ID: nht72-1.25

DATE: 05/26/72

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

TO: Livingston's Tire Shop

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 1972, requesting a letter from NHTSA to the effect that tire manufacturers are free to sell you new repairable tires which you plan to repair and sell. We have assumed that the manufacturers of the tires do not believe that they conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. "New Pneumatic Tires," and that they have not certified conformance to the standard, as this is apparently the reason for their reluctance to sell you these tires.

Paragraph S6. of Standard No. 109 provides, among other things, that passenger car tires that are not certified, defined as "reclassified tires," must bear a label (specified in the standard) stating that they are not to be sold for use on passenger cars.

If you wish to purchase reclassified tires, repair them, and resell them for passenger car use, you must ensure that they conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 109 (paragraphs S1. through S5.), and relabel and certify them in accordance with paragraph S4.3.

You should be aware that the NHTSA has proposed, in a notice dated November 27, 1971 (36 F.R. 22688, copy enclosed) to prohibit the sale for any purpose of reclassified tires.

ID: nht72-1.26

DATE: 04/24/72

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

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 28, 1972, asking whether passenger car tires that have been reclassified, under Standard 109, as "Unsafe for Highway Use" because they do not conform to the standard may be sold with, or for use on, a vehicle other than a passenger car. For the reasons given below, our answer to your question is no.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states that:

"No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section." (Emphasis supplied.)

We presume that the argument for allowing use of a nonconforming passenger car tire on another type of vehicle (in your case a boat trailer) would be that by so using the tire, it ceases to be a "tire for use on passenger cars" in the words of the application section of Standard 109, that the standard does not apply to it, and since there is currently no standard for tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, anything may be used on such vehicles.

We would reject this argument. We interpret Standard 109 as applying to tires that are designed and produced for use on passenger cars, and in this view a tire so designed and produced does not become something else because it is ultimately used for a different purpose. The effect of section 108, then, is not merely to prohibit nonconforming passenger car tires from being sold on passenger cars, but to prohibit them from being sold at all, as "motor vehicle equipment."

As an entirely separate matter, any reclassified tire sold as motor vehicle equipment would be presumed to contain a safety-related defect within the meaning of sections 111 and 113 of the Act.

ID: nht72-1.27

DATE: 11/21/72

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

TO: Klein Tire Sales

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1972, asking whether you may sell tires from which the manufacturer has removed his name and DOT marking, if you tell the purchaser that the tires cannot be sold except for farm use, and if the buyer signs a sales invoice to that effect.

The information I gave you over the phone is incorrect. The answer to your question is that you may not sell such tires. Passenger car tires manufactured before October 1, 1972, can not be made eligible by their manufacturer for sales as farm use tires unless the manufacture has reclassified them in the manner specified in paragraph S6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. This provision required the manufacturer to permanently label a tire with the words "UNSAFE FOR HIGHWAY USE", and to affix labels to the tread which state that the tire should not be used on a passenger car and that the sale of the tire for such use may subject the seller to civil penalties. A dealer who sells a nonconforming tire which the manufacturer has not reclassified in this manner will be in violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and likewise subject to civil penalties.

A recent amendment to Standard No. 109 prohibits manufacturers from reclassifying any tire after October 1, 1972, and requires them to destroy tires manufactured after that date which they will not certify.

With respect to reports on tires which you mention were obtained for testing purposes by Mr. Loewenstern of NHTSA, these tires, which were not purchased by Mr. Loewenstern but by a New Jersey State Policeman on behalf of NHTSA, were not purchased for testing purposes. Rather, they were purchased for the purpose of obtaining evidence against you that you were selling tires in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The NHTSA does not return tires which have been purchased for evidentiary purposes.

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.