ID: nht76-1.30

DATE: 03/01/76

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

TO: Leisure Time Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1976, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, as they apply to the manufacture of mobile homes with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds.

The standard requires that these vehicles be equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 in<2> of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. While you are free to provide additional mirrors, the standard clearly requires two mirrors each of which has at least 50 in<2> of reflective surface. Substitution of a number of small mirrors for one or both of the 50 in<2> mirrors is impermissible, even if a total reflective area of 50 in<2> is provided.

If you require any further assistance, do not hesitate to write.

SINCERELY,

Leisure time PRODUCTS, INC.

January 29, 1976

Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111

As a manufacturer of motor homes of over 10,000 pounds GVWR, I am not certain on how to interpret Section S6 of Standard No. 111. I understand the minimum requirements for mirror size, capability, and location which would be applicable. The item which I question is the 50 in<2> of reflective surface. Are the mirrors required to be of one piece instead of possibly two piece? For example, two mirrors one with 40in.<2> reflective surface and additional mirror of adequate size to meet the 50in.<2> requirement for each side of vehicle.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be appreciated. Thank you.

Tommy Watson Engineer of Codes and Standards

ID: nht76-1.31

DATE: 04/28/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregroy; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Vance Hartke - U.S. Senate

COPYEE: BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY; FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1976, enclosing a letter from Mr. Dennis Oser concerning the effective date of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

Standard No. 119 became effective March 1, 1975, and applies to non-passenger-car tires manufactured on and after that date. From his reference to "April 1, 1976", Mr. Oser appears to be concerned with the effective dates of 49 CFR 393.75, a regulation issued by the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS). That regulation addresses the type of tires with which motor vehicles in use in interstate commerce must be equipped. Accordingly, I have forwarded your letter to the BMCS for further reply.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

United States Senate

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

March 30, 1976

James Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

I am enclosing for your review a letter that I have received from Mr. M. Dennis Oser. Mr. Oser inquired as to whether it would be feasible to amend MVSS 119 so that it will apply to new tires only as they are purchased rather than as a it now applies to all tires being used on April 1, 1976. Would you please review Mr. Oser's letter and provide me with your response.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely yours,

VANCE HARTKE, Chairman -- Surface Transportation Subcommittee

Enclosure

February 19, 1976

The Honorable Vance Hartke United States Senate

My dear Senator Hartke:

Enclosed, please find copies of letters concerning subjects of importance to this company and the trucking industry.

Any help you can give by lending your support will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

OSER LEASING COMPANY, INC.;

M. Dennis Oser -- Vice President General Manager

Enclosures

February 19, 1976

Bureau of Motor Carriers Safety -- Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

RE: MVSS119

Please consider changing the subject standard so that it will apply to new tires only as they are purchased rather than as it now applies to all tires being used on April 1, 1976, regardless of date of purchase. The following two reasons appear to be the only applicable facts in this situation:

1. Safety will not be compromised by making the requested change.

2. There will be no adverse economic impact on the industry or this company if the requested change is made.

Sincerely,

OSER LEASING COMPANY, INC.;

M. Dennis Oser -- Vice President General Manager

February 19, 1976

The Honorable Lionel Van Doerlin -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance, House of Representatives

Dear Representative Van Doerlin:

Within your jurisdiction as an oversight committee for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, please accept the enclosed copy of a letter to the Bureau of Motor Carriers Safety with regard to MVSS119.

Further, with regard to MVSS121, any priority your committee could assign in its oversight role to putting this standard high on its agenda could be of significant impact economically to the trucking industry. The confusion and frustration being felt throughout the operating segment of this industry is disastrous.

Yours very truly,

OSER LEASING COMPANY, INC.;

M. Dennis Oser -- Vice President General Manager

Enclosure

ID: nht76-1.32

DATE: 05/11/76

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

TO: Intercraft Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 29, 1976, letter concerning regulations applicable to farm tractor tires whose importation is contemplated by one of your clients.

