ID: 77-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/77

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

TO: Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1977, to the Administrator asking whether the circuitry diagram that you enclosed would allow compliance with S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S4.5.2 requires that "each vehicle shall have a means for indicating to the driver when the upper beams of the headlamps are on that conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a, April 1964 . . . ." Your diagram appears to meet the specifications of J564a allowing compliance of the system with S4.5.2 when installed in a motor vehicle. The entity legally responsible for compliance with S4.5.2, of course, is the vehicle manufacturer who must certify that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

YOURS TRULY,

Lucas Industries North America Inc

MAY 13, 1977

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our sister company in Birmingham England, Lucas Electrical Limited, requests clarification of Section 4.5.2 of Standard 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment - and SAE Recommended Practice J564, which is referenced in Standard 108, Section 4.5.2.

We submit a diagram of a four headlamp installation in which a Lucas Model 21SA switch and a normally closed relay is used to ensure that the headlight circuits cannot be held in the open condition. Manual and auto reset switches are also included in the circuit to ensure correct circuit operation. We are also submitting traces showing the transient voltage conditions when switching from:

a) Main beam to dip beam

b) Dip beam to main beam

This circuitry we have developed allows, as far as we are aware, for us to comply with Section 4.5.2 of Standard 108. We look forward to receiving whatever comments you deem applicable and will be pleased to supply additional material if you so desire.

Eric E Gough Staff Assistant (Technical) 21SA HEADLAMP BEAM SWITCH CIRCUIT

(Graphics omitted) (Illegible Text)

(Graphic omitted)

ID: 77-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Michelin's March 23, 1977, letter concerning its February 20, 1976 petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your petition for reconsideration was responded to on February 7, 1977 (42 FR 7140). By this letter, you attempt to resubmit your petition for reconsideration.

Petitions for reconsideration must be received by the agency within 30 days of the publication of a notice. Since the resubmission of your petition is untimely, it has been considered a petition for rulemaking as required by Part 553.35 of our regulations (Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 49). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies your requested rulemaking.

Your petition suggests that consumers will be confused by the tire label information if the vehicle is not equipped with the tires identified on the label. The agency has determined that confusion will be minimized by the use of the optional heading "Suitable Tire-Rim Choice."

Your petition raises a second problem concerning tires of identical size designations manufactured by different companies. These tires may have different inflation pressures even though their sizes are identical. The agency understands that this difference in inflation pressure could result in confusion. Manufacturers, however, can avoid this problem through the use of the manufacturer's name on the tire information label as part of the tire information. Use of the manufacturer's name on the label should distinguish between two otherwise similar tires.

SINCERELY,

MARCH 23, 1977

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Reconsideration

Docket No. 71-19; Notice 6

Part 567 - Certification

Docket No. 75-32; Notice 2

Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars We are writing regarding your response to our petition for re-consideration of FMVSS 120 which we submitted February 20, 1976, wherein we requested deletion of the requirement that tire information appear on the certification label. It is our contention that many consumers upon seeing this label will be led to believe that the tires listed are the only tires that can be legally used on the vehicle and that the inflation pressures on the label are the required operating pressures for the tires.

In addition, the inclusion of tire pressures on the FMVSS 120 certification label will be especially confusing since tires of the same size designation can require different pressures for the same load carrying capacity.

In the response to our petition, which appeared in the Federal Register Vol. 42, No. 25 dated Monday, February 7, 1977, it is stated that it is the agency's view that any possibility of confusion can easily be avoided by an indication that the tire designation represents a radial tire, so that a person substituting a non-radial tire size with the same designation is aware that the two tires are not identical.

However, we wish to point out to the agency that we were not only referring to tires of different constructions but also to tires of the same construction. For example, a Michelin 10.00R20 LR G radial tire carrying a tire load of 6040 lbs. requires 100 psi whereas a 10.00R20 LR G radial tire standardized by the American Tire and Rim Association requires 105 psi for the same load.

Since FMVSS 119 does not require tires of the same size designation to have identical load/inflation values, the fact is that many Michelin tires have different pressure requirements than T&RA tires of the same size -- designations, even though they are both radial tires. This fact could, in some cases, cause users to underinflate their tires based on the inflation pressure indicated on the certification label.

