ID: nht78-4.13

DATE: 11/28/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 19, 1978, questions about the effect of the PACCAR V. NHTSA decision (532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978)) on certain aspects of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This reply addresses several issues related to the questions you asked.

Standard No. 121 as a whole was not invalidated by the Court decision. Only the "road testing" requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.7.1 for trucks and trailers were addressed by the Court, and only some of the performance requirements and test procedures associated with them were held invalid. Thus, requirements such as timing, dynamometer, and equipment specifications remain valid and enforceable.

One question raised is whether the court invalidated these "road testing" requirements and associated procedures only as of the October 11th entry of mandate, or whether the court found the requirements invalid back to their January and March 1975 implementation dates. While there are conflicting statements in the court's opinion about the holding on "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances, we believe that these requirements are invalid from the effective date of the standard for affected vehicle types. This conclusion relies on the court's conclusion about the adequacy of promulgation "at the time [the standard] was put into effect" (573 F2d. at 640).

Thus the NHTSA does not believe that a vehicle which lacks "no lockup" performance or the specified 60-mph stopping distance capability would be in noncompliance with Standard No. 121. Noncompliance enforcement of these performance aspects will, therefore, not be pursued.

A second question is whether a commercial facility (manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business) can disconnect or remove antilock systems that were installed prior to October 11, 1978, the date on which the court made its decision effective. With regard both to new vehicles in inventory and used vehicles in service that have already been antilock equipped, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that --

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

I would emphasize that disconnection of systems prior to the first retail sale may not have the effect of causing the vehicle to fail to comply with other applicable requirements.

The issue of disconnecting systems in service is totally different in the case of a manufacturer or agency determination that an antilock system contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Under @ 154 of the Act, the vehicle manufacturer must provide an adequate repair of safety-related defects, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is undertaken. "Adequate repair" is defined in @ 159(4) not to include "any repair which results in substantially impaired operation of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment." The agency does not agree with the court's view that antilock systems have the potential to reduce highway safety, and therefore, anything other than repair of an antilock system containing a safet related defect would be considered by the NHTSA to constitute substantial impairment of the motor vehicle.

A third question is whether Canadian-built (or U.S.-built for export) trucks and trailers which comply with the Canadian air brake standard can now be imported since certain "road testing" portions of the U.S. standard have been invalidated. The Canadian standard came into effect later than the U.S. standard and it differs in having no stopping distance, "no lockup", timing, or dynamometer requirements. Thus, there may be differences between vehicles built for the U.S. and those built for Canadian service.

Operation of uncertified vehicles in the United States constitutes an importation in violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act if built after the applicable effective date of Standard No. 121. Enclosed is a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association on this subject. The invalidation of some of the differences between the U.S. and Canadian standards does not completely eliminate the disparity of required performance between the two groups of vehicles. This would apply both to vehicles in service and to newly manufactured vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 121.

ID: nht80-1.38

DATE: 03/21/80

FROM: JAMES W. LAWRENCE -- MANAGER ENGINEERING RELIABILITY & GOVERNMENT STANDARDS DEPT. WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

TITLE: FMVSS-115 REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS FOR GLIDER KITS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Berndt:

White Motor Corporation manufactures Glider Kits which are sold through its Service Department for use in rebuilding used and wrecked vehicles. FMVSS-115 does not apply to these kits because they are not new vehicles as manufactured.

There are, however, some states which allow the rebuilt vehicle to carry the identity of the kit, rather than that of the scrapped vehicle. To facilitate the registration of these vehicles, White issues a Manufacturers' Statement of Origin and a vehicle identification number. Registration as a White also provides traceability for recall should the need arise.

White believes, and requests confirmation that, although the standard does not apply to these vehicles, the standard does not prohibit the application of VIN to a Glider Kit.

ID: nht80-1.39

DATE: 03/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lombard, Bardner, Honsowetz & Brewer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 8, 1980, on behalf of your client, Ideal Welding and Machine Company. That company intends to market a one-piece unit coupling device for the connection of electrical and air-brake lines on tractor-trailers. You ask whether Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106-74), would be applicable to this device.

