ID: nht76-1.36

DATE: 02/26/76

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

TO: E.T.R.T.O.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, which inquired about the status of the E.T.R.T.O. petition for an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, concerning tires for low-power motorcycles with restricted speed capability.

We expect to issue a Federal Register notice on this subject in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

The Director -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

JANUARY 26, 1976

ETRTO SUBMISSION No. 6/119

TYRES FOR LOW-POWER MOTORCYCLES WITH RESTRICTED SPEED CAPABILITY

Dear Sir,

The above Submission was made in ETRTO letter ref. RD/MS 048/75 dated February 5, 1975 and in a letter dated March 4, 1975, ref. N40-30 MS, signed by Mr. R.B. DYSON, Assistant Chief Counsel, receipt of the Submission was acknowledged with the advice that it was under consideration. Since then, as far as is known, there has been no further communication from NHTSA and no notice referring to the Submission has appeared in the Federal Register.

News of the current status of this Submission would be greatly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

J. TRIMBLE Secretary General

cc: R.P. Monier, Chairman of the ETRTO Road Safety Sub-Committee.

ID: nht76-1.37

DATE: 07/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Mark O. Hatfield - U.S. Senate

COPYEE: EARL C. SIEVERS -- FINANCE MGR., LAYTON PAVING EQUIP. SPECIALISTS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 10, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to the paver manufactured by Layton Manufacturing Company. The standard requires that the paver be equipped with tires of sufficient load rating and that these tires be certified by their manufacturer as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. Your constituent, Mr. Earl Sievers, has met with representatives of this agency to discuss the need for his company's paver to comply with Standard No. 120 and his difficulties in procuring the proper tires.

Your letter suggests that, generally, the paver is moved simply within the confines of a construction site rather than in traffic. Nevertheless, the paver is designed and expected to be towed on the public highways. Indeed, Layton's own promotional materials stress this point:

For municipalities who do not own their dump trucks or need extreme mobility without sacrificing hauling weight! . . . Any truck can tow paver safely at highway speeds. ("Exhibit 'C'" accompanying Mr. Sievers' letter of January 14, 1976.)

This usage of the paver leads to the conclusion that the paver is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 120. The conclusion is compelled by the definition of "motor vehicle" in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.).

As a manufacturer of fewer than 10,000 motor vehicles in its most recent year of production, Layton is eligible to petition for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 120 on the basis of substantial economic hardship. For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which sets out procedures for filing and processing such petitions.

SINCERELY,

United States Senate

March 10, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Thank you for taking the time to visit with my constituent, Earl Sievers, regarding the matter of Layton Manufacturing Company's having to comply with FMVSS #120 in the outfitting of its paver. Your Assistant Chief Counsel, Mr. Dyson, wrote to Mr. Sievers on February 24, 1976, to advise him that compliance with FMVSS would be required. Mr. Sievers has come to Washington to present personally additional evidence which he believes you should consider prior to making a final determination on compliance. I deeply share his concerns and so have asked that you and your staff meet with him.

It is probably true, as Mr. Dyson asserts in the aforementioned letter, that the Layton paver could be moved from job site to job site at speeds exceeding 20 miles per hour. Generally, however, the paver is simply moved within the confines of a construction site, not in traffic. I question the logic of applying FMVSS 120 standards to a vehicle which is obviously construction equipment, which infrequently is transported on the open road, and which is so well designed that its safety record is nothing short of exemplary. A mechanical application of FMVSS #120 to classify the paver as a motor vehicle, and thus to require its entire retooling and consequent economic disruption, would seem quite unjust.

The Layton paver is a very safe and highly cost-effective piece of construction equipment. I urge that you give the most careful consideration to the data and arguments presented by Mr. Sievers to the effect that a waiver of FMVSS #120 be granted. Given the enormous business impact which your decision may have on Layton and its employees, I also urge that you handle this matter as expeditiously as possible.

I am confident that you will be both fair and open-minded in evaluating this case.

Mark O. Hatfield United States Senator

ID: nht76-1.38

DATE: 12/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Carlisle Tire and Rubber Company's May 7, 1976, request for assurance that certain of its tires are in Compliance with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and your request for a meeting on the issue of reduced performance requirements for tires used on motor-driven cycles with a maximum speed capability of 30 mph or less. I regret that we have not responded sooner.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1391, et seq.) does not permit the assurance of compliance with Standard No. 119 that you request. The Act requires "self-certification" by the manufacturer that each of its products actually complies with all applicable standards (15 U.S.C. @@ 1397(a)(1)(A), 1403). The NHTSA does not issue "approvals" for this reason.

