ID: nht80-1.46

DATE: 04/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 14, 1980, requesting an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the front seats of the 1981-model AMC Concord. Your letter states that the Concord front seats have over 50 inches of hip room as measured by SAE procedure J1100a, but you characterize the seats as "individual" seats since they are separately adjustable. You ask whether the seats can qualify as having only two designated seating positions.

Based upon the information in your letter and on the photographs you submitted February 22, it is our opinion that there must be three front designated seating positions in the 1981 AMC Concord. The amended definition of "designated seating position" provides that there shall be at least three positions in any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless there is some obstruction or design preventing use of the center position. Although the seats in this model are on separate tracks and are separately adjustable, they are the functional equivalent of a split bench seat when the two sections are side-by-side (as illustrated in your Number One photograph). There is not sufficient space between the seats for them to qualify as separate bucket seats. Bucket seats are typically separated by at least 8 to 10 inches. The juxtaposition and design of these "individual" seats creates a well-padded center position. Further, although the inboard buckle portion of the seat belt assemblies occupy the center position, the buckles can be easily pushed down between the seats and would not be an impediment to use of the center position (as illustrated in your photograph Number Three).

For these "individual" seats to qualify as having only two designated seating positions, it is our opinion that they would have to be much further apart, as is true of typical bucket seats, since they currently provide over 50 inches of hip room. Alternatively, the buckle ends of the seat belt assemblies would have to be on much stiffer cables that could not be moved out of the way or pushed between the seats. Moreover, these buckle ends must extend far enough onto the seat to provide true obstructions to use of the center position.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your submissions. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

SINCERELY,

American Motors Corporation

January 14, 1980

Joan B. Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

This letter is written to solicit your concurrence with our planned two-passenger seating designation for the front "individual" seats installed in our 1981 model AMC Concord. Since its introduction, this particular vehicle and seat configuration has been assigned a two-passenger designation. We believe that this designation has been and continues to be consistent with our customer's perception of "likely use" for this specific seating package.

We base this opinion on the unique design characteristics of our "individual" seats. Each seat is separately adjustable so that each occupant can select a comfortable amount of leg room. In addition, each seat is equipped with a seat back recliner mechanism allowing each occupant to select and vary the seat back angle to their personal preference.

Incremental to these separate and unique adjustment characteristics, the seat itself is specifically styled and contoured to convey the impression of two-passenger capacity. The design philosophy is to provide the customer with the convenience of "bucket" seats in a less sporty, more luxurious interior package.

The perception of two-passenger capacity is carried through in the design of the seat belt restraint system. The inboard belts are equipped with stiff webbing guides to help locate the buckle ends. These two inboard buckle stalks are a clear indication that each seat is intended to be used by only one person at a time.

The concern over our intended designation for this vehicle/seat configuration rests with the singular criterion of hip space. As measured by the procedures of SAEJ-1100a, the AMC Concord has over 50 inches of hip space. Nevertheless, the above noted design and functional characteristics of our "individual" seats, as well as the distinct separation of these seats in the vehicle, preclude their "likely use" by more than two passengers.

We ask for your concurrence with our two-passenger designation by March 1, 1980.

W. C. Jones Director - Vehicle Safety Programs

February 21, 1980

R. E. Nelson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: MRM-12

Dear Mr. Nelson:

Enclosed per your request are pictures of our planned 1981 AMC Concord front "individual" seats. These are being submitted as supplemental information in support to our January 14, 1980 request for the NHTSA's concurrence with our two-passenger seating designation for this specific seating package.

Photograph number one illustrates the styling philosophy of two distinctly separate and contoured seats which are packaged with a restraint system that includes stiff webbing stalks to prominently locate the inboard buckle ends. Also demonstrated are the unique functional characteristics of the these seats which include a separately adjustable seat back (photograph number two) in addition to the normal individual fore-aft adjustment provision (photograph number three).

These pictures demonstrate why the overall styling, design and function of these individual seats give a clear perception of their two-passenger designation.

