ID: 86-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Brenda Hartman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a product you are considering. In your letter, you asked the agency not to disclose your idea for this product. In a phone conversation of April 28, 1986, with Stephen Oesch of my staff, you waived your request for complete nondisclosure and agreed to the disclosure of a generic description of your product. As you requested, we will not disclose the specific details of your product or the sketches you enclosed with your letter.

Your product is designed to reduce the possibility that a young child could unbuckle a vehicle safety belt. The product would enclose the buckle of the safety belt, so that it is difficult for a child to operate the buckle release.

We have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains our reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985)

In addition, use of your product can be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One requirement of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, is that the pushbutton release for a safety belt must have a a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business could be prohibited since it apparently would substantially reduce the minimum area available for applying the release force to the safety belt pushbutton. In addition, Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that the safety belt no longer meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person could be inconsistent with that policy.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

THIS IS A PROPIATARY IDEA, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE.

February 27, 1986

Erika Jones Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

RE: Inquiry of safety standards.

Dear Miss Jones,

I am submitting to you my idea. I would like to know if there are any safety standards which may prohibit me from proceeding with such a product.

I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and would like a response at your earliest convience.

Sincerely,

Brenda Hartman 8617 CRESTON PINCKNEY, MI 48169 (313) 878-2413

ID: 2658o

Mr. Gary W. Rossow
Director, Government Technical Affairs
Freightliner Corporation
Charlotte Technical Center
9844 Southern Pine Boulevard
P.O. Box 7562
Charlotte, NC 282l7

Dear Mr. Rossow:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems. You asked whether a proposed design would meet the requirements of S5.l.2. Your question is responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Under section S5.l.2, trucks and buses are required to have the following equipment:

"Reservoirs. One or more service reservoir systems, from which air is delivered to the brake chambers, and either an automatic condensate drain valve for each service reservoir or a supply reservoir between the service reservoir system and the source of air pressure.

You stated that some of your existing air braked trucks utilize a supply reservoir or wet tank between the service reservoir system and the air compressor without using automatic condensate drain valves on the service reservoirs. You noted that the supply reservoir functions as a means of removing excess water vapor from the air supply to avoid water contamination of the braking system and works on thermodynamic principles whereby water condenses to a liquid as the hot compressed air cools.

Your proposed design would utilize an air dryer between the service reservoir system and the air compressor. According to your letter, the air dryer serves the same function as the supply reservoir in your existing system but works on a different principle. You stated that the moist, compressed air passes through a filter media contained in a small canister sized reservoir. The material, a desiccant, has a high chemical affinity for water. The water absorbs on the desiccant and is later purged by stored dry air. The air dryer would have an integral automatic condensate drain valve.

Since your proposed design would not include an automatic condensate drain valve for each service reservoir, the issue raised by your letter is whether it complies with S5.l.2's option for "a supply reservoir between the service reservoir system and the source of air pressure." You stated that you believe the air dryer with automatic condensate drain is the functional equivalent of the more generally accepted embodiment of a supply reservoir in the context of S5.l.2. You also noted that Standard No. l2l does not specify a separate volume for the supply reservoir, although it does require in S5.l.2.l that the combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs be at least l2 times the total service brake chamber volume. You suggested that if the volume of the service reservoirs is l2 times the volume of the service brake chambers, it would appear that there is no requirement for a specific volume in the supply reservoir.

While Standard No. l2l does not include a definition for "supply reservoir," the term is one that is commonly understood. For example, you indicated in your letter that some of your current brake system designs utilize the "more generally accepted embodiment of a supply reservoir."

In considering whether a particular item of equipment can be considered a "supply reservoir," we believe that effect must be given to both "supply" and "reservoir." The dictionary defines "reservoir" as "a receptacle or chamber for holding a liquid or fluid, as oil or gas." The word "supply" is defined as "to furnish or provide." Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines "air reservoir" as "(a) storage container for compressed air." SAE Recommended Practice J656g, "Automotive Brake Definitions and Nomenclature."