With regard to your request for a meeting on the subject of performance standards for tires used on low-speed motor-driven cycles, I would like to advise you that the NHTSA has decided to reduce some of the performance requirements for these tires. If you believe that a meeting would be desirable before we have issued a specific proposal, please contact Mr. Elwood Driver at the above address (tel. (202) 426-1740) to meet on the technical aspects of this issue.

SINCERELY,

Carlisle Tire & Rubber

May 7, 1976

National Highway Safety Administration Frank Berndt Acting Chief Council, Legal Section

The Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania is a manufacturer of bicycle and motorcycle type tires. Because of the recent interest in moped vehicles in the United States we have decided to add this type of tire to our line of products. Since this is a highway type tire we are attempting to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transportation. It has been indicated to us by various representatives of the Department of Transportation that this tire must be treated as a motorcycle tire even though the size of the motor of this vehicle would prevent these tires from ever exceeding a speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour. In attempting to comply with your current requirements we have subjected our tests to the following conditions.

1. The tire marking is in accordance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 and particularly Part 574. The DOT symbol is shown on the tire as well as our manufacturing code, tire size identification, and the date of manufacture. The tire size designation is shown. The maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure is also indicated on the tire. We identify our tire as a moped tire by printing the word "moped" on the sidewall of the tire. We have speed restricted tires by the words cured in the sidewall "Not to exceed 35 mph." We indicate the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material. We also identify the tire as a tube type tire. The tire load is identified as "Load Range A."

2. We have three tread wear indicators that will provide visual determination that the tread has worn to a depth of 1/32nds of an inch.

3. The carcass strength has been tested to make sure that we are in accordance with Table 2 of the FMVSS-119 standard.

4. The tires have successfully passed the high speed performance test as listed in FMVSS-119. This, of course, requires testing the tire at 75, 80, and 85 miles per hour. Naturally we feel that these speeds are excessive for this limited horsepower vehicle.

5. The tire has been subjected to the endurance test as prescribed in FMVSS-119. Once again, we feel that these conditions are excessive since the vehicle is not capable of speeds of 50 mph.

We are maintaining a file of our tests performed on this tire. Although we are currently passing all of the motorcycle tests required by FMVSS-119 we feel that those requirements are excessive for this type of vehicle. We are capable of meeting those requirements by the use of more expensive materials and compounds than that required for this type of lightweight duty tire.

There are two purposes for writing this memorandum to your department.

1. We would like to have assurance from you that the tires that we are marketing are in compliance with the requirements of the Department of Transportation.

2. We are requesting a meeting with your department so that we may present proposed amendments to this safety standard that we feel would be more realistic for this type of tire.

We respectfully await your response to this subject.

J. L. Hollis Vice President/Engineering

ID: nht76-1.39

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of March 22 and June 9, 1976, concerning the classification of motor-scooters and the tires designed for them.

"Motorcycle" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:

a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

"Motor-driven cycle" is defined as:

a motorcycle with a motor than produces 5 brake horsepower or less.

The category of "motor-driven cycles" includes, but is not limited to, motorized bicycles. There is no definition of "scooter" or "motor-scooter". Such a vehicle is a motorcycle and, depending on the brake horsepower of its engine, may also be a motor-driven cycle. In any event, a tire for use on such a vehicle is a motorcycle tire that is subject to all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. However, your letter is being considered in the preparation of the forthcoming Federal Register notice on this subject.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

DUNLOP LIMITED

Ref: RGC/MJW/5859/40G

Richard B Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 22, 1976

Dear Mr Dyson

SCOOTER TYRES - MVSS 119

I am advised that american importers of scooters are insisting that tyres for these machines be labelled to show conformity with Standard 119 and this poses a number or problems, both legal and practical.

I am taking the liberty of writing to you for advice on this subject since it is closely related to the general question of the application of Standard 119 to the case of tyres for speed-restricted motorcycles i.e. the case covered in ETRTO submission No. 6/119 dated 5 February 1975; for ease of reference I would advise that you acknowledged this petition in your letter N40-30MS dated 4 March 1975 and also advised in your letter N40-30, dated 26 February 1976, that you expected a Federal Register notice on this petition to be published shortly.