W. C. Jones Director - Vehicle Safety Programs

(Graphics omitted)

Number One

(Graphics omitted)

Number Two

(Graphics omitted)

Number Three

ID: nht80-1.47

DATE: 04/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Renault USA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 3, 1980, requesting an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in the Renault Le Car vehicle. You state that the rear seat of the Le Car has 48.2 inches of hip room, and ask whether the vehicle would qualify as having only two designated seating positions.

I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency recently issued to Toyota Motor Company regarding the designated seating capacity of the rear seats in several of its models. The rear-seat designs of these Toyota models are very similar to the Le Car, in that the presence of wheel wells results in hip room measurements below 50 inches under the strict measurement technique specified in the definition of "designated seating position" (SAE J1100a). As was pointed out in that letter, however, if occupants move their hips slightly forward of the wheel wells, which extend only a few inches out into the seat, there is over 50 inches of usable hip room in these vehicles.

Your letter states that the close proximity of the two inboard portions of the rear seat belt assemblies in the Le Car indicates that only two positions are intended by the manufacturer. The agency would give more credence to this factor if the inboard portions of the belt assemblies were on stiff, immovable cables (or similar design). With the current design, a person wishing to sit in the center position can easily move the belts out of the way, so the belts are not real impediments to use of the center position.

In answer to your ultimate question, the agency must conclude that the rear seat in the Le Car vehicle could qualify as having only two designated seating positions since the hip room is below 50 inches according to the technical measurement procedure specified in the standard. However, we think this is an extremely close case since there is over 48 inches of hip room even between the wheel wells and greater than 50 inches of hip room if the measurement is made mid-way the seat cushion. Therefore, we strongly urge Renault to modify its seat design or to add a third set of belts in this vehicle model. As noted in the letter to Toyota, if manufacturers do not voluntarily comply with the clear intent of the definition of "designated seating position", the agency may find it necessary to modify the measurement technique that is currently specified.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

RENAULT USA

ENGINEERING & PLANNING GROUP.

March 3, 1980

Ralph Hitchcock, Chief -- Crashworthiness Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

Renault hereby requests a confirmation of its interpretation of the designated seating position definition contained in 49 CFR @ 571.3 to the effect that it would require two such seating positions in the rear seat of the Renault Le Car vehicle.

You will recall that we brought a 1980 Renault Le Car to NHTSA in December for examination by you and others of your office as well as representatives from Enforcement and Chief Counsel.

The rear seat width of this vehicle, a two-door hatchback with a folding rear seat, is 48.2-inches measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). This 48.2-inch dimension includes the wheel wells, which protrude slightly into the seating area.

Renault's intention that the rear seat be limited to two designated seating positions is indicated, among other things, by the fact that the short inboard seat belts for the left and right seated passengers are located adjacent to one another.

Sincerely yours,

Francois Louis -- Governmental Affairs

ID: nht80-1.48

DATE: 04/10/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Whitley & Whitley, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William N. Whitley Vice President, Whitley & Whitley, Inc. 20600 Chagrin Boulevard, Tower East Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122

Dear Mr. Whitley:

This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter asking whether the CarVan that you manufacture would be required to comply with Federal safety standards. The CarVan is designed to be mounted over the trunk of a car and weighs approximately 80 pounds.

The CarVan is considered a piece of motor vehicle equipment for purposes of compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards. Since it does not slide into the cargo area of a truck, however, it would not be considered a slide-in camper subject to Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading. However, as a piece of equipment, it would be required to comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I am enclosing an information sheet detailing where you can obtain a complete copy of all motor vehicle safety standards.

The agency notes that the CarVan would be installed in such a location that it would obscure the rear lights of the vehicle upon which it is mounted. The agency considers this to be very dangerous and concludes that you should adopt a tail light system for the CarVan. The Federal safety standard for lighting is Standard No. 108. Without a tail light system, the agency concludes that the installation and use of your CarVan would constitute a safety related defect, and we would exercise our authority to require any such defect to be remedied. We note also that many States prohibit any device that covers the license plates.