Thus, in order to qualify as a "supply reservoir," an item of equipment must hold or store air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system. The information provided with your letter does not provide sufficient information to determine whether your air dryer qualifies as a "supply reservoir." In particular, the information does not indicate whether the air dryer holds other than a de minimis amount of air. While your letter is correct that there is no requirement for a specific volume in the supply reservoir if the volume of the service reservoirs is l2 times the volume of the service brake chambers, an air dryer with a de minimis volume could not be considered to hold or store air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system. On the other hand, if a supply reservoir provides an air cleaning function as well as holding or storing air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system, it would still be a supply reservoir.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ NCC-20:EGlancy:mar:2/2/88:Wang l959o:62992:OCC 926 CONCURRENCE: NRM-0l, NEF-0l cc: NRM-0l, NEF-0l Redbook, Std. l2l Interps, Std. l2l

ID: 2672o

Mr. Gary W. Rossow
Director, Government Technical Affairs
Freightliner Corporation
Charlotte Technical Center
9844 Southern Pine Boulevard
P.O. Box 7562
Charlotte, NC 282l7

Dear Mr. Rossow:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems. You asked whether a proposed design would meet the requirements of S5.l.2. Your question is responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Under section S5.l.2, trucks and buses are required to have the following equipment:

"Reservoirs. One or more service reservoir systems, from which air is delivered to the brake chambers, and either an automatic condensate drain valve for each service reservoir or a supply reservoir between the service reservoir system and the source of air pressure.

You stated that some of your existing air braked trucks utilize a supply reservoir or wet tank between the service reservoir system and the air compressor without using automatic condensate drain valves on the service reservoirs. You noted that the supply reservoir functions as a means of removing excess water vapor from the air supply to avoid water contamination of the braking system and works on thermodynamic principles whereby water condenses to a liquid as the hot compressed air cools.

Your proposed design would utilize an air dryer between the service reservoir system and the air compressor. According to your letter, the air dryer serves the same function as the supply reservoir in your existing system but works on a different principle. You stated that the moist, compressed air passes through a filter media contained in a small canister sized reservoir. The material, a desiccant, has a high chemical affinity for water. The water absorbs on the desiccant and is later purged by stored dry air. The air dryer would have an integral automatic condensate drain valve.

Since your proposed design would not include an automatic condensate drain valve for each service reservoir, the issue raised by your letter is whether it complies with S5.l.2's option for "a supply reservoir between the service reservoir system and the source of air pressure." You stated that you believe the air dryer with automatic condensate drain is the functional equivalent of the more generally accepted embodiment of a supply reservoir in the context of S5.l.2. You also noted that Standard No. l2l does not specify a separate volume for the supply reservoir, although it does require in S5.l.2.l that the combined volume of all service reservoirs and supply reservoirs be at least l2 times the total service brake chamber volume. You suggested that if the volume of the service reservoirs is l2 times the volume of the service brake chambers, it would appear that there is no requirement for a specific volume in the supply reservoir.

While Standard No. l2l does not include a definition for "supply reservoir," the term is one that is commonly understood. For example, you indicated in your letter that some of your current brake system designs utilize the "more generally accepted embodiment of a supply reservoir."

In considering whether a particular item of equipment can be considered a "supply reservoir," we believe that effect must be given to both "supply" and "reservoir." The dictionary defines "reservoir" as "a receptacle or chamber for holding a liquid or fluid, as oil or gas." The word "supply" is defined as "to furnish or provide." Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines "air reservoir" as "(a) storage container for compressed air." SAE Recommended Practice J656g, "Automotive Brake Definitions and Nomenclature."

Thus, in order to qualify as a "supply reservoir," an item of equipment must hold or store air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system. The information provided with your letter does not provide sufficient information to determine whether your air dryer qualifies as a "supply reservoir." In particular, the information does not indicate whether the air dryer holds other than a de minimis amount of air. While your letter is correct that there is no requirement for a specific volume in the supply reservoir if the volume of the service reservoirs is l2 times the volume of the service brake chambers, an air dryer with a de minimis volume could not be considered to hold or store air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system. On the other hand, if a supply reservoir provides an air cleaning function as well as holding or storing air in order to furnish or provide the air to the rest of the brake system, it would still be a supply reservoir.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:121 d:2/18/88

ID: nht79-3.27

DATE: 04/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Valley Presbyterian Hospital

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 16, 1979 NOA-30

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President Valley Presbyterian Hospital 15107 Vanowen Street Van Nuys, California 91405

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1979, concerning the computerized anti-theft device developed by the BBJ partnership.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been developing over the past several years an upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, Theft Protection. I have enclosed a copy of the standard now in effect and our recent proposed amendment. You should be aware, however, that in response to comments this proposal may be modified prior to its issuance in final form.

