ID: nht75-2.40

DATE: 12/10/75

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

TO: Cal Light Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1975, telling us of your wish to market a rectangular sealed beam headlamp unit for motorcycles. In your opinion this might be prohibited by "federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the amended SAE J584b December 1971."

Substitution of J584b would not be a solution to your problem since it does not specify a Type 2A sealed-beam headlamp unit as one of the approved options. There would have to be both a substitution of J584b and a provision in Standard No. 108 itself that either a Type 2 or Type 2A sealed beam headlamp unit may be used. I enclose a copy of a regulation that tells how you may submit a petition for rulemaking for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 108.

You also enclosed a letter from the California Highway Patrol stating that it was amending its regulations

"to allow the use of motorcycle headlamps which comply with the type 2 lower beam photometric requirements and the motorcycle upper beam requirements, though we are not sure what position NHTSA would take upon this interpretation".

Such action by the California Highway Patrol appears precluded by Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The effect of this section is to prohibit California from having a State lighting standard that differs in any way from Standard No. 108. Since the Federal lighting standard does not allow the California amendment, the State regulation appears invalid.

Notwithstanding California's "approval" of your headlamp, your sale of this rectangular headlamp for motorcycles as either original equipment or as replacement equipment (but only for motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972) would appear to be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, unless and until Standard No. 108 is amended. There is a maximum penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation, up to $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

YOURS TRULY,

CAL LIGHT CO.

November 4, 1975

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel

I am writing you this letter on the suggestion of Mr. Lowenstern, NHSTA enforcement. I have designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed a Rectangular Motorcycle Headlight. It is a good looking, well built, and efficient headlamp, which has gained an approval from the California Highway Patrol. The unit complies with all the requirements, of all the regulatory agencies. However, there are some apparent conflicts within your FMVSS-108 which might confuse enforcement authorities.

The conflict arises from federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the ammended SAE J584B December 1971. The reference here, is to one test point, 1/2 degree down 1 degree right to right (1/2D-1R o R). In this test point current FMVSS standards hold 10,000 CP as Max., while SAE recommend 15,000 CP, our unit produces 12,800 CP. This extra CP is a great benefit to the motorcyclist to see merging traffic on his near side. To further complicate the matter, FMVSS-108 allows motorcycles to use 1/2 of an automobile headlighting system, without requiring them to meet the motorcycle headlamp requirement of 1/2D-1R to R.

Therefore, I would like your office to tell me if it feels there is a just cause to hold my product off the market.

Enclosed are copies of the test report from ITL, a letter stating the position of the CHP and the approval issued by the CHP. Your prompt reply will be appreciated.

L.A. MacEachern- Cal Light

ID: nht75-2.41

DATE: 12/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Maine

COPYEE: LEONARD FINK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received copies of correspondence between you and Leonard A. Fink, Washington counsel for Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycles, concerning requirements of the State of Maine for motor driven cycle headlamps. I understand that Mr. Fink has provided you with a copy of my letter of September 17, 1975 to him. Mr. Fink has asked that I write you directly concerning our views on Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards.

At issue is whether the State of Maine may continue to require motorcycles of 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with multiple beam headlamps. In my letter to Mr. Fink I stated:

"Any motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, may be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlamp (Table III, Standard No. 108, incorporating by reference SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. See Table I of J584. This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one".

You replied to Mr. Fink on November 7, 1975 that

"Table I appears to be inconclusive . . . . The most reasonable interpretation . . . is that motor driven cycles at high beam frequently utilize both the upper beam of the multiple beam light and a additional single beam light, whereas motor driven cycles at low beam may use the lower beam of the multiple lights (Table II of J584). At any rate, I have not found any clear preemptive language such as we find with regard to turn signal lamps in Standard No. 108 @ 4.1.1.26."

There are actually four different permissible lighting configurations available for motor driven cycles. The "multiple beam light and an additional single beam light" to which you refer is one of them, specifically the "one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam units" referred to in SAE J584's General Requirement. But the photometrics of Table I do not refer to this configuration, whose photometrics are those of J579. As a practical matter motor driven cycles will rarely if ever be equipped with more than one headlamp because of the severe drain on their low power reserve. In recognition of the limited generating capability of motor cycles with 5 horsepower or less, J584 does allow use of a single beam headlamp as the sole forward lighting source. The texts of the sections on Beam Aim During Photometric Test and At-Focus Tests refer specifically to test methods for single beam headlamps, and while the standard could be even more specific, its requirements appear to be generally understood by manufacturers and law enforcement officials. It is not a prerequisite for preemption that there be language in the body of Standard No.

