ID: 2649o

Mr. Lloyd J. Osborn
Chief, Customs and Quarantine Division
Department of Commerce
Government of Guam
590 South Marine Drive
Suite 601, 6th Floor GITC Building
Tamuning, Guam 96911

Dear Mr. Osborn:

This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1987, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards of this agency in which you request a "list of vehicles which have been determined by NHTSA to be excluded as motor vehicles."

The agency does not maintain a list of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as a vehicle, with or without motive power, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. This category includes vehicles capable of off-road use but which are nevertheless generally licensed for use on the public roads. Over the years, NHTSA has provided interpretations that the following types of vehicles are not "motor vehicles": single seat racing cars, stock cars modified to the point that they are no longer licensable for use on the public roads, all-terrain vehicles, racing motorcycles and off-road motorcycles that are trailered over the public roads, golf carts, in-plant vehicles lacking doors and lighting devices, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and shuttle buses, snowmobiles, mobile homes, farm tractors, farm trailers whose use of the public roads is limited to crossing from one field to another, and trailers like mobile compressors which spend lengthy periods of time at an off road worksite and only infrequently travel by road to a new worksite. In addition, the agency does not consider construction cranes to be "motor vehicles". Finally, vehicles manufactured pursuant to military contracts, while "motor vehicles", are nevertheless exempted from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them, as well as furnish whatever other assistance you may require in formulating your Customs procedures.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:CSA d:2/11/88

ID: nht88-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: LLOYD J. OSBORN -- CHIEF, CUSTOMS AND QUARANTINE DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF GUAM

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 12-11-87, FROM LLOYD J. OSBORN, TO NHTSA, 20950

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1987, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards of this agency in which you request a "list of vehicles which have been determined by NHTSA to be excluded as motor vehicles."

The agency does not maintain a list of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as a vehicle, with or without motive power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. This c ategory includes vehicles capable of off-road use but which are nevertheless generally licensed for use on the public roads. Over the years, NHTSA has provided interpretations that the following types of vehicles are not "motor vehicles": single seat ra cing cars; stock cars modified to the point that they are no longer licensable for use on the public roads; all-terrain vehicles, racing motorcycles and off-road motorcycles that are trailered over the public roads, golf carts, in-plant vehicles lacking doors and lighting devices, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and shuttle buses, snowmobiles, mobile homes, farm tractors, farm trailers whose use of the public roads is limited to crossing from one field to another, and trailers like mobile compressors which spend lengthy periods of time at an off road worksite and only infrequently travel by road to a new worksite. In addition, the agency does not consider construction cranes to be "motor vehicles". Finally, vehicles manufactured pursuant to militar y contracts, while "motor vehicles", are nevertheless exempted from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them, as well as furnish whatever other assistance you may require in formulating your Customs procedures.

ID: nht92-6.1

DATE: June 22, 1992

FROM: Eugene J. Welker

TO: Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, N.C.C.I., NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/7/92 from Kenneth N. Weinstein (for Paul J. Rice) to Eugene Welker (A39; Redbook (4); Std. 211; Std. 111)

TEXT:

Mr. Stronbotne suggested I write you relative to a mirror safety item that can be located near rear bumper on cars, trucks, vans, etc., to improve a driver backing out of either a perpendicular, 45 degree angle or other parking areas to ascertain if the way is clear for driver to proceed without endangering anyone.

The purpose of this letter is to question the legality of mirrors on rear of vehicles facing forward about 45 degrees so no following vehicles are affected by any reflection.

Mirrors on cars would be hinged on a vertical post and be a few inches above top rear window stop light. The two car mirrors are approximately 90 degrees apart or 45 degrees on each side so driver can tell from windshield if any traffic is coming from either direction prior to backing out.

Mirrors on prototype unit are 4" x 6" long, or approximately the size of mirrors on car doors. These are cut from 1/4" thick plexiglass and bolted on one end to hinge on vertical post.

