Interpretation ID: aiam2184

On January 23, 1976, I received a telephone call from Mr. Walt Robbin (750-2600) concerning the interpretation letter mailed from this office to him an January 20, 1976. (The subject of that letter was the application of Standard No. 109's labeling requirements to a 'Radial, Bias Ply Tire'.) Mr. Robbins asked three questions:; 1) Were the four labeling examples set out in the letter intended to b restrictive or merely a model, with respect to the cord materials used in the tires (e.g. would a similar label that specified '3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 POLYESTER RADIAL PLY' instead of an aramid radial ply also be permissible)? I explained that, in that respect, the examples were merely a model, so that his suggested alternative would be permissible.; 2) When would the rule that was discussed in the letter be issued? declined to give a prediction, explaining generally the uncertainties in the rulemaking process.; 3) What was the real reason for inclusion of the suggestion that h consult the FTC concerning advertising of the tires in question? I explained that he could take the sentence on its face and that the NHTSA was not, in the letter, taking any position on the use of the word 'radial' in the advertising of such tires.; Mark I. Schwimmer