ID: nht74-1.46

DATE: 11/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Midland-Ross Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Midland-Ross' October 8, 1974, clarification of its February 8, 1974, petition for an amendment of S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, that would establish separate air reservoir volume requirements for several brake chamber types generally available in the air brake component market. You point out that Midland-Ross was referring to chamber stroke and not chamber diameter as the chamber dimension which could affect the safety of a brake system. You also requested that we adopt SAE Standard J10b instead of J10a as our specification of a reservoir that "withstands" certain internal hydrostatic pressure.

In our denial of your petition, we did understand your point that additional stroke could be discouraged by a reservoir capacity requirement based on chamber size at maximum travel of the piston or diaphragm. We found that the stopping distance requirements in effect mandate the installation of high performance components, and we do not anticipate a safety problem. If a safety problem does arise in the future, we would consider a modification of S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2.

SAE Standard No. J10b is identical to J10a in its requirement that no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceed one percent. Therefore, for purposes of S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3, we are adopting SAE J10b as our specification of "withstand" until we undertake further rulemaking.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

POWER CONTROLS DIVISION Midland-Ross Corporation

October 8, 1974

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Gregory:

Subject: N40-30 (TWH)

Thank you for your response to our petition dated February 8, 1974 in regard to Section S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Standard 121 Air Brake Systems. We feel that our petition may not have been clear in regard to use of small volume chambers which apparently led to your misinterpreting our concern. We also believe you may have referred to the incorrect SAE Standard regarding air reservoirs.

In regard to our petition for clarification of air reservoir required volumes, we made mention of the fact that "current reservoir volume requirement based on maximum displacement encourages the use of small volume chambers". By this statement we did not imply smaller diameter chambers but shorter stroke chambers. It is quite easily determined that little chamber stroke is required if the foundation brakes are carefully adjusted with minimum liner to drum clearance. A chamber with 1.5" stroke could be adequate and will meet all of the standard's requirements. If a vehicle manufacturer would elect to go with this short stroke, he could reduce reservoir capacity by 25%. However, there would be very little safety factor to allow for drum expansion and liner wear. It is this condition of which we are concerned and feel it is wrong to penalize the vehicle manufacturer by requiring them to have larger reservoirs when they attempt to provide this additional safety advantage. We ask that you again review this matter and adopt one of the recommended changes to S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 as stated in our petition.

In the last paragraph of your response you mention the NHTSA has adopted the SAE Standard No. J10a in regard to the definition of "withstand". We assume you intended to refer to SAE Standard J10b and would appreciate your concurrence with this assumption.

Sincerely,

M. J. Denholm -- Director of Engineering

ID: nht79-4.17

DATE: 05/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yokohama Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1979, asking whether Yokohama Tire Corporation's point-of-sale information leaflet conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii). While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not typically issue advance judgments concerning compliance with agency regulations, your proposed point-of-sale leaflet appears to meet the requirements of section 575.104(d)(1)(ii), assuming the listing at the bottom of the page contains each tire manufactured by Yokohama which is offered for sale at the location where the leaflet is distributed.

SINCERELY,

YOKOHAMA TIRE CORPORATION

April 27, 1979

Richard Hipolit Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Attached is the information I talked to you on April 27, 1979. Please make any correction or changes so this letter will fall within the D. O. T. guideline.

Thank you for your assistance.

Jim Buck National Service Manager Yokohama Tire Corporation

DOT QUALITY GRADES ALL PASSENGER CAR TIRES MUST CONFORM TO FEDERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS IN ADDITION TO THESE GRADES TREADWEAR

The treadwear grade is a comparative rating based on the wear rate of the tire when tested under controlled conditions on a specified government test course. For example, a tire graded 150 would wear one and a half (1-1/2) times as well on the government course as a tire graded 100. The relative performance of tires depends upon the actual conditions of their use, however, and may depart significantly from the norm due to variations in driving habits, service practices and differences in road characteristics and climate.

TRACTION

The traction grades, from highest to lowest are A, B, and C, and they represent the tire's ability to stop on wet pavement as measured under controlled conditions on specified government test surfaces of asphalt and concrete. A tire marked C may have poor traction performance. Warning: The traction grade assigned to this tire is based on braking (straightahead) traction tests and does not include cornering (turning) traction.