The agency would like to take this opportunity to correct some misinformation that was supplied to you on May 4, 1978, when we responded to your previous request for information on a camper that was designed to be loaded in a car's trunk. In that letter, the agency stated that the camper would be required to comply with Standard No. 126. That statement is incorrect. Since your camper is designed for a passenger car and not a truck, it would not be required to comply with Standard No. 126. It would be subject to the other standards mentioned above for the CarVan. We regret any inconvenience our error may have caused you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 8, 1980

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Administrator for Rulemaking

Dear Sir:

We are considering manufacturing the CarVan. The CarVan is described in the enclosed resume.

Please indicate how the CarVan will be classed and be regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Please note the CarVan will not slide into the car trunk but will be supported over the trunk.

I am enclosing a copy of your response to my request on a larger but similar type unit.

Sincerely,

WHITLEY & WHITLEY, INC.

William N. Whitley Vice President

WNW:Cj

The CarVan is a new light weight (80 pound) foldable gas saving recreational vehicle (RV). The unit can be attached to a standard or compact automobile trunk and meet the minimal living needs of two adults without increasing the gas comsumption of the automobile. The CarVan provides safe, secure, private space for sleeping, resting, cooking, eating, changing clothes and can be used for all day sports activities, fishing, hunting, skiing, overnight recreational or business travel.

The CarVan will appear and function (without wheels) as an extension of the car. The dimensions of the CarVan in the up position provide sufficient room for comfortable sitting, sleeping and standing, but extend the length of the car by only two feet. The unit folds down for easy road travel. The rear view mirror and regular side view mirrors of the car are functional while driving with the CarVan attached. No additional driving skills are required. Standard size garages and parking spaces may be used for car storage with the CarVan attached.

ID: nht80-1.49

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 12, 1979, to Mr. Vladislav Radovich asking whether your "Kar-Kot" rear seat extension must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering child restraints. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply.

The Federal standard currently in effect for child restraints, Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.213), does not apply to "systems for use only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children." According to the literature you enclosed with your letter, the Kar-Kot "has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat" and was "developed for sleeping/resting". The literature warns that the product is not to be used for seating". Since the Kar-Kot is to be used only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, it is thus exempt from the current standard.

The upgraded version of the child restraint standard, Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979), is scheduled to go into effect on June 1, 1980. That standard applies to any device, including devices for use by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, "designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." If the "Kar-Kot" will only be used by children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, your product would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the literature accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for child using your product. If the Kar-Kot is not to be used by children under 50 pounds, it should be clearly and permanently labeled to show that it is to be used by a specific size and age range of children.

Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety-Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defects in the Kar-Kot.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.

February 12, 1980

Vladislav Radovich, Engineer -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Radovich: I appreciate the courtesy shown me via the telephone today. Per your request, we are asking for clarification of 49 CFR Part 571.213 Child Restraint Systems, in relation to our Kar-Kot rear seat extension.

Please note, prior to manufacturing this product, your Department of the D.O.T., the Highway Safety Institute of Ann Arbor, and All State Insurance Safety Department were contacted to insure the design of a safe product. All research and studies find that the safest spot of a car in case of collision is being recumbent on rear seat.

To further substantiate that conclusion, we requested the Highway Safety Institute to supply us with computer readouts of safety inherent in sleeping on the rear seat of car. As you know, these are real life accidents of the most serious nature and biased toward serious injury. (Readout copies enclosed.) Recap as follows: Total: Cars Vehicle Occupants 8,976 15,219

Total number of rear seat recumbent children ages 2-14: 60 children Ages 0-3 Ages 4-14 No treatment: 7 26 First Aid 8 15 Released after 24 hour hospital observation: 0 3 Unknown: 0 1

Our telephone log of numerious call to your division - Jerry Medlin, Bob Nelson and Bill Smith - indicated to us seat belt restraints would be more of a safety hindrance while lying on the rear seat, than a help and we were advised our Kar-Kot rear seat extension would not require restraints and would be in full conpliance with Revised 213 Spec.

Should you determine that through an oversight this product is covered by Spec. 213, we request an exception.

I would like to follow through with your suggestion and would appreciate a meeting be set up with your department for the end of week of February 18, if that's convenient, to bring this matter to a conclusion. I will call you on Tuesday, February 19, regarding this meeting.

Thank you again for sending the Spec.

