ID: nht73-1.17

DATE: 10/24/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver for R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: T. J. Wagner

COPYEE: PESKOE; WALLACE; ARMSTRONG

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1973, concerning your recent purchase of tires that were marked "Blemtube type must use tube," but which were installed on your car without tubes.

The NHTSA does consider the mounting of "tube type" tires without tubes to involve at least a potential violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the establishment of a violation by the agency involves the purchase and testing of new tires, a time-consuming and costly process. The agency would not, moreover, under its authority, be able to take any action with respect to the tires sold to you. We will, however, inquire into the matter by contacting the dealer who sold you the tires in the hope that we may prevent a recurrence of the problem.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

WAGNER COMPANY, INC.

AIRMAIL September 18, 1973

Office of the Secretary Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I have recently been the beneficiary of laws which your department has established in regards to the branding of defective tires. I do a great deal of expressway driving, so it is very possible my life or that of others has been spared.

Two weeks ago, I ordered from Ciesar's Chrysler Dealers in Whiting, Indiana, and was billed $ 50 per tire for a first trade set of tires. On September 15, 1973, a gas station attendant, while observing my tires, noticed that they were Seconds and banded, "Blemtube type must use tube". He also discovered that the four tires were mounted tubeless. These were GoodYear tires and all carried your identification number [illegible].

I contacted the Hammond Police to witness my predicament and they informed me that my car would not pass a safety inspection and if I had been involved in an accident, I could have been subject to arrest. I informed the Indiana State Police who told me there was nothing they could do since they knew of no state law prohibiting such an act by this new car dealer. Your law of branding the tires is very good, but it is too bad that there isn't a penalty against people who mount tires in an unsafe condition, or is there?

Your advice to a common citizen would be appreciated as to any recourse that I have.

Yours very truly,

T. J. Wagner

cc Congressman William J. Madden

ID: nht73-1.27

DATE: 05/25/73

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

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of May 14, 1973, you present the fact situation of an equipment manufacturer who installs lighting equipment on a component which he supplies to distributors or dealers, for installation by them on motor vehicles. For purposes of this letter, I assume that the installation occurs before the first sale of the vehicles for purposes other than resale. You ask what the equipment manufacturer should do to advise the distributor or dealer "that the lamps and/or reflectors which he has affixed to his product meets the published S.A.E. specs required by Standard 108."

There is no Federal requirement that an equipment manufacturer in this fact situation supply compliance information, although covered equipment that he sells must continue to conform. The requirements for certifying or otherwise providing information concerning conformity with Standard No. 108 apply to the manufacturer of the lighting equipment, and the manufacturer(s) (final-stage and others) of the vehicle in question. It may well be that the customers of the supplier you describe will demand assurances of conformity through commercial channels.

Yours truly, Mr.

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Legal Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm., Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20591

Good morning, Dick!

One of our members, who is a bumper manufacturer, has asked for the correct procedure he should use when supplying a license plate lamp for the rear bumper which he produces and sells to distributors and dealers.

I can't see that he would be required to report his production of this bumper, since the unit itself is not covered by a Safety Standard. It would seem however, that he should provide some sort of data regarding the S.A.E. specs of the lamp which he places in the bumper.

Now that I think about it, this is really no different than the body manufacturer who supplies lamps and reflectors as a part of his body or body kit, which could open a whole can of worms. Therefore, I need to rephrase my question to include all lamps and reflectors which manufacturers provide Final-stage Manufacturers. Based upon the above, what must a prudent manufacturer do, if anything, to advise the Final-stage Manufacturer that the lamps and/or reflectors which he has affixed to his product meets the published S.A.E. specs required by Safety Standard 108?

Thaks in advance for your cooperation with this matter.

Best regards,

THOMAS S. PIERATT--

Executive Secretary

ID: nht73-3.23

DATE: 02/12/73

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

TO: Rubber Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 5, 1973, to Dr. Edward H. Wallace, concerning your objections to the informal rulemaking procedures employed by NHTSA in adding new tire sizes and rims to the Appendices to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 110 (49 CFR 571.109, 110). You enclose two form letters sent to you by NHTSA which indicate that certain tire sizes and rims will be included in the Appendices, and object to the delay that appears to occur between your receipt of these letters and the time the amendment to the Appendices is published in the Federal Register.

Your letter indicates a possible misunderstanding of the requirements applicable to rulemaking procedures, and how these requirements affect the publication of new tire sizes and rims in the Appendices of the two safety standards.