108 specifying allowable headlamp systems for motor driven cycles. Where, as here, the area of motor driven cycle headlighting is clearly covered by Standard No. 108, a State must allow all four headlighting systems and cannot require only one of them.

If Maine officials would like the NHTSA to consider changing these existing Federal requirements for motor-driven cycles, they should submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552 for an amendment to Standard No. 108.

If you have any further questions I would be pleased to answer them.

SINCERELY,

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE AND OCHS

November 17, 1975

Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Re: Federal Preemption of State of Maine Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

As suggested by Mr. Taylor Vinson in our telephone conversation of November 17, I am enclosing copies of the following correspondence re the above:

1. My letters dated August 22, 1975 and September 22, 1975 to Robert S. Raymond, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Maine.

2. Your letter dated September 17, 1975 to me, a copy of which was enclosed with my September 22, 1975 letter to Mr. Raymond.

3. Mr. Raymond's reply letter to me dated November 7, 1975.

One would have thought that your September 17 letter clearly resolved any doubts as to whether the State of Maine could require motor driven cycles of 5hp or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlight. Alas, Mr. Raymond still seems unpersuaded. Mr. Vinson thus suggested that NHTSA deal directly with Mr. Raymond. I would appreciate your doing so and sending us copies of the relevant correspondence.

For your information, on November 17 I contacted Mr. Walter Ross, Chairman, Motorcycle Headlight Task Force, SAE, 216-266-2272. Mr. Ross confirmed that SAE J584 permitted either single or multiple beam headlight in this case. According to Mr. Ross, SAE will provide any further statement of clarification in support.

On behalf of our clients, Steyr-Daimier-Puch, A.G., and Bombardier, Ltd., and others in the same position, our thanks for your efforts to resolve this situation.

Leonard A. Fink

cc: TAYLOR VINSON (W/ENCS.)

STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL November 7, 1975

Leonard A. Fink, Esquire Friedman, Medalie, Ochs and Jacks

Re: Federal preemption - motor driven cycle headlights

Please excuse my tardiness in researching the questions you presented to me pertaining to the above matter.

It is my feeling at this point that federal rules and regulations in the motor vehicle safety area do indeed generally preempt state regulations. I say this, however, with the qualification that federal courts narrowly construe the preemptive provisions to give states as much flexibility as possible within the federal regulatory framework.

With that introduction in mind, it is my present feeling that there is no federal requirement which prohibits a state from requiring a high and low beam headlight on a motor driven cycle with 5 horsepower or less whose speed does not exceed 30 m.p.h. I say this after having carefully studied Table III of Federal Standard No. 108 which incorporates by reference SAE Standard J584. Both you and Mr. Frank Berndat have placed great significance on Table I of SAE J584. At best, however, Table I appears to be inconclusive as to the issue we are concerned with. The most reasonable interpretation of Table I of J584 is that motor driven cycles at high beam frequently utilize both the upper beam of the multiple beam light and an additional single beam light, whereas motor driven cycles at low beam only use the lower beam of the multiple lights (Table II of J584). At any rate, you have not indicated to me and I have not found any clear preemptive language such as we find with regard to turn signal lamps in Standard No. 108 @ 4.1.1.26.

In conclusion, I feel it would be improper for me at this time to recommend a change in Maine's regulations pertaining to head lamps on motor driven cycles. I will be glad to correspond with you further regarding this matter.

ROBERT S. RAYMOND Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division

cc: CAPT. RICHARD JONES -- DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS

September 22, 1975

Robert S. Raymond, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Attorney General's Office

AUGUSTA, MAINE 04330

Re: Federal Preemption

Following up my letter of you of August 22 and our several telephone conversations, I am enclosing for your information a copy of an opinion letter dated September 17, 1975 from Frank Berndt, Esq., Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

As you will see, Mr. Berndt's letter makes clear that Federal Safety Standard No. 108 permits a motor driven cycle of 5 bp or less to be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlight. Furthermore, Mr. Brandt's letter states "This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392 (d), that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one."

I would hope that under these circumstances you can promptly advise the appropriate State of Maine officials that the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle, and any others in the same category, quality for registration and inspection with the single beam headlight. As you can well understand continued delay in resolving this matter is working a hardship on purchasers, dealers and distributors of the motorized bicycle.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Leonard A. Fink

ID: nht75-2.42

DATE: 09/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: L. A. Fink, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 3, 1975, concerning Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards. You ask for confirmation that there is no Federal requirement for turn signal lamps or a dual beam headlamp on a motor-driven cycle whose maximum speed does not exceed 30 mph, and that a State is preempted from requiring such items of equipment on these vehicles.

