ID: nht69-1.30

DATE: 03/17/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. M. Jacklin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Rubber Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This letter reaffirms the position of the National Highway Safety Bureau with respect to the handling of petitions for the addition of now tires as stated in recent telephone discussions with members of the Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance.

It was related during these discussions that further action on the petition of November 13, 1968, requesting the addition of the C78-13 tire size designation to Table I-J of the Appendix A of Standard No. 109 cannot be taken until the information indicating compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is received covering the desired test rim width. The Standards are directed at total motor vehicle safety; accordingly, they are just as applicable to replacement tires as to tires intended for new motor vehicles and the guidelines for the addition of new tire size designations and new alternative rims to Standards No. 109 and No. 110 as published in the Federal Register of October 5, 1968, therefore apply.

The question of a precedence having been established by the addition of the 5'JJ alternative rim to Table I of the Appendix to Standard No. 110, without supporting date, in the case of the C70-15 tire size designation has been raised by your organization. Our records indicate that your request for the addition of this tire size was based on the petition of August 19, 1968. This action was well in advance of the procedural guidelines established on October 5, 1968. Although this test rim was added to Table I of the Appendix A of Standard No. 110, without text data, the National Highway Safety Bureau believes that a safety hazard could exist if this tire and rim combination is not compatible. We would, therefore, appreciate test information certifying compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 110 by the 5'3JJ rim and the C70-15 tire size combination.

Our records indicate that you have submitted petitions dated July 11 and August 25, 1968, requesting the addition of twelve additional alternative rim sizes to Table I of Appendix A of Standard No. 110. To date, data indicating compliance with Standards No. 109 and No. 110 has not been received and we have advised you in several telephone discussions that no action is contemplated until data is submitted.

In conclusion, we would like to reiterate that all future petitions for additions to Standards No. 109 or No. 110 must be submitted in accordance with the guidelines published in the Federal Register on October 5, 1968. The Bureau makes no provisions or exceptions based on the ultimate use of the tires. All new tires will be considered within the framework of these guidelines.

ID: nht69-1.31

DATE: 01/27/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Nottingham & Pinto

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 26, 1968, and as a follow-up of our meeting of January 9, both concerning your proposal to hot brand the legend "SECOND NOT ADJ." Over part of the brand name "ATLAS FLYORON" tires.

Provided the branding of the legend does not make the brand name illegible it would be permissible under the motor vehicle safety standards. Examination of the photos you submitted indicates that no part of the brand name is obliterated and only one letter is affected, although still clearly visible. Therefore, as long as one of the methods of branding shown in the photos is followed, the labeling requirements of standard No. 109 with regard to the brand name will have been met.

ID: nht69-1.32

DATE: 04/04/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: Carlisle Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your December 27, 1968, request for a code number in accordance with Subsection S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1421 (1)) has been reviewed. Subsection S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 applies to passenger car tires; accordingly, the National Highway Safety Bureau has restricted the issuance of code numbers to manufacturers of those tires.

Since Carlisle Tire and Rubber Division does not engage in the manufacture of passanger car tires, and since the code number was requested in anticipation of future tire rule making, the issuance of a code number to the Carlisle Tire and Rubber Division would be premature and not in keeping with the intent of the regulation.

We have enclosed a Mailing List Questionnaire as promised. To assure a flow of specialized mailings which may be of great importance to your particular organization, please complete both sides with the correct information and return it to the Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety Bureau, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, Washington, D. C. 20591, Attention: MVSPS List Questionnaire. If you require more than one form or have any inquiries concerning the form, please direct your correspondence to the same address.

ID: nht69-1.33

DATE: 07/14/69

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

TO: Interamerican Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 27 in which you request information necessary to obtain a D.O.T. number and import "Pneumant" tires. The information furnished below concerns only those requirements of the Department of Transportation.

Regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. @ 1391 et seq., 1399(e)) require any manufacturer, assembler, or importer of a motor vehicle before offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent upon whom service of all processes, notices, orders, decisions, and requirements, may be made.

The manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires is therefore required to designate an agent is prescribed in the regulations (49 C.F.R. @ 351.45) and I enclose a copy of them, as well as a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for your information.

