ID: 2678y

Mr. Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr.
Vice President, Public Affairs,
General Counsel and Secretary
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
P.O. Box 3951
Troy, MI 48007-3951

Dear Mr. Hutchinson:

Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curry inquiring about the status of Volkswagen's exemption from certain provisions relating to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. The Administrator has asked me to respond. Your letter requested NHTSA's position on the status of Volkswagen's exemption from the provisions of section 503(b)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C 1901 et seq.), and indicated that Volkswagen considers the exemption moot and terminated. As explained below, NHTSA considers the exemption terminated as of the beginning of model year (MY) 1989.

In 1981 (46 FR 54453, November 2, 1981), NHTSA granted Volkswagen's petition seeking an exemption from the general statutory provision that a manufacturer's domestically manufactured passenger automobiles and non-domestically manufactured passenger automobiles be placed in separate fleets for purposes of determining compliance with CAFE standards. Such an exemption is authorized under section 503(b)(3)(A) of the statute. The statute prohibits a manufacturer so exempted from earning CAFE credits during the period of the exemption.

At Volkswagen's request, NHTSA granted the exemption for the indefinite future, reserving the agency's right to reconsider its action if it appeared that the exemption was no longer consistent with the purposes of the Act.

Your letter indicates that Volkswagen terminated the production of "domestically manufactured" vehicles (i.e., vehicles whose domestic content exceeds 75 percent) on June 30, 1987, and that Volkswagen's U.S. production was terminated entirely effective July 14, 1988. You believe the exemption (including its prohibition on the accumulation of CAFE credits) should have ended on June 30, 1987, but in no event later than July 14, 1988. The primary legal issue raised by your letter is how exemptions can be terminated. Although the agency expects that exemptions will normally terminate only after affirmative agency action, automatic terminations are not precluded. However, we do not believe that an exemption terminates "automatically" merely because a manufacturer terminates its production of vehicles with more than 75 percent domestic content or halts all U.S. production. To conclude otherwise could create confusion and result in exemptions being terminated in instances in which the exempted manufacturer wanted its exemption to continue. The possibility of such problems may be seen in a number of circumstances, e.g., if a manufacturer temporarily halts U.S. production and then resumes it, or if it permits domestic content to fall below 75 percent temporarily and then raises it. We note that, in situations in which a manufacturer allows the percent domestic content to fall below 75 percent and continues to produce vehicles in the U.S. with that level of domestic content, it is likely to be relatively easy for the manufacturer to raise the level back above 75 percent.

There are circumstances in Volkswagen's case, however, that lead us to conclude its exemption terminated at the time Volkswagen's U.S. production terminated in its entirety (July 14, 1988). We believe it was evident at that time that Volkswagen was not merely halting U.S. production, but doing so with an intention to permanently abandon such production. We note, for example, that Volkswagen actively sought purchasers for its U.S. production facility in advance of its termination of U.S. production. While a manufacturer could change its mind after permanently abandoning U.S. production, resumption of U.S. production would be relatively difficult. Further, subsequent events, up to and including Volkswagen's February 1990 letter, have confirmed the appearances in 1988 of permanent termination of production.

While it would have been preferable for those appearances to have been confirmed essentially contemporaneously, we conclude that Volkswagen terminated U.S. production with an intention to permanently abandon it, and that its exemption became moot at that time. Since Volkswagen could receive no benefit from the exemption, and clearly had no intention of resuming U.S. production, I conclude that the exemption should be considered terminated effective with the beginning of the first model year following the company's cessation of U.S. production, i.e., MY 1989.