The device described in your letter would not be considered a brake hose assembly or a brake hose end fitting. Rather, according to the drawings enclosed in your letter, a completed brake hose assembly with its own end fitting would be attached to the coupling device, similar to the attachment of a completed assembly to a manifold. Therefore, certification of compliance with Safety Standard No. 106-74 would not be required. This answer dispenses with your remaining questions concerning certification.

Although there are no Federal safety standards applicable to a device such as you describe, it is a piece of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381), a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for any safety related defects that may exist in its products. The manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of any such safety related defects and remedy the defects at its own expense (15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq.). Therefore, your client should ascertain through testing or other means that there are no safety problems with its coupling device. Obviously, this is particularly important with any system involving vehicle braking.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

LOMBARD, GARDNER, HONSOWETZ & BREWER ATTORNEYS AT LAW

February 8, 1980

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Ideal Coupling - Ruling Request Under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 And Related Sections

Dear Sirs:

On behalf of my client Ideal Welding and Machine Co., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon, having its principal office at 120 Monroe Street, Eugene, Oregon, the undersigned respectfully requests that the rulings requested herein be issued on behalf of the above-mentioned party regarding the applicability of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 or any related standards dealing with air-brake systems. Ideal Welding and Machine Co., which commenced business in August, 1977, is currently engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing products for industrial use. The company has designed a coupling device to be attached to the electrical and air-brake hoses of a truck and trailer which would provide a simplified one-piece unit for the connection of the electrical and air-brake lines. Arrangements have been made with Clarion Shoji Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan, for the manufacture of this device. Because the device involves the connection of air-brake hoses, clarification as to the certification, labelling, and testing requirements under the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 and any related sections is desired prior to the import and sale of the device in the United States.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the following ruling be issued:

1. The Ideal Coupling does not constitute an air-brake hose, end fitting, or assembly that requires labelling or certification under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74 or any related standard.

If your agency should find that some form of certification, labelling, or testing is required for the coupling device, please advise as to the following:

1. What form of label, certification, or testing is required?

2. Who is required to perform the above, i.e, the Japanese manufacturer, or may our client provide the label, certification, or testing in the United States?

If any further information is necessary, please contact the undersigned. Your prompt consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Ronald A. Irvine

Under penalties of perjury, we have examined this ruling request, including the accompanying documents, and to the best of our knowledge and belief, the information presented in support of the requested ruling herein is true, correct and complete.

IDEAL WELDING AND MACHINE CO.

By: (Illegible Words) Its President

By: Sandra Dean Its Secretary

Enclosures

United States Patent [19]

Wetzig

[11] 4,183,599 [patent omitted]

ID: nht80-1.4

DATE: 01/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 8, 1979, letter and follow-up meeting in which you ask several questions about the compliance of your school buses with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. In your letter, you ask about four separate joints and ask whether they would be required to comply with the standard.

As you know, the standard applies to any joint of a body panel that encloses bus body space and a body structure member. An exception from the standard exists for those joints that connect maintenance access panels. In our meeting with you, we stated the agency's objection to the existing industry practice involving maintenance access panels, and further stated that the agency was contemplating rulemaking to restrict the maintenance access panel exception.

Responding directly to the four joints that you reference in your letter, you first ask whether the contact point between the headlining panel and the spring clip is a joint subject to the standard. A spring clip is entirely enclosed within a bus wall. Its function is to aid in holding the body panel in place while the rivets or adhesives are being applied. It serves no function beyond that. The agency does not believe that a spring clip is either a body structure member or a body panel enclosing occupant space. Accordingly, the joint of this clip and any other body member is not a joint subject to the standard.

In your second question, you ask whether the joint between the headlining panel and the headlining panel positioning tab is a joint subject to the standard. The positioning tab is a device that is approximately two inches long and contacts the headlining panel in two places between the bus body bows. The purpose of this tab, is to prevent buckling of the headlining panel between the two bows. The agency concludes that positioning tabs are body structure members. Therefore, if they contact a body panel at its edge, the intersection of these two components creates a joint subject to the standard.

Your third question asks whether an extruded aluminum sash assembly must comply with the standard. You state in your letter that this assembly is part of the window and, therefore, exempt from the requirements. The aluminum sash assembly to which you refer is an add-on device above the window found in your larger buses to provide more headroom. The agency concludes that this device has no function as a part of the window but merely is a trim panel that serves to cover part of the bus sidewall. Accordingly, the joint connecting this panel to the remainder of the bus structure would be required to comply with the standard.

