ID: aiam5072

Dear Chairman Dingell: Thank you for your letter of September 17, 1992 enclosing correspondence from Mr. Aaron Gordon concerning seat belts on school buses. You requested comments on Mr. Gordon's letter and on H.R. 896, a bill referred to in Mr. Gordon's letter. The issue of safety belts on school buses is an important topic which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has thoroughly studied for many years. School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Every year, approximately 370,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.5 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since NHTSA began tracking traffic fatalities in 1975, an average of 16 school bus occupants per year have sustained fatal injuries. While each of these fatalities is tragic, the number of school bus occupant fatalities is small compared to the number of occupant fatalities to children in other types of vehicles. For example, in 1989 there were 5,287 deaths among children aged five to 18 in vehicles other than school buses. In 1977, NHTSA issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum crash protection levels for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization' -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. The effectiveness of 'compartmentalization' has been confirmed by independent studies by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Under the current requirements of Standard No. 222, small school buses, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must provide 'compartmentalization' and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to 'compartmentalization' in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks. In 1987, the NTSB completed a study of the crashworthiness of large school buses, and concluded that most school bus occupant fatalities and serious injuries were 'attributable to the occupants' seating position being in direct line with the crash forces. It is unlikely that the availability of any type of restraint would have improved their injury outcome.' In 1989, NAS completed a study of means to improve school bus safety and concluded that 'the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. The funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives and reduce more injuries.' The NAS pointed out that since children are at greater risk of being killed in school bus loading zones (i.e., boarding and leaving the bus) than on board school buses, 'a larger share of the school bus safety effort should be directed to improving the safety of bus loading zones.' A summary of the NAS report is enclosed. In response to the recommendations from the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several rulemaking actions, such as improvements to school bus visibility by the driver and requiring stop signal arms on school buses, designed to improve the safety of students in school bus loading zones. Besides the actions taken in response to the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several other rulemaking activities to improve further the safety of school buses, e.g., increasing the number of emergency exits, establishing wheelchair securement/occupant restraint requirements, and improving the body joint strength requirements. While there are no Federal requirements for safety belts on large school buses, states are free to install them if they feel it is in the best interest in their state. However, as noted in the NAS report, if the safety belts are to be beneficial, 'states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly.' In summary, the safety record of school buses is outstanding. As such, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that safety belts would provide even higher levels of occupant crash protection. Also, the agency agrees with the conclusion from the NAS report, that there is insufficient reason for a Federal mandate for safety belts on large school buses. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Marion C. Blakey Enclosure cc: Mr. Aaron Gordon;

ID: aiam5588

Dear Senator Chvala: This responds to a letter from U.S. Senato Russell D. Feingold on your behalf, asking whether a pending redefinition of Wisconsin's 'school bus' definition would violate Federal law. Senator Feingold contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because our agency administers the Federal requirements for school buses. I appreciate this opportunity to address your concerns. As explained below, my review leads me to conclude that Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus would not conflict with Federal law, insofar as the redefinition relates to the operation of school buses. However, an area of possible conflict relates to the requirements for mirrors on school buses. By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSS's on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The legislation requires each person selling a new 'school bus' to ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting the school bus FMVSS's. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state regulation. NHTSA defines a 'school bus' as a 'bus' that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, and defines a 'bus' as a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons. 49 CFR 571.3. We understand that the new definition contemplated by Wisconsin would exclude some vehicles that are school buses under our definition. Information from Mr. Doug Burnett of your staff indicates that the new definition would define a school bus as 'a motor vehicle which carries 16 or more passengers (in addition to the operator).' Thus, a motor vehicle that can carry 11-16 persons (including the driver) would be a 'school bus' for Federal purposes, but apparently not for Wisconsin's purposes. Since the States, and not NHTSA, regulate the use of vehicles, the inconsistency would be immaterial with regard to requirements adopted by Wisconsin pertaining to the use of school buses. Wisconsin may set the operational requirements for those vehicles the State defines as 'school buses' without regard to our school bus definition. However, the inconsistency would matter at the point of sale of a new school bus. The FMVSS's specify requirements for school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR part 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. A decision by Wisconsin to adopt a definition other than the Federal definition of a school bus has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to a vehicle. Any person selling a new 'bus' (a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school must sell a certified 'school bus,' regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under Wisconsin law. The vehicle would have to be equipped with the safety features NHTSA requires for school buses. The information provided by Mr. Burnett indicates that Wisconsin would redefine 'school bus' for two purposes. First, Wisconsin would prohibit the operation of a 'school bus'--a vehicle with a capacity of 17 persons (including the driver)--unless the bus has a specific type of mirror. (Section 347.40) As explained above, this requirement would not affect NHTSA's requirement that vehicles considered to be 'school buses' under our definition must be equipped with the mirrors and other safety features we require for school buses, even if the vehicles are not 'school buses' under Wisconsin law. Chapter 301 further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). A State standard for mirrors that is not identical to the Federal standard is preempted unless it imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use (e.g., public school buses). Wisconsin's requirements for school bus mirrors could be preempted, depending on the type of mirror required and whether the vehicles equipped with it are public buses. We understand that the second purpose of Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus is to require privately-owned vehicles carrying 15 or fewer students to be insured by a policy providing specified minimum coverage. (Section 121.555). This provision concerns matters wholly within State law and would not conflict with Federal law. I hope the above information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact me or Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: The Honorable Russell D. Feingold United States Senate 502 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510;

ID: 571.205-Plexiglass Barriers Clarification-Klos

Mr. Thomas Klos 
AROW Global Corp. 
924 N. Parkview Circle Mosinee, WI 54455
 
Dear Mr. Klos:
 
This responds to your email to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about a letter of interpretation NHTSA issued to Mr. Mike Collingwood of the Illinois DOT on August 11, 2020. The letter concerned the installation of plexiglass barriers installed to the right of the driver in school buses to help minimize the spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email.
 
Background
 
NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects.
 
On August 11, 2020, NHTSA responded to Mr. Collingwood’s request regarding the installation of “plexiglass barriers” installed to the right of, and behind, the driver’s seating position on school buses.1 In the letter, NHTSA concluded that the barriers were items of motor vehicle “glazing” that must comply with FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing material.” FMVSS No. 205 applies to glazing installed in motor vehicles prior to first purchase and to aftermarket glazing for use in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference an industry standard, the “American National Standards Institute American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard” (ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996).
 
In the August 2020 letter, NHTSA stated that the barriers located to the right of the driver would be “interior partitions” located in an area requisite for driving visibility. As interior partitions located in an area requisite for driving visibility, the barriers would be required to be of one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 4, 4A, 10, 11A, 11C, 14, 15A, or 15B.
 
In your letter, you ask about Table A1 in the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 standard, which provides a list of glazing types that may be used for “[g]lazing to the immediate right and left of the driver” for buses. You state that, because of this category, you historically have not used glazing with AS4 or AS4A designations (hereafter referred to as Item 4 and 4A glazing) on barriers installed to the right of the driver. You ask for guidance to ensure you are using the correct glazing types for interior barriers located to the immediate right and left of the driver.
 
Items 4 and 4A glazing may be used on barriers (partitions) installed to the right of the driver. Table A1 is located in the appendix to ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, and the appendix, as stated in its heading, is not a part of the ANSI standard, but is included for information purposes only.2 Accordingly, when there is any disparity between the language in Table A1 and the standard, the information within the standard prevails.
 
Subsection 4.2 of the ANSI standard specifies that Item 4 and Item 4A glazing may be used in “interior partitions” and does not specifically address the category of “glazing to the immediate right and left of the driver.” Because NHTSA considered the plexiglass barriers referenced in the August 11, 2020 letter to be interior partitions, and because the standard does not exclude the use of Items 4 and 4A glazing in glazing located to the immediate right of the driver, NHTSA concluded that Items 4 and 4A glazing may be used in the partitions.
 
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.
 
Sincerely,
 
                       Digitally signed by ANN
ANN ELIZABETH ELIZABETH CARLSON
  Date: 2022.05.31
  13:07:01 -04'00'
CARLSON
 
Ann Carlson 
Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/31/22
Ref: FMVSS No. 205
 
1 Letter to Mr. Mike Collingwood, (August 11, 2020) available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.205%20Plexiglass%20Barriers%20(002).htm. 
2 The ANSI standard states: “(This Appendix is not a part of American National Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways, Z26.1-1996, but is included for information purposes only.)”

