ID: nht75-1.47

DATE: 05/21/75

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

TO: Hon. Alan Cranston, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of April 14, 1975, in which you requested information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 (49 CFR Part 571.106-74) and its relation to the enclosed letter you had received from Mr. Thomas Z. Marshall of San Francisco.

Standard No. 106-74 specifies performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. Because labeling applied to hose and end fittings cannot satisfactorily identify the manufacturer of an assembly made up of those components, S7.2 of the standard (by incorporating S5.2.4) requires certain assemblies to be labeled by means of a band. By identifying the manufacturer and the date of production, this band permits both the enforcement of the standard's performance requirements and the tracing of defective assemblies.

Mr. Marshall appears to have misunderstood some aspects of the standard. While each manufacturer of brake hose assemblies must initially inform the NHTSA of the identifying designation he intends to use on his bands, there is no requirement that he keep records of assemblies made or send such records to this agency. In addition, the bands need not be metallic, but may be of other materials which are less expensive to produce. Mr. Marshall has correctly pointed out, however, that the standard in its present form specifies the same requirements for large manufacturers, repair shops, and individual truck owners. In recognition of the burdens thus imposed on a person who manufacturers only a small number of assemblies, the NHTSA proposed an amendment of the definition of brake hose assembly, to exclude certain assemblies from the requirements of the standard (40 FR 8962, March 4, 1975, copy enclosed). We expect to act on that proposal in the near future.

Sincerely,

2 Enclosures Constituent's letter

United States Senate WASHINGTON, D.C. 20518

April 14, 1975

To: Office of Congressional Liaison -- Department of Transportation

Enclosure from: Thomas Z. MArshall -- Waits Motor Supply Co., 234 - 7th Street, San Francisco, California 94103

Re: Please explain and give current information on the new truck regulation, 106 Air Brake Standard.

I forward the attached for your consideration.

Your report, in duplicate, along with the return of the enclosure will be appreciated.

Sincerely

Alan Cranston

Please address envelope to: Senator Alan Cranston Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Att: M. Bleeke

Feb. 18, 1975

Senator Alan Cranston Senate Office Bldg., Washington, D.C.

re: FMVSS(DOT) 106 Air Brake Standard

Dear Senator Cranston:

Please have some of your staff look into what the National Hwy. Traffic Safety Commission is up to.

I am enclosing a reprint of only a portion of the subject regulation.

Please understand that these people are requiring that over 400,000 truck fleets, shops, and purveyors of hose register and receive a registration number; (2) Each fabricator (except Original Equipment Manufacturer) will have to fabricate a metal tag and affix same to assembly (3) he will also have to keep records of assemblies made and send these reports to Wash.

Can you see the number of bumbling bureaucrats the administration of this law will require. I heard today that one enterprising manufacturer is out selling a tag marking machine at $ 80 each. Multiply that out and see what a windfall profit someone is going to make; to say nothing of the profit in the repeat sale of the blank tags themselves.

Someone has sold this agency a bill of goods. They don't want to listen to reason. They are hell bent to see that their stupidity doesn't come to light.

Someone must rise up and say, "let's wait a minute."

Do you realize that the owner of one truck, if he does his own repair, will have to register if he wants to save money by making his own hose assembly? This is where this regulation is viscious and inflationary.

If you are just going to send me the usual "kiss off" letter and file this in the file 13, don't bother to reply. If you are really interested in looking into this rather than the headline grabbing CIA, FBI and Watergate matters, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Very truly yours, Thomas Z. Marshall, Pres. -- WAIT MOTOR SUPPLY CO.

Labeling

A. Hose and Tubing

1. Must have a layline consisting of the following:

a. The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the manufacturer that the hose and tubing conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

b. Manufacturers identification can presently be any symbol, trademark, letters, etc., which have been files by letter with NHTSA. Our (Illegible Symbol) has been registered and will be used on hose, tubing and couplings manufactured by I-E.

c. The month, day or year, or the month and year of manufacture, expressed in numerals.

d. The nominal inside diameter of the hose expressed in inches or fractions of inches, or the nominal outside diameter of the tube expressed in inches or fractions of inches followed by the letters OD.

e. The letter "A" to indicate the hose or tube is for use in "Air Brake" assemblies.

2. No additional information is allowed on the DOT layline; however, a second layline (180 degrees away) is permissible with any information desired. I-E hose and tubing will have an additional layline to identify our style, size, etc.

3. Examples of DOT hose and tube marking:

(Graphics Omitted)

B. Couplings

1. All reusable and renewable couplings must be labeled.

Permanently attached crimped or swaged couplings do not require any marking.

All fittings which are labeled need the DOT marking on only one piece of the coupling.

2. Coupling marking shall be as follows:

a. The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the fitting manufacturer that the end fitting conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

b. Manufacturer identification. Our (Illegible Symbol) has been registered and will be used on couplings manufactured by I-E.

c. The letter "A" to indicate the fitting is for use in "Air Brake" hose assemblies.

d. The nominal inside diameter of the hose to which the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches or fractions of inches, or the outside diameter of the tube to which the fitting is properly attached expressed in inches or fractions of inches followed by the letters OD.

