ID: aiam5607

Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 199 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;

ID: aiam5521

"Dear Mr. Echt: We have received your letter of March 10, 1995, askin whether it is permissible under Standard No. 108 to use the hazard warning lamps as a deceleration warning system. Paragraph S5.5.10(a) states that 'Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash.' With this in mind, 'and the fact that hazard warning indicators are commonly used to warn high-speed trailing traffic that a leading vehicle or vehicles are moving slowly or stopped', you have asked: '1. Would a device which automatically activated a vehicle's hazard warning system at the onset of high, braking induced deceleration and deactivated the hazard warning system upon release of the brake pedal (following automatic activation) be permissible under FMVSS 108? This assumes that the device will not prevent activation or cause deactivation of the hazard warning system if the mandatory vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit has been activated by the driver.' Heretofore, the agency's opinion letters on deceleration warning systems have covered those that operate through lamps that are steady burning in use (to Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and to Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990), or through original equipment lamps that are additional to those required by the standard (letter of July 30, 1993, to the Commonwealth of Virginia). In those instances, we have advised that a deceleration warning system must be steady burning in use. Your question raises the issue of whether a flashing deceleration warning system is acceptable if it operates through original equipment lamps that are intended to flash when they are used. Flexible asked a similar question with respect to a supplementary lighting system. We advised it (letter of December 8, 1986) that simultaneous use of flashing and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear and impairing the effectivess of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3 (the provision of Standard No. 108 that governs the permissibility of supplemental original lighting equipment). We believe that the same conclusion also applies to wiring the hazard warning system to operate as a high deceleration warning system as well. Thus, we do not view this system as permissible under Standard No. 108. Obviously, complying vehicles are manufactured so that it is possible for a driver to simultaneously activate the hazard warning system and stop lamp system. However, we believe that this happens infrequently, and when it does, it is a conscious choice of the operator and not of a system. Because of the conclusion we have reached above, your second question is moot. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3854

Dear Mr. Kawano: This letter replies to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No 202, *Head Restraints*. Your first question concerns the measurement of the lateral width of a head restraint with a 'Volvo-type configuration.' The drawing attached to your letter appears to depict an adjustable head restraint with a rectangular shape and a hollow center. Paragraph S4(b) of Standard No. 202 requires measurements, according to S4(b)(1) and (2), to be made when the head restraint is 'adjusted to its fully extended design position.' The lateral width of the head restraint of an individual or bucket seat may be measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point. These are the only two locations at which this measurement may be made. The lateral width may not be measured at part B on your drawing, because B is not the correct location at which to make this measurement. A copy of this drawing is enclosed for your convenience.; Your letter and drawing indicate a concern that, if the lateral widt is measured 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint, the hollow space between the two sides of the rectangular head restraint may not be included in measuring the total width. Using the information you have supplied, we believe that the lateral width of this type of head restraint, measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the restaint or 25 inches above the seating reference point, would include the hollow space, if the hollow space occurs at either location. The lateral width would also include, of course, the widths of both sides of this restraint, marked A1 and A2 in your drawing. This lateral width may or may not equal the width, B, located at the top of the restraint in your drawing.; Your second question regarding the correct demonstration procedure t test compliance with Standard No. 202 is answered by the language of paragraph S5.2 of the standard. This paragraph states that, if the head restraint conforms to S4(b), compliance is demonstrated in accordance with S5.2 with the head restraint in its fully extended design position. The dynamic testing procedure would not be required, unless your head restraint conforms to paragraph S4(a). The manufacturer has the option of designing a head restraint which meets the performance requirements of either paragraph S4(a) or paragraph S4(b).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5640

Dear Mr. Young: This is in reply to your FAX of October 17, 1995 asking for interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, as in relates to 'customer specifications for options incorporated into, or in addition to FMVSS lighting.' You have described these options as: 'Brake override circuit for rear facing warning lights. The rear warning lights flash as warning lights until the brakes are applied, at which time they become steady burn. This option is in addition to the standard brake lights. If this is acceptable, should the lights be required to meet all requirements of stop lights? (ie., maximum luminous intensity, color, etc. . .)' As you clarified in a phone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on November 2, the 'rear facing warning lights' are part of the ambulance lighting system which is not a system required by Standard No. 108. This option is permissible. Although there is no Federal legal requirement that governs the performance of ambulance warning systems, we recommend that the rear facing warning lights be red, the required color for stop lamps, inasmuch as the intent seems to be to provide an additional indication that the brakes have been applied. 'Brake Enhancer. Standard or additional stop lights are made to flash on/off several times before going steady burn.' This is not permissible. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be steady burning. 'Back -up alert strobes. Rear facing high intensity strobe lights that are activated when the gearshift lever is placed into reverse gear.' Optional equipment is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. You have not indicated the color of the strobe lamps. If they are red or amber, they could cause confusion in the eyes of an observer when operated simultaneously with the steady burning white backup lamp. There is a lesser possibility of confusion if they cast a white light, as long as they do not mask the steady burning backup lamp. In that event, the strobes could be fitted to the ambulances. 'Taillight flashers. Taillights or brake lights are flashed alternate to backup lights until brakes are applied, at which time they go steady burn. The option at times may be requested to only work if the rear doors on the ambulance are open.' This is not permissible. Standard No. 108 requires taillamps as well as stop lamps to be steady burning, under all circumstances. If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366- 5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5523

