ID: nht78-1.17

DATE: 02/17/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Wirtz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 17, 1977, inquiring about tire endurance tests.

The tire endurance test proposed in Docket No. 74-2, Notice 1, has not been adopted by this agency. Comments received in response to the notice were generally critical of the suggested amendment. The agency found the comments essentially meritorious and, thus, is at this time contemplating closing the docket on the proposed revision. The tire endurance test currently prescribed in Standard 109 remains in effect and should be regarded as establishing the performance level necessary for compliance.

If you wish to obtain copies of the SAE standards, you should contact the SAE directly at the following address:

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Docket Section -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

October 17, 1977

Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109) - Registration No. 74-2 notice from January 10, 1974

Passenger car tires which shall be labeled with the symbol DOT must among others be subjected to the tire endurance test. In the notice No. 1, registered under No. 74-2, the proposal was made to replace the tire endurance test defined in MVSS 109 by a new SAE-procedure showing some changes in the testing conditions compared with the test method defined in MVSS 109.

Would you be kind enough to inform me whether the new SAE test procedure (published under registration No. 74-2) was put into force for the performance of the tire endurance test according to MVSS 109, and which of both test methods is obligatory for the proof of tires to conform to the requirements of MVSS 109.

At the same time I ask you to place to my disposal all SAE standards regarding tire test procedures.

Sincerely Wirtz -- General manager

ID: nht78-1.18

DATE: 06/19/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 1, 1978, to Mr. Tilton of this office requesting our interpretation of the requirement of Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, that a placard displaying specified information be "permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location." (S4.3) Specifically, you inquire whether the back side of the lid of the center console box is an acceptable location for the placard within the meaning of S4.3.

We have interpreted "equally accessible location" as requiring a location where the placard (1) can be referred to easily, as it can when located on the glove compartment door; and (2) will be relatively free from exposure to substances which may destroy it or render it illegible, as it is when located on the glove compartment door. The back side of the lid of the center console box as depicted in the diagram attached to your May 1 letter fulfills these two requirements, and is therefore an "equally accessible location" within the meaning of S4.3.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

May 1, 1978

Roger S. Tilton -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This letter is to request your interpretation concerning a location of the tire placard which is specified in S.4.3. of FMVSS 110 "Tire selection and rims". We are planning to affix the tire placard to the back side of the lid of the center console box in one of our future models as shown in the attachment.

We would like to know whether this location is acceptable or not under the requirement of "A placard, permanently affixed to the glove box compartment door or an equally accessible locations" in S.4.3.

We would appreciate your reply as soon as possible

Thank you.

Very truly yours, Tokio Iinuma Staff, Safety

Enclosure

(Graphic omitted)

ID: nht78-1.19

DATE: 03/29/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms the discussion held among you, Mr. Roger Tilton, Mr. Guy Hunter, and Mr. Martin Paliokas on February 14, 1978, concerning the applicability of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, and Standard No. 113, Hood Latch Systems, to your vehicles.

In your first question, you asked whether the joint connecting a piece of metal that is attached to a body pillar and which is covered by the exterior body panels is a joint regulated by Standard No. 221. The standard regulates a "body panel joint" which is defined as "the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, . . . ." "Body panel" is defined as "a body component. . .used to enclose the bus' occupant space." The piece of metal to which you refer becomes a part of the pillar and serves no purpose in enclosing occupant space. Therefore, the joint connecting these two body members is not a body panel joint and is not subject to the standard.

In your second question, you ask whether a hood latch system can utilize two pin-type latches, one on each side of the hood, to comply with Standard No. 113. The standard specifically permits the use of two hood latch systems. The use of these two distinct pins would appear to comply with the requirements.

ID: nht78-1.2

DATE: 12/08/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Eugene D. Sambucetti Wesco Truck & Trailer Sales P.O. Box 626 1960 E. Main Street Woodland, California 95695

Dear Mr. Sambucetti:

This responds to your October 30, 1978, request to know how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expects a trailer manufacturer to provide the lateral stability necessary to remain within a 12-foot-wide lane while stopping from 60 mph in the absence of antilock installation. Your question follows from an interpretation of the recent Ninth Circuit ruling in which the agency stated its view that trailers are still required to stop from 60 mph within the 12-foot-wide lane, but without the capability of "no lockup" performance.

In interpreting the court's ruling that "no lockup" performance on trailers was invalid, the NHTSA recognized that the 12-foot-wide lane requirement would probably also be invalid if the requirement for 90 p.s.i. air pressure in the trailer control line during the stop remained effective. As you know, there is no stopping distance for trailers that would otherwise require a strong brake application and resulting loss of lateral stability. The agency therefore concluded that the 90 p.s.i. requirement was invalidated, stating in its October 19th interpretation,

It does appear that the requirement for 90 p.s.i. air pressure in the trailer control line during the stop constitutes a portion of the "no lockup" requirement and is therefore invalidated by the court.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 30, 1978

Mr. Tad Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

In looking over the interpretation of your department's views of what is valid and what was invalidated by the decision rendered by the Ninth District Court we have one question to present to you for an answer;

How can we, a trailer manufacturer, comply with the law when you state as valid "Remaining within a 12 foot lane while stopping" without "antilock" which you state has been invalidated?

