ID: nht76-2.21

DATE: 04/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Limited

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1976, requesting information concerning steps which you, as a manufacturer of wheel equipment which will be offered for importation into the United States, must take in order to comply with all applicable National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations.

You should be aware of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR Part 573, Defect Reports. In addition, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, may be of interest to you. Copies of these rules and an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" are enclosed for your convenience.

Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made.

The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agent pursuant to the Act require that it include:

(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding on Dunlop Limited under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

(2) The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of Dunlop Limited;

(3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products of Dunlop Limited that do not bear its legal name;

(4) A provision that the designation of agent remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Dunlop Limited;

(5) A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

(6) The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

A copy of the procedural regulation for designation of agent is enclosed for your convenience.

ID: nht76-2.22

DATE: 04/30/76

FROM: JOHN WOMACK FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Allegrette; Newitt; Witcoff & McAndrews

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 12, 1976. Currently, 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, does not require, or provide for, a manufacturer code number. The use of a code number has been proposed, but not adopted. If the use of a code number becomes mandatory, notice will appear in the Federal Register and a sufficient amount of time allowed for your client to comply.

The information you submitted in your letter is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Part 566. Inasmuch as Tsuyama Mfg. Co., Ltd., is a foreign corporation, it will be necessary for them to designate an agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45.

Your understanding with respect to certification of lenses is correct. Section S4.7.2 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), permits replacement equipment to be marked with the symbol DOT as a certification that it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and there is no need to submit lenses to us for approval.

ALLEGRETTI, NEWITT, WITCOFF & MCANDREWS

February 12, 1976

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I am writing in behalf of Tsuyama Mfg. Co., Ltd. of Osaka, Japan re Title 49 CRF, Part 566 and 567. Tsuyama Mfg. Co., Ltd, is a Japanese corporation and has its principal place of business at 53, 3-Chome, Kuwazu-cho, Higashi Sumiyoshi-ku, Osaka, Japan. Our client manufacturers reflectors, lenses and lamps for motor vehicles. The foregoing should enable you to provide a code number for our client under 49 CRF @ 566.5. If anything more is required, please advise.

Tsuyama Mfg. Co., Ltd. intends to sell a replacement lens for a combination rear lamp that meets all applicable SAE standards. I understand it would be proper for my client to emboss, mark or label its lenses with the symbol DOT after the lenses have been tested for compliance with the applicable standards and that there is no need to submit specimens of the lenses or other products to the Administrator for prior approval. Please confirm that my understanding is correct.

Seymour Rothstein

ID: nht76-2.23

DATE: 05/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Southside Datsun

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your April 29, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the modification work that you perform on Datsun pick-up trucks. I understand that this modification involves removal of the body from a fully certified truck and replacement of the body with a flat bed.

You are a vehicle alterer who is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR @ 567.7 (copy enclosed). That section requires that you affix a label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If any of the original vehicle's weight ratings are affected by the modification, the modified weight ratings must also appear on this label. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as:

the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.

One constraint on this specification is found in @ 567.4(g)(3) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, which requires that the GVWR

shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. . . .

"Gross Axle Weight Rating" is defined as:

the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.

As one who alters completed vehicles but does not otherwise manufacture motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that is subject to a safety standard, you are not required to submit the information specified in 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification.

Enclosed for your convenience is an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations." If you have any further questions, please feel free to write.

ID: nht76-2.24

DATE: 04/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. A. Heffron, Esq.

COPYEE: JOHN J. GIESGUTH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Re: Yankee Metal Products Corporation

Dear Mr. Heffron:

This is in reply to the petition of March 16, 1976, by your client Yankee Metal Products Corporation ("Yankee" herein) for an interpretation of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Yankee seeks an interpretation "that the use of strobe type signal warning lamps on school buses is permissible provided that such lamps meet the specific performance requirements in S4.1.4 which incorporates SAE Standard J887."

Yankee has submitted a test report by Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc. indicating conformance to SAE Standard J887 including its photometric requirements. Yankee has also submitted an opinion by a professional engineer that "the Yankee strobe lights tested by ETL meet the photometric requirements of SAE J887."

