ID: nht95-6.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: Paul Danner -- General Claim Counsel, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

TO: John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Compliance with Federal Odometer Statement Requirements

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/89 LETTER FROM Kathleen DeMeter to Madeline Flanagan; Also attached to letter dated 11/28/95 from Samuel Dubbin to Paul Danner (Part 580)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

On behalf of State Farm, I am seeking an interpretation of federal odometer requirements in the situation where State Farm is settling a total theft claim with a policyholder.

State Farm handles thousands of vehicle theft claims each year. Many times, the car is not recovered at the time we settle these claims. Federal odometer disclosure laws and the regulations enacted by authority of those laws, do not provide a clear direction as to how the odometer disclosure statement should be completed when a vehicle is unavailable to the transferor at the time they pass title to State Farm.

The motor vehicle departments of various states have provided different interpretations. On August 30, I spoke with Mr. Dick Morse, Chief of the Odometer Fraud Staff in the Department of Transportation. Mr. Morse was candid and practical in suggesting how an insurer should comply in this circumstance. He suggested the insured-transferor should enter a figure on the disclosure form which certifies mileage to the best of their knowledge, even though it is understood that figure will be a "best guess estimate". If the insured-transferor is aware of circumstances which would require additional discrepancy statements to be marked, that should also cocur.

Mr. Morse further indicated an insurer-transferee should then process title documents in accordance with appropriate state law. Some states require a title to be placed in the name of the insurer - transferee as soon as practical. Other states do not allow transfer of title unless the vehicle is eventually recovered.

Assuming title is immediately or eventually recorded in the insurer-transferor's name, and the vehicle is subsequently recovered, the next issue is how mileage then appearing on the odometer statement should be recorded when the vehicle is sold as "salvage". Mr. Morse indicated the insurer should inspect the vehicle and record the actual mileage as it appears. If the odometer reading appears to be accurate, no discrepancy needs to marked off. If the reading is less than what the "best guess estimate" had been, then a discrepancy would need to be recorded. If any

P2 other circumstance caused the insurer to question whether the mileage was accurate, then the appropriate discrepancy should be marked off.

It is the intent of State Farm to comply with odometer disclosure requirements in every transaction we handle. We are therefore requesting an official interpretation from your office indicating whether Mr. Morse's suggested approach to completion of odometer disclosure forms complies with the Department's legal interpretation of statutes and regulations in this area.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-4.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: Paul Danner -- General Claim Counsel, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

TO: John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Compliance with Federal Odometer Statement Requirements

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/89 LETTER FROM Kathleen DeMeter to Madeline Flanagan; Also attached to letter dated 11/28/95 from Samuel Dubbin to Paul Danner (Part 580)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

On behalf of State Farm, I am seeking an interpretation of federal odometer requirements in the situation where State Farm is settling a total theft claim with a policyholder.

State Farm handles thousands of vehicle theft claims each year. Many times, the car is not recovered at the time we settle these claims. Federal odometer disclosure laws and the regulations enacted by authority of those laws, do not provide a clear dir ection as to how the odometer disclosure statement should be completed when a vehicle is unavailable to the transferor at the time they pass title to State Farm.

The motor vehicle departments of various states have provided different interpretations. On August 30, I spoke with Mr. Dick Morse, Chief of the Odometer Fraud Staff in the Department of Transportation. Mr. Morse was candid and practical in suggesting how an insurer should comply in this circumstance. He suggested the insured-transferor should enter a figure on the disclosure form which certifies mileage to the best of their knowledge, even though it is understood that figure will be a "best guess est imate". If the insured-transferor is aware of circumstances which would require additional discrepancy statements to be marked, that should also cocur.

Mr. Morse further indicated an insurer-transferee should then process title documents in accordance with appropriate state law. Some states require a title to be placed in the name of the insurer - transferee as soon as practical. Other states do not al low transfer of title unless the vehicle is eventually recovered.

Assuming title is immediately or eventually recorded in the insurer-transferor's name, and the vehicle is subsequently recovered, the next issue is how mileage then appearing on the odometer statement should be recorded when the vehicle is sold as "salva ge". Mr. Morse indicated the insurer should inspect the vehicle and record the actual mileage as it appears. If the odometer reading appears to be accurate, no discrepancy needs to marked off. If the reading is less than what the "best guess estimate" had been, then a discrepancy would need to be recorded. If any

P2 other circumstance caused the insurer to question whether the mileage was accurate, then the appropriate discrepancy should be marked off.

It is the intent of State Farm to comply with odometer disclosure requirements in every transaction we handle. We are therefore requesting an official interpretation from your office indicating whether Mr. Morse's suggested approach to completion of odo meter disclosure forms complies with the Department's legal interpretation of statutes and regulations in this area.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-7.34

DATE: October 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John P. Gach -- Marketing Coordinator, North American Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/1/93 from John P. Gach to Richard Van Iderstein (OCC-9084)

TEXT:

We are replying to your letter of September 1, 1993, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency with respect to the "Blu-Lite." You would like our views on this product "in both OEM and aftermarket applications."

