ID: aiam2340

Dear Senator Hatfield: This is in response to your March 10, 1976, letter concerning th 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 ties 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 withi 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 extrem 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 '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 filling and processing such petitions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4999

"Dear Mr. Twyford: This responds to your letter of April 21, 1992, t the Federal Highway Administration, which has been forwarded to this agency for reply. You wish to complain 'about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4) which operate at the same time.' If this agency plans to do nothing about it, you 'plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators.' You are not alone in your concern about headlamp glare created by new motor vehicles. Other citizens have brought the subject to the attention of Members of Congress. I enclose a copy of a recent letter from the Deputy Administrator of this agency to Senator Cohen of Maine which is representative of our views on this issue. You will see that a number of factors may be responsible for creating a perception of glare. We note that you have already been in touch with the Department of California Highway Patrol, and that California has no periodic motor vehicle inspection. With respect to the specific comments in your letter, the agency does not 'approve' specific headlamp designs. Standard No. 108 sets forth photometric performance requirements to be met on both the upper and lower beam, and does establish maximum limitations at some of the photometric test points. Further, in a four-headlamp system, the upper and lower beams may be provided by all headlamps. Headlamp manufacturers must ensure that their products meet these requirements, and certify that each headlamp complies by placing a 'DOT' mark on the lamp. There is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain permission from this agency before introducing the lamps into the market. We appreciate your concern. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3440

Dear Mr. Dunkley: Your letter to Mr. Vladislav Radovich was forwarded to my office for reply. You wrote concerning information on Federal regulations applicable to child restraint systems. In particular, you were seeking agency approval for the child restraint system you propose to market.; Manufacturers of items of motor vehicle equipment, such as chil restraints, are regulated by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.), a copy of which is enclosed. The Act does not authorize the agency to approve products. Section 114 of the Act requires 'self-certification' by manufacturers that their product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; In the case of your product, the applicable standard is No. 213, *Chil Restraint Systems*. The new version of that standard, which went into effect on January 1, 1981, requires manufacturers to certify that their child restraint system can meet the dynamic test and other requirements of the standard. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 213 for your reference.; As you requested, I am returning the pictures enclosed with you letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-2.15

DATE: 06/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carrier Transicold Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 1982, "regarding the legality of placing a red alternator warning light on the side of a truck refrigeration unit."

Because the warning light is not required as original motor vehicle lighting equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, it is subject only to the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3 that it not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment which the standard requires. The required lighting equipment on the sides of trucks are side marker lamps and reflectors, amber to the front as far as practicable and red to the rear as far as practicable. If the truck's overall length is 30 feet or greater, intermediate lamps and reflectors, amber in color, must be added at or near the mid-point between the front and rear markers.

You have not stated where the warning light will be located, nor the length of the truck on which it would be mounted. To avoid any suggestions of conflict we recommend, if the lamp is to be mounted on a truck carrying intermediate side markers, that it be as close to the rear as practicable. On a short truck equipped with only front and rear side marking devices any location from the mid-point rearward would be acceptable. These locations should also satisfy any questions State authorities may have.

SINCERELY,

May 18, 1982

United States Department of Transportation

Attention: Legal Counsel FMVSS108

Gentlemen:

I am writing you regarding the legality of placing a red alternator warning light on the side of a truck refrigeration unit. The proposed warning light would be a continuous (non-blinking) incandescent lamp, 0.64 inch in diameter. This light would function similar to alternator warning lights found on automobile dashboards, illuminating only when the alternator is failing to charge the battery.

My questions then are:

1. Is red a legally acceptable color for such a light?

2. If red is an unacceptable color, what other colors might also be restricted.

If you require any additional information in answering these questions, please contact me on (315) 432-6168 or leave a message with my secretary on (315) 432-6094.

Thank you for your cooperation.

David R. Siegenthaler Truck/Trailer Engineering

ID: aiam2948

Dear Mr. Conner: We understand that a question has arisen concerning the testing o 'P-type' tires under the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)). Under the terms of the regulation, candidate tires are to be inflated to 24 psi prior to the traction test (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D), and (f)(2)(viii)), and are to be loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), for the tires' size designation, at a cold inflation pressure of 24 psi (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(viii)). However, Appendix A lists cold inflation pressures for 'P-type' tires in kilopascals, with no stated inflation pressure corresponding precisely to 24 psi.; NHTSA chose 24 psi as the stated inflation pressure for UTQG tractio testing since it represents the recommended tire inflation pressure for most passenger cars. In the situation where no cold inflation pressure exactly equivalent to the specified pressure of 24 psi is stated in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 for a tire size designation, the tires to be tested are inflated to the pressure, listed for the tire size designation in Appendix A, which is nearest to 24 psi, *i.e.*, 180 kPa for tires with inflation pressures measured in kilopascals. The tires are then loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A for the inflation pressure thus determined. The agency plans to issue an interpretive amendment to the regulation clarifying this point.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2949