As you know, this agency does not "approve" specific lighting devices prior to their introduction into interstate commerce, and all that is legally required is that the manufacturer certify that its product meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The ETL report and professional opinion indicate that the design of the Yankee system complies with SAE J887, and thus they provide a basis upon which Yankee could certify that its system meets Standard No. 108. Therefore the use of its strobe type signal warning lamps appears to be permissible under Standard No. 108.

This means that the interpretation provided Mr. John J. Giesguth on December 9, 1975, does not apply to any strobe light system where an equivalency of conforming performance can be demonstrated, as Yankee appears to have done.

Sincerely,

LAW OFFICES HOWARD A. HEFFRON

202-872-0417

March 16, 1976

Frank Berndt, Esquire -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Yankee Metal Products Corporation

Dear Mr. Berndt: I represent Yankee Metal Products Corporation of Norwalk, Connecticut in connection with the request for an interpretation of MVSS 108 submitted to your office today. Please communicate directly with me regarding this matter.

I would think that an early meeting between Yankee and NHTSA representatives to discuss the technical points presented and any related questions would be useful and help to expedite consideration of the matter and request that at an early date a conference for this purpose be scheduled.

Very truly yours,

Howard A. Heffron

ID: nht76-2.25

DATE: 05/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Kupensky

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 8 to the Department of Transportation, regarding your CAUTION and THANK YOU signals which would flash simultaneously with the turn signal lamps on trucks and trailers.

Since such signs, flashing CAUTION or THANK YOU when actually "turn" is intended, may be confusing in many circumstances, they would be prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," (copy enclosed), because they would appear to impair the effectiveness of the turn signals. If these signs were manually operated by the driver, separately from the turn signals, at appropriate times, whether flashing or steady burnings, they would be considered auxiliary devices which did not impair the effectiveness of the turn signals, and would be permitted by Standard No. 108. In this situation, however, they would be subject to the motor vehicle regulations of the individual States.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

April 8, 1976

Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street, S. W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

Enclosed is a copy from my Patent Attorney of a description of Safety Signal Lights, which I would like to market. I feel these lights add safety for over the road truckers, and act as a backup system for a burned out turn signal, as explained in the attached write-up. They also indicate to the vehicle following of the drivers' intentions.

I have called on a major trailer manufacturer and found that this is creating quite an interest. But the question remains -- would these be acceptable by the Department of Transportation.

Hoping that you can advise me on the above, I thank you for your assistance and any information you might be able to forward.

Sincerely,

Thomas Kupensky

Enc.

(Graphics omitted)

VEHICLE SIGNAL LIGHT ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE

A signal light system for a vehicle. A pair of auxiliary lights are mounted, preferable, on the rear of the vehicle and operate in conjunction with the vehicle turn indicator lights. Each of the lights is a (Illegible Words) enclosure having a replaceable face plate. The removable plates carry suitable logooda which are visible when the light is illuminated.

SPECIFICATION

The present invention relates to a vehicle signal system and more particularly to a system which (Illegible Word) additional information to other drivers on the road.

The continuous increase of super highway mileage and of the volume of traffic on those highways has brought (Illegible Words) systems which rapidly convey information between the vehicle and other drivers on the road. (Illegible Word) and others who do a considerable amount of high speed driving have developed (Illegible Words). The (Illegible Word) of turn signals to indicate (Illegible Word) changes and the blinking of lights by a vehicle being overtaken to indicate that the passing vehicle has cleared and can pull back into the slower speed lane (Illegible Word) among (Illegible Words). Also, a vehicle which has completed passing will blink his lights to thank the following vehicle. However, there are many people who do relatively little super highway driving and are not aware of these conventions. There is a need for a signaling system which will clearly convey the intentions of the signaling vehicle (Illegible Words) inexperienced drivers do not become confused. (Illegible Word) the practice of blinking the vehicle lights causes the vehicle driver to be momentarily distracted from his primary function, thereby increasing the risk of accident.

It is the primary object of the present invention to provide a signaling system for a vehicle which will clearly alert the following vehicles even if the operators of such vehicles are not aware of the usual signaling conventions.

It is also an object of the present invention to provide a vehicle signaling system which permits the vehicle operator to signal to following vehicles without being distracted from the primary function of driving the vehicle.

Yet another object of the invention in the provision of a signal system which may be easily applied to existing vehicles with a minimum of modification thereof.