As you noted, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that where a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not establish or maintain in effect a different standard that covers the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), establishes the Federal requirements for motorcycle lighting. All motorcycles manufactured between January 1, 1973, and October 14, 1974, were required to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, effective October 14, 1974, a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose top speed does not exceed 30 mph need not be manufactured with turn signal lamps as required lighting equipment (S4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108). Any motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, may be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlamp (Table III, Standard No. 108, incorporating by reference SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. See Table 1 of J584). This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one. It also means that, if a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose speed does not exceed 30 mph is not equipped with turn signal lamps, a State may not require them.

I hope you will find this of assistance to your clients, Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A. G., and Bombardier, Ltd.

SINCERELY,

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS

August 22, 1975

Robert S. Raymond, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Attorney General's Office Augusta, Maine

Re: Federal Preemption In accordance with our telephone discussion of today, I am enclosing herewith copies of the following:

(1) NHTSA Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108;

(2) SAE J584 -- referred to in Table 3 of MVSS108; and

(3) 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

As I explained to you we represent Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A.G., and Bombardier Ltd., joint venturers for the manufacture and distribution of motorized bicycles in the United States. We also represent their distributor for Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, Timberland Machines, Lancaster, New Hampshire. I appreciate your assistance in trying to clear up the federal state preemption problem.

The particular problem here involves the possible conflict between the federal standard and the State of Maine regulation concerning headlamps. The federal standard requires only a single beam headlamp whereas the State of Maine regulation apparently requires a double beam.

As I mentioned, the NHTSA in October 1974 prescribed motor vehicle equipment safety standards for a category of vehicles defined as motor driven cycles with a maximum speed of 30mph. The Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle is in this category and fully complies with all NHTSA safety standards.

The enclosed FVSS108 Table 3 prescribes the required federal standards for headlamps and refers to SAE J584. SAE J584 in turn provides that a single beam headlamp is acceptable; a dual beam headlamp is not required.

A look at 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) makes clear that in the area of motor vehicle safety equipment, this federal standard preempts any state standard dealing with the same aspect of performance. (See the first sentence of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).) As you will see the state standard must be identical with the federal standard; it cannot be higher or lower.

In view of this I would appreciate your clarifying with the appropriate Maine officials, including the motor vehicle registration and inspection authorities, that the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle and any others in the same category qualify for registration and inspection with the single beam headlamp.

I hope this discussion and the enclosed information are sufficient for your purposes. Kindly contact me if you have further questions or need further information.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation of the State Police inspection authorities, Sgt. Merservy (spelling uncertain), and your office in resolving this problem. I look forward to your early response.

Leonard A. Fink

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS

September 3, 1975

Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Federal Preemption of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

I am writing on behalf of our clients, Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A. G., and Bombardier, Ltd., joint ventures for the manufacture and distribution of motorized bicycles (mopeds) in the U.S., to request your assistance in clarifying the subject of federal preemption. The issue has arisen in several states, including Maine, Massachusetts and Delaware, where our clients have encountered refusal by motor vehicle authorities to register or inspect the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle because it lacks either turn signals or dual beam headlights called for by the respective state regulations.

The Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle, however, does fully comply with all NHTSA safety standards required for motor driven cycles with a maximum speed of 30mph. MVSS108, revised effective October of 1974, specifically eliminates the need for turn signals on this type of vehicle. Furthermore, with regard to headlamp requirements, MVSS108 Table 3 refers to SAE J584 which in turn provides that a single beam headlight is acceptable.

We have furnished the state authorities with copies of the NHTSA standards and also pointed out the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d). The first sentence of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) makes clear that the federal standards preempt any state standards dealing with the same aspect of performance and that states shall have no authority to continue in effect any different standards -- either higher or lower. While the respective legal authorities in the various states have been cooperative, I believe the matter could be more quickly and easily disposed of if you would send us a letter confirming that in fact MVSS108 does not require turn signals or dual beam headlights and that these, as well as all other federal motor vehicle safety standards, preempt any different state standards dealing with the same aspects of performance.

My thanks for your cooperation. Please let me know if you have any questions or require further information.

Leonard A. Fink

CC: TAYLOR VINSON

ID: nht75-2.43

DATE: 08/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1975, asking whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 preempts Section 25950 of the California Vehicle Code with respect to Mercury Monarch taillamps.

