ID: nht79-4.20

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Federal Trade Commission/PC

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1979, asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has adopted the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) definition of mud and snow tire or has made any official statement regarding the validity of that definition. NHTSA has not adopted the RMA definition for use in any agency regulations, relating either to safety standards or to tire quality grading, nor has NHTSA made any official statement regarding the validity of the definition. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION/PC

SEPTEMBER 11, 1979

Dick Hipolit, Esquire -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Agency

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Pursuant to our conversation of September 11, 1979, I would appreciate if you would inform me whether N.H.T.S.A. has adopted the industry standard of the Rubber Manufacturers Association's definition of a mud and snow tire or has offered any opinions regarding its validity.

The definition states that: "The characteristics of a mud and snow tire are:

(a) A substantial portion of the lug, block, or rib edges in the tread design are at an angle greater than 30 degrees to the tire circumferential center line.

(b) On at least one side of the tread design, the shoulder lugs protrude at least 1/2" in a direction generally perpendicular to the direction of travel."

The above information may be sent to Jeff Jacobovitz, Federal Trade Commission/PC, 6th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

Thank you.

Sincerely, Jeff Jacobovitz -- Legal Intern, Division of Compliance

ID: nht79-4.21

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 19, 1979 asking for clarification of the tire manufacturer's responsibility, as of April 1, 1980, for providing Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) point of sale information for radial tires sold as original equipment on new passenger cars. You also ask what the original equipment tire manufacturer's responsibility will be for providing UTQG information as of October 1, 1980.

The UTQG Standards (49 CFR 575.104) require that tire grading information be made available to consumers by several means. Grading information must be molded on the tire sidewall (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)), contained in a label affixed to the tread surface (49 CFR 575.104 (d)(1)(i)(B), and furnished under 49 CFR 575.6(a) and (c) to motor vehicle first purchasers and to prospective purchasers of vehicles and tires (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii) and (iii)).

For radial tires, the effective date for sidewall molding is October 1, 1980, regardless of whether the tire is sold for use as original equipment on a new vehicle or as a replacement tire. However, the tread labeling requirement, effective April 1, 1980 in the case of radial tires, specifically exempts tires sold as original equipment on new vehicles. Therefore, the tire manufacturer is not responsible for the attachment of UTQG tread labels to tires which are in fact sold for use as original equipment on new vehicles.

Motor vehicle and tire manufacturers are responsible under 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii) and 575.6(c) for providing certain UTQG point of sale information to prospective purchasers of their products. This requirement, which in the case of original equipment tires does not necessitate display of the specific UTQG grades applicable to particular tires; takes effect April 1, 1980, for radial tires.

Pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(iii) and 575.6(a), first purchasers of vehicles equipped with radial tires manufactured after October 1, 1980 must be supplied with an explanation of the UTQG system containing a statement referring the reader to the tire sidewall for specific UTQG grades. However, responsibility for supplying this information rests with the motor vehicle manufacturer rather than the tire manufacturer.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 19, 1979

DICK HIPLETT -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir: Would you please clarify for us what the original equipment manufacturers' responsibility will be as of April 1, 1980 regarding point of sales UTQG information for radial tires.

Also, what will the original equipment manufacturers' responsibility be regarding consumer UTQG information as of October 1, 1980.

Thank you.

Yours truly, MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group; John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht79-4.22

DATE: 02/07/79

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We understand that a question has arisen concerning the testing of "P-type" tires under the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)). Under the terms of the regulation, candidate tires are to be inflated to 24 psi prior to the traction test (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D), and (f)(2)(viii)), and are to be loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), for the tires' size designation, at a cold inflation pressure of 24 psi (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(viii)). However, Appendix A lists cold inflation pressures for "P-type" tires in kilopascals, with no stated inflation pressure corresponding precisely to 24 psi.

NHTSA chose 24 psi as the stated inflation pressure for UTQG traction testing since it represents the recommended tire inflation pressure for most passenger cars. In the situation where no cold inflation pressure exactly equivalent to the specified pressure of 24 psi is stated in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 for a tire size designation, the tires to be tested are inflated to the pressure, listed for the tire size designation in Appendix A, which is nearest to 24 psi, i.e., 180 kPa for tires with inflation pressures measured in kilopascals. The tires are then loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A for the inflation pressure thus determined. The agency plans to issue an interpretive amendment to the regulation clarifying this point.

ID: nht79-4.23

DATE: 10/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Uniroyal GmbH

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 12, 1979, asking whether the character height of 5/32nds of an inch, stated in the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104, Figure 1), is considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to specify the only acceptable height for UTQG sidewall molding, or whether the agency interprets this measurement as a minimum value.