This decision is consistent with section 503(b)(3)(F) which provides that in any model year in which an exemption is effective, no credits may be earned. We interpret that section as requiring the bar to continue to the end of the model year in which the exemption terminated. Hence, the prohibition against earned credits is deemed to have ended with the beginning of the 1989 model year. I note that during MY 1989, Volkswagen accrued a CAFE credit excess of $28,798,575 for its passenger cars, and $56,310 for its light trucks. I hope you have found this information useful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:CSA d:l0/l/90

ID: GF006474

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, 5^th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609




Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in response to your letter in which you requested an interpretation of the new tire information requirements in S4.3.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask if the tire and rim information specified in S4.3.3 of FMVSS No. 110 could be set forth separately from the certification label. As discussed below, the answer is no. However, as we have indicated in the past, it is permissible to provide a certification label in two parts under certain circumstances.

S4.3.3 reads (with emphasis added) as follows:

Additional labeling information for vehicles other than passenger cars.Each vehicle shall show the size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for the tire appropriate for use on that vehicle, including the tire installed as original equipment on the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer, after each GAWR listed on the certification label required by 567.4 or 567.5 of this chapter. This information shall be in the English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 2.4 millimeters high and in the following format:

Truck ExampleSuitable Tire-Rim Choice

GVWR: 2,441 kilograms (5381 pounds).

GAWR: Front1,299 kilograms (2,864 pounds) with P265/70R16 tires, 16 8.0 rims at 248 kPa (36 psi) cold single.

GAWR: Rear1,299 kilograms (2,864 pounds) with P265/70R16 tires, 16 8.00 rims, at 248 kPa (36 psi) cold single.

The information required by S4.3.3 thus cannot appear separately from the certification label.

We note, however, that as we explained in a May 3, 1984, letter to Takeshi Tanuma of Nissan, NHTSA permits the use of a certification label in two parts, under certain circumstances. We explained that while the Part 567 certification regulations specify that "a label" must be used, the agency has permitted the use of a label in two parts in circumstances which will not lead to confusion and which will satisfy the basic intent of Part 567. Specifically, the two portions of the label must be placed in close proximity to each other, to permit individuals to readily find all the specified information and to leave no doubt as to the significance of either portion of the label. Further, the two portions must be oriented in such a manner that the specified information appears in the required order. As a practical matter, these considerations require that the two portions be affixed to the same vehicle part. While the agency did not specify a particular distance as a maximum permissible separation of the two portions of the label, we stated that the two portions must be located so as to leave the unmistakable impression that they provide related information.

Accordingly, the information required by S4.3.3 cannot be separated from the certification label. However, the certification label may be affixed in two parts under the circumstances described above.

We note that the information required by S4.3.3 cannot be added to the tire information placard required by S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. As the agency previously explained in amending the tire safety information regulations, additional information is not appropriate because it would overcrowd the already content-rich vehicle placard (see 69 FR 31306 at 31311).

Finally, we note that in the end of your letter, you requested that, if a separate label is not permitted, the agency treat your letter as a request for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 110 in order to afford vehicle manufacturers the option of specifying alternative tire and rim information separately from the certification label. However, your letter did not provide sufficient supporting information for us to determine whether rulemaking would be warranted.

If, after reviewing this letter, you still believe that rulemaking is needed, please submit a petition for rulemaking with detailed supporting information. Among other things, the agency would want to examine actual examples (photographs) of vehicles unable to display the information required by S4.3.3 on the usual certification label or a split certification label. We would also want to review additional information about spacing problems, and what location requirements might be appropriate for an additional label.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.11/16/05

ID: 9478

Mr. Ted H. Richardson
Fleet Coordinator
Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 1540
Mt. Pleasant, TX 75456-1540

Dear Mr. Richardson:

This responds to your letter and telephone call to this office asking our opinion regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Your letter referenced a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff about the applicability of FMVSS 120 to your product. As Mr. Myers informed you, the answer to your question depends on whether your product, the "Wishbone Carriage" used to position and carry the "Priefert livestock chute" is a "motor vehicle" (i.e., trailer) under our Safety Act and regulations. Based on the information we have, we believe the answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles. Section 102(3) (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) of the Safety Act defines motor vehicle as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA further defines "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Your letter enclosed a brochure containing pictures and other information relating to the livestock chute (Priefert Squeeze Chute, Model 91). The chute is farm equipment. The upper 2/3 of the chute is constructed of steel bars, while the lower 1/3

