ID: nht72-6.20

DATE: 07/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: University of Puerto Rico

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 9, 1972, raising certain questions concerning the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573).

You ask whether the amendments made by sections 4(a) and (c) of Public Law 91-265 took effect on November 28, 1970 or later. Section 4(d) of that law specified, as you note, that these sections take effect 180 days after the enactment of the Act, unless the Secretary of Transportation determined that a later date was in the public interest. No such determination was made, and the sections took effect 180 days after the Act's enactment. However, our computation shows that 180 days after May 22 is November 18, not November 28.

You ask if Owners Lists (49 CFR 573.6), including vehicle identification numbers, can be obtained by NHTSA and transmitted to your organization. The NHTSA would not consider it appropriate to require manufacturers to submit owner's lists to it for purposes not involved in the enforcement of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We would not consider the study you wish to perform to be within this purpose.

You also ask if we can furnish you copies of Quarterly Reports (49 CFR 573.5) at least as they relate to cars sold in Puerto Rico. Quarterly reports submitted by manufacturers, except for the production figures submitted pursuant to section 573.5(b), are considered to be public documents and are available for public inspection. Due to the large number of reports we receive, however, we can furnish copies only if the precise reports desired are specified. The reports do not disclose the geographical location of the vehicles involved.

With reference to your request for the latest version of the leaflet, "Motor Vehicle Safety Defect Recall Campaigns," I have enclosed the volume which provides information for the complete year 1971, and a new volume dealing with January-March 1972.

ID: nht87-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William R. Pape, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William R. Pape, Jr. 8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office, enclosing a copy of your letter to George Walton of AAMVA. In that letter you have asked three questions with reference to the center highmounted stop lamp required by F ederal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to which you have that we reply.

Your first question is "May one word be introduced on the brake light?" Standard No. 108 prohibits combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp, or with any reflective device. It does not prohibit the addition of one or more words to th e lens. However, there are basic requirements that the lamp must meet, and the word or words must not prevent the lamp from meeting them. Specifically, the effective projected luminous area of the lens must not be less than 4 1/2 square inches, and the l amp must meet specified candela maxima at 13 discrete test points.

Your second area of interest is the color red. You have asked whether it is a Federal requirement for all brake lamps, whether other colors may be substituted, and whether the color red may be adjusted to a lighter hue. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be red in color. This color is defined in SAE Standard J578c Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February 1977, expressing chromaticity coordinates according to the CIE (1931) standard colorimetric system. Red is rather na rrowly defined, and falls within the y coordinates, 0.33 (yellow boundary) and 0.98 (purple boundary). Red is not acceptable if it is less saturated (paler), yellower, or bluer than the limit standards. Thus red could not be adjusted beyond the prescribe d limits. In our opinion, the "soft pink" or "hot pink" that you believe is desirable would be beyond those limits. No color other than red is permitted for stop lamps.

Your final area of interest is whether one should consider marketing a lamp with the features you have indicated, and whether there are"hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing." Under the assumption that your lamp would not com ply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108, we must advise you that a noncomplying lamp could not be sold as original equipment for passenger cars, or as a replacement for center high mounted stop lamps on passenger cars manufactured on or after Sep tember 1, 1985. Federal law would not prohibit its sale for use on vehicles other than these, but the lamp would be subject to the laws of any State in which it would be sold or used.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

8152 Lodoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

August 22, 1987

Mr. Taylor Vincent NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Enclosed is a copy of correspondence to Mr. George E. Walton, director, Safety Equipment Services, and a copy of his response, suggesting direct communication with you.

Any assistance you can give with questions 1, 2, and 3 will be greatly appreciated.

Most Gratefully Yours,

William R. Pape, Jr.

WRP:BJ

Encs.

August 14, 1987

Mr. William R. Pape, Jr. 8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

Dear Mr. Pape:

Thank you for your letter of August 6, 1987 in which you have requested information regarding stop lamps on motor vehicles.

The standard for required lighting on motor vehicles is the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. This standard references a number of SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) standards which to comply with the standard.

For equipment covered by a federal standard, the states are preempted from having any other standard and must, in fact, adopt the very same standard as the federal standard.

For equipment not covered by a federal standard, the states are at liberty individually to adopt any standard they decide to recognize.

The center high mounted stop lamp is a federally regulated lamp.

The FMVSS 108 references SAE J575 for tests and specifically SAE J578d for testing the color. The specific color is shown on the chromaticity diagrams in the standard.

Since your concern is about equipment which is federally regulated, I suggest that the federal agency that administrates the standard for this equipment be contacted directly as follows:

Mr. Taylor Vincent - NHTSA 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-2992

We hope the above information helps you.

