ID: nht88-1.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES T. STREET -- PRESIDENT, STREET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @ 571.211). Specifically, you sent me some product sheets showing several different designs of "spinner" hub caps, and asked whether y ou can market these items at both the wholesale and retail levels. The answer is no.

I have enclosed copies of my May 13, 1987, letter to the Honorable William E. Dannemeyer and my November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. In these letters, I reaffirmed our past interpretations stating that spinner hub caps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] makes it illegal to "manufa cture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added). We would consider each sale or offer for sal e of spinner hub caps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation of section 108(a), up to a maximum of $ 800,000.

I appreciate your efforts to ensure that your company does business in a way that complies with all our requirements. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at th is address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 25, 1988

FROM: AMNON SHOMLO -- PRESIDENT, A.A.S.

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-10-88, TO AMNON SHOMLO, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, STD 108

TEXT: Enclosed please find samples of our PEACE decal. It is designed to be placed in front of the center highmounted brake light to project the word "PEACE" when the brake is applied.

If you separate the decal from its protective paper, you will notice that the white letters and design are printed on transparent plastic, in an effort to preserve the basic requirements for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specif ied candela.

Prior to marketing this decal we would like to know what Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product. If your office is not in the position to fully examine and a pprove the intended use of this decal, please advise where and how we can go about attaining such an authorization/certificate of approval.

I can be reached at (904) 731-6409 daily from 9-5pm. I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht88-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: BRIAN HALL -- VS TECHNOLOGY PRESIDENT

TO: VINSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BRIAN HALL, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

I'm sending this letter to you to find out how to get an approval from the U.S. D.O.T. on a apparatus that I believe will be a useful tool for the safety of a motorcycle, scooter, ATV, etc. driver.

This apparatus will be a high level visibility red light that will be worn on the upper back of the driver or passenger on the above mentioned vehicles.

The apparatus is a 2" strap that is worn by putting the arms through the holes so the straps are resting on the shoulders, such as a shoulder harness. There is a square piece of velcro that is sewed to the strap that will be positioned about 3 to 4 in ches above the center of the back. The shoulder harness, as I will call it, is comfortable to wear. The velcro square on the back will be where a red brake light will be attached. The brake light will be made of plastic with the back of the light havi ng a flat surface that will be velcroed to the square velcro patch on the shoulder harness. Coming from the brake light will be two wires that will be plugged to a pigtail connector that will be safety fastened to the existing brake light wires. The sa fety fastner will be included with the package. Instructions on how to locate the right wires will also be in the package "with instructions on were it is best to put the safety fastner pigtail. The brake light connector will be plugged into the pigtai l connector so when the brakes levers are applied the high visability brake light will come on at the same time so surrounding vehicle drivers will have a better chance of seeing the motorcycle driver.

I hope that this brief description of what I'm writing to you about is enough for you to understand what I'm trying to do and why I'm seeking for a U.S. D.O.T. approval on this apparatus.

I have talked to the Arizona D.O.T. about this and they referred me to the U.S. D.O.T. in Washington D.C., which I called, to have the information sent to me on the requirements and specifications needed for such a apparatus.

My intentions are to put this on the market as after market products for those persons who are concerned for their safety as motorcycle, scooter, ATV, etc. driver. Also I'm talking to the military about this for on-base requirement for motorcycle, et c. drivers.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/88

FROM: CLAIRE HAVEN -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUADWEST

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-22-88 TO CLAIRE HAVEN, QUADWEST, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA; REDBOOK A33; STDS. 209, 208, 302; VSA 108(A)(2)

TEXT: As You can see by the enclosed letter, I've been corresponding with Carl Clark, Inventor Contact, at the Department of Transportation, regarding the Joyride Seatbelt Pad.

We propose to sell this pad as a comfort item to be used on the shoulder strap of a standard seatbelt. By eliminating the uncomfortable pressure and chafing of some seatbelts, we believe our product will increase the use seatbelts generally, thereby inc reasing the level of driver safety.

Mr. Clark has advised us that he see no objection to the use of Joyride Seatbelt Pad. Therefore, upon his advice, I am requesting a formal letter from you, as Chief Counsel, that our product does not take the manufacturer-installed seatbelt out of compl iance with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. A sample of the Joyride Seatbelt Pad is enclosed for your reference.

As we wish to distribute our new product shortly, we would be most grateful for you early reply.

Thank you for your help.

