ID: aiam3135

Dear Mr. Murakami:#This is in response to your letter of September 14 1979, in which you asked about the applicability of the variable intensity illumination requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*, to various components in your company's automobiles. You listed and identified these parts in Figure 1 of your letter which I will refer to in answering your questions.#The variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80 are applicable to (1) 'controls, gauges, and their identification,' and to (2) 'any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated.' As noted in section 5 of Safety Standard 101-80, the location, identification, and illumination requirements are applicable only to passenger cars and other vehicles equipped with any control listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1. The term 'gauge' is defined in Section 4 as a 'display that is listed in section 5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale.'#Applying these criteria to the list of automobile components in your letter, I have concluded that none of the listed components, except the ordinary clock and the automatic gear position illumination lamp, are subject to the requirements of Section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80. Since this result resolves the issues raised in Questions Q2.1 - Q2.5 of your letter, I have not addressed them in this response.#The components identified in your diagram by letters a - h (the room lamp, spot lamp, luggage room lamp, personal lamp, radio, foot lamp, step lamp, and the luggage room lamp for hatchback vehicles) are not subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3. This is because they are not controls listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80 and because they do not illuminate the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated. Similarly the glove box lamp and the console box lamp (items i and j) are not subject to section 5.3.3. They are not controls listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and they are not activated when and only when the headlights are activated since their activation requires both opening the box lids and switching on the headlights.#The ignition key illumination lamp (item k), which is not a control listed in Safety Standard 101-80, is activated when the light control switch is turned to the 'small lights only' position (this activates the clearance clamps (sic), identification lamps, and other exterior lamps other than the headlights.) When the switch is turned to the position that activates both, the small lights and the headlights, the key illumination lamp is deactivated. Consequently, the lamp is not activated when and only when the headlights are activated and is, therefore, not subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements.#You noted in conversation with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office that your company uses two types of clocks (item 1 in your letter) in its automobiles. One is an ordinary clock whose face is illuminated when and only when the headlights are activated. The requirements of section 5.3.5 would apply to the illumination of this type of clock.#The other clock used in your company's automobiles is a digital clock with a flourescent (sic) readout which shines with greater intensity during the day and with a lower intensity at night when the headlights are activated. Since this clock is not a control or a display listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and its illumination is not activated when and only when the headlamps are activated, the requirements of section 5.3.3 for continuously variable illumination are not applicable. Section 5.3.3 also provides that light intensity for informational readout systems shall have at least two values. The term 'informational readout systems' which is not defined in Safety Standard 101-80 refers to the term 'informational readout display,' which is defined as 'a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed.' The term 'display' includes only those displays listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard and these listings do not include a digital clock. Therefore, the digital clock would not be subject to the light intensity requirements for informational readout systems.#The automatic gear position illumination lamp (item m in your letter) is subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3. Although it is not a control (see preamble to Safety Standard 101-80, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) this lamp is activated when and only when the headlights are activated.#In Question 2 of your letter, you asked for the definition of the terms 'continuously variable' and 'variable.' The term 'continuously variable' is defined in section 5.3.3(a) and (b) of Safety Standard 101-80. It is followed by a description of the two light intensities which must be provided for informational readout systems. The term 'variable' appears in the next sentence in section 5.3.3 which states that:#>>>'The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated *shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph*. (sic)<<<#The underlined words in the quoted sentence refer to the definition of 'continuously variable' except in the case of informational readout displays where the words refer to illumination of two intensities.#If you have any further questions, I will be happy to answer them.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3136

