ID: 9327

Mr. Richard L. Plath
Selecto-Flash, Inc.
P.O. Box 879
Orange, NJ 07051

Dear Mr. Plath:

This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office on trailer conspicuity. You ask for confirmation of several points.

Initially, we would like to comment as follows on the 4-point procedure you have outlined:

"1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer."

This is correct. Because the chassis is designed for carrying property and for being towed by a motor vehicle, it is a "trailer" as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

"2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 percent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side."

This is correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108, retroreflective tape "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered . . . ."

"3) In the case of a 48 foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules."

This is partially correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), a minimum of 24 feet of reflective material must be applied to the side of a 48-foot trailer. However, S5.7.1.3(a) requires the colors to be red and white, not red and silver. Further, under S5.7.1.3(b), the permissible lengths of the sheeting are expressed as "each white or red segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm." We note that 450 mm is slightly less than 18 inches. Finally, Standard No. 108 does not specify any maximum permissible "void . . . between modules." Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), the spaces are to be distributed "as evenly as practicable."

"4) * * * When the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis. * * *"

This is incorrect. Compliance by an unloaded container chassis with the conspicuity requirements is determined as if the container load were in place. S7.5.1.4.2(a) states that "at the location chosen [for conspicuity treatment], the strip shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo." Because the container obscures the gooseneck, the conspicuity treatment mandated by Standard No. 108 cannot identify the extreme front portion of the chassis. Its front termination point will be behind the gooseneck, at a point where it is not obscured by the container. You have correctly stated this with respect to a loaded chassis but it applies to the unloaded chassis as manufactured:

". . . the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) [shall] be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further we understand that the 50 percent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck."

You conclude that a gooseneck chassis traveling without its container would be in violation of Standard No. 108 if its gooseneck were not marked "creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four feet is allowable." You also ask "[i]s there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis?"

As explained previously, Standard No. 108 does not require marking of the gooseneck of a container chassis, and there is no requirement limiting the spacing between segments of retroreflective material. We believe that the desired conspicuity of the trailer will be maintained by requiring the additional 4 feet of sheeting on the chassis behind the gooseneck when the gooseneck itself will be obscured with the container in place. Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a manufacturer from applying conspicuity treatment to the 8-foot gooseneck of a 48 foot trailer if it wishes to do so; however, the manufacturer is still required to apply not less than 24 feet of material in the 40-foot section behind the gooseneck.

We shall be pleased to answer the following four questions you have also raised:

"1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a 48 foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?"

You will have to apply 24 feet of stripping on the portion of a 48-foot chassis that lies behind the gooseneck, but you are not required to mark the gooseneck.

"2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?"

As explained previously, the 24 feet of material is to be applied behind the gooseneck. If you wish to apply evenly spaced conspicuity treatment that includes the gooseneck, you may do so, as long as at least 24 feet of it is behind the gooseneck.

"3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 percent coverage?"

Yes, a tire is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of S5.7.1.4.2(a) forbidding the obscuring of conspicuity treatment. No, you may not deduct the length of the area obscured by the tire from the 50 per cent coverage. You must include it in the 50 per cent computation. Thus, if a tire would obscure 3 feet of conspicuity material on the side of a 48 foot gooseneck trailer, the manufacturer must apply 24 feet of material in the 37 feet that is behind the gooseneck which is not obscured. We note in passing that the prints submitted for our review by J.Z. Peepas of Selecto-Flash depict conspicuity treatment that is above the top of the tire and apparently not obscured by it.

"4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?"

You are not required to place conspicuity treatment on the extendable portion of the chassis provided that not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered when the conspicuity treatment is placed elsewhere. In the event that conspicuity treatment is placed on the extendable portion and is damaged when the trailer is in use, the operator will not be subject to any penalties of this agency. Federal regulations governing the use of commercial vehicles in interstate commerce are issued by another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA requires that vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle (49 CFR 393.11). Therefore, maintenance of the conspicuity treatment on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, is required by the FHWA. If you wish to write FHWA on this topic, you may address James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590.

