ID: nht89-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES A. LUTES -- ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT KENTUCKY MANUFACTURING COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/09/88 FROM JAMES A. LUTES TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 10/28/88 FROM THOMAS A. COZ TO JIM LUTES RE CALIFORNIA CITATIONS HIGH MOUNTED TRAILER STOP LAMPS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lutes:

This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the location of stop and turn signal lamps. I regret the delay in responding.

Your company has been installing supplemental stop and turn signal lamps approximately 12 feet above ground level on the rear doors of van-type trailers. The standard stop and turn signal lamps are located within the mounting range (15 to 72 inches above the road surface) specified by Table II of Standard No. 108. The photocopies you have enclosed indicate that on at least three occasions the State of California has cited trailers with this lighting configuration because the supplemental lamps are moun ted at a height in excess of 72 inches. You have asked for our interpretation and clarification of this matter.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the addition of supplemental lighting equipment, before delivery of a vehicle to its first purchaser, provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. Although your high mounted stop and turn signal lamps are located in the vicinity of the identification lamps, we see no problem of impairment (the vehicle in the photo does not appear to have clearance lamps; for purposes of this interpretation we sha ll assume that they are mounted at the same height as the identification lamps, and at either side of the vehicle above your supplemental lamps). When activated, the clearance and identification lamps are steady burning and serve as presence lamps. The supplemental lamps, on the other hand, are activated only when a change in vehicle motion or direction is occurring. If the activation of the supplemental lamps could be said to distract attention from the clearance and identification lamps, the distra ction occurs only at a time when the most important information being communicated by the vehicle's rear lights is that a change in vehicle motion or direction is occurring. Under those circumstances, the required stop and turn signal lamps tend to have the same distracting effect. Further, on heavily-traveled highways where

lamps at standard locations may be hidden by intervening vehicles, signal lamps mounted at higher locations can alert drivers farther to the rear that a large vehicle ahead may be stopping or changing lanes, thus reducing the likelihood of a chain co llision. In summary, your installation of the supplemental lamps is acceptable to this agency under Standard No. 108.

We surmise that the California citations were given on the belief that supplemental lighting equipment must meet the same locational requirements as original equipment. While that is an understandable interpretation, this letter provides the proper inte rpretation of paragraph S4.1.3. We are providing a copy of this letter to the California Highway Patrol in order that the State interpretation may accord with the Federal one.

If you have any further questions we shall be pleased to assist you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/24/89

FROM: SADATO KADOYA -- MAZDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TO: STEPHEN WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 108: LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICE, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/06/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD OF NHTSA TO SADATO KADOYA OF MAZDA, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood:

Mazda would like to ask for your advice and interpretation as to what is the correct interpretation on the location requirement of the highmounted stop lamp.

S5.3.1.8 of FMVSS 108 specifies that no portion of the lens shall be lower than 3 inches below the rear window in case of a car other than convertibles if the lamp is mounted below the rear window.

Mazda is looking for the exact allowable areas where the lamp lens may be mounted, and shown below are two possible interpretations as seen by Mazda.

(TEXT OMITTED) SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL

Mazda would be very appreciative if you would advice us which is a correct interpretation or exact allowable lens location, if neither of these is correct.

Regards,

ID: nht89-2.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/24/89

FROM: WILLIAM E. ALKIRE -- BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER INC

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/28/89 FROM STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM E. ALKIRE -- BRAKELIGHT ENHANCER, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 108; SENATE BILL NO 684, CHAPTER 410; APPROVED 07/27/83; SENATE BILL NO 1317, AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 8, 1982; INT RODUCED BY SENATOR JOHNSON ON 01/07/1982

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

Thank you for returning my call this morning.

The BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER (patent #4403210) is a safety device intended to flash the brake lights of a motor vehicle three (3) times within the first two (2) seconds of actuation, then remain continuously illuminated.

The BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER is 3" x 3" x 1/2" in size and is constructed using Underwriter Laboratory approved switching components. The purpose of this safety device is to provide a more eye catching braking or deceleration signal for following drivers. The circuit may be connected between the rear signal lamps brake light switch and flasher, in a conventional vehicle lighting system. When the turn signal switch is activated, BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER circuits are disabled so that only conventional brake lig hting occurs, thereby preventing confusion of following drivers.

The BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER is designed to allow a capacity of 300 watts. All units are built with the following "fail safe" modes.

1. Should the main power handling semiconductor device open, the BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER operation is as follows:

When the brake pedal is applied, the brake lights remain on continuously as long as the brake pedal is applied.

