TO: Moss Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The President has asked me to reply to your letter of February 9, 1976, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to replacement brake hoses for MG sports cars built from approximately 1945 to 1955.

All brake hose and brake hose end fittings manufactured on or after September 1, 1974, must meet the performance and labeling requirements of Standard No. 106-74. All brake hose assemblies manufactured on or after March 1, 1975, must meet those performance and labeling requirements in the standard that apply to assemblies and, with an exception noted below, must be constructed of conforming hose and end fittings.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not applicable to classic or antique cars in the following sense: a standard applies only to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that is manufactured after its effective date. Thus, for example, there is no requirement that the MG's in question be retrofitted with conforming brake hose. However, any person manufacturing brake hose for use in such a vehicle must, on and after September 1, 1974, ensure that the hose conforms.

You may find some relief in S12 of the standard. To facilitate the depletion of inventories of hose manufactured before September 1, 1974, that conforms to all aspects of the standard except the labeling requirements, this provision permits the use of such hose in assemblies manufactured before September 1, 1976.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to hydraulic brake system components other than Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MOSS MOTORS, Ltd.

April 14, 1976

Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Dear Sirs:

I am very disappointed at not having received a reply to my letter of February 9, 1976, a copy of which is enclosed herewith.

May I please have the courtesy of a prompt reply to this letter?

Yours very truly,

E. Alan Moss

Enclosure: letter copy

February 9, 1976

Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Dear Sirs:

I am writing to you at this time in order to attempt to clarify the present situation as regards hydraulic brake hoses as fitted to older British Sports Cars.

I have just finished reading all available information published by the Department of Transportation covering the manufacture of hose and fittings effective September 1, 1974, manufacture of brake hose assemblies March 1, 1975, and manufacture of vehicles effective September 1, 1975.

A very large part of our business is in the sales of replacement parts for the British MG sports car as built from approximately 1945 to approximately 1955. These are the models designated as TA, TB, TC, TD, TF add Y. All of these vehicles had hydraulic braking systems built by British Lockheed Corporation, from whom we have been obtaining replacement parts in the past. We are now unable to supply our customers with any brake hoses whatsoever due to the fact that Lockheed has apparently not "tooled up" to produce these hoses to your new specifications as yet and probably will not do so, at least until they can catch up with the present more popular hoses. There are 2 other companies, one in England and one in Australia, who have supplied replacement hoses in the past but I do not believe that they are labeled to meet the United States specifications.

While we are very anxious to be able to supply our customers with brake hoses in order to keep these rather elderly cars running, we certainly do not want to be party to supplying any hoses which would be unsafe or illegal, particular in light of todays very common lawsuits. I have heard, unofficially, that the DoT requirements are not applicable to older (classic or antique?) cars and would like to hear from you directly as to how we should best handle this situation.

I would also like to know if there are any regulations covering other hydraulic brake components such as cylinders, repair kits, or merely hoses and fluid.

Anxiously awaiting your prompt reply, I remain,

yours very truly,

E. Alan Moss

ID: nht76-1.21

DATE: 12/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Universal Imports

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your November 5, 1976, letter concerning antique tires. You have asked whether it is permissible to import 6.70 x 15 tires, an original equipment size on several classic Mercedes-Benz, that are not marked in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

Standard No. 109 applies to "new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948" (S2). The 6.70 x 15 tire size designation appears in Table I-A of Appendix A of the standard. While this tire may have been original equipment on several classic cars, it is also for use on passenger cars manufactured since 1948. As such, it is subject to all the requirements of Standard No. 109. Therefore, a 6.70 x 15 tire that is not marked according to the standard may not be imported into the United States.

SINCERELY,

Universal Imports

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Association

Attention: Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

November 5, 1976

LETTER #7998

To date we are still anxiously awaiting reply to our letter No. 7725 dated September 13, regarding the sale of non-D.O.T. marked tires for off-road use. Since that time we have also come across a new problem regarding non-D.O.T. marked tires and this specifically is in regard to antique tires. We have recently had made available to use a line of Dunlop antique tires from their Vintage line. One particular tire, a 670 x 15 is of special interest to us as it is the original equipment size on several classic Mercedes. Regarding this problem, we have the following questions:

1. Can we legally import these tires at all?

2. Is there any provision for bringing in antique tires without D.O.T. marks for use on antique cars that are specifically for show, parades, etc.?

3. If there is no provision regarding the importation and sale of the above tires, what are our requirements as a vendor concerning the sale of these tires from both a retail and wholesale standpoint?

Should you require any additional information or clarification, please contact me at the above address or telephone number. Looking forward to your early reply, we remain

William G. Mathews, III Vice President

ID: nht76-1.22

DATE: 12/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles E. Duke for John W. Snow; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Albert H. Quie - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht76-1.23

DATE: 12/06/76

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

TO: The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 22, 1976, letter advising the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the tire standards of the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association (JATMA) are being translated into English. You request that consideration be given to referencing JATMA standards in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that regulate motor vehicle tire manufacture. I regret that we have not responded to your letter sooner.

Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, and Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, presently reference the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS). Because the JATMA standards appear to be updated more often than the JIS standards, and because the JATMA standards will be issued in English, the agency intends to substitute a reference to JATMA standards in its regulations for the existing reference to JIS standards.

Thank you for providing us with the English translation of the motorcycle tire standards. We request that you provide us copies of all English translations of the standards for all vehicle types as often as they are updated.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

THE JAPAN AUTOMOBILE TIRE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

J. B. Gregory -- National

J. B. Gregory -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir,

Re: The JATMA Standard.