We therefore re-submit our petition for re-consideration and once again urge the agency to reconsider the necessity of requiring information on the certification label that will lead to a great deal of confusion. We request that the requirement that tire information appear on the certification label be deleted.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: 77-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/19/77

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

TO: Bankhead Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 7, 1977, question whether the trailer portion of an auto transporter must comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, if it is manufactured after the current September 1, 1977, termination date for the exclusion of auto transporters from the standard.

As stated in a telephone conversation between you and Mr. Herlihy of this office, the current exclusion for auto transporters terminates September 1, 1977, and either portion of an auto transporter manufactured after that date must comply. Recently, the NHTSA proposed extension of the auto transporter exclusion from September 1, 1977, to January 1, 1979 (copy of proposal enclosed). The comment closing period ended July 11, 1977, and the agency hopes to reach a decision on the proposal in the near future.

SINCERELY,

BANKHEAD ENTERPRISES, INC.

June 7, 1977

Joan Claybrooks Administrator National Highway Safety Administration

Enclosed find copy of a letter from one of our customers asking us to quote on 80 new car hauling trailers for delivery after current expiration of S-121. Please note that trucks furnished by customer will be manufactured prior to Sept. 1 and without the S-121 brakes. Customer is asking if we can produce the trailer without S-121. Out current design will not accept the components for S-121. Engineering drawings will be furnished under separate cover.

It is of utmost importance that a ruling on extension of S-121 is rendered. Your prompt attention is very much appreciated.

Glenn Taylor President

May 10, 1977

Mr. Glenn Taylor, President Bankhead Enterprises

This is your invitation to bid on 80 trailers and headracks. The tractors will be conventional cab GMC's, 9500 series with tilt hoods. Specifications include 6V-92 TT engines, GMC air suspensions, tandem axle drives and disc wheels with 1122.5 tires. You should outline in your quotation the number of imports, A-bodies, B-bodies, C-bodies, compacts, pickups, vans and variations of other combinations your unit will carry. This quotation should include tractor wheelbase, also itemized price of trailer, headrack, excise tax and freight f.o.b. Dallas, Texas.

GMC has advised the tractors will be produced prior to September 1st. This will enable us to beat the deadline on 121. As the units are ready they can be shipped to your plant. However, we do not want to start putting these units in service until January 1, 1978. We would like to know if you can produce your trailers so they also will not have the 121 brake system. Equipment must comply with all federal and state regulations.

We would appreciate receiving the above information at your earliest convenience. Specification sheets are enclosed. Should there be any questions, please contact my office.

UNITED TRANSPORTS, INC.

Karon W. Thomas Director of Maintenance and Equipment

cc: RAYMOND E. SIMMONS -- UT

ID: 77-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. R. W. Straub - Governor of Oregon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to express this agency's views on legislation recently enacted by the State of Oregon which appears to be preempted by Federal legislation of the same subject matter.

Specifically, we understand that ORS 483.404 was amended in June 1977 to require that headlamps on motor vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or

". . . the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption of Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts; done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both."

Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d):

"Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title 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." [Emphasis added.]

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.

The United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, permits the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000. Further, they do not require that the headlamps be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps a passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and specifies that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, and that Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, do not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that this part of the amendment to ORS 483.404 is, in our opinion, preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect.

As a consequence, it is our conclusion that any person in Oregon manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States through the State of Oregon any lighting equipment that does not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon ORS 483.404, could be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) in an amount up to $ 800,000 (15 U.S.C. 1398(a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)). There is no preemption, however, of your State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment not currently included in Standard No. 108 (e.g. foglamps).

Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariably upheld. (See e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy, 294 F. Supp. 524 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1968), Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)). We would also observe that the interpretation by an administering agency of its own statutes and regulations, has been viewed by courts as "of controlling weight." (Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra, at 512.)

We would appreciate the views of the State of Oregon on this subject. Questions on it may be referred to the Chief Counsel of this agency, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. The agency's position on this matter was presented previously in a letter dated May 27, 1977, from Mr. Levin to the Administrator of the Oregon Senate Transportation Committee. The Committee, however, chose to disregard our opinion, when it considered Oregon House Bill 2998 and recommended its passage.

ID: 77-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. C. L. Ray - Governor of Washington; DIXY LEE RAY -- GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to express this agency's views on legislation recently enacted by the State of Washington, which appears to be preempted by Federal regulation of the same subject matter.

