ID: nht75-1.5

DATE: 04/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Kazuhiko Aoki

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 22 1975 N40-30 TWH)

Mr. Kazuhiko Aoki 2-3 Nihonbashi Koami-cho 1-chome Chuo-ku/ Toykyo, Japan 103

Dear Mr. Aoki:

This responds to your January 30, 1975, question whether the test procedure of S7.7.1 in Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, refers to the parking brake in the next to the last sentence which states that it "may be necessary to reapply it if the vehicle moves slightly" (emphasis added).

The word "it" refers to the service brake system, and not the parking brake system. This sentence permits application of the service brake only, which has the effect of taking up parking brake system slack due to rotation of the brake shoes and drum prior to bottoming against the anchor pin.

Sincerely,

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.50

DATE: 11/18/75

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

TO: Tong Shin Chemical Products Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your inquiry concerning the addition of the symbol "DOT" to tires imported into this country, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of this office.

49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires tire manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto the sidewall of tires an identification number and the symbol DOT. The position of the identification number and DOT symbol is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of the Regulation. The symbol DOT, as stated in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, 49 CFR 571.109, constitutes a certification that the tire conforms to all applicable safety standards.

Neither Standard No. 109 nor Part 574 prohibit the branding of the symbol DOT onto the tire after manufacture, as long as the information becomes part of the actual sidewall material. By branding the symbol DOT onto the tire you are certifying that the tires meet all the requirements of the motor vehicle safety standards based on information which, in the exercise of due care, you know to be accurate.

If you have further questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht75-1.6

DATE: 02/11/75

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

TO: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Feb. 11, 1975 N40-30

Mr. A. B. Kelley Senior Vice President Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Suite 300 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20037

Dear Ben:

This is to confirm our understanding with respect to public meetings to be held on the subject of the Hydraulic Brake Standard, No. 105-75.

If any significant changes are to be made in the standard, a notice of proposed rulemaking will be issued. Toward the end of the comment period on that NPRM, the agency will hold a public hearing concerning the contents of the proposal. At that time you will have the opportunity to present your views in full.

Sincerely,

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.7

DATE: 02/07/75

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

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

N40-30 FEB 7 1975

Mr. Tatsuo Kato Staff, Safety Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P. O. Box 1606 Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Kato:

This responds to your December 18, 1974, question whether the test procedure in S7.11.2.1 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, that specifies "Accelerate immediately... after each stop" can be interpreted to permit a maximum rate of acceleration to the initial test speed of 60 mph. You also ask whether, in the case of a vehicle incapable of attaining 60 mph, the S5.1 requirement that it be tested "at the highest speed attainable in the time or distance interval specified" can also be interpreted to permit a maximum rate of acceleration.

Both of these specifications permit acceleration at maximum speed. As in the case of any performance requirement, when a test procedure is not specified, a manufacturer must only "exercise due care" to assure himself that each of his vehicles meets the requirements, by selecting a reasonable test procedure to demonstrate compliance. In fact the NHTSA has consistently stated that, even when a test procedure is stated, a manufacturer may use a different procedure, so long as it is calculated, in the exercise of due care, to demonstrate that the vehicle would comply if tested in accordance with the procedure.

Because the NHTSA has chosen not to specify an acceleration rate in S7.11.2.1 for fade tests, the manufacturer may reasonably choose the maximum or near maximum acceleration rate which ensures the greatest cooling effect in the brake assembly. This interpretation is also true for vehicles which are unable to attain 60 mph and must therefore reach their "highest speed" under S5.1 prior to braking.

Therefore, in both cases cited, you may interpret the procedures to permit acceleration at "maximum rate" as specified in S7.11.3.1.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.8

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 10, 1975 N40-30 (FWS)

Warren M. Heath, Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacremento, California 95804

Dear Commander Heath:

This is a further reply to your letter dated January 21, 1975, asking several questions regarding Standard No. 205, "Glazing materials." We have attempted to incorporate the substance of your questions in our various answers.

1. Prime Glazing Material Manufacturer. A company that buys and then bends or otherwise forms flat plastic glazing material into a motorcycle windshield is not a prime glazing material manufacturer, nor is a company which blows or stretches flat plastic glazing material that is purchased from another company. Prime glazing material manufacturers are only those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. In neither of the examples you pose is the material fabricated, laminated, or tempered by the company in question.

2. Marking Requirements. In the amendment to Standard No. 205 published November 11, 1972, (37 FR 24035), it was our intention to limit the use of the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code number to the prime glazing material manufacturer. Persons who cut glazing fabricated by others should not under Standard No. 205 utilize the prime manufacturer's code number or the DOT symbol. Our purpose in structuring the marking requirements this way was to enable us to determine, for purposes of attributing responsibility for conformity, which glazing in a motor vehicle had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle, and which glazing had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation.