The NHTSA is required, under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), to amend all motor vehicle safety standards (amendments to the appendices of Standards Nos. 103 and 110 are amendments to the standards) by publication in the Federal Register. The submittal of documents to the Federal Register is governed by regulation (Title 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 - 40) which the NHTSA must follow in submitting documents for publication. Simply stated, these regulations would not permit the NHTSA to merely send to the Federal Register copies of these acknowledgment letters, for publication, as you suggest. Documents must be prepared utilizing a specific format. We have recently modified the method by which NHTSA amends the Appendices in a way that permits these documents to be prepared in a shorter time. Moreover, normally notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity to comment is required to be published before such amendments can become effective. The procedures about which you complain actually shorten the time that would otherwise be necessary for these changes to take effect. The form letter which you refer to as providing approval is

no more than an acknowledgment and indicates only that the tire size designations and rim sizes in question will be included in the next amendment to the Appendices, under the special procedures which allow their use in 30 days if objections are not received.

For these reasons, we have not found it administratively practicable to publish notices of additional tire sizes whenever they may be received. We have indicated our intention to publish amendments quarterly. While we have not met this schedule as consistently as we hoped, we expect to improve our efforts in this regard in the future.

ID: 77-4.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/10/77

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

TO: Satterlee, Mestayer & Freeman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 31, 1977, to our Fort Worth, Texas office and October 7, 1977, telephone conversation with Robert Churella of my staff concerning the existence of any Federal motor vehicle standard that would require doors on garbage trucks.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that require vehicles to be equipped with doors. In fact, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 571.206), which regulates door locks and door retention components, specifically exempts from its application those motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has, however, promulgated a standard requiring trucks manufactured after July 1, 1971, to be equipped with seat belts. This requirement would provide protection for an individual riding in a vehicle without a side door.

SINCERELY,

Request for Ruling on Rights of Accident Victim Described in Attached Letter

September 16, 1977

Regional Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Joseph J. Levin, NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The regional office has received the attached request for a DOT position statement concerning the described accident. I am therefore forwarding the attached request to your office for consideration.

E. Robert Anderson

ATTACH.

SATTERLEE, MESTAYER & FREEMAN

August 31, 1977

Dept. of Transportation National Highway Transportation Safety RE: Mary Johnson vs. Continental Insurance Company, et als Civil Action No. 77-2583 Our File #77-506

I represent Mary Johnson, concerning an accident which her son was involved in on or about June, 1977. Mrs. Johnson's son, Herman Johnson, was driving a garbage truck on a Louisiana highway, and was involved in an automobile accident, whereby he was ejected from the vehicle. The vehicle did not have any doors whatsoever on it.

I have written the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and have been informed by this agency, that the above occurance is not under OSHA jurisdiction. Since the accident occurred on a Louisiana highway, I am of the opinion that the Department of Transportation would have jurisdiction over any complaint which my client has.

I am requesting that you furnish to my office a Department of Transportation complaint pertaining to the above.

Thanking you for your time and cooperation, I remain

Charlotte A. Hayes

ID: nht76-1.15

DATE: 07/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suplicy Cacique Trading Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telephone conversations of June 3 and June 21, 1976, with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the application of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to components of hydraulic brake systems for passenger cars.

The performance of hydraulic brake systems for passenger cars is the subject of Standard No. 105-75. The only standards that apply directly to components of a hydraulic brake system are Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Standard No. 106-74 applies to brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. These terms are defined in the standard as follows:

"Brake hose" means a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

"Brake hose end fitting" means a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose.

"Brake hose assembly" means a brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system, but does not include an air or vacuum assembly prepared by the owner or operator of a used vehicle, by his employee, or by a repair facility, for installation in that used vehicle.

"Vacuum tubing connector" means a flexible conduit of vacuum that (i) connects metal tubing to metal tubing in a brake system, (ii) is attached without end fittings, and (iii) when installed, has an unsupported length less than the total length of those portions that cover the metal tubing.

Please note that vacumm tubing connectors are not presently subject to any safety standards.

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, specifies that

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered . . . .

With respect to an item of motor vehicle equipment for which there exists no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this section as not requiring any certification.

ID: nht75-2.7

DATE: 11/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Walt Robbins, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 5, 1975, enclosing a copy of your patent for a tire described as a "Radial, Bias Ply Tire" and requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars. The tire would be constructed with three full body plies: two bias plies (angle 35 degrees) and one radial ply (angle 90 degrees).

