ID: nht74-1.15

DATE: 05/01/74

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

TO: The Mansfield Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1974, inquiring whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 permits the labeling of both the 175R13 and the BR78-13 tire size designations on the same tire.

Paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109 permits the labeling on the same tire of equivalent inch and metric size designations. Based upon the Tables in the Appendix of Standard No. 109, we would consider the two size designations to be equivalent inch and metric size designations, and both may therefore be labeled on the sidewall of the same tire.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Maximum Tire Loads (Pounds) At Various Cold Inflation Pressures Size 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 175R13 790 840 890 930 980 1030 1070 1110 1150 1190 BR78.13 780 840 890 930 980 1030 1070 1110 1150 1190

THE MANSFIELD TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

March 19, 1974

L. R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, United States Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Schneider:

In the Federal Register November 1, 1973, Part III, the Department of Transportation published Passenger Car Tires and Rims Information under MVSS 109. Reviewing Rules and Regulations for Radial Ply Tires, it is noted that under Table I-H for the 175R-13 and under Table I-H for the BR78-13, the loads, inflations, rim, minimum size factor and section width are basically the same. For your observation, we are listing from the Tables both of these sizes as spelled out in these Rules and Regulations.

Maximum Tire Loads (Pounds) At Various Cold Inflation Pressures Test Min.

Rim Size Sect.

Width Fact. Width Size 36 38 40 (In.) (In.) (In.) 175R13 1230 1270 1300 4 1/2 30.30 6.75 BR78.13 1230 1270 1300 4 1/2 30.31 6.75

As these tires are both the same for the American size radial and the millimeter radial, it is our intent to mark both these sizes, as noted in MVSS 109, Part 571, Section S4.3 "Labeling Requirements", on the same tire with the maximum load and inflation branded on the tires. We are intending to use the American size tire code in the tire identification serial.

We will appreciate your reviewing this matter and unless advised to the contrary, we are intending to proceed with the marking as described above. We will appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

R. C. Hudson -- Director, Tire Engineering, Tech Service/Quality Control

ID: nht74-1.16

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1974 informing us that Volkswagen of America, Inc. has decided not to initiate a notification campaign as a result of a technical violation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110. You ask for our concurrence in your decision.

The designated seating capacity of the Dasher vehicle is 5 (2 in front, 3 in rear) and you have informed us that "some early production cars" bore tire inflation pressure labels stating that the capacity was 4 (2 in front, 2 in rear). The other required information (vehicle capacity weight, tire size designation, and recommended inflation pressures) are, you state, correctly indicated.

We agree with you that "religious observance of the instructions contained on the placard would provide the car with additional load capacity that would go unused", and have concluded that the situation you describe does not indicate the existence of a safety-related defect.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

June 18, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, Office of the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This will confirm my phone conversation with Mr. Taylor Vincent concerning the issue of recalling a number of early production Dasher vehicles bearing FMVSS No. 110 labels, which incorrectly state the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

Dasher models are manufactured with and equipped for five (5) seating positions. Inadvertently, some early production cars were fitted with placards required by S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, which erroneously state the designated seating capacity of the vehicle to be four (4) seats (two (2) front and two (2) rear), when in fact it has five (5) seats (two (2) front and three (3) rear). Sample of a correct label is attached. Vehicle capacity weight, recommended inflation pressures for maximum and half load as well as tire size designations are correctly indicated.

Mr. Vincent suggested that this error probably did not amount to a safety related defect within the meaning of Section 1402 of Volume 15 USCA, as amended, and regulations issued thereunder, because vehicle owners and occupants are not likely to be misled into using the vehicle in a manner that would make it less safe. In fact, religious observance of the instructions contained on the placard would provide the car owner with additional load capacity that would go unused.

Since inconvenience to the owner resulting from a recall would outweigh any benefits to be gained from a corrected label, we believe it would not be in the public interest for us to conduct a notification and recall campaign in this instance.

Your confirmation of our position would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Cerhard P. Riechel -- Attorney

Enc.

cc: Taylor Vincent

ID: nht74-1.17

DATE: 07/15/74

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

TO: National Campers & Hikers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1974, objecting to the use of extension mirrors on automobiles when a trailer is not in tow.

Although we fully appreciate the possible dangers inherent in the use of extension mirrors, this agency has no authority to regulate the use of such equipment. The authority that Congress has conferred upon the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration relates to the safe manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and not directly to its use. Therefore, unless some showing can be made that the design of the mirrors is dangerous, we have no authority to deal with the problem you describe.

