ID: nht87-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Laurel Osborne -- Regional Coordinator, National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Laurel Osborne Regional Coordinator National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses P.O. Box 225 Galena, Alaska 99741

Dear Ms. Osborne:

This responds to your January 29, 1987 letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, asking about our agency's position on safety belt use in small school buses (i.e., school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less). Your letter has been referred to me for reply.

In your letter, you explain that you and the Alaska School Bus Safety Committee are interested in Alaska's implementation of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. You request clarification of NHTSA's position on safety belt use in small school buses because members of the committee believe that safety belts are provided on those buses only for the use of special education students. You also request information on safety belt education programs that schools could use to enc ourage the proper use of safety belts by student passengers in small school buses.

As you might know, NHTSA has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. One of these safety standards is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bun Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which required the safety belts for passengers on small school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, includes Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 and relates to the use of School vehicles. Because requirements for the use of school buses are set by the states, Standard No. 17 sets forth recommendation s to the station for the pupil transportation aspect of their highway safety programs. We encourage states to consider Standard No. 17's recommendations but do not insist on compliance with every aspect of the standard.

As you are aware, NHTSA does not believe that a Federal requirement for safety belts on large school buses (GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds) is necessary because large school buses are very safe vehicles due to their mass, seating configuration and "comp artmentalized" seating positions. However, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, Passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities. Of course, the belts o n small school buses provide safety benefits only if they are properly used. We thus recommend they be used by all pupils whenever the children are transported. This recommendation is consistent with Program Standard No. 17, which states, "Passengers in Type II school vehicles equipped with lap belts shall be required to wear them whenever the vehicle is in motion." (IV.C.3.d(5).)

With regard to your question about belt education programs, NHTSA and the National PTA have put together a "Safety Belt A/V Resource Kit" and a "Children's Training Kit" as part of our 1986 safety belt awareness campaign. The kit contains materials geare d toward increasing safety belt use by children in passenger cars, and might be helpful in promoting belt usage in small school buses. I am sending you the resource kits by separate cover.

Further, some states have developed their own safety belt education program; for school children. The person in your state who might be able to provide you with more information on the programs available in Alaska is:

Ms. Romayne Kareen Pupil Transportation Officer Pouch F State Office Building Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-2890

Also, enclosed in this letter is a February 1986 NHTSA report entitled, "School Bus Safety Belts: Their Use, Carryover Effects and Administrative Issues." The report describes an exploratory study of the experiences of various school districts with safet y belt programs for school buses. You might find the discussion of administrative and educational components of bus belt programs helpful.

I hope this information is of assistance. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

P.O. Box 225 Galena, Alaska January 20. 1987

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Felrice:

I have been trying to work with the Alaska School Bus Safety Committee in an effort to implement Standard 17 in the State of AlasKa. Members of this committee feel that seatbelts are provided on small school buses only for the use of special education st udents.

In one school district the belts are buckled under the seats when the buses ate used on regular routes. In another district students must buckle up only if they have been misbehaving. The contractor reports a high rate of belt vandalism in this district.

I would appreciate a clarification concerning NHTSA s position on seatbelt use in small school buses. I would also appreciate any suggestions on seatbelt education programs which could be used in schools to encourage the responsible use of belts by stude nts in their small buses. Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours. Laurel Osborne, Regional Coordinator National Coalition For Seatbelts on School Buses

ID: nht87-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger M. Cox -- R & R Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to J. Mike Callahan (A32; Std. 108); 4/14/87 letter from J. Mike Callahan to Taylor Vinson (occ 409); 9/3/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to David M. Romansky

TEXT: Mr. Roger M. Cox R & R Lighting, Inc. Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, AL 35901

Dear Mr. Cox:

This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1987, with respect to whether a lighting product you intend to market is "in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle." You describe your product as a "lighted decal" which can be mounted in the rear window of any car or pick-up truck, and the photographs you enclosed show it mounted in the center of the rear window of a pre-1980 model Seville. The decal will be wired int o the brake system and when activated by the brake "only the letters in the decal will be lighted." You state further that although the letters will appear red to an observer this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or a tail light.

