ID: nht72-6.9

DATE: 08/10/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 30, 1972, requesting information on a proper course of action to take concerning your placement of incorrect information on certification labels.

The placement of incorrect information of the type you describe (an overstatement of gross axle weight rating) may be a "safety related defect" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This would be the case if loading the vehicle to the specified rating would result in an unsafe operating condition.

Whether a defect exists is to be determined in the first instance by the vehicle manufacturer. If you determine that a defect exists, section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402) requires that you notify first purchasers by certified mail, describing the defect, its effect on safety, and measures to be taken to correct it. The determination that a defect exists can also be made independently by NHTSA, which would then order the manufacturer to send the required notification. Regulations issued by NHTSA (Defect Reports, 49 CFR Part 573) require manufacturers of vehicles having safety defects to submit certain information to NHTSA, and to compile a list of affected owners.

Replacing the improper labels, as you have suggested, would be an appropriate action to take to rectify this situation and satisfy the Certification regulations.

ID: nht73-1.1

DATE: 02/20/73

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

TO: Joe Motley

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 28, 1973

Mr. Joe Motley 2704 Sparkman Drive, N. W. Huntsville, Alabama 35810

Dear Mr. Motley:

This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1972, regarding requirements applicable to manufacturers of ambulances. Ambulances are considered by NHTSA to be "multipurpose passenger vehicles", a vehicle type to which several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations are applicable. Manufacturers of ambulances, including those who convert other vehicle types to ambulances, are required to manufacture each ambulance in accordance with those standards and regulations applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles. The enclosed leaflet contains a short list and description of the standards and regulations, indicating which vehicle types are subject to each standard. The NHTSA is reponsible for both the promulgation and the enforcement of these standards.

We rely on persons such as yourself to report possible violations of our requirements, and we appreciate your writing to us. I have referred your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement, which will take steps to see that vehicles are manufactured in accordance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other NHTSA regulations.

Sincerely,

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-1.10

DATE: 07/23/73

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

TO: Mr. Gorou Utsunomiya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 11, 1973, regarding the application of section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403) to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107 "Reflecting Surfaces". You refer to language in a letter dated April 10, 1973, from this agency to Mr. Kazushi Sakashita of Toyo Kogyo., Ltd., in which we indicated that certification of replacement vehicle parts pursuant to section 114 is required only with respect to parts to which a safety standard specifically applies.

Standard No. 107 applies to motor vehicles -- passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses (paragraph S2 of Standard No. 107) -- and not to items of motor vehicle equipment. Consequently the certification of conformity to the standard required by section 114 is accomplished by the label affixed to each vehicle in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, "Certification". That label represents a certification of conformity to all standards, including Standard No. 107, applicable to the vehicle. There is no requirement that the individual components listed in S4 of the standard, i.e. the windshield wiper arms and blades, the inside windshield moldings, the horn ring and hub of the steering wheel assembly, and the inside rearview mirror frame and mounting bracket, be certified independently.

Yours truly,

June 11, 1973

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. Government of Transportation

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Re: Replacement Vehicle Parts.

Enclosed is a letter from NHTSA, which states:

"There are no requirements for the certification of replacement vehicle parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present, Standards Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act."

By the way, is MVSS 107 Reflecting Surfaces, a requirement under S. 114 of Safety Act, or not? Your answer to this question would be appreciated. Thank you.

Yours truly

Gorou Utsunomiya --

Branch Manager,

Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office

ID: nht73-1.11

DATE: 09/27/73

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

TO: Southwestern Transportation Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of July 18, 1973, requesting information on an NHTSA ruling that you understand prohibits tire companies from surrendering damaged tires to carriers for salvage purposes.

The NHTSA has not issued a ruling in the precise terms you describe. However, a recent amendment (copy enclosed) to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to passenger car tires, Standard No. 109, could be viewed as having that effect. That amendment prohibits the sale, the offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any tire designed for use on a passenger car that fails to meet the requirements of the standard, unless the tire is altered so that it cannot be used or repaired for use on a motor vehicle (including a trailer). Tire manufacturers may be understandably reluctant to claim that damaged tires will still conform to the safety standard, and when that is the case they cannot sell them unless they are altered so that their use as motor vehicle equipment is prevented. This may reduce their value for salvage purposes. There is no specific prohibition to their surrender for use as salvage, however, and they may have salvage value if a purpose, such as scrap, unrelated to motor vehicles, is intended for them.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

Southwestern Transportation company

July 18, 1973

Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

We recently received a claim from Firestone Tire & Rubber Company for damage to a passenger tire. Since they were claiming the full value of the tire, we questioned them concerning salvage. They replied by stating that the Department of Transportation ruled that tire companies could no longer surrender damaged tires to any carrier for salvage purposes.

As we are not familiar with this ruling, we would appreciate your furnishing us with a copy. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation.

Yours truly, C. C. King

MGR. OF FREIGHT CLAIMS

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