TEMPERATURE

The temperature grades are A (the highest), B, and C representing the tire's resistance to the generation of heat and its ability to dissipate heat when tested under controlled conditions on a specified indoor laboratory test wheel. Sustained high temperature can cause the material of the tire to degenerate and reduce tire life, and excessive temperature can lead to sudden tire failure. The grade C corresponds to a level of performance which all passenger car tires must meet under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Grades B and A represent higher levels of performance on the laboratory test wheel than the minimum required by law. Warning: The temperature grade for this tire is established for a tire that is properly inflated and not overloaded. Excessive speed, underinflation, or excessive loading, either separately or in combination, can cause heat buildup and possible tire failure. Tire Size Load Tread Tubeless/ Trd Designation Range Pattern Tube Type Side Wall Wear Traction Temp. 155S13/6.15 $ 13 B Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B B 4PR 155-13/6.15-13 B Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B C 4PR 165S13/6.45S13 B Y205 Tubeless WhiteRibbon 80 B B 4PR 7.00-14-6PR C Y205 Tubeless Black 80 B C 7.00-14-6PR C Y205 Tubeless WhiteRibbon 80 B C H78-15 B Y820 Tubeless Black 80 B C

ID: nht79-4.39

DATE: 08/03/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 16, 1979, letter asking two questions about the test procedures of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention, as they apply to buses you manufacture.

First, you ask whether side service doors can be counted in determining the proper amount of bus emergency exits as required by the standard. As long as side service doors comply with all requirements applicable to emergency doors, they can be considered emergency exits for purposes of compliance with the standard.

Your second question asks whether glazing in a door is tested for window retention, and if so, whether it is tested while the door is installed in a bus. The answer to both parts of this question is yes. All bus glazing, that is of the minimum size specified in the standard, must comply with the window retention requirement. The intent of the window retention requirement is to prevent openings in buses that might result in the ejection of occupants from the vehicle during an accident. In order for this requirement to have meaning, the glazing must be tested as it is installed in the vehicle to ensure the integrity of both the glazing and its surrounding structure. This means that glazing in vehicle doors is tested while the door is in the normal closed condition. If the door opens during the test, the vehicle would not be in compliance with the requirements.

SINCERELY,

Ontario Bus Industries Inc.

JULY 16, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Sir,

This company was the designer and manufacturer of the Orion Mid size Transit bus.

More recently the deliveries to the U.S. market have been taken over by Transportation Manufacturing Corporation of Roswell, New Mexico, who manufacture and market the buses in the U.S.A. under the "Citycruiser" trade name.

A query has arisen concerning the application of MVSS 217 to this model bus on a point that was raised before the introduction of the model and for which a verbal answer was given when the prototype was presented in Washington on October 5th 1977.

The point at issue was to what extent and under what Criteria the service doors can be considered as "unobstructed openings for emergency exit" as required in S 5.2 (provision of emergency exits) and more particularly the "side exits" as required in S 5.2.1 (Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds).

It was verbally confirmed at the time that service doors could be regarded as side exits for emergency exit, provided they met the requirements of S 5.3 (Emergency exit release), S 5.4 (Emergency exit extension) and S 5.5 (Emergency exit identification). Official confirmation of the above is hereby requested.

Finally, a clear ruling was not given on the application of S 5.1 Window retention when applied to the glazing in service doors. It is reasonably clear that the glass in the door frame should meet the requirements. It is less obvious that the door in its frame, when used as a service door, must meet this requirement, ie. the glass be tested in the door, the door being in the bus.

If not, does this requirement become mandatory, when the service door is designated as a side exit?

The doors are presently being constructed so as to meet this requirement, but a ruling on this point is hereby requested.

CC: E. CUMMINGS -- TRANSPORTATION MFG. CO.

ID: nht80-1.10

DATE: 02/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 16, 1979, letter in which you requested an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you asked if it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to label its tires with information about other tire sizes which the labeled tire could be used to replace. For example, you stated that Michelin would like to label its tires with the alphanumeric tire size which its P-metric tire sizes could replace and that Michelin would like to label its 230-15 tires as replacements for the 225-15 tires. Such labeling is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 109.

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." With respect to the alphanumeric sizes and the P-metric replacements and the 225-15 and 230-15 sizes, the suggested replacement sizes have different section widths and minimum size factors than the sizes they would be replacing. In other words, they are not equivalent size designations, and S4.3(a) prohibits the tire from containing more than one size designation in these circumstances.