Your truly,

ATTACH.

June 27, 1974

Lawrence R., Schneider, Chief Counsel -- U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

As a frequent camper in Michigan's out-of-doors, I am concerned that there are far too many pedestrians being injured and sometimes killed, by the uncontrolled use of extension mirrors on automobiles used for towing travel trailers.

The offending mirrors are the ones which are clamped on the front fenders or doors of automobiles and are easily detached. They extend out to approximately 8 Ft. and are chest high for all adults and head high for children.

These mirrors are not to be confused with permanent standard equipment on trucks and automobiles.

I believe that legislation should be passed that would outlaw extension mirrors on automobiles when a trailer is not being towed.

Sincerely

Lee & Winnie Jones -- District Directors, National Campers & Hikers Assoc.

ID: nht74-1.18

DATE: 05/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

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

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 22, 1974, petition to permit the use of the DOT symbol on tires to which no standard applies.

The provisions appearing in the April 3, 1974, Federal Register (39 FR 12104) are amendments to the standard, and your submission is in effect a petition for reconsideration of these changes.

Our reasons for prohibiting the use of the DOT symbol on tires to which no motor vehicle safety standard is applicable are listed in Notice 7. We have found the expense of covering the label to be justified, to avoid confusion in the symbol's meaning and the concept of compliance. We have determined that means are available to securely cover the DOT symbol, or in the alternative, to remove it after the molding process.

For these reasons, your petition is denied.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Date: April 22, 1974

Docket Section -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition on Label Covering the DOT Symbol of @ 574.5;

(Docket No. 71-18 Notice 7)

Gentlemen,

The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, on behalf of six tire manufacturers in Japan, hereby submits petition on the subject proposed Standard published in the Federal Register of April 3, 1974.

It is described in the preamble of subject Docket to the effect;

The DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard is applicable, unless, in the case of tire for which a standard has been issued but which is not yet effective, the symbol is covered by a label that is not easily removable and that states "No Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Applies to This Tire".

As this provision imposes unnecessary burdens on the tire manufacturers and would give very little benefit to the consumer, we would like to request that the NHTSA take following step for the reasons stated below: 1. DOT symbol may be molded into or onto the tires which conform to the final standard of FMVSS #119 even if the tires are manufactured prior to the effective date.

2. And, the tire manufacturers and brand name owners may sell tires without covering the DOT symbol by the label for three months prior to the effective date, in the case of tires for which a standard has been issued but which is not yet effective.

Reasons:

1. We believe that even if we covered the DOT symbol with the label, it could not contribute the safety of the consumer. In addition, there are the following demerits:

1.1 To require the tires which conform to the requirements of FMVSS #119 to have the DOT symbol covered by a label is not only burdensome to the tire manufacturers but also the consumers will ultimately bear the expense of providing labels.

1.2 From our past experience, 5 to 10% of the labels attached to the tire will come off during handling and shipping. Should it fall between the tire and the tube it may cause a flat tire which would involve a possible safety hazard and expose tire manufacturers to a product liability suit.

1.3 In the case of the tire sold as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, each motor vehicle is tested by running check before sending it out, we are afraid that some of the labels may come off before the consumer receives the car.

2. We think it is highly unlikely that any tire manufacturer would produce low quality tires and sell them in this short time before effective date. Some small degree of trust and practicality must exist.

3. We understand the lead time is defined as the period for molding the DOT symbol mark only on tires which conform to the final standard.

We would greatly appreciate your consideration on the above petition.

Very truly yours,

THE JAPAN AUTOMOBILE TIRE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; Keigo Ohgiya, Executive Director

ID: nht74-1.19

DATE: 09/23/74

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

TO: Dexter Axle Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 19, 1974, request to be advised of the steps necessary to acquire a manufacturer code number as required by Standards No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.

Standard No. 119 applies to tires-only and it is the responsibility of the tire manufacturer to obtain a code number and label it on his products. As a user of tires, you do not have obligations under this standard.

Standard No. 120 is a proposal which applies to rim construction and the selection of the correct rim for the (Illegible Word) equips. As a manufacturer of rims you would have a responsibility to label your products if this proposal becomes an effective regulation. However, we noted in the preamble to that proposal (copy enclosed) that we will not require manufacturer codes until a separate manufacturer code system has been established.

