ID: nht74-1.1

DATE: 10/16/74

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

TO: British Leyland Motors, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 16 1974 N40-30 (ZTV)

Ms. Dianne Black Engineering Liaison British Leyland Motors Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, N. J. 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in reply to your letter of September 27, 1974 asking whether paragraph S5.3.2 of Standard No. 105-75 allows activation of a brake indicator lamp "whilst the engine is cranking".

Under the system, you describe the lamp would be activated with the key in the "start" position while the engine is turning over. Aposition between "on" and "start" designated by the manufacturer as a check position, within the meaning of S5.3.2, includes both "on" and "start", and your proposed system therefore would meet Standard No. 105-75.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-1.10

DATE: 10/04/74

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

TO: Nissan Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 11, 1974 asking for an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105-75. You indicate that a prospective Nissan design uses a common indicator lamp to show both loss of fluid pressure and low brake fluid level. You ask if the indicator lamp lens may be labeled "Brake Failure."

The answer is no. If separate indicator lamps are used, Standard No. 105-75 allows words in addition to "Brake" to indicate the specific area where a problem may exist, e.g. an indicator lamp may be labelled "Brake fluid" to indicate a low level of fluid. However, if a lamp indicates more than one type of condition, paragraph S5.3.5 specifies that only a single word, "Brake," may be used. This alerts a driver in a general way that a problem exists somewhere in the brake system. We think the restriction of S5.3.5 preferable for most circumstances. In the configuration you propose for example, the word "Failure" would not accurately describe a low level of brake fluid.

We appreciate your continued interest in vehicle safety.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

September 11, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Acting Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

This is to ask your interpretation of S.5.3.5, indicator lamp requirement of MVSS 105 - 1975, which states:

"If separate indicator lamps are used for one or more of the various functions described in S5.3.1(a) to S5.3.1(d), the lens shall include the word 'Brake' and appropriate additional labeling (use 'Brake Pressure', 'Brake Fluid' for S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b) except that if a separate parking indicator lamp is provided, the single word 'Park' may be used."

As I explained to Mr. Vinson on the phone, Nissan's 1976 model will be equipped with two sensors, brake fluid level sensor and pressure loss sensor (if one of the two sensors or both operate, the indicator lamp turns on). Therefore, since we cannot use either the word "Brake Pressure" or "Brake Fluid" as requested in the standard, we would like to use the word "Brake Failure" instead.

Would you kindly advise us as to whether or not this word "Brake Failure" is acceptable; and if not, please recommend a suitable word for our use. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.; Tatsuo Kato -- Staff, Safety

ID: nht74-1.11

DATE: JANUARY 23, 1974

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

TO: Correct Manufacturing Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 14, 1974, asking about the category into which a Divco truck would fall and the applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 121 (Air Brake Systems) and 105a (Hydraulic Brake Systems) to them.

The vehicles you have described are "trucks" for purposes of the safety standards. The applicability of the braking standards is simple: trucks equipped with air brakes must conform to Standard 121 and those equipped with hydraulic brakes must conform to Standard 105c.

I enclose a sheet telling you how to obtain copies of the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

Enclosure

ID: nht74-1.12

DATE: 06/11/74

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

TO: Amerace Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1974, with questions as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to your operations, and its relationship to a contract provision requested by General Motors (GM) requiring that you certify compliance of the hoses you deliver to it.

Your primary responsibility under the Act is to manufacture brake hoses that conform to 49 CFR @ 571.106, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. On and after September 1, 1974, pursuant to S5.2, Labeling, of that standard, each hydraulic brake hose, end fitting, and assembly shall be marked with "The symbol DOT, constituting a certification" by the hose manufacturer, fitting manufacturer, and hose assembler that each item "conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." Since the symbol is a permanent mark on the product, certification will be furnished to anyone through whose hands it passes, whether or not it is required by @ 114 of the Act. In our view, the symbol DOT is also a "certificate" within the meaning of @ 108(b)(2) since it is the manufacturer's representation of compliance upon which other persons may rely. The contract language suggested by GM is therefore not something required by the Act.

I note however, that the amendment requested by GM is to take effect July 1, 1974, two months before you are legally required to use the DOT mark. With respect to your obligations in the interim: Under @ 114 and the certification notice published November 4, 1967, (32 F.R. 15444) an equipment manufacturer must certify conformity to "dealers" and "distributors" by a label or tag on the item itself or on the container in which it is shipped. Obviously this includes dealers and distributors to whom you sell directly.