Dear Mr. Murakami:#This is in response to your letter of September 14 1979, in which you asked about the applicability of the variable intensity illumination requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*, to various components in your company's automobiles. You listed and identified these parts in Figure 1 of your letter which I will refer to in answering your questions.#The variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80 are applicable to (1) 'controls, gauges, and their identification,' and to (2) 'any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated.' As noted in section 5 of Safety Standard 101-80, the location, identification, and illumination requirements are applicable only to passenger cars and other vehicles equipped with any control listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1. The term 'gauge' is defined in Section 4 as a 'display that is listed in section 5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale.'#Applying these criteria to the list of automobile components in your letter, I have concluded that none of the listed components, except the ordinary clock and the automatic gear position illumination lamp, are subject to the requirements of Section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80. Since this result resolves the issues raised in Questions Q2.1 - Q2.5 of your letter, I have not addressed them in this response.#The components identified in your diagram by letters a - h (the room lamp, spot lamp, luggage room lamp, personal lamp, radio, foot lamp, step lamp, and the luggage room lamp for hatchback vehicles) are not subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3. This is because they are not controls listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80 and because they do not illuminate the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated. Similarly the glove box lamp and the console box lamp (items i and j) are not subject to section 5.3.3. They are not controls listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and they are not activated when and only when the headlights are activated since their activation requires both opening the box lids and switching on the headlights.#The ignition key illumination lamp (item k), which is not a control listed in Safety Standard 101-80, is activated when the light control switch is turned to the 'small lights only' position (this activates the clearance clamps (sic), identification lamps, and other exterior lamps other than the headlights.) When the switch is turned to the position that activates both, the small lights and the headlights, the key illumination lamp is deactivated. Consequently, the lamp is not activated when and only when the headlights are activated and is, therefore, not subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements.#You noted in conversation with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office that your company uses two types of clocks (item 1 in your letter) in its automobiles. One is an ordinary clock whose face is illuminated when and only when the headlights are activated. The requirements of section 5.3.5 would apply to the illumination of this type of clock.#The other clock used in your company's automobiles is a digital clock with a flourescent (sic) readout which shines with greater intensity during the day and with a lower intensity at night when the headlights are activated. Since this clock is not a control or a display listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and its illumination is not activated when and only when the headlamps are activated, the requirements of section 5.3.3 for continuously variable illumination are not applicable. Section 5.3.3 also provides that light intensity for informational readout systems shall have at least two values. The term 'informational readout systems' which is not defined in Safety Standard 101-80 refers to the term 'informational readout display,' which is defined as 'a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed.' The term 'display' includes only those displays listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard and these listings do not include a digital clock. Therefore, the digital clock would not be subject to the light intensity requirements for informational readout systems.#The automatic gear position illumination lamp (item m in your letter) is subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3. Although it is not a control (see preamble to Safety Standard 101-80, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) this lamp is activated when and only when the headlights are activated.#In Question 2 of your letter, you asked for the definition of the terms 'continuously variable' and 'variable.' The term 'continuously variable' is defined in section 5.3.3(a) and (b) of Safety Standard 101-80. It is followed by a description of the two light intensities which must be provided for informational readout systems. The term 'variable' appears in the next sentence in section 5.3.3 which states that:#>>>'The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated *shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph*. (sic)<<<#The underlined words in the quoted sentence refer to the definition of 'continuously variable' except in the case of informational readout displays where the words refer to illumination of two intensities.#If you have any further questions, I will be happy to answer them.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0301