The primary problem is one of definition, since I cannot find any legal definition of "scooter" or "motor-scooter".

On the other hand it can be argued, with justification, that a scooter falls within the definition of "motorcycle" or "motor-driven cycles" of part 571.3 "Definitions" depending on the brake horse power of the engine with which the machine is equipped.

I would believe - and perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm this - that the term "motor-driven cycle" is intended to cover motorised bicycles e.g. mopeds, rather than vehicles whose sole source of propulsion is an engine.

Should this be the case then we are left with the definition of motorcycle as including scooters and while this is legally reasonable the resulting implications are somewhat unreasonable within the context of Standard 119 and, in particular, the high speed test requirement of Standard 119.

This test is designed to establish a high speed capability for motorcycle tyres of 85+mph on a test drum which equates to a speed significantly greater than 85 mph on the road and is a prefectly reasonable test for "full-blooded" motorcycles which normally have a speed capability of this order, but is totally unrealistic for scooter tyres, since scooters, in general, are, by design and nature of the vehicle, of much lower speed capability, normally c50-60 mph max. It is for this reason that they are equipped with very small tyres, usually in the order of 4" tyre section width and fitting wheels of 8", 10" or occasionally 12" diameter - clearly these are tyres not designed for very high speed operations.

However, unless scooters are defined differently from motorcycles these small tyres will be required to pass the high speed test of Standard 119.

An alternative, which I would believe to be legally admissible, would be to mark scooter tyres as speed-restricted tyres reference Standard 119 para. S6.5 (e), on the basis that the high speed test would no longer be applicable. In the case of scooter tyres the speed restriction could be 60 mph which would then directly relate scooter tyres to "tyres for small cubic capacity motorcycles up to 60 mph (or 100 km/h)" of ETRTO submission No. 6/119.

Should this alternative be the one adopted this would resolve the problem of the high speed test but there would then remain the question of the breaking energy values to be used i.e. either the values in Table 2 of Standard 119 under the title "motorcycle" or under the title "all 12" or smaller rim size" and this can presumably be resolved only after a decision is taken on whether scooters remain within the definition of motorcycle or are separately defined e.g. as "motorcycles of restricted speed capability 60 mph max".

In view of the fact that our inability to determine the relevance of scooter tyres within the context of Standard 119, and hence the test and markings which are applicable, it will be appreciated that there is a certain barrier to trade in this context; thus your earliest advice on the problems expressed above would be appreciated and, in particular, your advice on whether this problem can be treated as an extension of ETRTO petition No. 6/119.

Yours sincerely

R G CLIFTON -- Manager - Tyre Legislation

ID: nht76-1.4

DATE: 07/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable Bob Sikes

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 10, 1976, communication enclosing a letter from Mr. John C. Richardson concerning the importation of passenger cars with "metric instrumentation." Your communication was forwarded to this agency by the National Bureau of Standards for reply.

Mr. Richardson has encountered difficulty in importing a 1976 model 911 Porsche with metric instrumentation. He has received a letter from Volkswagen of America, Inc., suggesting that "such instrumentation would be illegal and not certified with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies." While the precise meaning of "metric instrumentation" is not clear from either letter, I assume that Mr. Richardson is referring to the marking of the speedometer (in kilometers per hour) and the calibration of the odometer (in kilometers traveled).

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not presently require any particular form of marking for speedometers or odometers. While we are considering the establishment of a requirement that English units be used, such a rule would permit metric units as an optional addition. Furthermore, such a rule would only be applied prospectively.

SINCERELY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Bureau of Standards

May 26, 1976

Honorable Bob Sikes House of Representatives

This is in reply to your letter of May 1 requesting information on behalf of Mr. John C. Richardson, concerning the legality of metric instrumentation on imported cars.

Since the responsibility for instrumentation panels on automobiles lies with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, we are forwarding your letter and attachments to Mr. Robert Aubuchon, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Standards Enforcement, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590, 202-426-1693.

Jeffrey V. Odom Chief, Metric Information Office

cc: ROBERT AUBUCHON Congress of the United States House of Representatives

May 10, 1976

Mr. Jeff Odom, Chief Metric Information Office National Bureau of Standards

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Bob Sikes M.C.