2. Should the main power handling semiconductor device short, the BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER operation is as follows:

When the brake pedal is applied, the lights remain on continuously as long as the brake pedal is applied.

3. Should the relay contacts not complete the electrical circuit, the BRAKE LIGHT operation is as follows:

When the brake pedal is applied, the brake lights remain on continuously as long as the brake pedal is applied.

4. Should the relay coil not open the contacts, the BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER operation is as follows:

When the brake is applied, the lights remain on continuously as long as the brake pedal is applied.

Our research indicates an overwhelming acceptance of the increased brake light effectiveness, created by use of the BRAKE LIGHT ENHANCER.

We look forward to your comments.

ENCL: AMENDEMENT

ID: nht89-2.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/25/89

FROM: CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- CONGRESS

TO: NORMAN Y. MINETA -- CHAIRMAN SUBC./SURFACE TRANSPORTATION U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/29/89 ESTIMATED FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 09/22/89 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE TO JEFFREY R. MILLER; LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA TO CONSTANCE A. MORELLA; LETTER DATED 07/08/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO NORMAN D. SHUNWAY -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Norm:

I am forwarding a letter from the Administrator of Maryland's Motor Vehicle Administration who is requesting amending federal law to allow tinted windows on an automobile for medical reasons. Also, enclosed is the section of a letter from a constitue nt, Leonard Baklay, of Gaithersburg, who has a similar request.

I urge you to consider these comments with a view to possible legislation. It seems that something can be done to help a person with a medical problem.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/89

FROM: ALLEN R. ANDRLIK -- MARKETING MANAGER AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION

TO: DEE FUJITA -- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL - NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ALLEN R. ANDRLIK -- AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 201; VSA 108 [2] [A]; PART 567.7

TEXT: Dear Ms. Fujita:

As we discussed on the telephone last week, I am now writing to obtain a ruling from your office that the Milford Cargo Barrier does not fall under any NHTSA standards.

I understand, that in order to obtain a written ruling from you, that I must submit a copy of the Milford Cargo Barrier product brochure so that you will understand exactly what it is and how it is designed to protect both the driver and front seat passe nger of any station wagon, van, or panel truck from the contents of the cargo area, which could injure them during an accident. I also believe that this product is not covered under DOT Standard Number 201 or Standard 208.

I look forward to receiving your written opinion after you have had a chance to review the attached product brochure. I will then forward your reply directly to the manufacturer in Australia.

Yours sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 28, 1989

FROM: DENNIS D. FURR

TO: DIANE STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-2-90 TO DENNIS D. FURR FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; A35; STD. 222; HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM GUIDELINE 17

TEXT:

The following is to serve as a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in regards to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and its lack of enforcement on the school bus manufacturers by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for new school buses as a condition of sale.

The following is also to serve as a petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and in regards to Highway Safety Program Standard 17, (3) Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating, which directs the States to use the passive restraint system/ bench seat by a seating position that is less than the 15 inch seating position required in Standard 222, S4.1 as directed by the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

If this is not the correct format, and or procedure, please advise me of the correct format, and or procedure.

The reason for this petition stems from the fact that school bus manufacturers are rating some, but not all school buses for 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat, and in doing so has nullified the safety feature s of the passive restraint system, and by their rating of the school bus has placed one third of the school buses rated capacity outside of the head, and leg impact zones of the passive restraint system.

The rating of some, but not all school buses for 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat by the school bus manufacturers has also encouraged the States/school districts to order school buses from the manufacturers that are not in compliance to the Federal Standards for the passive restraint system as a condition of sale when following Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a violation of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act for the States/school districts.

Understanding that in order for the occupant to be protected by the protective compartment of the passive restraint system, the occupant must be seated inside of the impact zones of the head, and legs, and the rated capacity of the school bus has to be a reflection of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat.

In considering this petition two things has been kept in mind.

The first is the Standard for the passive restraint system is the minimum specifications.

The second is Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. : 1392 (f);

Safety Standard 222, S4.1; "The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W" and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number."

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Section 103 (d); "Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a state shall have any authority either to establish, or to continu e in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard. Nothing in this secti on shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable standard."

The school buses that are rated at 150 percent of the designed capacity of the passive restraint system/bench seat is those school buses equipped with bench seats that when divided by the figure 15 in S4.1, ends in a decimal of point five or more, and is carried to the next whole number.