The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association has established the JATMA Standard as an association standard for tires in Japan.

To circulate it widely to the world we are now preparing its English version. Recently the JATMA Standard for motorcycle tires in English has been completed and we are sending you copies of it under the separate cover.

As to the JATMA Standards for other tires (for Truck & Bus, Light Truck and Passenger cars) translation into English is now under way taking this opportunity we would want you to consider to add the JATMA Standard to S 5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 119 and S 4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 109.

Yours faithfully, Keigo Ohgiya, Executive Director

ID: nht76-1.24

DATE: 01/20/76

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

TO: Walt Robbins, Inc.

COPYEE: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 7, 1975, request for an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, as applied to the tire that you have described as a "Radial, Bias Ply Tire".

On that date, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Al Duduk, and the following NHTSA personnel in attendance: Dr. E. H. Wallace, A. Y. Casanova, and Mark Schwimmer. At the meeting, our letter to you, dated November 3, 1975, was discussed and alternative forms of labeling for this tire were explored. You presented, in substance, the following four examples of sidewall labeling and inquired about their compliance with Standard No. 109:

1. "POLYANGLE" accompanied by "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER 1 ARAMID"

2. "POLYANGLE" accompanied by "NOT A CONVENTIONAL RADIAL PLY TIRE" and "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY"

3. "RADIAL/BIAS" accompanied by "NOT A CONVENTIONAL RADIAL PLY TIRE" and "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY"

4. "RADIAL/BIAS" accompanied by "NOT TO BE USED WITH CONVENTIONAL RADIAL BELTED TIRES" and "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY"

Tires labeled according to your first example would be in compliance with the requirements of S4.3(g) of Standard No. 109. A strict interpretation of S4.3(g) would rule out the remaining examples because the word "radial" appears in all of them. However, the NHTSA recognizes that, with the development of new tire construction types, this section of the standard may not be adequate to serve its original purpose, to reduce the hazards associated with the mismatching of tires on a single vehicle. Accordingly, we are preparing to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard. For this reason and because the second, third, and fourth examples are in conformity with the spirit of S4.3(g), the NHTSA will, on an interim basis, consider tires so labeled to be in compliance. You may wish to consult with the Federal Trade Commission concerning the advertising of these tires.

I would like to point out that S4.3(d) requires Kevlar, if used as a cord material in a tire, to be identified by its generic name on the tire's sidewall. The generic name of Kevlar, as established by the FTC pursuant to the Textile Fiber Product Identification Act (15 USC 70), is Aramid.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

ID: nht76-1.25

DATE: 11/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Universal Imports;

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 13, 1976, letter concerning "a line of racing/rally tires that are not Department of Transportation marked."

I understand from your recent telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of my staff that the tires with which you are concerned are of the following size designations: 165/70 HR 10 ; 225/60 HR 14 ; 225/60 HR 13 ; and 195/70 HR 13.

Section S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, reads as follows:

S6. Nonconforming tires. No tire of a type and size designation specified in Table I of Appendix A that is designed for use on passenger cars and manufactured on or after October 1, 1972, but does not conform to all the requirements of this standard, shall be sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into the United States, for any purpose. (emphasis added)

because the size designations of the tires in question all appear in Table I of Appendix A, these tires are subject to the prohibitions of S6 unless they were manufactured before October 1, 1972. "All the requirements of the standard" include both performance and labeling requirements.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Universal Imports

FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, National Highway Traffic Safety Association

September 13, 1976/Letter #7725

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Universal Tire and it's affiliates are involved in practically every aspect of the tire industry except retreading. The import aspect of our business has just been offered a line of racing/rally tires that are not Department Of Transportation marked.

As you are probably aware there exists today an ever growing extremely viable market for off road racing and rally oriented products.

It is our desire to approach this new market from retail, wholesale and mail order standpoints. We are especially concerned with our responsibilities with regard to selling these race/rally tires since they are not Department Of Transportation marked. Please keep in mind that we wish not only to adhere to the letter of the law but to the spirit of the law as well. Any guidance you can offer us regarding the sale of these tires would be greatly appreciated.

Again, as we see it we have three separate sets of selling circumstances: retail, wholesale and mail order (retail), and would like guidelines from you for all three.

Thanking you in advance for any assistance you might furnish, we remain

Most cordially,

William G. Mathews, III -- Division Manager

ID: nht76-1.26

DATE: 01/28/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mark I. Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: File

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On January 23, 1976, I received a telephone call from Mr. Walt Robbins (750-2600) concerning the interpretation letter mailed from this office to him on January 20, 1976. (The subject of that letter was the application of Standard No. 109's labeling requirements to a "Radial, Bias Ply Tire".) Mr. Robbins asked three questions:

1) Were the four labeling examples set out in the letter intended to be restrictive or merely a model, with respect to the cord materials used in the tires (e.g. would a similar label that specified "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 POLYESTER RADIAL PLY" instead of an aramid radial ply also be permissible)? I explained that, in that respect, the examples were merely a model, so that his suggested alternative would be permissible.

2) When would the rule that was discussed in the letter be issued? I declined to give a prediction, explaining generally the uncertainties in the rulemaking process.

3) What was the real reason for inclusion of the suggestion that he consult the FTC concerning advertising of the tires in question? I explained that he could take the sentence on its face and that the NHTSA was not, in the letter, taking any position on the use of the word "radial" in the advertising of such tires.