ID: 2669rbm

Mr. Charlie Steffens
Director, Systems Engineering
TRW Automotive
Occupant Safety Systems
4505 W. 26 Mile Road
Washington, MI 48094

Dear Mr. Steffens:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less. The phase-in for these new requirements begins September 1, 2003. That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-size adults. The requirements in S19, S21, and S23 are designed to minimize the risk that air bags pose to infants and small children. S19 provides manufacturers with two different options for complying with the standard (low risk deployment or automatic suppression), while S21 and S23 provide three options (low risk deployment, automatic suppression, or dynamic automatic suppression). Your first question is related to the infant low risk deployment option while your three other questions are related to the interrelationship between the compliance options. I am pleased to provide a response.

You first request an interpretation of the requirement set forth in S19 and the test procedure provided in S20.4, relating to the low risk deployment option for infants. Specifically, you characterize the requirements of S20.4 as follows. "For S20.4.9, if the subject vehicle were equipped with any type of occupant sensing system that was
(1) able to recognize that the passenger seat was occupied by any infant restraint from Appendices A, B, or C of the regulation,
(2) secured into the positions and orientations described in sections S20.4.1 through S20.4.8, and a 49 CFR Part 572 subpart R 12-month-old CRABI dummy positioned according to S20.4 and
(3) the occupant sensing system and airbag control system were designed to control the output of the air bag system in a discrete manner, such as "low output", that the S20.4.9 testing would be conducted at the same discrete output determined by the occupant sensing system. Further, no additional tests to show compliance to S19, such as "high output" testing corresponding to that for a vehicle which does not have an occupant sensing system to meet S20.4.9 would be necessary."

The requirements for the infant low risk deployment option are found at S19.3, which states that "each vehicle shall meet the injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this standard when the passenger air bag is deployed in accordance with the procedures specified in S20.4." The low risk deployment option is designed to address injuries that can result when an infant is placed very close to the air bag. The risk of being directly above or adjacent to the air bag is particularly high for infants because child restraints, when placed in their rear-facing mode, will always place an infant's head close to the dashboard. A poorly installed forward-facing child seat also creates a risk, because the restraint can slide or flip forward during a crash.

S20.4 specifies several conditions for testing the deploying air bag. First, the manufacturer must assure compliance to S19.3 using any child restraint listed in subparts B and C of Appendix A to the standard. Restraints listed in subpart A (car beds) need not be tested because these restraints are not designed to be rear facing. For purposes of S19.3, the air bag is only tested with the child restraints in their rear-facing condition. This represents the worst case injury scenario. Under the specified test conditions, the vehicle seat is moved as far forward as possible, while avoiding contact with the vehicle interior. This is done to ensure that the dummy's head is placed as close to the deploying air bag as possible. The air bag is only tested with the child restraint in a belted condition.

The air bag is deployed at whatever level of force and combination of stages that would deploy in any rigid barrier crash up to 64 km/h (40 mph) when a child or test dummy is positioned in a restraint as specified in the test procedure, except that the vehicle seat may be at any seat track position. This level is determined by running an indicant test, as described in S20.4.9, at impact speeds up to 40 mph with a dummy-occupied restraint installed in the passenger seat. [1]

When NHTSA runs a compliance test on a vehicle certified to S19.3, it will only deploy the air bag at the level and, if equipped with a multi-stage inflator, with the combination of stages, that would deploy in the specified indicant test. Accordingly, vehicle manufacturers that certify to the low risk deployment option will need to ensure that their sensing systems are sufficiently robust to detect the presence of an infant in any one of the child restraints listed in subparts B or C of Appendix A.

If only a "low output" air bag deploys in the indicant test, NHTSA will not deploy a "high output" air bag simply because the "high output" air bag is placed in the vehicle for other occupants who may be seated in the passenger seat. Such an approach would have the effect of preventing vehicle manufacturers from using sensing technology to identify the presence of an infant at higher speeds.

Your next two questions relate to how the different compliance options relate to one another. Specifically, you ask if "the intent of the regulation... mean[s] that at compliance strategy needs to be chosen for each occupant size [i.e., the 1-year-old, the 3-yer-old, and the 6-year-old], but that a different strategy can be employed for each." You then ask if it is "possible to comply with ... the regulation using multiple compliance methods within an occupant size grouping using a logical subgrouping. For instance, could a system use deployment suppression for certifying the 3 and 6-year-old children in child seats and low risk deployment for the 3 and 6-year-old children not in child restraints?"

A vehicle manufacturer must certify to one of the compliance options in S19, S21, and S23. You first ask whether a different compliance option may be used for each group of children addressed by the regulation. The answer is yes. Each set of compliance options specified for a particular group of children is unique to that group. Accordingly, a manufacturer could choose to use automatic suppression to meet the infant and three year old requirements, but low risk deployment or dynamic automatic suppression for the six year old requirements. [2] However, within a given age group, a manufacturer may not choose to certify some portion of the population to one option and another portion of the population to another option. This would result in a unique compliance option that may fail to address all conditions contemplated by each option. For example, it is not acceptable to claim certification by meeting only one of the two low risk deployment positions for the three year old and 50 percent of the suppression positions. A system needs to meet one of the two options in its entirety. A customized compliance option, where the manufacturer used part of different options, but not all of any option, would create a unique compliance scheme that was never contemplated by the agency in determining how best to meet the need for safety without imposing unreasonable constraints on vehicle manufacturers. We note that in the example you provided in your letter, whereby a manufacturer would "use deployment suppression for certifying the 3 and 6-year-old children in child seats and low risk deployment for the 3 and 6-year-old children not in restraints" would be a compliant system that could be fully certified to the low risk deployment option, but not to the suppression option. Nothing in the rule prohibits manufacturers from using such a design philosophy. The deployment strategies related to children restrained in child restraints would remain within the manufacturer's discretion.

Your final question asks whether a manufacturer could use both low risk deployment and automatic suppression systems as a system redundancy. You state: "Assume that a sensing system met all of the conditions... for the RFIS low risk requirement. Suppose the sensing system also had the further capability to classify and suppress for certain tested situations. The system would be certified to meet all the low risk deployment requirements, however under certain conditions the system would suppress the airbag instead of deploying at low level because of this redundant capability. TRW believes a system of this type would comply with FMVSS 208 based upon similar NHTSA interpretations using additional or redundant safety equipment."

Your understanding is correct. Manufacturers may choose to use multiple technologies to address real world risk, without certifying to more than one compliance option. NHTSA specifically addressed this possibility in the May 2000 final rule (65 FR 30680, 30710). For example, a manufacturer may decide to use both low risk deployment and occupant sensing technologies for the six year old because it has concerns that the occupant sensing technology is insufficiently robust for all real world conditions, even though it may meet all the conditions specified in the test procedure. In such an instance, the manufacturer could certify to S23 using either the low risk deployment option or the automatic suppression option, even though in actual driving conditions, the air bag may sometimes deploy when an occupant the size of a 6-year-old is seated in the passenger seat. However, the manufacturer must choose one of the options for certification. Once it decides which option to certify to, it cannot change its position, even though the vehicle may fully meet the requirements of the other options. See S4.8. We require manufacturers to choose a particular option so that we can conduct compliance testing in an effective and productive manner.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.7/8/03





---

[1] The preamble to the May 2000 final rule states that an indicant test is not required. The statement was made in response to a comment that an indicant test would be required for every child restraint on Appendix A. Multiple indicant tests are not required. It may also be possible that a manufacturer could otherwise ascertain that only a very benign air bag will deploy in the presence of a belted child restraint at any speed. However, NHTSA may choose to run an indicant test to verify that only a benign deployment was possible.

[2] Currently dynamic automatic suppression cannot be used to certify to the infant requirements.

ID: nht88-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Apple

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Rod Willaredt (A33; Std. 108); 5/17/89 letter from Rod Willaredt to Taylor Vinson; 2/19/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Charles Wilson; 7/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Willaim J. Stephenson

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Apple 14738 Bronson Avenue San Jose, CA 95124

Dear Mr. Apple:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29. 1987, in which you asked whether a U-Turn Indicator "is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-Turn indicator. However, a U-Turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the i mportance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-Turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment.

Standard No. 108 does not cover a U-Turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or part, any lamp reflective device, or associated equipment that was in stalled pursuant to Standard No. 108. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) The legibility of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American A ssociation of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 may be able to advise you further on State laws.

Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-Turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the gener al type of crash for which U-Turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-Turn crashes is substantially less than 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles.

We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator "will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent". However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing ou r Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CC: Michael Finkelstein

December 29, 1987

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel Legal Office, Room 5219 D.O.T. Headquarters 400 7th Street Southwest Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Erika,

I have been instructed by the Office of Vehicle Compliance to write you concerning a new Safety feature I have designed. I am interested in receiving feedback as to whether my idea is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the D epartment of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product.