The individual states may have regulations in this area as well. We are unable to advise you on State requirements, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/30/93

ID: 9344

Ms. Kathryn A. Roach
Cooper Perskie April Niedelman
Wagenheim & Levenson
1125 Atlantic Avenue
Atlantic City, NJ 08401-4891

Dear Ms. Roach:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1993, requesting confirmation of a statement made by a NHTSA engineer that there is no federal regulation that requires replacement of a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref: 208 d:1/10/94

ID: 9345

Cheryl Graham, District Manager
Northeast Region
ARI
P.O. Box 5039
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054

Dear Ms. Graham:

We have received your letter of November 10, 1993, asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps "at each side of the rear window."

By way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole restraint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the "device or element of design", then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by your letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three- lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in preventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe. The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the taillamp).

Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array. We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would "render inoperative" the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

You have also asked "if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?" This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d.2/7/94

ID: 9352

Mr. Andrew Tweddle
AV Technology Corp.
2340 Alger
Troy, MI 48083

Dear Mr. Tweddle:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether AV Technology's armored vehicle is subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). As explained below, a vehicle manufactured to U.S. Army contract specifications, and sold to the Army, is not subject to the FMVSSs.

In your letter, you explained that AV Technology is in the process of responding to a Department of the Army draft specification for an armored security vehicle. AV Technology proposes to offer its Dragoon ASV, an armored security vehicle, with a weapon carrying capability. Your letter states that the Dragoon ASV would be built to U.S. Army specification MIL-STD-1180. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the Dragoon ASV would also be built to other applicable military specifications.

The FMVSSs' applicability to vehicles manufactured for and sold to the U.S. military, is addressed at 49 CFR 571.7(c):

(c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

You stated the Dragoon ASV would be manufactured to all applicable military specifications, specified by the Army. The Army is part of the "Armed Forces." Thus, when manufactured to Army contractual specifications, and sold to the Army, the Dragoon ASV is not subject to the FMVSSs.

If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:571 d:3/17/94

ID: 9355

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
Post Office Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Ms Dawson:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office in which you posed two questions regarding interpretation of certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Your first question related to the definition of "daylight opening" found in the final rule amending FMVSS 217, dated November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) (hereinafter Final Rule). Specifically, you asked what constitutes an obstruction and how close does it have to be to the exit to be considered an obstruction.

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." This refers to the total area of the opening, whether the door or window is open or closed. An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with in any way that opening or any access thereto, as viewed from the middle aisle of the bus. For example, the seatback of a nearby seat that protrudes into the area perpendicular to the plane of the opening would constitute such an obstruction.

In your second question you referred to the current provisions of S5.2.3.1(b), FMVSS 217, which provides that a left-side emergency door must be located in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. You then asked whether that requirement was changed in the Final Rule. The answer is yes.

S5.2.3.1, as amended in the Final Rule, provides manufacturers two options for the provision of school bus emergency exits, S5.2.3.1(a) (Option A) and S5.2.3.1(b) (Option B). Option A requires a rear emergency door and, in the sequence of choices for providing the additional emergency exit area, the first specifies a left side door that is required by S5.2.3.2(a)(2) to be located at the midpoint of the bus. Option B requires a left-side emergency door and a pushout rear window, but does not designate a specific location for them. Thus, the

locations of exits other than the left side door specified in S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) are left to the various design options of the manufacturers and their customers.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief counsel