As an example, the 39 inch bench seat is being rated for 3 passengers, but when following S4.1, and the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the 39 inch bench seat is designed for only 2 passengers.

By the school bus manufacturers rating the 39 inch bench seat for 3 passengers, this gives each passenger a 13 inch seating position.

The number of seating positions in S4.1 is considered by the figure 15, and not by the figure 13.

It is quite true that the figure "15" in S4.1, FMVSS 222 is not defined as a seating width, minimum or otherwise.

It is my understanding that the specifications in FMVSS 222 is minimum specifications by direction of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and following the instructions in S4.1, there should not be any doubt what the figure "15" is.

"The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the Symbol "W".

The symbol "W" is the product of division, and the answer to the two part formula.

"And calculated as the bench width in inches."

The bench width in inches is the first part of a two part formula, and is a variable.

"Divided by 15" is the instructions to divide, and the figure "15" is the second part to the two part formula, and is the only known fact.

Since the purpose of the formula is to find the number of "seating positions", it is obvious that the only known fact which is the figure "15" has to be the width of "a" seating position.

"And rounded to the nearest whole number" is additional instructions to ensure that any seating position less than 15 inches is not included in the product of the formula.

It is common practice to carry any decimal 5 tenths and over to the next whole number.

However the instructions in S4.1 says "and rounded to the nearest whole number.", and for the 39 inch bench seat, I understand that to mean 2, understanding that any decimal is not a whole number.

Also understanding that S4.1 does not say rounded to the "next" whole number, which would have included the decimal.

To be sure that a decimal part of the figure "15" can not be rounded to the "next" whole number as a condition of sale, you only have to understand the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Section 103 (d);

"Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a sate shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor v ehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Safety Standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable standard ."

Understanding the decimal part in the product of the formula is not identical to the figure "15: in S4.1, and can not be considered as "a" seating position, but is currently being counted as a whole seating position when rating some, but not all of the p assive restraint systems as a condition of sale by the school bus manufacturers.

Again, the purpose of the formula is to find the number of "seating positions", and the figure "15" is the specification in S4.1 The number of seating positions is a variable, dependent upon the length of the individual passive restraint system/bench sea t, and is not a specification.

As a result, the number of seating positions in a bench seat as a condition of sale must reflect the number of 15 inch seating position, or the number of seating positions that is greater than the 15 inch seating position that

is in the individual bench seat, and the rated capacity of the school bus must reflect that number.

I have been told the use of the figure "15" in the FMVSS 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (for a 38 inch wide seat.), and for a 39 inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger tha n the hip width of a 5th percentile adult female.

(Refer to your letter to Congressman Wolpe, dated February 23, 1989.)

In order to get the figure "15" in S4.1 to produce a minimum seating position of 13 inches in a 39 inch bench seat you would have to divide the 39 inch bench seat by 15, round the 2.6 to the next whole number to get 3. Then divide the 39 inch bench seat again by the 3 to get the 13 inch seating position.

I do not see that formula in S4.1, and do not understand the provisions in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act to permit the NHTSA, or the school bus manufacturers to reword S4.1 to obtain the exceeded number of seating positions in a bench seat for ra ting the school bus as a condition of sale.

Understanding that the NHTSA can exceed the number of designed seating positions in the 39 inch bench seat for testing, (their use), and can provide their own formula for doing so.

However, as a condition of sale, FMVSS 222, S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act has to be followed.

For the NHTSA to permit the school bus manufacturers to rate the school bus by the NHTSA's formula for testing the bench seat, and as a condition of sale, is a deliberate distortion of FMVSS 222. S4.1, and the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

By the manufacturers of the passive restraint system borrowing the 3 to the 39 inch bench seat that the NHTSA has used for testing, the manufacturers have not followed, or complied by FMVSS 222, S4.1 as a condition of sale.

I have also been told that the 13 inch seating position in the 39 inch bench seat is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female.

HSPG means Highway Safety Program Guideline, and its recommendations is to the states for operating their school buses, and is not enforceable by the NHTSA because it is only a guideline, recommended, and directed to the States, and is not a Safety Stand ard that the manufacturers have to comply to.

FMVSS means Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, and is requirements for the school bus manufacturers to follow, and be in compliance with, before the school bus can be sold to the public, and is enforceable by the NHTSA.

If anything is to be consistent, Highway Safety Program Guideline 17 should be consistent with Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and not vice versa.