"Dear Mr. Echt: We have received your letter of March 10, 1995, askin whether it is permissible under Standard No. 108 to use the hazard warning lamps as a deceleration warning system. Paragraph S5.5.10(a) states that 'Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash.' With this in mind, 'and the fact that hazard warning indicators are commonly used to warn high-speed trailing traffic that a leading vehicle or vehicles are moving slowly or stopped', you have asked: '1. Would a device which automatically activated a vehicle's hazard warning system at the onset of high, braking induced deceleration and deactivated the hazard warning system upon release of the brake pedal (following automatic activation) be permissible under FMVSS 108? This assumes that the device will not prevent activation or cause deactivation of the hazard warning system if the mandatory vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit has been activated by the driver.' Heretofore, the agency's opinion letters on deceleration warning systems have covered those that operate through lamps that are steady burning in use (to Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and to Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990), or through original equipment lamps that are additional to those required by the standard (letter of July 30, 1993, to the Commonwealth of Virginia). In those instances, we have advised that a deceleration warning system must be steady burning in use. Your question raises the issue of whether a flashing deceleration warning system is acceptable if it operates through original equipment lamps that are intended to flash when they are used. Flexible asked a similar question with respect to a supplementary lighting system. We advised it (letter of December 8, 1986) that simultaneous use of flashing and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear and impairing the effectivess of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3 (the provision of Standard No. 108 that governs the permissibility of supplemental original lighting equipment). We believe that the same conclusion also applies to wiring the hazard warning system to operate as a high deceleration warning system as well. Thus, we do not view this system as permissible under Standard No. 108. Obviously, complying vehicles are manufactured so that it is possible for a driver to simultaneously activate the hazard warning system and stop lamp system. However, we believe that this happens infrequently, and when it does, it is a conscious choice of the operator and not of a system. Because of the conclusion we have reached above, your second question is moot. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5462

"FAX 812-467-2388 Dear Mr. Williams: This is in reply to your FAX o October 24, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting an interpretation regarding the relationship of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to an AAMVA list. Your company manufactures UV coatings for polycarbonate headlamp lenses. These 'provide abrasion resistance properties as well as protecting the plastic lens from the deleterious effects of outdoor exposure.' One of these coatings, UVT200, is used by Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler on headlamp lenses. However, 'UVT200 does not appear on the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) 'Listing of Acceptable Plastics for Optical Lenses and Reflectors Used on Motor Vehicles.'' You inform us that some overseas headlamp manufacturers believe that appearance on the list is required by Federal law and is a prerequisite to certification. The question you ask is: Must a coating for plastic (polycarbonate) headlamp lenses appear on the AAMVA 'Listing . . .' in order to meet the requirements of FMVSS 108? The answer is no. Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires that plastic materials used in lenses (which include headlamp lenses) conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts, Such as Lenses and Reflectors of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices, May 1970. Under SAE J576c's outdoor exposure test, the luminous transmittance of the material must not change by more than 25% from its performance before the test. In appearance, the headlamp lens material must not show surface deterioration, crazing, dimensional changes, or delamination. Also, under paragraph S5.1.2(b), after the outdoor exposure test, the haze and surface luster of the material must not be greater than 30 percent haze, as measured by ASTM D-1003-61. Manufacturers have found that a coating is required for the plastics used in headlamp lenses to meet Standard No. 108's outdoor exposure requirements. However, neither SAE J576c or Standard No. 108 require the coating, let alone specify what coating is acceptable. The decision to coat, and the choice of coating, is that of the manufacturer in determining compliance with and certification to Standard No. 108. Therefore, the AAMVA list has no legal relationship to Standard No. 108 and it is immaterial to NHTSA whether the coating used is or is not on the AAMVA list. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: 1933y

Mr. Robert W. Kahle
4111 Blood Road
Metamora, MI 48455

Dear Mr. Kahle:

This responds to your letters to Mr. Jettner of our Office of Vehicle Safety Standards asking about the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of an "aftermarket" head restraint for light trucks. Your letters have been referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in responding.