The above and other objects of the invention which will become apparent in the following detailed description are achieved by providing a vehicle signal system which employs a pair of auxiliary light units mounted on the rear of the vehicle with the units operating in conjunction with the right and left turn signals, respectively, and with each light unit consisting of an enclosure having a removable face plate which is provided with information conveying markings visible when the signal is illuminated.

For a more complete understanding of the invention and the objects and advantages thereof reference should be had to the following detailed discription and the accompanying drawing wherein there is shown a preferred embodiment of the invention.

In the drawing:

Fig. 1 is a rear (Illegible Word) view of a trailer equipped with the signal lights of the (Illegible Word) invention;

Fig. 2 is a perspective view of one signal light unit of the present invention;

Fig. 3 is a sectional view of the light assembly of Fig. 2;

Fig. 4 is a transverse sectional view taken along the line 4-4 of Fig. 3; and

Fig. 5 is a schematic showing of the control circuit for the lights of the present invention.

A conventional semi-trailer 10 is shown in Fig. 1. The trailer is provided with rear brake lights 12 and left and right turn indicator lamps 14 and 16, respectively, in accordance with conventional practice. These lights are controlled from the vehicle cab in the usual manner. In order to convey additional information to motorists following the trailer two illiminated signs 18 and 20 are also provided on the rear of the trailer 10. While these signs are shown as being mounted at approximately the vertical mid-point of the trailer, it will be understood that the two units may be positioned at any convenient locations.

As will be described in greater detail below, the illuminated sign 18 operation in sequence with the left turn signal 14 while the illuminated sign 20 operates in sequences with the right turn signal 16. Any suitable wording or other indicators may be provided on the two signs 18 and 20. The two signs illustrated, "CAUTION" and "THANK YOU" are considered desirable as these indications reinforce the conventional turn signal indications. Thus, when the left turn signal is operated the word "CAUTION" is flashed simultaneously thus clearly alerting the following motorist to the fact that the vehicle is about to shift to the left lane. This is particularly advantageous when the truck in one of a line of trucks as following motorists frequently cannot see the right turn signals of such a truck and may misinterpret the flashing turn signal as a flashing brake light.

The use of the word "THANK YOU" in conjunction with the right turn signal allows the overtaking vehicle to express his consideration to the vehicle which has been passed without requiring him to perform any action except the operation of his right turn signal which is conventionally done when pulling back into the right lane.

The construction of the light assembly 18 is shown in greater detail in Figs. 2, 3, and 4. It will be understood that the unit 20 is of identical construction. Each of the light units consists of a rectangular bon-like housing 22 which is open on one face to receive a plastic face plate 24 which is provided with the desired indecia. The indecia 26 may be incorporated in any suitable arrangement such as the use of contracting colors or of opaque and translucent regions. The casing 22 has a rear wall 28, and walls 30, and top and bottom walls 32 and 34, respectively. The forward wages of the top and bottom walls are bent to form (Illegible Word) 36. These (Illegible Word) 36 define a channel in which the facing plate 24 in slidably received, the end walls 30 (Illegible Word) the engage the inner face of the plate 24. If desired and depending on the material used to form the face plate 24 a ridge 40 may be provided on the inner surfaces of the upper and lower walls 32 and 43, respectively, in spaced parallel relation to the (Illegible Word) 36 to provide for additional support to the face plate 24. Suitable gaskets 38 and 41 are provided to form a fluid tight seal between the face plate 24 and the casing 22. The wire leads 43 for the lamps within the casing are routed through a suitable grommet 45 to provide a fluid tight seal between the wires and the casing 22.

A vertically extending wall 42 is provided within the casing 22 and midway between the opposite ends 30. The wall may, for example, have a tab portion 44 which is welded or otherwise secured to the rear wall 28 of the casing 22. Affixed to opposite sides of the wall 42 are sockets 46 and 48 for receiving (Illegible Word) 50 and (Illegible Word) respectively. As is shown in Fig. 4, a number of holes or apetures 54 may be provided in the plate 52 so that light can be transmitted from either bulb or both sides of the casing. This assures that even if one bulb should fail at least partial illumination of the whole sign will still be possible.