Farm tractors are not "motor vehicles" as that term is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et Seq.). Accordingly, tires designed exclusively for use on farm tractors are not "motor vehicle equipment." Therefore, the importation of such tires and tubes is not subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards or other regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. We are unaware of any other regulations of the Department of Transportation concerning such tires.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Intercraft Corporation

March 29, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Mr. Berndt:

A foreign tire manufacturer has indicated to us that he is interested in exporting certain agricultural tires and matching tubes to one of our clients in the United States. If a transaction can be concluded, these tires and tubes would be imported to the U.S. by our client and would be sold by him in this country.

Two sizes of farm tires and tubes would be involved: 15.5-38 (6 and 8 PR) and 18.4-38 (8 PR). We understand that both of these sizes of tires and tubes are made for the rear wheels of farm tractors for field use only and are considered "Off The Road" in the tire industry.

We would like to ask if there are any U.S. Department of Transportation regulations concerning motor vehicle safety standards, tire identification and recordkeeping, or manufacturer identification that apply to the importation to the United States of tires and tubes of those two size designations? Do any DOT regulations apply to any other facet of the importation of such tires and tubes to the U.S.?

Sincerely, Robert M. Brodkey -- President

ID: nht76-1.33

DATE: 04/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trans-Continental Tire Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your March 19, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

Standard No. 119 requires that the symbol "DOT" appear on the sidewall of a non-passenger car tire, as a certification that the tire meets all of the standard's performance and labeling requirements. Assuming that the tire in question does meet those requirements and is so certified, there is no prohibition in the standard against additional labeling such as "Blem" or "A.B.O." I hope this clarifies the status of your tires.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

March 9, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, N.H.T.S.A. Dept. of Transportation

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Sec. 119.

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Can you clarify that truck tires marked "A.B.O." or "Blem" are safe for highway use on the front end of commercial over the road vehicles?

The tires in question do meet D.O.T. highway specifications for manufacturers safety, in so for as they are free from defects in workmanship and materials.

Please rush clarification as soon as possible.

Thank You.

Respectfully Yours,

Raymond Oleisky, Operations Manager

ID: nht76-1.34

DATE: 06/11/76

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

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your March 12, 1976, letter to Mr. Robert Aubuchon of this agency, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less.

You have inquired whether such vehicles may be equipped with tires that --

(i) "Carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH -- S.6.5."

(ii) "Have passed the endurance test -- S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III -- speed restricted service: 35 MPH"

(iii) "have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 -- in fact they are speed restricted . . ."

and otherwise comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119.

I assume that, where your letter refers to the marking "MAX SPEED", you intended "MAX SPEED 35 MPH". Although such labeling is not prohibited, the standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. Tires for motor driven cycles are subject to the same performance requirements as other motorcycle tires. In particular, the schedule for endurance testing is that found in the "motorcycle entry of Table III, rather than the "35 m.p.h." entry. Similarly, these tires are subject to the high speed performance requirements of S.6.3 without exception. An amendment of Standard No. 119 on this subject is being considered, but no firm decision has been made.

Standard No. 119 prohibits the manufacture of the tires that you have described on and after March 1, 1975. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, prohibits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles equipped with such tires on and after September 1, 1976.

SINCERELY,

PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION

March 12, 1976

NHTSA

Att: Robert Aubuchon

In reference to the phone conversation of March 9, 1976, we would like to have the following Information:

1) Is it permissible (with respect to the safety requirments stated in Standards 119 and 120) to equip motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 MPH or less (see definitions R571 paragraph 571.3 - B and references in part 571, ST 123 - PRE 5 ST 108 - S.4.1.1 26/27, St 122 - S.5.4/S/5.5) with tires meeting the requirements of Standard 119 inasmuch as they:

a) are indicated in ETRTO data book S.5.1.B

b) carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH - S.6.5.

c) have tread wear indicators S.6.4

d) have passed the strength test - S.6.2., S.7.3, in accordance with tables I and II - plunger 5/16

e) have passed the endurance test - S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III - speed restricted service: 35 MPH

f) have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 - in fact they are speed restricted, moreover they may be included in the requirements of Standard 120 - see paragraphs: S.2, S.5.1.1, S.5.1.2, S.5.3. D"

N.B. There is no indication anywhere in Standard 119 and 120 that the speed restrictions apply only to trucks.

