ID: nht72-1.18

DATE: 09/18/72

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

TO: Demman Rubber Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 14, 1972, requesting information as to whether you may sell tires to a Mr. Harvey Livingston, who is in the business of repairing tires with correctable defects. You ask what assurance you should obtain that the tires are actually repaired and rebranded by Mr. Livingston before their sale by him.

The sale of passenger car tires is subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. "New (Illegible Word) Tires" (49 CFR 571.109). Under these provisions tire manufacturers may sell passenger car tires only in the following circumstances: They may sell tires which perform to the performance and labeling requirements of Standard No. 109, and which have been certified as specified in the standard and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574); or, they may sell, until October 1, 1972, (See our notice of August 17, 1972, 37 F.R. 16694) tires which have been reclassified pursuant to paragraph S6 of Standard No. 109. This requires the removal original labeling and the affixing of new labels which were against the was of such tires on public highways. These restrictions apply to the sale of passenger car tires so any purchasers including persons such as Mr. Livingston, who wish to repair the tires and resell them.

If you sell conforming tires to Mr. Livingston, he would not be required by Federal regulations to remove Demmas labeling and to affix his own. Whether or not he did this would depend upon whatever agreement you reach with him. A satisfactory assurance, should you agree with him to follow this procedures, would be a written agreement to that affect; but you should also record the serial numbers of tires which you sell to him. Demman, however, is not permitted to remove its own labeling before sale.

Even if Mr. Livingston affixes the DOT symbol and his own identification number to the tires, the NHTSA would not necessarily find him responsible should the tire fail to conform to Standard No. 109. Mr. Livingston would be entitled to a show that the reason for the nonconformity is not attributable to the work he performed. If he could demonstrate this, Demmas could then be found responsible for the nonconformity.

If you sell Mr. Livingston "reclassified tires", Mr. Livingston would be required to label the tires as required by Standard No. 109, and to certify their conformity to the Standard before he could sell them as passenger car tires. In this situation, Mr. Livingston would be responsible if the tires failed to conform to Standard No. 109.

We have send Mr. Livingston a copy of our response.

ID: nht72-1.19

DATE: 02/11/72

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

TO: Salt Lake Auto Auction

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 5, 1972, inquiring whether you may inlay whitewall rings on black tires. You state that in the process a narrow strip of black rubber around the tire is buffed or ground off and replaced with a strip of whitewall which is bonded or vulcanized to the tire in its place.

Assuming that you are discussing applying this process to new passenger car tires, whether the process is permissible depends upon whether or not it adversely affects the tire's compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires," which prescribes performance requirements for all passenger car tires sold in the United States. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

If after using the process the tire will not comply with Standard No. 109, the use of the process is prohibited, and its use can result in the imposition of civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per tire and of other sanctions as well (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1), 1398, 1399). In addition, it is the responsibility of the one who wishes to use the process to determine whether it will cause the tires to fail the standard.

ID: nht72-1.2

DATE: 02/23/72

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

TO: Petro Electric Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter of December 16, 1971, requesting interpretations of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards as they apply to electric vehicles.

The engine retardation braking effect of Standard No. 102 applies only to vehicles equipped with automatic transmission, and not to an electric vehicle that has no transmission.

Standards Nos. 201 through 204 do not apply to trucks. You have stated that your electric vehicle is designed so that "the rear . . . will normally be used for tools, service equipment, spare parts, etc., as would be required in a service vehicle as used by an electric utility company for going out and making repairs." You have also stated that the back area could be converted to a seating area for two passengers, but that this would be "unusual and occasional." On the basis of this information we have concluded that your vehicle is a "truck" and need not meet Standard Nos. 201-204.

ID: nht72-1.20

DATE: 05/31/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We are in receipt of your response of October 7, 1971, to CIR 368.1.1, concerning Admiral Belted 78 tires that were branded on one side only.

The Administration considers the act of branding on only one sidewall at a time when the standard required both sidewalls be labeled, to be inexcusable. If similar incidents of overlooking requirements come to our attention we will pursue civil penalties. However, based on the information before us we are closing our files in this case with regard to both civil penalties and defect notification. The Administration reserves the right to reopen this file in the event that further violations of this nature come to its attention.

ID: nht72-1.21

DATE: 12/15/72

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

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 8, 1972, inquiring whether new casings, to which tread is later added, are considered to be "tires" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The NHTSA has taken the position that such casings are not tires until after the tread has been added, and the casings are not required to be certified as conforming to applicable standards until that occurs. Consequently, such casings may be imported without prior certification.

You also ask how best to inform Customs of our position, to avoid possible importation problems. We suggest you write to Mr. P. K. McCarthy, Chief, Restrictive Merchandise Branch, U. S. Bureau of Customs, Room 704C, 1145 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20226, advising him of our opinion, and ask him to acknowledge this interpretation. You might also take steps to ensure that this information is relayed to the local customs officials at those ports of entry where the casings will be imported. If you need further assistance in this matter, please let me know.