Dear Mr. McDonald: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1971, in which yo submitted for our review a draft of a label that you intend to use on your Bobby-Mac baby chair in accordance with paragraph S4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. We have restated the parts of your label whose compliance with the requirements of S4.1 is questionable, followed by our comments.; >>>1. 'In each position, reclining to upright, Bobby-Mac exceed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requirements for child seating systems.'<<<; We assume that you intend this statement to be your certification pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that the Bobby-Mac seat complies with Standard No. 213. While certification is not required to be placed on the label by S4.1, placing it there is not inconsistent with either Section 114 of the Act of Standard No. 213. However, we do not consider the statement you have used to be an adequate certification statement. This is because when read literally, the statement deals only with the static force requirements of the standard, as the other requirements, such as those for labeling (S4.1), providing instructions (S4.2), adjustments (S4.3), and others, are neither concerned with the 'position' of the child seat nor can they be 'exceeded.' You must certify compliance with all the requirements of the standard, and your statement should be changed accordingly. Should you wish to use it, the following statement, for child seats manufactured on or after April 1, 1971, would be satisfactory: 'This child seating system conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it on the date of manufacture shown below.'; >>>2. 'Bobby-Mac can only be used in cars with standard auto seat bel which must be used to secure Bobby-Mac safely on front or rear auto seat. In vehicles with seats more elevated from floor than usual passenger auto, thereby not permitting sufficient length in auto seat belt to loop around Bobby-Mac, or if for any reason auto seat belt is short, auto dealer or auto belt manufacturer can supply belt lengthener.'<<<; You have apparently placed this statement on the label to comply wit paragraph S4.1(e) of the standard which requires a statement describing in general terms the types of vehicles and designated seating positions in those vehicles in which the system is recommended or not recommended for use. It is your responsibility under the requirement to make certain that the types of vehicles you recommend have seat belts that are long enough to use the Bobby-Mac as recommended. You have stated that the Bobby-Mac can be used with a standard auto seat belt, but you have also indicated that there are types of vehicles or belt conditions with which the Bobby-Mac should not be used without some modification. We believe that your exceptions should be stated more objectively, such as prescribing the minimum belt loop length above the seat cushion that is required, so that a consumer can more accurately determine whether you are recommending the Bobby-Mac for use in his vehicle.; With reference to your recommendation concerning seat belt lengthener if these lengtheners are not available by April 1, 1971, your label would not comply with the requirement. If they are available your label should describe them in sufficient detail, such as by part number, so that consumers will know precisely what they must obtain in order to properly install the Bobby-Mac seat. Your seat would be required to meet the force requirements of the standard when tested in the vehicles in which you recommend it for use and using any of the seat belt modifiers that you recommend for use with it.; >>>3. 'When Bobby-Mac is used for older, taller youngster, it must b used on auto seat whose seat back or head restraint extends at least 6 inches above top of Bobby-Mac seat bucket.'<<<; In this case, you indicate that a child of a certain height must b placed at only certain seating positions. In order to provide consumers with some objective criteria by which they can determine whether Bobby-Mac is appropriate for their vehicles, the minimum height of the child that needs the additional head restraint protection should be provided, rather than describing him as merely 'older' or 'taller.' In addition, it would be preferable if you specified the total seat back height above the seat cushion that is necessary for the children you have in mind, rather than indicating this measurement as the distance from the top of the child seat bucket. The information would be more useful to consumers, as it would allow them to determine the appropriateness of the Bobby-Mac without first obtaining one.; >>>4. Finally, based upon the photographs submitted with your letter the Bobby-Mac seat does not appear to be a rearward-facing child seat. If this is the case, the statement, 'For use only on forward-facing vehicle seats,' as required by S4.1(g), must be included on the label.<<<; Please write if you have further questions. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5654

"Dear Mr. Pritzker: This concerns your August 29, 1995 letter about th replacement of a rear seat in a 1993 GEO Tracker with a speaker box. In response to your request that we speak with you about the issues raised in that letter, Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff spoke with you by telephone. In that conversation, you requested a written opinion. Our opinion is set forth below. According to your letter, the son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics 'super store' to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. An employee of that store removed the rear seat and replaced it with a speaker box. As part of this process, the female portion of the seat belt buckle was removed. You stated that the speaker box has a ledge not unlike a bench-type seat, the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on, and was carpeted. You represent a person who was sitting on this speaker box when the vehicle was involved in a serious collision, and believe that the electronics company violated the 'make inoperative' provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). As Mr. Glancy explained to you by telephone, NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a company violated the 'make inoperative' provision outside a compliance proceeding. I can, however, provide general information on how this provision applies in such a situation. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 required model year 1993 passenger cars and other light vehicles to have a Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear designated seating positions. NHTSA's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. However, section 30122(b) applies in the case of used as well as new vehicles. That section reads as follows: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative. I can offer the following thoughts concerning how section 30122(b) would apply in the context of a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business removing rear seat belts. First, electronics companies which install stereo equipment in motor vehicles are subject to section 30122(b), given the broad language 'manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business.' Second, some specific examples will illustrate how answering the question of whether a particular action makes inoperative a device installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard depends on the underlying factual circumstances. As noted above, under Standard No. 208, seat belts were required to be installed at the rear designated seating positions in the Tracker. The definition of 'designated seating position,' set forth in 49 CFR 571.3, reads as follows: Designated seating position means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. . . . The simple removal of rear seat belts from designated seating positions, without other modifications to a vehicle, would obviously make inoperative a device, i.e., seat belts, installed in compliance with Standard No. 208. Similarly, the removal of rear seat belts, coupled with replacing the rear seat with another rear seat, would make the seat belts inoperative (assuming the rear seat belts were not replaced). However, if rear seat belts were removed as part of permanently converting a passenger van to a cargo van by removing the rear seat, the removal of the seat belts would not make inoperative a device installed in compliance with a safety standard. This is because Standard No. 208 would not have required rear seat belts in the absence of rear designated seating positions. Your letter raises the question of whether a speaker box of the type installed by the electronics company would be considered to provide designated seating positions. I have enclosed a copy of the final rule establishing the designated seating position definition (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979). As discussed in that notice, any position likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position. The notice includes several discussions which are relevant to the issue of whether a position is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion. Included is a discussion that a manufacturer would not be responsible for abusive or unorthodox use of a particular position. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Glancy at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 10035