Any seating position less than the 15 inch seating position in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1 is pre-empted under the provisions of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The NHTSA has in an elective guideline given directions to the States to use a seating position that is less than required in the enforceable FMVSS 222 when following the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act when the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act clearl y states;

Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard under this subchapter is in effect, (no State or political subdivision of a state) shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any Safety Standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard.

Understanding if a State did elect HSPG 17 either by law, or history of use by the 13 inch seating position by the school districts, the States/school districts has established a safety standard that is not identical to the applicable Federal Standard, a violation of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Also understanding that if a State requested a school bus manufacturer to deliver a school bus with a rated capacity based on the 13 inch seating position, and the school bus manufacturer complied to the State, the school bus manufacturer has not complie d to the applicable Standard as a condition of sale.

To understand that only a seating position greater than, or equal to the 15 inch seating position can be specified either as a states specification, recommended in another Safety Standard, or used for rating a new school bus you only have to follow the s ame logic in the Preamble to Amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, Docket No. 73-3; Notice 6.

You can also see that the seating position of the 5th percentile adult female in HSPG 17 is a contradiction to the NHTSA's own opinion for the requirements of a states specification.

Understanding that the seating position of the 5th percentile adult female does not meet, or exceed the requirements in FMVSS 222, S4.1.

The Physicians for Automotive Safety (PAS), requested that the seat back height be raised from the 20 inch level specified by Safety Standard 222 to a 24 inch level. While PAS's request was denied, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gave this opinion, in part;

"Standard No. 222 specifies a minimum seat back height (S5.1.2) which manufacturers many exceed as long as their product conforms to all other requirements of the standards applicable to school buses. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administra tion's opinion that any State standard of general applicability concerning seat back height of school

bus seating would also have to specify a minimum height identical to the Federal requirement.

Following this same logic for the minimum seating position, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's opinion "would have read".

Standard No. 222 specifies a minimum seating position (S4.1) which manufacturers may exceed as long as their product conforms to all other requirements of the standards applicable to school buses. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 's opinion that any State standard of general applicability concerning a seating position width of school bus seating would also have to specify a minimum seating position identical to the Federal requirement.

In consideration of the above, I respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to amend Highway Safety Program Standard 17, (3) Vehicle Operation, (6) d, Seating, to reflect the 15 inch seating position as required in Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and as directed in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require the school bus manufacturers to rate their school buses by the actual number of 15 inch seating positions in the individual passive restraint system/bench seat that is on the school bus as a condition of sale, and as required in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S4.1, and as directed in the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I also respectfully request the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to provide me with the formula that was developed that provided the pounds of force/inch-pounds of energy in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222 that is indicated by the Symbol "W" being the force of 700W pounds in S5.1.3.2, the 350W pounds in S5.1.3.3, the 4,000W inch-pounds in S5.1.3.4, the 2,200 pounds of force in S5.1.4 (a), the 50 pounds of force in S5.1.4, (b), and the 2,800W inch pounds in S5.1.4.1.

Since there is a relationship between the symbol "W" and the pounds of force, and or the inch pounds of energy applied to the passive restraint system in testing, what percentile is the pounds of force/inch pounds designed to protect?

I would also like to know the source of the data for the percentiles listed in S7.1.3 in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

ID: nht89-2.85

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 28, 1989

FROM: Emory L. Lariscy -- Lariscy Enterprises, Inc.

TO: George Shifflett -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Patten #07-335838

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from P.J. Rice to E.J. Lariscy (A36; Std. 108; Std. 124; Std. 301); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Mundy to E. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Staples to E.L. Lariscy; Al so attached to letter dated 8-9-89 from L. Baer to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-28-89 from A.M. Kennedy to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

With regard to our conversation of Aug. 24, 1989 we request you to submit to National Highway Traffic Committee for their interpretation and legality and now impairment of the use and marketing of vehicle safety light assembly.

We are enclosing the copy of patten application summary and background information for your reference.

It is our understanding after our conversation, that this new caution device does not require an S.A.E. or D.O.T number or sponsership.

This application deviates in size and placement of light for use in the trucking industry, (as pictured on enclosed rough draft). And in regard to the present potential truck fleet owners, would be mounted and/or located on the safety bumber bracket of semi-trailers: singularly or in pairs on said safety bumper bracket.

We are taking this opportunity to also submit copies of some of the inquiries and options we have had from major automobile and trucking firms.

We would appreciate your consideration and opinion and non disclosure any and all information submitted at this time.

P.S. Should you need clarification on said patten please contact Patten Attorney Wallace J. Nelson 34 Salt Pond Road Hampton, VA 23664 Ph (804) 851-1667 Enc.