Sincerely yours,

George E. Walton, Director Safety Equipment Services

8152 Ladoga Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217

August 6, 1987

Mr. George Walton AAMVA, Suite 910 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Walton:

As a graduate of the Duke School of Engineering and a certified instructor of Lazanov Learning Method (also known as Superlearning), I am writing to you in the interests of public safety.

The third brake light is now mandatory for American motorized vehicles dating from 1986. I have purchased a brake light to be installed on my 1982 Granada station wagon and have considered a modification which I believe to be a decided improvement. Upon asking local automotive dealers about specific regulations, I was directed to The Book of States in the public library, which lists all safety agencies of the individual United States. To determine the precise regulations, nationally, I sent letters to t he individual state agencies, and the replies indicate that there is not a general regulation covering all states, and many agencies have recommended that I correspond directly to you.

The color red is presently used for all brake lights and for traffic signal lights to indicate "stop". I, personally, find the color red, when suddenly flashed on by a car in front of me in moving traffic, to be annoying and irritating. Psychological res earch has indicated that red induces a response of anger. Red is the color of a matador's cape which enrages a bull to charge into a matador's sword. Red is associated with "fire engine red" with a loud siren with a Pavlov's bell effect of emergency, a f light of fight response and a surge of adrenaline and jangled nerves. In other words, this red light, at eye level, in traffic, contributes to unnecessary and unwanted stress, which Americans are notorious for bringing on themselves in profusion.

Thus, it is desirable to consider what may be done for more calming effects. The Lazanov system for Learning and remembering uses words and phrases which have been tested and proven to have specific physical and key word, or sometimes called a "trigger" word for an immediate calming response is the word "peace." This causes an instantaneous effect of calming both mind and body. Also, by softening the hue of bright red to a "hot pink" or even a soft pink, the same conditioned color response to signal "stop" is retained, but with much less stress and unnecessary tension. It is t he conviction of this writer that these simple alterations will reduce accidents, prevent loss of life and limb, and aid drivers to reach their destinations without having their mental, emotional, and physical energies drained. Research shows that we do everything better when in a relaxed and comfortable state, including responding to emergencies. We think more clearly and with enhanced intuition. Fewer accidents will keep insurance rates down and thereby be beneficial to the overall economy.

The intent of the regulations in regard to brake lights is obviously for public safety, and it is clear that the suggestions cited here are intended to increase public safety. In regard to brake lights, I would like to ask you what one may do and what on e may not do.

1. May one word be introduced on the brake light? This is in no way subliminal persuasion or hypnosis. this should not be confusing when one considers that our vehicles are now adorned with make and dealer names, six letter and/or digit license tags, al l kinds of advertising frequently with seven digit telephone numbers, and bumper stickers and decals. The human brain is capable of millions of on and off switches per second, so one word on a brake light will not complicate matters.

2. Is the color red a requirement by law, nationally, for all brake lights? May other colors be substituted? And may the color red be adjusted to a lighter hue?

3. Should one consider marketing a brake light with the above mentioned enhanced safety features; are there any hidden directives which would restrict or prohibit such marketing?

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Most gratefully yours,

William R. Pape, Jr.

WRP:bj

ID: 1983-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc. -- H. Nakaya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter asking about the definition of occupant compartment air spaces for purposes of determining the application of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. You asked whether the cargo areas of two cars must comply with the standard if these areas always or sometimes open into the occupant compartment.

The term "occupant compartment air space" is defined in the standard as "the space within the occupant compartment that normally contains refreshable air." In previous interpretations regarding the applicability of the standard to a particular area of a vehicle, the question has turned upon whether people can and do ride in the area in question. In letters regarding vans, the agency has taken the position that the area was not typically occupied by passengers. However, the agency came to a different conclusion regarding the space behind the rear seat in station wagons. Since passengers can and do ride in that area, the agency concluded that it was part of the occupant compartment. For this interpretation, see the last page of the enclosed letter.

The Case I car in your letter presents a situation seemingly similar to that of station wagons. The Case I appears to be a liftback cart with a cargo carrying area behind the rear seat. If passengers can ride in the area behind the rear seat, then that would be part of the occupant compartment and would be subject to the standard. As to the Case II car, which appears to be a sedan with internal access to the trunk by means of the folding backs of the rear seats, the agency does not regard the trunk area as part of the occupant compartment. It does not appear from your diagram that people would ride in that area.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: nht88-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN BORKOWSKI

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/24/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM STEPHEN BORKOWSKI, OCC - 2243

TEXT: Dear Mr. Borkowski:

This is in reply to your letter of June 24, 1988, asking about the legality of your "Bimmer Dimmer Safety Stop Light Concept". The concept has as its goal to lessen the chance of rear end collisions, by governing "the intensity of brake light brightness to indicate the degree of braking being applied to a vehicle."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment governs the legality of your concept. SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970, has been incorporated by reference, and specifies appropriate photometric requirements. Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires in pertinent part that "the stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes". We believe that this means that the lamp shall display the intensity that is designed into it to meet the photometrics of J586c. The photometrics are expressed in terms of a minimum for each test point and while there is not a corresponding maximum for each point, there is an overall maximum for the lamp. Thus, a lamp of variab le intensity could fall below the minimum at one or more test points or exceed the overall maximum. This, of course, would result in a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

The agency examined the problem of rear end collisions and concluded that the most appropriate way to address it was through the center highmounted stoplamp, required equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. This is inten ded not only to reduce the incidence of rear end collisions but also their severity. We are interested in the possibility of further reductions in rear end collisions. Because your concept may be of interest to that Office, I am forwarding a copy of yo ur letter to the agency's Associate Administrator for Research and Development for such further correspondence as may be warranted. We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/89

FROM: MAUREEN ANDREWS

TO: ROBERT C. SMITH -- CONGRESS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA TO ROBERT C. SMITH, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 222; LETTER FROM ROBERT C. SMITH TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER, DATED 02/28/89

TEXT: Dear Congressman Smith,

I am writing to you because I am concerned about the safety of children while they are on the school bus. I would like to find out if anything is being done to make it a requirement to have seat belts on the school bus.

As you may know, last week a 15 year old boy was killed on a school bus in Manchester. That is such a tragic loss of life. Maybe if there was some kind of a monitoring system that could alert the driver that someone's seat belt wasn't fastened, then perhaps we could avoid such awful tragedies in the future.

It would be hard for some children to get use to wearing the seat belts, but if it was a requirement, they would eventually get use to it. A lot of children are already use to wearing seat belts when they get in their own cars -- why not the school b us also?

Another concern I have is the number of children allowed to sit per seat. I have been told that in Derry they are allowed to sit three students per seat. Many times my son comes home and tells me how he has to sit on the edge of his seat because ther e isn't enough room (or because the girls push him off). If some of the children are not sitting correctly in their seat, then there will be more serious injuries or deaths in the future especially if the driver has to make a sudden stop or swirve out o f someone's way.

I am really worried about the safety of children on the school bus. Would you let me know if anything is being done to correct this problem?

Could you also tell me just how a parent can go about finding out what parents rights are where the school system is concerned?

Thank you for any help you can give me.

ID: 1985-03.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Leo Kagan -- AMCO Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1985, asking if a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The answer is no. Compliance with standard No. 108 is determined independent of whether the luggage rack is loaded. However, if the rack is installed before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, or if it is installed after sale by a person other than the vehicle owner, care must be taken to insure that the photometric and visibility requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps continue to be met with the unloaded rack in place. The lamp is intended to reduce the incidence of rear end collisions. Loading the rack in a manner that obscures the light will reduce the safety benefits that the lamp provides both the driver of the car, and of any vehicle that follows, and is a practice that should be discouraged. If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

July 19, 1985

Taylor Vinson-NHTSA

Kevin Cavey suggested I write for a legal clarification relating to #571.108. Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, & associated equipment high mounted stoplamp.

Since all passenger cars are to have a "brake" light (or high-mounted stoplamps) as of September 1985, would anyone having a luggage rack on the trunk lid (rear deck) and carry luggage that blocks out the brake light mounted either inside the car on the rear seat ledge or in an exterior location, be in any violation?

Thanks for your help if there is any question to what I've asked please call me on 800/423-2353.

AMCO MANUFACTURING CORP.

Leo Kagan, Director of Marketing, Automotive Division

ID: 20563.ztv

Lance W. Shinder, Esq.
Barket & Shinder, P.A.
Biscayne Bldg., Suite 112
19 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33130

Dear Mr. Shinder:

This is in reply to your letter of August 23, 1999, asking for an opinion.

You write that your client "is desirous of importing vehicles, displaying them on a car lot to purchasers, then my client will be exporting the vehicles." You ask whether that practice would be in compliance with the laws that we administer.

We assume that the vehicles to which you refer have not been manufactured and certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) (because the practice you contemplate would be legal if they had been so manufactured and certified). Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), no person shall (among other things), sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless it complies and is certified as complying with the FMVSS. However, an exception is made for importation of a motor vehicle "intended only for export, labeled for export on the vehicle . . .and on the outside of any container of the vehicle . . . and exported." (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(3)).