Section 25950 requires in pertinent part that all lamps visible from the rear of a vehicle be red, "whether lighted or unlighted", except that taillamps may be white when unlighted. Standard No. 108 requires passenger car taillamps to be "red" (Table III), and "the taillamp indication" to be red (SAE Standard J585, Tail Lamps, June 1966, incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108). The taillamps on the Mercury Monarch are covered with amber lenses. Although the lamp meets the color and photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when lighted, California is of the opinion that use of the amber lens is prohibited by Section 25950.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits a State from establishing or continuing in effect any motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a vehicle or equipment item as a Federal standard which is not identical to it. We interpret Standard No. 108 as requiring only that the color of the taillamp "indication" be red. The method by which this is accomplished is left to the vehicle manufacturer. The indication could be provided by a combination of a white bulb and a red lens (the conventional taillamp), a red bulb and white lens (permitted by California) or, as in your case, a red bulb and an amber lens. Although the color of the taillamp lens is not directly specified by Standard No. 108, the performance of the lamp as an assembly is covered in detail by the standard, and we consider that the color aspects of taillamps are within the scope of these requirements. If the lamp assembly complies with the Federal standard, then a State may not prohibit its use. We therefore find that in this instance 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, renders void the requirement of Section 25950 of the California Vehicle Code that unlighted taillamps be colored red.

Sincerely,

Office of the General Counsel

Ford Motor Company

June 10, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Re: 1975 Monarch Rear Taillamp Part No. (2) (A) (2) - IP2R(2)S(3)T75CT

We are writing to seek the express confirmation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the preemptive effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, 49 CFR 571.108 ("Standard 108") on passenger car lighting, as was provided by NHTSA in Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. v. Younger, No. Civ. S74-126 (D.C.E.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 1974).

This request is being made so that we may respond to the attached correspondence (Attachment I) from Mr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, California Highway Patrol, concerning compliance with Section 25950* of the California Vehicle Code by the 1975 Monarch rear taillamps. Mr. Heath's letters of April 8 and May 25 content that the amber lens applied over a red lens on one of the monarch taillamp compartments violates that provision of the California Vehicle Code Section 25950 which does not permit a taillamp to be amber when unlighted. On this basis, Mr. Heath has stated that similarly equipped 1976 model year Monarchs will not be eligible for registration in California. * Section 25950 provides in pertinent part: "(b) All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear.

This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot - candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps and turn signal lamps visible to the rear may be white when unlighted."

We believe the provisions of Section 25950 are preempted by Standard 108, and that pursuant to Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392 (d)), California is precluded from the enforcement of any nonidentical standard.

As the NHTSA has confirmed on several occasions, the Standard's lighting requirements are intended to be comprehensive and exclusive, and leave no room for differing state standards. The statement of the Administrator cited by the Court in the Motorcycle Industry Council judgement is particularly pertinent here where California seeks to enforce a differing standard for the precise function (i.e., taillamp color) covered by Standard 108. (Letter from James B. Gregory, Administrator NHTSA, to W. Pudinski, Commissioner, Dept. of Highway Patrol, dated Nov. 8, 1973, N40-30 (RBD).)

Compliance of the Monarch rear lamps with the requirements of Standard 108 has been confirmed by tests conducted at Ford. (Attachment II) Therefore, we seek an opinion on the issue of preemption with respect to the differing California requirements of Section 25950.

For your assistance, we are enclosing color photos of the Monarch and Monarch Ghia rear lamps which demonstrate their appearance when lighted and unlighted. (Attachment III) Photo #1 is of the Monarch rear lamp unlighted. Photo #2 shows the taillamp (3 exterior red compartments) lighted. Photos #3 and #4 are of the Monarch Ghia.

If you have any questions on this matter, please so inform me. I may be reached by telephone at (313) 337-6462. We hope to receive a response at your earliest convenience.

Nancy Kolodny Staff Attorney

ID: nht75-2.44

DATE: 12/03/75

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

TO: Koito Manufacturing Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letter of November 8, 1975, concerning the design of four headlamps as illustrated in the drawing attached to your letter.

In response to your questions, and also based on our review of your drawing, we offer the following comments:

1. FMVSS No. 108 permits the use of metal-backed headlamp units, provided the units are hermetically sealed.

2. Headlamp units must be indivisible without damage (units with replaceable bulbs do not meet this requirement).

3. Headlamps must be mechanically (Illegible Word).

4. The Type number (1, 2, 1A or 2A) of the headlamp unit must be molded in the lens (see SAE J57lb).

From our review of your drawing, it appears that except for the Type number markings, your headlamps will meet the above requirements and may be used on motor vehicles. This finding does not, however, exempt a manufacturer (of headlamps or vehicles) from certifying that his headlamps conform to all requirements of FMVSS No. 103.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Elwood T. Driver, Director -- Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

November 8, 1975

Subject: Configuration and Definition of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units in use for Motor Vehicles

Dear Sir:

In reference to the sealed beam headlamp units specified in the applicable Standard SAE J579a (- Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles) which is incorporated in Table-1 of the current FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, we hereby would ask you to advise us about the following configuration.