Labeling of the sort you have requested has been commonly referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings are a representation that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of two separate tire size designations. In fact, such tires do not satisfy the physical dimension criteria in Standard No. 109 for both size designations. As a consequence, labeling of this type was specifically prohibited when the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 were amended at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been repeated in subsequent notices which addressed the question of tire labeling under the Standard; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974 and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

I should note that prohibition of dual-size markings does not mean that NHTSA believes that the replacement tires would perform inadequately if installed on the rims. However, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to attempt to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The manufacturer must provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, technical information necessary for the safety of the consumer's automobile. This should be the only purpose of the label.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION -- Technical Group November 16, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Ref: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109

Gentlemen:

We are considering marking our P-series tires with the alpha-numeric size they replace shown below in parenthesis. An example would be as follows:

P205/75 R15 (replaces FR78-15)

Similarly, we are considering marking our 230-15 tire as follows:

230-15 (replaces 225-15)

The 230-15 can be used on all cars that are fitted with 225-15.

Please advise us if such markings would be in violation of FMVSS 109 or any other D.O.T. Standard.

Your quick response would be appreciated since we are planning to start these programs shortly.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht78-1.6

DATE: 12/15/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Bud Shuster - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Honorable Bud Shuster House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Shuster:

This responds to your inquiry dated November 29, 1978, on behalf of one of your constituents, Mr. C. Stake, requesting information about Federal safety standards concerning door locks on automobiles. Specifically, Mr. Stake is concerned that the doors on his 1977 Mercury Monarch can be unlocked by a child from the inside by lifting the door handle.

I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 572.206), which specifies performance requirements for side door locks and side door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact. That standard specifies that each door on a passenger car shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Paragraph S4.1.3.1 of the standard specifies that when the locking mechanism on a side front door is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. For side rear doors, however, paragraph S4.1.3.2 requires both the outside and inside door handles to be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

This latter requirement was specifically included in the standard to address Mr. Stake's concern, that is, to prevent children from unlocking rear doors by means of the door handle. The design restriction was limited to rear doors on the basis that the danger arises primarily with unattended children sitting in the rear seat. A child sitting in the front seat is likely under the watchful eye of the driver. Further, there is the consideration that in emergency situations the driver may need to unlock his front door as easily and quickly as possible.

Since the Standard No. 206 requirements have been in effect for some time, we assume that the situation Mr. Stake describes is true only of the front doors of his Mercury Monarch. As noted above, however, there are competing safety considerations involved with door locks on front side doors.

Please contact our office if your constituent has any further questions concerning this matter, or have him contact us directly.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosure

DATE November 29, 1978

FROM: BUD SHUSTER, M. C.

Room 1112 Longworth Building Washington, D. C. 20515

TO: Department of Transportation Congressional Laison Office 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

NAME OF SUBJECT Mr. Clair Stake

SS OR OTHER CLAIM #

ADDRESS Box 115

Spring Run, Pennsylvania 17262

PROBLEM:

Mr. Stake has contacted me concerning car door lock safety standards. He owns a 1977 Mercury Monarch. When the door is locked (by pushing the button on the inside of the door) he finds that his young child can still open the door by pulling on the door handle.

This concernins him because be beleives that there should be safety standards which should require the door handle to be immobile until the lock button is pulled up.

Will you please send me any information on door lock standards? Thank you for your time and cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht78-4.31

DATE: 08/19/78

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY -- ATTORNEY AT LAW

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JULY 14, 1976 TO GEORGE SHIFFLET, NHTSA, FROM WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY IS ATTACHED.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflett of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client (Illegible Word) reply on the warranty of a fabric manufacture that the fabric sold meets the requirements" of Standard No. 302.

You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1) (A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems. No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Inferior Materials.

As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the addition of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the

exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (2).

With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabric supplier "test each fabric lot for flammability before certification." In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of "due care" the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the "warranty" of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a "due care" defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.

Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seg) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.

I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 for your information.

Enclosures

ID: nht94-2.66

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 4, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Distributors Ass'n. (OCC-9945)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have today received the preliminary data from one of the members of NYSBDA the following "fax".

As noted in the preliminary data of FMVSS 217 - there are a number of bus body distributors. As also noted these are small business operations and many, many things affect their ability to carry on a successful company profitable operation. Among the " things" is keeping current with the "school bus regulations". In the process of their daily business - the sales and pricing of their vehicles to comply with the requirements of state and federal regulations and standards is very important. I hope you are readily able to realize the point I am trying to make. Quick changes can be very detrimental to that profit factor as well as the individual position of accountability to, not only their customers - but to themselves.