ID: nht88-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/88

FROM: DON O. HORNING -- P. E. INDUSTRIAL TESTING LABORATORIES

TO: C-MORE-LITE, JERRY'S SERVICE

TITLE: TEST REPORT NO: 92606

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108 LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 08/03/87 TO DOUGLAS H. BOSCO FROM ERIKA Z JONES; LETTER DATED 0 6/09/88 TO JERRY K YOST FROM L. FROLLIN; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM JERRY SERVICE

TEXT: Enclosed is the photometric data taken on the Halogen H4651 Single Filament Sealed Beam Headlamp and the Halogen H4656 Dual Filament Headlamp.

The two headlamps were mounted on a standard text fixture placed on the goniometer and aimed per specification SAE J579, Dec 84. Candlepower readings were taken at the appropriate settings with both filaments energized on the H4656 headlamp and with the single filament energized on the H4651 headlamp.

These readings were combined to simulate the operation of the C-More-Lite Headlight relay which activates both filaments on the 2-filament headlamp as well as the single filament to effectively provide both low beam and high beam illumination when the hi gh beam is switched on.

The accompanying table of photometric results at 100 ft were made with the aim established per SAE J579, Dec 84, Section 3.4 and the voltage at 12.8 volts. As indicated at the bottom of the table, the maximums could not be combined, as they did not coin cide as to location. Adjusting either lamp to the location of the other maximum did not produce a combined maximum in excess of the permissible maximum of 75,000 cd.

No tests were run utilizing the C-More-Lite relay in the circuit. tests run only simulate the effect of its operation.

As a part of this report a copy of SAE J579, Dec 84, is included for substantiation of test points and maximum and minimum cd. There is also included a diagram of the measurement points combining both upper and lower beams.

It should be noted that this laboratory takes no position relative to the C-More Relay as regards its utilization.

Description of Headlamps used: ITL TEST NUMBER 92606

1. Lamp Halogen H4651 - 4x6 1/2 inch sealed beam headlamp Westinghouse Headlamps by Philips (Assembled in Mexico) High Beam for 4 head light system Replaces 4651, HP4651 2 lugs - 12 volts Marked - 1A1 Sealed Beam, Halogen, U.S.A. DOT.

2. Lamp Halogen H4656 - 4x6 1/2 inch sealed beam headlamp Westinghouse Headlamps by Philips (Assembled in Mexico) Low Beam for 4 headlamp system Replaces 4656, HP4656 3 lugs - 12 volts Marked - 2A1 Sealed Beam, Halogen, U.S.A. DOT.

[TABLE OF PHOTOMETRIC TESTS H4656 AND H4651 SEAL BEAM HEADLAMPS, ITL TEST NO 92606, OMITTED]

[SAE J579 STANDARD OMITTED]

LOWER BEAM & UPPER BEAM (CHART OMITTED)

ID: nht88-1.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Auto Chek, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard J. Matysiakh President Auto Chek, Inc. P.O. Box 258 Stone Mountain, GA 30086-02581

Dear Mr. Matysiak:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Frank Ephraim of our Office of Plans and Policy, asking about the effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541; copy enclosed) on certain body repair processes. Specifically, you aske d how the theft prevention standard would affect the body repair process of "clipping" body sections from one vehicle and attaching the clipped section to a different vehicle. This repair process is not prohibited or regulated by the theft prevention sta ndard, as explained below.

The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. To achieve this purpose, the theft prevention standard requires manufacturers to affix or inscribe identification markings onto 14 major original equipment and replacement parts of certain high theft cars. Dealers and repair shops are prohibited from removing, obliterating, tampering with, or altering these identification markings, unless the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary to repair the part or vehicle; see 18 U.S.C. 511.

These requirements should not significantly impact the repair process of "clipping" described in your letter. Nothing in the theft prevention standard or the law prohibits a repair shop from clipping sections from wrecked vehicles. The repair shop would be required by law to leave in place any identification markings on the "clipped" section that were not damaged in the "clipping" process.

As noted in your letter, the repaired vehicle might have two different vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) marked on its major parts, with some parts marked with the VIN assigned to the repaired vehicle and other parts marked with the VIN assigned to the damaged vehicle from which the section was "clipped." The Motor Vehicle Theft Law enforcement Act of 1981, which ordered this agency to promulgate the theft prevention standard, clearly contemplates that vehicles undergoing repair could wind up with some parts numbered differently than the parts originally on the car. That law is based on the idea that some major parts are likely to survive a crash undamaged and that those parts can legitimately be used to repair other vehicles. Such repairs would n aturally result in repaired cars having some parts numbered differently than the rest of the car. Since the law enforcement community vigorously supported this law, they must not have believed that cars with some parts numbered differently than the other parts of the car would pose particular problems for them.