One possible circuit for controlling the signal lamps 18 and 20 of the present invention is illustrated in Fig. 5 where the vehicle power source, such as the battery 60, is connected to the conventional turn signal switch 62 through a flasher assembly 64 which is also a conventional (Illegible Word). In a first position the turn signal switch 62 causes the left front signal lamp 661, the left rear lamp 14, and the two lamps 50 and 52 of the unit 18 to flash in unison. In the opposite position the switch 62 (Illegible Word) the right forward signal lamp 66r, the rear right signal lamp 16 and the two bulbs of the unit 20. It will be noted that the two bulbs 50 and 52 of each unit are connected in parallel to one another and in parallel to the other signal lamps on the corresponding side of the vehicle. If desired, suitable means such as the double hole signal throw switch 70 may be provided for disconnecting the signaling units 18 and 20 when desired.

While only the best known embodiment has been illustrated and described in detail herein, it will be clearly understood that the invention is not limited thereto or thereby. Reference should therefore be had to the appended claims in determining the true scope of the invention.

What is claimed is

1. An auxiliary signal system for a vehicle having a conventional turn signal system which comprises:

a pair of lamp housings, each having a removable face plate carrying a distinctive legend, the housings being mounted on the rear of the vehicle and adjacent the opposite sides thereof;

at least one lamp within each housing for illuminating the face plate thereof to make the legend visible; and circuit means connecting the lamp of each housing to the actuating circuit of the respective turn signal whereby the lamp operates in conjunction with the respective turn signal.

2. The auxiliary signal system according to Claim 1 wherein each housing comprises a bon-like member having a rectangular opening in one side thereof, the face plate covering the opening.

3. The auxiliary signal system according to Claim 2 wherein two lamps are provided within each housing, the lamps being connected in parallel and positioned so as to illuminate opposite ends of the enclosure.

4. The auxiliary signal system according to Claim 3 wherein each housing has a vertically extending center wall, the two lamps being mounted to the center wall on opposite sides thereof.

5. The auxiliary signal system according to Claim 1 wherein the legend carried by the facing plate of the left housing is "CAUTION" and the legend carried by the facing plate of the right housing is "THANK YOU".

ID: nht76-2.26

DATE: 10/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1976, asking several questions concerning paragraph S4.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I am sorry that we were unable to respond by September 29 as you requested. Your questions and our answers are as follows:

"1. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the words 'combined optically' as they appear in paragraph S4.4.1 of DOT 108?"

In pertinent part, S4.4.1 states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp." The phrase "combined optically" as used here means that the luminous area of a lens used for a taillamp may not be also used as the luminous area of a lens for a clearance lamp. In other words lamps are "combined optically" when the same luminous area of a lens is lighted for more than a single function.

"2. Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?"

The answer is no because the same luminous area of the lens would be lighted when both lamps are in use, and the lamps would be "combined optically."

"3. Does the DOT have no objection to a flashing red signal issuing from the side (at right angles to the fore-aft center line of the trailer) of the clearance lamp?"

Generally S4.6(b) requires most vehicle lamps to be steady burning in normal operation. If the right angle lamp serves as the rear side marker lamp, however, S4.6(b) allows it to be flashed for signaling.

"4. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the term 'clearance lamp' as it is used in DOT 108?"

The term "clearance lamps" is defined by SAE Standard J592e, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and are "lamps which show to the front or rear of a vehicle . . . to indicate the overall width and height of the vehicle."

"5. Does the 'clearance lamp' as the words are used in DOT 108 indicate a lamp intended to serve as its major function, a back up lamp in the event of failure of the tail light filament in the combination tail, turn and stop light bulb."

There is no intent that a clearance lamp serve as a backup lamp in the event of a taillamp filament failure though obviously both lamps perform a marking function.

"6. If DOT approves the combination of a clearance lamp and tail lamp in the same compartment, would it also approve for a boat trailer, moving the tail light outboard to show the extreme width of an over 80" vehicle and eliminate the need for a clearance lamp under those circumstances."

The question is moot since a combination clearance lamp-taillamp is not permitted.

I understand that you discussed the photometric test procedure for optically combined lamps with Mr. Owen of this agency, by telephone on September 22, 1976. So that there may be no misunderstanding I would like to set forth the test procedure in this letter. If a single lamp bulb (or filament) is used in the combined lamp, the photometrics for all of the functions must be met simultaneously. If two or more lamp bulbs (or filaments) are used and each is to provide a separate function, only those which provide that function are to be energized during the photometric test. Therefore, in a multiple compartment side marker and clearance lamp (or a multiple compartment tail and clearance lamp that is not optically combined), the clearance lamp bulb is not energized during the photometric test for the other function, and vice versa.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

WESBAR CORPORATION

September 7, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Refer: DOT 108, paragraph S4.4.1

On June 9, 1975 your predecessor in office answered an inquiry we made relative to a light design, and the last paragraph of his letter stated in part:

"Since the clearance lamp and tail lamp are in separate compartments and not optically combined -- the lamp design does not violate S4.4.1."