is composed of steel panels on both sides that can be lowered or removed. The chute comes with such accessories as head gate, tail gate, and calf table. The chute is positioned on the ground in a barnyard, feed lot, pasture, or field. It is used to channel livestock or, with the head and/or tail gate in place, to immobilize an animal for medicating, branding, tagging, and the like. Your information also describes the carriage that transports the chute. The Wishbone Carriage is a 2-wheeled U-shaped dolly which is designed to be manually attached to special fittings on the chute. With the carriage thus attached, the chute can be towed by vehicle to the next job site. Once at the next job site, the wheeled carriage is detached and the chute is once again placed on the ground for use.

Whether the Wishbone Carriage is a motor vehicle (trailer) depends on its on-road use. This agency has consistently held that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining equipment, are not considered motor vehicles even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, as well as equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor vehicles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

We have determined that the Wishbone Carriage is not a motor vehicle, because it appears it will be primarily used to transport the chute from job site to job site on the farm. Not being a motor vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including FMVSS No. 120, would not apply to your product.

Please note, however, that if the Carriage is regularly used to carry the chute from farm to farm on public roads, or is used more frequently on the public roads than the use we anticipate, the agency may reexamine the determination that the carriage is not a motor vehicle. Also, you may wish to consult your attorney for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and use laws and product liability.

I hope this information is helpful to you. We have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 120 and provided you our definition of a trailer, as you requested. 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:120#VSA d:4/12/94

ID: 8210a

Mr. Thomas L. Wright
Coordinator, Technical Support Unit
State of New Jersey
Department of Law and Public Safety
Division of Motor Vehicles
Trenton, NJ 08666

Dear Mr. Wright:

This responds to your letter to Patrick Boyd of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, concerning window tinting. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Your questions relate to a January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the tinting requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You ask about the status of the NPRM. The agency received a large number of comments on this rulemaking. We have reviewed the comments and are analyzing the issues raised in this rulemaking.

You also ask about a statement in the NPRM about Federal preemption of state window tinting laws. You ask whether Federal law preempts a state law that permits add-on window tinting material for medical or aesthetic reasons.

As explained below, the answer is no, provided that the state law regulates conduct other than that regulated by Federal law. Your question was addressed in the NPRM's discussion of the Federalism implications of the proposed rule (p. 2507).

By way of background, NHTSA issued Standard 205 under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Section 103(d) of the Safety Act provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Whether state law is preempted under 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205.

Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that:

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

The effect of this is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law.

I have enclosed a copy of the Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows which you requested. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205 d:3/11/93

ID: 7685

Mr. Paul D. Barron
Professional Technologies International Inc.
400 South Vermont #116
Oklahoma City, OK 73108

Dear Mr. Barron:

This responds to your inquiry about this agency's requirements that are applicable to your product, a "UV Heat Shield." Your sales literature explains that this product is a UV protective window film that permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front windshield. You state that the UV Heat Shield blocks ultra-violet radiation from entering the vehicle's occupant compartment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not however approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (e.g., 70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure driver visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install your window film over the glazing, that subsequent manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 with the window film installed. I note that while you state that your window film permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front windshield, it is the windshield with your product installed that would be required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any applicable safety standard. This provision means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles. If you are interested in further information on the provisions on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

In addition, under the Safety Act, the UV Heat Shield would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:205 d:10/22/92

ID: 77-2.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/77

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

TO: Sullair Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1977, question whether your company's wheel mounted portable air compressors qualify as motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, (15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et. seq.).

The answer to your question is yes. Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use the public highways as part of its intended function. Vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. Since your portable air compressors are used in this manner they qualify as motor vehicles. For purposes of regulating motor vehicles, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established vehicle catagories within that class. Your portable air compressors meet the definition of one of those catagories, trailers.

