ID: nht69-2.27

DATE: 10/03/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Harbors Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of August 12 and September 4, 1969 in which you asked several questions about the responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of companies that assemble bodies to chassis. I have taken the liberty of restating your questions.

What does a person who assembles truck bodies to chassis certify, and on what basis: Such an assembler is a manufacturer" under the Act, and the vehicles that he assembles must be certified by him as conforming to all applicable standards. The primary responsibility for conformity of the chassis-cab, however, falls on the manufacturer of it (generally a major automotive manufacturer), and under the regulations that manufacturer is required to affix to label to the chassis-cab listing the standards to which it conforms. Under section 108(b)(2) of the Act, such a certification protects subsequent persols in the chain of distribution from liability from noncenformity of while they have no knowledge. Thus, the body assembler is directly responsible for conformity of the finished vehicle with (1) any applicable standard to which the chassis-cab manufacturer has not certified, and (2) any other standards conformity to which is affected by what the assembler does to the vehicle. His certification must be for all standards, in the language specified in the certification regulations, but he can rely on the interim certification of the chassis-cab manufacturer for the standards it covers, as long as he does not know of any nonconformity.

What are the applicable standards? The applicable standards for a vehicle manufactured by assembling a body to a chassis-cab are those in effect on the date on which the chassis-cab was completed. This date appears on the label that the chassis-cab manufacturer must affix to the chassis-cab.

What is the vehicle identification number that must appear on the assembler certification label? At present there is not a safety standard relative to a vehicle identification number for vehicles other than passenger cars. The vehicle identification number to be affixed to the completed vehicle under the certification regulations, therefore, should be a number assigned to the vehicle by the assembler, by which he can identify the vehicle on request of an investigating agency such as the Federal Highway Administration.

Is there any requirement for certification of truck bodies separately from the assembled vehicles? No. A truck body is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Act and the regulations, and therefore is not covered by the present Certification Regulations (49 CFR Part 367). Although it is "motor vehicle equipment", such equipment is only required by the Act to be certified where there is a safety standard applicable directly to it; and there are none at present for truck bodies. When the body is assembled to the chassis, the completed vehicle must be certified in accordance with the Certification Regulations, as explained above.

I am enclosing a copy of the current standards and regulations. We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht69-2.28

DATE: 08/15/69

FROM: DOWELL H. ANDERS - ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY S. K. BOOTH

TO: Kawasaki Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your letter of July 28, 1969, in which you inquire whether a company that imports motorcycles, performing final assembly in regard to such items as fuel tanks and fenders, may designate itself as the manufacturer for the purpose of the certification regulations, 49 CFR Part 367.

You state in your letter that Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., the primary fabricator of the motorcycles, assembles the engine and basic frame, wheel and brake assemblies, handlebars, seat, and "some front lighting equipment". The purpose of the manufacturer's designation in the certification regulations is to identify the company that has primary technical responsibility for conformity of the design and quality control of the assembly. It is our opinion, on the basis of the facts presented in your letter, that Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. is the manufacturer of the motorcycles in question within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the certification regulations.

You should note, however, that the certification and import regulations do not require that Kawasaki affix the label to the vehicles. The import regulations allow importation of uncertified vehicles in certain cases, such as those where the importer declares that he will bring them into conformity. 19 CFR @ 12.80(b)(2) (iii) and (iv). In regard to such cases, section 367.2(b) of the certification regulations states:

"In the case of imported motor vehicles, the requirement of affixing a label or tag applies to importers of vehicles, admitted to the United States under @ 12.80(b)(2) of the joint regulations for importation of motor vehicles and equipment (19 CFR 12.80(b)(2), to which the required label or tag is not affixed."

Section 367.4(g)(1) requires in such a case that the label affixed by the importer bear both the name of the manufacturer (Kawasaki) and the importer (McCormack). Thus, the net result is that the label affixed by McCormack must bear the name of Kawaski above that of McCormack. Alternatively, Kawaski could affix the label prior to importation, naming only itself as the manufacturer.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht69-2.29

DATE: 12/05/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: La France Precision Casting Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1969, to Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell. Your letter was misplaced and did not reach me until now. I apoligise for the delay.