In our opinion, your product may or may not be in violation of Federal requirements depending upon the following uses. The product does not appear to be intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that has been standard equipment on pas senger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Indeed, it could not be so used unless it met all requirements for such a lamp. The principal requirements are that such lamps have a minimum of 4 1/2 square inches of illuminated lens area, that it meet specified photometrics at 13 test points, ad that it produce a signal visible from 45 degrees from the right to the left and from five degrees up to five degrees down. If your device does not meet these requirements, removal of the lamp and replace ment with your device would violate a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in this case Safety Standard No. 108, Lam ps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. However, a dealer could install it on a new pick-up truck, or to one side of the center lamp in a new passenger car before their initial sale, provided the device did not impair the effectiveness of the r ear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and the device could be installed on some vehicles in use (cars built before September 1, 1984, and any pick-up) provided that it did not render inoperative in whole or in part other required rear ligh ting equipment.

By this we mean that the device appears allowable for these vehicles under Federal law provided that wiring it into the brake system does not reduce the stop lamp output or otherwise affect the operation or the effectiveness of the stop lamp system. You should also ensure that your product is acceptable under State and local laws as well. Because there are no Federal requirements for your product, each State may regulate it as it deems proper.

I am enclosing the samples that you enclosed, and hope that we have answered your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

R & R Lighting, Incorporated Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, Alabama 35901

July 8, 1987

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Jones

Dear Mrs. Jones:

I am in the final planning stage before marketing/manufacturing a new product. After having exhausted all efforts at state and national levels, I talked with Mr. Brooks in the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. It was Mr. Brooks' opinion that we are no t in violation of any federal laps, but he suggested I correspond with you to get an appropriate legal opinion as to whether my product in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle.

My product. the "#1-American Team Light", is a lighted decal. It is designed to be mounted in the rear window. My product can be mounted onany car or pick-up truck. It will be wired into the brake system and when activated by the brake, only the letters in the decal will be lighted. The letters will appear the same color as automobile manufacturers use in brake lights and tail lights; however, this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or tail light. We have targeted the sport s enthusiast at high school and college level as our market group. We also feel we have a smaller market at local and state levels with a lighted decal that reads "Police" and "State Trooper".

In order to effectively market my product at its peak season, which would be September, time is of the essence. I have enclosed a sample lens and photographs.

Please review my information and sample and let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. If further information is needed, please call me collect at (205) 442-1642 or (205) 442-8436.

Very truly yours,

R & R LIGHTING INCORPORATED

Roger M. Cox

RMC/lc

Enclosures

ID: 86-5.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Bettie Lou Simcox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Bettie Lou Simcox 10 Martin Place Little Falls, NJ 07424-1709

Dear Mrs. Simcox:

This is in reply to your letter of August 28, 1986, to Taylor Vinson of this Office regarding the acceptability of an aftermarket stop lamp intended for installation on motorcycles. The product is a stop lamp that, when the brake is applied, pulses before going into a steady-burning mode. The New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles has informed you that stop lamps are required by Federal law to be steady-burning. A representative of this agency has told you that such lamp would be acceptable as a supplementary stop lamp, but not as a replacement lamp. You are writing us for confirmation of the Federal requirement.