We look forward to your prompt reply so we can assure ourselves to be in compliance.

Very truly yours,

WESCO TRUCK & TRAILER SALES

Eugene D. Sambucetti President

EDS:bw

ID: nht78-1.20

DATE: 04/24/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 16, 1978, letter asking about the responsibility for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards when previously certified tires are modified by the addition of white sidewalls.

In your first question, you ask whether the person who modifies the tire must recertify it for compliance with safety requirements. The answer to your question is no. A modifier of a tire is not considered a manufacturer as that term is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). A modifier's status is analagous to that of an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle. However, unlike an alterer of a motor vehicle, there are no labeling or certification requirements for alterers of motor vehicle equipment. Persons who modify previously certified motor vehicle equipment are required to ensure that their modification does not render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a safety standard.

Since the modifier of previously certified motor vehicle tires has no labeling or certification requirements, the answer to your second question whether it would be required to obtain a manufacturer's identification code mark is no. Only a manufacturer or retreader of motor vehicle tires need obtain such identification marks.

In your final question, you ask who would be responsible for the registration of these modified tires. The original tire manufacturer would be required to conduct the tire

registration program. You assert that this might cause confusion in tire recalls since manufacturers might indicate that blackwall tires are being recalled when, in fact, some whitewalls would be included. Our regulation requires that tires be identified in a recall by their serial number. We are not aware of any instance where recalled tires have been additionally identified as "blackwall" by the manufacturers. Thus, although the problem you describe could conceivably occur, we at this time have no basis for viewing it as a real threat to effective recall campaigns.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

March 16, 1978

Joseph Levin, Esq -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration

Subject: Converting Blackwall Tires to Whitewall TIRE COSMOTOLOGY, INC 10920 Indian Trail - Suite 201 Dallas, Texas 75229

Dear Mr Levin:

The conversion of a new blackwall tire to whitewall prior to sale to the end consumer would appear to me to constitute a violation of the Safety Act of 1966 as amended, and non-compliance with FMVSS109 or 119 as the case may be, if the tire was not recertified after completing the whitewalling process. In addition it would appear to me that this procedure could and probably would result in frustration of the tire registration requirements in that, in the event of a recall, the tire in question would be identified by the manufacturer as a blackwall, whereas the consumer would have in his possession a whitewall. This problem becomes acute when the process is performed by an independent tire dealer or other organization not affiliated with or under the control of the tire manufacturer.

Attached is a copy of a Training Manual and other literature published by Tire Cosmotology, Inc explaining various of its procedures relating to several different conversion processes.

Aside from the legal and safety implications of these tire conversion processes, Goodyear has instructed its field organization that any Goodyear-brand tires altered or converted without our authorization and approval will not be eligible for adjustment consideration under our tire warranties.

The purpose of this letter is to ask for the NHTSA's official position on this subject. Specifically, we would like to know:

(1) If an independent tire dealer or other organization not affiliated with the tire manufacturer converts a new blackwall tire to a whitewall prior to sale to the end consumer, must that dealer or organization recertify such tire as meeting the applicable FMVSS?

(2) Must such dealer or organization acquire a manufacturer's identification code mark and apply it to the reprocessed tire? Would tire manufacturer's tire identification number have to be removed and a new number, including a new date code have to be applied?

(3) Whose responsibility is it after such reprocessing to comply with the NHTSA's tire registration requirements?

Please advise.

Sincerely, TOM CAINE -- Attorney, LAW DEPT.

Attachments

cc: Francis Armstrong -- Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration COSMO G-300

BASIC UNIT

TRAINING MANUAL

TIRE COSMOTOLOGY INC

ID: nht78-1.21

DATE: 10/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 10, 1978, letter asking whether it is permissible to label motorcycle tires with alternate speeds and load ratings appropriate for those speeds. You suggest that your tires be labeled with maximum speeds of 131, 137, and 143 miles per hour with the corresponding load ratings. The labeling of motor cycle tires is regulated by Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other (Illegible word) Passenger Cars.