Please note that these regulations require the designation to be made in a specific manner. The designation should contain the following:

(1) a certification by the signer of the designation that it is binding on the manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation by the manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires at the place and time where it is made;

(2) the full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires;

(3) trade names, or other designations of origin of the products of the manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires which do not bear its legal name;

(4) a provision that the designation remains in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires;

(5) a declaration of acceptance duly signed by the designated agent; and,

(6) the full legal name and mailing address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation should be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent for the manufacturer of "Pneumant" tires, and this authority should be so indicated.

In your letter you state that it is your understanding that "all tires used in this Country are subject to approval which will be given in form of a D.O.T. number." This is incorrect. There is no provision in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which provides that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are to be approved by the United States Government. On the contrary, under this Act the manufacturer of the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment bears the responsibility for complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards promulgated pursuant to the Act; and, pursuant to Section 114 of the Act for certifying that his product so complies. In the case of tires, the applicable standard is Standard No. 109 and I enclose a copy of it with applicable amendments for your reference. Standard No. 109 contains requirements for new pneumatic tires for passenger cars, and in order to meet the requirements of the Act, "Pneumant" tires must comply with Standard No. 109. Furthermore, the manufacturer of these tires must certify in the prescribed manner that such tires so comply.

The "D.O.T. number" to which you refer is required by Section 201 of the Act and the labelling section (S.4.3 and "Figure 1") of Standard No. 109. As specified in the standard, the letters "D.O.T.", when permanently molded into or onto the tire so that the tire is conspicuously labelled on both sidewalls, indicate pursuant to S.4.3(1) and Figure 1 of Standard No. 109, that the tire has been manufactured to conform to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This satisfies the certification requirement referred to above.

The code mark number is included as part of the label (as illustrated in Figure 1) pursuant to Section 201 of the Act, when the tire contains a brand name other than the name of the manufacturer, and is included for the purpose of permitting the seller of the tire to identify the manufacturer to the purchaser upon his request.

A code mark number can be obtained from the Department of Transportation by any tire manufacturer on request, but is only necessary when a name other than the manufacturer's is used on the tire. Such a request should be directed to Secretary of Transportation; Attention: Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, National Highway Safety Bureau, Federal Highway Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20591. Issuance of the code mark number by the government that tires manufactured by the one to whom it is issued meet Federal requirements. As indicated above, the code mark number is to be used purely for labelling purposes.

I am also enclosing a copy of Federal Highway Administration Import Regulations, (19 C.F.R. @ 12.80) which are promulgated jointly with the Treasury Department pursuant to Section 108(b)(3) of the Act for your information.

Should you have further questions, please feel free to contact me.

ID: nht69-1.34

DATE: 03/12/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Hector J. Rosso, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1969, in which you seek information concerning possible overloading of Seiberling 8.25-20 ten ply rating truck tires manufactured in approximately 1963.

The Federal Highway Administration has issued a Federal motor vehicle safety standard for passenger car tires manufactured after January 1, 1968 requiring them to meet certain tests when loaded to prescribed weights. (49 C.F.R. @ 371.21 Standard 109). Performance requirements for truck tires are presently under consideration. Comments have been received in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making on this matter but regulations have not as yet been issued.

The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulates the safety and operation of interstate motor carriers. Its regulation regarding tires (49 C.F.R. @ 393.75) is not relevant to your inquiry.

One fruitful source of information may be the Tire and Rim Association Yearbook. This publication provides data on tires and suggests standards for tire load limits. It is published by the Tire and Rim Association, Inc., Comend Building, 34 H. Hawkins Avenue, Akron, Ohio 44313.

I hope this information will be of value to you.

ID: nht69-1.35

DATE: 04/01/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: European Tire and Rim Technical Organization

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1969, requesting the "actual state of affairs" concerning States requiring a V-1 marking on tires.

You are correct in your understanding that the Federal tire standard (No. 109 preempts or supersedes any State regulation applicable to the same aspect of performance. The Federal tire standard does not require tires to be marked with the "V-1" symbol. However, it does not prohibit such marking. Our understanding is that American tire manufacturers have continued marking their product with "V-1" symbol although not required to do so by the Federal standard.

ID: nht69-1.36

DATE: 05/20/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: State of New Jersey; Bureau of Forestry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 13, 1969, in which you ask if there is any way you might legally use the Dodge Power Wagon Model M 300.

This Bureau does not control the end use of the vehicle after sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Public Law 89-563, Section 108, states in part, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in Interstate Commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard." A copy of Public Law 89-563 is enclosed.

In short the Chrysler Corporation, under this law cannot manufacture for sale after the date a standard takes effect, a vehicle for use under the circumstances in which you describe unless the vehicle conforms to the applicable standard.