Richard C. Stehlik -- President

P.S. Our Product Liability carrier has never received a complaint of any sort-safety or otherwise.

(Graphics omitted)

Kar-Kot has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat. However, due to the drivers positioning of the front seat, the area of back seat not covered by Kar-Kot will vary from car to car. A folded blanket, etc. can be used to level the uncovered seat area, should it be necessary.

Fig. 2

Instructions for Kar-Kot use:

1. Remove protective coating from metal frame with a dry, clean cloth

2. Position Kar-Kot over seat at shown in fig. 3. Leave 1/2 inch of space between leading edge of frame and back of front seat. Unit should be parallel to floor, with at least one-half of Kar-Kot supported by car seat.

3. Swing leg to standing position and readjust length of leg if necessary.

This unit has been developed for sleeping/resting; do not use for seating.

Note: Remove adjustable leg of Mini/Compact Kar-Kot for folding should height adjustment be too long.

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC., Box 925 Waynesboro, Virginia 22980

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-1.5

DATE: 01/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pierson, Ball & Dowd

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1979, to Taylor Vinson of this office requesting written confirmation of an oral opinion.

Specially you asked whether your client, Grumman Allied Industries, Inc. needed to obtain a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 in the situation where it, to use your words, "was considering converting a small number of their gasoline-powered trucks to diesel power on an experimental basis in order to sponsor a comparative fuel economy test which would be conducted by their consumers." The opinion for which you request written confirmation is that Grumman "would not need a temporary exemption if there existed a reasonable basis to believe that the vehicle as modified would still be in compliance with the fuel integrity safety standard."

That option is essentially correct assuming that Grumman is the manufacturer of the vehicles in question. Grumman may substitute diesel engines for conventional ones in the manufacturing process without barrier impacting its vehicles if a reasonable basis exists for concluding that its vehicles as modified will meet the standard. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not legally require a manufacturer to test its vehicles. It does, however, require conformance of those vehicles with NHTSA safety performance standards and although testing in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in the standards may provide the greatest assurance of conformity, a manufacturer may nevertheless resort to engineering studies mathematical calculations, computer simulations etc. as a basis for certifying that the vehicle does meet all applicable standards.

If Grumman is converting existing vehicles produced and certified by another manufacturer, the responsibility differs though the end result may be substantially similar. The Act imposes no restrictions upon the alteration of a vehicle by its owner, but the agent of an owner (specifically a manufacturer, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) may not "knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable safety standard . . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, if a person other than Grumman is converting existing vehicles to diesel power, it should not do so unless it is assured that at the end of the conversion process the vehicle continues to meet Standard No. 301-75.

I hope this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

December 7, 1979

Taylor Vincent, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Vincent:

In a telephone conversation I had with you on December 3, 1979, I indicated to you that our client, Grumman Allied Industries, Incorporated (GAII), was seeking clarification on the need to acquire a temporary exemption with respect to FMVSS 301-75 (Fuel System Integrity). If you recall, GAII was considering converting a small number of their gasoline-powered trucks to diesel power on an experimental basis in order to sponsor a comparative fuel economy test which would be conducted by their consumers. It was your opinion that GAII would not need a temporary exemption if there existed a reasonable basis to believe that the vehicle as modified would still be in compliance with the fuel integrity safety standard.

Therefore, I would ask you to confirm my understanding of the substance of our conversation so that our client may have some documentation of its intention to maintain its operations in full compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and if you have any questions, please call me.

PIERSON, BALL & DOWD

E. Michael Flanagan

ID: nht80-1.50

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity of the rear seat in a 1981-model passenger car you plan to market. You state that the seat cushion and seat back of this rear seat are contoured to clearly indicate occupancy by only two persons, and that the seat has only 41.1 inches of hip room.