May 1, 1976

Dear Congressman Sikes,

Congress has initiated the change from the English measuring system to the metric system. Already some of the American cars are appearing with dual instrumentation. However, when I tried to order a car from Porsche, a subsidiary of Volkswagon, I was told that metric instruments were illegal. See attached letter from Volkswagon of America.

Could you please find out why this is illegal on imported cars on not on American made cars? As an engineer I am firmly committed to the change to the metric system and looking forward to your clearing this matter.

Thank-you for your help.

John C. Richardson

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

April 22, 1976

John Richardson

Please be advised that we have checked the feasibility of delivering to you a 1976, 911 Porsche with metric instrumentation.

We have checked with our National Headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, which in turn checked with Germany. Unfortunately, we have to inform you that such instrumentation would be illegal and not certified with the appropriate U. S. Government agencies.

Dual instrumentation, unfortunately, also is not available.

We very much regret our inability to be of assistance.

G. E. Magnus Customer Assistance Supervisor

ID: nht76-1.40

DATE: 02/18/76

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

TO: Miller Spreader Company

COPYEE: MR. WELTZER -- REGION OFC. V

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 1, 1976, to Regional Office V of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning whether your company's spreader product must comply with the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, paricularly Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires.

The NHTSA issues safety standards and regulations for "motor vehicles." Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, workperforming nature, and, as such, their manufacturer contemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers that travel at a normal highway speed are examples in this area. These motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. On the basis of the information you have sent us your company's towed paver appears to be in this category of vehicles, and would therefore be considered a "motor vehicle."

There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicle classification despite their use on the highway. Highway maintenance and contruction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 mph and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. Your company's paver would not appear to qualify in this category of vehicles since, as a towed paver, it would travel at a speed greater than 20 mph, at least when moving between job sites.

Consequently, your product must comply with the requirements of the Federal standards and regulations. Standard No. 119 does not directly impose any duty on you, because it applies to tires rather than vehicles. However, the NHTSA has recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed). This standard does require, effective September 1, 1976, that your vehicles be equipped with tires that conform to Standard No. 119 and are of sufficient load rating.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

Miller Spreader Company

December 30, 1975

Bob Webtzer U. S. Department of Transportation

Enclosed please find the following items:

A. Literature describing two (2) models of Towed Pavers manufactured by the Miller Spreader Company:

1) Dial-A-Mat Paver

2) MS-708A Paver

B. Drawing 41001 showing the general arrangement of the rubber tired undercarriage used on both paver models above.

C. One photograph showing rubber tired undercarriage mounted under a Paver (See photograph marked "C")

D. One photograph showing towed paver carried on the rear of the dump body of a drump truck (see photograph marked "d").

E. One photograph showing paver elevated off the ground and being pulled by a tow bar assembly (see photograph marked "E")

F. Copy of Internal Revenue Service ruling exempting the Miller Paver when used in conjunction with a Miller Tow Bar from Excise Tax Regulations.

The Miller Towed Paver is a piece of construction machinery used specifically to spread asphalt or base materials on a prepared surface. This machine is used by both governmental bodies and commercial contractors to build and maintain driveways, parking areas, roads, etc.

A rubber tired undercarriage provides running gear for this paver. We have used a 530/450 6" wheel and pneumatic tire assembly in either 4 or 6 ply design. Our present models of this towed paver use eight (8) of these tire assemblies per paver (See drawing 41001).

To date we have no recorded incidents of wheel or tire failure other than an occassional flat, on these towed pavers.

We are interested in how the use of our present wheel and tire assembly on our Towed Paver meet current Department of Transportation specifications for this type of construction machinery. Specifically, we are interested in information pertaining to the particular application of our Towed Paver with a tow bar for highway use.

For purposes of our discussions we can treat both the Miller Dial-A-Mat Towed Paver and the Miller MS-708A Towed Paver as similar units in that changes in accessory components change the model designation and not the basic function of the machine. Hereafter we will refer to either machine as "Towed Paver".

The operation of the Towed Paver involves attaching the paver to the dump truck rear wheel assembly by means of an in-a-wheel hitch (see cover of Miller Dial-A-Mat literature). The dump body of the truck is then elevated, dumping asphalt materials into the hopper of the paver. The dump truck then moves forward pulling the paver which deposits a thickness of asphalt.