Mirrors would be high enough on trucks, probably about heighth of ones outside drivers doors so driver can get a good view if all is clear before backing up.

I have made a prototype and can readily mount it on rear of my car above rear bumper in a few seconds with two small wing nuts to hold vertical shaft, approximately 35" long. I carry unit in car trunk so I can readily attach it if my vision is blocked on either side in rear.

In 1942 and 1943 I had the pleasure of working for the Small Arms Branch in the Pentagon expediting a variety of machinery and equipment.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: 06-007782jeg

ID: 1982-2.18

DATE: 06/30/82 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: MIKE SMITH -- PRESIDENT, FLEET TIRE SERVICE

TITLE: NCA-30

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-23-82, FROM MIKE SMITH-FLEET TIRE SERVICE, TO NHTSA

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to this agency asking about requirements for importing and retreading truck tire casings. In your letter and through a phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke of my staff on April 23, you stated that you had imported 220 truck tire casings from Belgium for the purpose of retreading. These casings all had DOT numbers on them. You buffed the tires for retreading, and then had a local police officer ascertain that each casing had indeed been buffed. This procedure would fully satisfy our requirements for retreaded truck tires.

As you probably know, there is no Federal safety standard for retreaded tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, before June 18, 1981, any such tires to be imported for retreading had to have a DOT symbol on the sidewall, or some other certification by the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, complied with our standard for new truck tires. On June 18, 1981, the agency issued an interpretation stating that tires to be retreated for motor vehicles other than passenger cars could be imported solely for the purposes of retreading without having a DOT certification, providing that certain conditions were met. I have enclosed a copy of this interpretation for your information.

One of the conditions which the U.S. Customs Service has established for such activity is that the importer file an affidavit stating that casings without a DOT number will be buffed and retreaded, and none will be sold without retreading. The steps you took with this shipment of tires to show that each tire was actually retreaded were unnecessary, since your tires all had a DOT symbol on the sidewall, and could legally have been sold as used tires.

Your efforts to ensure that your retreading operation fully complied with all legal requirements are commendable. Efforts like yours will help make our roads as safe as possible for everyone using them. Should you have any further questions, or need any further information, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by phone at (202) 426-2992. ENCLOSURE

ID: 2644o

C.D. Black, Engineering Manager
Legislation, Compliance
Product Development
Jaguar Cars, Inc.
600 Willow Tree Road
Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and October l7, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the l989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulations. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the "zero" position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the "zero" position when the engine is turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that "no aspect of FMVSS l08 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation."

The sole restriction that Standard No. l08 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires (S4.l.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our understanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the "zero" position from either of the two adjustment positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load.

We hope the information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:2/11/88

ID: nht72-4.5

DATE: 03/10/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Dockets

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: Conversation with Jensen Motors representative on Monday February 7, 1972

Howard D. Panton, Chief Designer for the Jensen Motors Company, met with representatives of NHTSA to discuss rulemaking actions of concern to his company. Representing the NHTSA were Robert Crone, Office of Crashworthiness, and John Womack, Office of Chief Counsel.

The major areas of concern to Jensen are Standard 206, 208 and 214, and the proposed rulemaking on Standard 201.

Standard 206 bears on Jensen's plans to develop a car with gull-wing doors. Their problems with the test procedure are similar to those expressed by Mercedes and they were invited to submit suggestions for changes in the test procedure.

Standard 214 also affects the gull-wing car, which would have a very high sill. The company feels that a test with the ram five inches above the bottom of the door would require then to have an unsatisfactory height for the door structure, with corresponding reduction in the glass area. It was indicated that Jensen's problem could not be met by an interpretation of the standard, and that they would have to seek an amendment of the procedure. Panton indicated that the company would consider doing this.

Standard 208 is of particular concern due to the apparent need for impact testing of several cars. This is said to be a serious problem for a small company (1000 cars a year) with a high cost per car ($ 10,000 plus). The NHTSA representatives indicated that the agency was aware of the problem. On the question of exemption authority, which Jensen considered to be a possible remedy, they were told that the agency no longer has exemption authority but that if such authority were returned to the agency it might be used to give the smaller manufacturers additional time on complex standards if they can establish the need for delay.