Your understanding is essentially correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires most vehicle lamps, including stop lamps, to be steady-burning in use, though signal lamps such as turn signals and hazard warning signals must flash. Further, the replacement of an original equipment steady-burning stop lamp with one that flashes before becoming steady-burning would be considered a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, though not if performed by the owner of the vehicle. As for the acceptability of the device as a supplementary stop lamp, Standard No. 108 really does not contemplate a supplementary stop lamp for motorcycles. Although requiring at least ? stop lamp, the standard allows two provided that they "are symmetrically disposed around the vertical centerline." We interpret this a s meaning that a second stop lamp must be identical in all respects to the first one, for surely a confusing situation would result if stop lamps on either side of the vertical centerline were unequal in size or in method of operation. However, the flashing/steady burning stop lamp mounted the vertical centerline would be permissible as an addition to motorcycle stop lamp systems consisting of two lamps mounted on either side of the vertical centerline. Alternatively, if you wished to add two pulsing stoplamps mounted symmetrically around the vertical centerline in addition to the steady-burning original equipment stoplamp, that also would be permissible.

We appreciate your interest in motorcycle safety, and your taking the time to write us of your concerns.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

BETTIE LOU SIMCOX 10 Martin Place Little Falls, N.J. 07424-1709

August 28, 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson N.H.T.S.A. - 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

As an advocate of motorcycling I am writing your office for assistance. My husband and I are members a AMA and GWRRA. Our Chapter of GWRRA is based in Northern, New Jersey.

A new product has appeared on the market and before purchasing same I wanted to check the legality of it. It is a stop light which pulsates then turns to a continuous-on light when the brakes are applied. I called many people but no one could give me any information on the laws governing this particular type of lighting so I called New Jersey division of Motor Vehicles. After speaking to different departments, as no one knew the answer, I finally reached the Engineering Department. The gentleman there stated such product would not be legal as only signal lights and hazard lights were approved to pulsate. He further informed me that this was not a State Regulation but a Federal Statute and that the governing department is D.O.T. I then called washington, D.C. Again, I talked to many different departments before finally reaching the Crash Avoidance Department. The information received from them is ? lighting device such as I described would be legal IF used as ADDITIONAL light source not as a REPLACEMENT stop light. Then the brake light from the factory was intact and operating as continuous-on light, then this additional light could be used.

Naturally we want to operate our vehicles legally, but we also want to operate safely. So upon recommendation, I am writing to your office for legal confirmation of this Statue in writing.

Any device which will call attention to our motorcycles to avoid an accident is necessary as far as we are concerned. Too many people think all motorcyclists as "Hell's Angels" type when in fact they represent a very small percentage of cycling entourage. Most of our Chapter members are in the over 40 age bracket. We purchase expensive motorcycles and"dress" them will. Too we wreak because someone says "Oh I didn't know you were going ? I didn't see your lights" and rear-ends us.

I thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to read my letter. Any information you may be able to supply will be greatly appreciated by many.

Awaiting your reply I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Bettie Lou Simcox

ID: 86-5.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Ernst

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ernst Westfalische Metall Industrie, KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Federal Republic of Germany

Dear Dr. Ernst:

This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, to August Burgett of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a center highmounted stop lamp that your firm has developed. Your design contains "a large number of integrated fixed miniature bulbs...a device with a small height and a large width." It has been reported to you by a prospective purchaser that the device may not be permissible because the height is too low in relation to the width, and because the use of fixed bulbs is prohibited.

Standard No. 108 does not establish permissible dimensions for center high-mounted stop lamps, and a manufacturer may establish whatever height/width relationship it wishes, as long as the effective projected luminous area is not less than 4 1/2 square inches. However, the agency's research which substantiated the efficacy of the concept was limited to lamps of a rectangular design narrower than the one you contemplate. Some agency research has indicated that the width of the device should not be more than seven times its height.

As for the issue of fixed or replaceable bulbs, this question arises in the context of paragraph S4.1.1.41(e) of Standard No. 108 which requires that the lamp "provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools". This paragraph was written with the thought that center high-mounted stop lamps would be equipped with a single bulb or light source. If your lamp is sealed, so that the individual bulbs cannot be replaced in the event of burnout but is nevertheless designed so that the entire unit may be replaced with a new lamp without the use of special tools then your lamp design would appear to meet the intent of paragraph S4.1.1.41(e).