The vehicle, to which you make reference, can be classified in two different categories as follows:

1. Multipurpose passenger vehicle, which means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off the road operation or:

2. Truck, which means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.

Although other standards are applicable to the above classifications, the collapsible type steering column is not. We are enclosing a copy of "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with Amendments and Interpretations thru August 6, 1968," in which you will find the applicable standards.

Regulations concerning control of anti-pollution emission devices are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation, but of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. By copy of this letter, Mr. William H. Megonnell, Acting Associate Commissioner for Abatement and Control, National Air Pollution Control Administration, DOT, 801 North Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia, 22200, is being requested to forward such information as he deems appropriate.

We trust this reply will be of assistance to you.

ID: nht69-1.37

DATE: 08/19/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Norton Villiers Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPREATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 17, 1969, responding to our letter to you of July 8, 1969, which requested that Norton Villiers Ltd. designate an agent pursuant to Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1399(e)), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (49 CFR 351.45). A copy of the regulations was enclosed in our July 8 letter, and another copy is enclosed herein.

In your letter, you ask whether the requirement for designation of agent needs to be complied with by the importers of the products of Norton Villiers Ltd. as well as by Norton Villiers Ltd. itself. In addition, you ask whether it is mandatory for Norton Villiers Ltd. to designate only one agent or whether it would be appropriate for Norton Villiers Ltd. to designate two agents, one for West Coast and one for East Coast matters.

In response to your first question, there is no requirement under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 that a corporation located permanently within the United States designate an agent for service of process purposes. Such a company, however, may be designated by Norton Villiers Ltd. as its agent under the regulations. With respect to your second question, the regulations require Norton Villiers Ltd. to designate one agent. However, if Norton Villiers Ltd. wishes to designate two agents, there is no prohibition to its so doing. If two agents are designated however, each must be designated in conformity with the regulations and each must serve in the capacity of agent for Norton Villiers Ltd. throughout the entire United States, without division as to function according to geographical situation.

I hope you find the above information helpful.

ID: nht69-1.38

DATE: 03/24/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Verrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This refers to your letter of February 14 concerning the problems faced by some members of the boat trailer manufacturing industry in complying with the Administration's certification regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 367).

As I understand the problem, it is that manufacturers of boat trailers sometimes ship the trailers to their dealers as "knocked down" components, in the form of kits containing all the parts necessary to construct a boat trailer and instructions for the trailer's assembly. I also understand that the kits are not packaged, but are held together by steel bands or similar devices.

In the circumstances described above, it is my opinion that a manufacturer of boat trailers would not violate the certification regulations if he affixed the certification label required by section 367.4 of the regulations to a component of the trailer so that, when the trailer is assembled in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, the label will appear on the forward half of the left side of the trailer such that it is easily readable without moving any part of the trailer.

If a trailer is shipped in assembled form, of course, the certification label must be affixed to it in the location specified by section 367.4(d).

If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to ask me for it.

ID: nht69-1.39

DATE: 08/01/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Bedell Trailer Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1969, in which you enclosed a certification label you are now using and in essence ask why it will not be satisfactory after August 31, 1969.

Manufacturers were put on notice, by publication in the Federal Register, Volume 32, No. 215, dated November 4, 1967, that the National Highway Safety Bureau had under study an appropriate program which would lead to specific regulations applicable to certification. It was requested that manufacturers submit, among other things, a sample of the certification label or tag they were using.

As a result of that study, a proposal was promulgated and published in the Federal Register, Volume 33, No. 205, dated October 9, 1968. Interested parties were given the opportunity to express their views and after due consideration a rule was published on January 24, 1969, Federal Register, Volume 34, No. 16.

Shortly thereafter peitions for reconsideration of the Certification Regulation were received. The "Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration," Federal Register, Volume 34, No. 81, states in part, "Objection was made to the specification of the language of the conformity statement." This specification has been determined to be necessary, however, in order to eliminate the burden of seeking approval of proposed labels, as many manufacturers found advisable under the previous rule, and to inform both regulated persons and the public of the requirement of the "Act".

It is regretted that the Certification Regulation, that becomes effective with vehicles manufactured after August 31, 1969, makes the labels in your inventory obsolete, however, we feel that manufacturers have had ample prior warning of a pending specific regulation.

ENCLOSURES F-6, F-34, F-54, F-59 and F-60