As you can readily view from the following "fax" there are certain "conditions" that are acceptable to the manufacturer.

We have a special position here in New York State - in that the state regulations exceed the minimum 217 requirements (except for placement of left side emergency door). NYS requires added emergency exits, such as push-out windows and roof hatches based upon capacity of the vehicle.

The distributors now are faced here in New York State with a very large unknown factor. To meet the state regulations - for door (L/S/E/D) placement - with folding seat cushion - longer body length - aisle dimension factor at L/S/E/D. Anything that you can furnish and supply to me in a timely fashion - to help my association membership will be greatly appreciated.

Attachment

CARPENTER MANUFACTURING, INC.

BULLETIN NO. 94 - 34 May 3, 1994

TO: All Carpenter Distributors

SUBJECT: EMERGENCY EXIT - DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE

NHTSA has postponed enactment of certain parts of FMVSS 217 relative to emergency exits; this change was to have taken effect on May 2, 1994. We were notified by fax on May 2nd that the effective date of the "additional emergency exit" requirement "has been delayed until September 1, 1994."

Carpenter will allow its distributors to omit certain options on orders currently in-house at no change order fee, provided the following conditions are met:

1. Order is not on schedule or started at time of receipt of change order; 2. Change order must be received by Friday, 5/13/94; 3. Only options on list below can be deleted or changed; 4. No pre-built orders can be changed; 5. Body length change will require cancellation of current order and resubmission of new order at current pricing.

Approved option deletions are:

1. Side emergency door and related components; 2. Flip seats and 4-logged seats; 3. Heater plumbing and routing; 4. Roof hatches and push-out sash not required by state specs.

Please note that the rear door hold-open device and reflective striping around the rear door opening will still be required and cannot be deleted.

You must keep in mind that orders are being schedule constantly; therefore, it is important to get any change order faxed as soon as possible. You will be notified by Martin Miller as to whether or not your change order can be accepted.

You may cover more than one body order on each change order, but all bodies on a given change order must have identical changes.

Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division

ID: nht92-8.7

DATE: April 2, 1992

FROM: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: M. Dunn; R. Rogers

TITLE: Re: R-BAR Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 3/10/89 from Erika Z. Jones to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 1/8/90 from Jerry Ralph Curry (signed by Jeffrey R. Miller) to Robert J. Lagomarsino (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 1/31/91 from Paul J. Rice to Scott K. Hiler (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 11/3/88 from Erika Z. Jones (signed by Stephen P. Wood) to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222)

TEXT:

As you are aware Micho Industries is the licensed manufacturer of the R-BAR passenger restraint which was developed to further the safety of children who ride in school buses. This system was designed by Safety Research and Manufacturing (SRM) of Jessup, PA.. For the last three years we have worked with SRM in the continuing development of the product in order to assure that it does not violate any applicable federal and state motor vehicle safety requirements. In addition it is our joint goal that the R-BAR establish a new standard for passenger protection in school bus transportation.

I am writing you in regards to a particular specification in 49 CFR, 571.222. As stated, the "purpose" of the standard is to reduce the number of deaths and the severity of injuries that result from the impact of school bus occupants against structures within the vehicle. We are, however, concerned with possible interpretations of the 4" seat performance rule as stated in 49 CFR, 571.222, section S5.1.2(c). With this in mind, we feel that:

A. The standard is not applicable to the R-BAR passenger restraint.

B. The R-BAR complies with the intent of 571.222.

In support for this position we offer the following reasons:

1. The R-BAR is not a fixed position device, nor is it a rigid component of the seat structure.

2. In the event of a rear impact, the R-BAR incorporates a design that allows it to move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended.

(This was proven in tests conducted in May 1991 at Calspan on their HYGE sled -- see attached Report No. 7925-1).

3. The standard in question (571.222, section S5.1.2(c) was written without the authors having the benefit of knowledge of this type of device and thus allowances were not included for its possible use.

We recognize that any final interpretation will be in the hands of your department and respectfully request your advice on this matter. We would ask that you advise us, prior to issuing a final interpretation, of any additional

concerns you may have so that we can supply the necessary information to address those concerns. In order to further aid you, we have available a test data book that summarizes the testing that the R-Bar has been subjected to, over the last seven years, and would gladly send it to you if you so desire. In addition video clips of the various tests can be assembled for you review.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

Attachment

Calspan Advanced Technology Center SRM SLED TEST report no. 7925-1, May 20, 1991 prepared by David J. Travale, prepared for SRM, Inc. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht93-7.29

DATE: October 20, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Glover -- Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/3/93 from Richard Glover to Deirdre Fujita (OCC-8744)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone calls about the child seat registration form you are considering. The form is required by S5.8 of Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and is depicted in figures 9a and 9b of the standard.