We also consider that the manufacturer of a vehicle, such as GM, into which a hose is incorporated is a distributor of brake hoses to whom @ 114 certification must be provided. Any further requirements specified by GM in your contract would be, of course, purely a matter of contract law.

Because you are required to manufacture hoses to conform to Standard No. 106 you are legally responsible for any violation directly attributable to the manufacturing process, irrespective of any certification provided GM. The question whether that certificate relieves GM of liability cannot be answered in the abstract. As of January 1, 1975, Standard No. 106 will also apply to motor vehicles, and we do not interpret @ 108(b)(2) in this context as relieving a vehicle manufacturer of his obligation to exercise due care. Certainly, at a minimum, GM would be liable for violations attributable to installation.

You have also asked for guidance on the recall provisions of @ 111 and (Illegible Word) notification provisions of @ 113. The repurchase provisions of @ 111 come into effect upon a determination by either NHTSA or a manufacturer that there exists either a safety-related defect or a nonconformance. This section is not enforced directly by NHTSA, but affords redress to distributors and dealers in the event a manufacturer refuses to repurchase substandard vehicles or equipment items. Since a @ 108(b)(2) certificate covers only compliance and is not a guarantee of freedom from safety-related defects, it cannot have been intended "to pass the expense of recall from GM" to you when @ 111 is invoked. The @ 108(b)(2) certificate was intended only to provide protection to certificate holders from civil penalty liabilities. Liability for expenses under @ 111 or @ 113 is a contract matter between GM and you.

As for @ 113, your understanding of Mr. Vinson's remarks is essentially correct. There is a direct notification obligation under @ 113(a) only upon manufacturers of vehicles and tires. But a @ 113(e) proceeding can involve any motor vehicle equipment manufacturer as a party, who could be ordered to proceed with a @ 113(a) notification campaign upon a finding that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance exists. A brake hose manufacturer upon such a finding would be required to provide notification to aftermarket purchasers. If the component is used as original vehicle equipment the vehicle manufacturer would normally also be a party to a @ 113(e) proceeding and required to furnish notification to vehicle purchasers.

SINCERELY,

AMERACE CORPORATION,

May 17, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to a conversation with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office, I am requesting a written opinion relating to certain questions I have concerning the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to our operations.

Our Swan Hose Division manufactures brake hose for, among others, the Chevrolet Motor Division of GM. We have been asked by Chevrolet to certify that the act of making each shipment pursuant to our contract constitutes certification as referred to in Section 108(B)(2) the Act (copy of certification enclosed).

Specifically, I would like to know what is our general responsibility under the Act as a manufacturer of brake hose? Does this request for certification add anything to what we are already obligated to do by the Act? I note that Section 114 apparently requires us to certify to distributors and dealers but not to manufacturers, such as GM. Do we have to certify if we sell to dealers or distributors directly?

Section 109 of the Act provides for civil penalties in situations where there is a violation. Does our certification to Chevrolet, in effect, pass the responsibility for violation on to us directly and insulate Chevrolet? Is is likely that the Administration would proceed against us directly in the case of a defect whether or not we have given the Section 108(P)(2) certification?

There are provisions in Section 111 of the Act for the recall of vehicles prior to the sale by a distributor or dealer. Is the Section 108 certification intended to pass the expense of recall from GM to us? Mr. Vinson advise me that recall is otherwise never mandatory. Can I assume that since recall is not mandatory the liability and expense for recall is a matter of agreement between Chevrolet and us and is unaffected by the Section 108 certification?

Mr. Vinson indicated that in the case of a safety-related defect the (Illegible Word) pursuant to Section 113(A) would be on the vehicle manufacturer to notify with no notification obligation on the hose manufacturer. However, in the event Chevrolet refused to recognize the safety defect, then a Section 113(E), Administrative Proceeding, might be brought against Chevrolet in which we would then be a party to the proceeding. Is there ever a situation where we have to notify dealers of a defect? Does the Section 108 certification pass the expense of notification from GM to us?

I wish to thank you, Mr. Vinson, and the other members of your staff who have been extremely helpful in assisting us in interpreting the Act.