ref:217 d:4/1/94

ID: 9358

Mr. David Shapiro
RV Designer Collection
Woodbridge, Inc.
Glenview, IL 60025

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your inquiry about the applicability of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials to aftermarket products. You state that you are planning to market fabric window coverings such as drapes and fabric bedding such as bedspreads for use in recreational vehicles. In response to your request for confirmation that Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket products, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that directly apply to the products you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 302, which specifies requirements for the flammability resistance of materials in the occupant compartment of new vehicles. However, Standard No. 302 would not apply to your products because that standard applies to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your products. Under the Safety Act, your products are considered to be items of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your products contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I note that even though Standard No. 302 would not apply to your product, the product's flammability characteristics could be relevant to whether it contained a safety related defect.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." This section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from installing your product in used vehicles if the effect of such installation was to render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 302.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your products were placed in vehicles by the vehicle owners, your products would not need to meet any FMVSSs. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:302 d:2/10/94

ID: 9388r-2

James E. Schlesinger, Esquire
Schlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey
3000 South Eads Street
Arlington, VA 22202

Dear Mr. Schlesinger:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of this office in which you posed certain questions relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104. Reference is also made to our letter to you dated February 23, 1993, in which we addressed certain other of your questions concerning the UTQGS.

In your most recent letter, you set forth a very complicated factual scenario about certain events which occurred during 1990-91, and which involved three companies. At the end of the letter you asked, with respect to each company, whether the company was in violation of one or more provisions of 49 CFR Part 575. You also asked whether, in addition to the penalties for violation of the UTQGS as set forth in 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Act or Safety Act), there are "additional sanctions requiring the manufacturer or brand name owner to recall unlawful product or notification procedures intended to identify unlawful product in the marketplace."

The purpose of our interpretation letters is to explain or clarify the meaning of our standards and regulations. Our letters are not intended to be adjudicative in nature. Given that the issues you raise about the three companies concern past conduct, involve complicated factual issues, and ultimately relate to whether a violation of the UTQGS has occurred, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to issue an interpretation letter concerning them.

It would be appropriate, however, to clarify a statement made in our February 23, 1993, letter. The second paragraph from the bottom of page 2 of that letter states:

Although both the Act and the UTQGS are silent as to whether tires can be imported or distributed without the UTQGS information, there would be no point in doing so since the tires cannot legally be sold without that information.

Please note that 102(5) of the Safety Act defines "manufacturer" as including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, an importation of non- complying tires would be considered a manufacture of non- complying tires under the Act. Thus, if a tire is required to be manufactured with certain information molded into or onto the tire sidewall, it may not be imported without such molded information. Any person doing so would be in violation of 108(a) of the Act.

Should you wish this agency to investigate whether there has been a violation of the UTQGS, you may write to Mr. William A. Boehly, this agency's Associate Administrator for Enforcement, at this address, providing all relevant facts in detail. If you wish to discuss enforcement policies with this office, you may contact Kenneth Weinstein, Esq., our Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, at this address or at (202) 366-5263.

With respect to your last question, we assume you are referring to Part B of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq., which requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of replacement equipment to provide notification of, and a remedy for, safety-related defects and noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards prescribed pursuant to 103 of the Act. Those provisions do not apply to tires that fail to comply with the UTQGS, since the UTQGS were not "prescribed pursuant to section 103." Rather, they were prescribed as consumer information regulations pursuant to 203 and 112(d) of the Safety Act.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:575 d:3/21/94

ID: 9395

The Honorable David L. Boren
United States Senator
621 North Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Dear Senator Boren:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas Price, concerning this agency's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock braking system (58 FR 50739, September 28, 1993). Mr. Price states that the agency's proposal is discriminatory and would exclude his braking system from being considered for future use.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the NPRM in response to a requirement of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. As discussed in the NPRM, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, the proposed requirements are intended to increase heavy vehicle stability and control during braking, and thus significantly reduce the deaths and injuries caused when these vehicles jackknife or otherwise lose control during braking.

The purpose of publishing an NPRM is to provide all interested persons an opportunity to comment on regulations being considered by the agency. NHTSA then considers all of the comments before reaching a decision concerning whether to adopt the proposed requirements as a final rule.