The advertising circular which you enclosed shows Blu-Lite to be a three-compartment stop lamp that is mounted in the center of the parcel shelf adjacent to the rear window. The center compartment contains a blue light "that comes on immediately with heavy brake pressure and flashes quickly and independently from your regular brake lights." The center blue light compartment is flanked by compartments that contain a "red stop light."

It is clear that Blu-Light is intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has required to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, (and light trucks and vans since September 1, 1993). Blu-Light does not meet the original equipment specifications of Standard No. 108 because, among other things, it is not a single red lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle. Therefore, Blu-Light is impermissible under Federal law as original motor vehicle lighting equipment.

With respect to aftermarket applications, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Removal of the original equipment center lamp and replacement with Blu-Light would be a "rendering inoperative" as we interpret that term, and, hence, a prohibited act. However, the prohibition does not extend to persons outside the four named categories, such as the vehicle owner, and installation of Blu-Light by persons not named in the prohibition would not violate any Federal requirement. But the legality of the use of Blu-Light is determinable under the laws of each State in which the device is operated. As you note, many States reserve the color blue for lamps used to indicate emergencies. If you are interested in pursuing this question further, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, can advise you whether any State allows the use of blue lamps for other than emergency use.

Further, there is no violation of Federal law involved in installing Blu- Lite on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. 108 to be originally equipped with one, i.e., cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and

other vehicles manufactured before September 1 of this year. In this instance, too, legality of use is determinable under State law.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: 9084

Mr. John P. Gach
Marketing Coordinator
North American Lighting, Inc.
P.O. Box 499
Flora, IL 62839

Dear Mr. Gach:

We are replying to your letter of September 1, 1993, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency with respect to the "Blu- Lite." You would like our views on this product "in both OEM and aftermarket applications."

The advertising circular which you enclosed shows Blu-Lite to be a three-compartment stop lamp that is mounted in the center of the parcel shelf adjacent to the rear window. The center compartment contains a blue light "that comes on immediately with heavy brake pressure and flashes quickly and independently from your regular brake lights." The center blue light compartment is flanked by compartments that contain a "red stop light."

It is clear that Blu-Light is intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has required to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, (and light trucks and vans since September 1, 1993). Blu-Light does not meet the original equipment specifications of Standard No. 108 because, among other things, it is not a single red lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle. Therefore, Blu-Light is impermissible under Federal law as original motor vehicle lighting equipment.

With respect to aftermarket applications, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Removal of the original equipment center lamp and replacement with Blu-Light would be a "rendering inoperative" as we interpret that term, and, hence, a prohibited act. However, the prohibition does not extend to persons outside the four named categories, such as the vehicle owner, and installation of Blu-Light by persons not named in the prohibition would not violate any Federal requirement. But the legality of the use of Blu-Light is determinable under the laws of each State in which the device is operated. As you note, many States reserve the color blue for lamps used to indicate emergencies. If you are interested in pursuing this question further, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, can advise you whether any State allows the use of blue lamps for other than emergency use.

Further, there is no violation of Federal law involved in installing Blu-Lite on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. 108 to be originally equipped with one, i.e., cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and other vehicles manufactured before September 1 of this year. In this instance, too, legality of use is determinable under State law.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:10/22/93

ID: nht92-9.61

DATE: 01/01/92 EST

FROM: B.J. Forney

TO: Diane K. Steed -- Traffic Sft. Adm.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/19/92 from Paul J. Rice to B.J. Forney (A34; VSA 102)

TEXT:

I am seeking a written statement from your dept. as to the legality of on the road operation of such a system described in the enclosed brochure. (back page.)

In 1982 I spent $4,500 with Inv. Mkt in Pitts, PA. with only paper work to show for it.

If this system is not or would not be allowed on the roads, an attempt to recover my fee is anticipated.

This would help me in my future efforts to market this system with any trucking industry.

Return postage cost would be accepted.

Thank you for your opinions.

Attachment (letter)

March 27, 1990

Mr. B.J. Forney R 6, 61 Harrison, AZ 72601

Dear Mr. Forney:

Thank you for your letter dated March 21, 1990, relative to an Automotive Power Drive. Before submitting this matter to our appropriate management people for determination of their interest, I would like to propose the following:

(1) Any disclosure of information by you to representatives of Westinghouse is to be on a non-confidential basis and such information is received by Westinghouse with no obligation whatsoever.

(2) You will rely solely on your patent rights with respect to compensation for any information so disclosed.