The approach of the NHTSA in issuing motor vehicle safety standards is to establish minimum standards with which all manufacturers must comply. It is our hope that manufacturers will exceed these minimum standards in a way which offers the public greater protection, either throughout an entire vehicle line or by optional equipment which a purchaser may buy. Your device appears to fall in this latter category.

The NHTSA does not provide evaluations or approvals of inventions, and we would be unable to advise you whether a vehicle equipped with your device would comply with Standard No. 114 without a more complete description. Based on the information you have provided, however, your device does not appear to conflict with the Standard as currently established. Should you have any specific questions in this regard after reading the enclosed material, please call (202-426-1834) or write Frederic Schwartz, Jr. of my office who will be able to assist you further. You should also be aware that if your device is meant to be installed by the owner of a vehicle after the vehicle is sold by the dealer, the Standard would not apply.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 7, 1979

Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

I believe that, at times, the best way is the most direct. Cognizant of your long and dedicated search for improvement in traffic safety, I am encouraged to address one important aspect of that search - automobile theft and its concommitant social and economic impact.

Congress Henry Waxman was king enough to establish the initial contact. I would like now to follow up in some detail to evoke your evaluation.

BBJ, a California partnership in which I am involved, has developed an anti-theft device known as the CAT* (Computerized Anti-Theft) system. Briefly, it is our representation that the device will totally protect against theft of any automobile, except by towing even though the key be left in the ignition. This is accomplished by employing the most advanced micro-processor technology to control the automobile's electric system. Use of the vehicle is restricted to the owner and those to whom he may have made the special coding feature known. The owner may elect to activate the device or not; if he chooses "no activation", the car will perform in an entirely normal manner. When activated, however, the vehicle cannot be "wired around" tampered with or moved by any of the conventional methods used by professional or amateur thieves. It does, in effect, guarantee against all known methodologies of theft. This complete security system comes packaged in a unit the size of a hand-held digital calculator.

* Patent applied for

During the course of a telephone conversation last month with Mr. Carl Nash, he was kind enough to agree to send a copy of the 1981 anti-theft requirements with which the automobile industry must comply. While I have not yet received them, my understanding is that they deal largely with peripherical modification such as recessed door latches, steering wheel locks, hood latches and the like. While these undoubedly act as deterrents, they are not fool-proof. We believe that our device, which will permit the hood, trunk and doors to remain open with the key in the ignition, meets and surpasses the intent of the regulations -which is to prevent car theft.

Increasingly sophisticated systems are appearing, all ranging from $250 to $1,000 - well beyond the practical reach of most car owners. Our device, in production quantities, will have a manufacturing cost of $30.00 - $40.00 and a retail cost of about $100. Furthermore, all other systems of which we are aware can be "wired around" or otherwise thwarted; we stipulate that ours cannot.

It would be most helpful in introducing the "CAT" system as the ultimate solution to car theft to have your administration's evaluation as to whether the device does indeed meet the 1981 regulations as we believe.

Any guidance you might give will be warmly appreciated not only by BBJ, but by the tens of thousands who each year are subjected to the trauma and inconvenience - both physical and economic - of automobile theft.

Sincerely,

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President

HXJ:dds

ID: aiam1082

Dear Mr. Sakashita: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1973, in which you ask tw questions regarding your company's practice of maintaining records on replacements parts for vehicles you manufacture. You appear to be under the impression that the retention of such records is necessary for purposes of certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; There are no requirements for the certification of replacement vehicl parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present Standard Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, and it is only with respect to replacement equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Moreover, the NHTSA does not have specific requirements tha manufacturers maintain records as to those equipment items that must be certified. Of course, good manufacturing practice would dictate that manufacturers maintain sufficient records to show that 'due care' was exercised in manufacturing the items to conform to the standards. This is the legal standard applicable to manufacturers under the Safety Act. But it is for each manufacturer to determine for himself the extent to which such records should be maintained.; It is possible that any replacement equipment item, whether or no subject to a standard, may be found to contain a safety-related defect. The discovery of a defect by either the manufacturer of the NHTSA will result in the manufacturer notifying purchasers of whom he has knowledge. (Section 113 of the Safety Act, 15 USC 1402) Here again, good manufacturing practice would require a manufacturer to maintain sufficient records that if a defect is found, the manufacturer will be able to determine the extent of his production in which he will be able thereby to minimize his burden of notification. However, as in the case of certification, the NHTSA does not have requirements for record retention that manufacturers must follow. It is for the manufacturer to determine the extent to which he should maintain records for these purposes.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1308

