ID: nht73-1.12

DATE: 10/23/73

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

TO: Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1973, responding to our reply of June 26, 1973, to your letter of May 28, 1973. We informed you in the June 26 letter that labeling a passenger car tire, "Max Load 1200 Lbs. At 36 psi," would not be consistent with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 because this label does not make it clear that 36 psi is the maximum permissible inflation pressure. In your letter of August 22 you state that you have already manufactured tires labeled in this manner, and ask whether such tires may be imported into the United States in their present form.

The answer to this question is no. As we have determined that this labeling does not conform to Standard No. 109, the tires in question cannot be imported into the United States unless the labeling is modified to conform to the standard.

Sincerely,

U.S. Department of Transportation att: Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration

August 22, 1973

Dear Mr Dyson:

Thank you for your letter of June 26, 1973. Our problem is that we already have manufactured a number of tires, labelled "Max load 1200 LBS at 36 PSI" without the word Max Press in front of 36 PSI.

My question: are we allowed to export these tires to the United States without any complications due to the not quite correct labelling? I can mention that we later on have changed to the correct labelling in accordance with your instructions.

Yours truly, TRELLEBORGS GUMMIFABRIKS AKTIEBOLAG Tire Development Department -- Erik Sundelin

ID: nht73-1.13

DATE: 08/01/73

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

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

By your telegram of July 16, 1973, you requested an interpretation of the passenger car tire standard -- No. 109, which would allow the branding of the information required to be on the sidewall.

As we understand the situation in this case, the tires in question are certified by the manufacturer as complying and have all the required information but the "DOT" certification is in the wrong location.

In this instance, we have no objection to branding the "DOT" in the proper location.

We are notifying the Baltimore Customs officials that the tires that do not comply with the standards can be brought into this country by making a box 3 declaration that the merchandise does not conform but will be brought into conformance within 90 days by branding "DOT" in the proper location. Under the Customs regulation, 19 CFR 12.80, this requires the posting of a bond equal to the value of the merchandise.

Sincerely,

WESTERN UNION

JULY 16, 1973

LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

CORRECTION OF MSG SENT JULY 13 - DO NOT DUPLICATE APPROXIMATELY 2,800 TIRES HAVE BEEN SHIPPED TO US FROM FABRICA NEUMATICOS ESPANOLA THESE TIRES ARE PRESENTLY BEING HELD BY CUSTOMS OFFICIALS IN BALTIMORE MARYLAND LESS THAN 1,000 OF THESE TIRES SPRINT JET RADIALS 165R 13 TECHNICALLY DO NOT COMPLY WITH STANDARDS PROMULGATED UNDER PARTS 57, AND 574 -- LABELING REQUIREMENT

REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL TO PERMIT ENTRY OF THESE TIRES SO THAT WE MAY ACCOMPLISH REBRANDING HERE IN AKRON REQUEST YOUR INTERPRETATION THAT THE STANDARDS DO NOT PROHIBIT SUCH BRANDING TO BRING TIRES(Illegible Words) PLEASE ADVISE 216-798-2048

WILLIAM & HENRICK THE GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER CO I GENERAL ST AKRON OHIO 44329

ID: nht73-1.14

DATE: 08/17/73

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

TO: Semperit - Aktiengelellschaft

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 11, 1973, inquiring whether it is permissible under paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109, "New Pneumatic Tires") to label tires as follows:

1) TUBE-LESS TYPE instead of tubeless

2) TUBE- TYPE for tube type

While not stated in your letter it appears that you wish to facilitate the relabeling of the word "tube type" on tires originally manufactured as tubeless. We understand many tire manufacturers redesignate tubeless tires as tube type when they contain some imperfection that may affect their tubless air-retention capability, but which perform satisfactorily when tubes are installed.

Paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109 specifically requires the word "tubeless" or "tube type" as appropriate. Neither the phrase "TUBE-LESS TYPE" nor the phrase "TUBE- TYPE" conform to this requirement. The labeling you suggest would therefore not conform to Standard No. 109. We would expect that any redesignation of tubeless tires as tube type would be accomplished by obliterating the tubeless label and labeling the tire "tube type", in the form required by the standard.

I would like to point out that our decision to interpret these requirements strictly results in part from our efforts to stop a practice, which is occurring in the United States, in which some tire dealers sell tires that have been relabeled as tube type while representing to customers that tubes are not needed because the tires were originally tubless. We believe labeling tires as you suggest will have the unfortunate consequence of promoting this activity, as it will make it more obvious that the tires were originally manufactured as tubeless.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

SEMPERIT

AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

The Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S.-Department of Transportation July 11,1973

Re: Labelling tubeless, tube type

Dear Sir,

Concerning the labelling of tyres we want to ask if it is allowed to use the word-groups

TUBE-LESS TYPE instead of tubeless

and TUBE- TYPE for tube type.

The distance between TUBE- and TYPE is about of 0,8 inches.