You also asked how the "clipping" process would affect our disclosure and titling requirements. We answered the question of how the disclosure requirements apply in an October 15, 1980 letter to Mr. John Relly of the Iowa Department of Transportation. In the letter to Mr. Kelly, we said, "... if a vehicle is constructed from the parts of several vehicles, the odometer statement must still be completed at the time of sale. If the seller knows the mileage on the various components used to construct the ve hicle, he should inform the purchaser of the highest mileage that he knows, or the mileage on the chassis if he knows it. If he does not know the mileages, he will be required to state that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. Titli ng requirements and designations such as "salvage" and "rebuilt" vehicles are determined by State law, not Federal law.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 2, 1987

Mr. Frank G. Ephraim Director, Office of Standards Evaluation Plans and Policy National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5208 400 Seventh Street. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Ephraim:

Relative to the implementation of the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act, Title VI, which inpart pertains to the Inscribing or affixing of identification numbers onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts for passenger car lines wit h high theft rates: How will this law impact the body repair process of clipping and/or sectioning of vehicles that are created by different components with conflicting identification numbers?

Enclosed for your review and consideration are several articles that relate to this problem. Your comments as to disclosure. titling and compliance will be most appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Richard J. Matysiak President, Auto Chek, Inc.

ID: nht88-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/01/88

FROM: MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TO: CARL KAPLAN -- EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT M. S. GOLDKLANG & COMPANY, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/07/88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- EPA TO ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, RE ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT; LETTER DATED 11/30/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT, TO KENNETH G. MOYER; LE TTER DATED 05/02/84, FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kaplan:

We enjoyed our meeting with you, Mr. Shapira and Mr. Eckstein, and the demonstration of the Advanced Brake Light Device (ABLD).

The ABLD appears to have some potential for reducing the incidence of rear-end crashes, and it appears that you are addressing the problem of false indications of braking action with some success. As noted during the discussions, the choice of the pedal release speed threshold for early activation of the braking signal does present an interesting problem in setting the trade between reducing false alarms and maximizing the number of early indications of braking. Too, there is the question of how much incremental benefit is obtainable beyond that provided by the current stoplamp system including the Center High Mounted Stoplamp.

We would be interested in seeing data which may bear on the question of the effectiveness of the ABLD. The testing you have commissioned the UMTRI staff to perform appears to be a step toward the goal of obtaining such data. If the results of the work at UMTRI staff to perform appears to be a step toward the goal of obtaining such data. If the results of the work at UMTRI confirm your representations the next step would be a serious fleet study.

There is always the possibility of NHTSA funding of a project to test a concept such as you propose, however, our research budget is now particularly constrained because of recent cuts in funding levels, and the process of developing a particular project as part of an agency accepted plan of research can be lengthy. Data obtained through privately funded research performed by competent, recognized, objective investigators is accepted for review in the evaluation of a concept by the agency.

The required magnitude of a fleet study to demonstrate the effectiveness of a concept such as the ABLD depends upon several

factors which include, for example, the pretest crash rate of the fleet to be used in the study, the amount of change or difference which is to be detected, the desired degree of assurance that an observed change or difference is not a chance event and t he desired degree of assurance that a real difference would be detected in the study. As an example, you suggest that the use of the ABLD would reduce annual rear-end crashes in the U.S. from approximately 2.6 million to 1.1 million. Assuming your data to be for the year 1984, and a figure of 1,716,768 million vehicle miles of travel for that year, this is a reduction of approximately 58% from a calculated crash rate of 1.55 to .65 crashes per million miles. If it is desired to be fairly sure that an y difference observed in the study would occur by chance only 5% of the time and that a real difference would be detected 95% of the time, a sample of 41.35 crashes is required for each of the experimental and control groups of cars. Consequently, at 1. 55 crashes per million vehicle miles, a sample of 26.73 million vehicle miles would be required. Assuming that the vehicles travel 10,000 miles per year, 2673 vehicles equipped with the ABLD, and a similar number of control vehicles without the device, would be required for a 1 year study.

If any of the values chosen for the computations are changed, of course, the result may be radically different. In this context I would like to note that it appears that your estimate of the effectiveness of the ABLD may be overly optimistic and the bas eline crash rate too high. You should note that 5400 vehicles, half with and half without CHMSL, were included in the second fleet test of the CHMSL. This number was selected on the basis of estimates of crash rate and effectiveness lower than those yo u presented. To demonstrate the effect of changes in such assumptions, the required sample size was recalculated with the assumption that the ABLD would reduce crashes by 20% rather than 58%. In addition, the stringency of the statistical criteria was r educed to allow the possibility that a difference would be observed in the study would occur by chance 20% of the time when there was no real difference and that a real difference would be detected 80% of the time. In this case 5897 vehicles equipped wi th the ABLD and the same number of control vehicles would be required for a one year study.