(a) You are correct in your interpretation that the DOT symbol and the code number are applied by a prime glazing material manufacturer in addition to the manufacturer's trademark. It was our expectation that the prime manufacturer would furnish his customers with a heat stamp of the markings required by Section 6 of ANS Z26, without the DOT symbol and code number, by which the manufacturer cutting or otherwise shaping the material would mark those pieces he cut or shaped.

(b) Glazing produced by a prime glazing material manufacturer that is not designed for use in a specific vehicle should not contain the DOT symbol or the manufacturer's code number.

(c) The NHTSA has assigned numbers only to prime glazing material manufacturers. We have not inquired, however, whether the company is in fact producing glazing materials for use in specific vehicle applications.

(d) As stated previously, a company which does not manufacture its glazing but which cuts glazing from larger pieces purchased from the producer of the material should not be using the prime manufacturer's code number or the DOT symbol.

(e) You are correct in your conclusion that the marking requirements of the standard do not apply to dealers. However any person (including a dealer) who sells glazing (separately or in a new vehicle) which is improperly marked may be violating Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

3. General Requirements.

(a) Standard No. 205 does presently prohibit dealers from using the prime glazing material manufacturer's code number. If you are aware of instances where this requirement is not being followed, please forward to us the particulars of the cases in question and we will take appropriate action.

(b) Manufacturers who purchase glazing in large sheets and then cut it to fit window frames are not prime manufacturers and may not use the DOT symbol or manufacturer's code number. You are therefore not correct in your statement that a manufacturer of a window assembly may use the prime manufacturer's number even when the window manufactured is for a special application.

(c) The model number of glazing used in motorcycle windshields should be that which is assigned to it by the prime glazing material manufacturer in the glazing's original thickness. ANS Z26 calls for testing plastic glazing materials in substantially flat specimens, and not in molded specimens. However, the Federal standard does not require testing. Manufacturers are required only to use due care in the manufacture of their products. A person "reforming" the plastic does not thereby become a prime glazing material manufacturer.

(d) The markings which should appear on plastic bubbles on minivans should be those of the prime manufacturer (not the DOT symbol or code number) of the glazing material and not those of the person who reshapes the glazing.

(e) A material marked AS4 that was used as a motorcycle windshield would technically fail to conform to the standard as the standard does not provide for the use of AS4 materials in motorcycle windshields. However, if the material also conformed to the requirements of AS6 (which is permitted to be used in motorcycle windshields), the nonconformity would not be considered significant.

(f) Our basic approach has been that the standard applies to the vehicle locations specified in ANS Z26, and to any glazing (glass or plastics) used in those locations. However, opaque plastic materials which are clearly structural materials do not fall within the ambit of Standard No. 205.

(g) Standard No. 205 presently limits the use of plastic glazing materials in buses to readily removable windows, which include push-out windows. Plastic materials may not be used in buses in fixed quarter panels or sliding windows that are not readily removable.

We believe our reasons to be valid for limiting the use of the DOT symbol and manufacturer's code number to glazing manufactured by prime manufacturers for use in a specific vehicle location. However, we would certainly be willing to consider steps you might suggest to facilitate State inspections that are consistent with the purposes of the labeling requirements presently in effect. Such a suggestion should be in the form of a petition to amend Standard No. 205 and should be specific.

Sincerely,

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.9

DATE: 10/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 16, 1975, letter to Mr. John Carson of this agency, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination. You requested an interpretation of the footnote to Table 1 of the standard which reads: "Framed areas may be filled".

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this footnote as permitting the vehicle manufacturer the option of depicting the interior of a symbol to which it applies with the same color as the boundary of the symbol, as an alternative to depicting the interior with the same color as the background. In the hazard warning signal symbol, which consists of a triangle containing a smaller triangle, only the area between the triangles is part of the interior. The center of the small triangle is part of the background. Therefore, only the first and third of the sampels submitted with your letter are permitted. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the samples indicating which ones are permitted.

SINCERELY,

September 16, 1975

John W. Carson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I am writing this letter in regard to the hazard warning signal symbol mark in FMVSS 101 which reads:

"Framed area may be filled"

I would appreciate it very much if you could choose the best sample which I have drawn below. Please check if they are good or not good.

Thank you.

(Graphics omitted)

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Naoyoshi Suzuki

Staff, Safety

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-2.1

DATE: 10/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The B. F. Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your August 30, 1975, letter concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to tires which the manufacturer expects to be used on both passenger cars and trailers.