Sincerely,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

U.S. COAST GUARD TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTER

07/04/73

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN US DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON DC ATTENTION LAWRENCE R SCHNEIDER CHIEF CONSUL WE REFER TO OUR LETTER DATED MA 9 1973 AND ASK YOU PLEASE TO GIVE US AN ANSWER THANKS IN ADVANCE STOP

ERIK SUNDELIN TRELLEBORGS GUMMIFABRIK TRELLEBORG

COASTGUARD WSH

ID: nht73-1.15

DATE: 06/26/73

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

TO: Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1973, asking whether you may, consistently with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, label maximum load and maximum permissible inflation pressure as follows, using the 165 SR 15 tire size designation as an example:

1. Max Load 1200 Lbs. At 36 psi

2. Max Load 1200 Lbs. At Max Press 36 psi

We do not believe alternative 1 to be consistent with Standard No. 109 because it is not clear that 36 psi is the maximum permissible inflation pressure. Alternative 2 does so indicate, however, and we believe that alternative to be consistent with the standard.

Yours truly,

Secretary of Transportation National Highway Safety Bureau, US Department of Transportation

May 28, 1973

MVSS 109

Dear Sirs;

Please inform us if we are allowed to use this alternative labelling on our tires, i.e. on tire size 165 SR 15:

Alternative 1: "Max Load 1200 Lbs AT 36 psi"

Alternative 2: "Max Load 1200 Lbs At Max Press 36 psi"

Yours sincerely, TRELLEBORGS GUMMIFABRIKS AKTIEBOLAG Tire Research --

Erik Sundelin

ID: nht73-1.16

DATE: 02/27/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: American Automobile Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in further reply to your letter of January 26, 1973, regarding performance of studded tires and the legal implications of installing studs.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not tested studded tires as part of its regular compliance program However, a special test of studded tires outside of the regular compliance program was conducted. The results of this program are presently being prepared for release to the public through NHTSA's Technical Reference Division.

Briefly, in this program, snow tires manufactured and studded by the major tire manufacturers, were tested in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 109 and to conditions that exceed the requirements of Standard No. 109. Unstudded tires of the same type were tested concurrently for direct comparison.

To summarize the data from this program, both the studded and the unstudded tires passed both the endurance and high speed performance tests, the studded tires without loss of studs. In extension of the high speed test to 1/2 hour at 90 mph and 1/2 hour at 95 mph, some of the studs came out during the 1/2 hour at 95 mph. Some studded tires were run to 103 mph before tread chunking occurred. In extension of the endurance test for three hours with 10 percent increased load each hour, no studs were lost. As a result of this program, it would appear that studded tires do not present special problems when tested to the laboratory wheel tests of Standard No. 109.

We understand that major tire manufacturers in the industry have also run similar tests and determined that studded tires will meet the requirements of Standard No. 109. We recommend that tire and stud manufacturers be contacted directly for additional information concerning studded tire performance.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, persons who properly install appropriate studs in snow tires designed to be used with studs would not be responsible if the tire failed to conform to Federal standards. Because the installation of studs is clearly contemplated by the tire manufacturers, we would consider the conformity of such a tire to be his responsibility. On the other hand, a person who willfully used improper studs, improper installation procedures or who attempted to stud a tire not designed for studs would be responsible for conformity. Whether proper stud installation was used would depend upon a variety of factors, such as accepted practice, and the tire and stud manufacturers' recommended procedures.

Sincerely,

January 26, 1973

General Benjamin O. Davis -- Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Safety and Consumer Affairs, Department of Transportation

Dear General Davis:

We would like to have all the information now available as to what safety performance compliance testing under MVSS No. 109 and No. 110 for studded tires have been performed by or for the Department of Transportation, and the availability of any related test reports.

Since tire studs may be installed by tire manufacturers' retail outlets as well as independent tire dealers, information is also needed as to the legal implications of modifying a tire by installing tire studs, subsequent to the time it is "DOT" certified by the original tire manufacturer.

Any help you can give would be most appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

John de Lorenzi --

Managing Director,

Public & Government Relations

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: nht73-1.18

DATE: 10/10/73

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

TO: Motor Vehicle Administration

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in further response to correspondence dated July 10, 1973, between the Maryland Department of Transportation and Mr. Bernard Nolan. Mr. Nolan had written to the Maryland State Attorney General's Office regarding the practice of tire dealers of selling tires that have been relabeled "tube type" by their manufacturer, while representing that it was not necessary, and may even be unsafe, to install tubes in them. You attach a memorandum to you from Mr. Thomas J. Widerman which concludes that the practice does not violate any Federal or State law but recommends that Maryland's proposed tire safety standards be amended to prohibit the practice. You indicate to Mr. Nolan that you are forwarding the matter to this agency for appropriate action.

We believe this practice involves at least a technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) prohibits, among other things, the sale of motor vehicle equipment manufactured after the effective date of an applicable safety standard that does not conform to the standard.