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Subject ACTION: Interpretation of Sealed Bulb Date

Reply to Attn of Burgett 426-1351

From Barry Felrice Attn of Burgett Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

To Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

The attached request for interpretation has been received from Hella. The issues are similar to those that have been raised in she request from Stanley Electric Company for interpretation relative so use of Light Emitting Diodes. If feasible, we suggest combining both interpretations into a single response.

Attachment

Mr. Dr. August Burgett c/o National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 USA

K1 DrE/lb 7300

February 18, 1986 High Mounted Stop Lamps

Dear Dr. Burgett,

Long before High Mounted Stop Lamps became mandatory in the US, we were concerned with this subject. We now understand from Mercedes Germany that your agency does not approve of our design.

In order to keep vision through the rear windshield as unimpaired as possible we have developed a design with reduced dimensions and, in particular, with a reduced height.

This design makes use of special miniature bulbs with increased durability. These special bulbs have been used in a display, produced by our company, with excellent results for many years. They have a life of more than 2000 hours.

We are sure that this is much more than the expected durability of a car.

For safety, technical, and cost reasons we designed a HMS with a large number of integrated, fixed miniature bulbs. This enables us to realise a device with a small height and a large width. The attached drawings show this design.

The objections of NHTSA to a design of this type, as reported by Mercedes, are

1. The relation Width: Height must be fixed within certain limits.

If this is true, it would prohibit our design.

2. The use of fixed bulbs is prohibited, replaceable bulbs being obligatory.

We cannot find any paragraph concerning these matters, neither in MVSS 108 nor in any other regulation or standard.

Moreover, we argue that signal lamps with fixed bulbs in sealed units are known and available on the market. They are approved by US testhouses. Examples are described in the attached copies of catalogues.

We should be grateful if you would kindly consider this matter and give us binding information.

With best regards

Westfalische Metal Industrie Kommanditgesellschaft Hueck & Co.

ppa. Dr. Ernst

ID: 86-6.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Glenn Groth

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Glenn Groth 3355 Mission Ave. Ste 211 Oceanside, CA 92054

Dear Mr. Groth:

This is in reply to your letter of July 21, 1986, to Dr. Carl Clark of this agency. You have developed a "brake light enhancer," a device which flashes the stop lamps three times before they become steady-burning. The sample you provided us is packaged to describe the device as "the ultimate in rear end collision prevention," and bears a label "This product is for off road use". The device is specifically permitted under Section 25251.5(c) of the California Vehicle Code. Your letter states that several vehicle manufacturers have shown interest in the device, but wish to see "DOT approval." You anticipate that the device might eventually be "a mandatory device like the third brake light now." You have asked Dr. Clark "What are our next steps to getting the approval of the D.O.T. for this device?"

The Department has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs or items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we establish the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to be met by manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standards apply from manufacture through first sale of the vehicle; after the first sale, as a general rule, modifications may not be performed to a vehicle that take it out of compliance with a standard. However, this prohibition does not extend to modifications performed by the owner himself. The Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which manufacturers certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, without the necessity of prior "approval" by the Department. The Act also requires national uniformity of Federal and state safety standards in that once a Federal standard has been established, a State standard covering the same aspect of performance must be identical to it.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is the Federal standard on motor vehicle lighting. Because the Federal requirement does not allow a stoplamp to flash three times before becoming steady burning, a motor vehicle may not be manufactured with the brake lamp enhancer installed. Further, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installs a brake light enhancer, that person could be viewed as having rendered the stoplamps partially ineffective, and therefore as having violated the Act. Because the advertised purpose of this device is to prevent rear end collisions for on road vehicles, the label "This product is for off road use" will not serve to protect any person from liability under the Act.

In summary, your device is permissible under the Act only if it is designed to be installed by a vehicle owner, and so advertised. The fact that it may be legal under California law will not protect a driver from citation for operation of the system in any State where it may not be permitted by local law. You have the right to petition the Department for an amendment to Standard No. 108 to permit or require your device, but at present we are satisfied that the new center high mounted stop lamp sufficiently addresses the identical safety need covered by your system. Because the safety standards are performance oriented rather than design oriented, the agency's regulations are not intended to specify devices or systems of a proprietary nature.