In the sections of Scope and Definitions of the said SAE J579a, it is so prescribed that:

In Scope: "These specifications apply to sealed beam units (hermetically sealed) --------"

In Definitions: "Sealed Beam Unit - An integral and indivisible optical assembly with the name molded in the lens."

Our question is as to whether the four(4) kinds of headlamp unit configuration as shown in the attached sheet, designed under a conception of "hermetically sealed" and "an integral and indivisible optical assembly" could be used for motor vehicles.

These proposed headlamp units are not of All Glass Sealed Beam Units, but are so-called Metal-backed Sealed Units as shown in the attached sheet, and of course, those dimensional, phtometric and other electrical specifications are designed to comply with all requirements of the FMVSS No. 108 S.4.1.1.21, the applicable SAE J579a, J571b and J573d.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your favourable advice on applicability of these Metal-backed Sealed Beam Headlamp Units in use for motor vehicles would be highly appreciated.

Thanking you in anticipation of your prompt reply, and we remain,

Yours faithfully,

M. Iwase -- Chief

Overseas Technical Section, Engineering Department

Attached: Figs showing an proposed configuration.

(Graphics omitted)

FIG. 3:

Recutangular Headlamp Unit with the equivalent configuration to FIG. 1.

FIG. 4:

Recutangular Headlamp Unit with the equivalent configuration to FIG. 2.

ID: nht75-2.45

DATE: 06/06/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: State of Vermont

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 17, 1975, to this agency asking questions about paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, relating to headlamp flashers. Your reference to S4.5.8(b) is out-dated by approximately three years and I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 108 as it now exists.

You asked the reason for the section in question, which provides that "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes." You also asked whether all motor vehicles, including motorcycles, are "authorized" by this section to use flashing headlamps, and finally whether the standard prohibits States from promulgating regulations to control flashing headlamps.

S4.6(b) was not intended as a regulation of this aspect of motor vehicle performance, in the sense that it would preempt all State regulation of the sale or use of headlamp flashers. It is basically merely an exception to the requirement of Standard 108 that all lamps (other than turn signals, hazard warning signals, and school bus warning signals) be steady-burning. The section, in other words, was included to make it clear that automatic headlamp flashers are not prohibited by the Federal standard. With reference to your questions, this is the only way in which they are "authorized" by Standard 108.

We have concluded, therefore, that State regulation of headlamp flashers is not preempted by the Federal standard.

SINCERELY,

STATE OF VERMONT

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

April 17, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Request is hereby submitted for official interpretation of Federal Safety Standard 108-S4.5.8(b) as follows:

Reason for authorization of standard S 4.5.8 (b).

Are all motor vehicles, including motorcycles, authorized to use flashing headlamp(s)?

Does this Federal Standard prohibit states from promulgating regulations governing control of flashing headlamps.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt reply, I remain

Ernest D. Mathews Chief, Field Services

ID: nht75-2.46

DATE: 06/09/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1975, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a described lamp design.

In pertinent part, S4.4.1 states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp." The lamp design that interests you has separate compartments for the taillamp and for the clearance lamp. You are concerned that at a distance it will be difficult to distinguish the two lamps, and you feel that this violates the spirit of S4.4.1.

We have no objection to the design of this lamp. Since the clearance lamp and taillamp are in separate compartments and not optically combined, and since Standard No. 108 does not specify a minimum separation distance between the two lamps, the lamp design does not violate S4.4.1.

SINCERELY,

(Graphics omitted) See illustration on original

May 13, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Active Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Wesbar Corporation is a manufacturer of lights, primarily used on boat trallers and utility trallers. We have received from a number of our customers an inquiry as to the possibility of making a tall light similar to the attached sketch, which would serve then as a tall light, stop light, turn signal, reflex reflector, and clearance light.

We have taken the position that a light of this type would not meet the spirit of DOT 108, paragraph S 4.4.1, which states, "Two or more lamps, reflective devices, or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are met, except that no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tall lamp or identification lamp."

A light of the design we indicate on the enclosed drawing would include a separate compartment for the tall, stop and turn light and a separate compartment for the clearance lamp. However, at a distance of 30 or 40 feet to the rear of the vehicle, it would be very difficult to make a distinction between the tall light and the clearance lamp, except possibly by doing some design work on having a different configuration to the lens on the clearance lamp.