Dear Mr. Conner: We understand that a question has arisen concerning the testing o 'P-type' tires under the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)). Under the terms of the regulation, candidate tires are to be inflated to 24 psi prior to the traction test (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D), and (f)(2)(viii)), and are to be loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), for the tires' size designation, at a cold inflation pressure of 24 psi (49 CFR 575.104(f)(2)(viii)). However, Appendix A lists cold inflation pressures for 'P-type' tires in kilopascals, with no stated inflation pressure corresponding precisely to 24 psi.; NHTSA chose 24 psi as the stated inflation pressure for UTQG tractio testing since it represents the recommended tire inflation pressure for most passenger cars. In the situation where no cold inflation pressure exactly equivalent to the specified pressure of 24 psi is stated in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 109 for a tire size designation, the tires to be tested are inflated to the pressure, listed for the tire size designation in Appendix A, which is nearest to 24 psi, *i.e.*, 180 kPa for tires with inflation pressures measured in kilopascals. The tires are then loaded to 85 percent of the load specified in Appendix A for the inflation pressure thus determined. The agency plans to issue an interpretive amendment to the regulation clarifying this point.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1421

Dear Mr Utsunomiya:#This responds to your February 1, 1974, request fo interpretation of Standard No. 106, *Brake hoses*, concerning 'collapse' in S9.2.8, an incorrect value in Table VI, and proper labeling format.#Your confusion about the meaning of 'collapse' in S9.2.8 points out that the requirement was inadvertently changed between notices 7 and 8 and that it should require 'no leakage or separation of the inner tube from the fabric reinforcement of the hose'. The language will be amended in the near future.#In our response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard 106, we corrected the 5/64 value (question 2) and we accommodated labeling of short hose by permitting labeling separated by any amount up to 6 inches (question 4). You must use one line for labeling required by Standard 106, but you may interrupt the stripe on the opposite side of the required labeling with labeling for other countries, in accordance with S5.2.1 (question 5). in answer to question 3, the fractions should read 3/16, as your indicate you wish to do it.#Your associate, Mr Hirai, asked our office for an explanation of the certification requirements of S144 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as they apply to items of motor vehicle equipment to which a standard applies. I have enclosed a notice of clarification. #Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1114

Dear Mr. Stewart: This is in reply to your letter of March 22, 1973, concerning th conformity of buses manufactured by AM General Corporation with paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.' Your letter states, enclosing a drawing, that the side sash construction in these buses includes an aluminum tie bar that connects the upper and lower portion of the sash, and is located on the inside and at the center of the glass. You state this configuration precludes testing as specified in S 5.1.1, which specifies that the head form applying the load be placed at the center of the glazing. You request that the standard be revised to permit testing with the head form located as close as possible to the center of the glazing.; Based on the information you have provided, we are of the opinion tha the configuration of this window should be treated under paragraph S5.1 as two separate windows, even though only one sheet of window glazing is used. The tie bar appears to be an integral part of the window sash, and by preventing an occupant from contacting the window at that point, performs essentially the same function as a conventional divider strip. Consequently, we would expect to test this window configuration by applying the head form to the center of each half of the glazing surface.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0384

Dear Mr. Craig: This is in reply to your correspondence of June 3, 1971, requestin information on how you can receive copies of agency proposed and final regulations, and requesting clarification of certain provisions of an amendment to the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) that was published April 14, 1971.; With reference to your request to receive copies of agency rulemakin publications, we are in the process of establishing a procedure whereby members of the public will be able to receive copies of such publications on a continuing basis for a nominal charge. Until this procedure is implemented, however, upon return of the enclosed mailing list questionnaire your name will be placed on a mailing list to receive copies of relevant materials.; With reference to the amendment to the Certification regulations, yo ask whether section 567.4(g)(1)(iii)(3) requires all options to be shown with their respective gross vehicle weight ratings, pointing out that various tire size options are available with your vehicles, each of which may change the GVWR. You also ask whether the requirements of section 567.4(f)(1)(iii)(4), 'Gross Axle Weight Rating', apply to trailers.; The gross vehicle weight rating is a value specified by th manufacturer. While the manufacturer may list for it the precise weight of a fully loaded vehicle, considering all options, he is free to set the weight more arbitrarily if he so chooses. The manufacturer should establish the weight rating, however, with the understanding that his vehicle will be loaded to it in determining compliance with certain motor vehicle safety standards.; With reference to your second question, the gross axle weight rating i applicable to trailers. Many trailers are designed so that only a portion of the vehicle's weight is carried on the axle, with the remainder carried by the towing vehicle. In such cases the gross axle weight rating will be different from the gross vehicle weight rating.; Please write if you have further questions. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0592

Dear Berkley: This is in response to the petition for rulemaking that you filed o behalf of manufacturers of ambulances and funeral coaches, requesting that they be given relief from some of the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars, either by reclassification or otherwise.; You have pointed out the difficulties that ambulance and funeral coac manufacturers face in meeting the Exterior Protection standard, in light of the heavy weight of the vehicles and the necessary alterations of their rear ends for functional purposes. You noted that the Roof Crush Resistance standard will be difficult to meet because of the functional roof configuration of these vehicles, and that other passenger-car standards may cause similar problems in the future.; You also described the ways in which the chassis of these vehicles ar generally strengthened to bear their weight and perform their functions. The result of these alterations is such that these chassis, although they are produced by passenger car divisions of automobile manufacturers, are not passenger car chassis in the usual sense of the word.; A 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is described in 49 CFR S 571.3 as ' motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' It has been determined that the policy considerations that led to the placing of vehicles with truck chassis into a category separate from passenger cars apply equally to ambulances and funeral coaches, and that the chassis used for these vehicles may reasonably be considered truck chassis for the purposes of this classification.; Please be advised, therefore, that the NHTSA will consider vehicle designed and manufactured for use as ambulances or funeral coaches to be multipurpose passenger vehicles, as defined in, and with respect to the application of, the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator