ID: nht89-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/21/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear

This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1989, to John Donaldson of this Office titled "Request for Interpretation", submitted on behalf of your client. You request "that all identifying references to myself, my firm and [my client] in this letter and the responsive letter of interpretation" be deleted. Your request is granted on the basis that it relates to confidential business information and may be withheld under applicable Departmental regulations, 49 CFR Part 512.

You describe a lamp system as follows:

"The product is a headlamp consisting of a plastic lens and reflector, arc tubes (two each for high and low beam) and electronics for instant start and re-start of the headlamps as well as management of the operating current. A 12 volt connection is supplied for connection of vehicle line voltage".

You have asked for a letter "confirming" that this lamp system is designed to conform to the integral beam headlamp requirements of paragraph S7.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "subject only to compliance with the appropriate photomet ric requirements of FMVSS 108."

A headlighting system of the nature described must be designed to conform to all the pertinent requirements of S5.5, S7.1, S7.2, and S7.7, as well as S7.4, including mechanical aim and environmental requirements. However, since this headlamp does not us e filaments for converting the electrical energy to light energy, certain configurations of such systems may not conform, because some requirements are predicated upon the existence of filaments (e.g., S5.5.9 and S7.4(f)). If the headlamp you describe m eets all requirements, then it would appear to be an integral beam headlighting system designed to conform to S7.4. Whether the headlamp in fact meets those requirements is for the lamp manufacturer to determine, as it must assure the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it

2

is installed that he may certify compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 108. Further, the headlamp manufacturer itself must certify compliance of replacement equipment. If the headlamp is incompatible with these requirements and cannot meet them, then it would not appear to be an integral beam system. In that case, rulemaking would be required to accommodate it within the framework of Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/21/89

FROM: RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE -- SAFETY STANDARDS ENGINEER, NHTSA

TO: DOCKET SECTION; THRU: RALPH HITCHCOCK, DIRECTOR -- OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS; VIA: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: ACTION: SUBMISSION TO DOCKET 85-13, NOTICE 7 AND NOTICE 8, OF A CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY AND NHTSA'S RESPONSE CONCERNING ULTRAVIOLET EMISSIONS FROM HEADLAMPS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-15-90 TO T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; STD. 108]; ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 8-9-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA, FROM T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.; [OCC 3832]

TEXT: Please place the attached letters in Docket 85-15; Notice 7 and Notice 8, for Standard No. 108. The attachments concern the potential for ultraviolet light emissions from future headlighting systems such as those using a high intensity discharge, gaseou s discharge, or short arc metal-halide light sources.

Attachment (w/10 copies)

ID: nht89-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/89 EST

FROM: BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING

TO: EDWARD P. KIRBY -- MASSACHUSETTS SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/11/89 FROM EDWARD P. KIRBY TO BARRY FELRICHE -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Senator Kirby:

Thank you for your recent letter enclosing Senate Bill No. 1217 which you have filed in the Massachusetts General Court, and which has been referred to the Committee for Public Safety. Your bill would require all new motor vehicles made or sold in Massa chusetts to have amber-colored directional signals as of January 1, 1990.

Your comment that "such matters are reserved for the Federal government" is essentially correct. The express preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), permit States to have motor vehicle safety standa rds regulating the same aspects of performance as Federal standards provided that the State requirements regarding those aspects are identical to the Federal ones. In instances in which the Federal government has no standard (for example, there are none covering such equipment as horns or fog lamps), a State may have its own standard. As to the subject at hand, 49 C.F.R. 571.108 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, prescribes requirements f or the color of motor vehicle turn signals. At the front, they must be amber, and at the rear, either amber or red. Thus, if Senate Bill No. 1217 were enacted, it would be preempted under the Vehicle Safety Act to the extent that it required rear turn signals to be amber.

Years ago, in an attempt to standardize rear lighting, the agency proposed to eliminate the choice regarding the color of turn signals and to pick one of the two permissible colors and mandate its use. Because there were no clear benefits either way, an d because manufacturers wished to continue their existing practice (in general, the domestics preferred red, and the others, amber), the agency terminated rulemaking.

Informal agency studies since then have been similarly inconclusive. NHTSA has always been interested in improving the effectiveness of rear lighting and its present efforts are devoted to the general area of lamp size, separation, and color, of which t urn signal color is a part. However, because no data exist to support a requirement that only amber

2 be used for rear turn signals, there are no present plans to propose an amendment to Standard No. 108 that would eliminate red as a color choice.