Ms. Doris Hull
Owner
Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.
Route 2, Box 2291
Sikeston, MO 63801

Dear Ms. Hull:

This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, addressed to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, whom you identified as Chief Counsel. For your future information, Mr. Hellmuth is Chief of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance of this agency. I am the Acting Chief Counsel.

Your letter referred to a May 13, 1994 telephone conversation that you and Mr. David McCormick had with Walter Myers of my staff concerning new and used tires on trailers. You asked for confirmation of your understanding of what was said during that conversation, as follows:

(a) That as a trailer manufacturer you can sell to a dealer new trailers that are stacked one on top of the other, with new tires on the bottom trailer but no tires or wheels on the stacked trailers;

(b) That you can sell used tires and rims but not installed on the new trailers; and

(c) That you can separately sell used tires and rims to the purchaser of a trailer, then install them on the new trailer if the purchaser so requests.

FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed) provides that vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements either of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Other Than Passenger Cars. Both those standards specify requirements for new tires. As an exception to those requirements, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No.120 provides that:

[A] truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of the purchaser be equipped

at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, . . . Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol (emphasis added).

With that background in mind, your understanding (a) above is correct. You stated to Mr. Myers that it is common practice in the industry to stack completed trailers one on top of another for shipment, with the bottom trailer being equipped with new tires. This office stated in a letter to Mr. Steve Thomas dated April 14, 1993 (copy enclosed), that new trailers may be sold without tires and wheels. Accordingly, it is permissible to ship trailers without tires and wheels, with new tires on the bottom trailer that is carrying the others.

Your understanding (b) is also correct, but with a caveat. No provision of Federal law or regulation prohibits you from separately selling used tires and wheels that you own to anyone you want, including dealers. However, the practice you describe implies that the dealer will be installing the used tires you've provided on the new trailers, which would amount to a violation of Standard No. 120. The standard specifically provides that used or retreaded tires may be installed on new vehicles only at the place of manufacture; the dealer is not permitted to install used tires on new trailers, whether or not owned and requested by the purchaser. Further, a manufacturer that includes used tires with new vehicles, even though not installed on the new vehicle, could be considered to be contributing to a potential violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards by the dealer.

With respect to understanding (c), S5.1.3, as noted above, requires that used or retreaded tires installed on a new vehicle be owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle. The standard, however, does not specify any length of time that the used or retreaded tires must be owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser, nor does the standard specify the source(s) from which the purchaser must have acquired the used or retreaded tires. Therefore, there is no prohibition against the purchaser of a trailer purchasing used or retreaded tires from a trailer manufacturer or from any other source, then requesting the manufacturer to install them on the new trailer. However, we have the following observations about the practice. The used/retreaded tire exception in S5.1.3 was included in the standard to accommodate bus and truck fleets who either purchase or lease tires on a mileage contract basis or who maintain tire banks. A mileage contract purchaser or lessor is one who purchases or leases tires on a per-mile basis. A tire bank is composed of serviceable tires that have been removed from vehicles no longer in service. Mileage contract purchases and tire banks are standard practices in the transportation industry and the agency assumed that those purchasers would select only safe, serviceable tires from their inventories for installation on their new vehicles. The agency also assumed that those purchasers would have owned and used those tires for some length of time prior to their being selected for installation on new vehicles. Thus, the practice of a new vehicle purchaser purchasing used tires from a trailer manufacturer and then asking the manufacturer to install them on the new vehicle was not envisioned by this agency when issuing Standard No. 120.