You ask whether you need this agency's approval of your product. The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraints sold as an item of "aftermarket" equipment for pickup trucks.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs your head restraint would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

You ask for a copy of an "order" requiring head restraints on new pick-up trucks in 1991. Please note that NHTSA has thus far only proposed to require head restraints in new light trucks and vans (10,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating), and has proposed a September 1, 1991 effective date for the requirement, if the proposed rule is adopted. I have enclosed a copy of the proposal for your information. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding shortly.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:VSA#202#302 d:8/7/89

ID: aiam4808

"Re: FMVSS No. 123 Dear Mr. Zinner: This is in reply to your FAX lette of December 4, l990, requesting an interpretation of section S5.2.4 of 49 CFR 571.123 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays. Specifically, you wish an opinion 'as to the meaning, purpose, and intent' of that section. Section S5.2.4 Stands states that 'A stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward.' As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you, this requirement was one of the original provisions in Standard No. 123 when it became effective in l974. However, unlike many other requirements in the standard, it was both proposed and adopted without any discussion of its meaning, purpose, and intent in the preambles to both these rulemaking actions other than the bare remark that the notices contained a requirement for stands. Furthermore, in the l6 years that the requirement has been in effect, the agency does not appear to have issued a single legal opinion relating to section S5.2.4. However, the agency has issued two interpretations of section S5.2.5 which we believe are relevant to an understanding of S5.2.4. In pertinent part, S5.2.5 Footrests states that 'Each footrest for a passenger other than an operator shall fold rearward and upward when not in use.' In a letter of February 16, l982, to American Honda Motor Co., Inc., with respect to a proposed footboard design, the then Chief Counsel commented that 'We consider that the purpose of S5.2.5 is to prevent accidents caused by rigid footrests contacting the ground in a banking turn.' In a letter of October 26, l973, also to American Honda, the then Assistant Chief Counsel commented that S5.2.5 did not require automatic folding but only the direction in which the footrests shall retract 'so that if they are inadvertently left down when not in use they will fold rearward and upward should they hit an obstacle while the motorcycle is travelling forward.' I enclose a copy of each of these letters for your information. The meaning of S5.2.4 is, we believe, clear and unambiguous: if a stand is left down, it shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground (which includes the roadway) while the motorcycle is moving forward. Because both sections S5.2.4 and S5.2.5 require motorcycle equipment 'to fold rearward and upward', we further believe that the purpose and intent of both sections are the same, and that S5.2.4 could be substituted for S5.2.5 in the sentences of the two letters quoted in the preceding paragraph. I hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4364

Dear Mr. Wort: This responds to your May 26, 1987, letter to me asking about ou requirements in Standard 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,* for restraining barriers and seat back height. I appreciate this opportunity to explain our requirements. In this discussion, I would also like to go over preemption issues that are raised by the state law you describe.; In your letter, you said that Illinois has recently enacted a la requiring 28-inch-high seat backs on new large school buses (i.e., buses with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds). You ask whether the 28-inch-high seat backs would negate the requirement for a restraining barrier in front of the front passenger seat. the answer is no.; Paragraph S5.2 of Standard 222 specifies: 'Each vehicle shall b equipped with a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point . . . .' The standard makes no exception for any type of school bus passenger seat. The reason for the broad application is clear, since restraining barriers are needed to compartmentalize the seating area.; Your second question was whether the height of the restraining barrie must be as high as the height of the extended seat back. The answer is no. The requirements for restraining barrier surface area are found in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 222. That section states: 'in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lie outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required.' The seat back of the seat for which a restraining barrier is required has dimensions specified in S5.1.2 of the standard. A restraining barrier must therefore only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. If a seat back surface exceeds the size required in Standard 222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide. The preemption issue you raise related to the Illinois law mandating the 28-inch-high seat backs and FMVSS 222's seat back height requirement. I have enclosed a copy of our recent letter to Mr. Melvin Smith of your Department which explains that the Illinois law for 28-inch high seat backs is preempted by Federal law. However, as discussed in our letter, the State may require the high seat backs for public school buses.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5067

"Dear Ms. Aupperlee: This responds to your letter asking about th Federal requirements that apply to the 'Cool Cover,' an accessory for child restraint systems. According to your letter, the purpose of the Cool Cover is to prevent a restraint system from becoming so hot from sun and heat in a vehicle that it can burn a child. The Cool Cover would shield the restraint while the restraint is not being used. You explain that when the restraint is used, the Cool Cover can be partially stored in a pouch. The pouch would be positioned at the top of the restraint for the child to use as a pillow. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket cover for the restraint. I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the Cool Cover. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your cover contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by persons in the aforementioned categories. However, if your product were to be installed by these persons, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. A child restraint has elements of design that could be rendered inoperative by the Cool Cover. Standard No. 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See S5.7 of Standard No. 213, referencing Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.') Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with Standard No. 213. Also, Standard No. 213 sets crash performance requirements for all new child restraint systems. Persons in the categories listed in 108(a)(2)(A) would have to ensure that the Cool Cover does not impair the function of the restraint's belts or other operating parts. (We note the statement in your letter that the Cool Cover does not impair the restraint's belts, etc.) Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108. The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if the Cool Cover were placed on restraints by the restraint owners, your product need not meet any FMVSS. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302. Also, you might consider providing consumer instructions that would reduce the likelihood that the Cool Cover might be used in a way that could interfere with the safety of the restraint. This might include an instruction on how to position the Cool Cover so that the restraint's belts would perform properly in a crash. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";