S4.3(g) of the standard requires permanent molding of the word "radial" into or onto both sidewalls if the tire is a radial ply tire and, by implication, prohibits the use of the word "radial" if the tire is not a radial ply tire. In S3., "radial ply tire" is defined as:

a pneumatic tire in which the ply cords which extend to the beads are laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread.

The tire you have described is not within the scope of this definition because it includes ply cords extending to the beads which are not laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread. Therefore, the word "radial" must not appear on either sidewall.

SINCERELY,

Walt Robbins Incorporated

June 5, 1975

Mark Schwimmer National Highway Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel

Enclosed is a copy of our patent #3,672,423. I would appreciate it if you would review this and notify me as to what the labeling requirements would be for the tire construction as shown in this patent, with reference to paragraph S4.3, subparagraph h, of MVSS100. As I interpret your labeling requirements, the radial designation would be adequate as this is a full radial ply. In addition to the radial ply, we have two bias plies, so my question to you is should this be designated radial or radial/bias.

I would appreciate an answer as soon as possible inasmuch as we have completed DOT testing and are ready for production. Your cooperation in this matter will be most appreciated.

VENTURE TIRE CORP.

Walter C. Robbins, Jr. President

United States Patent

Duduk

[15] 3,672,423

[45] June 27, 1972

[54] RADIAL, BIAS PLY TIRE

[72] Inventor: Alexander Duduk, 2300 S 24th Road Apt. #731, Arlington, Va 22206

[22] Filed: April 7, 1970

[21] Appl. No.: 26,411

Patent Omitted.

ID: nht75-2.9

DATE: 11/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William T. Coleman, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. L. Whitten - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of October 3, 1975, for Mr. Charles Russell of WJLJ, regarding tire failures on ambulances in Tupelo, Mississippi.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 49 CFR 571.109, which specifies performance and labeling requirements for new tires for use on passenger cars. Among the labeling requirements is that such tires must have their load ratings molded into or onto both sidewalls. Standard No. 119, 49 CFR 571.119, establishes similar requirements for new tires for use on trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). The choice of standard applicable to a given tire depends on that tire's primary intended use. These standards apply to tires, and not to vehicles.

To ensure that new vehicles are equipped with proper tires, the NHTSA has also issued Standard No. 110 for passenger cars and a proposed new Standard No. 120 that would apply to vehicles other than passenger cars. Briefly, Standard No. 110 requires each new passenger car to be equipped with tires which meet Standard No. 109 and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity, as evidenced by the load ratings found on the sidewalls. As proposed, Standard No. 120 would require MPV's (including ambulances) to be equipped with tires which meet either Standard No. 109 or No. 119, and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity. In the case of Standard 119 tires, sufficiency of load carrying capacity would be calculated directly from the tires' load ratings. In the case of Standard 109 (passenger car) tires mounted on an MPV, sufficiency would be determined by dividing the tire load ratings by a 110 percent correction factor before comparing these ratings with the vehicle's weight ratings. The use of passenger car tires on new ambulances would thus not be prohibited by the new standard, provided this load rating correction factor is applied. This provision would recognize an established practice which has not been found to preserve a safety hazard. Passenger car tires generally provide a softer, more comfortable ride than truck tires, because the latter operate at higher inflation pressures, and thus may even be more desirable on ambulances, provided they are of adequate load carrying capacity. The NHTSA expects to issue Standard No. 120 in the near future.

For your convenience, I am enclosing copies of Standards Nos. 109, 110, 119, and the proposed Standard No. 120.

ID: nht74-5.32

DATE: 04/12/74

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

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 13, 1974, request for confirmation that the intake manifold connector and the brake booster check valve used in connecting the engine intake manifold and the vacuum power brake booster are not subject to Standard 106, Brake hoses.

A brake hose end fitting is defined in Standard 106 as "a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." As pictured in your schematic, the couplers are the clamps, and the intake manifold connection and brake booster check valve are engine components to which the brake hose has been attached by the clamp couplers. Therefore your interpretation is correct that neither component is subject to Standard 106.

SINCERELY,

March 13, 1977

Elwood T. Driver Director, Office of Operating Systems National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Docket 1-5; Notice 10 Amendment to MVSS 106 Brake Hoses

Chrysler Corporation requests confirmation of the informal interpretation provided to us by a member of your staff concerning the recently amended requirements of MVSS 106 (39 F.R. 7435) as they apply to the hook-up between the engine intake manifold and the vacuum power brake booster. To make this hook-up one end of a section of vacuum brake hose is slipped onto the intake manifold connector and the other end is slipped onto the brake booster check valve as shown in the attached schematic of this system. The hose is held secure at each end by a spring type hose clamp.