The current proposal on Standard 201 concerns Jensen in several ways, most notably with respect to the proposed changes in the windshield header location. They were advised that this requirement is undergoing careful review and that any detailed comments they could make would be welcome.

ID: 1985-04.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/05/85

FROM: JIM BURNETT -- NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TO: T. C. GILCHREST -- NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL

TITLE: SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS, H-85-30, ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/30/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO SAMSON HELFGOTT, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 108, VSA SECTION 108 (A) 2 (A); LETTER DATED 01/12/89 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2989; REPORT DATED 06/01/87 FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNING LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKING RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132, DATED 09/09/88, BY MERRILL J. ALLEN, IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATION OF AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENT; BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION OF MERRILL J. ALLEN, DATED 09/09/88 EST

TEXT: NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C.

ISSUED: November 5, 1985

Forwarded to:

Mr. T. C. Gilchrest

President

National Safety Council

444 N. Michigan Ave.

Chicago, Illinois 60611

SAFETY RECOMMENDATION(S) H-85-30

Motor vehicles are equipped with lights for seeing, but also for being seen. During hours of darkness, it is illegal in every State to operate a vehicle with the lights unilluminated. During the daytime, lights also can help to make vehicles more readily visible. Daytime illumination can enable other motorists, as well as pedestrians and cyclists, to perceive hazards earlier, take evasive action sooner, and thus possibly avoid a collision.

When ambient illumination is low, in conditions such as dawn, dusk, rain, and overcast, conspicuity may be significantly improved by the use of lights. They also can be valuable when there is little contrast between the color of a vehicle and that of its background, i.e., a light car against snow, or a green car against foliage. Small cars are harder to see at a distance than large ones, and so, as average vehicle size decreases, it, becomes increasingly important to enhance vehicle conspicuity.

It has been demonstrated that improved conspicuity can help prevent a variety of accidents. Among these are head-on collisions and sideswipes with the vehicles traveling in opposite directions, as well as collisions with pedestrians and cyclists. In 1983 there were 156,144 injuries and 10,531 deaths in such accidents. n1

n1 Analysis of data from Department of Transportation's National Accident Sampling System and Fatal Accident Reporting System.

Vehicle conspicuity is one of the factors in highway accidents involving older motorists and pedestrians. As a person ages, he or she needs more light than before to see properly. According to one expert optometrist, those illumination requirements double for each 13 years of a person's age. n2 He recommends that cars be driven with lights on

during the day to improve safety for this growing portion of the population. Today 22 percent of U.S. drivers are age 55 or over, but by the year 2000 that proportion is expected to grow to 28 percent, and to 39 percent by 2050. n3 In 1984, 35.7 percent of the U.S. pedestrians killed by motor vehicles during the hours of daylight, dusk, and dawn were age 55 or older. n4

n2 Merrill J. Allen, "Older Drivers and Pedestrians: Vehicle/Highway Design and Driver Testing," Workshop on the Highway Mobility and Safety of Older Drivers and Pedestrians, Automotive Safety Foundation, Washington, D.C., June 11-12, 1985.

n3 Forward by James L. Malfetti, Editor, "Needs and Problems of Older Drivers: Survey Results and Recommendations -- Proceedings of the Older Driver Colloquium, Orlando, Florida," AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, February 4-7, 1985.

n4 Analysis of data from Fatal Accident Reporting System.

There already have been numerous instances of vehicles operated with daytime running lights. n5 For the last 25 years, Greyhound bus drivers have been Instructed to use headlights both day and night. In the early 1960s, a campaign entitled "Drive Lighted and Live" urged Texas drivers to use their headlights during major holidays. In 1972, the Private Truck Council called for round-the-clock headlight use by its member fleets. In the same year, AT&T's Long Lines Division began a two-year program for its fleet to use headlights at all times.

n5 "Daytime running lights" are any vehicle lights illuminated during the day to make that vehicle more readily visible.

In Finland, motorists driving outside urban areas are required by law to have lights on at all times. A law in Sweden requiring daytime use of lights applies to motorists using all public roads. The requirement can be met in both countries with low-beam headlights or with special running lights described in the regulations. And in countries such as Norway, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, light use is required at times when visibility is low. Most States in the U.S. have similar requirements, but the level of compliance is not known.

Questions of concern to authorities promoting the use of daytime running lights, as well as those contemplating such action, include: Are the lights effective in reducing accident losses? If so, to what degree? And which type of light is best?

Numerous studies have been conducted on the subject, and each has produced the same answer to the first question: Running lights definitely are a means to help reduce the toll in lives and property from highway accidents. However, there is no consensus as to which type of light is best suited to the task, and data are not yet available to predict the degree to which lights will reduce accidents in a given region.

In Finland, the use of daytime lights was studied over a six-year period: two years before there was any government involvement concerning daytime running lights (July 1968 through June 1970), two years in which their use was recommended (July 1970 through June 1972), and then two years in which it was required (July 1972 through June 1974). In the first period, before government action, at least 40 percent, and perhaps as many as 75 percent of the country's motorists already were using daytime running lights. When the practice was a recommended one, the rate was 84 percent, and when light use became mandatory in rural areas during winter, the percentage rose to 97. n6

n6 Kjell Andersson, Goran Nilsson and Markku Salusjarvi, "The Effect of Recommended and Compulsory Use of Vehicle Lighting on Road Accidents in Finland," Swedish National Road and Traffic Research Institute, Report No. 102, 1976.

Researchers found that the increased percentage of use resulting from the new law prompted a measurable decline in a broad range of accidents. The winter daylight accidents in which more than a single vehicle was involved (including collisions with pedestrians, animals, and other vehicles) dropped as much as 21 percent from the first test period to the third, according to several accounts of the results in Finland. n7 A 28-percent reduction was reported in collisions involving vehicles traveling toward each other. n8 These crash reductions were achieved despite increasing traffic volume during the six-year period. With the law initially applying only in winter, the reductions appeared only during those months and not during summer months.

n7 Ibid. Also, Charles H. Kachn, "A Cost/Benefit Study of a Potential Automotive Safety Program on Daylight Running Lights," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1981; and Michael Perel, "Daytime Running Lights: A Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Research," NHTSA, June 1980.

n8 Andersson et al., op. cit., cited in Kaehn, op. cit.

In Sweden, the daytime running light legislation raised the use level from about 50 percent to more than 95 percent. The estimates of resulting crash reductions vary from 6 to 13 percent, for accidents involving more than a single vehicle. n9

n9 Jkell Andersson and Goran Nilsson, "The Effects on Accidents of Compulsory Use of Running Lights during Daylight in Sweden," Swedish National Road and Traffic Research Institute, S-581 01, Linkoping, Sweden (no date). Also, crash reductions of 5 to 15 percent were reported by Karc Rumar, "Daylight Running Lights in Sweden -- Pre-Studies and Experiences," Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper Series, 810191, presented at SAE International Congress and Exposition, February 23-27, 1981.

In both Finland and Sweden, the safety benefits were particularly significant for nonmotorists. Daylight winter accidents involving pedestrians declined 24 percent in the Finnish study. n10 In Sweden, the decline was 17 percent, and accidents in which motor vehicles struck "cycles or mopeds" dropped 21 percent. n11

n10 Kaehn, op. cit., and Perel, op. cit.

n11 Andersson and Nilsson, op. cit. Crash reductions of 27 percent for pedestrians and 25 percent for cyclists were reported in built-up areas in Sweden during summer by David B. Richardson, "Daytime Running Lights -- A Concept Whose Time Has Come," Institute of Traffic Engineers Journal, October 1984.

