ID: 1984-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Olson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David A. White Senior Safety Engineer Grumman Olson 70180 Centerville Road Sturgis, Michigan 49091

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to our letter of May 3, 1984, asking about Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. Your letter concerned requirements applicable to a proposed design for an instrument panel which would include controls for heating fan, windshield wiper and washer, and defrosting system. The controls would be identified both by the symbol specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 and the relevant word listed in that table. You asked whether the symbols are required to be illuminated or whether it is permissible instead to illuminate the identifying words without illuminating the symbols. As discussed below, your interpretation of the standard that the symbols must be illuminated is correct.

By way of background information, I would note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 101 generally requires that "any hand-operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated n column 3 shall be identified by that symbol." The section states further that "(s)uch a control may, in addition, be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2." The three controls noted above, heating fan, windshield wiper and washer, and defroster system, are all listed in column 1 and have symbols designated in column 3. Thus, the identification required by section S5.2.1 for these controls are the symbols designated in column 3. Use of the words shown in column 2 in addition to the mandatory symbols is permissible but not required.

Section S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states:

Except for foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console, or steering column, or in the windshield header area, the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control listed in column 1 of Table 1 and accompained by the word "yes" in the corresponding space in column 4 shall be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. However, control identification for a heating and air conditioning system need not be illuminated if the system does not direct air directly upon windshield.... Emphasis added.

As discussed above, the identification required by section S5.2.1 for the three controls are the symbols designated in column 3. Since each of the three controls is accompanied by the word "yes" in column 4, the required symbols must be capable of being illuminated whenever the headlights are activated. It is thus not permissible to illuminate the identifying words without also illuminating the symbols.

I would note that your letter does not provide sufficient information to determine whether the controls in your proposed design could come within any of Standard No. 101's exceptions to the illumination requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 3, 1984

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street S/W Washington, D. C. 20590

ATTN: Frank Berndt

Dear Sir;

Grumman Olson is a manufacturer of walk-in delivery vans. We have a customer who is asking us to use a special instrument panel that I question conforms to F.M.V.S.S. 101. The reason I question the conformity is that S5.2 of F.M.V.S.S. 101 requires that controls listed in column 1 of table 1 that have symbols designated in column 3 shall be identified by those symbols. Optionally the control may, in addition to the symbol, be identified by the word listed in column 2 of table 1.

S5.3 of F.M.V.S.S. 101 states that the identification required in S5.2 shall be illuminated if column 4 of table 1 requires it.

The controls on the instrument panel in question are identified both by the required symbol and the optional word. The symbol, however, is on the control and the word is on the panel itself. Provisions are made to illuminate the word and not the appropriate symbol. I am speaking here of the heating fan, windshield wiper and washer and the defroster system.

I have stated to our customer that the identification that is required is the symbol and it must be illuminated, not the word. I have not been able to convince them of this, so I seek an interpretation from you concerning this matter. The question I ask is, does the symbol have to be illuminated or may the identifying word be illuminated when it is provided with no illumination on the symbol?

I spoke with Ed Glancy of your office concerning this matter and he advised me that N.H.T.S.A. does not give out rulings verbally. He advised me to write this letter requesting an interpretation.

If there are any questions, please call me at your convenience.

David A. White Senior Safety Engineer

DAW/smf

ID: 2618y

Susan Birenbaum, Esq.
Acting General Counsel
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington, DC 20207

Dear Ms. Birenbaum:

This responds to your letter asking whether a product would be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). I apologize for the delay in this response. The product in question is called "kwik kool" and is intended to improve the performance of motor vehicles' air conditioning systems. The packaging and labeling for this product that were enclosed with your letter indicate that "kwik kool" is intended exclusively for use with a motor vehicle and by ordinary users of motor vehicles. We conclude that this product is "motor vehicle equipment."

As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . .

"Kwik kool" is an aerosol component that appears to be manufactured and sold for the improvement of motor vehicle air conditioning systems. As such, it is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act.

You noted in your letter that the Consumer Product Safety Act excludes items of "motor vehicle equipment" from those "consumer products" subject to the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission under that Act. This agency, on the other hand, has express statutory authority to investigate allegations that an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. Pursuant to the request in your letter, we have forwarded the complaint enclosed with your letter to our Office of Defects Investigation.

If you have any questions or would like some additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA d:7/l9/90

ID: 1984-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: T.F. Palomba -- National Sales Manager, Empco Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to me seeking information on the applicability of certain Federal requirements to "non-highway tires." Specifically, you asked if the manufacturer of such tires is required to identify itself on the sidewall of those tires by molding a DOT identification number thereon, and whether such tires are subject to the Federal excise tax on tires. The DOT identification number must appear on all tires for use on motor vehicles, as explained below. The Department of Transportation has nothing to do with the collection of the Federal excise tax on tires. If you need further information on that subject, you should contact the Internal Revenue Service.

49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, sets forth certain marking requirements which must be met by all manufacturers and retreaders of tires, including the requirements in section 574.5 that a DOI identification number be molded on all new and retreaded tires. However, section 574.1 specifies that the requirements of Part 574 apply only to new and retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles. Hence, the question which must be answered to determine if the manufacturer must put a DOT identification number on a tire is whether the tire is for use on motor vehicles.

"Motor vehicle" is defined at 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." If the tires you might import are for use on forklifts, earthmovers, or other types of mobile construction equipment intended and sold primarily for off-road use, the manufacturer is not required to mold a DOT identification number on the tires, since the tires would not be for use on motor vehicles. This is true even if these sorts of vehicles are incidentally used for highway travel from one job site to another.

If, on the other hand, the vehicles on which the tires are to be mounted are conventional on-road trucks simply being used off-highway, the manufacturer would be required to mold a DOT identification number onto the tires. The determination of whether the tires are for use on motor vehicles must be made initially by the manufacturer, but that determination is subject to review by this agency.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

SINCERELY,

May 15, 1984 OCC 598

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Attn: Frank A. Berndt

This letter is being written to you pursuant to my recent phone conversation with Mr. T.L. Moore of your office.

We at Empco Industries, through Nissho Iwai American Corporation in Los Angeles, are negotiating with Rekord Rubber products factory, Beograd, Yugoslavia, to import their line of tractor, farm, industrial and earthworks tires. (See attached brochure) on file in Chief Counsel's office.

Rekord is now exported to 30 countries and plans to expand into the United States market. In addition to no F.E.T. it is our understanding that a D.O.T. number is also not applicable to non-highway tires.

Would you please confirm this in writing, to my attention, that we are correct in our interpretation of these important factors pertaining to F.E.T. and D.O.T. requirements. In the event we consummate this agreement with Rekord Rubber Factory it would be necessary to have this information as a permanent record in our file.

EMPCO INDUSTRIES

T.F. Palomba Nitto National Sales Mgr.

CC: K. HIRATA; NISSHO IWAI

ID: nht87-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/06/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Deborah L. Brown

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ms. Deborah L. Brown Office Manager Callaway Engineering 3 High Street Old Lyme, CT 06371

Dear Ms. Brown:

This responds to your letter seeking confirmation of your understanding of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as it relates to convertibles. You asked that we verify your understanding in two specific areas. These were:

1. NHTSA has decided to exempt convertibles from the automatic restraint requirements set forth in Standard No. 208 for passenger cars during the phase-in period (September 1, 1986 to August 31, 1989).

This statement is correct. In a final rule published October 17, 1986 (51 FR 37028: copy enclosed), the agency announced its decision to exempt convertibles from the automatic restraint requirements for passenger cars during the phase-in period. In a sub sequent notice terminating further rulemaking on this subject, the agency announced its decision to retain the automatic restraint requirements for convertibles manufactured on or after the first day after the end of the phase-in period, i.e., September 1, 1989 (52 FR 10122, March 30, 1987; copy enclosed). Thus, convertibles manufactured on or after that date will be subject to the same requirements as all other passenger cars.