I enclose a copy of our petition regulations for your information. If you file a petition with us, it should contain data substantiating the safety need and demonstrated performance of your device, rather than simple allegations that it prevents rear end collisions. We are returning the sample of your device herewith.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 21, 1986

Dr. Carl C. Clark Inventor Contact Code NRD-12 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Brake Light Enhancer

Dear Dr. Clark:

Thank you for the time you shared with me on the telephone last Friday, July 18, 1986. I appreciate all the information and help you provided.

At your suggestion, I'm enclosing the following items for your review: (1) A copy o; the patent for the Brake Light Enhancer; (2) A copy of the amendment to the California State Vehicle Code permitting the use of the device on vehicles in California to flash the stop lamps three 3 times before coming on steady; (3) A brochure which briefly describes the product; and (4) A sample of the device for your inspection and testing.

As I mentioned to you over the phone we have several auto manufacturers interested in the device, but before they will commit themselves to using it they would like to see more approvals or endorsements for the product, such as by the D.O.T. We anticipate that if and when the device is approved by the D.O.T., it would initially be offered as an option and later as a mandatory device like the third brake light now.

What are our next steps to getting the approval of the D.O.T. for this device?

Thank you again for all your help. I've enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope for your convenience.

Sincerely,

Glenn Groth

ID: 1985-03.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Don Benfield, Sales Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Don Benfield, Sales Manager "Express Yourself Company" P.O. Box 2357 Anderson, IN 46018

Dear Mr. Benfield:

Thank you for your letter of April 12, 1985, concerning state regulations that might affect a product you are considering. You explained that your product would fit inside the rear window of a vehicle. While we do not have information on state laws, I can explain the possible effect of Federal law on your potential product. I suggest you contact vehicle safety officials in the states in which you plan to sell your product to learn of their laws.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has issued Federal Motor Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment; a copy of the standard is enclosed. If your product is mounted on, rather than inside, the rear window, it could be affected by Standard No. 205.

The performance requirements of the standard include ones regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing. Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility conforms with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or dealer places your product on the rear window in a new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to address the problems of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle by adding section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor safety standard....

Thus no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add material to the glazing materials of a motor vehicle, if that material would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any material they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that material would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.

If your product is not mounted on the window itself, it still may be affected by our standards. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors; a copy of the standard is enclosed. The standard provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. If the field of view of the inside mirror in a new vehicle is obstructed by anything other than head restraints or seated occupants, then an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger's side of the vehicle.

Thus, if your product were mounted inside the rear window of a new vehicle by a manufacturer or dealer at the time of its sale, and if installation of your product would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to ensure the vehicle was equipped with the necessary additional mirror required by Standard 111. Just as with Standard No. 205, section 108(a)(2)(A) would apply to the installation of your product in used vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops. Thus, if your product is mounted inside the rear window and its installation would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, an outside passenger side mirror would have to be installed. Again, section 108(a)(2)(A) does not limit the actions of individual vehicle owners.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

"EXPRESS YOURSELF COMPANY" P.O. Box 2357 ANDERSON, IN 46018

April 12, 1985 TO U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs;

We are currently doing Research & Development work on a new product that will fit inside the rear window of a vehicle.

Can you supply us with any information on the law in each State concerning Car rear windows or any state legislation concerning automobile rear windows?

THANKS for your time and any help you can give us.

Sincerely yours, Don Benfield Sales Manager

ID: 1985-04.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edmund Gabler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edmund Gabler Colonial House Apartment 507 1150 Atlantic Shores Blvd. Hallandale, Florida 33009

Thank you for your letter asking about our requirements for lap belts and expressing your views on state laws requiring the proper use of safety belts. We appreciate hearing from concerned citizens on the important subject of improved motor vehicle safety.