We do not wish to be in the position of second guessing your department's interpretation of S 4.4.1 and would therefore appreciate your comments and interpretation of that section. On receipt of same, we will send a copy of this interpretation to the manufacturers who have made these inquires of us.

Your early attention in this matter will be very much appreciated.

WESBAR CORPORATION

Bernard R. Weber Executive Vice President

SINGLE HOUSING WITH SEPARATE COMPARTMENTS FOR EACH LIGHT

TAIL, STOP & TURN SIGNAL LIGHT

CLEARANCE LIGHT

CLASS "A" REFLEX REFLECTOR

1/8" APPROX. BETWEEN ALL LENSES

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht75-2.47

DATE: 08/22/75

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

TO: F. A. McNiel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On May 12, 1975, you petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to provide "A means that will hasten the illumination of a vehicles conventional stop warning lamps at any time that a 'panic' or any other exceptionally sudden stop is made, but wherein the said means will not affect the normal functioning of the vehicles lighting system at any other time."

We have given thoughtful consideration to your petition. It appears to us that the system you prefer would indicate only that the accelerator pedal had been released suddenly, and not that a sudden or "panic" stop was being made. In our view, a sudden release of the accelerator does not necessarily mean that a panic stop is in progress. Conversely, all sudden stops are not necessarily accompanied by a sudden release of the accelerator. In short, the presumed benefit of the system appears speculative, and no data have been submitted demonstrating that the signaling system would enhance highway safety. For these reasons your petition must be denied.

Standard No. 108 would not preclude the sale of your deceleration warning device in the aftermarket, subject to regulation by the individual States.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Motor Vehicle Programs

Dear Mr. Carter:

The May 1, 1974 issue of 'Status Report' published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety contained an article stating that your agency had proposed amending Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to allow the use of (1) a vertically mounted rear facing red-yellow-green lamp system that signals braking, no pedal application, or acceleration. -- or (2) Pulsating rear lamps that indicate when the vehicle is decelerating rapidly. - The proposal would also allow for the use of a combination of both systems.

Apparently both of these systems require auxiliary lamps in addition to the vehicles existing stop-light signal lamps. I am petitioning that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 be further amended to include basically the following - "A means that will hasten the illumination of a vehicles conventional stop warning lamps at any time that a 'panic' or any other exceptionally sudden stop is made, but wherein the said means will not affect the normal functioning of the vehicles lighting system at any other time".

It has long been a universally recognized and accepted fact that the flash of a lead vehicles stop-lights signal a following driver that the lead vehicles momentum is being retarded, possibly to the extent of a complete stop. As everyone knows there has been no basic improvement in a vehicles stop warning system since the adoption of the brake operated stop-light switch. - You could obtain an 'add-on' stop-light kit for a Model-T more than fifty years ago that would function just as effectively as the conventional stop-light system that is now in use on all modern automobiles, - either one will illuminate a stop lamp the instant that the vehicles brakes are applied.

The warning that is produced by such conventional stop-light systems is adequate under the proceedure that is customarily used by most drivers in making a normal stop, but is woefully inadequate when a 'panic' or other unexpected sudden stop is made. The critical factor in this instance is the loss of time that occurs between the driver of a closely following vehicle seeing the flash of a lead vehicles stop-lights (at which time the lead vehicles brakes are already on), and the time that the following vehicles brakes are actually applied. This time loss is composed of two very distinct and separate parts, the first part being 'driver reaction' and the second part being 'warning lag'.

Driver reaction accounts for the time loss occuring between a driver perceiving the flash of a leading vehicles stop-lights and the complete release of the following vehicles accelerator pedal. This time interval varies in accord with a specific drivers mental alertness and physical agility. It is estimated that this time loss is at least one quarter of one second for an exceedingly alert driver, and considerably more for one that is less alert. There appears to be no discernable way by which this reaction time loss can be prevented.

Warning lag is the split second that is required for a driver to shift his (or her) foot from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal and apply pressure to energize the brake operated stop-light switch, and illuminate the vehicles stop-lights. This time interval also varies to some extent according to the agility of a particular driver. -- Extensive tests have been conducted, using electronic detonating equipment to gauge the results. These tests have established the fact that this time loss is also approximately one quarter of one second for agile drivers. - This time loss can positively be totally eliminated.

It is an accepted fact that the majority of rear-end collisions occur when one driver in a congested flow of traffic unexpectedly jams on the vehicles brakes without prior warning, to make a 'panic' or other very sudden stop, and the driver of a closely following vehicle does not have sufficient braking time to stop before ramming the vehicle ahead. - This is particularily true of 'chain-reaction' pileups where the 'warning lag' is cumulative from car to car.

