ID: 10932-2

Milford R. Bennett, Director
Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and the raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted.

Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not.

You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 percent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached).

Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:9/1995

ID: 12311.ztv

Mr. Craig Homberg
Engineer
Aquatech, Inc.
1777 Miller Parkway
Streetsboro, OH 44241

Dear Mr. Homberg:

This responds to your letter of August 2, 1996, to the former Chief Counsel, Samuel Dubbin, asking for suggestions as to where Aquatech might locate the rear identification lamps on a vehicle that it manufactures. These lamps "are obstructed by a vacuum boom." The lamps cannot be mounted on the boom because it "articulates side to side and extends and retracts." You have enclosed a two-dimensional drawing showing the vehicle from the rear.

Table II of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires rear identification lamps to be "3 lamps as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline, with lamp centers spaced not less than 6 inches or more than 12 inches apart." Table II does not establish either a minimum or maximum mounting height for these lamps.

The agency realizes that, with some vehicle configurations, the highest practicable location may be approximately the same level as stop and taillamps, such as the frame rail, and the agency has accepted this. Some manufacturers have also added equipment to the vehicle at this level to accommodate identification lamps. The two-dimensional drawing you enclosed shows a horizontal structure below the boom and above the rear axle, where it might be possible to add identification lamps. However, the drawing is two-dimensional and it is not possible for us to assess the dimensional relationship between the horizontal structure and the vertical piece that, in the picture, bisects the lower half of the horizontal structure.

If it is not practicable to add identification lamps on the horizontal structure below the boom and above the rear axle, we would be pleased to advise you further if you would send us a photograph or drawing of the rear that shows the dimensional relationships of the equipment already located there. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:9/6/96

ID: 1982-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1982, concerning Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You are correct that my letter of June 1, 1981, should have referred to S5.1(d) rather than S5.2(d). Likewise, I assume that where you have referred to sections 4.1(d), (e), and (f) in your letter, you mean sections 4.2(d), (e), and (f).

My letter of June 1, 1981, was not meant as a definitive statement of what specific action the agency intends to take on Standard No. 209, but rather to acknowledge that the standard's provision on abrasion needs modification. The notice of proposed rulemaking for this action will allow you and other interested parties to comment on what precise changes you think should be made to the standard. I am placing a copy of your letter with its current suggestions in the public docket.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 5, 1982

FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sir

With reference to your letter to us of June 1 1981, I assume that where you have referred to Clause 5.2(d) in your letter you mean 5.1(d).

You state in your letter that Clause 5.1(d) will be amended and that strength after abrasion will be compared to the breaking strength specified in Clause 4.2(b). For consistency, Clause 5.1(e) and 5.1(f) would also need to be altered.

I would suggest that it is not Clause 5.1(d) that needs changing, it is 4.1(d) to bring it into line with 4.1 (e) and (f). Clauses 5.1(d)(e) and (f) need no change. Additionally I feel sure that the minimum breaking strengths listed in 4.2(b) should remain, even after abrasion, light or micro-organisms test and that clause 4.2(d) might finish . . . . shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the strength before abrasion and greater than the appropriate strength listed in @@ 4.2(b). Clause 4.2(e) might read . . . . have a breaking strength of not less than 60% of the strength before exposure to the carbon arc and greater than the appropriate strength listed in Clause 4.2(b). Clause 4.2(f) might finish . . . . have a breaking strength not less than 85% of the strength before subjected to micro-organisms and greater than the appropriate strength listed in @@ 4.2(b).

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM -- SENIOR TEST ENGINEER, BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION

ID: 1985-01.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ken Rutland; NHTSA

TO: Docket Section Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Date: Jan. 15, 1985

Subject: INFORMATION: Clarification of Requirements of Final Rule on Harmonization (Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2)

From: Ken Rutland Safety Standards Engineer

To: Docket Section Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2

THRU: Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

VIA: Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

I received a telephone call from Mr. Kazue Watanabe of the Stanley Electric Company, Tokyo, Japan on December 19, 1984, with a question concerning the November 26, 1984, Final Rule amendment to harmonize FMVSS No. 108 with European standards. With the amendment Published in Notice 2, Mr. Watanabe wanted to know if motorcycle turn signal lamps were supposed to meet the photometric requirements of Table I of SAE J588e or the requirements set forth by Figure 1a and Figure 1b given in Notice 2, after December 26, 1984.

I transmitted the attached message to Mr. Watanabe by telex, on December 27, 1984.