Transportation of the Towed Paver to and from the jobsite is done in either of two (2) ways. The most common method of transportation is to suspend the paver on the rear of a dump body (see photograph marked "d").

The second method of transportation of the paver to and from the jobsite is to use a tow bar (see photograph marked "e"). The towed paver is lifted off the ground by use of two (2) hydraulic cylinders and locked into the elevated position. The tow bar is attached to the rear of the paver. The tow bar is then attached to rear of the towing vehicle. Safety chains, lights, etc. are provided. The Paver is pulled from jobsite to jobsite much in the same manner as portable concrete pumps, concrete mixers, etc.

The distance the paver would be towed would not normally exceed 10-15 miles. I don't know whether the enclosed information for a excise tax exemption will be of any help but I have enclosed it for any useful purpose it might serve. I trust the enclosed information is complete. Please let me know if you need further information. Thank you for your assistance.

W. Thomas James, III

Internal Revenue Service

May 13 1974

Miller Spreader Company

Attn: Mr. W. Thomas James, II Vice President

This is in reply to your letter of April 3, 1974, requesting a ruling whether the proposed manufacture and sale of a towing device described below will be subject to the manufacturer's excise tax imposed by section 4061(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

The towing device (Tow Bar) is specially designed to be attached directly to an asphault spreader (Miller Paver) and will be used to connect the Miller Paver to a towing vehicle (truck) for the purposes of job to job moves. The Tow Bar will be limited to use only with a Miller Paver and will not be adaptable for use with other machinery.

Section 4061(b)(1) of the Code imposes a tax on parts or accessories (other than tires and inner tubes) for any of the articles enumerated in subsection (a)(1) sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer.

Section 48.4061(b)(2) of the Excise Tax Regulations defines the term "parts or accessories" as including (1) any article the primary use of which is to improve, repair, replace, or serve as a component part of an automobile truck or bus chassis or body, or other automobile chassis or body or taxable tractor, (2) any article designed to be attached to or used in connection with such chassis, body or tractor to add to its utility or ornamentation, and (3) any article the primary use of which is in connection with such chassis, body, or tractor, whether or not essential to its operation or use.

We have previously ruled in Revenue Ruling 72-479, published in the Internal Revenue Cumulative Bulletin 1972-2 at page 544, that a self-feeding spreading device designed to be attached to a standard dump truck body is not a "part or accessory" subject to excise tax. The Miller Paver is a self-feeding spreading device as described in Revenue Ruling 72-479 and is therefore not a "part or accessory" subject to excise tax.

The Tow Bar described is designed to be used primarily as a component part of, to add to the utility of, and in connection with the non-taxable Miller Paver rather than primarily with a taxable towing vehicle. Therefore the proposed manufacture and sale of the Tow Bar would not be subject to the tax imposed by section 4061(b)(1) of the Code.

We are enclosing a copy of Revenue Ruling 72-479 for your information.

Richard L. Crain Acting Chief, Excise Tax Branch

For the best paving job, greater profits . . . chec miller MS - 708A with Hydraulic Beam Electric/Hydraulic Controls Rubber Tires Heat

FOR MATERIAL SAVINGS

You'll need Miller's exclusive Hydraulic Beam. This feature alone will save time and material as well as reduce operator fatigue. Two levers on the operator's console let him make thickness corrections on either or both sides of the paver.

Corrections are made quickly and accurately . . . WITH HYDRAULIC BEAM a correction can be made in less than 4 feet of paver travel . . . with other pavers the same correction takes from 12 to 15 feet of travel.

FOR A SMOOTHER MAT

Check Miller's wide stance rubber tire undercarriage. The tires are staggered so they won't follow truck ruts and will provide a smoother ride over rough base.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

FOR QUALITY MAT FINISH

Miller's heavy duty screed wear plate features rolled edges to assure a better mat seal on both straight pulls and on a radius. Both edges are rolled making the wear plate reversible.

A 31 jet in line screed heater provides even heat along the entire screed to assure a uniform mat finish. The even heat also eliminates plate warpage.

An insulated cover running the entire width of the paver shields the operator from the heat and minimizes fuel consumption.

FOR BETTER MATERIAL FLOW Miller's clean, unobstructed hopper design provides excellent material flow. Enlarged gate and bleed out openings increase the flow of material to the screed and extensions.

