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: nht81-1.27

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toler & Associates

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 5 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Bob Toler, Jr. Toler & Associates P.O. Box 43117 Birmingham, Alabama 35243

Dear Mr. Toler:

This responds to your letter of January 5, 1981, requesting information about Federal regulations which apply to Ready-Mix Concrete Trailers with a GVWR of 5,000 pounds and a Dico #6 drop surge actuator hydraulic brake system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." A trailer is generally considered to be a "motor vehicle" if the manufacturer expects that it will use public highways as part of its intended function. We have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by the agency which more fully discusses the meaning of "motor vehicle."

Mr. Bloom has informed this office that in discussing with you the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards, he meant only to indicate that Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, does not apply to trailers. The following safety standards issued by this agency do apply to trailers: Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses; No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number; No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids; No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars; No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars; and No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The air brake standard would not, of course, apply to a hydraulic braked trailer.

A manufacturer of a trailer is required to certify the compliance of the trailer to these Federal safety standards. Part 566 of our regulations, Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR 566), specifies information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of motor vehicles, including trailers. Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), specifies the content of the certification label or tag that must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards.

We have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by the agency which gives a brief summary of the requirements and applicability of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (issued as of August 1978). However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. We have enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain up-to-date copies of our standards and other regulations.

In addition to our regulations, you may also wish to check the applicability of safety regulations issued by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. Unlike our regulations, which apply to all motor vehicles, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations essentially only apply to vehicles used in interstate commerce. For example, if a customer plans to use one of your trailers for work in more than one State, the trailer should meet Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations. For more information about the applicability and content of these regulations, we suggest that you write the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety at the following address:

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Federal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 5, 1981

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400-7th Street SW Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Federal Regulations Regarding Concrete Trailers with Brakes Hydraulic

Gentlemen:

On December 28, 1980, I talked to Vern Bloom with the Department of Transportation in Washington, D. C. regarding the above reference.

We are in the process of manufacturing Ready-Mix Concrete Trailers with a GVWR of 5,000 pounds and a Dico #6 drop surge actuator hydraulic brake system. Mr. Bloom said D.O.T. had no regulations on the above trailer.

To insure we manufacture according to regulations please send a letter regarding verification of no regulations or regulations we need to comply with.

Your prompt attention and reply is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Bob Toler, Jr.

BT,jr./bt

ID: nht92-8.21

DATE: March 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kenneth R. Brownstein -- Senior Counsel, PACCAR Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/92 from Kenneth R. Brownstein to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6962)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter, requesting that the agency clarify a provision in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. (49 CFR S571.120) Specifically, you asked whether under section S5.1.3, a vehicle manufacturer could, if requested by the purchaser, install retreaded tires procured by the manufacturer on a new vehicle. You stated that allowing the vehicle manufacture to buy retreaded tires would be more efficient and would help the truck owner to avoid having to make a separate purchase. I welcome this opportunity to respond to your request for an interpretation.

Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 states:

In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol.

For the vehicle manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new truck, bus, or trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that five conditions must be satisfied. These are:

(1) the purchaser must request such a retreaded or used tire, (2) the vehicle must be equipped with the retreaded or used tire at the vehicle's place of manufacture, (3) the retreaded or used tire to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser, (4) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle, and (5) used tires equipped on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 (and contain the DOT certification symbol).

Your letter indicates that in buying the retreaded tires at the purchaser's request, PACCAR's actions would comply with the first condition (and presumably the second condition). However, since PACCAR and not the vehicle purchaser would supply the tire, your requested action clearly would not comply with the third condition which requires the retreaded or used tire to be owned by the purchaser. This condition permits a purchaser to order a new vehicle without any tires and install any tire it may choose. It is not

clear from your letter whether the fourth condition would be satisfied. The fifth condition is not applicable to retreaded truck tires, since such tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on their sidewalls. Based on the above, we conclude that having a vehicle manufacturer supply a retreaded or used tire for a new vehicle would not comply with S5.1.3.

We disagree with your view that the purpose of section S5.1.3 is to allow the purchaser to choose whether the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure it has knowledge of this fact. As discussed in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the purpose of the provision is to accommodate a practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to the vehicle manufacturer for installation on new vehicles they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been taken off vehicles no longer in service. (49 FR 20822, 20823, May 17, 1984).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

Copy of Federal Register, vol. 49, No. 97, 5/17/84: rules and regulations. Pertains to 49 CFR Part 571 (docket No. 80-16; Notice 2): Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. (Text omitted)

ID: nht72-4.8

DATE: 10/20/72

FROM: F. ARMSTRONG FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 26, 1972, to Mr. Douglas W. Toms, in reference to our restraint systems and other standards for motor vehicles which may be purchased for use by law enforcement agencies.