None of the above would relieve trailer manufacturers from their responsibility to attach the required labels with the recommended tire and rim sizes and inflation pressures in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:#109#119#120 d:8/12/94

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: nht94-3.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Doris Hull -- Owner, Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 5/16/94: Letter from Doris Hull to Robert Hellmuth (OCC - 10035)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, addressed to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, whom you identified as Chief Counsel. For your future information, Mr. Hellmuth is Chief of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance of this agency. I am the Acting Chief Co unsel.

Your letter referred to a May 13, 1994 telephone conversation that you and Mr. David McCormick had with Walter Myers of my staff concerning new and used tires on trailers. You asked for confirmation of your understanding of what was said during that con versation, as follows:

(a) That as a trailer manufacturer you can sell to a dealer new trailers that are stacked one on top of the other, with new tires on the bottom trailer but no tires or wheels on the stacked trailers;

(b) That you can sell used tires and rims but not installed on the new trailers; and

(c) That you can separately sell used tires and rims to the purchaser of a trailer, then install them on the new trailer if the purchaser so requests.

FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed) provides that vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements either of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Other Than Passenger Cars. Both those standards specify requirements for new tires. As an exception to those requirements, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120 provides that:

[A] truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of the purchaser be equipped

at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, . . . Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbo l (emphasis added).

With that background in mind, your understanding (a) above is correct. You stated to Mr. Myers that it is common practice in the industry to stack completed trailers one on top of another for shipment, with the bottom trailer being equipped with new tir es. This office stated in a letter to Mr. Steve Thomas dated April 14, 1993 (copy enclosed), that new trailers may be sold without tires and wheels. Accordingly, it is permissible to ship trailers without tires and wheels, with new tires on the bottom trailer that is carrying the others.

Your understanding (b) is also correct, but with a caveat. No provision of Federal law or regulation prohibits you from separately selling used tires and wheels that you own to anyone you want, including dealers. However, the practice you describe impl ies that the dealer will be installing the used tires you've provided on the new trailers, which would amount to a violation of Standard No. 120. The standard specifically provides that used or retreaded tires may be installed on new vehicles only at th e place of manufacture; the dealer is not permitted to install used tires on new trailers, whether or not owned and requested by the purchaser. Further, a manufacturer that includes used tires with new vehicles, even though not installed on the new vehi cle, could be considered to be contributing to a potential violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards by the dealer.

With respect to understanding (c), S5.1.3, as noted above, requires that used or retreaded tires installed on a new vehicle be owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle. The standard, however, does not specify any length of time that the used or r etreaded tires must be owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser, nor does the standard specify the source(s) from which the purchaser must have acquired the used or retreaded tires. Therefore, there is no prohibition against the purchaser of a trailer p urchasing used or retreaded tires from a trailer manufacturer or from any other source, then requesting the manufacturer to install them on the new trailer.

However, we have the following observations about the practice. The used/retreaded tire exception in S5.1.3 was included in the standard to accommodate bus and truck fleets who either purchase or lease tires on a mileage contract basis or who maintain t ire banks. A mileage contract purchaser or lessor is one who purchases or leases tires on a per-mile basis. A tire

bank is composed of serviceable tires that have been removed from vehicles no longer in service. Mileage contract purchases and tire banks are standard practices in the transportation industry and the agency assumed that those purchasers would select on ly safe, serviceable tires from their inventories for installation on their new vehicles. The agency also assumed that those purchasers would have owned and used those tires for some length of time prior to their being selected for installation on new v ehicles. Thus, the practice of a new vehicle purchaser purchasing used tires from a trailer manufacturer and then asking the manufacturer to install them on the new vehicle was not envisioned by this agency when issuing Standard No. 120.

None of the above would relieve trailer manufacturers from their responsibility to attach the required labels with the recommended tire and rim sizes and inflation pressures in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht78-3.30

DATE: 12/13/78

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

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 4, 1978, letter concerning the applicability of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, to applied windshield tint bands.

I am enclosing copies of two previous letters of interpretation by the agency regarding polyester films that appear to be similar to the product you describe. I think these letters will answer all of your questions. If not, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

ID: 18268.jeg

Robert C. Sanders, Esq.
Director and General Counsel
Parents for Safer Air Bags
Suite 300, 1250 24th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037

Dear Mr. Sanders:

This responds to your letter asking about the "one-truck credit" provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. I apologize for the delay in our response. The question you ask is answered below. This letter also responds to a question you asked in a subsequent telephone conversation about the "one-car credit" provisions.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established the one-truck credit provisions as part of its March 1991 final rule extending automatic crash protection requirements to light trucks. The final rule established a phase-in implementation of the automatic crash protection requirements for light trucks, with a specified percentage of each manufacturer's production of light trucks required to be equipped with automatic crash protection beginning with vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1994. The phase-in ended on September 1, 1997, after which date all light trucks were required to be equipped with automatic crash protection.