EL-903 PATENT APPLICATION VEHICLE SAFETY LIGHT ASSEMBLY

FIELD OF THE INVENTI0N This invention relates generally to a vehicular safety system, and relates specifically to a braking and deceleration light warning

system to alert a trailing vehicle driver that the front vehicle is decelerating and, or may be, braking.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Rear end vehicular collisions are one of the most common accidents occurring on our road systems today and result in countless loss of money, time and sometimes, life to those involved. Although a number of systems have been proposed to alert trailing v ehicle drivers of the deceleration of a lead vehicle prior to illumination of the brake lights, there remains a need for further improvement in this area.

The addition of a third eye-level brake light in the rear window of presently manufactured automobiles has, no doubt, helped to reduce the number and severity of rear end collisions. A reliable and more efficient system to alert a trailing vehicle opera tor that the lead vehicle is, or may be, decelerating prior to actual illumination of the vehicle brake lights could prove a valuable safety device that could further reduce the number and severity of rear end collisions now occurring.

Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide an improved braking and deceleration light warning system for automotive vehicles.

Another object of the present invention is a braking and deceleration warning light system that is easy to install by the novice mechanic or vehicle owner.

A further object of the present invention is a novel deceleration warning light system that may be installed on vehicles that are already provided with rear window brake lights.

An additional object of the present invention is a novel bracket member for connecting a deceleration light switch to the carburetor of vehicle.

Another object of the present invention is a braking and deceleration warning light kit that is economical to buy, easy to retro fit onto a vehicle and will reduce rear-end collision incidence and severity.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION According to the present invention the foregoing and additional objects are attained by providing a rear window mounted combination brake and carburetor such that when a vehicle ignition switch is in the "on" position an amber light is activated and beco mes visible in the rear window of the vehicle.

When the vehicle accelerator is depressed, the electrical connection to the amber light is interrupted and it ceases to burn until the accelerator is released. When the brake pedal is depressed a red brake light in the vehicle rear window is activated, along with the regular brake lights. The amber or yellow caution light is connected to an independent circuit from the brake lights and continues to burn as long as the accelerator is not depressed as further visual indication to a trailing

vehicle driver that the lead vehicle is decelerating and braking.

For vehicles already provided with a rear window mounted brake light, an amber deceleration light unit is installed on one or both sides of the brake light. When installing two amber light units they may be placed adjacent to, or spaced from, the centra l red brake light. The brake light in each instance is connected to the same electric system that actuates the rear mounted brake lights. The amber caution or deceleration warning light(s) is connected to a switch disposed on the vehicle carburetor and receives current from the vehicle fuse block such that the throttle valve arm on the carburetor maintains the switch closed when the vehicle ignition switch is "on" and the accelerator pedal is not depressed. When the accelerator pedal is depressed, the throttle valve arm moves out of contact with the switch to permit spring actuated opening thereof. Opening of the switch interrupts the current flow to the amber deceleration light causing it to go out. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: 22038

Mr. Ronald E. Kish
Plastics by Design
P.O. Box 220
Marcellus, MI 49067





Dear Mr. Kish:

This is in reply to a recent undated fax you sent Richard Van Iderstine of this agency about a license plate lamp design for a cargo utility trailer. The lamp would be mounted to the left of the door-mounted plate on the trailer frame.

The standard that applies to your question is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires trailers to be equipped with a license plate lamp, or lamps, in accordance with SAE Standard J587 OCT81, License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate Lamps), and located "at rear license plate, to illuminate the plate from the top or sides."

Conventional license plate lighting systems consist of either one lamp illuminating the plate from the top, or two lamps illuminating the plate, one from each side. These systems are intended to ensure a reasonably uniform distribution of light on the surface of the plate. We are not conversant with the use of a single lamp to illuminate the plate from one side only. The lamp must comply with SAE J587 and we cannot determine from your two-dimensional drawing whether it does so. I enclose a copy of SAE J587 so that you may make this determination. I call your attention to Paragraph 6.5 which specifies that:

When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg. to the plate of the plate, this angle being measured from the edge of the light emitting surface of the device farthest from the surface of the plate.

If you are asking whether a design is acceptable in which the lamp is mounted on a fixed part of the vehicle, and the lamp on a moveable part, our answer is yes, provided that SAE J587 is met. Compliance of the vehicle is determined with deck lids and doors shut.