FOR MOBILITY

Only Miller utilizes a 4-point chain hook up for transporting the paver from job to job. This system assures safe, even support along the entire width of the truck body and prevents damage to the body or tailgate.

FOR GREATER RETURN ON INVESTMENT

In addition to all these outstanding performance features, Miller pavers are built to hold up under high tonnage and extreme paving conditions. All stress points (*) are engineered to provide maximum strength, thus assuring extended paver life.

MAKE US PROVE MILLER IS BEST . . . ASK US TO DEMONSTRATE.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-1.41

DATE: 02/24/76

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

TO: Layton Paving Equipment Specialists

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 14, 1976, asking whether your company's paver product must comply with the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, particularly Standards No. 119 and 120.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards and regulations for "motor vehicles." Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, workperforming nature, and, as such, their manufacturer contemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers that travel at a normal highway speed are examples in this area. These motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. On the basis of the information you have sent us your company's towed paver appears to be in this category of vehicles, and would therefore be considered a "motor vehicle."

There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicle classification despite their use on the highway. Highway maintenance and contruction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 mph and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. Your company's paver would not appear to qualify in this category of vehicles since, as a towed paver, it would travel at a speed greater than 20 mph, at least when moving between job sites.

Consequently, your product must comply with the requirements of the Federal standards and regulations. Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, does not directly impose any duty on you, because it applies to tires rather than vehicles. However, the NHTSA has recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed). This standard does require, effective September 1, 1976, that your vehicles be equipped with tires that conform to Standard No. 119 and are of sufficient load rating.

In addition to compliance with the safety standards and regulations, you must ensure that your product does not contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety. Vehicles containing such defects are subject to the notification, remedy, and civil penalty provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. For example, a vehicle equipped with tires that are designed for speed-restricted use would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect if the vehicle is expected to travel at higher speeds.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

LAYTON

PAVING EQUIPMENT SPECIALISTS

January 14, 1976

Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Motor Vehicle Standards 119 and 120

Pursuant to your request we are writing you with reference to the above two standards and as to whether or not they apply to the construction machinery we manufacture. To make it easier for you and your staff to review our request, I am enclosing herewith five items which are labeled "Exhibit A" through "D."

Exhibit A shows the tires that we are using as an undercarriage for our paver. These tires are specially designed and manufactured to our specifications, size 530/450 x 6 inches, six-ply safety rib. This is a full six-ply tire and not merely a six-ply rated tire, and has a manufacturer's rating of 680 lbs. per tire at a reasonable rate of speed. The maximum weight that our equipment would display would not exceed 450 lbs. per tire. Over the past 11 years we have manufactured and sold approximately 4,100 units and to date have not experienced any problems.

Exhibit B illustrates the special construction of the walking beam assembly on which the tires are mounted.

Exhibits C and D illustrate the paver in its entirety and also show it being attached to a vehicle for transportation. I think we should clarify what we mean by mobility because of the towing assembly. The paver is designed so that it may be transported from one job to another by virtue to the towing assembly and rubber-tired undercarriage, therefore making it more flexible for contractors and municipalities to plan their jobs, etc., and is not intended as a vehicle for extended highway use inasmuch as the vehicle will be towed less than 10% of the time and in a small vicinity. We have two companies that supply our industrial tires for this equipment: General Tire and Rubber Company and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.

Mr. Berndt, we ask that you review the enclosure and consider the following requests: 1) To have our equipment and its components described therein to be classified as construction machinery, and 2) an opinion and/or waiver to be issued which allows the equipment to be used as it has in the past since this is the only type of tire that can be used for our equipment.

If you need additional information or technical data, please feel free to contact Mr. Jack Layton, president and general manager, Mr. John Newcomb, manufacturing manager and chief engineer, at (503) 85-4888.

I sincerely appreciate your courtesies when I talked to you on the phone and can assure you our company will be grateful for anything you might do to help expedite our request.

Earl C. Sievers Finance Manager

ID: nht76-1.42

DATE: 12/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's November 8, 1976, question whether any provision of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, prohibits the certification of a vehicle following the addition of an axle system (typically known as a "tag" or "pusher" axle) that is not equipped with tires or rims at the time of sale and delivery to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

The answer to your question is no. The requirement of S5.1.1 that ". . . each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet [specified requirements] . . . . " prohibits the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but it is not a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale.