If the foregoing understanding is acceptable to you, please so indicate by executing and returning the acceptance provided on the extra copy of this letter.

We appreciate your thinking of Westinghouse in connection with your invention.

Very truly yours,

L.M. Laffoon Mgr., Administrative Services Westinghouse Electric Corporation Law Department - Intellectual Property

Attachment (brochure)

Forney Air, NAT-2929 (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: 86-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Hofmann Product Manager Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

Dear Mr. Hofmann:

This responds to your letter, asking three questions about any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements for labeling tires as "all-season" tires. I will answer your questions in the order they were presented in your letter.

1. Is there a definition issued by NHTSA regarding mud and snow tire tread design characteristics?

No, NHTSA has not issued any such specifications. For all of our tire regulations, except the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS: 49 CFR 5575.104), a tire is subject to the same requirements, regardless of its specific design characteristics. That is, all new passenger car tires must satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 109 and be labeled in accordance with Part 574. This is true whether the new passenger car tire is a mud and snow tire, all-season tire, high speed-rated tire, temporary spare tire, or a normal highway service tire. Accordingly, the agency has had no reason to define particular characteristics of a mud and snow tire for any regulation or standard besides the UTQGS, and the agency has not done so.

The UTQGS apply to all new passenger car tires with a few exceptions. One of the groups of new passenger car tires not subject to the UTQGS is "deep tread, winter-type snow tires." When all- season tires were first introduced, several manufacturers asked whether all-season tires qualified as deep tread, winter-type snow tires. The agency responded to these questions with an explanation of what the UTQGS means by the phrase "deep tread, winter-type snow tires." This discussion appeared at 44 FR 30140, May 24, 1979, and reads as follows:

"While all-weather tires may share some characteristics of snow tires under industry categorization systems, they are not limited in acceptable use to winter periods by virtue of their construction. The qualifying language 'deep tread, winter-type' indicates NHTSA's intention to except only a strictly limited class of tires, the deep tread rubber and tread design of which makes year round use on passenger automobiles inadvisable. Since all-weather tires are designed with a tread depth which permits and is in fact intended for safe operation throughout the year, they do not qualify as 'deep tread, winter-type snow tires' for purposes of the applicability of the UTQG Standards."

Hence, for the purposes of the UTQGS, it is the manufacturer who must, in the first instance, determine if a passenger car tire design incorporates a tread depth and design such that the tire qualifies as a deep tread, winter-type snow tire. A manufacturer making such a determination is not required to label the tire as a mud and snow tire; instead, the manufacturer simply is not required to comply with the UTQGS requirements for that tire design. In the course of its compliance enforcement for tires, the agency may reexamine the question of whether a particular tire design is a deep tread, winter-type snow tire. This is the only context in which the agency has ever addressed the issue of what constitutes a snow tire.

2. Can a tire have a paper label affixed stating that it is a mud and snow tire even if the symbol for a mud and snow tire is not molded into the tire sidewall?

NHTSA has no regulatory requirements specifying how or that a tire be labeled as a mud and snow tire. Therefore, your company may label mud and snow tires in any manner you wish without violating any NHTSA requirements.

It is possible that the Federal Trade Commission has established some requirements for the marketing of a tire as a mud and snow tire, under its authority to prevent "unfair or deceptive" marketing practices. To learn if the Federal Trade Commission has any requirements, you may write to: Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

You may also wish to learn if there are any voluntary industry standards for the labeling of mud and snow tires. The American standardization organization for tires is the Tire and Rim Association, Inc. You may contact them at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. Naturally, the decision of whether to follow those voluntary industry standards is left to the discretion of your company.

3. Can a tire be labeled as an all-season tire even if no marking showing it is a mud and snow tire or all-season tire is molded into the sidewall?

The answer to this question is identical to the answer given above for question number 2. NHTSA has no regulations specifying that an all-season tire must be so labeled on the sidewall, so your company will not violate any NHTSA requirements by marketing the tire as an all-season tire without molding information into the sidewall. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission to learn if they have any requirements and the Tire & Rim Association to learn if there is any voluntary industry practice in this area.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 13, 1986

Mrs. Erika Jones Chief Council - NOA-3O NHTSA 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Jones:

We have the following questions regarding All Season tire labeling:

- Is there a definition in existence regarding M + S tread design characteristics issued by the NHTSA?

- Can a tire be labeled with M + S (paper sticker), even though the M + S is not embossed in the sidewall?

- Can we label a tire -All Season- even though no marking referring to M + S or All Season is embossed in the sidewall?

We would appreciate an answer to the above as soon as possible, as we are about to introduce new product lines in the All Season category.

