ID: nht73-1.27

DATE: 05/25/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of May 14, 1973, you present the fact situation of an equipment manufacturer who installs lighting equipment on a component which he supplies to distributors or dealers, for installation by them on motor vehicles. For purposes of this letter, I assume that the installation occurs before the first sale of the vehicles for purposes other than resale. You ask what the equipment manufacturer should do to advise the distributor or dealer "that the lamps and/or reflectors which he has affixed to his product meets the published S.A.E. specs required by Standard 108."

There is no Federal requirement that an equipment manufacturer in this fact situation supply compliance information, although covered equipment that he sells must continue to conform. The requirements for certifying or otherwise providing information concerning conformity with Standard No. 108 apply to the manufacturer of the lighting equipment, and the manufacturer(s) (final-stage and others) of the vehicle in question. It may well be that the customers of the supplier you describe will demand assurances of conformity through commercial channels.

Yours truly, Mr.

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Legal Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm., Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20591

Good morning, Dick!

One of our members, who is a bumper manufacturer, has asked for the correct procedure he should use when supplying a license plate lamp for the rear bumper which he produces and sells to distributors and dealers.

I can't see that he would be required to report his production of this bumper, since the unit itself is not covered by a Safety Standard. It would seem however, that he should provide some sort of data regarding the S.A.E. specs of the lamp which he places in the bumper.

Now that I think about it, this is really no different than the body manufacturer who supplies lamps and reflectors as a part of his body or body kit, which could open a whole can of worms. Therefore, I need to rephrase my question to include all lamps and reflectors which manufacturers provide Final-stage Manufacturers. Based upon the above, what must a prudent manufacturer do, if anything, to advise the Final-stage Manufacturer that the lamps and/or reflectors which he has affixed to his product meets the published S.A.E. specs required by Safety Standard 108?

Thaks in advance for your cooperation with this matter.

Best regards,

THOMAS S. PIERATT--

Executive Secretary

ID: nht73-1.28

DATE: 04/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: ADC Marketing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking for a clarification that the Front brake Light Adapter you describe "does not fall within the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108." The adapter, as we understand it, connects the stop lamps with the front turn signal lamps so that when the brakes are applied, the front turn signal lamps are activated in a steady-burning state, indicating that the vehicle is decelerating or has come to a halt.

In our opinion, use of the adapter as original equipment on a vehicle might be precluded by paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibiting devices that impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. The front turn signal lamp is a lamp that flashes in operation to indicate to oncoming drivers, or pedestrians, that the vehicle is preparing to turn, or that a potential hazard exists ahead (when the system is activated as a hazard warning system). Accordingly, when the brake pedal is applied, if the adapter overrides the flashing effect of the front signal lamps it would impair their effectiveness, and be prohibited by Standard No. 108.

The adapter would be permissable as original equipment, however, provided that the signals still flash when the brakes are applied, but a State would not be preempted from regulating it. Nothing in the standard precludes aftermarket sale of the adapter, but its use also would be subject to regulation by the individual States.

Yours truly,

March 29, 1973

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration

Attention: Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

Subject: Regulation Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 --

Front Brake Light Adapter

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to a meeting today with Mr. Lem Owen of the Lighting and Visibility Division and the suggestion that we place in writing our request for an official ruling that the Front Brake Light Adapter submitted does not come within or violate the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have submitted samples and discussed the background of the Front Brake Light Adapter presently being marketed by ADC Marketing, Inc. with the Lighting and Visibility Division, and it has been verbally stated that in their opinion this does not apply to Regulation No. 108.

We believe that we have satisfactorily shown to your Lighting and Visibility Division that there is a definite safety factor involved and that the Adapter does not impair or change, in any manner whatsoever, the present function of the lighting system of any automobile and, therefore, does not violate any of the provisions in Regulation No. 108.

Recently we submitted Form 1171, Docket No. R3-73-163, an Application for Presenting New or Improved Articles, to the General Service Administration, Federal Supply Service requesting a Schedule Contract on the item. At this instance Standardization Division of GHA questioned whether this might come within the provision of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and while the verbal opinion given us in todays meeting would suffice for our own information, we feel that a written ruling should be made.

This Front Brake Light Adapter was first submitted to your Division in 1970 and correspondence continued into 1971. At that time U.S. Senator E.S. Muskie referred Mr. Clarence C. Turner's inquiry to your Division with the request that this item be included in Motor vehicle requirements. We are not pressing in this request for such a consideration, however, we do need to have clarified that this Front Brake Light Adapter does not fall within the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Very truly yours,

ADC MARKETING, INC.