Specifically we understand that R.C.W. @ 46.37.320 was amended in May 1977 to require that motor vehicle "lighting devices"

". . . shall correlate with, and, so far as practicable, conform to the then current standards and specifications of the society of automotive engineers applicable to such equipment and to the headlamp standards established by the United Nations agreement concerning the adoption of approval and reciprocal recognition of approval for motor vehicle equipment and parts done at Geneva on March 20, 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian standards association (CSA standard D106.2): Provided, that the sale, installation, and use of any headlamp meeting the standards of either the society of automotive engineers or the United Nations agreement, as amended, shall be lawful in this state."

Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d):

"Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title 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." [Emphasis added.]

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.

Although Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference many lighting standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) it contains numerous qualifications of, and variations from, the SAE specifications. Even when Federal requirements and SAE specifications are identical, amendments by the SAE, which occur frequently, do not amend the corresponding Federal requirements. In short, that portion of the amendment to RCW @ 46.37.320 requiring compliance to SAE specifications does not establish requirements that are identical to those of Standard No. 108 and, in our opinion, are preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) and of no legal effect.

In addition, the United Nations Agreement, as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, permits the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000. Further, it does not require that the headlamps be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and specifies that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, does not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that this part of the amendment to R.C.W. @ 46.37.320 is, in our opinion, also preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect.

As a consequence, it is our conclusion that any person in Washington manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States through the State of Washington any lighting equipment that does not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon R.C.W. @ 46.37.320, could be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) in an amount up to $ 800,000 (15 1399(a)). There is no preemption, however, of your State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment not currently included in Standard No. 108 (e.g. foglamps).

Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariably upheld. (See e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy, 294 F. Supp. 524 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1968), Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)). We would also observe that the interpretation by an administering agency of its own statutes and regulations, has been viewed by courts as "of controlling weight." (Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra, at 512.)

We would appreciate the views of the State of Washington on this subject. Questions on it may be referred to the Chief Counsel of this agency, Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

ID: 77-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/77

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

TO: Daido Kohyo Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 30, 1977, comments concerning Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your comments question the advisability of requiring the rim size designation to be stated in the order of diameter by width. This designation would be the reverse of existing Japanese and European practices.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) examined this issue in its response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard No. 120 (42 FR 7140). The agency determined that the rim size designation should be expressed on the label in the manner proposed in the standard (diameter by width) to avoid confusion with the tire size designation which is measured in terms of width by diameter. Since publication of our response to petitions for reconsideration (which included your petition), we have received no information presenting new reasons to alter the chosen format. Therefore, the NHTSA will continue to implement the standard as published in the February 7 Notice.

In a second question, you ask whether the NHTSA requires that the information specified in S5.2 of the standard be listed in any particular order. Although the agency has not specified the order in which the information required in S5.2 should be listed, the NHTSA expects that for purposes of clarity the information in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) would be grouped together as would the information in paragraphs (d) and (e).

Finally, you note that the symbol "JIS" must be marked on the rim in accordance with requirements of the Japanese Industrial Standard while NHTSA requires only the letter "J." For purposes of uniformity the agency will continue to require the letter "J" even though this may result in the double marking situation to which you refer.

I trust that this responds fully to your comments.

SINCERELY,

DAIDO KOGYO CO. LTD.

April 30, 1977

ATT: THE DOCKET ROOM, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SUBJECT: Written Comment as for Rim Size Designation defined in (Docket No. 71-19: Notice 06: Docket No. 75-32: Notice 02) Part 572.

Reference is made to the above mentioned FMVSS as to Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle other than Passenger Cars.

The rim size designation is defined to mean the rim diameter and width, and this designation order, a diameter designation followed by a width designation, is to distinguish rim designation from tire designation. However, this order of designation is hardly agreeable for us to follow. And we have also a couple of questions to which we would like to obtain your prompt reply.

(1). ISO/TC31/SC10 has been holding meetings four times during the period from June, 1974 to February, 1977, and we, DAIDO, has been taking part in these meetings as representative from Japan and making every endeavor to ISO-rize motorcycle rims.

But it has been never down for discussion that a width designation followed by a diameter designation had better be changed to a diameter designation followed by a width designation. whereas the former designation has been conventionally used in Japan and European countries.

We write here in addition that Mr. Hollis, the representative from U.S.A., has never brought this matter forward at ISO meeting in the past.

(2). There is a danger that the one effort change of conventional rim size designation will create many troubles and confusion, which must be, we feel, more serious as compared with the confusion with tire designation.

For instance, a rim designated as 1.6 x 13 by conventional designation should be changed to 18 x 1.6 in accordance with FMVSS. At this, most of people who have been familiar with conventional designation may regard this rim as 18" width and 16" diameter unintentionally.