The following safety standards are applicable to the manufacture of trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses (in the case of trailers equipped with air brakes); and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

You will have to certify the compliance of your trailers to these safety standards. Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR Part 566), specifies identification information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of vehicles and equipment that are regulated by our safety standards. Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567, specifies the content and location of the certification label or tag that must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards.

SINCERELY,

SULLAIR CORPORATION

April 1, 1977

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

Sullair Corporation requests a formal determination as to whether or not wheel mounted portable air compressors manufactured by our company fall under the jurisdiction of 15USC1391-1431 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, or any of the Federal Regulations listed in Appendix 1, or any other Federal Regulations administered by the United States Department of Transportation.

Briefly, our wheel mounted portable air compressors can be categorized as shown in Fig. 1 through 4, attached. Obviously, all of these categories may be considered trailers. They all have pneumatic tires, some with rims. They all contain an engine with fuel system, but none are self propelled, nor are they intended to carry passengers or any operator, and some are lined with acoustical materials.

15USC1391-1431 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Title 1, Part A, Sec. 102, (3), states -" 'Motor Vehicle' means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails".

Our interpretation of this statement has been that our wheel mounted portable air compressors do not come under the jurisdiction of these Federal Regulations due to the fact that they are manufactured primarily to provide compressed air at construction sites and the like, and the fact that they are drawn over public street roads, and hghways for the purpose of transporting them from one construction site to another, or to the site of road repair, for example, was only incidental to their use, and not the primary function they are manufactured to perform.

Occasionally, we factory install customer specified optional equipment on these wheel mounted portable air compressors, such as electric, hydraulic, pneumatic, or vacuum operated service brakes, mechanical, hydralic, or pneumatic, operated parking brakes, electric or hydralic operated brakeaway brakes, safety chains stop lights, turn indicator lights, tail lights, running and/or clearance lights, hazard warning lights, and/or reflective devices, for example.

It has been our thinking that installing this sort of optional equipment only enhances the safety with which these wheel mounted portable air compressors may be drawn from one work site to another, and in no way alters the primary function that they are manufactured to perform, and as a result, does not automatically bring these products under the jurisdiction of the Federal Regulations mentioned elsewhere.

Please let us have your determination as to whether or not our interpretation and thinking are correct.

E. C. Elliott Engineer, Product Safety and Environment

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: 77-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

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

TO: Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 20, 1977, letter asking whether your proposed certification labels comply with the requirements of Part 567, Certification.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. We will, however, issue an opinion of whether your labels appear to comply with the regulations. The labels you submitted appear to comply with all but one of the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. On your certification labels, you list the symbol "W/" before the rim information. This symbol should be dropped from the label. Further the rim size designation should use the symbol "x" between the diameter and width. Information supplied on a certification label must be provided in the form detailed in Part 567.

SINCERELY,

UTILITY TRAILER MANUFACTURING CO.

May 20, 1977

N.H.T.S.A. Attn: George Shifflett

Re: Code NMV-22

Please give me an interpretation as to whether our proposed certification labels per attached drawings AB-2381A and AB-2383A meet the requirement of 49CFR571.120-5.3 and 49CFR567.

The peculiar aspects of these labels and reasons for them are as follows:

1. Since the GAWR, tire size, rim size, and tire cold inflation pressure are the same for all axles on a trailer, this information is listed once. Note that a trailer typically will have 1, 2, or 3 axles.

2. The actual tire sized delivered on a trailer and its inflation pressure will be stated to avoid misinforming the customer as to the proper inflation pressure required and the possible associated product liability. For example if our label called out GAWR = 20,000. With 11-24.5 (F) tires with 24.5 x 3.25 rims, at 75 PSI cold dual, but the trailer was delivered with Michelin 11 R 24.5 x (G) tires, and our customer followed the 75 PSI inflation pressure per our label instead of the inflation pressure stated on the tire sidewall, the tire capacity per axle would only be 1d, 185. Note that the 11-24.5 (F) is a popular tire used to achieve the 20,000 maximum per axle load bridge law and that its 75 PSI inflation pressure is a maximum.