Sincerely,

Peter Hofmann Product Manager

PH/emp

ID: nht87-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of March 4, 1987, with reference to aiming adjustment of fog lamps. We understand that Stanley is developing a fog lamp and replaceable bulb headlamp with a common lens and housing. Since the portion of the housing also fu nctions as a reflector, the fog lamp moves simultaneously with the headlamp in aiming adjustment. In your view, it will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, and you ask for confirmation that the lamp "is acceptable in the U.S.A."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for a fog lamp, and would prohibit it only if it impaired the effectiveness of any other lamp mounted on the front of a vehicle that is required by the standard. Assuming that the fog lamp does not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, its installation would not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. However, in the absence of a Federal standard on fog lamps, the individual States may establish their own requirements for f og lamps. We are unable to advise you whether this design would be acceptable in each of the 50 States, and other jurisdictions in which the Federal standards must be met; we can only advise you that it does not appear prohibited by Federal law.

The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington; D.C., 20036 may be able to advise you as to state laws relevant to your design.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 4, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

Re : Aiming adjustment of Front fog lamps

We are now developing a new fog lamp, which has a common lens and housing with a replaceable bulb headlamp. (See attached drawing.)

Since the portion of housing also functions as a reflector, this new fog lamp moves simultaneously with headlamp in aiming adjustment.

This fog lamp is designed to satisfy the requirements of SAE Standard J583. So it will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, or rather, it will promote the function of headlamp. We Think this new fog lamp is acceptable in the U.S.A.

Please give your advice whether our understanding is right or not.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

SEE ATTACHMENT

ID: nht88-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TO: LEWIS BUCHANAN -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION, SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09 /07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199

TEXT: Dear Mr. Buchanan:

I have invented a concept which I believe could significantly improve automobile safety. I call this concept the Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF).

The SSF would work in conjunction with standard automobile brake lights. During the routine deceleration range, the brake lights would function normally. However, at an unusually high braking deceleration rate, such as when the driver suddenly sees a dog on the road or an accident ahead, the SSF system would utilize a pendulum-type decelerometer in conjunction with a special high-speed flasher to rapidly flash the brake lights automatically (such as drivers sometimes try to do themselves but only whe n they have time!).

To increase the effective flash rate, and the "attention-getting index," the high-mount light would flash in rapid sequence with the two lower brake lights, the latter two flashing simualtanously.

I believe this concept would be especially effective in preventing high-speed crashes such as on an Interstate highway when separation intervals are greater and when rapid deceleration may be completely unexpected. These crashes too frequently result in ruptured gas tanks and fatalities.

The SSF would also be especially applicable, I believe, to sutomobiles with anti-skid brakes, because of their superior braking performance. While anti-skid brakes may be highly effective, ironically, automobiles without anti-skid brakes travelling b ehind them may crash into them because of inferior braking performance.

With or without anti-skid braking involved, however, the automatic signal that a high-deceleration slowdown or stop is occuring up ahead could often provide the critical second or two of advance warning which could be the difference between a safe sto p and disaster.

Patent application activity is in progress. However, before I invest more money to develop this concept, I want to be reasonably sure it is not likely to be categorically disapproved by NHTSA. While I do not expect approval, of course, based on only a general description, I would very much appreciate your preliminary comments concerning the prospects of this concept, as well as any related advice you may have to offer.

Because patent activity is in progress, I would appreciate reasonable confidentially.

I would hope to receive a reply from you within 30 days of this date, June 9, 1988.

Thank you very much for your attention.

ID: nht76-2.39

DATE: 12/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 29, 1976, asking whether the "47 Series Tite-Lite," in our opinion, has an "'optically combined' clearance lamp function." The lamp in question is represented as having "two lights [that] provide 15 functions" and you have advised us that "there are no partitions inside the multi-function lens of this lamp."

Paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the optical combination of clearance lamps with tail lamps and identification lamps. This means that a single bulb in the 47 Series Tite-Lite may not provide both tail lamp and clearance lamp functions. It also means that the light emitted by one bulb must not be perceived as performing the function of the other in addition to its design function. You have neither identified the function performed by both bulbs nor provided us with their candle-power output and we are unable to determine whether the lamp complies with Standard No. 108.

SINCERELY,

Trailer manufacturers association

October 29, 1976

Frank A. Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. Weber has sent me a copy of your letter to him of October 7, 1976 (reference N40-30).

With respect to paragraphs one and two of your letter, we wish to know if DOT considers the 47 Series Tite-Lite as described inside and on the cover of the enclosed brochure as having an "optically combined" clearance light function, and with respect to this question only, if the lamp is considered to comply with FMVSS No. 108. There are no partitions inside the multi-functions lens of this lamp.

Director of Engineering DONALD I. REED

TITE-LTE

(Graphics omitted)

At last, a Submergible Light System for Boat Trailers . . .

ID: nht95-6.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM MILFORD BENNETT (SIGNED BY F. LAUX) TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: 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.