During the phase-in period, the 1991 final rule provided a number of "credits" for light truck manufacturers, including the "one-truck credit." While the requirements for automatic protection generally applied to both the driver's and right front passenger's positions, the one-truck credit provisions allowed manufacturers to count light trucks equipped with an air bag at the driver's position (which met Standard No. 208's unbelted test requirements) and a dynamically-tested manual lap/shoulder belt at the right front passenger's position as one truck equipped with automatic crash protection during the phase-in.

The 1991 final rule also provided that the one-truck credit provisions extended for one year beyond the end of the phase-in. From September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998, manufacturers were permitted to count light trucks equipped with an air bag at the driver's position and a dynamically-tested manual lap/shoulder belt at the right front passenger's position as a truck that complied with the automatic crash protection requirement.

Congress ultimately decided to require light trucks to be equipped with air bags and manual lap/shoulder belts, and specified a one-year phase-in of this requirement during the September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998 time period. Under this statutory requirement, the one-truck credit remained available during this one-year period.⁽¹⁾

You ask whether a vehicle which was otherwise eligible for the one-truck credit remained eligible if the manufacturer installed a passenger-side air bag that did not enable the vehicle to meet the unbelted test requirements of Standard No. 208, e.g., because the air bag had a sufficiently low inflator power level. The answer to this question is yes.

The specific language implementing the one-truck credit provisions for the light truck automatic restraint phase-in states that each vehicle "whose driver's seating position complies with the requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) by means not including any type of seat belt and whose right front passenger's seating position is equipped with a manual Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 of this standard" is counted as a vehicle complying with the automatic crash protection requirements. (S4.2.5.4(c) and S4.2.5.5(a)(2).) The specific language implementing the one-truck credit provisions for the light truck air bag phase-in states that each vehicle "whose driver's seating position complies with S4.1.5.1(a)(1) by means of an inflatable restraint system and whose right front passenger's seating position is equipped with a manual Type 2 seat belt assembly that complies with S5.1 of this standard" is counted as a vehicle complying with the air bag requirements. (S4.2.6.1.1.)

As indicated by this language, all that was needed under the one-truck credit provisions at the right front passenger's seating position was a dynamically tested lap and shoulder belt. The agency has long stated that manufacturers are free to install systems or components in addition to the required safety components, provided that the additional systems do not destroy the ability of the required systems to comply with the applicable safety standards. Thus, prior to September 1, 1998, if a manufacturer wished to install a passenger-side air bag, it was free to do so under the one-truck credit provisions, even if the air bag did not enable the vehicle to meet the unbelted test requirements of Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you cite a March 1997 statement by a vehicle manufacturer indicating that some light trucks were manufactured with passenger-side air bags that did not satisfy the unbelted test requirements of Standard No. 208. While we have not researched the matter comprehensively, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has advised that a number of manufacturers produced light trucks with passenger-side air bags that were not certified to the unbelted test requirements.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, you asked that we address the question you asked about the "one-truck credit" provisions with respect to the "one-car credit" provisions. I note that the "one-car credit" provisions preceded the "one-truck credit" provisions and were adopted as part of the phase-in of automatic protection requirements for passenger cars. The agency adopted essentially the same language for implementing the one-truck credit provisions as had been used for the one-car credit provisions.⁽²⁾ Therefore, our answer to your question about the one-truck credit provisions also applies with respect to the one-car credit provisions, i.e., a vehicle which was otherwise eligible for the one-car credit remained eligible if the manufacturer installed a passenger-side air bag that did not enable the vehicle to meet the unbelted test requirements of Standard No. 208.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.10/29/98
ref:208

1. See 57 FR 59043, 59044-45 (December 14, 1992) and 58 FR 46551 (September 2, 1993).

2. Compare S4.2.5.4(c), S4.2.5.5(a)(2), and S4.2.6.1.1 with S4.1.3.4(a)(2) and S4.1.4.1. The one-car credit provisions applied both during the phase-in of the automatic protection requirements for passenger cars (September 1, 1986 through August 30, 1989) and for the four years immediately following the phase-in (September 1, 1989 through August 31, 1993). I note that during the phase-in, all that was needed under the one-car credit provisions at the right front passenger's seating position was a manual lap/shoulder belt. For the four years following the phase-in, a dynamically tested manual lap/shoulder belt was required at the right front passenger's seating position. See 52 FR 10096 (March 30, 1987).