We would like to point out the fact that catalogues or brochures of most motorcycle distributors and dealers in U.S.A. list rim size designation as (width) x (diameter). This means that most people concerned in motorcycle trade are already familiar with the said rim designation.

(3). We understand that tire designation is (width) - (diameter) and conventional rim designation is (width) x (diameter). Here is, we can see, distinctive difference of designation, which is "-" and "x" located between width designation and diameter designation.

Even though the order of width designation and diameter designation is same between tire and rim, we feel confident that if you appeal further to a large public such rim designation will not create any troubles and confusion as ever.

(4). S5.2 "Rim marking" requires that each rim or wheel disc in case of singlepiece wheel be marked with informations listed in paragraph (a) through (e). Our question is whether these informations should be marked correspondingly to the order of (a) through (e), or random arrangement of each paragraph is acceptable.

(5). We understand that there is no restriction in marking any other informations than the requirements of FMVSS specified in S5.2. We, Japanese manufacturer, must put JIS marking in accordance with the requirement of Japanese Industrial Standard if the product is approved and authorized by JIS Authority, while it is requested to put "J" mark by order of FMVSS. This means that we are under an obligation to mark both "J" and "JIS".

We have been preparing for the enforcement date of FMVSS based on our own understanding to rim marking requirement, until the receipt of revised NHTSA notice which was issued on January 23, 1977.

We are now facing serious troubles and worrying about if our motorcycle rims can meet with the requirements of FMVSS and with the effective date, August 1st, 1977.

We would appreciate receiving your prompt comments and reply in the above mentioned regards.

Thank you very much and we remain.

(p.s.: We will write to Mr. Malinverni, chairman of ISO/TC31/SC10, to ask his opinions and the future course of ISO. After this we will possibly submit our comments again to you.)

Takeo Shimoguchi General Manager

ID: 77-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

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

TO: State of New Jersey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1977, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for our comments on the flashing of ambulance headlamps for signaling purposes. You enclosed a copy of a Bulletin dated June 27, 1977, that New Jersey recently sent to its Inspection Stations advising rejection of ambulances equipped with headlamp flashing devices.

Paragraph S4.6(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that lamps other than turn signals, hazard warning signals, and school bus warning signals be steady-burning in use, "except that means may be provided to [automatically] flash headlamps . . . for signaling purposes." The purpose of the exception was to allow continued use of automatic flashing devices in jurisdictions where it was permitted when the standard was adopted, for without the exception manufacture and sale of vehicles so equipped would have violated the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The exception provided by S4.6(b) has a preemptive effect only in that a State cannot forbid the sale and registration of a vehicle equipped with a flashing device, but there is no restriction on a State's authority to forbid the use of such mechanisms when it deems it in the interests of traffic safety to do so.

Thus, we have no objection to New Jersey's Bulletin of June 27, 1977.

SINCERELY,

State of New Jersey DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

June 28, 1977

Vinson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is written in connection with our recent phone conversation concerning the flashing of headlamps for signaling purposes as permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108.

As a matter of interest we are enclosing a copy of a Bulletin recently sent to our Inspection Stations concerning the flashing of headlamps for emergency warning purposes.

Your comments on this subject would be appreciated.

John A. McLaine, Chief Automotive Engineering Standards

VEHICLE INSPECTION BUREAU

STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

BUREAU OF VEHICLE INSPECTION ADMINISTRATIVE NOTIFICATION

DATE ISSUED: June 27, 1977

DATE EFFECTIVE: Immediately

DISTRIBUTION: Stations

STANDARD PROCEDURES:

OPERATIONS ORDER:

BULLETIN: Stations

SUBJECT: FLASHING OF MOTOR VEHICLE HEADLAMPS

ISSUED BY: Ass't. Chief

APPROVED BY: Chief, Auto. Eng. Stds.

We understand that some new ambulances are being sold in New Jersey equipped with a device which is activated when the ambulance is on an emergency trip and which causes the headlamps to flash continuously. An ambulance equipped with such a device should be rejected for the reasons given below.

New Jersey law prohibits flashing lamps on motor vehicles except as a means of indicating a left or right turn, or for hazard warning signals, or school bus warning lamps, or emergency warning lamps used on authorized emergency vehicles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 states that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes. We also have to permit this but we do not think that Federal Standard 108 was intended to permit a new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be equipped with a device which will flash the headlamps for emergency warning purposes.