Finally, you ask whether the joint between a positioning angle and a headlining panel must comply with the joint strength requirements. A positioning angle is a body structure member that runs from bow to bow and supports the edge of the headlining panel to prevent buckling. The agency concludes that this positioning angle is a body structure member and its connection with a body panel is a joint subject to the standard's requirements.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD

BODY COMPANY

October 8, 1979

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: FMVSS 221

REF: 1. Letter from Francis Armstrong to Albert L. Luce dated 6-1-79; NEF-31 MPa CIR 2087

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The subject standard requires 60% joint strength for certain defined joints on school buses; other joints, as defined in S4 of the standard, are exempted. The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation that certain aspects of a proposed design change are exempted under the provisions of S4.

In preparation for initial compliance with the subject standard, Blue Bird Body Company redesigned the wire service panel and obtained approval for the new design; please refer to letter to and from NHTSA on February 13, 1976 and April 26, 1976 respectively.

In reference 1, NHTSA raised questions concerning our wire service panel. The questions carried no allegations of non compliance. However, in keeping with Blue Bird Body Company's philosophy of meeting the spirit of NHTSA regulations as well as the letter, we are now proposing changes to the wire service panel and surrounding components. These changes are described by the two enclosed prints.

The prints show cross sections of the proposed wire service panel design for 74" headroom and 77" headroom vehicles. The specific items with regard to this design proposal which we would like you to confirm are:

1. That the area of contact between the headlining and spring steel clip is not a joint subject to FMVSS 221 requirements. As shown on the prints, this clip is used only as an assembly aid to support headlining panels while permanent fasteners are installed. The clip will be approximately 3/4" wide. While the permanent integrity of the design is not dependent on the clip, the intent is to leave it in place after the permanent fasteners are installed.

2. That the area of contact between the headlining and the headlining panel positioning tab on the header of 74" headroom models is not a joint subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. The purpose of the tab is to prevent the headlining from bowing outward between roof bows. The tab is shown full size on the 74" headroom print. There will be two tabs per window section.

3. That the window frame extension on 77" headroom models is exempted under the provisions of S4 where windows and body panel joints designed for ventilation are exempted.

4. That the headlining panel positioning angle on 77" headroom models is exempted. This angle performs the same function on 77" headroom models as the headlining panel positioning tabs serve on the 74" headroom models; see item 2 above.

Your early review and confirmation of these items will be appreciated. We are available for conference at your convenience to answer any questions you might have.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ENCLS.

ID: nht80-1.40

DATE: 03/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: O'Meara Ford Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 26, 1980, letter asking about the proper certification for a Ford Mustang that has been converted to a convertible. You ask what certification is required before you would be permitted to sell such a vehicle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires all manufacturers of motor vehicles to certify that their vehicles comply with Federal safety standards prior to first sale. In the case of the vehicle that you mention, Ford Motor Company would have certified it when it was sold to the company that converted it to a convertible. Ford's certification label is located on the driver's door or pillar post.

The company that converted the vehicle, Tomaso of America, is responsible for putting its own label on the vehicle indicating that as altered the vehicle continues to comply with the applicable Federal safety standards. The requirements for alterers' labels are located in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7. Tomaso's label should also be located on the vehicle in the same area as Ford's.

If both of the labels are on the vehicle, it is legal for you to sell it. If either of the labels is missing from the vehicle, then the vehicle is not correctly certified and may be in noncompliance with the safety standards.

ID: nht80-1.41

DATE: 03/26/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: David Williams

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I would like to clarify my remarks of March 17, 1980, with respect to the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to imported vehicles.

In that letter I implied that there was a prohibition against importing cars that didn't meet Federal standards and that such vehicles had to comply with standards in effect on the date of importation. Actually, a nonconforming vehicle may be imported under bond if it will be brought into compliance within 120 days of entry with all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture.