Our Federal motor vehicle safety standards regulate new motor vehicles up to the sale to the purchaser. Accordingly, a law enforcement agency or other purchaser is not restricted by Federal law from removing or modifying required vehicle safety equipment once delivery is taken.

In the case of restraint systems, an aircraft or racing type safety harness with double shoulder belts would probably be superior to the standard automotive safety belts. However, our testing with human volunteers and baboons has demonstrated that the air cushion provides better crash protection than either aircraft or automotive safety belt systems. Thus, while we would not have reservations about replacing the standard automotive safety belts with the aircraft or racing type harness, we would not recommend replacing an air cushion system with any type of harness system. Rather, we would recommend relocating shotguns, communications, or other equipment to a location compatible with air cushion function if at all possible. In most cases, the vehicle manufacturers should be able to provide assistance in this regard.

I appreciate your interest in our motor vehicle safety programs. We would be pleased to provide whatever advice or assistance we may be able to give in assuring that law enforcement officers are afforded the safest vehicles suitable for their planned application.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 26, 1972

File No.: 1.A2711.A997

Douglas W. Toms, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Toms:

There are few who are more concerned with highway safety than the members of the California Highway Patrol. The members of this Department spend most of their waking hours striving for the reduction of injuries and deaths on the roadways of California. Certainly Departmental policy has supported all governmental regulations aimed at the reduction of highway accidents. However, some present and proposed automotive design features hinder the effectiveness of the traffic officer in performing his duties. In fact, some regulations will actually result in a reduction of safety for the patrolman or police officer.

A restraint system which will slow an officer's exit from or entry into the car can be dangerous in some situations. Could not law enforcement agencies be allowed some leeway in the ordering of their cars? An aircraft-type quick release belt/harness arrangement would be effective yet would not create the problems of entry and exit inherent to the proposed sequential system to be introduced on 1974 model cars.

Shotguns are presently mounted in a vertical position to the right of the transmission hump and are attached to the dash. The vertical mounting provides visibility of an enforcement item, the muzzle is aimed in the safest direction, and the near center location provides accessibility to each front seat occupant. If the manufacturers supply air bags to comply with passive restraint regulation, will qualified law enforcement agencies be allowed to deactivate the system until the car is sold following its useful life? The convenient and safe installation of the shotgun and communications equipment will be most difficult in a car equipped with an armed air bag system.

It would seem that some consideration must be given to the needs of law enforcement agencies. Exemptions would not be requested just for the sake of reducing problems but rather in those few instances where a design requirement in the name of occupant safety actually increases the hazard to a police officer on duty.

The problems heretofore related are only a few of the many which face those who must use basically standard production automobiles for law enforcement adaptation. It is hoped that some action can be taken in those instances where regulations may actually make the car more dangerous and ineffective for enforcement work.

W. PUDINSKI Commissioner

ID: aiam0689

Dear Mrs. Lannan: This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials' to 'coco fibre' floor mats which you supply to distributors who resell them to dealers for optional placement in cars.; Standard No. 302 does not apply to floor coverings that are no provided with the vehicle by its manufacturer. Consequently, aftermarket floor mats are not subject to its requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2208

Dear Mr. Trimble: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, which inquire 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 th near future.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0033

Dear Mr. Sonosky: This is in reply to your letter of August 29 requesting a verificatio of the interpretation of Standard 205 contained in a letter to you dated August 10 from Max Brand of Mercedes-Benz of North America.; Mr. Brand's understanding that glazing materials manufactured on o after January 1, 1968, for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, motorcycles, trucks and buses must conform to Standard 205, but that dealer inventories of prestandard materials manufactured before January 1, 1968, may be used for replacement purposes until exhausted is correct.; Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Director

ID: aiam0074

Dear Mr. Clauson: Your letter of May 20, 1968, to Mr. Bridwell, concerning pickup covers has been referred to me for reply.; Pickup covers which you describe are considered to be in the sam category as slide-in campers and are items of motor vehicle equipment for use in motor vehicles. As such pickup covers must meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials* - *Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses and Motorcycles*.; Sincerely, William H. Risteen, Office of Standards on Crash- Injur Reduction, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam0572

Dear Mr. Lockwood: This is in reply to your letter of January 20, 1972, regardin standards for retreaded automobile and truck tires.; Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to aircraft o aircraft equipment.; Standard No. 117 entitles 'Retreaded Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, does not apply to the retreading of aircraft tires and does not supersede Advisory Circular 43.13-1. A copy of the standard is enclosed.; We do not have a safety standard for retreaded truck tires at thi time.; Thank you for your inquiry. Sincerely, E.T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam1933

Dear Mr. Gobeille: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of March 24 1975, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims--Passenger Cars*.; You have inquired whether the placard required by S4.3 of the standar may display information in addition to the items specified in S4.3(a) through (d). The NHTSA has no objection to such placarding, provided that the addition information is set apart from, not placed among, the required items.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel