ID: aiam5363

"Dear Mr. Fabrycky: This responds to your letter about an aftermarke product you wish to manufacture. The product is a child safety seat buckle shield, which is intended to prevent a child from opening the buckle on a child restraint system. You state that your device would cover the buckle and prevent the child from gaining access to the pushbutton of a child seat buckle. To depress the pushbutton, the device requires that a latch be actuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle. You indicated that the device requires 'manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simultaneously.' Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have reservations about devices that interfere with the unbuckling of the seats. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and answers the questions in your letter about the effect of our regulations on your product. Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems,' which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard 213 before selling the product. Additionally, you are not required to get 'approval' from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self- certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said in a rule on the force level necessary to operate child restraint buckles: The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985) It appears that your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In determining the effect of a buckle shield on a child seat's compliance with Standard 213, NHTSA would evaluate the performance of the seat with the buckle shield installed. Standard 213 specifies several elements of design with which a child restraint system is unlikely to comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. That section also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. Your device will not allow the buckle to release when the force is applied because it will cover the buckle and require force to be applied 'in many directions simultaneously.' Your device would thus cause the child restraint to no longer comply with that requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard 213 requires each material used in a child restraint system to comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device. The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of their child restraints. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4435

"Dear Ms. Byron: Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr., who received a citation from the Maryland State Police, Automotive Safety Enforcement Division, for noncomplying window tinting. You asked us to review Mr. Ciampa's letter and provide you with our comments and appropriate information. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so. Mr. Ciampa suffers from diabetes, which makes his eyes extremely sensitive to sunlight. Because of this, the side windows on his passenger automobile apparently were tinted such that the tinted glazing no longer complied with State of Maryland requirements. There is no indication whether Mr. Ciampa did the tinting on his own or had an aftermarket business do it. According to Mr. Ciampa's letter, he was previously given a medical exemption by the State of Maryland that permitted him to drive with windows tinted differently than Maryland law permits. However, Mr. Ciampa stated that Maryland officials have now told him that the Federal government will not allow Maryland to grant any more medical exemptions. This information is inaccurate. Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute. The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including the tinting performed on the side windows of Mr. Ciampa's car, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation. Again, Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the 'render inoperative' prohibition in Federal law. Thus, the State of Maryland does not have any authority to permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses to install tinting on the side windows of passenger cars if such tinting causes those windows to have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on Mr. Ciampa's side windows would be liable for the civil penalty discussed above. Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows. However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Maryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, not the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel cc: Washington Office Constituent's Correspondence";

ID: 18164.ztv

Mr. Ian Goldstein
Safe Passage Technologies
85 Marcus Boulevard
Hauppauge, NY 11788

Dear Mr. Goldstein:

This is in reply to your letter of June 4, 1998, with respect to whether new lighting technologies that you describe are allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. You have asked us to advise you "as to the best approach to gaining the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's full acceptance and support."

You should understand that our agency does not "accept" or "support" a particular product. We do advise correspondents, as in this instance, as to whether a specific invention or device may or may not be permissible under the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The first of the technologies that you mention is "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs). This technology would modulate the intensity of DRLs according to ambient light conditions. On the basis of the limited information you have provided, we see no impediment under Standard No. 108 to the incorporation of this feature into DRL systems that comply with S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108. A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs. The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified .

We note your statement that "The State of California has independently determined to mandate DRL effective January 1, 1998." We do not know the basis for this remark. Unless and until DRLs are mandated by Standard No. 108, a state cannot require that new vehicles be equipped with them. A state can require that a driver operate a vehicle's existing headlamps on the lower beam during daylight hours to serve as a DRL, but we have not heard that California has enacted such a requirement.

The second technology would address lamp failure detection and correction. This technology would indicate to or warn the driver that a lamp had failed, "and temporarily use an alternative lamp, possibly at an alternate brightness," to substitute for the failed one. Under Standard No. 108, only the failure of the turn signal lamps is required to be communicated to the driver. We are aware that, through fiber optics, some manufacturers provide a warning when other lamps fail. We see nothing in Standard No. 108 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would preclude a vehicle manufacturer from offering such a detection system.