2) As discussed by phone, we have requested that a copy of the letter sent by ETRTO to the DOT be forwarded to you as soon as possible. We would appreciate if you would look into this matter and inform us of the outcome.

Thanking you in advance for a prompt reply, we remain

Francesa Robinsons for Mr. Buzzi

G. Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager

Industrie Pirelli spa

MARCH 15, 1976

Robert Aubuchon N.H.T.S.A. Office of Standard Enforcement

We have been informed by Pirelli Tire Corporation N.Y. your request for a copy of the ETRTO Submission to NHTSA concerning an amendment to FMVSS 119 and precisely 'Tyres for low-power motorcycles with restricted speed capability'.

A copy of it is here with enclosed.

Recently, February 26th, Mr. Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel of NHTSA has promised to Mr. Trimble, ETRTO General Secretary, that a Federal Register notice on the subject will be issued in the near future.

(P.G. Malinverni) Tyre Standardization

EUROPEAN TYRE AND RIM TECHNICAL ORGANISATION

The Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RD/MS 048/75

SUBMISSION N degree 6/119

FMVSS 110 - TYRES FOR LOW-POWER MOTORCYCLES WITH RESTRICTED SPEED CAPABILITY

In the preamble to Docket 71-18 Notice 6, published in the Federal Register Volume 39, No.29 dated Monday February 11th 1974, page 5192, reference was made to an E.T.R.T.O. proposal for new test values for certain motorcycle tires, which proposal was deemed to be "unclear as to the meaning . . . "

For convenience of reference the paragraph in question is quoted as follows:

"The E.T.R.T.O. proposed new test values for some motorcycle tires, but the request was unclear as to the meaning of the 62 mph criterion and the unsupported request cannot be granted. If in future, the E.T.R.T.O. petitions for rule making to revise the table, an explanation of the criterion and a justification for the test values would permit an informed decision."

In response to the invitation, implicit in this paragraph, to E.T.R.T.O. to petition "for rule making to revise the table" by submitting explanation and justification of its requirements E.T.R.T.O. submits the following petition for consideration on this subject.

FMVSS 119 recognises all data standardised by the various international and national standards organizations (Illegible Words) (Illegible Line) (Illegible Words) in tables II (strength) table III (endurance) and in paragraph S7-1 (high speed).

In accordance with the "invitation" instanced (Illegible Word) ETRTO formally requests reconsideration of the requirements of Standard 119 insofar as two categories of light motorcycle tires are concerned, these being the speed-restricted ranges of such tires listed on pages (Illegible Word) through 119 of the 1974/75 E.T.R.T.O. Data-book.

In requesting certain (Illegible Word) from the terms of Standard 119, E.T.R.T.O. is evoking (Illegible Words) which resulted in amendments to the requirements of (Illegible Words) 122 (Illegible Word) 123, as published in the Federal Register Vol. 39 No. 72 (Illegible Words) 12th 1974, in that the existing Standard 119 is "not reasonable, (Illegible Words) appropriate" to the light motorcycle tires in question.

a) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles With Speed Capability up to 50 mph

These tires are especially designed to be fitted to motor-driven cycles with a (Illegible Words).

They can be recognised from having the word "Moped" (or alternatively "Cyclomoteur", or "Ciclomotore" or "Circlomotor") in the vicinity of the (Illegible Word) designation (e.g. (Illegible Word) - 17 Moped).