I am also enclosing a copy of the most recent proposal on manufacturer codes.

Yours truly,

ATTACH

August 19, 1974

Docket Section NHTSA

Re: FMVSS 119 and 120

Dear Sir:

Dexter Axle Co. Inc. is a manufacturer of running gear equipment for Mobile Homes and Recreational Vehicles. In our product line are wheels and rims subject to standards 119 and 120.

Please advise on the steps we must take to obtain a manufacturers code number as required.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, DEXTER AXLE COMPANY, INC.; J. A. Brown -- Manager - Engineering Res. & Dev.

ID: nht74-1.2

DATE: 10/25/74

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

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 25 1974 N40-30 (ZTV)

Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc. 1099 Wall Street, West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. Nakajima:

This is in reply to your letter of October 18, 1974 to Dr. Gregory asking whether the start position may be designated as the check position required by paragraph S5.3.2 of Standard No. 105-75.

The answer is yes. Any position between "on" and "start", including "on" and "start" may be designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-1.20

DATE: 07/23/74

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

TO: Toyo Rubber Industry Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 8, 1974, question whether publication of a brochure that lists the rims that may be used with the tires produced by Toyo Tire Corporation would meet the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

Publication of such a brochure would meet the requirement of S5.1 so long as the tires are listed in accordance with S5.1(a), that is by manufacturer name or brand name, followed by a listing of rims that may be used with each tire listed. The brochure would have to be supplied to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request, and in duplicate to: Tire Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- Docket Section

SUBJECT: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, S5 Tire and Rim Matching Information

Dear Sir:

FMVSS No. 119 is requiring as follows:

S5 Tire and Rim Matching Information

S5.1 Each manufacturer of tires shall ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire that he produces is provided to the public in one of the following forms:

(a) Listed by manufacturer name or brand name in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request, and in duplicate to: Tire Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590; or

(b) Contained in publications, current at the date of manufacture of the tire or any later date, of at least one of the following organizations:

The Tire and Rim Association.

The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization.

Japanese Industrial Standards.

Deutsche Industrie Norm.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders, Ltd.

British Standards Institution.

Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization.

In case any particular tire and rim matching information is not contained in the publications mentioned in S5.1(b), and since S5.1(a) requires the tire manufacturer to provide a document to the public, we are going to use as a document a brochure which shows the tire and rim combination to be used.

We understand that such a brochure would comply with the requirement of S5.1. Please let us know your opinion as to whether our understanding is correct or not.

Should our understanding be incorrect, please let us know what kind of document we must provide to the public.

Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Y. Takami -- Technical Representative, TOYO RUBBER INDUSTRY COMPANY, LTD.

ID: nht74-1.21

DATE: 07/08/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Lackey, Alexander & Jackson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We are enclosing herewith a copy of new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, which becomes effective March 1, 1975, and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding a new Federal standard (No. 120) which proposes requirements for tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.

There are no Federal requirements regarding the tensile strength of tire bead.

We regret we cannot be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

LAW OFFICE

LACKEY, ALEXANDER & JACKSON

June 15, 1974

United States Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;

Atten: E. T. Driver,

Dear Mr. Driver:

In your letter addressed to the undersigned, you enclosed copies on Standard Regulation Nos. 109, 110, 117, and part of 574. You stated that you were in the process of developing proposed Standards Nos. 119 and 120. If these standards have been completed, I will appreciate your forwarding a copy of the same to me.

I do not intend to impose upon you, but if you have in your rules and regulations any test of the tensile strength of the steel wires forming the bead as defined in 22914, Section 571.109, Standard No. 109, Sub-Section S-3, I would appreciate your also forwarding a copy of same.

I am now prosecuting a case against a manufacturer and find that the bead wire is completely separated. When it was placed upon the rim to be mounted, air was put in the tire to cause it to expand to the rim; and the party mounting the tire lost an eye when the air escaped with great force at the break in the bead into his face.

The defense to this law suit appears to be that the party mounting the tire put too much air in the tire which caused the bead to separate. I have had the tire X-rayed and find a clean break in the steel wires in the bead; but there is no breaking of the fabric or the rubber.

I, therefore, need to know the tensile strength of the wires forming the bead in order to meet my opponents' effort to prove that the steel wires were broken because of excessive inflation of the tire. If you have any regulation as to the required tensile strength of the bead wires, I will appreciate your furnishing me a copy of such regulation or specification.

Your cooperation in this matter is very much appreciated.