If the rear seat has only 41.1 inches of hip room, the agency must conclude that the seat could qualify as having only two seating positions, since this is substantially below the 50-inch caveat in the amended definition of "designated seating position." However, it appears from the photographs and diagrams enclosed in your letter that this rear seat effectively has almost 50 inches of hip room, if measured mid-way between the front and back of the seat cushion (49.2 inches according to the diagram). It is only by the strict measurement technique of SAE J1100a and the contour of the seat back that you obtain the 41.1-inch figure. Further, there appears to be 10 to 12 inches of well-padded seat cushion at the center position of the seat between the inboard ends of the two seat belt assemblies. This position could obviously be used by a vehicle occupant. Therefore, we strongly urge you to designate three seating positions in this vehicle design or to install a fixed armrest or some other obstruction so that the center position cannot be used. I am enclosing two recent letters of interpretation on this same subject which are pertinent to your inquiry and which emphasize the agency's positon concerning designs such as you describe in your letter.

Finally, I would like to point out that this response only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

ID: nht80-1.6

DATE: 01/21/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Edison Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1979, inquiring if it is permissible for your suppliers to cut off the DOT serial numbers on used tires before selling those tires to your company. You stated in your letter that your company buys used tires from several companies. These tires generally either have cuts in the tread or sidewalls or are out of round. Your company then resells the tires to another company, which resells the tires to the public.

The answer to your question is no. The presence of the DOT identification number on tires is required by several of this agency's regulations. Our tire identification and record keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) requires that each manufacturer place the DOT number on at least one sidewall of each tire that it manufactures. The number serves several purposes. It is indispensable in aiding consumers to identify tires subject to a recall campaign for safety defects and noncompliances with the safety standards. It also aids this agency in enforcing its tire safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109 (Passenger car tires, 49 CFR 571.109) and 119 (Tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.119) require that each tire manufacturer certify that its tires conform to all applicable Federal safety standards by branding or molding the DOT number on the tire.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), states that, "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on. . . an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." By removing the DOT identification number from a tire, the person would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tire which is included on the tire for compliance with the requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 9, 1979

Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Kratzke,

This letter is to follow up the several phone calls I have had with you regarding the legality of cutting Department of Transportation serial numbers off of used tires.

At your earliest convenience, please send me a written reply to the question following the two situations described below:

1. My company, Edison Rubber Company, buys tires that have cuts in the sidewall or tread from several companies. Edison Rubber Company then sells these cut tires to another company which repairs the cuts and then resells these tires to the general public.

2. My company, Edison Rubber Company, also buys from several companies tires that are out of round (the customer felt that their car did not ride smoothly). Edison Rubber Company then resells these tires to another company which resells them to the general public.

My question relates to both of the above situations: Are the companies that sell these tires to Edison Rubber Company allowed to cut the serial numbers off of these tires legally so as not to get them back as adjustment tires?

Your speedy response is appreciated as it would save my suppliers much time and effort in disposing of their junk tires. Please call me if you have any questions.

Yours truly,

Jeffrey Libman, President -- Edison Rubber Company

ID: nht80-1.7

DATE: 01/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Flexible Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office, you asked whether section S5.2.2 of the standard would apply to the windshield wiper controls which Grumman Flexible intends to install in its transit buses. As I understand your description, there are to be separate controls for the left and right windshield wipers and each control will allow for operation of the wiper over a continuous range of speeds.

The answer to your question is no. Section S5.2.2 of Standard 101-80 provides that:

Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed system control and any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. (emphasis added).

The function identification requirements are not applicable since their applicability is expressly limited to speed controls and to heating and air conditioning controls. The applicability of the extreme position identification requirements is similarly limited since "such controls" refers back to those controls already identified in S5.2.2.

ID: nht80-1.8

DATE: 01/31/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Doug Smith

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 6, 1979, letter asking questions about Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps. In particular, you ask whether winged projections are permitted in a rim as long as they do not extend beyond the lip of a rim or the sidewall of a tire.

When the standard was issued, the agency concluded that winged projections could catch the clothing of children or pedestrians thereby posing a safety hazard. As a result, the standard prohibits the use of all winged projections regardless of the extent to which they extend from a rim. The standard, however, only prohibits winged projections and does not affect other projections from a rim.

SINCERELY,

December 6, 1979

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

After talking with you this after noon I'm writing for your ruling on wing projections covered in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard no. 211-S3.