Thus, if an interested person, such as Mr. Price, believes that a proposed requirement is unnecessarily design restrictive or otherwise objectionable, the appropriate place to make that argument is in a comment on the NPRM. Mr. Price has in fact submitted extensive comments to NHTSA concerning this proposal. Please be assured that this agency will carefully consider Mr. Price's comments, as well as all other comments, before it reaches a decision concerning a possible final rule.

Since NHTSA will reach a decision on whether to issue a final rule and the content of such a final rule only after considering all the comments to the docket, we cannot provide a specific response at this time to the comments raised by Mr. Price. Instead, after carefully considering all comments, NHTSA will provide its responses in the next relevant rulemaking notice, e.g., a final rule or a notice terminating the rulemaking.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator

Enclosure

cc: Washington Office

ref:121 d:12/23/93

ID: 9398

Harry C. Gough, P.E.
Automotive Engineering
Professional Specialist
State of Connecticut
Department of Motor Vehicles
60 State Street
Wethersfield, CT 06161

Dear Mr. Gough:

This is in reply to your letter of December 2, 1993, with respect to the term "alternately flashing" as it applies under Safety Standard No. 108 to school bus lamps. You ask for our opinion because a manufacturer of strobe lighting has supplied documentation indicating that the system complies with Standard No. 108.

According to your letter, in this system, the lamp on one side of the school bus (front and rear) "flashes on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the bus repeats the aforementioned pattern." You inquire as to whether "alternately flashing" refers to this pattern, "or do the four distinct on/off cycles on each side of the school bus defeat the intent of the term alternating."

As you know, paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, which requires that school bus warning lamp systems "flash alternately." We believe that the light emanating from a strobe lamp that flashes four times in 0.255 second will be perceived as a single flash of varying intensity and not as four separate flashes, and that when this is followed by an identical pattern on the other side of the bus, the system is one that is alternately flashing within the meaning of Standard No. 108.

Further, under this interpretation, the flash rate meets SAE J887's specification of 60-120 flashes a minute. Unlike other SAE materials incorporated by reference relating to signal lamps (e.g., J1133 School Bus Stop Arms in Standard No. 131 School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices and J590b Automotive Turn Signal Flashers in Standard No. 108), J887 contains no "percent current 'on' time" requirements.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/29/94

ID: 9401

Mr. Len R. Thies
C&C Creations
9103 East 67th Court
Tulsa, OK 74133

Dear Mr. Thies:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal rules, particularly those for flammability resistance, applicable to your aftermarket product. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that your product is a sheet of clear vinyl that inhibits the air flow in a van, thus reducing the amount of air to be heated or cooled. You further state that your product does not impair visibility and that it is easily detached and removed by the vehicle owner. This response is based on our understanding of the facts presented in your letter.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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 all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, you are required to certify that your device complies with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR ' 571.205), based on our understanding of your letter. Standard No. 205 applies to new, completed vehicles as well as to glazing sold in the aftermarket. The standard establishes performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items") and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANSI Z26," the American National Standards Institute's "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways." It appears that your device may be considered an "interior partition," which is considered under ANSI Z26 to be item 6 glazing.

In addition, if your product were manufactured for a new vehicle, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying

with Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, in addition to Standard No. 205. However, Standards No. 111 and No. 302 apply only to new vehicles, and not to items of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. Thus, they do not apply to your product.

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

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." Your vinyl sheet could render inoperative the rearward visibility requirements set forth in Standard No. 111, or the light transmittance requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. In addition, your product could have elements of design that could render inoperative a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, the FMVSS for flammability resistance for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. While it appears unlikely that persons in the aforementioned categories would be installing your product, if they were to install it, they must not compromise the rearward visibility or flammability resistance provided by the motor vehicle.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of '108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your products were placed in vehicles by the vehicle owners, they would not need to meet any FMVSSs. Nevertheless, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to tamper with or degrade the safety of their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:111#205#302 d:5/18/94