The export provision is intended to allow manufacturers in the United States to ship nonconforming vehicles to ports for export to destinations where the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply. It also facilitates transshipment of nonconforming vehicles through the U.S. for destinations elsewhere. Under the practice you describe, your client would not be importing vehicles "intended only for export," they would be intended for display before export. Thus the condition of Sec. 30112(b)(3) would not be met and your client would be in violation of Sec. 30112(a). Your use of the word purchasers also raises an inference that the nonconforming vehicles could be offered for sale, even if later exported, and such an offer would also violate Sec. 30112(a).

You have also asked "is it proper to have the cars exported to either Puerto Rico, Guam, and/or the Virgin Islands?" The answer is no. The statute that I have cited applies within the United States. Under 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10), "State" means a state of the United States, "the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands."

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.9/21/99

ID: 2886o

Mr. Garry Gallagher
Vice President
Metzeler Motorcycle Tire
Agent Gregg, Inc.
4520 - 107th S. W.
Everett, Washington 98204

Dear Mr. Gallagher:

I am writing in response to your letter of February 11, 1988 that requested "written confirmation and approval" to add the word "reinforced" to the sidewall of the Metzeler Motorcyle ME88 Marathon model motorcycle tire. As discussed below, it is our opinion that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 does not prohibit the addition of the word "reinforced."

It is important to note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product.

Standard No. 119; New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars establishes performance and marking requirements for tires for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. Paragraph S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to this standard. The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. Standard No. 119 permits tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. Assuming that the addition of the word "reinforced" is not made in such a way that it obscures or confuses the meaning of the required information, Standard No. 119 does not prohibit the addition of the word "reinforced" to the motorcycle tire sidewall. I hope the information provided above will be useful to you and to Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. If there are any further questions or if you need more information, please do not hesitate to write to me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:119 d:5/31/88

ID: nht93-8.6

DATE: November 10, 1993

FROM: Cheryl Graham -- District Manager, Northeast Region, ARI

TO: Chief Counsel's Office -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/7/94 from John Womack to Cheryl Graham (A42; VSA Sec. 108(a))

TEXT:

I have spoken to several representatives of the Department of Transportation who were extremely helpful in providing me with information on brake light regulations, however, they suggested I write to you for a final determination on this subject.

Background: I work for a fleet leasing company and a client of mine, with a substantial fleet of cars across the country, wishes to install additional brake lights with the hopes of reducing rear-end collisions. The intent is to install an additional light at each side of the rear window. These lights would be the same color as the other brake lights and would illuminate simultaneously. The vehicle manufacturers do not offer this as an option and the work would be performed by an after-market installer, not yet determined.

When I initially investigated this request, I obtained copies of Federal Registers Volume 48, No. 202 and Volume 49, No. 97 as well as excerpts from the NHTSA Manual, Part 571.108. On page 236, S5.4(a) states that "No high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device, other than with a cargo lamp." There were also several paragraphs referring to the positioning of high-mount stop lamps.

My interpretation was that additional stop lights were not permitted. However, subsequent conversations with the Office of Rulemaking for NHTSA have led me to believe that they are permitted. Therefore, my letter to you.

I would appreciate it if you could respond to me in writing as to whether my client can have the additional lights installed. Also, if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie? As a leasing company, we are the registered owners of the vehicle but would have no direct control over the after-market installation. Insurance coverage is the responsibility of the lessee.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. If you need to contact me by phone, please feel free to do so at 609-778-1500.

ID: nht76-3.20

DATE: 01/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wenke; Burge; and Taylor

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to questions you raised in a January 7, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the determinations of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for a boat trailer.

GVWR is defined as:

the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. (49 CFR 571.3).

One constraint on this specification is found in the Certification regulation, which requires that the GVWR be

not less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity . . . . (49 CFR 567.4(g)(3))

"Rated cargo load" is not defined. If a manufacturer does not provide a cargo load rating to dealers or consumers, the NHTSA expects his determination of GVWR to reflect a good faith evaluation of the vehicle's load carrying capacity. In the case of a boat trailer, this evaluation should be made with the assumption that the trailer is attached to a towing vehicle and should include that portion of the trailer's load that is carried by the towing vehicle.

GAWR, on the other hand, is defined as:

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

The GAWR of a boat trailer's axle system could thus be less than the GVWR, because some of the trailer's load would be carried by the towing vehicle. However, the NHTSA would consider a boat trailer with a GAWR that is less than the actual load on its axle system, when loaded to its GVWR and attached to a towing vehicle, to contain a safety-related defect, which is subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

The NHTSA expects to issue, in the near future, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire and rim selection for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.120). Until the effective date of that standard, however, we will continue to consider a vehicle with tires insufficient for its gross axle weight ratings to contain a safety-related defect.