Dear Mr. Stolpestad: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, concerning th 1966 Chrysler you recently purchased from Central Motors in Minneapolis.; As Miss Porter correctly pointed out in her column, the Federal law o odometer fraud enables you to bring a civil action against Central. The amount of recovery in such an action can be substantial. If the court were to accept your estimate of damages of $1490.24, the damages assessable under Federal law would be three times that amount - $4470.72. In no case would damages be less than $1500, a minimum value established by law. In addition, if you are successful, Central must pay your attorney fees as well as all court costs.; I appreciate your concern for the costs of litigation. However, b providing for the payment of attorney fees the odometer law places you in a better position than a personal injury litigant, whose recovery is usually diminished by his attorney's contingency fee. Your best course at this point is therefore to retain counsel if Central persists in its refusal to reimburse you.; By way of advice to your attorney, I would point out that the 'out that Central claims to have taken -- checking the box on the disclosure form that indicates the true mileage is unknown -- was taken too late to be of benefit to them. The Federal regulation governing disclosure requires the disclosure statement to be made 'before executing any transfer of ownership form.' If they mailed the statement the next day, their disclosure was untimely. Moreover, the representations made in the newspaper advertisment (sic) are evidentiary of their representation of 33,000 miles as being the true mileage on the vehicle. Your success in finding the previous owner is also useful in establishing that the actual mileage was greater than shown.; We will be willing to give you or your attorney further advice i questions arise concerning the intent and effect of the Federal odometer law. The enclosed copies of the law and regulations are provided to assist him in representing you.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3765

Dear Ms. Hill: This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specifi questions relating to Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Your questions and their answers are listed below:; 1. Provide a definitive interpretation of 'erratic burning' as used i the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.; 'Erratic burning,' as that term is used in the standard, relates t incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.; 2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word 'anticipate' as use in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?; In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.; 3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendmen limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?; The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No 302.; 4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply t a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?; We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The materia would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.; 5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 197 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?; The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302- 02. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4018

Dear Mr. Friberg: This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated June 27, 1985 for a determination that a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; Paragraph S4.3 of the standard requires that a specified placard sho the recommended tire size designation. Volvo has provided labels on approximately 3,200 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state '185/65R15' but the correct information is '185/70R15.' However, Volvo intends to mail correct placards 'to owners of all affected vehicles.'; By providing the corrective placard, Volvo will remedy th noncompliance. Because the noncompliance will no longer exist, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moot. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Volvo will provide owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek re-notice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.; The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and d not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.; Our records indicate that Volvo is in technical noncompliance with 4 CFR Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*, by failing to file a report within 5 days of its determination of the existence of the noncompliances. We will, however, treat the submission of information in your petition as a Part 573 report. Part 573 also requires 6 quarterly reports on the progress of recall campaigns. In your situation, the campaign will be accomplished in a single mailing. We ask that you furnish the agency with a report of the number of letters sent and the number of letters returned as undeliverable in lieu of the Part 573 quarterly reports.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2339

Dear Mr. Currie: #This is in response to your March 24, 1976, lette concerning the application of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, to thermoplastic tubing of 1/8 inch nominal outside diameter that is used in 'auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself. #You have pointed out that it is difficult to label tubing of this diameter with letters that are 1/8 inch high, and requested an amendment of the standard to permit the labeling of such brake hoses with letters that are 1/16 inch high. #Because the tubing that you have described is not manufactured for use in the brake system itself, it is not 'brake hose' as that term is defined in Standard No. 106-74 and is therefore not subject to any of the standard's requirements. In fact, although the standard does not prohibit the manufacture of air brake hose of 1/8-inch outer diameter, we are unaware at this time of the existence of any hose or tubing of that diameter that meets the definition of 'brake hose'. Therefore, the conformity or nonconformity of the tubing in question is a matter of private contract between Parker Hannifin Corporation and those truck manufacturers that are requesting conformity. #In consideration of the possibility that 1/8-inch outer diameter tubing may in the future be used in brake systems, however, there NHTSA has decided to grant your petition to reduce to 1/16 inch the minimum required lettering height on brake hoses of such diameter. Accordingly, a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced. #You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. #Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs;

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;