E.T.R.T.O. requests that for tires to be mounted on motor-driven cycles with a top speed capability of 30 mph of less, tires known as moped tires in Europe and with a speed restriction of 30 mph, the following specifications be adopted:

1. Strength: the minimum static breaking energy should be the one allowed for rayon cord tires even for other types of cords such as cotton, which is widely used for this tire range and which has breaking energy properties almost identical to rayon.

2. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 100 rpm

The test leads could be (in percent of maximum lead rating): 100% for 4 hours, 108% for 6 hours and 117% for 24 hours.

3. High Speed Test: no high speed test will apply to these tires since they are "speed restricted".

4. Treadwear Indicators: in view of the low speed usage and the fact that these tires have very shallow tread patterns, (circa 3 mm) similar to cycle tires, E.T.R.T.O. (Illegible Word) that the requirement to add treadwear indicators at 1/32" (0,8 mm) is unrealistic and against the interests of the consumer.

b) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles up to 60 mph (or 100 km/h)

This is the category of tires previously referred to as "up to 62 mph", this being strictly equivalent speed to 100 km/h.

These tires are specially designed to be fitted on lightweight motorcycles with maximum speed not exceeding 60 mph.

(Illegible Line) is considered that a (Illegible Words) rating for these tires (Illegible Words) in a restricted-speed category. In consequence E.T.R.T.O. requested (Illegible Word) (Illegible Lines)

1. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 200 rpm, the test load in percent of maximum load rating 100 for 4 hours, 108 for 6 hours, 117 for 24 hours

2. High Speed: since the first step of the high speed test is 375 rpm equivalent to a speed on highway largely in excess of 75 mph and that speed is higher than the maximum allowed for the tire we would propose that category to be considered a speed restricted category therefore the high speed test will not be necessary for them.

3. Treadwear Indicators: for the reasons outlined in paragraph (a) (4) above the requirement for treadwear indicators be waived for this range of tires.

c) For case of consideration of these requests it should be noted tha the (Illegible Line) ranges of (Illegible Words) -speed motorcycle tires by their size designation as follows: (i) light motorcycle tires, 30 or 60 mph category - the size designations are in inches and fractions of an inch e.g. 2 1/2 - 17.

(ii) unrestricted speed motorcycle tires - the size designations are in inches and decimals e.g. 2.75 - 17.

E.T.R.T.O. requests that early consideration be given to this petition in order that appropriate steps may be taken for implementation prior to the March 1st 1975 effective date of Standard 119.

Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration of the matter,

R. DERESSON General Secretary

ID: nht76-1.35

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Bemperit of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms a telephone conversation between yourself and Mr. George Chifflett, a member of my staff, on March 12, 1976. In that conversation a telex from Semperit, Austria, was discussed and the following points were made:

1. Motor-driven cycles (mopeds) need not be equipped with tires conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, until September 1, 1976. Of course, if the tires were manufactured after March 1, 1975, they would have to conform (see paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 120 and paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 119, highlighted copies enclosed).

2. All tires manufactured after May 22, 1971, must be marked in accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 574 (49 CFR 574), Figure I (copy enclosed). Tires on mopeds being offered for sale must be marked accordingly. If branding would weaken the tire sidewall, replacement might be the only solution to the problem.

3. FMVSS No. 119, applies to all covered tires manufactured on or after March 1, 1975. It does not apply to tires in aftermarket inventory that were manufactured before that date.

4. "Federal Register Car [CFR] 393 Docket Number MC-56 Notice Number 75-19," pertains to a Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulation that applies to vehicles being used as interstate carriers. It does not apply to vehicles being manufactured or offered for sale. As stated before, vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, must be fitted with tires that meet FMVSS No. 109 or 119.

5. The post March 1975 labeling described in your telex does not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 119.

(a) The symbol "DOT" must appear before the manufacturer's identification code number, as a certification that the tire complies with the standard. "TIRE" may appear elsewhere on the tire, but it is not required.