These studies, both conducted in the 1970s, were particularly valuable because they dealt with entire populations. Since Sweden and Finland are the only countries in which daytime running light use is nearly 100 percent, all types of vehicles and all types of drives in each country were represented. Other studies have been limited to specific fleets, and the results of using such limited test samples may not be extrapolated reliably to the full population.

But the very reasons that prompted these Nordic countries to lead the way in daytime running light use also limit the applicability of their research to the United States. The light conditions are very different. During the long winter in high northern latitudes, ambient light is low throughout most of the day, with lengthy periods of twilight. And with the sun frequently low in the sky, glare is common. These are the kinds of conditions in which daytime running lights are thought to be most effective, but such conditions are not found with comparable frequency throughout the United States.

There are differences as well in climate and road conditions. However, there have been studies in this country that suggest that daytime running lights would be effective, to some extent, in cutting the toll from highway accidents.

One of the earliest studies was conducted by the New York Port Authority. n12 About 200 vehicles operated by the Port Authority were modified so the parking lights and taillights were illuminated automatically when the ignition switch was turned on. The vehicles, some painted black and others yellow, were predominantly sedans and station wagons, with some light trucks and a few heavy trucks. For a year, beginning in July 1967, accidents involving these vehicles were monitored, along with those of a control group of about 400 unmodified vehicles.

n12 Edmund J. Cantilli, "Daylight 'Running Lights' Reduce Accidents," Traffic Engineering, February 1969.

Overall, the group of modified vehicles was involved in 18 percent fewer accidents than those without the change. In addition, the modified group had accidents that were less severe. A "severity index" was calculated, based on a graduated scale of damage and injury, and the modified vehicles scored 66 percent better than the control group. When passenger vehicles only were considered, the modification lowered the accident rate 23 percent, and the severity index improved 41 percent.

Experiments were conducted with other fleets. The daytime running lights program at AT&T's Long Lines Division produced a 32 percent reduction in that fleet's accident rate. n13 Greyhound Lines reported a 12 percent drop. n14 When a group of Checker cabs drove with lights on during the day, and a group of Yellow cabs did not, the Checker cabs had 7.2 percent fewer collisions, according to a 1979 report. n15 A 1965 survey of 181 U.S. companies with lights-on policies found accident reductions up to 38 percent. n16

n13 Editorial, "What Happened to All the Lights?" Diesel Equipment Superintendent Journal, November 1973.

n14 Dennis A. Attwood, "The Potential of Daytime Running Lights as a Vehicle Collision Countermeasure," Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper 810190 (1981).

n15 Merrill J. Allen, "The Current Status of Automobile Running Lights," Journal of American Optometry Association, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1979, cited in Attwood, op. cit., and Kaehn, op. cit.

n16 Merrill J. Allen, "Running Light Questionnaire," American Journal of Optometry, Vol. 42, No. 3, March 1965, cited in Attwood, op. cit.

In 1974, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) conducted tests in Arizona to determine the effect of daytime running lights on the distance at which drivers were able to detect oncoming vehicles. Without lights, the average detection distance was 2,074 feet; with lights, the average distance increased to 4,720 feet. n17

n17 R. W. Oyler, Executive Engineer, General Motors (personal communication to Kare Rumar, March 28, 1977).

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently completed a study using more than 2,000 cars, vans, and light trucks operated by three corporate fleets. Half the vehicles were equipped with increased-intensity parking lights that were turned on

automatically with the ignition switch; no changes were made in the other half. The modified vehicles experienced 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than did the unmodified ones. n18

n18 Howard Stein, "Fleet Experience with Daytime Running Lights in the United States," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, May 1985.

The running light studies so far have varied widely in results and test procedures. Their sample sizes often have been to small to provide statistical confidence in the specific results of each individual study. However, all the studies that have been reviewed suggest that the use of running lights during the day will indeed result in a decrease in accidents. The issue now is to determine the level of crash reductions and how this would vary by accident type.