We have recently seen two lamps which bear the letters "DOT", in each of which the clearance, tail light and turn signal bulbs are all in the same compartment, i.e. the clearance lamp is not in a separate compartment.

It has always been the opinion of the writer and of boat trailer manufacturers, that in order to comply with S4.4.1, the clearance lamp would have to be in a compartment separated from the tail and stop lamp. However, while we were in Washington last week visiting your compliance office, we were advised that a Mr. Lou Owen had given a verbal interpretation of S4.4.1 in which he gave approval for the tail and clearance lamp to be in a single compartment, with no separating wall between them.

It would seem logical that tail lamp and clearance lamp should be separately compartmented. If the bulbs were in the same compartment with no shielding between them, the stop and turn light would illuminate that section of the compartment intended as a clearance lamp area, and at times the clearance lamp would appear to be flashing as well as varying in intensity. This would make for a confusing and hazardous situation for a driver traveling some distance behind a trailer equipped with such a combination lamp.

If this verbal interpretation which approves having the two lamp bulb mounted in the same compartment without a separating wall is valid, why should there be any need for a clearance lamp on a boat trailer since the tail lights could be mounted sufficiently outboard so they would indicate, when lighted, the overall width of the trailer?

We would appreciate receiving the DOT's specific interpretation of the words "combined optically". In its usual context, the words "combined optically" would mean a combination of light source and lens, and applied to S4.4.1 would seem to indicate that, in fact, the clearance lamp would have to be separately compartmented from the tail, stop, turn, and hazard lamp compartment.

When the clearance and tail lamp are housed in the same compartment there is a definite impairment of the combination turn, stop and hazard function of the lamp and an unsafe and confusing situation exists. We can report to you that while conducting an actual night test at a country road intersection, when a trailer was approaching the intersection with turn signal bulb flashing in the uncompartmented tail light, at 150 feet distance it was difficult to tell if the trailer ahead was on the same course as the following vehicle or crossing ahead of it at right angles.

While we were at the compliance section office, we were appalled to hear an interpretation of the term "clearance light" to the effect that the clearance lamp was not necessarily a separate lamp but was intended as a "back-up" light in the event the tail light filament should fail.

We have never ever heard or had it intimated to us that such was the purpose of a clearance lamp and we don't believe that it was ever intended to be so defined. When you consider the fact that the lamp on a semi trailer is at the uppermost corner of the trailer body (a long distance from the tail lamp!), and that travel trailers, buses and other vehicles also have the clearance lamp at the top extreme corners of the vehicles, it is difficult to conceive of their application as being a back up substitute for a defective tail lamp.

Carrying our argument further, on a trailer of less than 80" in width NO clearance lamp is required but the possibility of failure of the tail lamp filament is just as great. What then is supposed to serve as "back up" lamp for it? It is our observation that someone was just not thinking when he made the statement that a clearance lamp is really only there to serve as a "back up" lamp for the tail light.

In summary we ask for your specific answers to the following:

1. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the words "combined optically" as they appear in paragraph S4.4.1 of DOT 108?

2. Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?

3. Does the DOT have no objection to a flashing red signal issuing from the side (at right angles to the fore-aft center line of the trailer) of the clearance lamp?

4. What is the DOT specific definition and interpretation of the term "clearance lamp" as it is used in DOT 108?

5. Does the "clearance lamp" as the words are used in DOT 108 indicate a lamp intended to serve as its major function, a back up lamp in the event of failure of the tail light filament in the combination tail, turn and stop light bulb.

6. If DOT approves the combination of a clearance lamp and tail lamp in the same compartment, would it also approve for a boat trailer, moving the tail light outboard to show the extreme width of an over 80" vehicle and eliminate the need for a clearance lamp under those circumstances.

On September 29, 1976 there will be a meeting of the Trailer Manufacturers Association. In attendance will be representatives of all major manufacturers of boat trailers. We would appreciate your expediting your replies to the six questions posed above in order that we may give a copy of them to the group attending that meeting.