Standard No. 119 requires that tires be marked with, among other things, the maximum inflation pressure of the tire and the load rating applicable to that inflation pressure. Speed qualifications are permitted on tires when, for example, the tires are speed restricted. Otherwise, tires are not marked with speed criteria although they may be marked with the symbols S, H, or V as part of the tire identification number. These symbols, established by the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO), indicate that the tire is an acceptable high-speed tire.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers it appropriate to permit the symbols S, H, or V to be marked on tires to indicate that such tires are appropriate for high-speed use. This permits, for example, a sophisticated purchaser of tires for emergency vehicles to know that the tires are suitable for the higher operational speeds necessary for those vehicles. The NHTSA, however, considers it inappropriate to mark motorcycle tires with maximum speeds of 131, 137, and 143 miles per hour with the corresponding safe load ratings. Such markings would appear to sanction the use of the tires at these speeds which far exceed the national speed limit.

Since Standard No. 119 regulates the permissible uses of speed designations on nonpassenger car tires, the agency interprets the standard to prohibit the marking of any other speed designations on a tire. The NHTSA considers the only appropriate speed designation on tires to be one that reflects a speed restricted tire or one that uses the symbols established by the ETRTO for tires that have been tested and can be operated at higher speeds.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 10, 1978

J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation has been asked to manufacture tires for new Honda motorcycles with several load designations appearing on the tire sidewall. The loads vary according to the speed imposed on the vehicle as follows: (These are all V rated tires).

Front Tire Rear Tire Inflation Pressure Max. MPH 3.50V19 4.25V18 Maximum 131 515 Lbs. 655 Lbs. 42 psi 137 490 Lbs. 620 Lbs. 42 psi 143 465 Lbs. 585 Lbs. 42 psi

I have discussed this subject briefly by telephone with Mr. A. (Illegible Word) who urged me to write for your legal interpretation of FMVSS 119 and how to identify these supplementary loads on a tire sidewall.

As I will be out of the office until July 24, please contact Mr. A. M. Mills if additional information is required. His direct phone is (716) 879-8397.

Very truly yours, DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION; Richard H. Attenhofer -- Manager - Tire Technical Relations

cc: A. M. Mills

ID: nht78-1.22

DATE: 09/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 2, 1978, letter noting two standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that you consider to be in conflict. You suggest that Part 569, Regrooved Tires, conflicts with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, in their requirements for the size of the molding of the word "regroovable".

Standard No. 119 specifies all of the labeling of tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. The size of that required labeling is set at not less than .078 inches. This size provision applies generally to all of the various information required to be labeled on a tire. The information labeled on the tire includes the tire identification number and word "regroovable" if appropriate. Both of these requirements, however, are subjects of their own regulations. The tire identification number is specifically regulated by Part 574 and regroovable tires are regulated by Part 569. Each of these Parts further specifies the size designation of the information that it requires. For example, Part 569 specifically requires the word "regroovable" to be in letters .38 to .50 inches in height.

The two standards do not conflict. The size requirement in Part 569 falls within the acceptable size levels of Standard No. 119. Part 569 merely further restricts the size of the word "regroovable" beyond that specified in Standard No. 119. Accordingly, the two are consistent. To understand both requirements, apply the general size requirements of Standard No. 119 to all information that is not otherwise regulated elsewhere. For information specifically regulated elsewhere, apply the size criteria specified in the applicable regulation.

ID: nht78-1.23

DATE: 03/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 22, 1977, letter asking whether the tire information label required by Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, must contain the rim size of the rim that is mounted on the vehicle.

Paragraph S5.3.2. of the standard states that the label must contain "the size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for those tires." This paragraph specifically permits a manufacturer to equip a vehicle with rim sizes that differ from those listed on its tire information label.

SINCERELY,

December 22, 1977

Frank A. Brendt U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Dear Mr. Brendt:

On the behalf of the members of the Trailer Manufacturers Association, we request an interpretation in the matter following relative to FMVSS No. 120.

S5.1.2 permits the tire size mounted on the vehicle not to be disclosed on the certification label providing the tire mounted falls within GAWR requirements.

Boat trailer manufacturers commonly provide a number of tire options and often these tires have different rims. It is not clear if FMVSS No. 120 requires the rim which is mounted on the trailer to be disclosed on the certification plate. For example, at the customer's wish, a given trailer might be equipped with 12, 13 or 14 inch wheels.

We have sought clarification of this subject from Department of Transportation compliance personnel, but were told that this specific point had not been raised previously, and therefore we would have to seek a formal interpretation which we now do.

Executive Secretary

Donald I. Reed

ID: nht78-1.24

DATE: 03/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Dorsey Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone request of February 9, 1978, to Roger Tilton of my staff asking whether Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, requires that you mount on your vehicles (Illegible Word) retreaded tires containing the DOT symbol.

The standard in paragraph S5.1.3 requires that after January 1, 1978, all used tires mounted on vehicles covered by the standard be manufactured in accordance with Standard No. 119 as evidenced by the symbol DOT on the sidewall. Therefore, you would not be permitted to mount used tires on your vehicles that do not contain the DOT symbol.