3. Example of DOT coupling marking:

(Graphics Omitted)

C. Assemblies

1. As of March 1, 1975 each brake hose assembly, except those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly. The band may be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings.

2. The band shall be permanently etched, embossed, or stamped with the following:

a. The symbol DOT, constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

b. A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly. Our (Illegible Symbol) with a letter indicating assembler has been registered and will be used on hose assemblies manufactured by I-E.

c. The month, day and year, or the month and year of assembly.

2. Example of DOT hose assembly band marking:

(Graphics Omitted)

Summary

1. The new regulations are law and everyone concerned with vehicle brake hoses, brake hose end fittings and brake hose assemblies used on vehicles manufactured for use on the public streets, roads and highways must comply.

2. State of Pennsylvania Approval of Air Brake Hose. Until recently it was apparent that the labeling of air brake hose would still be required. However, Pennsylvania has bowed to federal jurisdiction and will now accept FMVSS 106 as the governing authority for brake hose assemblies.

It is still necessary for hose manufacturers to obtain Pennsylvania State approval on all brake hoses. Only now the approval testing will be done to the FMVSS 106 requirements and not SAE requirements.

3. Please remember that FMVSS 106 pertains only to products intended for use in brake systems. Any I-E hose or fittings manufactured for use in auxiliary air or hydraulic applications can be used without falling under the jurisdiction of FMVSS 106.

4. Registration.

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose, hose fittings and hose assembly shall be filed in writing with:

Office of Standards Enforcement Brake Hose Identification National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Reference: FMVSS 106

5. Questions on FMVSS 106.

Anyone may contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for interpretations of the standard. If calling, they may answer your question on the telephone, but will probably ask that you put the questions in writing and send you a letter in reply.

ID: nht75-1.48

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transcraft Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of September 9, 1975, with Mark Schwimmer of this agency, concerning the testing of brake hose assemblies pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74.

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the standard does not specify the testing which you must conduct; it does specify the criteria which the assemblies must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance. While the surest way for you to be confident of compliance would be to follow the procedures in every detail, you are not legally obligated to do so. Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), requires you to assure yourself that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the procedures set out in the standard, your assemblies will meet the specified criteria. In addition, you are required to repair or replace without charge noncomplying assemblies. In the event of noncompliance or failure to remedy the noncompliance, the Act specifies a civil penalty not to exceed $ 1000 for each violation (and not to exceed $ 800,000 for any related series of violations). The exercise of due care in ensuring that the assemblies comply with the standard is a defense to an action for civil penalties for noncompliance. In such a situation, however, the Act nevertheless requires you to remedy the noncompliance.

If you manufacture brake hose assemblies and install them in vehicles which are also manufactured by you, then those assemblies are exempted by S5.2.4 of the standard from the requirement that assemblies be labeled by means of a band.

ID: nht75-1.49

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 5, 1975, which inquired about the permissibility of iron-branding the letters "N.A." on the sidewall of certain passenger car tires to indicate that they are not adjustable under your warranty.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, specifies labeling and performance requirements for such tires. The NHTSA has no objection to the provision of additional labeling information such as the "N.A." which you have suggested. However, the tire must continue to be capable of meeting the standard's performance requirements at the completion of the hot-branding process.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 5, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel -- N.H.T.S.A. Att: Mark Schwimmer, attorney

Sir:

In reference to the phone conversation Friday morning, I am sending you a written request for the following information:

We would like to know if there are some objections from your office to iron-brand N.A. (not adjustable) tires which may present possible vibrations, bleeding white sidewall, unbalance or which may not deliver the 40.000 mile guarantee even though they belong to a tire line which has the 40.000 mile guarantee.

The tires involved (which are approximately 5000 units) will be sold at a discount of about 50%.

Of course such tires have all the safety guarantee as the regular premium ones.

Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION -- G. Buzzi-Ferraris, Technical Manager

ID: nht75-1.5

DATE: 04/22/75

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

TO: Kazuhiko Aoki

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 22 1975 N40-30 TWH)

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

Dear Mr. Aoki:

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

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

Sincerely,

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.50

DATE: 11/18/75

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

TO: Tong Shin Chemical Products Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

ID: nht75-1.6

DATE: 02/11/75

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

TO: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Feb. 11, 1975 N40-30

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

Dear Ben:

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

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

Sincerely,

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.7

DATE: 02/07/75

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

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

N40-30 FEB 7 1975

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

Dear Mr. Kato:

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.8

DATE: 06/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 10, 1975 N40-30 (FWS)

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

Dear Commander Heath:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. General Requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-1.9

DATE: 10/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

SINCERELY,

September 16, 1975

John W. Carson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

"Framed area may be filled"

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

Thank you.

(Graphics omitted)

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Naoyoshi Suzuki

Staff, Safety

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-2.1

DATE: 10/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The B. F. Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

S2. of Standard No. 109 specifies:

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

Similarly, S3. of Standard No. 119 specifies:

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

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

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

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

ATTACH.

The B. F. Goodrich Company August 30, 1975

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

Dear Sir:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very truly yours,

C. D. McCarty -- Staff Attorney

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