We appreciate your interest in turn signal effectiveness, and ask that this letter be considered by the Committee of Public Safety in its deliberations. We would find it helpful if you would send us any data submitted to the Committee relating to the re lative merits of amber and red rear turn signals.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GAY M. ARTHUR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/20/89 FROM GAY M. ARTHUR TO TAYLOR VINSON; OCC 3447

TEXT: Dear Ms Arthur:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked if "detachable, lighted novelty items are legally allowable on passenger cars," specifically "for the exterior roof."

You appear to have in mind an item of aftermarket equipment, that is to say, an item which is not original equipment on a car, but one that the vehicle owner purchases during the course of his ownership. There is no restriction under Federal law as to r oof-mounted novelty items if they are installed by the vehicle owner. If they are installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, they are permissible as long as they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, eq uipment that is installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. For example, if installation of the novelty light affected the wiring and hence the performance of lighting equipment installed on the vehicle by its manufacturer, that would be a "rendering inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition.

Use of the novelty light would be determined by the laws of a State in which it is operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that, for further information, you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DAVID S. HUGHES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM DAVID S. HUGHES TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 3354

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hughes:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a lighting fixture you wish to install on your trailer. Your diagram shows it to be a rectangular unit that displays "Thanks Driver" or "Thank You" as a courtesy message. The unit may be mounted on the re ar of the trailer, "between the safety bar under the floor of the trailer", or "directly behind the mud flaps." In either location, you state that it "would be out of the way of any regulated light." You are also interested in the possibility of selling the lamp. I regret the delay in responding.

This agency has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" individual items of lighting equipment. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of your device to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting administered by this agency, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the standard was issued. With respect to your installation of the lamp on your own truck, this agency has no regulations that would govern such an action. The acceptability of this device w ould be determined under the laws of the individual States in which a vehicle so equipped is registered and operated. We are unable to advise you on State law and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for gu idance, at 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

We assume that your interest in selling the lamp is as an aftermarket accessory to truck owners. If the lamp is installed by the owner of the truck, once again there are no Federal standards that apply to it, only the laws of the individual States. How ever, if the lamp is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, under Federal law its installation must not render inoperative, either in whole or in part, any of the lighting equipment required by the Federal lig hting standard. To aid these parties in avoiding a violation of that prohibition, you should ensure the wiring does not interfere with the

effectiveness of the wiring of lamps installed in accordance with Federal requirements. Without a photo, we are unsure of the relationship of the location of the courtesy device in either of the two locations you have suggested to the location of other rear lights required by Federal law, such as identification lamps, clearance lamps, stop lamps, turn signal lamps, etc., though you have stated that it is "out of the way" of them. However, your statement indicates that you recognize the importance of e nsuring that the signal from a supplementary lamp not dilute the effectiveness of Federally-required lighting equipment, and we appreciate your concern.

If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROBERT KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH & DESIGN, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/08/89 FROM ROBERT J. KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH AND DESIGN INC TO; KATHLEEN DEMETER -- DOT; LETTER DATED 08/16/88 FROM RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC TO ROBERT KNAUFF; LETTER DATED 12/07/87 FROM RICHARD H. SCHUL TZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS TO ROBERT J. KNAUFF

TEXT: Dear Mr. Knauff:

On April 21, 1989, you wrote the agency with respect to the acceptability of your collision avoidance lighting system, as both original and aftermarket lighting equipment, under Federal laws and regulations.

Because the patent application you enclosed was stamped "Confidential", Ms Kathy DeMeter, the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, wrote you on May 26 for a clarification of your intent regarding confidential treatment of the material you submitted. We have received your letter of June 8 to Ms DeMeter containing your "permission to use" the confidential information in responding to you. As Ms DeMeter explained, the issue is not whether we may "use" the information, but whether it may be made avail able to the public, for the agency cannot provide non-public interpretations. Your statement is not a clear waiver of a claim of confidentiality; however, Ms DeMeter states that you told her that you were no longer requesting confidential treatment as t he patent application has been filed, and we regard that as a sufficient oral waiver of your request.

Your invention is intended as an advance warning of braking, and consists of "a single pulse of light [lasting] approximately 40 millionths of a second." You wish to know of the acceptability of this device as both original and aftermarket lighting equip ment in six different configurations.

First, let me observe that the agency has not performed research with respect to a device such as yours. However, it is concerned with the effects of glare, whether disabling or discomforting in nature. It would be concerned if the after-image left by the pulse of light from your device created a momentary distraction in drivers from their immediate driving task, in this instance, causing them to hesitate rather than to apply the brake pedal. We note the concern expressed by the State of Minnesota in its 1987 and 1988 letters to you. Under the assumption that a pulse of 40 millionths of a second does not produce this effect, I

shall proceed to a discussion of your device with respect to the situations you envision.