You asked whether safety belts on your county buses are legal if those belts are designed only as lap belts and do not restrain both the pelvic and upper torso areas of the body. The answer to your question is that those belts are permitted to be installed on buses. Some background information may be helpful. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. Our Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires installation of safety belts in new motor vehicles.

Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type of vehicle. For large "buses" (i.e., those carrying 11 or more persons), the standard requires installation of a lap belt for the driver. The passenger seats on buses are not required to have belts, but lap belts may be installed if desired. For smaller van-type "buses" (i.e., those carrying 10 or fewer persons) and for passenger cars, the standard requires installation of lap-and-shoulder belts for the driver and right-front passenger positions, and lap belts for all other seating positions.

Safety belt usage requirements are established by the states, not by the Federal government. To date, 14 states have enacted safety belt use laws, and two other states have belt use laws awaiting gubernatorial approval. Those laws generally require belt usage only in passenger cars; we are not aware of any state which requires belt usage in buses. Moreover, as a practical matter, belt use requirements are limited to the equipment actually installed in the vehicle. This agency does urge all motorists to use safety belts wherever they are available, regardless of whether usage is required by state law.

In your letter, you stated your disapproval of state laws that require the use of safety belts by motorists. You expressed concerns that being restrained by a belt would be unsafe in an accident and that belt usage laws invade your privacy. We appreciate this opportunity to explain our position on those issues relating to belt usage laws, and hope that this discussion will help shed some light on this very important topic.

You seem to believe that the chances of escaping injury in a crash are greater if safety belts are not worn. Our accident data clearly show that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. Our traffic records show that venicle occupants who do not wear their safety belts are nearly twice as likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries than belted occupants. One important reason is that belt usage reduces that likelihood of being thrown outside the vehicle in a crash. We estimate that ejected occupants are 25 times more likely to be killed than those who remain inside the car. Even in the rare cases of vehicle fires or submersion under water, the use of a safety belt improves the chances for survival by keeping the occupants conscious and uninjured so that they may escape quickly.

While we believe the evidence is overwhelming as to the benefits of safety belt usage, we recognize that there are always a few exceptions to the general rule. We are aware that belt usage is not a panacea; some accidents are so severe that injuries or fatalities will result regardless of whether any occupant protection systems are used. However, we believe that the preliminary data from New York, the first state to enact a belt use law, confirms our belief in the lifesaving potential of belt usage. The New York belt usage law went into effect on January 1 of this year and belt usage climbed to roughly 60 percent, and traffic deaths during the first six months of the year declined by 18 percent compared to the same period last year.

We recognize that a safety belt use law requires an action that many people do not take voluntarily. However, all traffic laws involve some restraint on individual behavior. Most are accepted without a second thought: we drive on the right side of the road, obey speed limits and stop at red lignts. In many cases, the failure of motorists to obey these laws will have an impact on other motorists as well as themselves. The same is true for failing to wear safety belts, because automobile accidents have many "victims"--family, friends, employers and taxpayers--all of whom bear some measure of the human and economic cost. During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic injuries and deaths have resulted in an annual cost to society of $57 billion resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenues. We believe tnat the relatively small intrusion resulting from safety belt use laws is justified by the substantial societal burden of vehicle-related deaths and injury.

Thank you again for sharing your views witn us. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 86-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald L. Anglin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald L. Anglin Consulting Editor McGraw-Hill Book Company 706 Rose Hill Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22901

Dear Mr. Anglin:

Your May 1, 1986 letter to Administrator Steed requesting information on Federal regulations applying to removal of motor vehicle safety equipment has been referred to this office for reply. Unfortunately, we never received the previous letter you sent to NHTSA in December 1985. We regret any inconvenience to you.