Since your interpretation of the questions given in this letter are of such vital importance to the boat trailer manufacturer, dealer and consumer, we would be most grateful for your clear, concise answers.

For your ready reference we attach copies of our previous correspondence and the reply we received. We also submit for your study, photos of a typical lamp where tail lamp and clearance lamp are combined in one compartment.

Looking forward to receiving your prompt response, we remain.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

cc: SEN. WILLIAM PROXMIRE; SEN. GAYLORD NELSON; REP. WILLIAM A. STEIGER

ID: nht76-2.27

DATE: 03/12/76

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

TO: CaL Light Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your latestletter, dated February 17, 1976, you asked "Does the Federal motor vehicle safety standards allow the use of one half of an automobile headlight system on a motorcycle?"

There is no Federal prohibition against an owner modifying his motorcycle to use any lighting configuration, though there may be State or municipal restrictions. The answer where a manufacturer is involved, however, depends upon the type of automobile headlamp system used. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to be equipped with a headlamp system conforming to SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. Two options allowed are use of a single 7 inch sealed beam unit, or of one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam unit, provided these headlamps meet the requirements of SAE J579a, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, August 1965. Thus, "one half" of a two-headlamp, or of a four-lamp circular lens passenger car headlighting system could be used on a motorcycle. But use of a system comprised of one Type 1A plus Type 2A (rectangular lens), is not currently permitted under Standard No. 108.

Since there is an equivalence of performance between rectangular and circular lens headlamps systems, if you wish to merchandise a two-lamp (Type 1A plus Type 2A) rectangular system for use on motorcycles, you may wish to submit an additional petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CAL LIGHT CO.

February 17, 1976

RICHARD B. DYSON -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Dyson,

In reply to your letter of February 12, 1976, first of all, we did not at that time, December 10, 1975, petition the NHTSA for an ammendment. The petition for ammendment was filed on January 27, 1976 by our letter of January 14, 1976.

I have recieved much stationary from your office, however, little of it pertains to the basic context of my letters. I shall request basically the same as I have in my previous letters, although I shall use a different format. I would like your office to give me a yes or no answer on the following question, Does the Federal motor vehicle saftey standards allow the use of one half of an automobile headlight system on a motorcycle?.

I shall be awaiting your prompt reply.

Truly,

Lawrence MacEachern

ID: nht76-2.28

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1976, asking for an interpretation of the spacing requirements for motorcycle turn signal lamps specified in Table IV of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 requires that motorcycle turn signal lamps be located so that their edges are at least 4 inches from the edge of the headlamps (on the front) and tail or stop lamps (on the rear). You have asked for confirmation "that the minimum separation distance is measured between the edges of the illuminated lenses of the respective lamps on a line passing through each lamp . . . rather than being measured on a horizontal line between two planes touching the edges of the illuminated lenses".

This will confirm your interpretation that the minimum separation distance is to be measured at the point where the edges of the two lamps are closest to each other.

ID: nht76-2.29

DATE: 01/07/76

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

TO: Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 30, 1975, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which permits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles whose top speed is 30 mph, without turn signal lamps, preempts a State requirement that all motor vehicles be equipped with such lamps.

The answer to your question is yes. Even though a State as in your hypothetical may not have defined "motor vehicle," or its definition of a vehicle category differs from a definition in 49 CFR 571.3(b) (e.g. where a State defines a motor-driven cycle as a "bicycle"), it is preempted by Section 103(d) from establishing or maintaining in effect a safety standard that differs from a Federal standard covering the same aspect of performance. Accordingly, since @ 4.1.1.26 of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment excuses low speed motor-driven cycles from the requirement that they be equipped with turn signal lamps, a State cannot require them on identical vehicles.

I hope this answers your question.

YOURS TRULY,

MOTORCYCLE INDUSTRY COUNCIL,

December 30, 1975

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., representing manufacturers and distributors of motorcycles and motorcycle parts and accessories requests an advisory opinion from counsel regarding certain issues that have surfaced at the state level subsequent to NATSA's motordriven cycle/moped ruling of October 1974.

Issue: Equipment requirements

When state law requires that "every licensed motor vehicle . . . shall be equipped with electric turn signal lamps . . ." without further defining "motor vehicle". There appears to be a conflict between the state statute and the federal regulation which exempts certain motor driven cycles from this requirement.