The specification of 5/32nds of an inch tire sidewall characters was intended by NHTSA to establish a minimum requirement to assure readability of the UTQG information presented. The agency has no objection to the use of characters of a height greater than 5/32nds of an inch, so long as all characters used to convey UTQG information are of the same height.

ID: nht79-4.24

DATE: 08/14/79

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Uniroyal GMBH

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 20, 1979, concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTGQ) Standards (49 CFR 575.104). You ask whether it is permissible under the regulation to mold UTQG grades on only one sidewall of a tire and, in the case of a symmetrical black sidewall tire, whether the grades may be molded on the same sidewall as the tire identification number required by 49 CFR 574.5.

The UTQG Standards require that tire grades need be molded on only one sidewall of a tire. Since the regulation presently does not specify the sidewall on which tire grades must be molded, Uniroyal is legally permitted to mold UTQG grades on either sidewall of its tires. However, in order to facilitate consumer access to the grading information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) encourages manufacturers to mold tire grades on the sidewall intended to be visible when the tire is mounted on a vehicle. NHTSA will monitor the placement of tire trades to determine whether further action is necessary to assure the accessibility of the grading information.

ID: nht79-4.25

DATE: 05/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oestreicher; Sternberg & Manes

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1979, asking whether your client, a tire brand name owner, is permitted to bill its dealers and distributors directly for the costs of supplying Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) information pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104 and maintaining records of tire sales pursuant to 49 CFR 574.7.

The UTQG regulation requires that tire manufacturers and brand name owners "provide" grading information for each of their tires (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)). Similarly, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation requires these parties to "provide" upon request tire registration forms to dealers and distributors (49 CFR 574.7(a)) and directs tire manufacturers and brand name owners to maintain or have maintained for them records of the information acquired on these registration forms (49 CFR 574.7(b)).

A billing arrangement of the type your client suggests would in effect make the tire manufacturer or brand name owner the agent of the dealer or distributor for purposes of grading and registering tires. Such a practice would run counter to the intention of the agency that manufacturers and brand name owners bear primary responsibility for implementation of tire grading and registration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will take whatever action is necessary, including possible revision of the regulations, to prevent manipulation of the tire regulations in this manner.

Apart from the legal implications of your client's proposa, NHTSA would question the soundness, from a business standpoint, of a plan for direct billing of UTQG and tire recordkeeping costs. Your client's proposed course of action appears to have the aim of generating dissatisfaction with Federal tire regulations among dealers and distributors, and could, by lessening cooperation at the retail level, interfere with your client's ability to fulfill its obligations under the regulations.

SINCERELY,

OESTREICHER, STERNBERG & MANES

March 13, 1979

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This office represents a corporation, which distributes private brand tires through its dealers on a wholesale basis. Grade labeling and registration of tires is an extremely expensive administrative procedure. My client certainly will comply with the law, however, answer to our inquiry would be appreciated.

Can the cost of grade labeling and registration be passed on directly to the wholesaler or purchaser of our dealers? The question is one of direct billing for such items rather than burying the cost of such administrative work in the cost of the tire.

Your prompt answer would be appreciated and any other information you feel might be helpful.

MARVIN G. MANES ATTORNEY AT LAW

ID: nht79-4.26

DATE: 10/12/79

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Harley-Davidson Sales Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking how long you should retain certain records relating to the sale of motorcycles and motorcycle parts.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has some record retention requirements that apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Dealers are required to aid manufacturers in the maintenance of their records. For example, you must supply manufacturers with information relating to the purchasers of motor vehicles that you sell so that the manufacturer can maintain a list of purchasers.

Dealers are not required by the NHTSA to maintain records on vehicles or equipment they sell. Accordingly, with respect to the records indicated in your letter, you may use your own business judgment as to when to dispose of them.

SINCERELY,

Bob Maxant's

ILLINOIS HARLEY-DAVIDSON SALES, INC.

Dear Mr Tilton,

We are a dealer selling Harley Davidson Motorcycles and Parts. We are in process of cleaning out our old files but not sure how long things have to be held.

Do you have any list giving time to hold items like cycle sales to customers, cash receipts for sales of parts over counter, paid accounts receivable for parts bought by other dealers and cities.

Any help you can be would be appreciated.