A study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1981 produced inconclusive results about the relative benefits and costs of daytime running lights. To help clarify the issue, NHTSA is sponsoring a field study involving approximately 10,000 vehicles throughout the United States. As in the IIHS study, some of the vehicles will be modified so that lights come on automatically with the ignition; others will serve as a control group. The modified vehicles probably will have lamp intensities of various levels. Accident data will be collected on the vehicles for at least a year, starting in late 1985. There also will be an attempt to compare maintenance and repair costs.

NHTSA is unlikely to consider regulatory efforts until this large-scale fleet study is completed. It is expected to give the clearest picture so far of the likely decreases in accidents, deaths, and injuries from a daytime running lights program.

If a Federal standard were issued to require that vehicles be equipped with ignition-activated daytime running lights, it would have to specify whether low beams, high beams, parking lights, or turn signal lamps should be used, or whether a special running light should be added. If a light were to be added, the size, shape, location, lamp color, and lighting would have to be established. The standard also would have to specify the required light intensity. The NHTSA study should help provide a basis for determining these specifications.

It will take many years before the NHTSA study is evaluated, an acceptable Federal standard is developed, and running lights are incorporated into the U.S. fleet in substantial numbers. Those are years in which a measure already recognized as a means to improve safety would continue to be largely unused on U.S. highways.

Canada is facing a similar problem. As in the U.S., the Canadian government has been studying the crash-reduction potential of daytime running lights. In 1984, the Canadian Minister of Transport said that widespread use of daytime running lights could save 200 lives a year, which is about 5 percent of the total highway deaths each year in Canada. In addition, he said highway injuries could be cut by 2,500 and property losses by $ 200 million. n19

n19 Statement by Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Transport, Press Release, Transport Canada, May 31, 1984.

An official notice has been drafted describing a proposed regulation that would require ignition-activated daytime running lights on new automobiles. The choice of the type and intensity of the light to be used would be left to the manufacturers, as long as the lights met certain specifications. n20 n20 Winson Ng, Transport Canada (personal communication to NTSB staff, July 5, 1985).

Staff of Transport Canada say the earliest such a regulation could be in effect would be for model year 1988 and 1989. After that, it would be 8 to 10 years before the nation's fleet would be converted substantially to the automatic daytime running light system. Because of this likely delay, programs have been undertaken in at least two Canadian provinces that encourage motorists immediately to start driving during the day with their lights on.

Saskatchewan Government Insurance, which provides mandatory insurance to all motorists in that province, has mounted a major public education campaign. Called "Lights On For Life," this program employs a variety of means to encourage motorists to drive with low-beam headlights on. In print and broadcast media, there are public service announcements, as well as paid advertising. Four vans tour the province, promoting the message. Signs at border crossing say, "In Saskatchewan we drive with our lights on." n21

n21 Suzzane Hart, Program Director, "Lights On For Life," Saskatchewan Government Insurance (personal communication to NTSB staff, July 8, 1985).

The Premier of Saskatchewan has ordered that all vehicles of the provincial government be driven with their lights on during the day, and family members of government workers are encouraged to do the same in their private vehicles. Corporate fleets have followed suit. The message is being promoted as well by trucking associations, car rental companies, tourist information agencies and many other groups and companies. As a result, with the program in operation only about a year, daytime light use has increased in the province from 8.2 to 24.7 percent. n22

n22 Ibid.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) required drivers of its own fleet of 300 vehicles to use low-beam headlights during the day, and strongly recommended that staff members and their families follow the same practice in their private vehicles. ICBC subsequently urged the operators of 140,000 fleet vehicles insured by the corporation to use lights in the daytime. The insurance company plans to monitor the damage claims filed by fleets using daytime running lights, and to use the expected crash-reduction results to convince more fleets, as well as the general public, to take up the practice. n23

n23 "ICBC Backs Use of Daytime Headlights," Press Release, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, June 4, 1984; and "Support Growing for Daytime Driving Lights," ICBC People, no date.