The first configuration is as "a high-mount stop light system." A center high-mounted stop lamp has been required for all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devic es, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 states that the center stop lamp "shall not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." This is the only flat prohibition in Standard No. 108 against physical combinations of li ghting equipment, and as such, we read it as forbidding use of the collision avoidance pulse. Thus, your device would not be acceptable as original equipment for passenger cars. As for its suitability as original equipment on other types of motor vehic les, it is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of other lamps that Standard No. 108 requires (paragraph S5.1.3).

With respect to the aftermarket, the pulse could not be incorporated in a center high-mounted stop lamp intended to replace original equipment high-mounted stop lamps, because replacement equipment must conform with original equipment requirements. Howe ver, the lamp would be permissible for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and on any other vehicle as well.

Whether or not subject to a standard, all aftermarket equipment is subject to the Federal requirement that its installation not lead to a rendering inoperative (wholly or partially) of equipment installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. For example, if your light utilized the wiring of stop lamps and somehow diminished the light output, we would regard its installation as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition. This prohibition applies to m otor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops. It does not, however, apply to changes made by a person to his or her own vehicle.

Because the agency has no standards for your device, a State may set its own standard for it, or even prohibit it altogether even though it is not prohibited under Federal Law. This is implied by the State of Minnesota to you in its letter of August 16, 1988. We are unable to advise you on State law, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Your second configuration is as "an enhancement for existing vehicular brake lights." We interpret this as meaning a combination of the pulse lamp with a stop lamp. This is not a forbidden equipment combination for original equipment, but it is subject to the same restriction (paragraph S5.1.3) as all supplementary lighting equipment: that it not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Similarly, its installation as an aftermarket device is permissible if it does not violate the rende ring inoperative prohibition mentioned above.

Your third configuration involves "use in motorcycle taillights". Taillamps are steady burning in nature, activated when the headlamps are on. Today, most motorcycle headlamps are activated when the ignition is

turned on, meaning that the taillamp operates at all times that the motorcycle is in motion. Your letter does not indicate the frequency of the pulse, but we must raise the possibility that a pulse from the taillamp might impair the effectiveness of sig nals from the stop lamp, or from the turn signal lamps.

If this possibility occurs, the device could not be incorporated into original equipment or replacement motorcycle taillamps for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

The fourth configuration you envision involves "use for 8-way lights in school bus systems." This would appear to mean incorporation in the red warning lamps of the red and amber warning lamp system. This system operates automatically when the bus door is opened (paragraph S5.1.4). This appears to enhance the warning purpose of the lamps, and not impair their effectiveness. Nor does it appear to "render inoperative", within the meaning of the aftermarket prohibition. We must advise you, however, tha t States are particularly sensitive to issues of school bus safety and lighting.

"Ambulance lighting" is your fifth concern. The agency has no specific requirements for warning light systems on ambulances. Such systems, of course, must not impair the effectiveness of original equipment lighting installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Strobe-type warning lamps on the vehicle top, at front and rear, have been considered permissible.

Finally, you ask about "off-road type vehicles, i.e., snowmobiles, boats, etc." The agency has no jurisdiction over vehicles that are not manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and thus we cannot answer this question.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WAYNE KRAUSE -- ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR WALTCO TRUCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/21/89 FROM WAYNE KRAUSE -- WALTCO TO STEVEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3668

TEXT: Dear Mr. Krause:

This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1989, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have enclosed drawings of a rear lighting configuration (tail, stop, and turn signal lamps) intended for installation of your "RGL-Series tail gate lift with the platform stored below floor level of a truck or trailer for transit". You state that the platform in this position would block from view any normal taillamp arrangement, and that in order to comply with the 45 degree visibility requirement of Standard No. 108, you propose to use two sets of lamps. "Light Set 1 is installed above floor leve l (not to exceed 72" for ground) and inside of tail gate rails." The other, "Light Set 2 will be installed under the vehicle body. . . ." Light Set 1 would be visible "from the rear of the vehicle and would act as the primary tail lights." The other arra ngement, Light Set 2, "would act as auxiliary tail lights that would be visible from the side of the vehicle. . . ." You believe that such a configuration is acceptable under paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 (now S5.3.1.1.1) of Standard No. 108, and ask for our comm ents.

Paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 states in pertinent part:

[E]ach lamp shall . . . shall be located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice. . . . . However, if motor vehicle equipment . . . prevents compliance with this paragraph by any r equired lamp . . . an auxiliary lamp . . . meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be provided.