I await your office's reply on the above questions and comments.

J. C. Vecchio Assistant Counsel

Enclosure

cc: N. P. Beveridge

AMERIACE CORPORATION SHAN HOSE DIVISION (Illegible Word) W SQUARE LK RD POB 249 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICH. 48013

CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.: 38550

Amendment Effective Date: 7/1/74

Date: 4/3/74

(Illegible Words) Date: 6/30/75

The (Illegible Word) contract is hereby amended as follows: FOB DUNS-017560988

Contract No. CO-23064

PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONTRACT:

"BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTRACT OR PURCHASE ORDER, IT IS AGREED THAT THE ACT OF MAKING EACH SHIPMENT PURSUANT THERETO CONSTITUTES CERTIFICATION, AS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 108 (B) (2) OF THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966, THAT EACH ITEM IN SUCH SHIPMENT CONFORMS WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD." ALL SHIPPING CONTAINERS (INDIVIDUAL OR BULK), EXCEPT (Illegible Word) TIRES AND GLAZING MATERIALS (GLASS), PROVIDED THE ARTICLES INDIVIDUALLY HEAR THE CERTIFICATION SYMBOL SPECIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING WORDING: - CONFORMS TO APPLICABLE U. S. FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS -

THE PARTS IN THIS CONTRACT IDENTIFIED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) MUST BE PRODUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED."

BUYER 03

Reason for Change: ADDING CLAUSES TO CONTRACT

Accepted:

AMERCE CORPORATION SWAN HOSE DIVISION

CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION General Motors Corporation Central Office

ID: nht74-1.13

DATE: 03/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider for R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Lufkin Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 30, 1974, request for inclusion in Standard 106, Brake hoses, of J1402 type A and B hose and J844 (nylon type 3) hose.

Standard 106 has already been amended by the addition of 3/8-in and 1/2-in special sizes to the list of hose sizes which may be used with reusable fittings, and this addition permits continued use of commonly utilized types of A and B hose.

The nylon 3 hose to which you refer is not excluded from use under the standard. Several of its manufacturers have indicated that it does conform to the requirements of the standard, which have been modified to reflect the lower tensile strength valves needed when used at non-articulating points in the system.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

January 30, 1974

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION -- Docket Section

Re: Docket No. 1-5 Notice 8 49 CFR 571.106; 38 FR 31302 (November 13, 1973)

PETITION FOR NEW RULEMAKING - FMVSS

Gentlemen:

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, Trailer Division, is a manufacturer of a variety of on and off-highway trailer equipment. We operate a number of branch offices that sell, service, repair and distribute parts for LUFKIN and other trailers.

We are concerned that FMVSS 106, in its present form, is design restrictive. The law will severely effect our timetable of preparation for FMVSS 121, for the following reasons:

1. Failure to list SAE J1402 type A and B hose as acceptable air brake hose.

2. Failure to list SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) as acceptable "Chassis plumbing".

According to test data provided by our vendors, J1402 type A and B hose meets FMVSS 106, Paragraph S7. We strongly recommend that you recognize this product as acceptable due to its apparent safety and economy.

We have used J1402 type B for years as plumbing from air valve to brake chamber, and from belly of trailer down to sliding bogey. Repair manager interviews and review of documentation and warranty reports show no failures due to excessive pressure. Only two hose failures have occurred during the past two years. Both resulted from mechanical damage so severe that SAE 100RS, SAE J1402 type D, wire braid hose could not have prevented failure.

The same statements are true concerning SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) tubing. The tubing's adaptability and workability have simplified complex varieties of air brake "chassis plumbing" on a variety of trailer configurations without sacrificing safety or dependability. We petition that SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) tubing be accepted as "chassis plumbing" except for delivery lines from air relay valve to brake chambers, trailer-tractor connections, trailer-dolly-trailer connections, and trailer belly to sliding bogey connections.

If SAE J1402 type A and B hose and SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) tubing are not accepted as brake hose under this law, we, as well as numerous trailer manufacturers, will be faced with unusable hose, tubing and fittings. Because of quantity order requirements necessitated by scarcity, long trailer construction lead times and planning uncertainties generated by FMVSS's 106 and 121, we may be unable to phase-out obsolete material in the time remaining. Additionally, all LUFKIN brake actuation and release timing tests have been conducted on equipment using the type B hose and nylon tubing. Duplication and waste will result if new components are to be introduced now.