Motor vehicle headlamps are manufactured to produce the amount of light required to properly illuminate the road ahead. When headlamps are flashing for signaling purposes the flashing lasts for only a few seconds and does not greatly reduce the amount of illumination provided by the headlamps. However, when headlamps are flashing continously for emergency warning purposes the amount of illumination provided by the headlamps can be reduced below the amount of light required by the Standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers.

It is recognized that emergency warning lamps of some type are needed on ambulances and a permit to equip an ambulance with approved type flashing red emergency warning lamps can be obtained from the Enforcement Bureau in the Division of Motor Vehicles. An approved type flashing red emergency warning lamp is designed for continous flashing and is placed on our approval list after we receive a report from a recognized independent testing laboratory showing that the lamp meets Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J595b or SAE Recommended Practice J845. It should also be pointed out that an ambulance using a siren is required to display at least one red lamp visible at least 500 feet to the front of the vehicle.

In case of an accident involving an ambulance using flashing headlamps for emergency warning purposes there could be a legal problem because headlamps are not designed or approved for this purpose. In addition, when improper flashing lights are used there is confusion on the part of motorists who are required to react to these lights on the highways.

The Division's policy is to encourage uniformity in the use of recognized emergency vehicle warning lamps. Please explain this policy to any emergency vehicle operators who question our disapproval of the flashing headlamps.

ID: 77-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

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

TO: Cox Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1977, informing us of your wish to relocate combination stop, tail, turn signal and side marker lamps "to the upper rear fender" of the boat trailers that you manufacture. You have asked whether this location complies with the requirements of Standard No. 108.

I am sorry that we cannot give you the interpretation you seek. Standard No. 108 requires that rear side marker lamps be mounted "as far to the rear as practicable," and stop, tail, and turn signal lamps must be mounted "on the rear." Even though, in your opinion, at your planned fender location "the lights will pass all of the required photometric and visibility requirements", when the trailer is carrying a boat the lamps are more likely to be visible "on the rear," as the standard requires.

SINCERELY,

July 7, 1977

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

With reference to Motor Vehicle Standard 108, we intend to relocate some of the combination stop, tail, turn and side marker lamps to the upper rear fender of our boat trailers. At this location the lights will pass all of the required photometric and visibility requirements.

We need from you an interpretation of the statement that "these lights must be mounted on the rear of the trailer". Could we use this mounting as long as these lights meet the other requirements and can be considered mounted as far to the rear as practicable. The distance from the rear would normally not exceed four (4) feet.

Our reasons for deviating from the rear most position on the trailer is due to trailer construction which makes rear mounting highly impractical.

Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

COX TRAILERS, INC

William F. Cox President

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: 77-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

FROM: WILLIAM B. STOVER

TO: BRIAN YOUNG -- OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN DORNAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/23/77 (EST) FROM ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS TO ROBERT K. DORNAN -- MEMBER U.S. CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 3/4/71 FROM MR. FERGUSON -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS TO EISUKE NIGUMA OF TOYOKOKYO COMPANY, LTD.

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We have been unable to get a third seat belt installed in the back seat of our 1972 Datsun Model 1200 automobile. The denials to accept the work have been based on claims of prohibition by federal law. The seat cover and top shops that used to do seat belt work before the new safety laws no longer do so as far as I have been informed.

The occupancy limit of this model has been repeatedly stated as the reason. A sticker in the glove compartment states that the occupancy of the car is limited to four adults of 200 pounds each plus a specified amount of luggage. This equates to 400 pounds of people in the back seat. Two 200 pound people in the back seat would be a tight fit, especially with the room taken by the bulky seat belt retractors. Three people totaling this 400 pound limit would not fit.

When my wife and I purchased the car, we had two small daughters. During September, 1975, we had a third daughter. Soon after her birth, we tried to get the extra seat belt installed to anchor a car seat for her in the middle of the back seat, i.e., over the bump. We were unsuccessful then and have been unsuccessful at periodic attempts to do so since then. I called Congressman Dornan's local office and discussed the problem with you after the latest attempt; a run-around involving phone calls to over ten automotive businesses.

The weight/occupancy limit is especially frustrating as the total weight of the five members of our family is significantly under 400 pounds. The fact that I was a strong advocate of wearing seat belts long before they were required also makes this conflict with the seat belt laws very frustrating.

We appreciate your efforts in our behalf.

Thank you,