While you have developed a novel concept to address the lighting problem posed by the RGL Series, it is not one that is permitted by paragraph S5.3.1.1.1, or by the SAE Standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. The paragraph clearly st ates that "each" lamp shall meet the visibility requirements, and if the vehicle configuration prohibits that, then an auxiliary lamp "meeting the requirements of this paragraph" shall be provided. The basic SAE visibility requirement applicable to lamp s in the array is that they be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right. This means that if the primary lamp does not meet the visibility requirements, the auxiliary lamp must, and the requirements cannot be met through partial compliance of each lamp. Neither appears to meet the total visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 applicable to each lamp, and thus such a configuration would not meet Federal lighting requirements.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/26/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: FREDERICK H. DAMBACH -- EXECULINE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/10/89 FROM FREDERICK H. DAMBACH TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Dambach:

This is in response to your July 10, 1989 letter, and your July 12, 1989 telephone conversation with David Greenburg of my staff. Your letter requested an interpretation concerning transit bus (as distinguished from school bus) emergency exits. You ask ed whether emergency exits located on the roof of a transit bus could be considered side exits for purposes of complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. As is explained below, the answer is " no".

Your concern has arisen because of difficulties you have encountered in obtaining approval from the New Jersey Department of Transportation to operate two used 1985 Van Hool buses. You indicated to Mr. Greenburg that the original importer had certified that the buses were in compliance with the applicable FMVSS. Nonetheless, NJDOT claims that the buses lack adequate side emergency exit space and are therefore not in compliance with Standard 217. Your letter indicated that if the roof mounted exists w ere counted as side exits, your buses would be in compliance with Standard 217.

Manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles sold in the U.S. are required to certify that those vehicles comply with the applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA does not require states to adopt or enforce the FMVSS's; states are, however, free to do so. You have indicated that New Jersey has incorporated FMVSS 217 by reference as a matter of State law. Of course NHTSA may not interpret state law; the agency may only interpret federal requirements. The following discussion therefore represents only an int erpretation of Federal law, and specifically FMVSS 217.

As is set out in S5.2 of Standard No. 217, transit buses must provide unobstructed emergency exit openings that total, in square inches, 67 times the number of seating positions on the bus. At least 40% of the total area required must be on the left sid e of the bus, and at least another 40% must be on the right side. To provide further assurance that there are multiple exits, no single exit may be credited with more than 336 square inches.

A roof exit may not be counted toward the amount of unobstructed opening required to be on a side of the bus since such an exit is not located on the side. The term "side," as used in Standard 217, refers to that part of the bus which is approximately p erpendicular to the floor and the front and rear ends of the bus. It does not include the ends or the roof of the bus. The standard follows that definition in clearly drawing distinctions between the sides, the rear and the roof of a bus. See S5.2.1 a nd S5.3.3(a). Further, if a rear or roof exit could be considered as a side exit for purposes of Standard 217, it would be unnecessary for the standard to provide detailed requirements relating to rear and roof exits.

I hope you have found this discussion informative. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

3. IMPLICATIONS TO CANADIANS

[PARAGRAPHS ILLEGIBLE]

3.1 MANUFACTURERD

[PARAGRAPHS ILLEGIBLE]

3.2 EXPORTERS OF CANADIAN SPECIFICATION VEHICLES

[PARAGRAPHS ILLEGIBLE]

3.3 TOURISTS AND COMMERCIAL TRUCKING

[PARAGRAPHS ILLEGIBLE]

ID: nht89-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/27/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROBERT V. POTTER -- SPALDING & EVENFLO COMPANIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/31/86 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO K.A. ZIOMEK -- TRW; LETTER DATED 03/17/89 FROM ROBERT V. POTTER TO NHTSA; OCC ILLEGIBLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Potter:

This responds to your March 17, 1989, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires child restraint manufacturers to make spare parts available for their products for a specified amount of time. I regret the d elay in responding.

NHTSA has addressed the availability issue you raise in a July 31, 1986, letter to Ms. Ziomek of Washington, Michigan, a copy of which is enclosed. As explained in that letter, NHTSA does not specifically require child restraint manufacturers to make re placement parts available for any child restraint. However, manufacturers must be prepared to meet their recall obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That law requires that, in the event of a safety-related defect or non-c ompliance with a safety standard, manufacturers provide a remedy without charge to consumers for eight years after purchase.