LOUIS A. SISLER,

General Counsel

cc: Lloyd E. Singleton

Samuel P. Haines

ID: nht73-1.29

DATE: 08/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1973, asking whether a rear "light signalling" switch may be installed on your vehicles.

As I understand your letter, the switch and circuitry in question provide automatic flashing of side markers, clearance, tail, and identification lamps. Wiring of this nature, whether installed by the incomplete, intermediate, or final stage manufacturer would violate S4.6(b) of Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.5.8(b)). You are correct in saying that a switch and circuit may be furnished by manufacturers of truck-tractors, and incomplete vehicles for flashing only the side markers, and "that trailer manufacturers and subsequent vehicle manufacturers shall be responsible for the electrical circuitry to insure that marker lamps are independent from clearance, tail, and identification lamps." Of course, wiring these lamps to the same on-off switch would not violate the standard provided there is no flasher in the circuit.

You also ask "who assumes the responsibility for older trailers which will not have marker lamps on an independent circuit." The person completing the circuitry on a trailer is responsible for compliance to standards in effect when the trailer is completed.

Yours truly,

July 19, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

ATTENTION: Office of the Administrator

SUBJECT: Request for interpretation of use of interrupting switch for flashing vehicle lighting for signalling purposes.

REF: Part 571.108, Standard 108, Paragraphs 54.5.3 & 54.5.8 (b)

Dear Sir:

As a manufacturer of heavy duty motor trucks, Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc. receives many customer requests for a "light signalling" switch, which we have refused to furnish.

Paragraph 54.5.8 (b) permits flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps. Is it the intent that a manufacturer of truck-tractors (complete vehicle when 5th wheel is installed) and original manufacturer of "Vehicles Built in Two or More Stages" may furnish a switch and circuit for flashing markers only, and that trailer manufacturers and subsequent vehicle manufacturers shall be responsible for the electrical circuitry to insure that marker lamps are independent from clearance, tail, and identification lamps? If so, who assumes the responsibility for older trailers which will not have marker lamps on an independent circuit?

Customers report that other truck manufacturers do furnish a rear lighting signalling switch and, due to our refusal (based on our interpretation) to offer this type of switch, Diamond Reo is being placed at a disadvantage when bidding on vehicle build contracts.

Your immediate interpretation will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

DIAMOND REO TRUCKS, INC. -- R. D. Shepard, Staff Engineer - Electrical & Safety

cc: G. Sztykiel

ID: nht73-1.3

DATE: 04/05/73

FROM: R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Holiday Rambler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 20, 1973, to this agency asking about the applicability of paragraph S4.1.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 to vehicles other than passenger cars.

Your understanding is correct that the standard establishes wiped area requirements only for passenger car windshields. The NHTSA is engaged in research with the intent of establishing as all-weather visibility standard, combining Standards No. 103 and 104, that would among other things extend the windshield wiped area requirements to vehicles other than passenger cars. However, it is not possible to say when we will issue a rulemaking proposal on this subject.

ID: nht73-1.30

DATE: 10/25/73

FROM: E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Marchal America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter #8495, dated October 5, 1973 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning the legality of an automotive headlamp having a sealed metal reflector, glass lens arrangement. It is understood from your letter that such a headlamp would meet all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, including photometric and electrical performance, interchangeability and mechanical aiming.

Specifically your question is: "Would a hermetically sealed metal and glass headlamp, (one in every way interchangeable with existing approved sealed beams except that the reflector would be metal instead of glass), be acceptable under current federal regulations?"

The answer to your question is "yes".

ID: nht73-1.31

DATE: 12/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Young Daybrook, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1973 asking about the proper location of indentification lamps on one-man truck-tractor cabs that are offset from the vertical centerline of the vehicle. In your view "when the Law is applied to one (1) man cabs, the possibility exists that oncoming traffic would interpret the truck as not being in its proper traffic lane."

As you have pointed out, front identification lamps are required by Table II of Standard No. 108 to be "as close as practicable to the tope of the vehicle . . . as close as practicable to the vertical centerline. . . ." The "vertical centerline" is that of the vehicle which is usually that of the cab as well. However, an identification lamp arrangement around the vertical centerline of an offset cab is considered to meet the standard.

We are not aware that an actual safety problem is presented by the current practice of mounting identification lamps around the centerline of offset cabs, and the fact that you produce less than 1,000 vehicles per year does not relieve you of the requirement of providing these lamps.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Young Daybrook Inc.