CKIQ, a radio station in Kelowna, British Columbia, has taken the lead in a campaign to promote daytime use of running lights in the province, and the station reports endorsements and participation by groups such as B. C. Telephone, B. C. Transit Co., and

the Canadian Armed Forces. n24 Canadian military vehicles are required to be driven with lights on not just in British Columbia, but in many operations throughout the country. n25

n24 Dave Daniels and Yvonne Svensson, "Headlights for Life," Public Education Fact Sheet, CKIQ Radio, Kelowna, British Columbia, no date.

n25 Hart, op. cit.

The organizers of all these efforts stress that the programs are short-term, designed to enable the Canadian public to start realizing the benefits of daytime running lights immediately -- while work continues toward adoption of a Federal standard.

The National Transportation Safety Board believes that a similar approach could be undertaken in the United States. As in Canada, this would be an interim step in anticipation of a Federal standard. Motorists would be urged to keep their low-beam headlights on when driving during the day.

Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the National Safety Council:

Develop and conduct a program to encourage motorists to drive with their low-beam headlights on during the day. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-85-30)

BURNETT, Chairman, GOLDMAN, Vice Chairman; and BURSLEY, Member, concurred in this recommendation.

ID: nht88-4.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: T. J. BROWN, GENERAL MANAGER, PRODUCT SERVICES, MOHAWK TIRE COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-20-87 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA, FROM T. J. BROWN, MOHAWK TIRE COMPANY; OCC1178

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an opinion concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. According to your letter, you are considering purchasing for resale a group of metric size tires from a foreign manufacture r. The maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls of the tires are indicated in kilograms and kilopascals only, without any indication of the maximum pounds and PSI pressure. The actual stamping on the tires is as follows: Maximum Load 530kgs 165SR15 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA Maximum Load 600kgs 185SR14 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA Maximum Load 560kgs 175SR14 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA Maximum Load 475kgs 165SR13 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 230 KPA Maximum Load 420kgs 155SR13 Load Range B - Maximum Pressure 220 KPA

You stated that you question whether the omission of the load designation and pressure in pounds prohibits the tires from being sold in the United States and requested our opinion on the matter. As discussed below, it is our opinion that tires without t he maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls in English units do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 and therefore cannot be imported into the United States for use on passenger cars.

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

All tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The standard specifies performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed, and resistance to be ad unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire

and rim matching information requirements which must be satisfied by each tire sold in the United States.

Section S4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 109 requires that the maximum permissible inflation pressure of each tire "shall be either 32, 36, 40 or 60 psi, or 240, 280, 300 or 340 kPa." Thus, no value other than those listed may be used for the maximum permissibl e inflation pressure of a passenger car tire. Sections S4.3(b) and (c) of the standard specify that each tire shall have permanently molded onto the sidewalls the maximum permissible inflation pressure and the maximum load rating for the tire.

Section S4.2.1(b) originally listed only three permissible maximum inflation pressures, all in English units (32, 36 and 40 psi). The agency interpreted sections S4.3(b) and (c) to require that the maximum permissible inflation pressure and maximum load rating be in English units, since this is the system of measurement which will be used and understood by most consumers.

The first permissible metric maximum inflation pressures, 240 and 280 kPa, were added to Standard No. 109 in 1977. 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. In permitting metric-series tires, the agency established a requirement that the metric unit inflation pressu re and load rating be supplemented by English system equivalents on the tire sidewall. That requirement, set forth in section S4.3.4, now reads as follows:

S4.3.4 If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300 or 340 kPa, then:

(a) Each marking of that inflation pressure pursuant to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next whole number; and