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:8/25/00:62992:OCC 22038
cc: NcC-01 Subj./Chron
interps std. 108; redbook -2
ztv; 22038; U:\ncc20\interp\108\22038.ztv

ID: 22040.drn

Mr. Robert Pitre
Nelson Technologies
200 E. Chestnut St. #1414
Chicago, Il 60611





Dear Mr. Pitre:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to the windshield wiper blades that your company is developing. I am pleased to provide the information you requested.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (The standards are codified at Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.) This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your windshield wiper blades in a new vehicle (before first sale of the vehicle to the customer) would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the device installed. An FMVSS that might be relevant to the blades is Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, which specifies a number of requirements for windshield wiping and washing systems. A vehicle manufacturer would need to ensure that if a vehicle had your windshield wiper blades, the vehicle's windshield wiping and washing system met all the requirements of Standard No.104.

No standards would apply to your windshield wiper blades to the extent they are sold as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard (Title 49 of the U.S. Code, section 30122). The blades could not be installed by such businesses if the installation adversely affected a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Also, individual States have authority to regulate modifications that a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. We are not able to provide you with information on State laws. You should contact the individual States in which you intend to sell your product.

A source of information about State laws is the Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. (AMECA), 1101 15^th St., N.W., Suite 607, Washington, DC 20005. Their telephone number is: (202) 898-0145, and their FAX number is: (202) 898-0148. The AMECA is a centralized voluntary agency that notifies government, industry and the public about items of motor vehicle safety equipment that have been tested by various laboratories in accordance with United States industry, state and federal standards.

Finally, the windshield wiper blades are considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. This means that you or whoever manufactures your blades would be subject to 49 U.S.C. sections 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama this address or at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:104#VSA
d.1/5/00

ID: 22041.drn

The Honorable Todd Tiahrt
United States House of Representatives
155 North Market, Suite 400
Wichita, KS 67202






Dear Congressman Tiahrt:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Office of Congressional Affairs, on behalf of Mr. Maurice Linnens, of Kansas Truck Equipment Co., Inc. Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for school buses, your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Your constituent seeks clarification of the effect of Federal regulations on the sale of an "over-the-road activity bus" (motorcoach) to a Kansas school district. Mr. Linnens would like to sell a new motorcoach to a school district, but was told that Federal law would prohibit the sale, even though it would be permitted under Kansas law. You ask for our views on several letters from Kansas officials and from Mr. Roger Theis, Mr. Linnens' attorney, concerning Federal and state school bus regulations.

As explained below, under NHTSA's regulations, any new bus (including a motorcoach) that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events must comply with the standards for school buses issued by this agency under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (formerly referred to as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). While Kansas apparently permits schools to purchase motorcoaches as "activity buses," Federal law would not permit manufacturers and dealers to sell a new motorcoach for this purpose unless the vehicle is certified as meeting Federal school bus safety standards.

NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Each new vehicle must meet all applicable safety standards or it cannot be sold. In a 1974 amendment to the Safety Act (Public Law 93-492), Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including school bus emergency exits, seating systems, window and windshields, and bus body structural integrity. The standards we issued became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to each new "school bus" manufactured on or after that date.

Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. ⁽¹⁾ 49 U.S.C. 30125. This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of the comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

The great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of "school bus." More specifically, any new "bus" (including a motorcoach) sold to a school district, or to a school bus contractor, is considered to be a "school bus" when sold for pupil transportation, and as such must comply with the school bus safety standards. A dealer or distributor who sells a new bus to a school district or school bus contractor that does not meet school bus standards is subject to penalties under the statute.

Because our laws generally apply only to manufacturers and dealers of new motor vehicles, we do not regulate a school district's use of a bus to transport school children, even when the bus does not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each state has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.

The letters you enclosed from Kansas state officials reflect an opinion that a new motorcoach purchased and operated for transporting pupils to school-related activities is not a school bus ("route bus") under state law. A state's determination that a motorcoach is exempted from its school bus standards does not affect the Federal requirement that new buses sold by dealers for pupil transportation must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Thus, Federal law would not permit the sale of a new motorcoach to the school district unless the vehicle were certified as a school bus. The views of Mr. Theis on this issue are essentially correct.

As you have pointed out in your letter, a school district can be sold a used motorcoach, even when the bus could not be sold when new. This is because our requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale," i.e., to sales of used vehicles. (See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1).) Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the enclosed abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Womack, Esq., NHTSA's Senior Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#571.3
d.9/26/00

---

1. NHTSA has consistently interpreted "related events" to include school-sponsored field trips and athletic events.