ID: nht80-1.42

DATE: 03/27/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter asking whether it is permissible for a State to transport children to and from school on regular city transit buses. The answer to your question is yes, if the buses are on their scheduled transit routes and are transporting both school children and adults.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has defined school bus in a way that allows buses sold for use as common carriers in urban transportation to transport school children without complying with school bus standards. This definition is located in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3. The agency permitted this exemption from the school bus safety standards in acknowledgment of the high costs involved in maintaining dual fleets of buses, one for school children and one for adults. Accordingly, the agency permitted cities with operating bus lines to transport children on those city buses. The agency also believes that joint bus fleets can help to conserve fuel.

The agency has made one restriction on the use of city buses to transport school children. The buses must be operating on their regular passenger routes and schedules and must not be operating on special school bus routes. Any vehicle that is operating exclusively as a school bus should be constructed in accordance with the school bus safety standards.

SINCERELY,

March 6, 1980

Raymond J. Salehar Highway Safety Engineer Maryland Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration

Dear Mr. Solehar:

Thank you for sending HJR 21 for comments. Even though you state they would be informal, it is our practice to ask our legal department to make these comments.

I am forwarding HJR 21 to Joseph J. Levin, Chief Council, NHTSA for response.

David H. Soule Highway Safety Management Specialist Traffic Safety Programs

cc: J. J. LEVIN

Maryland Department of Transportation

Motor Vehicle Administration RAYMOND J. SALEHAR Highway Safety Engineer

David Soule:

This bill is a departure from the norm. . . . the problem is that Baltimore City is using Metro transit buses for school use by providing tickets to the students affected. They also have a small fleet of buses around the outskirts of the city and for handicapped students. These buses are painted yellow but our statute does restrict them from using flashing red lights.

Do you visualize any harm in this joint resolution?

Would appreciate your informal comments. If the commission proceeds you may be called later this year for more formal advice.

Thanks for the LPG information, your P. Aylor in Atlanta was a very information person.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 21

01r0067

By: Delegates Bird, Mooney, Maloney, Sheehan, Pitkin, Bainum, Scull, Simmons, Pesci, Donaldson, McCaffrey, and Cicoria

Introduced and read first time: January 17, 1980

Assigned to: Constitutional and Administrative Law

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION

A House Joint Resolution concerning

Dual Transportation Systems

FOR the purpose of requesting the Legislative Policy Committee to establish a commission to study the dual systems of transportation in urban areas of the State so that the yellow school bus system may be phased out wherever possible; and requiring the commission to report its findings by a certain date.

WHEREAS, The State of Maryland maintains a dual transportation system in its urban areas consisting of the yellow school bus for transportation of school children and transit buses for the general public; and

WHEREAS, Both systems are heavily subsidized by State grants to the local subdivisions of the State; and

WHEREAS, These transportation systems are too often duplicative in the services they render and inefficient in providing total transportation for the general public; and

WHEREAS, In the majority of urban areas throughout the United States, school children are encouraged to ride public transportation; and WHEREAS, The combination of public transportation and school transportation would result in substantial savings in State revenue, as well as the development of a unified and more efficient public transportation system; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That the Legislative Policy Committee is requested to establish a commission for the purpose of studying the dual transportation system in the urban areas of the State of Maryland in order to develop a plan to phase out the yellow school bus system wherever possible and to encourage school children of appropriate ages to ride public transportation to and from school; and be it further

EXPLANATION:

Numerals at right identify computer lines of text.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 21

RESOLVED, That the commission shall consist of three members of the House of Delegates appointed by the Speaker of the House, three members of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate, and three members to be appointed by the Governor, one member being the designee of the Secretary of Transportation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the commission shall make its final report to the Governor and the Legislative Policy Committee by December 31, 1981.

Maryland Department of Transportation

Office of the Secretary

DATE: 2/7/80

BILL NO.: HJR 21

COMMITTEE: CAL

SUBJECT: Phase out yellow school bus

DOT POSITION: SUPPORT

EXPLANATION: HJR 21 provides to establish a commission to study the dual systems of school bus transportation in urban areas.

COMMENT: It is recognized that this system is costly to the state because it is a dual system. Presently there are 413 yellow school busses being operated in Baltimore City. 100 are privately owned, 204 are contracted to the Department of Education and 109 are owned by the Department of Education.

The MVA supports the appointment of a select committee to study this matter and to make recommendations to combine these operations for possible phasing out of the yellow school bus operation.