The question of substitution for failed lamps is not so easily answered. We have recently advised Ford Motor Company that automatic activation of a lower beam filament in a two-headlamp system when the upper beam filament fails is not prohibited by S5.5.9 which states that only the upper beam light sources shall be activated when the headlamp switch is in the upper beam position. In our view, this requirement of Standard No. 108 does not apply in a failure condition, and the substitution of an alternate light source is permissible. The reverse situation is not quite the same. Because headlamps are primarily operated on the lower beam, activation of an upper beam light source when a lower beam source fails raises considerations of glare. As you note, the upper beam in this instance ideally should be activated at a markedly reduced intensity such that it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting devices (S5.1.3), or, more specifically, that, as a lower beam substitute. it does not compromise turn signal visibility.

You also present the case in which the hazard warning lamps could be activated in the event of total failure of a light source and its alternative. There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that would preclude wiring the hazard warning lamps to flash in the event of such a failure. We note that vehicle operators can manually activate the hazard warning system in such an emergency.

The third technology is called a "severe braking alert." This technology would flash the stop lamps to indicate rapid deceleration. Standard No. 108 does not allow this system because stop lamps are required to be wired to be steady burning (S5.5.10(d)). The agency has established a docket to receive comments from the public on Advance Brake Warning Systems (Docket No. 96-41) such as your "severe braking alert.". I enclose a copy of two notices, published in December 1996 and October 1997, that discuss the subject in detail.

If you have questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.7/21/98

ID: 12072.OGM

Mr. Geoff Smith
709 Glen Cove Road
Vallejo, California 94591

Re: Goal of FMVSS 218 "Motorcycle Helmets"

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your electronic mail message of June 17, 1996 to John Womack. As Mr. Womack explained in his electronic response, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) is responding to your letter by conventional mail.

Your message posed several questions relating to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets" (Standard 218) that take issue with the agency's position that Standard 218's performance tests ensure that helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head impacts. I will repeat your questions below (in italics), followed by the response.

A. Since Standard 218 is only a series of bench test on helmets and does not involve any simulated crash tests, how do you claim that: "Standard 218 sets forth a series of performance tests to ensure that motorcycle helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head injuries."????

Answer: The performance requirements of Standard 218 are intended to simulate conditions that may be encountered by a motorcyclist in an actual accident. For example, the impact attenuation requirements found in S5.1 of the Standard, in which a helmet is subject to a perpendicular impact onto a test anvil, are designed to replicate the vertical component of an angular or indirect impact at a much higher speed. As it is unlikely that a helmet would experience a direct perpendicular impact in a real accident, the selection of test criteria designed to simulate an angular impact is an appropriate performance test.

Because Standard 218's performance tests are designed to simulate conditions that may be encountered in a crash and the existenceof the standard requires manufacturers to produce a helmet that will meet test requirements, Standard 218 helps to provide protection in the event of an accident.

B. What is the connection between bench tests and actual crash situations? Do you have some other tests that will make this connection? I don't mean statistics claiming that helmets reduce injuries and deaths, I MEAN REAL, ACTUAL TESTS OF HOW PARTICULAR HELMETS PROTECT THE HUMAN HEAD IN A REAL CRASH????

Answer: As noted above, the performance requirements of Standard 218 are intended to simulate the conditions produced by a real crash. Studies performed by NHTSA contractors and others indicate that the performance tests incorporated in Standard 218 and other similar standards are representative of conditions encountered in real world crashes. NHTSA does not test helmets to any other standard other than Standard 218 and, for obvious reasons, has not considered testing using human subjects.

C. Question No 1:

If you don't have this test(s), how can you claim that Standard 218 will "reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists ..."? (Please no statistics, just proven tests).

Answer: As stated above, the performance tests incorporated into Standard 218 simulate conditions that may be encountered in real world crashes. NHTSA therefore believes that Standard 218 protects helmet users by requiring that helmets meet minimum performance requirements.

D. Question No. 2:

And conversely, can helmets INCREASE the risk of death and injuries in some situations?

Answer: While NHTSA is aware of claims by some individuals that helmets can increase the risk of injury in some types of crashes, the agency is not aware of any studies based on actual accident data that establish that helmets increase the risk of death or injury.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact me or Otto Matheke of my staff at 202-366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:218

d:10/23/96

ID: 12172har.nes

Howard R. Price, Esq.
Brodey & Price
9777 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Dear Mr. Price:

This responds to your letter asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," as it applies to a child restraint harness. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You wish to know whether the design of a particular harness is in compliance with Standard 213. Please note that NHTSA does not issue interpretations about the conformance of a specific vehicle or item of equipment with the standards. Those determinations are usually made in the context of an administrative proceeding when a full examination of the issues is possible, such as an enforcement action.