You also asked about the exact requirements for restraints in convertibles. Prior to September 1, 1989, convertibles must comply with the requirements of section @4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208. However, convertible manufacturers may, at their option, cho ose to certify that convertibles manufactured before September 1, 1989, comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in section @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. After September 1, 1989, Standard No. 208 draws no distinction between convertible s and other passenger cars. Section @4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 provides that all passenger cars, including convertibles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 shall comply with the automatic restraint requirements of @4.1.2.1, unless section @4.1.1 is rescinded pursuant to @4.1.5.

2. A manufacturer does not have to count convertibles as part of its passenger car production volume when determining its annual production during the phase-in period.

This statement is also correct. The October 17, 1986 amended Standard No. 208 and 49 CFR Part 585, Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting, to explicitly provide that manufacturers may exclude their production of convertibles that do not comply with the a utomatic restraint requirements of @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208 from the calculation and reporting of annual production during the phase-in period.

If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

July 6, 1987

Passive Restrains Department of Transportation 400 7th St. SW Washington, DC 20590

Subject:

Passive Restraints - Verification of Legislation

Re: Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 571 and 585 (Docket No 74-14; Notice 47)

Occupant Crash Protection and Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting.

Federal Register/Vol 51, No 201/Friday October 17, 1986. Would you kindly verify the following in writing for our records: 1. NHTSA has decided to adopt a exemption from the automatic restraint requirement for convertibles. The exemption to apply during the phase-in period.

2. A manufacturer does not have to count convertibles as part of its passenger car production volume when it is calculating its phase-in requirements.

Also, please include the exact requirements regarding restraints for convertibles, i.e. type of system required ad when the system is required.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely yours,

Deborah L. Brown Office Manager

ID: 1984-4.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 24, 1984

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard E. Bond -- Assistant General Counsel, Holiday Rambler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-30-86 to Administrator, Attention VIN-Coordinator, NHTSA, from Richard E. Bond (OCC 769); Also attached to letter dated 11-30-90 from Leonard M. Anderson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5516); Also attached to letter dated 3-19-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Leonard M. Anderson (A37; Part 565; Part 566)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number--Content Requirements. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

The hypothetical situation discussed in your letter refers to a corporation which has manufactured vehicle X for several years. The corporation forms a wholly-owned subsidiary to which it transfers the manufacturing operations of vehicle X. You state that the subsidiary corporation will continue to manufacture vehicle X and ask if the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is authorized to transfer the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code for the corporation to the wholly- owned subsidiary.

In a telephone conversation with Elizabeth Harrison of this office, you stated that Holiday Rambler is considering transferring the manufacture of commercial cargo trailers to a wholly-owned subsidiary. You also said that the new subsidiary would be responsible for certifying compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and reporting any safety- related defects for these trailers.

Section 4(a) of Part 565 requires the first three characters of a vehicle identification number (VIN) to identify uniquely the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. You indicated that less than 500 commercial cargo trailers are produced each year; therefore, the first three characters of the VIN together with the third, fourth and fifth characters of the fourth section of the VIN must uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle. As you know, SAE is authorized by NHTSA to assign manufacturer identifiers.

This agency has not authorized SAE to transfer WMI codes under the circumstances described above. If the WMI code for these trailers, which are now manufactured by Holiday Rambler, were transferred to a new subsidiary, then the WMI would no longer uniquely identify the manufacturer. Therefore, your corporation should request the assignment of a new WMI for the subsidiary and not use the WMI assigned to Holiday Rambler for these trailers, if the subsidiary is formed. The new identifier and the information necessary to decipher the characters contained in the VIN must be submitted to this agency under the reporting requirements of section 5 of Part 565.