Enclosed is an outline for a hypothetical traffic situation of a type that is typical of todays congested traffic conditions. The accompanying chart that is based on the conditions as set forth by the hypothetical situation illustrates precisely the results that would be obtained by the elimination of 'warning lag'. - I am also enclosing sketches and an explanation of a particular means that I have perfected, that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the possibility of eliminating 'warning lag' as emphasized by chart is a reality - not a 'pipe dream'.

I was informed by the National Highway Safety Bureau more than five years ago:- "The National Highway Safety Bureau is cognizant of the fact that rear end collisions account for 10 per cent of the fatal motor vehicle accidents and 49 per cent of all motor vehicle accidents". - In line with these statistics I pose the following analysis in accordance with the submitted data.

Assume that one half of all drivers that crash into a vehicle ahead see the flash of the lead vehicles stop-lights, and are on their own vehicles brakes at the time of the crash. - If the lead vehicles were all equipped with a means for the elimination of 'warning lag', this would mean that one eight of the drivers that are involved in all motor vehicle accidents would have been applying their brakes for an additional ten feet (at 30 M.P.H.) before becoming involved in an accident that would cause damage to two cars. - If this ten feet of braking did not prevent an accident occurring, it would in every instance greatly reduce the force of impact, and the resultant damages to both of the vehicles that were involved. - Thus, if the safety feature that I am advocating was standard equipment on all motor vehicles, it would greatly reduce the damages sustained by one fourth of all motor vehicles that are involved in motor vehicle accidents of any kind! - Stupendous? - but true.

If this reduced the rear-end collision fatality toll by one tenth, it would amount to the saving of one life out of every one hundred of the current traffic fatalities. - The reduction in personal injuries resulting from such accidents would be very considerable, and the monetary saving by the public would be collosal. - Also, it should permit the Insurance Companies to make a very substantial reduction in the cost of premiums that are charged the public for motor vehicle insurance.

Any vehicle that is damaged in a traffic accident is not any more valuable after it has been repaired than it was prior to the accident occurring - consequently, all expenditures that are required for both the labor and materials used for repair or replacement of vehicles that are damaged in accidents that could have been prevented are wholly wasted. - If these really enormous outlays were available for constructive purposes, it would help to bolster our sagging national economy.

In relation to the enclosed data concerning the particular means I have perfected, sketch No. 1 shows the general assembly of switch unit. Sketch No. 2 shows the unit mounted behind the instrument panel in passenger compartment of vehicle, and sketch No. 3 shows unit mounted under hood in the engine compartment of the vehicle. - Both methods of mounting as shown have been very thoroughly tested, and each has been found to function perfectly. The accompanying specifications are drawn around sketches No. 1 and No. 2. Sketch No. 3 shows some alternations in the assembly of the unit, but functioning is identical to that of sketch No. 2.

If your engineers will thoroughly check all of the submitted data they will find it to be totally correct. - Also, careful analyzation of this data will reveal that factory installation of this type of safety equipment would cost no more than does the installation of conventional turn signals.

In view of the unquestionable reduction in damages to both the vehicles and their occupants that would accrue from the use of safety equipment such as I am advocating, I request that your organization give due consideration to amending Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to include the use of such safety equipment for improving the performance of a motor vehicles existing stop warning lamps.

In the meantime, will you please inform me if the use of safety equipment such as is described by the enclosed data is permissible under the existing Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Yours very truly,

Fred A. McNiel

ID: nht75-2.48

DATE: 07/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA Z. VINSON FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: D. R. Bernard, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1975, providing further information for our determination whether certain "safety lights" would violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

There is no Federal prohibition against sale of this accessory in the aftermarket. It would, however, be subject to regulation by the states. For the following reasons, it could not be used as original equipment. Standard No. 108 requires a minimum spacing of 4 inches (edge to edge) between the stop lamps and the rear turn signal lamps and a minimum spacing of 9 inches (centerline to centerline) between the turn signals. The purpose of this spacing is to provide a distinctive indication of the turning direction. A flashing stop lamp located in close proximity to the steady-burning stop lamp required by Standard No. 108 would, in our opinion, impair the effectiveness of the rear turn signal within the meaning of S4.1.3, during a combined braking and turning operation. Such a lamp would also be prohibited by S4.6(b) which, in effect, requires all original equipment stop lamps to be steady burning.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

BERNARD & BERNARD -- ATTORNEYS AT LAW

May 28, 1975

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: N40-30 (ZTV)

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Pursuant to your letter, we are providing the following supplemental information in order for you to reach a decision in regard to the proposed safety lights.