(b) Each marking of the tire's maximum load rating pursuant to S4.3(b) shall be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Thus, each tire must have a maximum inflation pressure of either 32 psi, 36 psi, 40 psi, 60 psi, 240 kPa, 280 kPa, 300 or 340 kPa. If the maximum inflation pressure is 32 psi, 36 psi, 40 psi, or 60 psi, the maximum permissible inflation pressure and max imum load rating provided pursuant to sections S4.3(b) and (c) must be in English units. I would note that so long as the information appears in English units, there is no reason that it cannot also be expressed in equivalent metric units, if the presen tation of the additional information does not cause confusion about the required information. If the maximum permissible inflation pressure is 240 kPa, 280 kPa, 300 or 340 kPa, the maximum permissible inflation pressure in kPa provided pursuant to secti on S4.3(b) must be followed in parenthesis by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number, and the maximum load rating provided pursuant to section S4.3(c) in kilograms must be followed in parenthesis by the equivale nt load rating in pounds, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Since the tires you are considering purchasing do not have the maximum load and maximum pressures molded on the sidewalls in English units, they do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 and may not be imported into the United States for use on pa ssenger cars. I have also enclosed for your information a copy of a December 12, 1985, letter, addressed to Mutual Trading Corporation, which provides a general discussion of issues related to the importation and sale of tires in the United States.

Enclosures

ID: 86-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. -- President, Trim Plus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President Trim Plus P.O. Box 490811 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33349

This is in reply to your letters of November 18, 1985, and January 9, 1986, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Jeffrey Miller, asking questions about the relationship of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to the installation of deck-mounted luggage racks.

You have stated that you install accessories on new motor vehicles before their delivery by their dealers. You have asked whether deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the safety standards? It is not possible to give a definitive answer. When a passenger car leaves the factory, its center high-mounted stop lamp must meet certain specified minimum design photometrics at certain test points, and be installed so that it has a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. It must continue to meet these requirements at the time of delivery to the first purchaser, even if a deck rack has been installed. If the rack prevents the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center high-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it meets all applicable photometrics. If no such lamp is added, and the rack affects the photometric compliance of the lamp, we would view the installer (if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or a motor vehicle repair business) as a possible violator of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) which forbids those commercial entities from rendering partially inoperative equipment that is installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard.

You have also asked whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no; compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined without luggage in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

January 9, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Councel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Mine is a company specializing in the sales and installation of automotive trim accessories with a clientele essentially being the franchised dealers of new American made automobiles.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself customers, and colleagues regarding one of the new motor vehicle safety standards which, I understand, is number 108 involving the center high-mounted stop lamp. Since one of the specialties of my company is the installation of rear deck-mounted luggage racks on new cars, I was wondering if you would give me some information as to how the new safety standards might infect this. Here is what I am particularly concerned about.

1. Would installing a rear deck-mounted luggage rack that has a cross bar on a 1986 automobile for a dealer cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provision of the new safety standard?

2. It seems to me that on most cars a deck-mounted luggage rack can be positioned so that the center high- mounted stop lamp can still be clearly seen from the rear. Are there any provisions of the new safety standards that I should know about that would help insure prevention a violation?

3. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

Mr. Miller, this does make the second of my requests to your department for this information that I have yet to receive. I know how busy you department must be, but please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. I shall await your reply with great interest, as it will make considerable difference in my sales and operation.

Respectfully, Jack McDaniel, President

November 18, 1985

Mr. Jefferey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Ours is a company specializing in the installation of automotive trim accessories. Most of our services are to the franchised dealers of the major automobile makers, installing accessories on their pre-delivered cars.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself and colleagues regarding the new safety standards for 1986 vehicles concerning the center high-mounted stop lamps which, I have been told, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Since some of my orders are for installing deck-mounted luggage racks with cross bars on 1986 vehicles, I wonder if you could give me some information about how the new safety standards might affect this. I will list the things I am particularly concerned about.

1. Will deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the new safety standards? It seems to me that many racks can be mounted and positioned so that the high-mounted stop lamp is still clearly visible from the rear. How can we determine if one would cause a violation?

2. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

I shall await your answers with great interest, Mr. Miller. Many thanks for any information you can give me. May I please here from you as soon as possible?

Respectfully,

Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President