With regard to your statement about an existing Federal regulation requiring automobile manufacturers to make replacement parts available for 10 years, NHTSA does not have such a requirement. However, automobile manufacturers have the same recall respon sibilities described above for safety-related defects and non-compliances. Further, we understand manufacturers commonly follow a voluntary practice of making replacement parts available for vehicle parts likely to become worn or damaged for a 10-year p eriod, which to the best of our knowledge has usually proven adequate to meet general consumer demand.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/27/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: MARTIN M. GINSBURG -- PROLINE DESIGNS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/08/88 FROM MARTIN M. GINSBURG TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2027; LETTER DATED 11/24/88 FROM MARTIN M. GINSBURG TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ginsburg:

This responds to your letters asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR @ 571.302), applies to the "interior window coverings" that you manufacture for "pick up truck shells." In your letters, you briefly explain that the "shell," which is sold as an aftermarket product, "is placed directly over the bed of a truck." The answer to your question is no, Standard No. 302 does not apply to your product. I regret the delay in responding t o your letter.

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

There are two factors which lead us to conclude that Standard No. 302 does not apply to your window coverings. First, you manufacture an aftermarket item of equipment -- i.e., an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle sold to owners of used vehicles. Standard No. 302 regulates the flammability resistance of curtains and shades in new completed vehicles only.

Second, even if the shell and its window coverings were installed on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, Standard No. 302 applies only to components in the "occupant compartment air space" (S4), which the agency has indicated i s the area in which persons are likely to use to ride. Assuming that we are correct in believing that people do not typically ride in the enclosed bed of the truck, we conclude that the area enclosed by the shell would not be an occupant compartment. Th is accords with the agency's February 15, 1983 letter to Mr. Nakaya in which NHTSA stated that, with regard to vans, the space to

the rear of the rearmost seat was not part of the occupant compartment. Accordingly, since the window coverings in question are not located in the occupant compartment, we conclude that they are not subject to Standard No. 302.

Nevertheless, there are two matters that you ought to consider when manufacturing your window coverings. First is the possibility of liability under State and common law if the coverings were to catch fire in a situation where a window covering meeting Standard No. 302's flammability resistance requirements would not have caught fire, or if the coverings burn much more rapidly than coverings meeting those requirements.

Second is the possibility of a finding of a safety-related defect in your products. While Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to your product, you should be aware that the window coverings you manufacture are considered to be items of motor vehicle equipment. As the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are thereby subject to the provisions set forth in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of equipment with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I f you or this agency determined that your product had a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, you would have to notify all known purchasers of the defect and either repair your product so that the defect is removed, or replace the window coverings wit h an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not contain a defect.

Your letter did not indicate whether you also manufacture the truck shell to which you refer. If you are the shell manufacturer, and if your product contains glazing material, Standard No. 205 (49 CFR @ 571.205, Glazing Materials) directly applies to yo ur product. Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new and used motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of motor vehicle equipment, including glazing used in truck shells. The standard establishes both performance requirements, including those regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing, and labeling requirements applicable to the glazing used in your product.

We note also that, since your description of the "shell" was very brief, we were not certain whether the term "shell" as you use it includes what our regulations refer to as a "slide-in camper." Under Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading (49 CFR @ 571. 126), a "slide-in camper" is a structure having a roof, floor, and sides, designed for the purpose of providing shelter for persons and to be mounted on and removed from the cargo area of a truck by the user. (See, also, 49 CFR @ 575.103 for NHTSA's con sumer information requirements for trucks that are capable of accommodating slide-in campers.) In light of the possibility that the structures to which you refer are slide-in campers, and that you might be the manufacturer of the campers, we would like t o mention our regulations that apply to slide-in campers.

Briefly, each slide-in camper must meet Standard No. 205 for any glazing materials used in the camper. In addition, Standard No. 126 requires each slide-in camper to be permanently labeled with information including its maximum loaded weight. This stan dard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that includes information on total camper weight, proper matching of a truck and slide-in camper, appropriate methods of camper loading, and how to determine the camper's center of gra vity (cg) and where the cg should be placed in the truck cargo area. All campers must also be certified in accordance with section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Each camper manufac turer must submit certain information concerning its company pursuant to Part 566 of our regulations, Manufacturer Identification. However, Standard No. 302 does not apply to slide-in campers, even if the slide-in camper is installed on a new pickup tru ck.

Finally, we must decline your request that we review "California Health and Safety Code Standard No. 19" to inform you whether window coverings that meet the California standard can meet Standard No. 302. NHTSA determines whether a vehicle or item of mo tor vehicle equipment complies with an applicable safety standard by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them under strict conditions according to the procedures specified in the standards. Thus, we determine whether a product subject to our s tandards complies with those standards by assessing the actual performance of the product in our tests. Since your window coverings are not subject to Standard No. 302, they will not be part of our compliance testing. Further, even if the coverings were subject to Standard No. 302, we have already noted that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment -- and not NHTSA -- to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable FMVSS's.

I have enclosed copies of all of the safety standards and regulations mentioned above, and an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations for your future reference. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Enclosures