3. The label per AB-2387A lists (8) different popular sizes. Since tires sizes are change frequently on stock trailers at the (Illegible Word) level this should reduce the required frequency of exchanging certification labels and thus reduce the number of circarded or called labels that get into the hands of thieves for use on stolen trailers to misrepresent the actual V.I.N. California State Highway Petrol has stated, that handling of replacement certification labels is a real problem today.

Please answer within two (2) weeks, as we must order new labels by mid June, in order to be ready for September 1, 1977 effective date. Call me at (213) 965-1541 if I can be of any help in answering questions.

Paul F. Bennett Chief Engineer

NOTES:

TABLE FOR STAMPING INFORMATION TO BE BRIGHT BRASS. NO PRINTED MATTER LESS THAN 3/32 HIGH. ALL PRINTED MATT TO BE CAPITALS. BACKGROUND GLOSSY BLACK MATL. NOT LESS THAN .032 BRASS.

(Graphics omitted)

MASTER DWG. RETURN TO FILE. IN DRAWER #17 INDEX PG. #1

REVISION DATE REFERENCE DRW NO. THIS DRAWING IS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UTILITY TRAILER MFG. CO. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF UTILITY TRAILER MFG CO. UTILITY TRAILER MFG CO. CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA D.O.T. CERTIFICATION LABEL SPECIAL VEHICLES DRN PAT.C SERIAL AND SHOP ORDER CHD. SALES OFFICE PT. NO. 03-5600-0-027 DATE: (Illegible Words)

OWG NO.: AB-2383-A

NOTES: (Illegible Data)

C. ALL DIM. FOR INDIVIDUAL BLOCK LETTERING PER DWG AB-2383A EXCEPT AS NOTED.

(Graphics omitted)

REVISION DATE: REFERENCE DWG NO. THIS DRAWING IS A CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UTILITY TRAILER MFG. CO. AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF UTILITY TRAILER MFG. CO. UTILITY TRAILER MFG. CO. CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA D.O.T. CERTIFICATION LABEL STD DUAL AXLE VEHICLES DRN.: (Illegible Word) SERIAL AND SHOP ORDER CHD. SALES OFFICE DATE: MAY 30, 1977 DWG NO.: AB2383A

ID: 77-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/77

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

TO: Grove Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) tire label requirements contained in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You address the situation in which it is not practicable to affix the information label to the door.

Location of vehicle certification labels and tire information labels is governed by Part 567.4(c). This section provides that the primary location of the required labels is either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the drivers seating position, or if none of these locations is practicable, to the left side of the instrument panel. Further, if none of the above locations is practicable, you may request an alternate location from the agency. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 explaining how to request an alternate location for the information label.

SINCERELY,

February 17, 1977

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for deviation applicable to Part 567, and FMVSS #120 (Certification Labeling)

Reference: 42 FR 7140 dated February 7, 1977

As manufacturers of mobile hydraulic cranes it has always been our company policy to conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to the best of our ability. As you are probably aware, a self-propelled crane has unique features as regards their work function, and as such, manufacturers are obligated, morally and legally, to assure these features, both carrier and superstructure modes are properly placarded as to operation, maintenance, etc. and notwithstanding, safety which is always our prime concern.

The most important document that accompanies our product line to the ultimate user is the operators handbook. Not only do we supply such a document with the physical shipment of the crane but also provide a second set geared to the specific model involved to the buying distributor. The operators handbook must be fully understood and digested before a crane operator physically operates the equipment. It is to be noted, that the prime-mover (carrier) is equally important as to safety of operation as is the superstructure cranning function.

Tire and rim selection from the design Engineering viewpoint is rather unique within our industry in that, crane manufacturers per se do authorize limited "Lift" capability on rubber and subsequent movement of the load at a given maximum speed. Decal location of these "on rubber" limits are posted to the centerline of the driver side carrier door adjacent to the vehicle certification label. In addition, this information is fully cited in our operators handbook along with suggested substitutes of tires and rims with their recommended cold PSI for on rubber and highway functions.