I am of the opinion that if the knock off (winged projection) does not extends beyond the lip of the rim or the sidewall face of the tire mounted on the rim, it will be all right with the knock off in the center.

As I understand the ruling, it is designed to eliminate catching people or objects and dragging them into the wheel. By not extending beyond the lip of the rim or sidewall face the knock off would be safe.

Please return you ruling to me as soon as possible.

Doug Smith

Attachment Omitted.

ID: nht80-1.9

DATE: 02/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your September 10, 1979, letter to our Tire Division has been referred to me for reply, since you are requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). You asked two questions in your letter. First, you asked whether the definition you offered for "maximum speed" was correct. If it was correct, you stated that the tire could exceed the speed restriction shown on the tire at a lighter load, and showed how the information could be set forth on the tire. The listing of varying maximum loads at different maximum speeds is not permitted to appear on the tire. Second, you asked if speed restricted tires could specify a speed restriction other than the 35, 50, and 55 mile per hour (mph) restrictions shown in the endurance test schedule of Standard No. 119. The answer to this question is no.

Regarding your first question, you defined a tire's maximum speed as "the highest speed at which a tire can carry the maximum single load that is molded on the tire sidewall." This definition is an acceptable one for tires with a speed restriction listed for them. However, you went on to note that if this definition was acceptable, then a tire could list varying maximum loads at varying maximum speeds. Such a listing is expressly prohibited by the language of Standard No. 119.

S6.5 of Standard No. 119 specifies that each tire subject to the Standard shall be marked with the information that is set forth in following paragraphs. Paragraph (d) of S6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressures for single load tires, the type of tire about which you are inquiring, to appear as: Max load lbs. at psi cold. Paragraph (e) of S6.5 requires that a speed restriction on the tire appear only as: Max speed mph. Hence, a single load tire can be labeled with only one maximum load and only one maximum speed.

Your second question was whether a manufacturer could restrict the speed of a tire subject to Standard No. 119 to a speed other than the three speed restrictions shown in Table III of the Standard. Paragraph S6.1 requires all tires to pass the endurance test requirements of the Standard, and Table III shows the load and speeds to which the tires will be subjected during the endurance test. If the tire being subjected to the endurance test does not qualify for the special speeds and loads as one of the three speed restricted tires shown in the table or as a motorcycle tire, the tire would be tested at the speed and load shown under the heading "All other". This would mean that the tire's speed restriction would be ignored for purposes of the endurance test, and it would be tested as if it were a non-speed restricted tire. Such a tire would presumably fail the endurance test under these conditions, and no tire which fails to pass the endurance test can be sold in the United States. As a practical matter, therefore, speed restrictions other than the three shown in Table III of the Standard are not recognized by this agency.

The three speed restrictions shown in Table III of the Standard were adopted from descriptions of three types of speed restricted tires used by the United States tire industry in 1972, when the agency was initially promulgating Standard No. 119. If your company would like to add another speed restriction to those shown in Table III, you should file a petition for rulemaking with this agency requesting an amendment to Standard No. 119.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

September 10, 1979

Tire Division, National Highway Safety Administration,

Re: Confirmation of the definition of Max. Speed

Dear Sirs,

We would like to confirm that meaning of Max. Speed specified in S6.5e of FMVSS No. 119 is as follow:

1 Max. Speed means the highest speed at which a tire can carry the max. single load that is molded on the tire sidewall.

If the actual carrying load is lower than max. single load, the tire can run at a higher speed than the Max. Speed molded on the tire sidewall.

Example

Tire Size 1000R20 Load range H

Max. Load single 6610lbs

Max. Speed 35MPH Load LBS Speed MPH 6610 Max. Load 35 Max. Speed 5300 42 4600 50

2 According to Table Endurance Test Schedule, Max. Speed For Speed-restricted Service is specified as 55, 50 or 35 MPH. May we choose speeds different from the above?

In this case, if Max. Speed chosen is 40 MPH, should the 50 MPH endurance test condition be used?

We would appreciate it very much if you would give careful consideration to our questions.

Very truly yours,

The Yokohama Rubber Co., LTD -- Tire Quality Assurance Department; Taiji Ide, Manager