In accordance with that conversation it is our understanding that the vacuum hose used to connect the intake manifold to brake booster is a brake hose within the meaning of the standard. However, since this hose is secured by clamps, it is not a brake hose assembly under the standard and, therefore, the intake manifold connector and the brake booster check valve are not subject to the requirements of MVSS 106. This is in keeping with the amendment to the definition of brake hose assembly deleting the reference to "clamps."

In view of the short time period allowed for compliance with the new requirements, prompt confirmation of our interpretation is requested.

R. O. Sornson Manager Environmental and Safety Relations (Graphics omitted)

BRAKE BOOSTER CHECK VALVE

VAC BRAKE HOSE

VAC HOSE CLAMP

INTAKE MANIFOLD CONNECTOR

ENGINE MANIFOLD

ID: nht74-5.39

DATE: 02/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. L. M. Thompson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I would like to thank you for your interest in the safety benefits of the interlock system and for forwarding the Seattle newspaper advertisement which offers a method to bypass the seat belt interlock.

The interlock standard only requires that new vehicles be equipped with required safety equipment. Therefore a purchaser may have the system modified to accommodate circumstances, such as physical incapacity, which makes use of the belts unwise or inconvenient.

The advertisement of a system to circumvent the standard, however, is a different matter, and whether it is legally permitted is a conclusion which the courts will have to determine. This agency is reviewing the legal remedies available which might permit removal of such a product from the market. Having promulgated the interlock option as part of the occupant crash protection standard, whose validity was sustained in court, we are committed to taking all possible actions to insure its effectiveness.

January 8, 1974

Dept. of Transportations U.S. Government Washington, D.C.

Gentlemen:

I noticed this ad in a newspaper and(Illegible Word) if such an operation is legal.

If my memory is accurate I believe the car manufacturer were ordered by the Federal Govt. to install interlock(Illegible Word). If this is true, then wouldn't it be an illegal act for anyone to tamper or modify it?

Is there anything you can do to prevent this?

Sincerely,

Mrs. L. M. Thompson 9624 - 4th St N.E. Everett,(Illegible Word) 98205

TO ALL 1974 AUTO OWNERS or PROSPECTIVE OWNERS

Are you aggravated by this safety belt ignition interlock system that forces you to perform a certain sequence before the car will start?

You, the owner of a 1974 auto may modify the interlock system so that you can be sure, in an emergency, or any other time, that your car will start even if some part of the interlock system malfunctions. This modification also allows you to buckle your seat belt, or not, as it pleases you.

There is a simple way that any one can easily make the modification to his own 74 auto and bypass the interlock.

This information is available (with complete simple instructions) in a report that may be purchased for the low sum of $ 4.00 with satisfaction guaranteed. Enclose cash, check or m.o. and specity make, model, and engine.

ORDER YOUR REPORT CASCADE HOUSE Box 2170-A Renton, Washington 98055

Seattle Post(Illegible Word)

12-30-73

ID: nht75-4.16

DATE: 11/10/75

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

TO: Mountain States Tires Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 1, 1975, which included a list of information items you believe are required to appear on retreaded tires pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires.

With the following qualifications, your list is correct:

1. The tire must be labeled with the symbol "DOT" followed by the letter "R", and other information required by 49 CFR Part 574.5, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, as a certification that the tire complies with Standard No. 117. This requirement is distinct from and in addition to the requirement that the casing retain the "DOT" symbol from its original manufacture.

2. The words "bias/belted" are not required, because the actual number of plies in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area, are now required to appear.

3. Tube-type and tubeless tires must be labeled with the specific words "tube-type" and "tubeless", respectively.

4. The items listed in your third group may appear on a paper label only if that label is not easily removable.

For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 117.

YOURS TRULY,

MOUNTAIN STATES TIRE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

May 1, 1975

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

From various sources, it is our understanding that after May 12, 1975, the following requirements must be met in retreading passenger car tires:

To be processed the casing must have on it from the original manufacturer

The symbol "DOT"

The tire size

Number of plies or ply rating

The completed retread must be permanently marked in at least one location with letters of a minimum of .078 inches high with the following:

Maximum Load

Actual number of plies in sidewall and tread, if different

Name of cord in sidewall and in tread area if different

The completed retread must also have this information on it, either with a permanent label, paper label or retained on the casing:

Size

Tube or Tubeless

Mamimum Inflation

Bias belted or Radial

Please advise us as soon as possible if the above information is correct so that we may have current, proper and accurate information for our members.

Claud Riggs, Exec. Secy.