I would like to point out that @ 567.4 (g) (4) of Part 567, Certification, requires that a gross axle weight rating be assigned to each axle system. Section S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 specifies that the GAWR be not more than the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to the axle in question. While the agency interprets Standard No. 120 to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate for that GAWR, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems), would constitute a violation of @ 108(a)(1)(D) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act:

@ 108(a)(1) No person shall

(A)

(c) Fail to issue a certificate required by section 114 of this title, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect;

SINCERELY

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC

November 8, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FMVSS 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars states in S 5.1.1 that:

"Except as specified in S 5.1.3 each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Standards 109 or 119."

It is possible to read this statement to require that all axles must be equipped with tires and rims prior to certification. By prohibiting the shipping of bare axles, this interpretation would cause the many intermediate and final stage manufacturers represented by the TBEA a great hardship.

The installation of auxiliary axles on incomplete vehicles comprises a large portion of the work performed by our industry. The twenty-five to thirty thousand tags (added axle behind the OEM rear axle) and pushers (added axle-ahead of the OEM rear axle) are installed on a truck chassis to provide increased carrying capacity or to more evenly distribute the payload's weight onto the road surface. The installers of these tags and pushers are generally small business men engaged in the adaption of standard commercial truck chassis to vocational vehicles ie fire apparatus, dump trucks, refuse trucks . . . . .These small companies are not in business to sell truck tires and rims. An inventory of every common truck tire size times every truck tire manufacturer would utilize more floor space than many of our companies have to begin with.

In the past, it has been common practice to install an additional axle on truck chassis and to ship the completed vehicle less the new tires. Upon delivery, the end user would contract a tire dealer to install the required tire and rim combination to provide the rated GAWR. Tire sizing is not new to the tire dealer, because he is also the same individual responsible for supplying the replacement tires needed to comply with the GVWR.

Present certification requirements allow for the posting of multiple GAWRs and GVWRs when the appropriate tire sizes are also listed.

Are we correct in assuming that additional axles can still be installed and delivered to the end user less tires, provided that the new GAWR listed for the new axle reflects the tire and rim size(s) needed for the specific rating(s)?

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: nht76-1.43

DATE: 06/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Little Dude Trailer Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 26, 1976, letter concerning the certification label requirements in S5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

You have pointed out that the example shown in S5.3 presents rim, inflation, and maximum speed information after the Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings (GVWRs) as well as after the Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWRs). You have suggested that the text of S5.3 merely requires such information to appear after the GAWRs and urged such an interpretation. It appears that you have misunderstood the text.

In its present form, S5.3 requires each listed GVWR and GAWR to be followed by the information specified in paragraphs S5.3(a) through (d). Paragraph (a) is divided into subparagraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) in order to specify different items to follow GVWR and GAWR, respectively. Paragraphs (b) through (d) (which specify rim, inflation, and maximum speed information) are not subdivided because the same items are intended to follow GVWR and GAWR.

Several petitions for reconsideration of the standard have requested an amendment of S5.3 to eliminate the requirement that tire and rim information appear after the GVWR. Your suggestions on this matter, as well as the other suggestions in your letter, are being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the preparation of its response to those petitions.

Please note that the effective dates of several of the standard's requirements, including that of S5.3, were delayed in a Federal Register notice published on May 6, 1976 (41 FR 18659; Docket No. 71-19, Notice 4). A copy of that notice is enclosed for your convenience.

YOURS TRULY,

little dude TRAILER COMPANY, INC.

March 26, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: Safety Standard 120

We have some questions and comments regarding the subject standard. On page 3480 (S5.3) you cover the requirements of the certification label. Part (a) (1) states, "After GVWR, the size designation of tires appropriate as a minimum for the GAWR's corresponding to that GVWR." Paragraph (a) (2) then goes into GAWR which is to be followed by (b), (c), and (d) as well as the appropriate tire size. On the surface, it appears that the GVWR is to be followed only by tire size; yet, your example shows it (GVWR) followed by everything, even though it is a duplication, that follows GAWR. Which is correct? If the example is correct, why should rim size, cold inflation, and maximum speed be repeated since they obviously must be the same?