The reason I have designed this Safety feature, which is called an Automobile U-turn Directional Indicator was to reduce the number of automobile accidents in which U turns are involved. My sister and several acquaintances, have suffered serious injuries , primarily due to the lack of communication between drivers, simply because they do not have a tool by which to communicate.

The solution is simple and at a very low cost, yet it could save the lives of many.

Please review the attached documentation, and feel free to write or call me if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Wayne Apple 14738 Bronson Ave. San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 377-0174 Home (408) 986-2526 Work

AUTOMOBILE U-TURN DIRECTIONAL INDICATOR SAFETY FIRST

Far too many accidents involve U-turns, and most likely they are of a serious nature. The ability to make a U-turn is much too convenient to try to strip away from the American public. A better and simple means of communicating the intention of making a U-turn is in order; and I have the solution. Implementing this simple tool will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Situation A: You are in you automobile waiting in the left turn lane with or without a signal light. There is an automobile in front of you, and one behind you, waiting as well. When it is time to turn, the car ahead of you starts accelerating through th e turn. You accelerate as well, and so does the car behind you. Suddenly, midway through the turn, the car in front of you whips into a sharp U-turn, without any means of warning. If you are not quick to react, you clip the rear end of the car as it make s it U-turn, sending it into a spin, hopefully avoiding any serious injuries. If you were quick to react, you end up slamming on your brakes and either slide into the car making the U-turn, or have the car behind you crash into your rear end, slamming yo u into the car making the U-turn. Hopefully, no serious injuries result. Had you known the driver was going to make a U-turn all along you would have been prepared for it from the start of the turn. No accident would have resulted.

Situation B: You are driving your automobile down the street and approach an intersection. There is a car with sitting in the oncoming traffic left hand turn lane. They have activated their left hand turn indicator. There are several cars following behin d your car. The oncoming car in the left hand turn lane believing there is enough time to make the turn, and there probably is. You slow down, so do the cars behind you, to allow for the turning car to pass through the intersection. Suddenly the car whip s into a U-turn. There is not enough time to react. Your car crashes into the U-turn car. One or two of the cars behind you crash into your car's rear end. Hopefully no serious injuries result, but they usually do in such circumstances. Had you known the car was planning to make a U-turn initially, you would have applied the brakes harder when the driver first began the turn, and hopefully avoided any accident at all situation C: You are waiting at a four way intersection in your automobile to make a ri ght hand turn. There is a car waiting in the cross traffic left hand turn lane, ahead and to your right, with the left turn indicator blinking brightly. Right hand turns are legal in your state on red lights. There is a break in traffic. You begin to tur n to the right and into the lane. The car in the left hand turn lane begins to turn down the road you had just traveled on. Suddenly, the driver of the car turning left, who was paying more attention to the oncoming traffic, whips the steering wheel hard to make a sharp U-turn, which is legal at this intersection. The two cars collide, crushing the front ends of both automobiles. You would not have made the turn to the right had you suspected the driver of the other car would be making a U-turn.

PRODUCT SOLUTION

The need stated in the problem situations above is a means to notify other drivers when you are planning to make a U-turn, and be able to discern it from a left hand turn signal; thus, I have designed a product with the means to satisfy this need.

The product is an Automobile U-turn Directional Indicator (U-turn Blinker), which is to be mounted on the front and rear driver's side of the car next to the left hand turn indicator. They are to be activated by a four position turn indicator switch, tha t utilizes the fourth down position to activate the U-turn signal. It is recommended that there be additional resistance in moving from the third position (left turn) to the fourth position (U-turn) to alleviate mistakes, as well as a U-turn dash light.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

* Four position indicator switch. Fourth position down is U-turn. Resistance between third and fourth position.

* The rear U-turn directional indicator light assembly is mounted near the rear left hand turn indicator. The arrow should start at the lower right portion of the light housing, head straight to the top, curve to the left, then point straight downward, a s if the driver trailing the car were looking at a posted U-turn sign.

* The front U-turn directional indicator light assembly is mounted near the front left hand turn indicator. The arrow should start at the upper left hand portion of the light housing, head straight down, bend to the right then head straight up.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Cont...

* The black area contained within the U-turn light housing assembly which blacks out the portion of the light assembly to outline the arrow, should be painted on, or preferably, be made of black rubber and glued onto the reflector plastic.