Your letter asked whether it is a violation of Federal law for a mechanic or vehicle owner to remove or otherwise tamper with any item of motor vehicle safety equipment. As explained below, there would be a violation with respect to commercial businesses "tampering" with used vehicles or altering new vehicles if the modification affected negatively the vehicle's compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. On the other hand, no Federal requirements apply to individual vehicle owners who tamper with safety equipment on or in their own vehicles.

In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on motor vehicles by adding section 108(a)(21(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, Federal law prohibits the aforementioned commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard by either removing, disconnecting or degrading the performance of the safety equipment. For example, none of the commercial businesses referenced in section 108(a)(2)(A) could remove the safety belts in a motor vehicle if by doing so they would "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle or the safety belt system with Safety Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Violations of section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

The second part of your question asked about individual vehicle owners. Since section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to owners, an owner could remove the safety belts from his or her vehicle without violating Federal law. Of course, such removals or alterations could be affected by State law and the agency encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with safety equipment.

Persons tampering with safety equipment on new motor vehicles prior to their first sale to consumers could be considered vehicle "alterers" under our certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). Part 567.7 requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, a vehicle alterer could not remove am item of safety equipment from a new vehicle if this would prevent him or her from certifying that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.

I have enclosed copies of the Vehicle Safety Act and Part 567.7, for your information. I have enclosed also an information sheet entitled "Federal Auto Safety Laws and Motor Vehicle Window Tinting" which discuss section 108(a)(2)(A) and Part 567.7 as they apply to persons modifying motor vehicle window glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

May 1, 1986

Diane K. Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Attached is a copy of a letter I sent to the public Affairs Director of your organization on December 18, 1985.

As yet, I have received no answer.

Would you please forward the copy of my December letter to someone knowledgeable in these areas.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

DONALD L. ANGLIN

December 18, 1985

Public Affairs Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Tampering seems to be defined generally as pertaining to emission control devices and odometers. But the issue of the car owner or mechanic tampering with safety equipment is not so clear.

Is it a violation of Federal law for a mechanic or a car owner to remove any piece of safety equipment designed into an automobile?

For example, is it illegal for a car owner to remove the seat belts from a new car, or for a mechanic to remove the self-adjusters from drum brakes or to disconnect the parking brake?

Would you please send me copies of the current or proposed laws or regulations that apply to tampering with safety equipment, and copies of any pamphlets or articles on the subject.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

DONALD L. ANGLIN

ID: 86-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hubert J. Thomiszer -- Senior Mechanical Engineer, Triodyne, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hubert J. Thomiszer Senior Mechanical Engineer Triodyne Inc. 5950 West Touhy Avenue Niles, Illinois 60648

Dear Mr. Thomiszer:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You asked whether the 20 g acceleration requirement in the fore and aft direction through the center of gravity of the seat was based on a barrier impact test and, if so, at what speed. You also asked whether the 20 g acceleration was established taking into account the possibility that passengers who are unrestrained would impact the back of the seat in front of them on a frontal impact so as to add additional weight to the seat itself which would thereby increase the loading on the seat anchors. Your questions are responded to below.

The requirements to which you refer are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 207. That section provides in relevant part:

S4.2 General performance requirements. When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces.

(a) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight of the seat applied in a forward longitudinal direction:

(b) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weigh; of the seat applied in a rearward longitudinal direction . . .

The basic requirement that occupant seats be able to withstand forces of 20 times the weight of the seat applied in both forward and rearward longitudinal directions was part of Standard No. 207 as that standard was established as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 32 FR 2415, February 3, 1967. (The standard was later amended by revising certain other requirements, extending its application to additional vehicle types, adding requirements, and clarifying and restructuring the standard.)

As required by section 103(h) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards were promulgated under a tight statutory deadline and here based on existing safety standards. Standard No. 207 was based on the Society of automotive engineers' (207) Recommended Practice J879, Passenger Car Front Seat and Seat Adjuster (November 1963), and on the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Standard No. 515/6a, one of a number of standards which were developed for Government vehicles.