Now, as to your discussion of the comments. On page 3478, 3rd column, 2nd paragraph, you state that the commentors pointing to the large number of possible combinations making the decal too large and confusing are not correct because they fail to fully understand the rule. We have no doubt that this is true on the comprehension part; but we cannot possibly see how rim designation, tire inflation, and maximum speed can be of any possible use to the consumer when the tires on the vehicle need not be listed. We hope that people do not apply this info in servicing, driving, or replacing a larger size tire than appears on the decal. The obvious question is, if these items don't have to apply to the tires on the vehicle, what good are they?

We feel that the comments about the size of and confusion on the decal definitely are pertinent to boat trailers even if not pertinent to cars and trucks. We are limited in size (3" to 5") for vertical decal expansion; consequently, we can only go horizontally to add the new information. Since some decals encompass as many as 4 GVWR's and GAWR's (8 on a tandem) we could very easily have one whole side of the trailer which would require no paint. What you failed to realize in your comment interpretation is that 99% of the changes in tires on boat trailers are made to change capacities; therefore, your answer that the law does not require the listing of more than one tire size is just not applicable to trailers. The changing of tires changes both the GVWR and the GAWR which adds all of your additional information in as much as fourfold for GVWR and up to eightfold on GAWR for a tandem. Some trailer manufacturers even go as far as 3 axles. The only alternative to this horrendous decal that no one could read or understand is a separate one for each capacity trailer. This alternative would be utter chaos for the Marine Industry and any other trailer shipped in a knocked down condition. When the same frame has up to 4 different running gear and load capacity combinations there is no assurance that our assembly people will be able to distinguish which decal goes with which running gear. Needless to say, the people putting trailers together for a dealer will never get them right or even care. The inventory duplication will be impossible for the manufacturer and his customers.

For once, why can't trailers be excepted from the laws governing cars and trucks? They are entirely different both in type and use. Between the lighting, decal, new warranty requirements, and cutting of tire capacities, we are fast protecting the consumer fully. Since all these costs must be passed on, the consumer will soon be unable to afford a trailer; hence, full protection because no one will have one.

No Marine Dealer or consumer that we have talked to knows or cares what GVWR and GAWR means. Furthermore, most trailer manufacturers buy their wheels and tires mounted. The rim information is to be on the wheel, capacity and inflation pressure are on the tires, and the over-the-road speed limit is 55 MPH. Aren't these items enough? They are certainly a safer guide than the decal information which you admit may or may not apply to the tires on the trailer. The only problem would be a disreputable tire or trailer manufacturer mounting a high capacity tire on a lower capacity rim. The trailer manufacturers that would do this aren't legal on lights and decal (some don't even have one) now; so, they won't be affected anyway, and the tire companies simply can't afford to run that kind of risk. This will be just another means of making reputable manufacturers less competitive with our already illegal "backyard" competitors. They never even paid their excise tax and certainly aren't worried about a decal.

Please advise:

1. Whether the example or the language is correct,

2. If we have misinterpreted anything,

3. If there is any way trailers, can be excluded from the new decal requirements.

Richard L. Rogers President

cc: CHUCK VERRILL; JEFF NAPIER

ID: nht76-1.44

DATE: 06/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your May 19, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

You were particularly concerned with one paragraph in the preamble of Notice 4 (41 FR 18659; May 6, 1976; Docket No. 71-19). That notice delayed the effective dates of certain requirements of the standard. The paragraph in question is:

Manufacturers should note that, apart from the changed effective date for the requirement in S5.1.1 that vehicles be equipped with properly marked rims, there is no delay in the September 1, 1976, effective date of the standard's basic requirement, S5.1 (Tire and Rim Selection).

Section S5.2, Rim Marking, is the only the section of the standard that applies directly to rims. Section S5.1 applies directly to vehicles. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, however, two aspects of S5.1 (both found in S5.1.1) involve rims as well.

The first sentence of S5.1.1 includes a "suitability" requirement:

. . . each vehicle . . . shall be equipped with . . . rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires . . .

The second sentence, as amended by Notice 4, reads.

On and after September 1, 1979, each such vehicle shall be equipped with rims that meet the requirements of this standard.

The paragraph in question is simply a reminder that the "suitability" requirement, among others, is effective September 1, 1976, as originally established in Notice 3 (41 FR 3478; January 23, 1976).