* The reflector portion of the U-turn light housing assembly should be a different color than the left hand turn indicator, to better differentiate the two. A cross between yellow and lime green would be noticeable.

* The size and shape of the U-turn directional housing is up to the discretion of the manufacturer, with a minimum of three square inches.

* The intensity of the U-turn indicator light should be equal to, or brighter than, the left hand turn indicator. The color and arrow shape will assist in the differentiation.

* Matching reflector plates can be used on the right side of the car for cosmetics and balance.

* A U-turn dash light indicator should be located near the dash turn indicator light, preferably the same color as the reflector plate.

SUMMARY

Communications between automobile drivers needs to improve. Clearly notifying other driver's your intentions can reduce the number of accidents by over fifty percent. Having the tools to better communicate to other drivers is a necessity. The U-turn dire ctional indicator is one of those tools to making America's roads a safer place.

ID: 06-005826as

ID: Bailes.1

Mr. Alistair Bailes
Perei Group Ltd.
Sunbury House
Ivy Road
Aldershot
GU12 4TX
United Kingdom




Dear Mr. Bailes:

This responds to your letter, in which you seek confirmation as to whether your proposed front turn signal lamp would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You also asked whether your proposed lower beam headlamps visual/optical aiming mechanism would meet the standards requirements. We are pleased to have the opportunity to explain the relevant requirements of our standard.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Your letter described and depicted your proposed vehicle frontal lighting system as having a turn signal with a single reflector illuminated by a PY21W filament bulb. According to your letter, the housing containing the turn signal has two lenses, a primary lens (with an area of over 22 cm ²) and a smaller secondary lens which emits light but does so in a manner that is "superfluous to the performance and is primarily an aesthetic embellishment".(Looking at the exterior of the vehicle, the two lenses have the appearance of two separate lamps with a small amount of space between them.)You stated, however, that this second lens is necessary to meet European requirements that the turn signal be 400 mm or less from the extreme outer edge of the vehicle. In your letter, you asked whether this proposed design would comply with FMVSS No. 108.

Furthermore, your letter shows a pair of headlamps with two separate adjustment mechanisms for the lower beam. You described the system as having visual/optical aiming, with two adjustment mechanisms: (1) a vertical/horizontal adjustment and (2) a horizontal adjustment. Your letter stated that vertical aim is adjusted by rotating the vertical/horizontal adjustment, and horizontal aim is adjusted by rotating both adjustments. According to your letter, the system is not equipped with a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD). In your letter, you asked whether this proposed design would comply with FMVSS No. 108 or whether a VHAD would be required. Alternatively, you asked whether compliance could be achieved by disabling or removing the horizontal adjustment, but while retaining the vertical adjustment.

FMVSS No. 108 sets forth requirements for turn signals (see S5.1) and their location (see S5.3) on a vehicle, as contained in Tables I-IV of the standard. (We note that although these tables distinguish between vehicles less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in width and those greater than 80 inches (2032 mm) in width, the requirements for the number and location of turn signals are essentially the same for the purposes of the present analysis.)For front turn signal lamps, the standard requires the vehicle manufacturer to install one amber lamp at or near the front of the vehicle on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, as far apart as practicable.

In paragraph S5.3.2(b)(1), the standard states, "When a vehicle is equipped with any lamp listed in Figure 19 of this standard [including front turn signal lamps], each such lamp must provide not less than 12.5 square centimeters of unobstructed effective projected luminous lens area in any direction throughout the pattern defined by the corner points specified in Figure 19 for each such lamp".Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of the standard further provides, "On a motor vehicle on which the front turn signal lamp is less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp, the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous intensities shall be 2.5".

While we cannot provide a determination as to whether your proposed frontal lighting system would comply with FMVSS No. 108, we can offer certain observations based upon the photograph accompanying your letter. It appears that the front turn signal is amber, as required under the standard, and its location in the assembly suggests that it is capable of being mounted at or near the front of the vehicle on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, as far apart as practicable. Your letter states that the primary lens has an area greater than 22 square centimeters, which is the minimum size for front turn signal lenses on passenger cars required by the standard (see S5.1.1 and SAE J588 Nov. 1984). Further, you must ensure that the lamps effective projected luminous lens area would meet the standards visibility requirement of at least 12.5 square centimeters, as installed with all obstructions considered. Alternatively, you could design this lamp to conform to the visibility requirements specified in S5.3.2(b)(2).