One must also consider the usage factor of this type of equipment within the realm the real world. Construction companies and users of our type of equipment are considered unique in that usage of the equipment is primarily performed in an off-highway configuration, yet is capable of travel from the owners yard to the job site. However, in terms of odometer miles on the carriage in any given time-frame, it would equal merely a fraction of an over the road semi-tractor type piece of equipment.

Attached herewith as Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 are typical examples of our certification label and tire inflation chart decals. Attached as Enclosure 3 is a typical decal installation drawing on one of our crane families. Please note the many different types of decals ie, caution, warning, danger, etc. which we, as vehicle manufacturers, feel obligated to attach to our machine totally in the interest of safety to our users. To expand our present certification label to include suitable tire and rim information would increase the overall size by one-third. The label is presently sensitized to a metal mounting plate which is needed due to the acoustical package placed on the exterior of the door for noise abatement. The door therefore, would require extensive redesign along with an enlarged mounting attachment for the decal. Predicated on the type of equipment, work function, and limited highway travel mode, it is requested that your Administration reconsider the label information requirements under S5.3 for our type of equipment and keeping in mind that we have and are conforming to the standard and merely are asking relief as to location of the mandated information.

GROVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

R. G. Wilkins Product Safety & Reliability Analyst

cc: E. GARDENHOUR; W. KENNER; L. JOHNSON; F. KRUECK; H. BARRETT; B. SPANGLER

(Illegible Text)

ID: nht81-2.44

DATE: 07/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Burlington Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehcile Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR @ 571.117). Specifically, you asked if the addition of "edger fabric strips", pursuant to a process covered by U.S. Patent 4,196,764, would violate the prohibition in section S5.2.2(b) of Standard No. 117 against adding belts to retreaded passenger car tires.

The described process is prohibited by section S5,2.2(b), because it is clearly adding a belt to the tire.

In the abstract of the subject patent, which you included in your request for an interpretation, is the following statement: "The invention relates to the use of reinforcing cords associated with the pneumatic tire . . ., and the method of applying such reinforcing cords woven in a warp and weft relationship cut in a bias shape to form a belt . . . ." Similarly, in the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments section of the patent, Section 3 begins, "The essence of my invention is achieved by providing an extra belt . . . ." Hence, the patent itself states that this process involves the addition of a belt to retread tires. Such an addition is expressly forbidden by section S5.2.2(b) of Stanard 117; "No retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing on which a belt or ply, or part thereof, is added or replaced during processing."

Your letter stated that this edger fabric should not be considered a belt for purposes of the Standard, because the addition of the edger makes a retreaded tire safer and longer lasting. While you may be correct concerning the performance of "edger fabric," the Standard as currently written does not permit its use. If you wish, however, you may file a petition for rulemaking requesting this agency to amend Standard 117 to permit the addition of a belt such as edger fabric by following the requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). If you choose to do so, please include all data showing that the addition of this extra belt makes the retreaded tire safer, and that the edger fabric belt would be compatable with the existing cords of the casing that is used.

Finally, let me point out that Standard 117 applies only to retreaded passenger car tires. There is no safety standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and the use of this patented process on those tires would not violate any requirements of this agency.

Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff sends his regards.

ENC.

May 1, 1981

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration Attention: Stephen Kratzke

Re: NHTSA Standard No. 117 - Retreaded Pneumatic Tires

Dear Sirs:

Upon suggestion by Mr. Stephen Kratzke, I am writing to request an interpretation of NHTSA Standard No. 117 relating to retreaded pneumatic passenger car tires. In particular I would appreciate a written opinion as to whether S 5.2.2(b) of the Standard would apply to a retreading process by which the tire was stripped and a recap containing "edger" fabric molded therein then bonded to the carcass. For your better understanding, please note that "edger" fabric is a narrow strip of fabric positioned on each side or shoulder of the recap around the entire perimeter of the tire. The strips are intended and believed to aid in the prevention of steel belts "turning up" and rendering the recapped tire unsafe.