ID: 1984-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation -- Jack DiMaio

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack DiMaio Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you asked three questions about the size markings required for truck tires. As a general matter, Standard No. 119 leaves the question of the appropriate size marking to the discretion of the individual manufacturer or to the manufacturers collectively, through the several standardization organizations. To be certain that I fully address your concerns, however, I will answer each of your questions in the order you presented them in your letter.

1 . Please clarify whether it is allowed to market a low profile tire with a size marking of 280/80 R22.5.

At the outset, I wish to clarify one point. In this and your other questions, your size designations do not include a letter designating the tire load range. In prior interpretations of Standard No. 120, which relates to tire selection and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, I have indicated that the load range is considered a part of the size designation. This conclusion was based on the fact that many truck tires have identical dimensions, but widely varying load carrying capacities, depending on the load range. Hence, this answer and the two following assume that the size markings on the sidewall of these tires would include a letter indicating the load range assigned to the tires, as required by paragraph S6.5(j) of Standard No. 119.

Paragraph S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 specifies that each tire subject to that standard shall be marked with the tire size designation shown "in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires that tire manufacturers provide the public with a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire size the manufacturer produces. The manufacturer is given the option of itself individually furnishing such a listing to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to the public upon request or relying on the listings shown in the publications of the standardization organizations. A standardization organization is a voluntary association composed of representatives of each of its member tire companies. The purpose of standardization organizations is to establish and promulgate sound engineering standards for tires, rims, and their allied parts.

In the case of the 280/80 R22.5 size marking, you may rely on the listings published for that size by any of the standardization organizations shown in S5.1(b) or submit the listings directly to this agency and to each of your dealers. A check of the 1984 publications of the Tire & Rim Association and the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association by this agency did not show any listing for this size designation. It is possible that this size marking is listed by one of the other standardization organizations shown in S5.1(b). If not and if you wish to sell tires with this size designation, you will have to submit a listing of the size rims which may be used with this tire to this agency and to each of your dealers, as specified in S5.1(a).

2. Can the marking 280 R22.5 be used eventually?

If you wish to submit the rim matching information directly to your dealers and to this agency, pursuant to S5.1(a) of Standard No. 119, that marking may be used at the present time. However, it would be preferable if the tire manufacturers, through the standardization organizations, could agree on one size marking for tires with the same physical dimensions and load carrying capacity. This would lessen confusion on the part of consumers and tire service shops. The confusion on the part of those persons was one of the reasons the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published the tire tables for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109. Notwithstanding the agency desire that tire manufacturers use the standardization organizations to resolve tire sizing questions, there is no requirement that they do so, provided that they satisfy the requirements of S5.1(a) for disseminating the sizing information.

3. Do standardization instructions exist which say that only marking 275/80 R22.5 is possible?

No such instructions exist in Standard No. 119. It is possible that this is the only size marking which has been approved by a standardization organization and thus the only marking which can be used if the manufacturer wants to meet the sizing dissemination requirements under S5.1(b) of Standard No. 119. However, as stated above, the individual manufacturer is free to follow the dissemination requirements of S5.1(a) for tire sizes not listed in standardization organization publications.

Should you have any further questions, or need further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by a telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 28, 1984 NHTSA Rm. 5219 Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Attn: Steve Kratzke Dear Mr. Kratzke, We at Continental are in preparation of our own version of the new Low Profile truck tire. Some questions have arisen that you may be able to answer regarding size markings. 1. Please clarify whether it is allowed to market a low profile with marking 280/80 R22.5. 2. Can the marking 280 R22.5 be used eventually? 3. Do standardization instructions exist which say that only marking 275/80 R22.5 is possible? Should you have any questions or need more information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Jack Di Maio Continental Products Corporation Main Office 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 (201) 460-0200; Telex: 133 391