The "All Our Kids Travel Vest, Model TV600," was tested in 1994 by Calspan Advanced Technology Center (Calspan) for NHTSA as part of the agency's compliance test program of child restraint systems. Calspan found that the restraint appeared to comply with all the requirements of Standard 213 except for certain requirements on labeling and installation instructions. A copy of the test report (213-CAL-94-048) is enclosed for your information.

Your first question concerns S5.2.2.1(a) of Standard 213, which requires that "The system surface provided for the support of the child's back shall be flat or concave and have a continuous surface area of not less than 85 square inches."

You ask whether the restraint meets the requirement of S5.2.2.1(a) of Standard 213. You describe certain "reinforcing ribs" on a metal plate of a harness provided for support of the child occupant's back. You state that the ribs are 0.62 inches in width, raised approximately 0.25 inches above the surface of the metal plate. In addition, there are "corrugations (grooved in the front, ribbed in the rear)" that are 0.5 inches in width and 0.25 inches below the surface of the metal plate. As you describe the metal plate, it is essentially flat in orientation and thus would meet the requirement.

Your second question asks about S5.2.4 of Standard 213, which states, in pertinent part:

Any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface...shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 3/8 inch and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. (Emphasis added.)

You ask whether the determination that an edge is exposed is made before or after the removal of any padding or flexible overlay material. The answer is that NHTSA first removes padding or flexible overlay material, then measures the height of protrusions and the radius of exposed edges. (See underlined language above.) You also ask whether S5.2.4 specifies a minimum thickness of 1/2 inch for the metal plate. The intent of S5.2.4 is to ensure that edges that might be contacted through any overlay or padding must be rounded. However, the edges of this particular plate, as opposed to the essentially flat surface, would not be contacted by the dummy.

Your third question pertains to S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213, which sets performance requirements for "Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly design to restrain a child using the system...." You ask if S5.4.3.5 or any other paragraph in the standard would prohibit a "'hook and loop' or 'Velcro' closure, designed to fasten around a ring attached to the opposite side of the waist belt...solely because it is not actually a 'buckle'?"

The answer is Standard 213 does not prohibit the "hook and loop" assembly you describe. S5.4.3.5 sets requirements for push button buckles when provided but does not require the buckles types to be standardized. However, in a preamble to a December 13, 1979 final rule adopting upgraded requirements in Standard 213, the agency encouraged child restraint manufacturers to use push button buckles, "so that people unfamiliar with child restraints can readily unbuckle them in emergencies." 44 FR 72131, 72136. Our position on this has not changed.

If you have further questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d:6/11/97

ID: 13193.drn

Mr. Jir Misk
Chief, Type Approval Tests and Technical Regulations
SKODA, automobilov a.s.
Vslava Klementa 869
293 60 Mlad Boleslav
Cesk republika (Czech Republic)

Dear Mr. Misk:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Area "A" to be wiped on motor vehicle windshields, as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems, and 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. Your question is answered below.

Your letter states your understanding of two ways in which Area A is to be measured, and asks which of the two is correct:

1. Area 'A' as described in SAE J903 and MVSS 104, may enter into the windshield perimeter zone of 25 mm from the edge of daylight opening in which case the area "A" may be reduced to keep the 25 mm perimeter zone intact for the purpose of calculating the performance of wipers or,
2. Area 'A' as described in SAE J903 and MVSS 104, must always meet both of these requirements at the same time--
   
   1. specific angles 16 to 18
   2. remain (on the windshield) bounded by the perimeter zone of 25 mm from the edge of daylight opening (it can not intervene into the perimeter zone of 25 mm). Area 'A' can not be reduced.

Statement One is correct. Area A is that portion of the total area bounded by the angles in Tables I through IV of Standard No. 104 that is also within a perimeter 25 mm within the daylight opening of the windshield frame. It is not necessary that the windshield be large enough to contain the whole area bounded by the angles (of which 16 to 18 is the left border) as indicated by Statement Two.

S.4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 states the following:

Wiped area. When tested wet in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield wiping system shall wipe the percentage of Areas A, B, and C of the windshield (established in accordance with S4.1.2.1) that (1) is specified in column 2 of the applicable table following subparagraph S4.1.2.1 and (2) is within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

Area A of the windshield is described at S3.1 of SAE Standard J903a. S3.1 states:

[Area A] ... has been established using the angles of Table 1 applied as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Fig. 1 (side view), the upper and lower boundary of the area is established by the intersection of two planes, tangent to the upper and lower sides of the eye range contour, with the windshield glazing surface. The planes are fixed by angles above and below the glazing surface reference line. Fig. 2 (plan view), the left and right boundaries of the area are established by the intersection of two planes tangent to the left and right sides of the eye range contour. The planes are fixed by angles to the left and right of the plan view reference line.