I am enclosing copies of several documents in response to your requests during our meetings at the NHTSA and with Pat McCann in Senator Lautenberg's office. The SAE paper will provide you with an overview of the technical history of the Center High Mount ed Stoplamp (CHMSL). The two technical reports of the fleet tests of the CHMSL will give you an idea of the sample size and exposure needed to establish the effectiveness of the device. In addition, I have enclosed copies of some pages from

a report which describe statistical considerations in defining the size of sample required in a defined project. The Regulatory Impact Analysis will give you some idea of the rational background prepared before taking regulatory action. Cost/benefi t analysis of a device to be used in addition to the current stoplamp system would be based on incremental effectiveness beyond that provided by the currently required system. The pages from the Code of Federal Regulations will give you the information about the petitioning process as well as current requirements for stoplamps.

During our meetings we briefly discussed the issue of the use of your device as an aftermarket system. We asked for an interpretation of the pertinent regulations by the Chief Counsel and a copy of her response is enclosed. As you can see from the memo randum, her opinion is that the device is illegal as either original or replacement equipment. You or any other individual or group, of course, can petition the agency to change the regulations to permit the use of the device. A more immediate problem for you, however, is that this opinion limits your options for the conduct of fleet tests to evaluate the ABLD.

One option is to equip a fleet to be operated outside the United States. In this case you would have to conform to any relevant regulations of the country in which you conducted the fleet test. A second option would be to identify a vehicle manufacture r interested in the use of the device, who could petition the agency for a temporary exemption from the regulations on the grounds that it would promote the development and field evaluation of an innovative safety device. Such an exemption would cover 2 500 vehicles a year. This approach would lengthen the probable time required to conduct a fleet test, but appears to be necessary if you desire to conduct a fleet test in this country.

I hope I have provided you with the information you need. If we can be of further help, please don't hesitate to call me or Dr. Bishop.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-1.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/88

FROM: L.T. MITCHELL -- SPECIFICATION ENGINEER THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/11/88 L.T. MITCHELL FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

We and some of our customers have had a disagreement with a state's Motor Vehicle Code concerning the installation of a warning light system on activity buses. Attached is a copy of Sections 46.1-1(37) and 46.1-286.1. These are the State definitions of "School Bus" and a limitation for school bus equipment, respectively.

The limitation is that "Only school buses...may be painted yellow, identified by words above and equipped with the specified warning devices". These "warning devices" include the warning light system. Thus a bus that is not painted yellow does not need to have warning lights. This group of "not painted yellow" buses includes school activity buses.

The Federal "Schoolbus" definition includes the phrase "...or events related to such schools". Thus, as we understand it, school activity buses are included in the D.O.T. definition of a school bus.

FMVSS #108 (49 CFR Part 571.108) states in S4.1.4, "Each school bus shall be equipped with a system of either: (a) Four red signal lamps...(b) Four red signal lamps...and four amber signal lamps..."

QUESTION: Does a final stage manufacturer of school buses have to install warning lights on a school activity bus?

We have up to this time installed a four light warning system on activity buses. This has placed our product at a distinct price disadvantage because some competitors are not always installing a warning light system on school activity buses. In addition , our customers are having to remove the warning lights from activity

buses because they are not painted yellow, and thus, they do not meet the Motor Vehicle Code.

We request an interpretation of FMVSS #108 in these matters. Thank you for a quick and timely response.

Sincerely.

Enclosure MOTOR VEHICLE CODE

(37) "School bus". -- Any motor vehicle, other than a station wagon, automobile, truck, or commercial bus, which is: (i) designed and used primarily for the transportation of pupils to and from public, private or parochial schools, or used for the tra nsportation of the mentally or physically handicapped to and from a sheltered workshop; and (ii) painted yellow and bears the words "School Bus" in black letters of a specified size on front and rear; and (iii) is equipped with warning devices prescribed in @ 46.1-287. School buses, manufactured prior to July 1, 1974, may continue to have the words "Stop, State Law" in black letters of specified size on front and rear.

@ 46.1-169.1. Operation of yellow motor vehicles of certain seating capacity on State highways prohibited; exceptions; penalty. -- It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle licensed in[Illegible words] having a seating capacity of more than fifteen p ersons to be operated on the highways of this State if it be yellow in color, unless such motor vehicle is used in transporting students who attend public, private or parochial schools, or for the purposes specified in @ 46.1-287.1 and meets the requirem ents for motor vehicles used in the transportation of pupils in the public schools. This section shall not apply to motor vehicles which transport passengers as well as school children for hire in the cities of[Illegible Words] Violators of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (1966, c. 586; 1968, c. 756; 1970, c. 521.)