Mary Ann McClure Secretary

PS I already have to Record Retention Gick 1979

ID: nht79-4.27

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Bureau of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to memorialize the telephone conversation you had with Kathy DeMeter of my staff on Thursday, October 4, 1979, concerning the motor vehicle manufacturers' certificate of origin. You indicated to Ms. DeMeter that the new standard certificate of origin has an assignment form on the reverse side for the transfer from the first dealer to the consumer. This assignment contains odometer information, including identifiers of the vehicle, a reference to Federal law, a statement of the odometer reading, a statement that the reading is actual unless one of two other statements (mileage not actual or mileage over 99,999 miles) is checked, the names and addresses of the buyer and the seller, and the signature of the seller. Ms. DeMeter informed you that in order for the certificate to substitute for a separate Federal odometer disclosure statement, it must include the signature of the buyer. Ms. DeMeter also indicated that when the assignment form is being used to transfer the vehicle from the dealer to another, the odometer information is not required under Federal law.

ID: nht79-4.28

DATE: 02/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 19, 1978, asking whether the odometer statement is required for transfers between dealers which take place price to the sale of a vehicle to an individual. The answer is no. Exemption 580.5(b) (49 CFR @ 580.5(b)) states

A transferor of a new vehicle prior to its first transfer for purposes other than resale need not disclose the vehicle's odometer mileage.

This statement is intended to exclude all transfers of new vehicles prior to the first sale to a customer. For example, when the manufacturer transfers the vehicle to a dealer, no statement needs to be issued because the transfer is for resale purposes. If that dealer makes a trade with another dealer, no disclosure statement needs to be issued because this transfer is also for resale purposes. The second dealer is purchasing the vehicle merely to resell it. If that dealer then sells the vehicle to a customer, private or commercial, who is going to use that vehicle for some purpose other than reselling it immediately, then a disclosure statement needs to be issued. This transfer is the first transfer of the vehicle for a purpose other than resale. Beginning with this first transfer to a customer, each transfer of the vehicle from then on must be accompanied by a disclosure statement.

The Federal law does not, however, prohibit the State from requiring such disclosures. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration supports all affirmative steps which the States take with regard to combating odometer misrepresentation.

ID: nht79-4.29

DATE: 08/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 3, 1979, asking several questions concerning the definition of "designated seating position" (49 CFR 571.3), as that term was recently amended (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979).

In your first question, you ask for confirmation that any bench or split-bench seat with less than 50 inches of hip room may never be required to have three or more than three designated seating positions, notwithstanding the capability of accomodating a person at least as large as fifth percentile adult female. Your assumption is incorrect. As noted in the (Illegible Word) to the recent amendment, the 50-inch specification does not mean that some vehicle seats with less than 50 inches of hip room should not also have more than two designated seating positions, if the vehicle and seat design is such that three positions would likely be used (44 FR 23232). The specification is nerely the amount of space the agency will consider as conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions. The 50-inch caveat was included in the definition to simplify determinations of proper seating capacity by both manufacturers and the agency.

Your second question involves technical aspects of the amended definition of "designated seating position". The definition specifies that "hip room" is to be measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). That standard defines "hip room" as,

"the minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the 'x' plane through the (Illegible Word) front Vithin 1.0 in. (25mm) below and 3.0 in. (76mm) above the SqRP-front and 3.0 in. (76mm) force and aft of the SqRP-front." (Area A in your diagrams.)

Your question includes diagrams and asks whether various portions of vehicle seats or other components would be considered "trimmed surfaces" within SAE Standard J1100(a).

Specifically, you ask whether slightly soft surfaces such as arm rests, seat back contours or other raised portions of the seat cushion would be considered "trimmed surfaces", for purposes of determining the minimum hip room dimension. The answer to your question is yes. The agency would probably consider all of the surfaces illustrated in your letter "trimmed surfaces" and, strictly speaking, within the meaning of the SAE procedure. This interpretation must be qualified, however. The procedure specifies that "hip room" is the minimum dimension "between trimmed surfaces". If a particular bench seat has distinct sections, the total dimension must be determined by adding the minimum dimensions of each section. For example, your Figure 5 illustrates a bench seat that includes a slightly raised center surface on the tunnel (in the center of the seat over the driveshaft). The lowest portion of Area A as defined in SAE J1100(a) would strike the side of this elevated center section, even though the top portion of Area A would be above the elevation. In such case, there would be three distinct portions of the seat (the driver's seat, the passenger seat, and the center seat position) that should be measured separately and then added together to get the total dimension. Otherwise, only the portion of the seat on the driver's side of the center elevation would be measured under the strict wording of the SAE procedure--an absurd result.

Regarding these questions about the measurement procedure, I must make several candid remarks. The agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition of "designated seating position" by finding loopholes in the measurement procedure. Further, as noted above, even if the hip room as measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a) is less than 50 inches, a manufacturer may still be required to designate three seating positions. If the measured dimension is less than 50 inches only because of slight elevations or contours on the outside seat cushion, a manufacturer must designate at least three positions if these elevation or contours are not real impediments to three persons occupying the seat.