S3.1's description means that Area A is not a fixed, predetermined area for all windshields, but is an area that varies from windshield to windshield. The variables are the angle of measurement and the width of the car. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 adds another variable by describing Area A as within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening.

Furthermore, not all of Area A must be wiped. In Standard No. 104, Tables I, II, III, and IV all specify that after the test is conducted, a minimum of 80% of Area A must be wiped.

Please note that since Standard No. 103 references Standard No. 104 in specifying Area A as the applicable cleared area, the above description of Area A also applies to Standard No. 103.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:103#104
d:5/6/97

ID: 11495ZTV

Mr. Anil Anand
Director (Engg.)
Fiem Industries Ltd.
C-171, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase II
New Delhi 110 064
India

Dear Mr. Anand:

We have received your letter of December 14, 1995, with respect to obtaining "SAE/DOT approval" for certain items of motorcycle lighting equipment, specifically headlamps, taillamps, and "blinker lamp assy front/rear." By this, we believe you refer to "turn signal lamps." This is the term for them in the U.S. lighting standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your letter indicates that Fiem Industries will supply lighting equipment to a manufacturer of motorcycles who will install the equipment and export the completed motorcycle to the United States. Under our laws, before a motorcycle is admitted to the U. S., the manufacturer must place on it a label certifying that the motorcycle complies with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (including the lighting standard). Our laws do not require the motorcycle manufacturer to obtain SAE/DOT approval before this label is affixed. Indeed, we are not authorized to test a manufacturer's products and provide approvals.

This self-certification process means that the motorcycle manufacturer must find its own ways of assuring itself that its vehicle complies with the U.S. standards before placing the label on it. It has asked Fiem to obtain SAE/DOT approval. This method is not possible. What is possible is for Fiem to have the lamps tested in India or the U.S. according to the test procedures specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or the SAE Standards which are incorporated into it. If the lamps pass the tests, Fiem can show the test documentation to the motorcycle manufacturer as an assurance that the lamps have been designed to conform to U.S. requirements. However, because of production tolerances and the chance of human error, Fiem should retest production

lamps from time to time to ensure that the lamps which it provides the motorcycle manufacturer continue to conform to U.S. requirements. Indeed, the motorcycle manufacturer should insist that Fiem do so (or conduct its own occasional verification testing).

We are authorized to enforce the safety standards through our own tests, and if we find that Fiem's lighting equipment on the motorcycle does not conform, the motorcycle manufacturer will be required to recall the machines and repair them. It will also have to pay a civil penalty unless it can assure us that it exercised reasonable care. Thus its relationship with Fiem bears upon the question of whether it has exercised reasonable care.

You also asked for "the procedure and test specifications." The requirements for taillamps are those of SAE J585e, September 1977. The requirements for turn signal lamps are those of SAE J588 NOV84, except that Standard No. 108 (a) allows motorcycle turn signal lamps to meet only one-half the minimum photometric values specified in Table 1 and Table 3 of SAE J588, and (b) requires the turn signal lamp to have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 3 1/2 square inches; for turn signal operating unit, SAE J589, April 1964; for turn signal flasher, SAE J590b, October 1965. The requirements for headlamps are those of SAE J584, April 1964. I am enclosing a copy of each of these, as well as the test procedures incorporated by reference in the SAE materials. However, under Standard No. 108, a motorcycle sold in the U.S. may also be equipped with one half of certain types of passenger car headlighting systems. We are not enclosing copies of passenger car headlighting standards. If the motorcycle manufacturer is intending to equip its vehicles with a headlighting system using a passenger car headlamp, please inform us of the type and we will be pleased to provide you with the appropriate standards.

Although you did not ask about them, Standard No. 108 also requires motorcycles to be equipped with stop lamps, license plate lamps, and red and amber reflex reflectors. If you intend to supply these and have any questions about them or other motorcycle lighting requirements, you may FAX them to us at 202-366-3820, Attention: Taylor Vinson.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:108 d:3/4/96

ID: 1983-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: C. H. Percy, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 18 1983 NOA-30

The Honorable Charles H. Percy United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Percy:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1983 (Ref. 3084500004) requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Mary Ella Dockson. Ms. Dockson is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. She believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Following is a discussion of the implications under Federal law of installing these tinting films.