Please note that the subsidiary must also inform NHTSA under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identifier, of its corporate name and the types of vehicles or vehicle equipment which it will manufacture, and comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

ID: nht72-5.2

DATE: 04/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Garsite Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 8, 1972, concerning the application of Federal standards and regulations to airport refuelers. In a conversation with Michael Peskoe of this office on March 30, 1972, you amplified certain questions you asked in your letter, which are dealt with below.

Initially, you asked whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to airport refuelers. In the conversation of March 30, you indicated that these refuelers are similar to most tank trucks, and that while operated on or about airports, may frequently be driven on public roads such as perimeter roads between oil tanks and the airport. We would consider these vehicles to be motor vehicles within the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act because of their use on public roads, and would consider them to be trucks under the motor vehicle safety standards.

Your second question concerned the fact that, at present, curb weights of chassis furnished to you are not accurately reflected by the manufacturer's specifications, the latter generally being lower than the former. We indicated to you in our phone conversation that the Certification requirements which became effective January 1, 1972, will eliminate this problem by requiring manufacturers to provide gross vehicle and axle weight ratings.

Your third question concerns a chassis which you ordered before the Certification regulations became effective, on which you planned to install a specific tank. The chassis has now been delivered, and it has a GAWR for the rear axle which is 400 pounds less than the weight of the fully loaded tank. While the establishment of both GVWR and GAWR for the vehicle when completed is the responsibility of your company as the final-stage manufacturer, we would consider mounting the tank on this chassis without modifying the latter to accommodate the additional load to raise substantial questions as to the safety of the completed vehicle. If the chassis cannot be modified, we strongly recommend against installing the tank on it.

You ask how you can recognize chassis that have been manufactured after January 1, 1972. Each such chassis, if an incomplete vehicle under the regulations, must be delivered to you with an "incomplete vehicle document" specifying the date of manufacture. A chassis-cab manufactured before that date must bear a label stating its date of manufacture.

Finally, you ask whether in some situations the chassis manufacturer can become the final-stage manufacturer. Sections 567.5 and 568.8 of the regulations provide for a situation where an incomplete vehicle manufacturer may assume all responsibility for the vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. In such a case the incomplete vehicle manufacturer will have the responsibility for certification otherwise borne by the final-stage manufacturers.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht95-6.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 21, 1995

FROM: Bart Stupak -- Member of Congress

TO: Ms. Brenda Brown -- Congressional Liaison, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/26/95 LETTER FROM CAROL STROEBEL TO BART STUPAK (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Brown:

I am contacting you on behalf of my constituent Mr. Kurt B. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium. Mr. Ries has requested my assistance with a matter regarding a new law on highway safety standards that would require all vehicles to have impact resistant sides, if they are used to transport students. This law is to become effective in 1996.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter I received from Mr. Ries regarding the new law. He believes that this law would be financially devastating to organizations because the cost to achieve this requirement would be astronomical.

As always, your attention to this matter is appreciated. Please direct your response to Margaret Richard at my Escanaba District Office at the address listed below.

enclosure:

July 21, 1995

The Honorable Bart Stupak United States House of Representatives 317 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Stupak:

Our organization currently uses thirteen (13) 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from various employment training programs, camps and jobs.

I have now heard from various sources and school officials that there is some new law on highway safety standards that would take effect in 1996. It is my understanding that this new rule would stop the use of these large vans, and demand that youth only be transported in buses with impact resistant sides (i.e., mini-school buses).

While this is admirable, it will have an absolutely devastating effect on our programs, as we simply don't have the financial resources to replace 13 vans with 13 minibuses. I would suspect that this will also be a huge blow to schools and church groups that currently use these vans to transport youth. The rule or law is probably well-intended, but it will drastically curtail youth activities, and instead of meaningful experiences and education they will stay home.

These are big, heavy commercial vans that meet all auto safety standards, and frankly I have not heard of huge numbers of fatalities from their use. Is there some national statistic that proves otherwise?