1. The flashing lights will be no brighter than the standard brake light, but will be mounted in close proximity to the said brake lights.

2. The flashing lights will be a different color from the turn signals and will not interfere with the operation nor be confused with the turn signals.

3. The flashing lights will be the same color normally as the brake lights and will have a frequency of flashes approximately twice the speed of the signal light for turns.

It is hoped that this information will be satisfactory to you, and your conclusion as soon as possible would be appreciated.

Yours truly,

D. R. Bernard

ID: nht75-2.49

DATE: 09/05/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Superindendent of Public Instruction, State Of Washington

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 15, 1975, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this agency asking whether the State of Washington's proposed school bus light warning system conflicts with S4.1.4(b)(ii) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That section requires an eight lamp signal system to be wired "so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened." Under the system Washington proposes, when a school bus stops, a "stop paddle sign" is extended by the operator, activating "a switching system which will terminate the yellow flashing lights and start the red flashing lights," before the door is opened.

Under the system you describe, the termination of the yellow lamps and activation of the red ones is dependent upon the operator extending the stop paddle sign. Should the operator forget to extend the sign, it does not appear that the system required by S4.1.4 would operate automatically when the door is opened. We therefore conclude that in order to meet S4.1.4 your school buses must be equipped with an override switch that would deactivate the amber lamps and activate the red ones when the door is opened, in the event that the stop paddle sign has not been extended.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 15, 1975

J. E. Leyseth -- Motor Vehicle Programs, NHTSA N41-31, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Leyseth:

The Transportation, Traffic and Safety Division of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Washington, has a problem concerning the use of an eight light warning system on school buses that requires some help or an interpretation from you. We had thought our problem was connected with Standard 17, but after contacting Dave Soule we learned from him that we need to contact you instead. Mr. Soule did indicate that our proposed system is not in conflict with Standard 17, but would be in conflict with Standard 108, S4.1.4 without an exception from you.

The State of Washington has for many years required their school buses to be equipped with a four light (red) warning system for use in loading and unloading school bus passengers. Motorists are required by law to stop and hold until the students are loaded or unloaded and the warning system is deactivated. In conjunction with the light system, the State has also required for many years the use of a "stop paddle sign" on the side of the bus. The red light warning system is activated and deactivated with the use of the stop paddle sign.

The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is currently engaged in activities to have the Washington State Legislature revise existing laws to permit the use of the eight light system. The proposal calls for the use procedure to be as follows: at a predetermined time or distance the driver will activate the yellow warning lights with a manual hand or foot switch. When the bus has stopped the driver will extend the stop paddle sign, which also has two flashing red lights mounted to it. The stop paddle sign, when extended, will activate a switching system which will terminate the yellow flashing lights and start the red flashing lights. When the stop paddle sign is retracted all flashing lights in the warning system are deactivated and the system is ready for the next cycle.

Two additional functions would be required. There must be a switch available to the driver to cancel the yellow warning lights once they have been started in the event that the paddle sign need not be used. The second requirement would be that the red flashing lights must activate when the paddle sign is extended, regardless of whether or not the yellow flashing lights are used.

This proposal conflicts with Standard 108, S4.1.4., (ii), which states that " . . . . the red signal lamps automatically activate when the bus entrance door is opened."

This State has not used the entrance door function in the warning light system for two reasons. Most importantly we wanted the driver to be able to engage the warning and traffic control system, make sure that traffic will indeed stop, before opening the door for students to load or unload. This provides a greater element of safety for the students. The loading cycle is also involved because we try to train students waiting for a bus on the opposite side of a street to hold and not cross the street or highway until the door is opened. This provides the driver with a signaling device to indicate to the students when it is safe to cross, and for them not to begin crossing when the paddle sign goes out or the red flashing lights come on.

The second reason is that many buses in the State of Washington are equipped with air powered entrance doors. Manual doors could possibly allow the driver to accomplish the above, but units with air doors could not accomplish the above procedure.

For the reasons stated this Office is hopeful that our proposed system is substantially in compliance with the spirit of Standard 108, and that an exception or variance could be granted to the State of Washington so that it may implement a system which will allow the stop paddle sign to activate the red flashing warning lights in the eight light system.

My office will be anxious to hear from you or to provide any further information that may be helpful to you on this request.

Thank you for your interest and consideration.

Sincerely, Superintendent of Public Instruction;

Jerry Toner, Consultant, Transportation, Traffic & Safety