We believe a person who sells a "tube type" tire as a tubeless tire is at least representing that the tire will meet the Federal standard applicable to tires, No. 109, without a tube. Accordingly, we believe that it is appropriate under the Safety Act to test that tire to the standard as a tubeless tire and, if failure occurs, to initiate civil penalty proceedings against the tire seller. That seller may also be liable for civil penalties for certifying the tire as conforming in a false and misleading manner (Sec. 108(a)(3) of the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(3)).

I am therefore referring the matter to our enforcement personnel with the recommendation that they inquire into the matter.

However, I also concur with the recommendation of Mr. Widerman that a specific prohibition against this practice be made part of Maryland law. NHTSA's enforcement procedures are civil in nature, and involve determinations that products fail to meet technical tests which are time-consuming and costly to run. State criminal procedures would, in our view, be far more effective than NHTSA's procedures in dealing with situations such as this.

Sincerely,

July 10, 1973

E. Wallace -- Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Ed:

A little slow perhaps, but here is a section of the B.F.Goodrich "Space Saver Spare" tire you asked me for.

We are trying spring plates in the molds to get the prescribed branding below the curb rib as now required. As you can see it will not be visible for(Illegible Word) to see it when it is in the trunk and folded as is normally the case,(Illegible Word) his we must also put it below the tread edge as you can see it on the section. This means a "double" branding job on these tires.

I gathered from Mike Peskos concluding remarks after our meeting on our petition that he felt there was a good chance of us getting some relief from this multiple and unnecessary branding.

Any suggestions or ideas your office may have which can be accomplished by rewording and/or rewriting the petition to make acceptance more likely will be appreciated.

Please call any time you feel further discussion on the petition is necessary or might help solution of our problems in this area.

Yours very truly,

B.F.GOODRICH TIRE COMPANY,

A Division of The B.F.Goodrich Co. --

F. S. Vukan

ID: nht73-1.19

DATE: 12/28/73

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

TO: Continental Rubber Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: At the request of Continental Tire Company by letter of November 27, 1973 (90316 - Ga/MAB/Sc), we are forwarding our response to their question through you. They asked to know the lettering height to be used in compliance with the labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is presently considering the lettering height to be used for labeling required by Standard 119. Our decision as to lettering size will appear in the Federal Register as soon as possible after it has been made.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

November 27, 1973

90316 - Ga/MAB/Sc

Gentlemen:

Re: Part 571 FMVSS 119 Docket 71-18, Notice 3

Part 571 S 109 Preamble 25-26, Docket 71-23, Notice 3, prescribes a height of 0.078" for the general lettering on tires; excepted herefrom is the Identification No, which can be 5/32" or 1/4".

The abovementioned Notice referred to Standards 109 and 117 only, no mention being made of Standard 119. It would therefore be appreciated if you would advise us of the lettering height to be used in order to comply with the labeling requirements of Standard 119. If we might be permitted to voice an opinion, we would suggest a height of 0.078" in view of the fact that motorcycle tires, with limited sidewall space, will have to be labeled; the same applies to small trailer tires.

We would be grateful for your early advices, as we intend to start soon with engraving of the relevant tire molds. May we suggest you notify our US representatives

Conti Rubber Products Inc. Minue Street Carteret, N.J.

per telex (transcontoret, No. 138 297) who will forward your instructions to us.

Thanking you in advance for an early reply, we are Yours very truly, CONTINENTAL Gummi-Werke Aktiengesellschaft; Fritsche; Garbe

ID: nht73-1.2

DATE: 01/10/73

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

TO: Van Doorne's Automobielfabrieken N.V.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1972, about compliance of DAF cars with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102.

Your question concerns the interpretation of paragraph S3.1.2. From your description in the letter and the description in the owner's manual, only one forward drive position is provided and engine braking can be achieved by actuating the transmission low ratio control switch. Under the conditions described above, the Variomatic transmission in DAF cars is not in violation with paragraph S3.1.2 of Standard No. 102. However, it appears that you do not comply with certain other paragraphs of the standard. For example, paragraph S3.1.1 requires that "A neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse positions. . . ." and paragraph S3.1.3 requires that "The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position."

The DAF 66 owners manual dated September 1972, also indicates non-compliance with other standards; for example, 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination, 114, Theft Protection, 115, Vehicle Identification Number, etc. It is recommended that all standards and regulations be checked for compliance.

A copy of "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" is enclosed for your review and information.

ID: nht73-1.20

DATE: 03/01/73

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

TO: Nashville Glass Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1973, requesting information concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 212 and replacement of motor vehicle windshields.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 212 applies only up to the point where a vehicle is first sold to a user. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration currently has no standards that apply to vehicles in use. A program for the development of standards that would apply to vehicles other than new vehicles is being considered by the Administration for implementation in the future.

Thank you for your inquiry.