It seems to me that this is yet one more idea conceived in Washington that means well, but is not realistic. If funds were available to replace all vans with buses, fine. But they aren't and the adverse effect will be tremendous.

I'd appreciate any information, and urge that you take appropriate action to help provide relief if this is the case.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely, Kurt B. Ries Director NORTHEAST MICHIGAN CONSORTIUM

ID: nht95-3.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 21, 1995

FROM: Bart Stupak -- Member of Congress

TO: Ms. Brenda Brown -- Congressional Liaison, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/26/95 LETTER FROM CAROL STROEBEL TO BART STUPAK (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Brown:

I am contacting you on behalf of my constituent Mr. Kurt B. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium. Mr. Ries has requested my assistance with a matter regarding a new law on highway safety standards that would require all vehicles to have i mpact resistant sides, if they are used to transport students. This law is to become effective in 1996.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter I received from Mr. Ries regarding the new law. He believes that this law would be financially devastating to organizations because the cost to achieve this requirement would be astronomical.

As always, your attention to this matter is appreciated. Please direct your response to Margaret Richard at my Escanaba District Office at the address listed below.

enclosure:

July 21, 1995

The Honorable Bart Stupak United States House of Representatives 317 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Stupak:

Our organization currently uses thirteen (13) 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from various employment training programs, camps and jobs.

I have now heard from various sources and school officials that there is some new law on highway safety standards that would take effect in 1996. It is my understanding that this new rule would stop the use of these large vans, and demand that youth only be transported in buses with impact resistant sides (i.e., mini-school buses).

While this is admirable, it will have an absolutely devastating effect on our programs, as we simply don't have the financial resources to replace 13 vans with 13 minibuses. I would suspect that this will also be a huge blow to schools and church gro ups that currently use these vans to transport youth. The rule or law is probably well-intended, but it will drastically curtail youth activities, and instead of meaningful experiences and education they will stay home.

These are big, heavy commercial vans that meet all auto safety standards, and frankly I have not heard of huge numbers of fatalities from their use. Is there some national statistic that proves otherwise?

It seems to me that this is yet one more idea conceived in Washington that means well, but is not realistic. If funds were available to replace all vans with buses, fine. But they aren't and the adverse effect will be tremendous.

I'd appreciate any information, and urge that you take appropriate action to help provide relief if this is the case.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely, Kurt B. Ries Director NORTHEAST MICHIGAN CONSORTIUM

ID: 86-4.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/16/86

FROM: DONALD E. STEPHENS JR.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/22/86, TO Donald E. Stephens to Erika Z. Jones

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you very much for your letter dated June 20, 1986. And the interpretation of Kit car.

I will explain more what I had in mind so you canunderstand my particular case. What I mean with homebuilt is that purchase the plans from a CO. like Home Mechanics and I build my own car. In this case what I do it purchase a chasis of a Spitfire and take of it's body and engine. I will manufacture my own body out of fiberglass and urethane foam. Then I will put a Kubota garden tractor diesel engine and that's it.

The reason I will like to build this car because of the exitement of building my own car and learn more about cars. Also it's very good on gas mileage going 35 m.p.h. it gets 128 miles per gallon, but it can go lot faster than that. Diesel is better on gas mileage than gasoline engine. And the diesel does not need the maintenance of gasoline engine needs. If more people thought like me maybe we will not have worry about an Arab oil ambargo and this can be a lot safer than a motorcycle.

I do not know all the fuss of the D.O.T. in Washington about safety when motorcycles are a lot more dangerous than these kinds of cars. I cannot believe the laws of Kansas if you are older than 18 yrs. old you do not have to ware a helmet while riding a motorcycle thats ridicoulus. Also I was interested in making that auto for sale to the public, too. The Puerto Rican agency that deals with autos said it had to meet D.O.T. standards before I can register it and license it. So that means that P.R. because it's an U.S. Commonwealth they go by our federal laws.