(b) The composition of the ply cord material must also appear.

(c) While the labeling "Maximum Speed 30 MPH" is not prohibited, the standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. Moped tires are subject to the same performance requirements as other motorcycle tires, most notably, the high speed and endurance test requirements. An amendment on the subject is being considered, but no firm decision has been made.

ID: nht76-1.36

DATE: 02/26/76

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

TO: E.T.R.T.O.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, which inquired about the status of the E.T.R.T.O. petition for an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, concerning tires for low-power motorcycles with restricted speed capability.

We expect to issue a Federal Register notice on this subject in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

The Director -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

JANUARY 26, 1976

ETRTO SUBMISSION No. 6/119

TYRES FOR LOW-POWER MOTORCYCLES WITH RESTRICTED SPEED CAPABILITY

Dear Sir,

The above Submission was made in ETRTO letter ref. RD/MS 048/75 dated February 5, 1975 and in a letter dated March 4, 1975, ref. N40-30 MS, signed by Mr. R.B. DYSON, Assistant Chief Counsel, receipt of the Submission was acknowledged with the advice that it was under consideration. Since then, as far as is known, there has been no further communication from NHTSA and no notice referring to the Submission has appeared in the Federal Register.

News of the current status of this Submission would be greatly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

J. TRIMBLE Secretary General

cc: R.P. Monier, Chairman of the ETRTO Road Safety Sub-Committee.

ID: nht76-1.37

DATE: 07/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Mark O. Hatfield - U.S. Senate

COPYEE: EARL C. SIEVERS -- FINANCE MGR., LAYTON PAVING EQUIP. SPECIALISTS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 10, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to the paver manufactured by Layton Manufacturing Company. The standard requires that the paver be equipped with tires of sufficient load rating and that these tires be certified by their manufacturer as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. Your constituent, Mr. Earl Sievers, has met with representatives of this agency to discuss the need for his company's paver to comply with Standard No. 120 and his difficulties in procuring the proper tires.

Your letter suggests that, generally, the paver is moved simply within the confines of a construction site rather than in traffic. Nevertheless, the paver is designed and expected to be towed on the public highways. Indeed, Layton's own promotional materials stress this point:

For municipalities who do not own their dump trucks or need extreme mobility without sacrificing hauling weight! . . . Any truck can tow paver safely at highway speeds. ("Exhibit 'C'" accompanying Mr. Sievers' letter of January 14, 1976.)

This usage of the paver leads to the conclusion that the paver is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 120. The conclusion is compelled by the definition of "motor vehicle" in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.).

As a manufacturer of fewer than 10,000 motor vehicles in its most recent year of production, Layton is eligible to petition for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 120 on the basis of substantial economic hardship. For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which sets out procedures for filing and processing such petitions.

SINCERELY,

United States Senate

March 10, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Thank you for taking the time to visit with my constituent, Earl Sievers, regarding the matter of Layton Manufacturing Company's having to comply with FMVSS #120 in the outfitting of its paver. Your Assistant Chief Counsel, Mr. Dyson, wrote to Mr. Sievers on February 24, 1976, to advise him that compliance with FMVSS would be required. Mr. Sievers has come to Washington to present personally additional evidence which he believes you should consider prior to making a final determination on compliance. I deeply share his concerns and so have asked that you and your staff meet with him.

It is probably true, as Mr. Dyson asserts in the aforementioned letter, that the Layton paver could be moved from job site to job site at speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour. Generally, however, the paver is simply moved within the confines of a construction site, not in traffic. I question the logic of applying FMVSS 120 standards to a vehicle which is obviously construction equipment, which infrequently is transported on the open road, and which is so well designed that its safety record is nothing short of exemplary. A mechanical application of FMVSS #120 to classify the paver as a motor vehicle, and thus to require its entire retooling and consequent economic disruption, would seem quite unjust.