A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances, precludes the practice referred to by Ms. Dockson. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such as the type referred to in Ms. Dockson's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Ms. Dockson may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

ID: 10006

Mr. Paul L. Anderson
President
Van-Con Inc.
P.O. Box 237
Middlesex, NJ 08846-0237

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Section S5.5.3(c) reads:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color ...

Your letter states that you are unable to continuously outline the perimeter of the rear emergency doors on your school buses due to the proximity of door hinges, tail light lenses, and a rubber gasket between the bottom edge of the door and the bumper. You ask:

Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continuous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and down the left and right side of the double door opening with breaks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom?

As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors?

As explained below, your planned placement for the top and sides of the door, and your alternative placement for the bottom of the door would be acceptable. In a July 7, 1993 letter to the Blue Bird Body Company, NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets,

rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter... When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

According to this July 1993 letter, interruptions in the retroreflective tape to avoid and/or accommodate hinges (such as the hinge on the side of the rear emergency door) and other functional components are permitted if the interruption does not negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or does not reduce the conspicuity of the bus. NHTSA considers tail light lenses to be "functional components" which do not have to be covered by the retroreflective tape. (Indeed, placement of the tape on the tail light lense could affect the efficacy of the light.) The interruptions in the tape for these components would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. Thus, the interruptions are permitted for the tape along the sides of your door.

With regard to the bottom of your door, based on the pictures provided with your letter, it appears that there is no location available for the placement of retroreflective tape outside of the door's bottom edge. Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:6/8/94

ID: 1985-01.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John S. Cucheran

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John S. Cucheran Vice President Design and Engineering Jac Products, Inc. 1901 E. Ellsworth Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Cucheran:

This is in reply to your letter of November 30, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Figure 10 of Standard No. 108 establishes the minimum design photometrics for center high mounted stoplamps. The test procedure for this particular part of Standard No. 108 which is specified in SAE J186a, stipulates that the "lamp axis shall be taken as the horizontal line through the light source." However, I believe that you have misinterpreted the light cone that is involved. The pertinent light cone in this case has its vertex at the photometer and a cross section at the plane of the lamp which encompasses the lens areas. From Drawing A that you have provided, it appears that your rail would interfere with this light cone.

In order to determine if your rack interferes with the photometric requirements, the vehicle must be tested with the rack in position as installed on the vehicle. As the agency has noted before, the photometric requirements do not specify that the entire lens must be visible from each 5 degree down test point. Instead, they specify the intensity of light that must be visible from those points. Therefore, the requirement can be met with a lamp whose lens is partially obscured by a portion of the vehicle when viewed from some of the test points.

We hope that this interpretation is helpful to you.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel November 30, 1984 Mr. Taylor Vinson U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Subject: Center Mounted Stop Light

Dear Mr. Vinson:

As you are aware, the cross rail on our deck mounted luggage racks supplied to O.E. automotive manufacturers infringes the 50 down cone requirement of Standard Number 108. This infringement will cause our products to be deleted from 1986 model vehicles equipped with center mounted stop lights with 50 cones that do not clear the rear rails.

Because we were not successful in getting a variance to allow infringement of the 5o cone on vehicles equipped with deck mounted luggage racks, our company will lose approximately 3 million dollars worth of business per year starting next summer, plus the loss of many jobs in an area already hit with some of the highest unemployment figures in the country. We are doing everything possible to adapt our products on new vehicles to save as many of our employees jobs as possible.

One thing that might make a difference on some potential 1986 business, is a clear definition of where the horizontal line, to establish the 5o cone, is taken from in the side view. I have enclosed two illustrations to clarify my request.

Illustration A shows the relationship of the light cone taken from the center of the lens, to a cross rail section. As you will notice, the light cone clears the bar.

Illustration B shows the relationship of the light cone taken from the bottom of the lens, to a cross rail section. As you will notice, the light cone is infringed by the cross rail. Mr. T. Vinson U.S. Department of Transportation November 30, 1984 Page Two

Several of our customers have taken for granted that the intent of the Standard is to establish the light path from the bottom of the lens. As you can see from our illustrations, the location of this point can mean approval or rejection of our products in cases such as this.

Your interpretation of our request, at your earliest date, would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, John S. Cucheran Vice President Design and Engineering cc: Mr. Barry Felrice/Associate Administrator for Rulemaking Mr. Jack Bott/President-JAC Products Inc.