November 16, 1973

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Gentlemen:

We request your assistance in interpreting FMVSS #108; Lamps etc., as applied to the vehicles we manufacture under the "OTTAWA" name and illustrated in the attached brochure #30-2500-4/73. These vehicles are all over 10,000# GVW; all over 80" in width; and all have one (1) man cabs, either 37" or 48" wide; located left of centerline of the vehicle.

The Law requires all truck tractors to have three (3) amber identification lamps "As close as practicable to the verticle centerline". When the Law is applied to one (1) man cabs, the possibility exists that oncoming traffic could interpret the truck as not being in its proper traffic lane.

Your earliest possible response would be appreciated and should it be pertinent, we produce fewer than 1000 trucks per year.

Very truly yours, James H. Swinghammer -- Assistant Chief Engineer

Attachment

ID: nht73-1.32

DATE: 07/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider for J. E. Wilson; NHTSA

TO: Oregon Traffic Safety Commission

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for the copy of Oregon House Bill 2721 that you enclosed in your letter of June 25, 1973. We have reviewed it carefully, and have concluded that virtually all of Section 2 is preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) (copy enclosed).

As you may know, this section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a State from having a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. In this instance, the relevant Federal standard is 49 CFR @ 511.108 Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.

Section 2 of HB 2721 requires motor vehicles manufactured after October 1, 1975, to be equipped with a green-yellow-red rear mounted lighting system. The NHTSA considers Standard No. 108 to include within its scope all lighting equipment required to be used on the rear of motor vehicles to which it applies. Any State requirements that have the effect of regulating such equipment must therefore be identical to the relevant provision of Standard No. 108. Section 2 of HB 2721 is not identical to the Federal standard relating to that aspect of performance, and must therefore be considered as invalidated as that category of vehicle is expressly excluded from Standard No. 108. Portions of Section 3 (ORS 483.412(3)(a) and (b)) are invalidated for the same reason. The remainder of Section 3 and Section 4 does not conflict with the relevant provisions of Standard No. 108.

The guiding principle that we have applied to this situation is that the State requirements that regulate the design of motor vehicles must be identical to the Federal standards. It was clearly the intent of Congress to provide for uniformity of regulation of the manufacturer in areas where the Federal agency has acted, and they did so by the identity requirements of section 1392(d).

Sincerely,

Enclosures

OREGON TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION

June 25, 1973

James E. Wilson -- Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Wilson:

The Oregon Legislature passed H.B. 2721 which allows a green, yellow and red taillight system.

A copy is attached for your information.

Sincerely,

Gil W. Bellamy

[Enclosure Omitted.]

ID: nht73-1.33

DATE: 04/12/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received copies of your letter of March 28, 1973, to the ten Regional Administrators of this agency, concerning the compliance of your vehicles with Standard No. 108. You state that law enforcement officials in certain jurisdictions are citing your semitrailers for lack of clearance lamps when, as a matter of fact, the vehicles are equipped with combination turn signal and clearance lamps located near the lower rear corners of the vehicle. You ask the Regional Administrators to advise the local authorities that this lamp configuration conforms to Standard No. 108 and "that any conflicting state regulation is unenforceable under the provisions of Section 103(d) of the Traffic Safety Act."

Paragraph S4.3.1.4 of Standard No. 108 states, "Where the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." Since the identification lamps depicted in your drawing are at the extreme height of the vehicle, the location you have chosen for the clearance lamps in allowed by Standard No. 108. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), renders void any State law with differing requirements for this equipment.

I am sending a copy of this letter to the Regional Administrators.

Sincerely,

March 28, 1973

This letter was sent to Regional Administrator, Dept. of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, at each of the 10 Regional Offices on attached page.

Dear Sir:

In the past few months we have (upon customer specification) been building highway semi-trailers with only the three identification lamps on the top-rear of the vehicle. The two rear clearance lamps have been combined with the turn-signal lamps and are not at the customary top corner locations (SEE ATTACHED SKETCH).

In our opinion this is a perfectly legal situation under sections S4.3.1.5 and S4.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #108, established pursuant to Public Law 89-563.

In some states, these vehicles are being cited for "not having rear clearance lamps", due in part I feel to a lack of knowledge or understanding on the part of the state enforcement people that these trailers in fact do have the legally required lamps.

Would you please inform the proper enforcement people in the states within your region of the legality of this particular lamp configuration under Federal law and that any conflicting state regulation is unenforceable under the provisions of Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563).

Please advise the undersigned of the situation with respect to this matter in your particular region so that we may in turn inform our customers accordingly.