You submitted a label, asking whether it would comply with the Certification Regulations for motor vehicles, with particular reference to campers, trailers and motor homes. The current Certification Regulation for motor vehicles, published July 9, 1969 (34 F.R. 11560, copy enclosed), require that the vehicle label contain, in the order listed:

1. name of manufacturer;

2. month and year during which manufacture of the vehicle is completed;

3. the following statement --

"THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE:"

4. vehicle identification number;

5. (for multipurpose passenger vehicles only, as defined in 49 CFR @ 371.3) the words. "TYPE MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLE."

You should note that the above requirements only apply to complete vehicles, which include motor homes and trailers, and not to items of equipment, such as campers, which will be only part of a vehicle. No regulations have been issued as yet for the certification of equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, equipment that either is covered by a standard or, as in the case of most campers, contains other equipment such as glazing that is covered by a standard, must carry a label or tag certifying that the equipment conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The label that you submitted differs from the above requirements in several respects. If you or your customers have further questions concerning the certification requirements, we will be pleased to answer them.

ENCLOSURE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU -- MVSFS

ID: nht69-2.3

DATE: 05/08/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Kentucky Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 7, 1969, to Mr. Frank Turner, Federal Highway Administrator, concerning your request for a clarification of the requirements of rear lights on Drop Frame Trailers.

In determining compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, requirements for tail, stop, and turn signal lamps on this type of vehicle will be predicated on the normal driving, or closed tailgate, position. These lamps should therefore meet the requirements of the referenced SAE Standards in Table I and be mounted per the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108, a copy of which is enclosed.

Thank you for your interest in meeting the intent of the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht69-2.30

DATE: 09/19/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated June 19, 1969, in which you request approval of an alternative to the specified certification label location in accordance with Part 367.4(c) of the regulations. Due to an oversight, your letter has not reached me until now, and I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your proposed label location for models MA-1200 and MA-1500 Metro, on the panel below the wing glass, as shown in your enclosed sketch, is approved.

ID: nht69-2.31

DATE: 09/19/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Perley A. Thomas Car Works Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1969, in which you request approval of an alternative to the label locations specified in Section 367.4(c) of the Certification Regulations that are effective as to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1969.

The location you have selected is not considered to be in the same general area, left side of the vehicle, as specified. In view of the fact that interested parties will be looking for the label in the general area, to the left of the vehicle, we are approving a label location to the left of the access panel instead of the right as you have shown in your drawing No. 2507-2369.

If there is any reason why you cannot attach your label in the area we have suggested, please advise. It is assumed that our alternative should not impose undue hardship. In the interest of avoiding unnecessary correspondence, no response from you will be interpreted as your acceptance of the above.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

ID: nht69-2.32

DATE: 12/09/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 10, 1969, to the Federal Highway Administration concerning flashing side marker lamps.

Paragraph S3.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 within the flashing of side marker lamps simultaneously with the turn signal lamps on the side to which a turn is contemplated. There is no requirement in Standard No. 109 that these lamps must meet(Illegible Words) "Side Turn Signal Lamps," when used in this manner.

ID: nht69-2.33

DATE: 12/03/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Rootes Motors Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 10, 1969, concerning the requirement for turn signal lamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. With respect to the installation requirements for front turn signal(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line)(Illegible Line)

ID: nht69-2.34

DATE: 10/09/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz for R. Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 10, 1969, concerning lamp bulbs to be used in photometric tests.

In answer to your first question, photometric testing of lamps using 1034 and 1157 bulbs should be conducted with the minor filament operating at four mean spherical candlepower to determine conformance to SAE J573b. Bulbs utilizing three candlepower minor filaments would not be in conformance with SAE J573b; however, as provided by the enclosed interpretation issued August 12, 1968, on bulbs and bulb sockets, such bulbs may be used in lamp assemblies conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In accordance with the interpretation, such bulbs should be treated as special bulbs and should be tested at the three candlepower rating.

In answer to your second question, if photometric tests are conducted with a bulb operated at either three or four mean spherical candlepower ratings, it is not acceptable to interpolate (or extrapolate) the data to determine acceptability of the lamp in the other bulb rating.

ID: nht69-2.35

DATE: 10/21/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; B. M. Crittenden for Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 20, 1969, concerning multiple compartment tail, stop and turn signal lamps.

The answers to your specific questions (numbered in accordance with your letter) are as follows:

1. (a)(b) If one compartment or lamp meets the photometric requirements, the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore, not regulated by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2.

(c) The manufacturer has no choice in interpreting paragraph S3.1.1.7. However, the manufacturer does have a choice in how he designs his turn signal lamps to comply with S3.1.1.7.