Yours very truly,

Joseph L. Lackey

ID: nht74-1.22

DATE: 04/16/74

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

TO: Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 20, 1974, request for a determination of whether two of your motorcycle treadwear indicator designs conform to the S6.4 requirements of Standard 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

The treadwear indicator requirements have been amended by deleting all of that portion of S6.4 that begins "The indicators shall, as a minimum". This means that the manufacturer determines for himself the location and design of the six treadwear indicators required (three in the case of motorcycle tires). He must assure himself that when the indicator is reached, the tread at that point on the tire is worn to a depth of one-sixteenth of an inch (or one-thirty-second of an inch in the case of motorcycle tires).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

U.S. Department of Transportation, att: Asst Chief Counsel Richard Dyson -- National Highway Traffic Administration

FMVSS-119 Motorcycle Tires

Dear Mr Dyson.

Trelleborg Gummifabriks AB has exported motorcycle tires to U.S.A. for a couple of years. With referens to FMVSS-119, S 6.4 Tread Wear Indicators. We have a little question:

If you look on the two enclosed drawings, G-3053-2, you find two different designs for treadwears: "Forslag I" and "Forslag II".

Please, inform me if you think the one or both of the two designs are in accordance with your stipulations.

Yours sincerely TRELLEBORGS GUMMIFABRIKS AKTIEBOLAG -- Tire Department; Erik Sundelin

ID: nht74-1.23

DATE: 08/01/74

FROM: R. B. Dyson -- NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation, David A. Martin (ASE)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to General Motors' July 10, 1974, request for interpretation of paragraph S3., Application, of Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses, relative to brake booster hose. You refer to language in the preamble to Docket No. 1-5; Notice 11, published June 28, 1974 (39 FR 24012), which stated:

The NHTSA has concluded that the difference in requirements for the hydraulic booster system justifies special performance requirements for this application. Until these requirements are developed, hydraulic brake booster hose running from pump to accumulator will be considered to be exempt from the requirements of this standard. Hose running from accumulator to booster will also be exempted if redundant booster is provided.

This language exempts hoses used in certain functions, but not all. Clearly, booster hose running from accumulator to booster without redundant boost would not be exempt. Therefore, your conclusion that Standard No. 106-74 does not apply to any hydraulic brake booster hose, hydraulic brake booster hose end fittings, or hydraulic brake booster hose assemblies is overbroad and for that reason incorrect.

We suggest you describe in another letter the booster applications in General Motors vehicles which are not clearly categorized by the Notice 11 language. We will then be able to tell you whether or not they are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106-74.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

August 5 - RAR,RLL,DPD,JAN LCL,WCC,CRS,GFB

USG 1137

July 10, 1974

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Dr. Gregory:

This letter requests an interpretation of paragraph S3., Application of the amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106-74, Brake Hoses (Docket 1-5, Notice 11, published on June 28, 1974) as it relates to hydraulic brake hoses.

The General Motors petition (USG 1087, dated 3/27/74) for the exclusion of hydraulic booster hoses from applicability under MVSS 106 explained that both the low and high pressure hoses associated with the General Motors hydraulically boosted brake power assist units should be excluded from the hydraulic brake hose performance requirements due to their different working environment and construction. Moreover, we explained that the working fluid within these hydraulic booster hoses and the hydraulically boosted brake power assist unit is completely separate from the brake system master cylinder and the hydraulic brake hoses which contain the hydraulic brake fluid used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes.

Notice 11 preamble refers to this General Motors petition requesting exclusion of hydraulic booster hoses from the MVSS 106-74 requirements and concludes:

The NHTSA has concluded that the difference in requirements for the hydraulic booster system justifies special performance requirements for this application. Until these requirements are developed, hydraulic brake booster hose . . . will be considered to be exempt from the requirements of this standard.

This portion of the preamble leads General Motors to conclude that the Administrator's intent was to exempt all hydraulic brake booster lines.

Accordingly, General Motors interpretation of paragraph S3., Application, is that MVSS 106-74 does not apply to hydraulic brake booster hose, hydraulic brake booster hose end fittings, or hydraulic brake booster hose assemblies. A prompt verification of this interpretation is urgently needed, particularly since the amendment itself does not contain any provision stating that MVSS 106-74 is not applicable to hydraulic brake booster hoses, end fittings, and assemblies.

Very truly yours,

David E. Martin, Manager Automotive Safety Engineering

ld