We would bring two matters to your attention. First, if our understanding of your photograph is correct, this lamp would be mounted on the drivers side of the vehicle, in which case it appears that the upper beam is more outboard than the lower beam. However, Standard No. 108 requires the lower beam to be at a more outboard location, relative to the upper beam. Unless your photograph is mislabeled, your proposed design would apparently not meet that requirement.

Second, the standard necessitates that careful attention be paid to the spacing between the turn signal and the lower beam headlamp. Again, if this turn signal lamp is located less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a lower beam headlamp, as measured from the optical center of the turn signal lamp, paragraph S5.3.1.7 requires the intensity of the turn signal to be multiplied by 2.5. Assuming for the sake of argument that the above issue related to upper/lower beam location is resolved and presuming that the primary lens meets all other requirements for a turn signal under FMVSS No. 108, we do not believe that the presence of a separate and discrete embellishment provided by the secondary lens would violate S5.3.1.7, because the turn signal provided by the primary lens would meet the requirements of the standard without being masked by the headlamp. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that the illumination provided by the secondary lens would impair the vehicles required lighting equipment.

As to the issue of the horizontal aim of the lower beam headlamp, paragraph S7.8.5.3(b), Horizontal aim, lower beam, of FMVSS No. 108 provides, "There shall be no adjustment of horizontal aim unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD. If the headlamp has a VHAD, it shall be set to zero".In the 1997 final rule amending Standard No. 108 to permit headlamps that are visually or optically aimed, the agency adopted this requirement for horizontal aim to either be fixed and nonadjustable, or have a horizontal VHAD, because the lower beam would not have any visual cues for achieving correct horizontal aim, and it would not be possible to add such visual features without damaging the beam pattern (see 62 FR 10710, 10712 (March 10, 1997)). Visual/optical aim headlamps became part of FMVSS No. 108, but they were required to meet new beam pattern photometric requirements, with a beam pattern relatively insensitive to modest horizontal misaim.

In 1999, Federal-Mogul Lighting Products (Federal-Mogul) petitioned the agency for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow visually/optically aimed headlamps to have a horizontal adjuster system that does not have the required 2.5-degree horizontal adjustment range or a VHAD indicator, as required by the standard. As we noted in our denial of Federal-Moguls petition, our 1997 final rule permitted visual/optical aim headlamps, based upon comments to the agency stating that vehicles could be built with such close tolerances that no horizontal aim adjustment would be necessary, and we noted that no useful visual cue for horizontal aiming exists (see 66 FR 42985, 42986 (August 16, 2001)). Because no visual cue was available for the purpose of horizontal aiming, the agency did not permit any horizontal movement of such headlamps, with the lamp essentially being correctly aimed as installed. As an alternative, horizontal-aiming VHADs were permitted (but not required) on visual/optical aiming headlamps as a means for manufacturers to meet European requirements for both a horizontal and vertical aim adjustment, but that the horizontal VHAD must be set to zero.

Because visual/optical aim headlamps do not currently have any feature that would allow anyone other than the headlamps manufacturer to objectively assess the accuracy of horizontal aim, a vehicle manufacturer seeking to adjust the horizontal aim of these lamps on a new vehicle would have no objective, repeatable way to assess the impact of its horizontal aim adjustments on real world lighting performance. Because of this limitation, neither the agency nor anyone else, including vehicle dealers and State safety inspectors, could assure correct headlamp aim. As stated in our denial of Federal-Moguls petition, we believe that it is incumbent upon the industry to develop a single method for horizontal aiming that could be incorporated into FMVSS No. 108, and we will not assess individual manufacturers petitions for alternatives to installation of a horizontal VHAD.

In light of the limitations that the standard places upon horizontal aiming of visual/optical aim headlamps, your proposed design, as presented, would not comply with the relevant requirements of Standard No. 108. The standard does not permit a horizontal adjustment mechanism for the lower beams of such headlamps, unless it is a VHAD that is set to zero.

Furthermore, we do not believe that elimination of the "horizontal adjustment (2)", as depicted in the diagram accompanying your letter, would suffice to remedy this. Your suggestion to remove the horizontal adjustment and "have only vertical adjustment" would apparently not meet the requirement of the standard, because the remaining adjustment is presented as a "vertical/horizontal adjustment (1)" and the letter states that horizontal aim is adjusted by rotating both adjustments. Thus, elimination of adjustment (2) would nevertheless appear to leave horizontal aim adjustment capability as part of adjustment (1), which is not permitted under the standard.