ID: nht72-1.22

DATE: 09/27/72

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

TO: Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1972, requesting an opinion as to the applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFA 471.109) and proposed Standard No. 110 (37 F.R. 13491, July 8, 1972) to tires inflated with "Permafoam" cellular foam rubber.

Although these tires contain other material in addition to air, we have decided that they should be considered "pneumatic tires" for the purpose of the application of Standard No. 109. The reasons for this decision are the fact that their Foam filling contains a substantial proportion of air under pressure, and their general similarity to conventional tires in regard to appearance, use, and load-deflection characteristics.

The NHTSA has also concluded, however, that these tires have desirable performance capabilities and should be available to the public, subject to conditions to assure their safe use, for the special purposes for which they are designed. Accordingly we have decided to initiate rulemaking to establish special requirements for these and similar tires. We plan to issue the appropriate notices in the near future.

ID: nht72-1.23

DATE: 06/28/72

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

TO: Rubber Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1972, asking whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prompts the various States from enforcing the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission's Regulation V-1 with respect to passenger car tires.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d) requires any State law applicable to the same aspect of motor vehicle performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard to be identical to the Federal standard. We believe this section, considered in light of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, invalidates any State law that requires passenger car tires (except tires procured by a State for its own use) to meet the VESC Regulation V.1, or to be labeled with the V-1 symbol.

ID: nht72-1.24

DATE: 09/28/72

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

TO: Associate Mgt. Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 22, 1972, concerning the recently issued amendment to Standard No. 109 (37 F.R. 16604, August 7, 1972) prohibiting the sale of "reclassified" tires. You indicate that you agree with the amendment that such tires should be allowed to be sold as scrap, but suggest that it be only after they are (Illegible Word) completely inoperable for any vehicular use.

The amendment to the standard prohibits, in effect, the distribution by a manufacturer of any tire does not conform to the standard, unless it is impossible that the tire (Illegible Word) be used or be repaired for use as motor vehicle equipment (see paragraph S2, Application, of the enclosed copy). Whether cutting the bead on a tire meets this requirement is for each individual manufacturer to determine. We have received some reports that it is possible to repair the bead of a tire so that the tire can still be used on a motor vehicle. If this is the case, cutting a tire's bead may not be sufficient to allow the tire to be sold as scrap under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The amendment, then, does achieve the result you suggested in that it does require a noncomplying tire to be "completely inoperable for any vehicular use" before it can be sold as scrap.

We appreciate your continued efforts for motor vehicle safety.

Enclosure

ID: nht72-1.25

DATE: 05/26/72

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

TO: Livingston's Tire Shop

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 1972, requesting a letter from NHTSA to the effect that tire manufacturers are free to sell you new repairable tires which you plan to repair and sell. We have assumed that the manufacturers of the tires do not believe that they conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. "New Pneumatic Tires," and that they have not certified conformance to the standard, as this is apparently the reason for their reluctance to sell you these tires.

Paragraph S6. of Standard No. 109 provides, among other things, that passenger car tires that are not certified, defined as "reclassified tires," must bear a label (specified in the standard) stating that they are not to be sold for use on passenger cars.

If you wish to purchase reclassified tires, repair them, and resell them for passenger car use, you must ensure that they conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 109 (paragraphs S1. through S5.), and relabel and certify them in accordance with paragraph S4.3.

You should be aware that the NHTSA has proposed, in a notice dated November 27, 1971 (36 F.R. 22688, copy enclosed) to prohibit the sale for any purpose of reclassified tires.

ID: nht72-1.26

DATE: 04/24/72

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

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 28, 1972, asking whether passenger car tires that have been reclassified, under Standard 109, as "Unsafe for Highway Use" because they do not conform to the standard may be sold with, or for use on, a vehicle other than a passenger car. For the reasons given below, our answer to your question is no.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states that:

"No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section." (Emphasis supplied.)

We presume that the argument for allowing use of a nonconforming passenger car tire on another type of vehicle (in your case a boat trailer) would be that by so using the tire, it ceases to be a "tire for use on passenger cars" in the words of the application section of Standard 109, that the standard does not apply to it, and since there is currently no standard for tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, anything may be used on such vehicles.

We would reject this argument. We interpret Standard 109 as applying to tires that are designed and produced for use on passenger cars, and in this view a tire so designed and produced does not become something else because it is ultimately used for a different purpose. The effect of section 108, then, is not merely to prohibit nonconforming passenger car tires from being sold on passenger cars, but to prohibit them from being sold at all, as "motor vehicle equipment."

As an entirely separate matter, any reclassified tire sold as motor vehicle equipment would be presumed to contain a safety-related defect within the meaning of sections 111 and 113 of the Act.