2. In your reference to Mr. Baker's letter of May 13, it was interpreted that "all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously." Paragraph S3.1.1.7 clearly states that "photometric requirements . . . . shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps." Therefore, if two lamps or compartments of a three lamp or three compartment lamp meet the photometric requirements, they shall be photometered together as a unit and the third lamp or compartment is considered an "additional lamp."

(a) Individual tests are permitted to determine whether one compartment actually does comply.

(b) No. The intent of paragraph S3.1.1.7 is clear. This section permits the use of either one or a combination of the compartments or lamps in meeting the photometric requirements.

3. (a)(b) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires one tail lamp and one stop lamp on each side of the vehicle. If one lamp of a multiple lamp or one compartment of a multiple compartment lamp meets the requirements, 1(a) above would apply. If two or more lamps or compartments are necessary to meet the requirements, they shall be photometered together as a unit.

4. (a) I am not familiar with State requirements "that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and be approved for that function," and do not read California Vehicle Code Section 24003 as a requirement of this nature. There is no such requirement in Standard No. 108. Lamps on a vehicle, and not required by the Standard, are generally subject to regulation by the States.

(b) Same as 1(a).

(c) Same as 1(a).

5. (a) If one compartment meets the requirements, 1(a) applies. If both are needed to meet the requirements, they are to be tested as a single unit.

(b) Same as 5(a).

In general, we believe that the above replies answer your several questions. However, should you have any additional questions with respect to a specific rear lighting arrangement for a specific vehicle, we would be pleased to provide further clarifying information.

August 20, 1969

Robert Brenner Acting Director National Highway Safety Bureau

We have a copy of a letter to Mr. Charles W. Heyer of Electrical Testing Laboratories from Mr. Charles A. Baker regarding photometric test procedures. That letter quite clearly points out the method in which the National Highway Safety Bureau desires multicompartment turn signal lamps to be photometered. However, it raises additional questions concerning procedures to be used both by a laboratory in determining compliance of a device with the Federal standards and by a manufacturer in designing a lamp to meet those standards.

The photometric requirements in SAE(Illegible Word) were developed several years ago before multicompartment lamps were in common use. These(Illegible Word) reasonably well fulfilled the need in upgrading the performance of single-compartment lamps at that time. Later, experience with some of the original multicompartment lamps and complaints about excessive brightness of the taillamps and stoplamps on vehicles brought about a need for revising the standards.

At that time, each section of a multicompartment lamp was treated in the same manner as an individual lamp, since their performance was little different than that of individual lamps set side by side. Therefore, each compartment of a three-compartment lamp had to(Illegible Words) and the 80 candlepower minimum for a turn signal lamp. In addition, each compartment was allowed to have a maximum intensity of 15 candlepower at or above(Illegible Word) for the taillamp and 300 candlepower in red for the turn signal lamp.

The above maximum values were reasonable when only one or two lamps were used on each side of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the first three-compartment lamps were built with such high light output that each compartment barely(Illegible Word) with the maximum. This meant in some cases that the combined taillamp output on each sivo of the vehicle was over 45 candlepower and the combined turn signal output was barely below the total maximum of(Illegible Word) candlepower, thereby being annoyingly bright to following drivers.

The manufacturers and the SAE Lighting Committee recognized this problem and after a number of demonstration of systems and rewriting of proposed crafts developed the multicompartment rear lamp specification in SAE J575d. The original brightness problem appeares to be quite simple and could have been solved merely by reducing the maximum intensities allowed multicompartment lamps; however, the manufacturers more concerned that they would then be squeezed between a high minimum value for each compartment and a low maximum value which did not allow sufficient leeway for normal design and production.

The SAE studies indicated that with the types of multiple compartment lamps that were in use about three years ago, the values in SAE(Illegible Word) applying to the total light output of the multicompartment lamp were reasonable. This standard did not cover every condition of brightness and lens area that might be involved in providing anytime effectiveness while limiting nighttime brightness to reduce annoyance, but it was a first step in this direction.

Manufacturers who have attempted to comply with both FMVSS 108 and SAE J576d have differences in interpretation of your requirements. We would like to have the following points clarified so we do not cause the manufacturers unnecessary difficulties when we test devices for compliance with Federal and State standards:

1. Section 3.1.1.7 of FMVSS No. 108 specifies in part that the photometric requirements "shall be provided by one or a combination of the compartments or lamps".