With respect to the requirements at issue, section 3.1 of SAE Recommended Practice J879 provided in relevant part:

3.1 Seat Adjusters and Seat Frame Combination--Each combination of seat adjusters and seat frame, together with their attachments, shall be capable of sustaining horizontal forward and rearward static load (L) equal to 20 times the weight of the fully trimmed seat. One-half of this load (L/2) shall be applied at points 8.00 in. above the seat frame rear attaching points as shown in Fig. 1. The 8.00 in. load application points represent the approximate vertical center of gravity of a fully trimmed passenger car front seat. . .

We have been advised by our technical staff that the requirement that occupant seats be able to withstand forces of 20 times the weight of the seat applied in both forward and rearward longitudinal directions was based on the forces involved in a 30 mph barrier impact test. Moreover, this requirement does not include any adjustment to take account of the increased loading on seat anchors that could result from passengers who are unrestrained impacting the seat in front of them in a frontal impact.

You may wish to contact the Society of Automotive Engineers for information concerning the development of their recommended practice.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 17, 1986

Chief Counsel Erika Z. Jones National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Erika Jones: I was advised by Mr. Steve Oesch to forward my request for information to your attention.

I would like to know two features of the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 207.

1. Was the 20G acceleration requirement in the fore and aft direction through the center of gravity of the seat based an a barrier impact test and if so at what speed.

2. Was the 20G acceleration taking into account the possibility that passengers who are unrestrained would impact the back of the seat in front of them on a frontal impact so as to add additional weight to the seat itself which would thereby increase the loading on the seat anchors.

I will appreciate receiving this information as quickly as possible. there be any questions regarding this request, please call me collect at 677-V430.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Hubert J. Thomiszer, M.E., P.E Senior Mechanical Engineer

ID: 86-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Brian Peck

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Peck President Rearscope International (U.S.A.) Ltd. 15255 Hesperian Boulevard San Leandro, CA 94578

Dear Mr. Peck:

Thank you for your letter of May 19, 1986, asking how our regulations apply to your product, which is called the "Rearscope Wide Angle Lens." Your letter and the brochure you enclosed describes your product as a wide angle acrylic lens which mounts on the rear window of a bus and gives the driver a wider field of view to the rear of the vehicle. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. 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 other alleged safety-related defects.

"We have issued 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% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) as well as other performance requirements for glazing.

Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to add-on window coverings, such as tinting films, sunscreening devices, and lens. However, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install a device on the glazing, such as the viewing lens described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install any type of device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the performance of the window. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to regulate the use of viewing devices in vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 19, 1986

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

REAR SCOPE WIDE ANGLE LENS

Dear Sirs,

As per letter dated 4/25/86 (copy enclosed) I am writing to determine the status of our product the "REARSCOPE WIDE ANGLE LENS" as to the requirements oF current Federal Glazing standards, Our product which mounts on the rear window of Bus r Coach is made of Diakon by I.C.I. Ltd. of Great Britain, This acrylic product is similar. to DuPonts "Lexan" with which you are undoubtedly familiar.

If you feel a need to examine the product I would be more than willing to mail you a lens for testing purposes, In the meantime I am enclosing a brochure so that you might evaluate the situation, I await your reply.

Sincerely,

Brian Peck President

April 25, 1986

Mr. Brian Peck Rearscope International Limited 15255 Hesperian Boulevard San Leandro, California 94578

Dear Mr. Peck:

This is in answer to your letter of April 2, 1986: concerning the use of the Rearscope Wide Angle Lense in Pennsylvania.

After receiving your letter, I contacted the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to see if there were any applicable federal standards on glazing which had to be met. NHTSA indicated that they would review this request and suggested that you write to they for this information at the following address: NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel, 400 7th Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

If you have already contacted NHTSA for approval, please forward their response to this Department. Pending receipt of this written notification from NHTSA, this Department will determine if your lens meets all Pennsylvania requirements.

Sincerely,

John A. Pachuta, Director Bureau or Motor Vehicles