S2. of Standard No. 109 specifies:

This standard applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. . . .

Similarly, S3. of Standard No. 119 specifies:

This standard applies to new pneumatic tires designed for highway use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles manufactured after 1948. . . . (emphasis added)

These standards are mutually exclusive. Therefore, dual markings indicating compliance with the performance requirements of each are not permitted. A tire whose predominant contemplated use is on passenger cars is subject to Standard No. 109, even if the manufacturer knows it will also be marketed as a trailer tire. The choice of standard to which the tire will be certified should be made by the manufacturer. The NHTSA will accept a manufacturer's good faith determination of the applicable standard. You should note that if the tire is certified as conforming with Standard No. 119, its use as original equipment on passenger cars is prohibited by Standard No. 110. (The proposed Standard No. 120, however, would permit the use of passenger car tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, subject to a 10 percent load rating correction factor.)

Please note further that a tire which is subject to Standard No. 109 must be of a size designation listed in Appendix A of that standard. Conversely, any tire labeled with a size designation which is listed in that appendix is subject to Standard No. 109.

The final paragraph of your letter discussed "certain types and classes of equipment [determined by the NHTSA to be] non-trailers by definition." You appear to be referring to vehicles which are not "trailers" because they are not "motor vehicles" or items of "motor vehicle equipment" as the latter terms are defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. No Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to units which are neither motor vehicles nor motor vehicle equipment. The manufacturers of such units may equip them with tires of their choice.

ATTACH.

The B. F. Goodrich Company August 30, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Executive Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

We at B. F. Goodrich seek an agency interpretation under current Rules, Regulations, Orders or Standards as to the specific performance requirements called for a passenger tire when its expected use is known or contemplated to be put into service as a trailer tire.

As you are undoubtedly aware, prior to the effective date of MVSS 119 (49CFR 571.119-effective March 1, 1975) certain sizes of passenger tires were used as trailer tires, particularly with certain light trailers such as boating and/or horse trailers. Light trailers of this class appear to meet the definition of a "trailer" as defined by 49CFR 571.3(c) as:

"Trailer means a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

For certain size tires. The B. F. Goodrich Company has passenger tires, which of course, in order to be marketed as a passenger tire must be in compliance with and meet all requirements of MVSS 109 (49CFR 571.109); in those instances where the tire has the potential for use on a trailer, must such tire additionally meet and comply with all requirements of MVSS 119?

We are aware that MVSS 120, as of current date, remains NPRM for which an effective date is not yet established and which when issued will, to a substantial degree, further identify and control use and application of trailer tires through the designation of rim sizes for such tires.

We additionally seek further clarification as to just how such a dual-use tire should be identified and marketed; e.g. should the tire be marked with the MVSS 109 identification (applicable when sold as a passenger tire) and separately marked with the MVSS 119 identification (applicable when sold as a trailer tire) or in the alternative, would dual identification demonstrating compliance with both passenger and non-passenger tires be acceptable?

Further, it has been brought to our attention that your agency has designated certain types and classes of equipment as non-trailers by definition; such non-trailer equipment is readily illustrated as compressor units, cement mixers, welding units and the like which are frequently used by the construction industry for portable movement in and about construction sites. Normally, such equipment is an integral unit in and by itself, in that it does not carry "persons or property" which are detachable from the unit, which factor could cause such units to be identified as "non-trailers" and accordingly not reach necessity of compliance with requirements recited by MVSS 119. It is understood that such units are not intended for highway use and that when transported from one construction site to another, they are carried on a transport trailer specifically designed for highway movement of such equipment. Many manufacturers of such units desire to continue the use of passenger tires for this type application and if prior interpretations of your agency has identified and placed such units outside the scope of S1 of MVSS 119 (e.g. "for tires for use on multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles"), we request that such classes of "construction use equipment" be identified so that our passenger tires may be properly marked for such application.

Very truly yours,

C. D. McCarty -- Staff Attorney

cc: R. D. Buehler; J. L. Ginn; W. G. Wilson

ID: nht75-2.10

DATE: 09/09/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 14, 1975, concerning the permissibility of placing arrow-shaped markings on tire sidewalls to show the locations of the treadwear indicators.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 specifies certain labeling requirements for passenger car tires. Standard No. 119 specifies similar labeling for tires designed for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. Although the arrows which you have described are not required by either of these standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to such markings provided that none of the required label information is omitted.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 14, 1975

Ref. No. H1/67

James Schultz -- Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schultz:

We have been informed that the Japan Automotive Tire Manufacturers Association has decided to issue a new standard on marking of wear indicators.