The Layton paver is a very safe and highly cost-effective piece of construction equipment. I urge that you give the most careful consideration to the data and arguments presented by Mr. Sievers to the effect that a waiver of FMVSS #120 be granted. Given the enormous business impact which your decision may have on Layton and its employees, I also urge that you handle this matter as expeditiously as possible.

I am confident that you will be both fair and open-minded in evaluating this case.

Mark O. Hatfield United States Senator

ID: nht76-1.38

DATE: 12/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Carlisle Tire and Rubber Company's May 7, 1976, request for assurance that certain of its tires are in Compliance with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and your request for a meeting on the issue of reduced performance requirements for tires used on motor-driven cycles with a maximum speed capability of 30 mph or less. I regret that we have not responded sooner.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1391, et seq.) does not permit the assurance of compliance with Standard No. 119 that you request. The Act requires "self-certification" by the manufacturer that each of its products actually complies with all applicable standards (15 U.S.C. @@ 1397(a)(1)(A), 1403). The NHTSA does not issue "approvals" for this reason.

With regard to your request for a meeting on the subject of performance standards for tires used on low-speed motor-driven cycles, I would like to advise you that the NHTSA has decided to reduce some of the performance requirements for these tires. If you believe that a meeting would be desirable before we have issued a specific proposal, please contact Mr. Elwood Driver at the above address (tel. (202) 426-1740) to meet on the technical aspects of this issue.

SINCERELY,

Carlisle Tire & Rubber

May 7, 1976

National Highway Safety Administration Frank Berndt Acting Chief Council, Legal Section

The Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania is a manufacturer of bicycle and motorcycle type tires. Because of the recent interest in moped vehicles in the United States we have decided to add this type of tire to our line of products. Since this is a highway type tire we are attempting to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transportation. It has been indicated to us by various representatives of the Department of Transportation that this tire must be treated as a motorcycle tire even though the size of the motor of this vehicle would prevent these tires from ever exceeding a speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour. In attempting to comply with your current requirements we have subjected our tests to the following conditions.

1. The tire marking is in accordance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 and particularly Part 574. The DOT symbol is shown on the tire as well as our manufacturing code, tire size identification, and the date of manufacture. The tire size designation is shown. The maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure is also indicated on the tire. We identify our tire as a moped tire by printing the word "moped" on the sidewall of the tire. We have speed restricted tires by the words cured in the sidewall "Not to exceed 35 mph." We indicate the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material. We also identify the tire as a tube type tire. The tire load is identified as "Load Range A."

2. We have three tread wear indicators that will provide visual determination that the tread has worn to a depth of 1/32nds of an inch.

3. The carcass strength has been tested to make sure that we are in accordance with Table 2 of the FMVSS-119 standard.

4. The tires have successfully passed the high speed performance test as listed in FMVSS-119. This, of course, requires testing the tire at 75, 80, and 85 miles per hour. Naturally we feel that these speeds are excessive for this limited horsepower vehicle.

5. The tire has been subjected to the endurance test as prescribed in FMVSS-119. Once again, we feel that these conditions are excessive since the vehicle is not capable of speeds of 50 mph.

We are maintaining a file of our tests performed on this tire. Although we are currently passing all of the motorcycle tests required by FMVSS-119 we feel that those requirements are excessive for this type of vehicle. We are capable of meeting those requirements by the use of more expensive materials and compounds than that required for this type of lightweight duty tire.

There are two purposes for writing this memorandum to your department.

1. We would like to have assurance from you that the tires that we are marketing are in compliance with the requirements of the Department of Transportation.

2. We are requesting a meeting with your department so that we may present proposed amendments to this safety standard that we feel would be more realistic for this type of tire.

We respectfully await your response to this subject.

J. L. Hollis Vice President/Engineering

ID: nht76-1.39

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of March 22 and June 9, 1976, concerning the classification of motor-scooters and the tires designed for them.