Question: Does Federal Regulation (49 CFR 571.108) exempting motordriven cycles of 5 hp or less whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less from the requirement to be equipped with turn signals, preempt in the case where equipment requirements (turn signals) are specified by the state for all licensed motor vehicles?

Melvin R. Stahl Vice President Government Relations

MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT

May 17, 1972

MEMORANDUM: KANSAS COUNTY TREASURERS, SHERIFFS' DEPARTMENTS AND KANSAS HIGHWAY PATROL

Re: ELECTRIC TURN SIGNAL LAMPS. K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 8-590a(b)

"After December 31, 1971, every licensed motor vehicle; also every licensed trailer, semitrailer and pole trailer shall be equipped with electric turn signal lamps meeting the requirements of K.S.A. 1970 Supp. 8-590(b): (Emphasis added)

K.S.A. 8-126(b), the registration section of the Motor Vehicle Code, defines a motor vehicle as "Every vehicle, as herein defined, which is self-propelled."

K.S.A. 8-501, the regulatory or enforcement section of the Motor Vehicle Code, defines a motor vehicle as "Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolly wires, but not operated upon rails."

K.S.A. 8-126(d), the registration section of the Motor Vehicle Code, defines a motorcycle as "Every motor vehicle designed to travel on not more than three (3) wheels in contact with the ground, except any such vehicle as may be included within the term "tractor" as herein defined.

K.S.A. 9-501, the regulatory or enforcement section of the Motor Vehicle Code, defines a motorcycle as "Every motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three (3) wheels in contact with the ground, but excluding a tractor."

Based upon the foregoing definitions from the registration section of the Motor Vehicle Code and the regulatory or enforcement section of the Motor Vehicle Code, it does appear that they are generally in harmony in the definition of a motorcycle as a motor vehicle.

The question then arises -- are the County Treasures of Kansas obligated to sell registration (license plates or tags) to those persons making application therefore, assuming the application is otherwise in proper form, if such person in fact does not have his motor vehicle (motorcycle) equipped with electric turn signal lamps?

It is our opinion that they are so obligated.

The Legislature of Kansas did not set forth any provision for refusing the sale of registration or license plates in the registration section of the Motor Vehicle Code for failing to have the motor vehicle (motorcycle) equipped with electric turn signal lamps. Such equipment is not a condition precedent to the sale of registration.

The next question for consideration -- Are the law enforcement officers of Kansas obligated to enforce the provision of K.S.A. 8-590a(b)?

It is our opinion that they are so obligated.

The 1971 Sessin of the Kansas Legislature clearly set forth their mandate in K.S.A. 8-590a(b) that "After December 31, 1971, every licensed motor vehicle . . . shall be equipped with electric turn signal lamps meeting the requirements of K.S.A. 1970 Supp. 8-590a(b).

K.S.A. 8-590(b) clearly sets forth the requirements for electric turn signals and K.S.A. 8-590(b) sets forth that the "Preceding section [is] supplemental to [the] uniform act. Thus, there can be no mistake in determining legislative intent.

The question then arises -- May a State Legislature pass a law which interferes with or is contrary to the laws of Congress?

We are of the opinion that they cannot.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution was challenged as early as 1824 in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 1. At page 210 and 211, Chief Justice Marshall said that:

". . . in exercising the power of regulating their own purely internal affairs, whether "of trading or police, the states may sometimes enact laws, the validity of which depends on their interfering with, and being contrary to, an act of congress passed in pursuance of the constitution, the court will enter upon the inquiry, whether the laws of New York, as expounded by the highest tribunal of that state, have, in their application to this case, come into collision with an act of congress, and deprived a citizen of a right to which that act entitles him. Should this collision exist, it will be immaterial, whether those laws were passed in virtue of a concurrent power 'to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states,' or, in virtue of a power to regulate their domestic trade and police. In one case and the other, the acts of New York must yield to the law of congress; and the decision sustaining the privileges they confer, against a right given by a law of the Union, must be erroneous. This opinion has been frequently expressed in this court, and is founded, as well on the nature of the government, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a state, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty comes into conflict with a law passed by congress in pursuance of the constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers. But the framers of our constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it.