For Information: Nance J. Stamboni

ID: nht80-1.43

DATE: 03/27/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Great Dane Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to confirm your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office, in which he advised you that the manufacturer identifier referred to in Docket 1-22, Notice 10, was the manufacturer identifier required by S4.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. Inasmuch as the Society of Automotive Engineers has already assigned a manufacturer identifier to Great Dane Trailer, Inc., this requirement has been met.

I am forwarding your complete VIN plan to the VIN coordinator as required by S6 of the Standard.

ID: nht80-1.44

DATE: 04/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Aveco Trucks of North America, Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. You described a bulb check button which could be activated at any time by merely pushing it in, but which when released would be automatically deactivated. You asked whether the possible activation of this button at any time would take it out of compliance with section 5.3.1 of Safety Standard 101-80.

This section states that "a telltale shall not emit light except. . . during a bulb check upon vehicle starting." This provision was intended to prevent the driver from accidently leaving the bulb check control activated and thereby creating a situation where a defective functioning of the vehicle would go unnoticed by the driver. Since the bulb check control that you described cannot accidently be left in the on position since it is deactivated when the driver releases it, section 5.3.1 of Safety Standard 101-80 would not operate so as to prohibit use of this device.

I hope that you have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending you this response.

ID: nht80-1.45

DATE: 04/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dick Pilch

TITLE: FMVSS INTEPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 7, 1980 letter to the Department of Transportation, in which you complained about the failure of a tire on your truck. Specifically, you stated that the tires on the front axle of your truck were overloaded by 570 pounds each, and that no non-radial tire is currently manufactured which would not have been overloaded if used on this front axle.

If the tires which were overloaded came as original equipment on the truck, the manufacturer of the truck violated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR 571.120). Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 requires the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to any axle to be at least equal to the gross axle weight rating of that particular axle. This requirement is applicable to all trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1976. If your truck was manufactured after that date, please send me the name of the manufacturer as well as the information provided by the manufacturer specifying the appropriate tire sizes to be used on the truck. The information concerning appropriate tire sizes will appear on a label on the door latch post on the driver's side of the truck. If the manufacturer has violated Standard No. 120, appropriate steps will be taken by the agency.

You also stated that certain radial tires would have met the load-carrying requirements for your truck, but that you would not use radial tires because of erratic wear patterns. For your information, I have enclosed a booklet published by the Rubber Manufacturers Association setting forth information on the care and service of radial and non-radial truck tires. On page 11 of this booklet there is a description of the irregular wear to which you refer, as well as instructions on how to prevent the irregular wear from lessening the overall mileage the tire will give you. Hence, if you wish to use radial tires on your truck, there is no reason to expect them to perform unsatisfactorily.

More significant, however, is the misunderstanding you have in suggesting that no bias ply tire is manufactured which would not have been overloaded on your truck. Such a tire is now manufactured and has been manufactured for at least the past 20 years. On page 30 of the enclosed booklet, you will find a table showing the load-carrying capacity of bias ply tire sizes mounted on 15 degrees drop center rims. The tire size mounted on your truck, the 11-22.5, does indeed have a maximum load of 5,430 pounds if it is a load range F tire. However, a load range G tire of that same size has a maximum load of 6,040 pounds, and would not be overloaded if used on your truck. This is the tire you should probably use on the front axle.

I am sorry to hear of your accident and hope that you have recovered from your injuries. Your complaint about the failure of the Uniroyal Delta tire has been recorded, and the agency will be alert to other indications of problems with this tire. To date, however, we do not have sufficient data indicating a safety problem to open a formal investigation.

I want to thank you for taking the time to express your concern about motor vehicle safety. It is only through the efforts of concerned citizens such as yourself that we can ensure maximum safety for all users of the highway. If you have any further questions or concerns about this matter or any other aspect of highway safety, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

February 7, 1980

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

It is unfortunate when corporations become so large that they influence our Courts and brainwash the general public through advertising and news media.

Case in Point:

An individual purchased two tires to replace those that were wearing out. He bought bias ply tires in preference to radial tires because eratic wear patterns are standard for radial tires on a free turning wheel on all makes and this hasn't been corrected to this date. The last set was on the vehicle for 85,000 miles and was in good enough condition to put on the rear of the truck. Some 30,000 miles later, after 1-1 1/2 hours driving time on a cool morning, the temperature being 60 degrees or less and raining lightly, the tire blew out with no warning, causing the vehicle to go off the road over an embankment. The vehicle came to rest turned almost over on its side and spilling the load off the vehicle. This destroyed the truck and trailer and injured the operator. The driver was unaware of the injury at the time of the accident. The symptons became apparent about three months later, which rendered him almost crippled for many months. To this day the driver is still in pain, sometimes quite severe.