Sincerely,

R. J. Deller -- Vice President of Engineering, TRAILMOBILE

c: J. E. Cook; E. Hammond; R. P. McArdla - Chicago; E. E. Lungren - Chicago; R. Dyson-D.O.T., Wash. D.C. w/sketch

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS Region I * Transportation Systems Center Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 55 Broadway New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 Region II 4 Normanskill Boulevard New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico Delmar, New York 12050 518 472-4095 Region III Room 1633, Federal Building Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, 31 Hopkins Place Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia Baltimore, Maryland 21201 301-962-3878 Region IV Suite 200, 1720 Peachtree Road, NW Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Mississippi, North Carolina, South 404-526-5537 Carolina, Tennessee Region V 18209 Dixie Highway Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Homewood, Illinois 60430 Ohio, Wisconsin 312-799-6300 X-21 Region VI 819 Taylor Street Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Texas 817-334-2021 Region VII P.O. Box 7186, Country Club Station Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska Kansas City, Missouri 64113 816-361-0860 X-7887 Region VIII Room 242, Building 40 Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Denver Federal Center South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming Denver, Colorado 80225 303-233-3611 X-6429 Region IX 450 Golden Gate Avenue Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada P.O. Box 36096 San Francisco, California 94102 415-556-5450 Region X Room 412, Mohawk Building Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington 222 S.W. Morrison Street Portland, Oregon 97204 503-226-3361 X-1754

* Handled out of Delmar office until further notice.

Truck Body & Equipment Association, Inc.,

DOT CHART-5

Supplement 3/31/71

TRAILER REAR LAMP LOCATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FMVSS #108

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-1.34

DATE: 06/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of June 4, 1973 you have asked whether a manufacturer may comply with revisions made by the SAE to SAE standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 in the absence of an amendment by NHTSA.

The answer is no, and your understanding is correct. A manufacturer must comply with the specific SAE standard and revision set forth in Standard No. 108, regardless of any succeeding revisions made by the SAE.

Sincerely,

June 4, 1973

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

Attention Lawrence R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Schneider:

The Grote Manufacturing Company is an independent manufacturer of vehicle lighting equipment. In addition to supplying replacement items, we also supply a large number of original equipment vehicle manufacturers.

Recently, it has come to our attention that some vehicle manufacturers are under the impression that if an SAE Lighting Standard is referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, they are then permitted to comply to that basic standard, even if the SAE adopts a revision to the standard.

For the purpose of citing an example only, MVSS 108 currently requires that turn signal lamps comply with SAE J588d, June, 1966. A later standard, SAE J588e was adopted by the SAE in September of 1970. The specific point in question is whether or not a vehicle manufacturer has the option of complying with the later SAE standard, rather than the one specifically referenced in MVSS 108. A further example could be cited where sidemarker lamps are currently required to comply with SAE J592c. The SAE has again modified this standard and adopted J592d. Specifically, must the manufacturer comply with the referenced DOT standard or does he have the option of adopting the later revision which SAE has issued?

It has always been our understanding that the referenced SAE standards apply not only to the basic standards, such as a stop lamp, but rather to the very specific standard including the suffix letter which are cited in MVSS 108. However, we want to be certain we are correct before passing this information on to those customers who have raised this question.

Yours very truly, THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY -- Paul G. Scully, Vice President

ID: nht73-1.35

DATE: 12/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo U.S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 6 to Mr. Lewis Owen of this Office concerning the use of a special parking lamp bulb in one of your tail lamp assemblies.

The location of the subject bulb in the lamp assembly, regardless of whether the switch is removed to make it inoperative, is permitted, providing that the other required lamps function as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

TOYO KOGYO U.S.A. REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

December 6, 1973

Lewis Owen -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Owen:

This is in confirmation to our discussion on Nov. 27, 1973.

On one of our models, we are now considering to utilize the parts for, between U. S. A. and Japan.

In these rear combination lamps, there are No. 12 lamp, which is called with parking lamp which is different from FMVSS 108. Please find the attached sheet. The parking lamp is required in Japanese regulation, but not required in U. S. A.

We are now thinking it will become irregular if it works. So we want to remove the switch from this lamp and it cannot work. But, for the U. S. A., we want the bulb to remain ( 3.4 W ) and end of coupler and cord.

We must emphasize that there are no influences to another mechanism, ( Stop, tail, & backup lamp ). On the lamp housing, we want to put the caution. This parking lamp is only for Japan namely, "Japan 12 V, 3.4 W". We believe there is no mistake in user.

Warmest regards,

Gorou Utsunomiya -- Branch Manager, Detroit Branch

cc; Dr. Sakashita, Mr. Niguma

Enclosurer