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/4/05

ID: 2799o

Mr. Amnon Shomlo
President, A.A.S.
3364 Catamaran Way
Jacksonville, FL 32217

Dear Mr. Shomlo:

This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1988, enclosing a "Peace" decal designed to be affixed to the center highmounted stop lamp. The letters and design are in white, printed on transparent plastic, "in an effort to preserve the basic requirements for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specified candela." You have asked what "Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating that we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product."

There are no regulations that apply directly to the decal, nor any Federal restrictions on its sale. Thus you cannot state in any sales materials that the product meets Federal requirements, for there are none. If a center highmounted brake lamp would continue to meet all applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 after installation of your decal, there are no restrictions on its use.

Although you intend the product to preserve the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, it is not certain that this will occur. The decal has the potential of obscuring light from some of the l3 test points at distances where candela photometrics must be measured and the specified minima met. However, its actual effect can be determined only through laboratory tests on lamps of different sizes and lens and reflector designs. Although you have no liability under Federal law for selling this decal, a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act will result if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer before the first sale of the vehicle. A violation will also occur if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied after the vehicle's first sale by any of these persons or by a motor vehicle repair business. There is no violation of Federal law if the decal is applied by a person other than those named above, such as the vehicle owner. In the absence of a violation of Federal law there may nonetheless be State statutes restricting the application of the decal under any circumstances. We are unable to advise you on State laws.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/l0/88

ID: 2883o

Gary Evans, President
Westex Automotive Corporation
40880 Encyclopedia Circle
Fremont, CA 94538

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is a response to your letter of February 26, 1988, where you asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) whether a product you wish to import and sell in the United States "complies with any standards which may affect it.". You describe the product as a warning triangle that is designed to be attached to the side window of a car. You tell us that this side-mounted triangle is about 20% smaller than the warning device specified in this agency's regulations in Standard 125, Warning Devices. The answer to your question is that the device you described would not comply with Standard 125.

Standard 125 sets uniform specifications for warning devices. Paragraph S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." By its own terms, then, Standard 125 applies to all warning devices that are not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. You are mistaken in suggesting that because the device attaches to the vehicle, Standard 125 is inapplicable. As I understand your description, the device is not "permanently affixed" to the vehicle. Rather, it is carried in the vehicle, and the vehicle operator may attach or remove the device as necessary. Therefore, this device is subject to the requirements of Standard 125.

According to your letter, this device fails to comply with the minimum size requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 125. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall ... import into the United States any ... item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard..." Standard 125 took effect on January 1, 1974. Thus, Federal law prohibits you from importing any of the devices described in your letter that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1974. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:125 d:7/18/88

ID: 3043yy

Ms. Debby Funk
RR#l, Box 41A
Shirley, IL 61772

Dear Ms. Funk:

This responds to your letter of June 4, l99l, to the Department requesting information regarding regulations on the display of lighted signs in vehicles. If they are not prohibited, you are interested in regulations governing size, placement, color, luminosity, and power source "(i.e. batteries, wire connections to either brake lights or cigarette lighter)."

There are no Federal regulations or restrictions that directly prohibit the use of lighted signs in vehicles. However, there may be State and local laws that do. We are not in a position to advise you as to these laws, but you may write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. The address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you are contemplating a commercial venture in supplying lighted signs for use in motor vehicles, there are somewhat different considerations. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, once a vehicle has been sold and in use, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not modify it in any way that would create a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard with which the vehicle originally complied. Thus, installation of a lighted sign by any of the foregoing persons could affect compliance with Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors and Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If the size of the sign interferes with the field of view in the interior mirror, a mirror must be provided on the exterior of the passenger side (most new cars today come equipped with these mirrors). If the sign is wired to the stop lamps, it must not result in a diminution of power that reduces the light from the lamp below the minimum levels specified in the standard. However, if the device is intended for owner installation, the foregoing discussion does not apply, as the Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles in any manner they choose, even if the modification creates a noncompliance.

Our regulations do prohibit combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or device such as a lighted display sign. However, there is no Federal prohibition governing manufacture and sale of these devices. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to respond.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:6/25/9l