(a) Does this mean that if one compartment or lamp meets the minimum and maximum requirements, the other compartments or lamps can have photometric output either below the(Illegible Word) required or above the maximum permitted?

(b) Does this mean that(Illegible Word) lamps may be used to meet the minimum requirements with the others adding stray light, provided the maximum requirement of 15 candlepower in the case of taillamp and 100 candlepower in the case of turn signal lamps is not exceeded when all lamps or compartments are lighted simultaneously?

(c) Does the manufacturer have the choice in interpreting this section as to which method is most favorable to him for his particular design?

2. Mr. Baker's letter of May 12 states that "The sums of the measured candlepowers at the test points of separately photometered lamps or compartments of a combination shall not be acceptable", whereby implying that all lamps or compartments shall be photometered simultaneously.

(a) What was the purpose of stating in Section 3.1.1.7 that photometric requirements shall be provided by "one" or a combination of compartments if individual tests are not permitted to cetorine whether one compartment actually does comply?

(b) If it is the intent that the compartments shall be measured simultaneously, should not the above section be recorded to eliminate the implied alternative of having only one of the lamps comply?

3. FMVSS No. 108 makes no mention of the method of testing multicompartment and multilamp taillamps and stoplamps, as Section 3.1.1.7 applies only to turn signals.

(a) Do the standards require each compartment of a taillamp or stoplamp to be tested separately to show compliance with J575c, or are they to be tested simultaneously as required of turn signals?

(b) Must each separate lamp or individual compartment meet the taillamp-to-stoplamp ratio, or is it sufficient that the compartments when lighted together meet the(Illegible Word) even though a particular lamp or compartment does not comply individually.

4. The California Vehicle Code contains a Section J1000 which prohibits a motor vehicle from being equipped with any lamp or illuminating device not specifically required or permitted by the Code. The manufacturers would like to interpret Section(Illegible Words) permitting any number of additional taillamps and and stoplamps on each side, provided only the lamp meets the requirements of J575c. The only limitation they propose is that all of the lamps taken together do not exceed the maximum candlepower requirements in(Illegible Word), do an example of(Illegible Word) of the(Illegible Word) of the effectiveness of the(Illegible Words) lamp. They would also use photometric(Illegible Word) showing that the total stoplamp to total taillamp output complies with the ratio requirements of J575c; again; to prove non-impairment.

(a) Do the Federal standards preempt States from enforcing present requirements that each rear lamp on a vehicle must perform a specific function and to approved for that function?

(b) Are all of the seneraio lamps in a multiple rear lamp arrangement considered by the bureau as comprising one lamp and(Illegible Word) to be taken as such by the states in enforcing identical standards?

(c)(Illegible Word) the Federal standard merely require the minimum of one stoplamp and raillamp on each side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of(Illegible Word), with the additional optional lamps to be provided at the manufacturers discretion regardless of whatever standards the states may have for any such supplemental lamps?

5. Some modern designs of multicompartment lamps have three compartment configurations where the large(Illegible Word) compartment is a backup lamp and on each side of it is a taillamp-stoplamp combination. Other configurations include a three compartment lamp centeres; on the rear of the vehicle where the(Illegible Word) compartment is a taillamp-stoplamp combination and the compartments on each side of it perform only taillamp functions.

(a) Where two rear lamp compartments are separated by a backup lamp compartment, is the entire lamp to be tested as a simple unit as though the rear lamp sections were adjacent to each other?

(b) With respect to the cervico where a taillamp is on each side of a center-mounted stoplamp, are the taillamps considered a part of the physically integral three-compartment center lamp for the purposes of determining compliance with minimum and maximum specification and ratio requirements? Or, is the taillamp on each side of the(Illegible Word) to be tested simultaneously with the other taillamps on that particular side of the vehicle for the purposes of determining compliance?

The manufacturers have been quite(Illegible Word) in developing different variations of multiple lamps and multicompartment lamps and each has his own interpretation as to how his particular arrangement might be considered as complying with a specific federal or(Illegible Word) standard. We have been asked a number of questions such as those above as a result of our program of purchasing and testing(Illegible Word) for conformance to the standards.

We would very such appreciate your giving consideration to this problem and providing us with specific information that we can use(Illegible Word) injuries from foreign and American manufacturers and in using the correct test procedure for determining compliance of a specific device with the requirements.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

be: George Gaudaen, SAE

Ford Motor Company

June 10, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. Assistant Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

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. S74-120 (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 contend 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 prempted 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 judgment 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 (RED).)

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

Attachments