Are all Kit cars mfrs. D.O.T. certified? Are all CO. That sell plans to build home builts cars certified and meet D.O.T. standards. What do I need to know if I decide to by plans for building a homebuilt car or buying Kit cars?

How good are the cars brought from europe with Eurepean specifications and then converted to meet U.S. specifications called Gray Market cars?

Some of this homebuilts plans from Home Mechanics are tree wheelers with a motorcycle engine made out of fiberglass a KU student has one. Some are electric cars and others are a combination of both.

I believe the homebuilt I plan to build is cheap transportation for work and doing something good for our country saving oil. We Americans waste to much oil we need to conserve energy. Do you think I could receive a grant from the goverment for my work? My last question how good does the third brake light helps prevennt rear end collisions?

Thank you very much for your time reading my letters and my many questions.

Sincerly Yours,

ID: nht90-2.79

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 11, 1990

FROM: Samson Helfgott -- Helfgott & Karas, P.C.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Our File No.: CAIN 8877 Automotive Warning and Brake Light Arrangement

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Helfgott (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

My client, Harold A. Caine, and the Safety Autodrivers Foundation for Education (S.A.F.E.) of Freeport, New York, had previously submitted an inquiry and received a response from your office on March 30, 1989. Their previous inquiry related to the use o f an amber lamp adjacent to the center high-mounted stop lamp, in a separate housing and wholly independent thereof, which would be activated when the ignition is turned on and deactivated when the stop lamps are illuminated.

My client is presently interested in the possibility of providing an "amber triangular array" on the rear of the car comprising the amber center high-mounted lamp of the previous inquiry in conjunction with the existing amber directional signals. This " amber triangle" would be present both day and night, and would turn on when the ignition is turned on and would be deactivated when the stop lamps are illuminated. A driver looking ahead to a leading vehicle would, therefore, always see an "amber triang ular array" until the brake lights are put on whereupon he then sees a "red triangular array". Enclosed is a single sheet effectively describing this concept.

We believe that this "amber triangular array" would have numerous benefits. Firstly, the amber color is already associated with a "warning" situation and, accordingly, trailing drivers seeing the "amber triangle" would be in a state of warning and would react more positively to the sudden turning on of the red triangle during a braking condition.

Secondly, the present existence of the constant red lights on the back of the vehicle which intensifies upon application of brakes, is more confusing than a situation where a color change occurs between non-braking and braking.

Thirdly, we believe that the amber light is a more suited color for continuous illumination. Specifically, a far-sighted driver would see a green light clearest while a near-sighted driver would see a red light clearest. The amber light is less effecte d by the driver's retroactive error than either red or green.

Fourthly, amber is preferable because of the chromeostereopsis effect. (The perception of colors at different distances due to chromatic aberration and slight optical element misalignments in the eye and/or due to prism incorporated in spectacle lenses). For about half the population, green will be seen closer than amber, while for the remainder of the population, green will be seen farther away. Since the average

illumination at night is yellowish, an amber light will not be subject to chromeostereopsis errors in distant judgement by any part of the driving population, whereas green, or other colors, could be subject to significant error in judgement of distance.

I believe that in order for us to determine the possibility of utilizing the "amber triangle" a number of areas must be addressed, and I would appreciate your addressing each of these:

1. The possibility of utilizing the amber turn signals as tail lights, instead of the red tail lamps. This is the same as is now in effect on the front of all vehicles.

2. The possibility of supplementing existing tail lamps with the presence of the amber lamps.

3. The possibility of using the amber lamps as daytime running lamps on the rear of a vehicle.

4. The possibility of utilizing the "amber triangular array" as described above.

In addition to any advisory opinion that you may be able to provide for us, if there is any technical information that your technical staff may have available in connection with this inquiry, we would appreciate your sending it to us. At the same time, should your technical staff not have yet considered the possibility of the "amber triangle" as described above, or the use of daytime running lights on the rear of a vehicle, perhaps you can forward this letter to them for their consideration of these as pects.

I do look forward to hearing from you on this matter.