We respectfully submit that the final disposition of FMVSS 106 needs immediate resolution. We must finalize drawings, purchase required parts, establish pricing, prepare a firm schedule for phase-out of any unusable parts and complete our shop training program. We need, from you, a finalized FMVSS 106 regulation that will allow us to plan effectively to meet mutual safety and reliability goals.

Yours very truly,

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC.

W. T. Little -- Vice-President General Manager, Lufkin Trailer Division

cc: A. G. Colburn; Joe Bills

ID: nht74-1.14

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Imperial-Eastman Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 2, 1974, questions concerning the labeling of multi-piece end fittings, the use of hose marked with the DOT symbol in non-brake applications, and the acceptability of an end fitting design under the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake hoses.

The answers to your first two questions will appear in the upcoming notice responding to petitions for reconsideration of amendments to Standard No. 106.

As to the acceptability of a certain end fitting design, the standard specifies performance requirements for end fittings. Any design which meets the specifications of the standard may be manufactured after the effective date of the standard.

Yours truly,

May 2, 1974

Docket Room National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: FMVSS106, Docket 1-5, Note 10

Gentlemen:

Imperial-Eastman Corporation, a manufacturer of brake hose, couplings, and hose assemblies have a direct interest in FMVSS106, and hereby submit the following comments or requests for interpretations; they are not items for petition.

1. S7.2 Labeling

"Except for two-piece end fittings that are attached by deformation of the fitting about a hose by crimping or swaging, each air brake hose end fitting shall be permanently etched, embossed or stamped, in block capital letters and numerals at least one-sixteenth of an inch high with the DOT labeling information."

We assume that on three-piece air brake hose end fittings which utilize sacrificial sleeves or ferrules, and are considered permanently attached end fittings, that it would be permissible to mark only the coupling nut, with the DOT labeling information.

2. Thermoplastic air brake hose in accordance with SAE J844, Type 3 is currently being used by practically most major truck manufacturers in the United States on original equipment. This hose is normally used to replace copper tubing and/or rubber hose in air brake systems.

This type of thermoplastic hose with air brake hose end fittings is also used for auxiliary lines to windshield wipers, air horns, pressure gages, etc., and for fuel lines.

Fittings and/or fitting components used in these applications may be identical with those used in and marked for air brake applications. Is it permissible for these items to retain the DOT labeling information when used in these other applications?

3. The SAE has a committee which has proposed a fitting performance specification for SAE J844, Type 3, Nylon air brake tubing. One of the types of fittings that meet this performance specification and is currently being used by most major truck manufacturers on air brake systems, consist of a nut, sleeve, tube support and body. The tube support is a brass eyelet, pressed into the body by the coupling manufacturer, which prevents collapse of the tubing. The body is a standard air brake body which meets SAE J246 Standard. For service replacement a loose eyelet and sleeve are provided.

Such fittings are neither described within the DOT Standard, nor specifically excluded from it. Assuming that such fittings are qualified to the DOT test requirements of the standard, and are marked in accordance with the standard, may we then assume they are acceptable?

Sincerely,

IMPERIAL-EASTMAN CORPORATION Imperial Division

Robert C. Gibson Standards and Specifications Engineer

ID: nht74-1.15

DATE: 05/01/74

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

TO: The Mansfield Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

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

THE MANSFIELD TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

March 19, 1974

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

Dear Mr. Schneider:

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

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

Rim Size Sect.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

ID: nht74-1.16

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

June 18, 1974

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

Dear Mr. Schneider:

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

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

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

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

Your confirmation of our position would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Cerhard P. Riechel -- Attorney

Enc.

cc: Taylor Vincent

ID: nht74-1.17

DATE: 07/15/74

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

TO: National Campers & Hikers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

Your truly,

ATTACH.

June 27, 1974

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

Dear Mr. Schneider:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely

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

ID: nht74-1.18

DATE: 05/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

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

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

For these reasons, your petition is denied.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Date: April 22, 1974

Docket Section -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

(Docket No. 71-18 Notice 7)

Gentlemen,

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would greatly appreciate your consideration on the above petition.

Very truly yours,

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