Retreaded tires are not used tires. Retreaded tires must comply with all applicable Federal requirements pertaining to them. In the case of retreaded nonpassenger car tires, there are no applicable Federal standards. The DOT symbol is only marked on these tires to which a Federal standard applies. Therefore, retreaded nonpassenger car tires do not need to be marked with the DOT symbol and, in fact, should not be marked with that symbol. Retreaded nonpassenger car tires without DOT symbols can be mounted on your vehicles in full compliance with Standard No. 120. If the tires in your possession have the DOT symbol on them, they can still be mounted on your vehicles. The tire retreader would be responsible for the misapplication of the DOT symbol to these tires.

ID: nht78-1.25

DATE: 06/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Norris Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 7, 1978, letter asking whether a final-stage wheel manufacturer is permitted to mark a rim in accordance with Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The standard currently specifies that rim marking shall be done by a rim manufacturer, not a final-stage wheel manufacturer.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has previously determined that a rim manufacturer is the responsible party for rim marking. The language of the standard is specific in this requirement. The agency, however, is reviewing the standard with a view to its possible modification along the lines suggested in your letter. Should the agency decide to amend the standard, a notice proposing such change would first be published in the Federal Register. A final rule would only be issued following analysis of comments submitted by interested parties.

SINCERELY,

Action: Norris Industries Petition, FMVSS No. 120

Acting Director Vehicle Safety Standards

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Reference: Subject petition dated January 7, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 120 that will require the final assembler of a wheel to apply the specified rim markings.

Norris Industries is a major supplier of rims to the custom wheel industry. The rims are assembled with various designs of center member by the custom wheel manufacturer chiefly for the replacement and after-market trade. Multiple use of these wheels for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles requires that labeling be in accordance with Standard No. 120. The final product which is a "single piece" or "unitized" wheel is permitted optionally to be labeled on the disc rather than the rim. This is readily done when the rim manufacturer is also the final wheel manufacturer.

The present interpretation of the standard requires rim markings to be applied by the rim manufacturer. The location of the markings on the rim is dependent upon the specific disc design used, and varies considerably among final wheel manufacturers. This presents a hardship in maintaining adequate supplies of the correct rims for each manufacturer as stated by Norris.

The Norris petition (or request) to place the requirement for rim marking on the final assembly manufacturer and to release the rim manufacturer from the requirement constitutes a major change in the standard and would require a rulemaking procedure. The scheme would not work for demountable rims which never become part of a manufactured wheel assembly. From this standpoint the Norris petition must be denied.

However, as an optional alternative, it would seem reasonable to expect that the final wheel manufacturer, purchasing rims from another manufacturer, with markings per S5.2(d) and (e) would be able and qualified to provide the certification and labeling required of the rim in S5.2(d) (b) and (c), on the strength of his purchase specifications and contract.

This option would relieve the difficulties now encountered by Norris and probably others in similar situations. The standard would have to make it clear that the rim manufacturer is responsible for the required rim identification markings unless the final wheel manufacturer assumes the option.

Unless there are legal objections to this concept, we would be pleased to work with you in developing a "statement of interpretation" or an "adjustment of language" as appropriate for the situation. Please advise us if amendment of the standard is found necessary. We believe that certification and labeling of the wheel assembly by the final manufacturer is reasonable and appropriate, and should be permitted by the standard.

A. Malliaris

Reference petition dated 3/7/78

CC: F. KOCH

NORRIS INDUSTRIES

(Illegible Word) WHEEL DIVISION

2-20-78

Administrator NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Norris Industries, on January 7, 1978, requested a change in the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #120 to require the assemblers of the auto wheels to stamp the required information on the rim portion of the wheels.

Please advise us if this request is still to be considered and may we be informed of the decision as promptly as possible.

Please accept our thanks in advance of this information.

Don H. Pendergrass

CC: J. CROWLEY; C. MOORE; P. RYAN (S.E.M.A.)

NORRIS INDUSTRIES

(Illegible Word) WHEEL DIVISION PETITION

January 7, 1978

Administrator NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Norris Industries has supplied Automobile Wheel Component Parts to Members of the Custom Wheel Industry since 1961. These parts are then used as component parts for Custom Wheels. The majority of these customers are Members of the Specialty Equipment Manufacturers Association.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #120 requires that at least three pieces of information be stamped on the weather side of the rim by the rim manufacturer. Because our customers are the wheel assemblers, a common location of the stamp on the weather area of the rim is not acceptable to all. The size of our finished goods inventory, necessary to serve this industry, is such that it would be nearly impossible to have the various sizes of rims stamped in the locations that would be acceptable to all of our customers on hand at all times.

This is a request that the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #120 be changed to require the assemblers of the wheels to stamp the required information on the rim portion of the wheels.

We trust this request is reasonable and may be acted upon without undue delay.

Donald H. Pendegrass Plant Manager

CC: J. CROWLEY; C. MOORE; P. RYAN (S.E.M.A.)