Determinations of designated seating capacity under the amended definition should not cause manufacturers any real problems. If a manufacturer truly only intends to market a particular bench or split-bench seat for two occupants, he can and should make this obvious by the seat design, regardless of whether the total seat dimension is more than 50 inches or less than 50 inches. One simple way to do this is to install a permanent arm rest or console in the center portion of the seat.

I hope this response has clarified our position and will alleviate any problems you might have in making future determinations of proper designated seating capacity.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

July 3, 1979

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing this letter to you to ask you for your interpretation concerning the 49 CFR Part 571, "Designated Seating Position," final rule in the April 19, 1979 Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 77. Your earliest reply to the attached questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Hisakauz Murakami Staff Safety

cc: RALPH HITCHOCK; GUY HUNTER

Question 2.1 (a) General

Generally speaking, would the so-called trimmed surfaces within Area A in SAE J1100(a) include the slightly soft surface (for example, seat cushion surface, seat back surface and arm rest surface) which changes its form somewhat when an occupant is sitting?

Question 2.1 (b)

If your answer is "no" in Question 2.1 (a), please show me the detailed definitions of the trimmed surfaces (for example, body panel).

Question 2.2

Surface of the Arm-Rest

Would the surface of the arm rest be considered the trimmed surfaces within the Area A when the hip-room will be measured?

Arm Rest

Figure 2

(Graphics omitted)

Question 2.3

Surface of the Seat-Back

Would the surface of the seat-back on the wheel-house portion be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Portion of the seat-back

Figure 3

(Graphics omitted)

Question 2.4

Surface of the Outside Seat-Cushion Side

Would the surface of the outside seat-cushion side be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Outside seat-cushion side

Figure 4 Question 2.5

Surface of the Inside Seat-Cushion Side

Would the surface of the inside cushion side on the tunnel be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Inside seat-cushion side

Figure 5

(Graphics omitted)

NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD. ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

May 10, 1979

Guy Hunter Crashworthiness Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Hunter:

During my May 4th visit to your office, I requested your interpretation concerning the measurement procedure of the "Hip Room" with regard to SAE J 1100a, which was adopted in the 49 CFR Part 571, "Designated Seating Position". The final rule was issued in the April 19, 1979 Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 77.

At that time, you suggested that I submit my questions, along with a letter, to your office for response.

I would, therefore, like to take this time to submit my questions to you and ask for your interpretation.

Thank you for your fine cooperation with regard to this particular matter. We look forward to hearing your interpretations in the near future.

Should any questions arise, please feel free to contact me at (201) 871-3555.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety

Q-1 The "X" plane through the SgRP

SAE J 1100a states the following as the definitions of the Three-Dimensional Reference System and the Hip-room:

ZERO "Y" PLANE - (Centerline body zero plane) is a vertical plane which passes through the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.

ZERO "X" PLANE - Vertical body zero plane is a plane normal to the "Y" plane.

ZERO "Z" PLANE - Horizontal body zero plane is a plane normal to the "X" and "Y" planes.

W5-HIP ROOM-FRONT - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in (25 mm) below and 3.0 in (76 mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in (76 mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.

W6-HIP ROOM-SECOND - Measured in the same matter as W5

The above-mentioned definitions are identical to those in SAE J 182a as shown in Fig. 1.

It is my understanding that the "X" plane through the SgRP (I think we should call this "X" plane the "Y-Z" plane through the SgRP, mathematically speaking) in W5 or W6 of SAE J 1100a is the one as shown in Fig. 2. Is my understanding correct?

Q-2 The measurement procedure of "Hip-room

Assuming that your answer to Q-1 is "yes", it would then be my understanding that there can be two (2) different ways of interpreting the measurement of W5 (or W6) as shown below.

(a) The case of emphasizing "the "X" plane through the SgRP"

In this case, W5 will be defined as follows, and the words of "and 3.0 in (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front"will not be significant as shown in Fig. 3.

W5-HIP-ROOM - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in (25mm) below and 3.0 in (76mm) above the SgRP-front.

(b) The case of emphasizing "within 1.0 in . . . . aft of the SgRP-front"

In this case, W5 will be defined as follows, and the words of "through the SgRP-front" will not be significant as shown in Fig. 4.

W5-HIP-ROOM - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane within 1.0 in (25mm) below and 3.0 in (76mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.

Which is correct, (a) or (b)?

FIG. 1

(Graphics omitted) FIG. 2

"X" plane through the SgRP

FIG. 3

FIG. 4 (Graphics omitted)