The nullity of any act, *inconsistent with the constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the state legislatures as do not transcend their powers, interfere with, or are contrary to, the laws of congress, made in pursuance of the constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it." This decision in the Gibbons Case supra has been followed in many other cases before the United States Supreme Court among those cases are Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, Florida Lime and Avocado Growers Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, and Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637.

Finally, congress in its wisdom has delegated to the Secretary of Transportation the duty and obligation of establishing certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards of which the foregoing statute relating to electric turn devices is one.

However, Congress had indicated to the states that such standard should be effective on December 31, 1972 (or January 1, 1973). Following this congressional mandate the Kansas Legislature enacted into law K.S.A. 8-590a(b) to be effective after December 31, 1971.

The final question than -- Does K.S.A. 8-590a(b) passed by the 1971 Session of the Kansas Legislature interfere with, or is it contrary to the laws of Congress?

We are of the opinion it is not.

December 31, 1972 was the final date -- not the commencement date -- that states would enact a law relating to turn signal devices on motorcycles.

Further, K.S.A. 8-590a(b) does not interfere with the marketing of the manufacturers products. The manufacturers remain free to market their products -- (there is no such restriction in K.S.A. 8-590a(b)) -- the purchaser may register his vehicle -- (there is no such restriction on registration) -- and thereupon, the burden, if any, is upon the owner to have his vehicle equipped with the proper electric turn signal devices.

Paragraph 571.20 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued on May 13, 1971, provided in part as follows:

"It is the position of this agency, therefore, that under the Act and the regulatory scheme that has been established by its authority a State may not regulate motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, with respect to aspects of performance covered by Federal standards, by requiring prior State approval before sale or otherwise restricting the manufacture, sale or movement with the State of products that conform to the standards. This interpretation does not preclude State enforcement of standards by other reasonable procedures that do not impose undue burdens on the manufacturers, including submission of products for approval within reasonable time limits, as long as manufacturers are free to market their products while the procedures are being followed, as they are under the Federal scheme. (36 F.R. 10744--June 2, 1971)" (emphasis added)

In conclusion, it is our opinion that the manufacturer and dealer may sell motorcycles until December 31, 1972 without having electric turn signal devices; that the purchaser may register such vehicle so purchased; but during the course of operation of a motorcycle on the streets and highways in Kansas such operator of a motorcycle without the electric turn signal devices would be amenable to the regulatory and enforcement section of the motor vehicle code K.S.A. 8-501 et seq.

VERN MILLER, Attorney General State of Kansas

ELTON D. LOBBAN, Superintendent Motor Vehicle Department State of Kansas

ID: nht76-2.3

DATE: 03/08/76

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

TO: VIRACON, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Viracon's December 13, 1975, and January 28, 1976, requests for a copy of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and for a discussion of the distinction under NHTSA regulations between installation of a sunroof before and after "original sale of the roof." A copy of Standard No. 216 has already been mailed to Viracon under separate cover.

You suggest that there may be different regulations for installation of a sunroof prior to, and after, the sale of the roof, by which I understand you to mean the sunroof. The NHTSA does not regulate sunroofs as such, but it does regulate the roof strength of most passenger cars (Standard No. 216), and conformity with this standard can be affected by installation of the sunroof.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits, among other things, the sale of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards. Anyone that modifies a passenger car roof by the addition of your product would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 216 at the time of sale. This would include alterations of this type made to a vehicle that has been certified by the manufacturer (49 CFR Part 567). This prohibition does not apply (except in cases of importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1)).

The Act also prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with applicable standards (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A)). This means that these classes of persons may not install one of your products, even after the first retail sale, if the installation takes the vehicle out of conformity with Standard No. 216 or any other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

YOURS TRULY,

VIRACON Inc.

January 28, 1976

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Division

Attached please find a copy of our letter to you dated December 13, 1975. Since we still have had no reply, may I again ask that you please send us a copy of your safety standard regulations regarding roof crush requirements relative to sunroof installation.

Thank you very much for your prompt attention.

Diane Bortle Executive Secretary

VIRACON Inc.

December 13, 1975

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Division

We are anticipating the manufacture of a laminated glass sunroof in the not-too-distant future. May I ask that you send me a copy of your safety standard regulations regarding roof crush requirements relative to sunroof installation? I understand there are different regulations for installation prior to, and after the original sale of the roof.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention.

Randall L. Johnson Executive Vice President