You ask whether S5.8(c) permits you to place certain additional information in the shaded area on the form. The information is a bar code that you said on the telephone contains information on "date of manufacture, shift, location and serial number for the product that the card represents." You explain that the bar code is desired because it can be automatically scanned, which would avoid possible "mis-keying" of the information into the data record. Further, you state that the bar code has to be surrounded by a slightly larger unshaded "quiet zone" to enable the scanner to record the bar code information. You, are concerned whether NHTSA would conclude that the quiet zone renders a part of the shaded area unshaded.

It is our opinion that a bar code that contains the information you described is permitted in the shaded area (the area outside of the space, for the consumer to fill in). S5.8(c) of Standard 213 specifies the information that must be provided on the form and states the following:

No other information shall appear on the postcard, except identifying information that distinguishes a particular child restraint system from other systems of that model name or number may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a.

The bar code, printed in the shaded area, is permitted by S5.8(c). The information provided by the bar code distinguishes a particular child seat from another of the same model name or number. We consider the quiet zone as part of the bar code since it is needed for the bar code to be reliably read. The quiet zone therefore need not be shaded, since the printed bar code (or any other identifying information permitted by S5.8(c)) itself is not.

Please note that, while the bar code is permitted, the information on the model name or number and date of manufacture must still be in English under S5.8(c). This information must be in English so that a consumer can see that this information has been provided and that only minimal effort is needed to fill out the registration form.

We also wish to note another feature of the form you faxed. Your form has the words "please print" after the instructions to the consumer "just fill in your name and address." "Please print" is not on the form depicted in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213. In an earlier letter, NHTSA decided

that a minor variation in the wording of a warning expressly specified by Standard 213 was permitted when the change clarified the warning and did not make any substantive change to the warning's meaning. (Letter to Mr. McGuigan, December 18, 1980.) Similarly, "please print" is a minor variation to the wording of the instructions that clarifies the instructions and does not substantively change them. Thus, it is permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht93-9.3

DATE: December 4, 1993

FROM: David Fabrycky

TO: Chief Counsel -- US DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To David Fabrycky (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I and my associates are currently involved in the development of a child safety device that is intended to prevent the inadvertent and curiosty based opening of the safety buckle by a one to six year old. Although there have been many studies done on the value of such a device the Code of Federal Regulations contains many relevant statements regarding the testing and operation of child restraint systems.

I am writing you for the purpose of gaining your insight and opinion as to the relationship between the type of device we have developed and the standards articulated in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Our device is and after-market item purchased by the parent or gaurdian. The device covers the safety buckle and prevents the child from gaining access to the pushbutton. The adult or gaurdian is presumed to possess sufficient mannual dexterity and cognitive skills to easily remove the cover and release the safety belt. The device is also transparent so that the objective is visible.

Regarding the following sections, what is your opinion of the installation of such a device on a child's seat belt buckle in conjuction with other approved devices?

Please find several references to the Code of Federal Regulations followed by specific issues/questions in boldface.

CFR 571.214

S5.4.3.5 Buckle Release. Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall: (a) When tested in accordance with S6.2.1 prior to the dynamic test of S6.1, not release when a force of less than 9 pounds is applied and shall release when a force of not more than 14 pounds is applied:

The device requires that a latch be accuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle so that the pushbutton can be depressed. If none of the forces required to accomplish these tasks exceed the limits specified, would the device be acceptable.

The device requires the manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simulateously. Does this comply with the foregoing requirement?

(b) After the dynamic test S6.1, when tested in accordance with S6.2.3, release when a force of not more than 16 pounds is applied;

2

The device does not bear the restraining force of any test and is designed to operate after any stress as when first installed.

(c) Meet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209 (CFR 571.209), except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for pushbutton application shall be 0.6 square inch;

The device covers the pushbutton during use. The parent or gaurdian is required to remove the device in order to access the pushbutton.

S6 Test Conditions and procedures.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for child restraint system. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

S6.2 Buckle Release Test procedure.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for buckle of child restraint systems. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

What other Regulations seem relevant to the development of our device and do you have other observations or opinions that relate to public policy that I have not mentioned?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response.

Sincerly