Attachment (w/6 copies)

Interpretations NOA-30 Std. 108 Interpretations Room 5109 Red Book (3)

To: Mr. Kazue Watanabe Stanley Electric Co. Telex # 246-6623 SEC TOKJ

For motorcycle turn signal lamps, FMVSS No. 108 as amended (FR 46386, November 26, 1984), allows motorcycle turn signal lamps to meet one-half of the minimum photometric values at each test point, as specified in SAE J588e, according to S4.1.1.30 and substituting the values in figure 1a and 1b for table 1 of SAE J588e. This requirement is now located in S4.1.1.11 for the 19 individual test points. The new S4.1.1.12 substitutes Figure 1C for the former Figure 1 and establishes the group totals for 5 zonal groups. It is intended that the individual test points with a value of one-half that of Figure 1b be used in determining the group totals for motorcycle turn signal camps. We hope this answers your question.

ID: nht87-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; EriKa Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas L. Long

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Thomas L. Long Vice-President R & D Think, Inc. P.O. Box 414 Smyrna, TN; 37167

Dear Mr. Long:

This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have enclosed a decal intended to be affixed "on the outside of the rear window of an automobile, directly in front of the high mounted stop light." You have asked about the relationship of the decal to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Center highmounted stoplamps are required to be designed so that light outlet (candela) may be measured at 13 individual test points, at a distance of not less than 10 feet. With the decal applied to the rear

window, it is possible that the requisite minimum or maximum candela specified by Standard No. 103 could not be met at all of the test points. Further, the effective luminous area of the lamp must be not less than 4 1/2 square inches, and while the decal would not be applied to the lens, nevertheless, the lens area when viewed from behind could be effectively reduced. Because a vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 at the time of its initial sale, the vehicle could be delivered to its purchase: with the decal attached only if the vehicle continued to meet the light output and effective luminous area requirements.

Even if a vehicle could not be delivered with the decal attached, nothing in Standard No. 108 or the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a vehicle owner from applying the decal to his own vehicle, or from taking any other action that might affect the compliance of his vehicle with any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does forbid other persons from such actions, so that after a vehicle is sold, the dealer (or a motor vehicle repair business) could still be prohibited from applying the decal. Regulation of a vehicle in use is a matter of the laws of the States where vehicles are registered and operated. Even though Federal law does not prohibit an owner from applying the decal, a State law might. For advice on State laws, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

ID: nht87-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/87

FROM: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- INDIANA MILLS AND MANUFACTURING INC

TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/14/88 TO WILLIAM E. LAWLER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel:

We are writing to you to request an official interpretation of portions of FMVSS 208 and 209 with regard to a Type 2 Seat Belt Assembly designed by a customer and ordered by him for installation at a static (non-suspension) driver's seat in a vehicle wit h a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds.

The proposed seat belt assembly incorporates an automatic locking retractor to be mounted at the left of the driver's seat and a free-sliding latchplate engineered to remain in view and easy reach when not in use. The webbing is continuous from the retr actor to the anchored end of the upper torso restraint which would be installed above, slightly behind and to the side of the seat occupant. The strengths of all components and the strength of the assembly itself comply with FMVSS 209.

The latter half of 49CFR 571.209 S5.2(i) deals with automatic-locking retractors and their tendency to cinch the seat belt assembly webbing against the occupant while riding on rough roads. In addition, 49 CFR 571.208 S4.2.2, S4.1.2.3, and S7.1, though dealing with lighter vehicles, seem to imply the intent of minimal upper torso restriction. These sections of FMVSS 208 and 209 have been discussed with our customer.

In our opinion, two modifications to the customer's design will convert the continuous webbing feature into separate lap belt and upper torso restraints which will allow his proposed design to comply with the sections of FMVSS 208 and 209 referenced abov e: 1. sew the latchplate to the webbing at a specified location in order to create a standard lap belt 2. place a manual adjusting device in the upper torso restraint.

Our customer has agreed to postpone the order on his original design and use the option we are suggesting until we have received an official opinion from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If you have further questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT

[DRAWING OMITTED] ALR, 3PT. SYSTEM

ID: nht88-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/88

FROM: JAMES A. COWAN -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING CROWN COACH INC

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

TITLE: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 11/24/89 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA; RE FMVSS 227, BUS WINDOW RETE NTION AND RELEASE; OCC 2847

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

In a telephone conversation this morning with Marty J. Paliokes Safety Compliance Engineer for NHTSA, we were referred to your office for an interpretation regarding FMVSS 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Our question regards figures 1 and 2 (p ages 418 and 419, CFR 49, Parts 400 to 999, October 1, 1985) of the subject regulation.

As background information, Crown Coach has developed a new transit style school bus based on our current production body shell. The current bus has been tested and certified for FMVSS 217 compliance as recently as March, 1988; see report no. 217-MSE- 87-10-TR7122-10 prepared under contract no. DTNH22-87-P-01028 for the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Attachment 1 (photograph) shows the relationship of the seat at the emergency exit door to the door opening in this test.

In the new bus we have widened the door as shown in attachment 2 (Crown drawing E-504-278). Attachment 3 (photograph) shows the relationship of seats with the new door frame.

Our question regards the seat back in front of the seat at the emergency exit. Aforementioned figures 1 and 2 show a two inch (2") dimension between the access regions and the seat back forward of the emergency exit seat. This dimension is noted as "clearance area around seat back, arm rests, and other obstructions". With our wider opening, the entire seat back is in the emergency exit door opening. However, the actual minimum region area between the two seats are unchanged from the previous desi gn. We feel this wider opening is in full compliance with Part S5.2.3 of FMVSS 217.

An interpretation on this matter at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Please call the undersigned at (714) 591-0567 if any additional information is required.

Very truly yours,

PHOTO GRAPHS OMITTED

ID: nht76-1.7

DATE: 02/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alaska Traffic Safety Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to a request by Mr. William Hall, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regional Administrator for Region X, for a review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems with special consideration of the comments of Mr. Robertson in his memorandum of November 24, 1975.

It is the opinion of this agency that Standard No. 104 is appropriate for the State of Alaska. The essential feature of a wiping system, as far as safety is concerned, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are washed and wiped. These areas are established in the standard and are determined by the angles from the driver's eye position over which the windshield must be kept clear to provide a proper field of view. While targets of driver attention and environmental conditions may differ from state to state, if the critical areas are clear, the field of view provided to the driver is sufficient. The 1976 Scirocco appears to provide the required field of view.

The question therefore becomes whether the Federal standard on windshield wipers is intended to cover all aspects of wiping systems. If so, the situation is analogous to that presented to the court in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV S74-126 (E.D.Cal. 1974) which resulted in a holding that Standard No. 108 did preempt an inconsistent state regulation in the field of lighting requirements. The NHTSA has determined that the standard on windshield wiping systems, No. 104, is intended to leave the number of wipers to the discretion of the manufacturers. Under Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir, 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Thus, a state regulation differing from the standard would impair the Federal superintendence of the field within the meaning of the doctrine set forth in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963) and be preempted under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, U.S.C. 1392(d).

ID: nht88-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-25-88, TO ERIKA JONES-NHTSA, FROM AMNON SHOMLO, OCC-1783

TEXT: 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 requirement s 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. 108 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. 108, it is not certain that this will occur. The decal has the potential of obscuring light from some of the 13 test points at distances where cand ela 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 a lso 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.

ID: nht90-3.72

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard E. Portors -- Vice President and General Manager, Royale Limousine Manufacturers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-5-90 from R.E. Portors to Z.R. Fraser; Also attached to Federal Register, section 571.108, 49 CFR Ch.V (10-1-85 Edition), page 218 (text omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of April 5, 1990, to Zachary R. Fraser of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your interpretation of a requirement applicable to center highmounted stop lamps. You attached a copy of the requirements for our convenience.

Section S5.1.1.41(a) of Standard No. 108 (S4.1.1.41(a) in your copy) requires the center lamp to have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches. You report that the lamp on the 1990 Cadillac measures 6 square inches in ar ea. When a boomerang TV antenna is installed, the shaft area displaces 1.125 square inches of area which would leave an exposed area of 4 7/8" of light and would exceed the minimum requirements of section (a)." You further state that subsection (b) (re lating to visibility of signal throughout the horizontal angle from 45 degrees right to left of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle) would not be affected. Further, "without window glazing", section (c) relating to compliance with the photometrics of F igure 10, would not be affected either, in your opinion.

First, we note that your interpretation of subsection (a) is not correct. The effective projected luminous lens area of the lamp remains at 6 square inches, because no modifications are performed on the lamp that affect the lens itself. The question for compliance is whether the photometric requirements of subsection (c) are met. We do not understand your phrase "without window glazing", as compliance is determined with the back window in place. However, in our experience, a TV boomerang antenna is, like the lamp, mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, usually the rear deck. In this position, even a shaft that displaces 1.125 square inch of area will block the light from the lamp at test point H-V, and the lamp will not comply with the photometric requirements of "Figher 10, as specified by subsection (c). Therefore, we cannot concur in your interpretation that the design you describe "would not affect the requirements of 571.108."