"Motorcycle" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:

a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

"Motor-driven cycle" is defined as:

a motorcycle with a motor than produces 5 brake horsepower or less.

The category of "motor-driven cycles" includes, but is not limited to, motorized bicycles. There is no definition of "scooter" or "motor-scooter". Such a vehicle is a motorcycle and, depending on the brake horsepower of its engine, may also be a motor-driven cycle. In any event, a tire for use on such a vehicle is a motorcycle tire that is subject to all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. However, your letter is being considered in the preparation of the forthcoming Federal Register notice on this subject.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

DUNLOP LIMITED

Ref: RGC/MJW/5859/40G

Richard B Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 22, 1976

Dear Mr Dyson

SCOOTER TYRES - MVSS 119

I am advised that american importers of scooters are insisting that tyres for these machines be labelled to show conformity with Standard 119 and this poses a number or problems, both legal and practical.

I am taking the liberty of writing to you for advice on this subject since it is closely related to the general question of the application of Standard 119 to the case of tyres for speed-restricted motorcycles i.e. the case covered in ETRTO submission No. 6/119 dated 5 February 1975; for ease of reference I would advise that you acknowledged this petition in your letter N40-30MS dated 4 March 1975 and also advised in your letter N40-30, dated 26 February 1976, that you expected a Federal Register notice on this petition to be published shortly.

The primary problem is one of definition, since I cannot find any legal definition of "scooter" or "motor-scooter".

On the other hand it can be argued, with justification, that a scooter falls within the definition of "motorcycle" or "motor-driven cycles" of part 571.3 "Definitions" depending on the brake horse power of the engine with which the machine is equipped.

I would believe - and perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm this - that the term "motor-driven cycle" is intended to cover motorised bicycles e.g. mopeds, rather than vehicles whose sole source of propulsion is an engine.

Should this be the case then we are left with the definition of motorcycle as including scooters and while this is legally reasonable the resulting implications are somewhat unreasonable within the context of Standard 119 and, in particular, the high speed test requirement of Standard 119.

This test is designed to establish a high speed capability for motorcycle tyres of 85+mph on a test drum which equates to a speed significantly greater than 85 mph on the road and is a prefectly reasonable test for "full-blooded" motorcycles which normally have a speed capability of this order, but is totally unrealistic for scooter tyres, since scooters, in general, are, by design and nature of the vehicle, of much lower speed capability, normally c50-60 mph max. It is for this reason that they are equipped with very small tyres, usually in the order of 4" tyre section width and fitting wheels of 8", 10" or occasionally 12" diameter - clearly these are tyres not designed for very high speed operations.

However, unless scooters are defined differently from motorcycles these small tyres will be required to pass the high speed test of Standard 119.

An alternative, which I would believe to be legally admissible, would be to mark scooter tyres as speed-restricted tyres reference Standard 119 para. S6.5 (e), on the basis that the high speed test would no longer be applicable. In the case of scooter tyres the speed restriction could be 60 mph which would then directly relate scooter tyres to "tyres for small cubic capacity motorcycles up to 60 mph (or 100 km/h)" of ETRTO submission No. 6/119.

Should this alternative be the one adopted this would resolve the problem of the high speed test but there would then remain the question of the breaking energy values to be used i.e. either the values in Table 2 of Standard 119 under the title "motorcycle" or under the title "all 12" or smaller rim size" and this can presumably be resolved only after a decision is taken on whether scooters remain within the definition of motorcycle or are separately defined e.g. as "motorcycles of restricted speed capability 60 mph max".

In view of the fact that our inability to determine the relevance of scooter tyres within the context of Standard 119, and hence the test and markings which are applicable, it will be appreciated that there is a certain barrier to trade in this context; thus your earliest advice on the problems expressed above would be appreciated and, in particular, your advice on whether this problem can be treated as an extension of ETRTO petition No. 6/119.

Yours sincerely

R G CLIFTON -- Manager - Tyre Legislation