A careful reading of Standard No. 117 convinces me that "edger" fabric strips which are molded into the retread prior to the retread being secured to the casing is not addition or replacement of a belt or ply to the casing as contemplated by Standard 117. In fact, the purpose of the "edger" fabric is entirely consistent with the purpose of Standard 117 in that it is intended to make a retreaded steel belted tire safer and longer lasting than if the fabric were not incorporated into the recap. To hold that the "edger" fabric falls within the language and intended scope of Standard 117 would therefore run counter to the purpose and policy considerations behind the Standard.

In order that you may more fully understand the nature of the recapping process utilizing an "edger" fabric incorporated into the recap, I have attached hereto a copy of a U.S. patent generally directed to the process and highlighted some of the more pertinent portions. I hope that the above is sufficient for full understanding of our request, but please do not hesitate to call me at (919) 379-4517 if I may offer further explanation.

We respectfully solicit an expeditious opinion on this matter and thank you for your assistance to us.

Richard E. Jenkins Assistant Patent Counsel

ATTCH.

ID: nht80-3.38

DATE: 08/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Renault USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION August 25, 1980

Mr. Francois Louis Head of Governmental Affairs Renault USA 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit, Michigan 48232

Dear Mr. Louis:

This responds to your letter of July 14, 1980, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether an engine stop control mounted on the engine cover of a cab-over-engine truck must be illuminated. The answer is no, it need not be illuminated.

Section S5.3.1 of the standard provides that except for "foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column, " any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4 shall be capable of illumination whenever the headlights are activated. Since the engine stop control is listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, it must be illuminated, unless it falls within one of the exceptions of S5.3.1.

In the case of the engine stop control in your truck, the control is located on the engine cover. Because the engine cover is separate from the instrument panel and mounted on the floor between the two front seats, the agency considers it a floor console. Thus, the engine stop control located on the cover does not have to be illuminated.

I would like to emphasize that oral interpretations by agency staff are only unofficial opinions. Therefore, if you have questions in the future, they should be directed at the outset in writing to this office.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 14, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to seek NHTSA's confirmation of the following interpreration given to us orally, by Mr. John Carson of the Rulemaking Staff:

"The engine cover of a cab-over-engine truck depicted on the attached drawing constitutes a floor console, and, therefore, under the provisions of paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS 101, the engine stop control mounted thereon need not be illuminated."

We would appreciate confirmation at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely.

Mr. Francois Louis Head of Governmental Affairs

Mr. Francois Louis Head of Governmental Affairs Renault USA 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit, Michigan 48232

Dear Mr. Louis:

This responds to your letters of July 14, 1980 seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether an engine truck must be on the engine cover of a cab-over-engine truck must be illuminated. The answer is no, it need not be illuminated.

Section S5.3.1 of the standard provided that except for "foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console or steering column," any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4 shall be capable of illumination whenever the headlights are activated. Since the engine stop control is listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, it must be illuminated, unless it falls within one of the exceptions of S5.3.1.

In the case of the engine stop control in your truck, the control is located on the engine cover. Because the engine cover is separate from the instrument panel and mounted on the floor between the two front seats, the agency considers it a floor console. Thus, the engine stop control located on the cover does not have to be illuminated.

** I would like to emphasize that oral interpretations by agency staff are only unofficial opinions. Therefore, if you have questions in the future, they should be directed at the outset in writing to this office.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerly,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NOA-30:SLOesch:pfp:8/6/80 cc: N)A-30 Subj/Chron, NOA-30 Mr. Oesch NEF-30, NRM-10, Interps: Std Redbook: (3) cc-963 1a

**NOTE: During the phone call Mr. Louis was advised that any remarks or opinions by the engineer were purely personal and that he must write to the Office of Chief Counsel for an official interpretation. This is standard procedure whenever anyone calls about an interpretation of a standard