Getting back to our "Great Society" (as the joke is sometimes put), we are supposed to look out for the people that use the products that these careless giants put on the market, which are a danger to life, limb and property. There is also the danger of one of these tires blowing out on a six-lane freeway, such as that in Los Angeles, where one driving during the traffic rush about 3 p.m., could kill several people. However, those companies can continue to manufacture defective equipment by the thousands and sell it to the people. It appears as though nothing better can be had.

Example: Our federal and state governments have passed laws that a large truck can gross 80,000 pounds if it is equipped with five axles and the proper length. Front axle 12,000 pounds Tandem driver axle 34,000 pounds Tandem trailer axle 34,000 pounds

Let's look closer at the manufacturer's specifications.

A single tire, 5,430 pounds at 85 pound psi X 2 = 10,860

From 12,000 pounds - 1,140 for both For a single tire = 570 pounds overload.

Does the manufacturer say anything? No. They appear to be unconcerned as long as they can sell tires.

Let's continue. Concerning the manufacturers and their specifications, they say on dual tires, one should run 75 pounds psi and be able to carry 5,060 pounds on each tire. Let's compare the weight difference.

State and Federal Manufacturer 85 psi 12,000 pounds - single steer axle 5,430 X 2 = 10,860 pounds 6, 050 X 8 = 48, 75 psi 34,000 " - dual tandem axle 400 " 34,000 "- dual 6,050 X 8 = 48,400 " 80,000 pounds 107,660 pounds

Let's take a closer look for safety's sake. Or does safety go out the window when you are talking about a multi-million dollar corporation? It seems to apply only to the poor, dumb truck driver, doesn't it?

Look at 34,000 pounds divided by 8 = 4,250 pounds maximum weight. The safety margin is good, to say the least.

12,000 pounds divided by 2 = 6,000 pounds. Woops! Where did the safety margin go? Now doesn't this make a lot of sense? Run dual wheels on driver axle or trailer axle and you have 1,750 pounds to play with. If one tire should let go, you could in no way lose control of the rig. However, on the steer axle, you have no safe margin, As a matter of fact, you are exceeding specifications all the time. Most trucks are carrying approximately 10,000 or 11,000 pounds on the front axle at all times. Also, there isn't a tire manufactured that has the specifications that it should have as far as safety goes. There is a radial tire that will carry the 6,000 pounds, so they say. However, the manufacturer will state that on two free rolling wheels, you will have eratic wear patterns. As yet there isn't a tire manufactured that doesn't have them.

There are two ways to remedy the problem. Let's either change the load limits to compare with what the manufacturer says, or make the manufacturer (which we know won't happen) make a tire that has the rating needed to put the same percent of safety on the steer axle that there is on the dual driver or trailer axles. The third way to remedy the problem and the one most likely of the three, is to place this letter in the round file, commonly known as the "trash can".

Yours truly,

Dick Pilch

P.S. Also, we could make the same true for tire manufacturers and make them totally responsible for their products, pull them out of production when found bad and let them suffer the loss of what the user does in terms of injury, income and life.

TO:

UNIROYAL - Detroit, Michigan KIRO TV - Seattle, Washington

KING TV - Seattle, Washington

KONG TV - Seattle, Washington

20/20 - Seattle, Washington

Senator Jackson - Washington, D.C.

Senator Magnuson - Washington, D. C.

U.S. Department of Transportation - Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Transportation - Seattle, Washington

Office of Chief Counsel - Washington, D.C. Federal Highway Administration

National Highway Safety Administration - Washington, D.C.

Center for Study

c/o Ralph Nader - Washington, D.C.

Judge William Goodloe (Superior Court) Seattle, Washington

Over Drive Magazine

Robert Peterson

c/o Mother Trucker Magazine - Los Angeles, California

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION VEHICLE OWNER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

Pleading Omitted. Vehicle code provisions omitted.