@ 46.1-286.1. Paint and lettering on school bus. -- All motor vehicles, except commercial buses, station wagons, automobiles or trucks, transporting pupils to and from public, private or parochial schools shall be painted yellow with the words "Schoo l Bus, Stop, State Law" on the front and rear in letters at least six inches high, except that the words "School Bus" on the front may be in letters at least four inches high if space is limited, or with only the words "School Bus" on front and rear in l etters at least eight inches high, and shall be equipped with warning devices prescribed in @ 46.1-287. Only school buses, as defined in @ 46.1-1 (37), may be painted yellow, identified by words above and equipped with the specified warning devices. A vehicle which merely transports pupils, residents at a school, from one point to another without intermittent stops for the purpose of picking up or discharging pupils, need not comply with the requirements of this section. (1968. c. 653; 1974, c. 455. )

ID: nht88-1.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 5, 1988

FROM: FRANK V. TANZELLA -- TEK TRON, INC.

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-18-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO FRANK V. TANZELLA, STD207, STD108 (A)(2)(N)

TEXT: I am currently involved as a sub-contractor for NYNEX Mobile Communications, in a project to install Credit Card Mobile Telephones into Taxi Cabs in the Boston, MA area. We have found in reviewing this project that it may be necessary to cut into the ba ck of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. The enclosed sketch should clarify this.

Before proceeding with this, we would like to be informed about the applicable safety regulations governing the seat, so as to ensure that there are no violations of the regulations.

Would you please provide me with any safety regulation information which would govern this situation. In addition, I would appreciate information on any additional testing which may be necessary.

Please call me if there are any questions.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 6, 1988

FROM: AMIT REIZES

TO: DIANE STEED -- ADMINISTRATOR - NHTSA

TITLE: PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE CAR MANUFACTURERS TO INSTALL AIR BAG RESTRAINTS IN ALL CARS SOLD IN AMERICA.

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 19, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO REIZES AND SEPTEMBER 1987 ISSUE OF "CONSUMER INFORMATION"

TEXT: As you well know, automobile car crashes claim close to 50,000 American lives and cause over 250,000 serious injuries each year. Most of these serious injuries and fatalities are cause by high speed frontal collisions. Independent surveys have indicate d that installation of air bags can reduce the above mentioned figures by as much as fifty percent as reported by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Special Report, dated July 3, 1987. Since your administration is responsible for rules that car manu facturers must abide by. I implore you to pass a law that would require them to install them in all vehicles sold to the U.S. public.

Air bags have been installed in vehicles as early as 1973, in an effort to increase highway safety and have proven to save the lives of those safety conscious individuals who requested to have them installed in their cars. However, since only individu al consumers have requested them, their cost has been too high for most consumers. Car manufacturers who have picked up on these safety oriented consumers offer air bags as an optional feature. The cost to the perspective buyer may vary between $ 800.0 0 to $ 1800.00 on most luxury models such as Cadillacs and Mercedes Benz and may not even be featured on most common economy cars that are sold today. Richard Haayen wrote an article titled "The airtight case for air bags" in the November 1988 issue of the Saturday Evening Post, in which he states, that having air bags installed in all cars would reduce the selling cost to as little as $ 28.75 per vehicle.

I must applaud the two leading Automobile Insurance Companies U.S.A.A. and GEICO who announced last Wednesday that they will reduce their premium rates by fifty percent to their customers who install air bags in their automobiles. However, I still ins ist that this should be put into legislation. Some may argue that the consumer has a right to decide whether to install air bags or not in his vehicles.

To this I strongly disagree, since we do not have the right to decide about seatbelts. They come with the cars by law and they may not be removed by law.

I think seatbelts are good and have proven to be the best overall protection to the occupant of a vehicle who wear them. Unfortunately, as cited by Helen Kahn in the February 28, 1987 issue of Automotive News, a recent survey indicates that consumers prefer air bags over belts. Moreover, legislation which has been passed in several states requiring seatbelt usage has shown the best response in the State of Maryland at thirty-five percent, as was reported last Monday, April 2, 1988, on the eleven o' clock Eye Witness News on Channel nine. Air bags on the other hand, once installed will be one hundred percent effective in the reduction of injury from frontal crashes. The smart traveler will continue to buckle up as before and will have the best pro tection available, and the careless travelers will also be protected from misfortunes.

I therefore urge you to push forward legislation to require installation of air bags in cars sold in the U.S. I thank you as do the thousands of lives which will be saved.