The standard requires that all kinds of passenger car tires and truck and bus tires, in Japan, have arrow-marks on both sides of the tire to show the locations of tread wear indicators.

The below shown drawings are details of the arrow-marks:

(Graphics omitted)

We assume that some of the tires with the arrow-marks will be exported to the United States, occasionally.

Therefore, we would like to ask you a favor by telling us whether or not the tires with arrow-marks are illegal in the U.S.A..

If they are illegal, please explain what law prohibits the tires with the arrow-marks.

We would very much appreciate it if you could give us the answer within this week.

If it is convenient for you, we would like to visit with you to discuss this matter at 2:00 PM on July 17, 1975.

Thank you for your cooperation, in advance.

Yours truly,

HIDEKIMI INOUE -- Manager-Technical Liaison

ID: nht75-2.11

DATE: 11/06/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 1, 1975, to Mr. A. Y. Casanova, Office of Crash Avoidance, concerning the rapid loss of air test specified in S4.4.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

The test procedure specified in the above cited section of Standard No. 110 requires operating the test vehicle, equipped with the tire and rim combination to be tested, at 60 mph and rapidly deflating the tire. Rapid deflation can be achieved by any method that brings the deflated tire to a full "flat" state while the vehicle is still traveling at 60 mph. Among these methods are:

(1) running the test tire over a V-shaped knife edge,

(2) exploding a small detonation cap to puncture the tire,

(3) evacuating the tire by means of an instrumented vacuum system, and

(4) pulling out the value stem.

Once the tire is deflated, the vehicle is brought to a controlled stop. The tire must remain on the rim.

You specifically asked the position of the beads after the conclusion of the test procedure. The standard requires that the rim retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped. "Retain the deflated tire" means that the tire beads must be within the rim. The beads need not remain on the bead seat during this test, e.g., one bead may drop into the wall of the rim. However, at no time shall a tire bead be outside of the rim so that the rim is operating on the inside of the deflated tire.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 17, 1975

U. S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Motor Vehicle Programs, Office of Standards Enforcement

Gentlemen:

Please send me one copy of the following publications and if there is a charge please bill us.

1. "Laboratory Procedures for Tire Testing & Data Reporting" latest issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109/117

2. "Laboratory Procedures for Tire Testing & Data Reporting" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 119

I will look forward to your early consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,

T. Umeda, Technical Representative -- The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

August 1, 1975

A. Y. Casanova -- Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Safety Bureau, Office of Operations Systems

Dear Mr. Casanova:

Re: FMUSS #110

As I discussed on the phone, I am very interested in the test procedure concerning the "Rapid Air Loss Test". Please give me more information about this matter.

I would like to especially know the bead position after the test is finished.

Attached please find the letter which I sent to your office on June 17, 1975.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours,

T. Umeda -- Technical Representative, The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

ID: nht75-2.12

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 30, 1975, concerning the standards applicable to a tire which you manufacture and sell with the designation L78-15LT, Load Range C.

You are mistaken in your assumption that a station wagon is classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle. Because it is constructed neither on a truck chassis nor with special features for occasional off-road operation, a station wagon is a passenger car rather than a multi-purpose passenger vehicle.

If, despite this misunderstanding, the L78-15LT tire in question is designated by you as primarily intended for use on lightweight trucks or multi-purpose passenger vehicles, then it is a light truck tire subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

Because a station wagon is a passenger car, Standard No. 110 requires that its original equipment tires comply with Standard No. 109. Standard No. 110 is not applicable to used cars, so there is no prohibition on the use of the L78-15LT tire as replacement equipment on a station wagon. However, because the informational placard on a station wagon would suggest to its owner the use of inflation pressures which are dangerously inadequate for light truck tires, we do not wish to encourage the sale of such tires as replacement equipment for use on station wagons.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY

May 30, 1975

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

Attention: Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

We are manufacturing and selling in the replacement market only a truck tire described as a

L78-15 Light Truck 6-ply rated tire. This will be designated as a L78-15LT, C load range.

We have been informed by one of our large distributors that they intend to sell this tire as a replacement tire for use on station wagons. The rims used on station wagons are listed by The Tire and Rim Association as a rim size for this tire.

As we interpret the definition of a "Light Truck Tire" under Standard 119, this tire may be used on station wagons if qualified and labeled under MVSS 119 and need not be qualified or carry the labeling required under MVSS 109. We assume a station wagon to be a multi-purpose passenger vehicle.

We understand that our interpretation would not apply if the tire were supplied as original equipment.

We would appreciate your opinion in this matter.

Sincerely,

R. L. Donnelly -- SECRETARY