ID: 1985-03.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Melinda Maggs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Melinda Maggs 243 Washington Ave. Scotia, New York 12302

Thank you for your March 25, 1985, letter asking about Federal motor vehicle safety regulations that might affect an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. You described your product as a pad to cushion safety belts. The pad, which is removable, is made of 1/4 inch foam and is attached with velcro to the safety belt. I regret the delay in our response.

You first asked for confirmation of information received in a phone conversation with Paul Bauer of this office. As Mr. Bauer explained, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) may affect the sale of your product. As you requested, I have enclosed a copy of the Act for your reference. That section provides that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not render inoperative any safety device installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. Since safety belts are safety devices installed in accordance with Safety Standards No. 208 and 209, those types of businesses may not install any other products which would impair the effective operation of the belts. Individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherwise modify existing equipment, without risk of violating the "render inoperative" provision.

I should emphasize that we are unable to offer any opinion on whether your product would impair the effectiveness of safety belts. We do recommend that manufacturers carefully consider that possibility before placing their products on the market.

You also asked whether any Federal regulations relating to material content and flammability affect your product. Although no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards directly govern material content, Standard No. 302 does provide flammability requirements for components of new vehicle occupant compartments, including safety belts. Thus, your product would need to meet the flammability standard if it was installed as original equipment in new vehicles.

Standard No. 302 would not apply directly to your product if it is sold only as aftermarket equipment. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, discussed above, could affect your product as it relates to the flammability standard. NHTSA would consider the installation of safety belt pads that do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 as "rendering inoperative" an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in accordance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Again, this provision prohibits only manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses from installing such products; it does not prohibit consumers from purchasing and installing those products on their own.

Again, we are not offering any opinion as to whether your product would meet those flammability standards, but we recommend that you consider that aspect.

The agency believes that all Federal motor vehicle safety standards are important and that all manufacturers should strive to meet those standards, whether required by law or not. Additionally, if noncomplying pads were to catch fire in a situation where a pad complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, a manufacturer might face possible product liability consequences under state law. Likewise, a manufacturer might face product liability consequences if its product impaired the effectiveness of the safety belts. You may wish to consult a local attorney in this regard to discuss your product.

I am enclosing copies of Safety Standards Nos. 208, 209 and 302. We appreciate your interest in devices which may encourage safety belt usage, and I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

March 25, 1985

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Auth. 400 7th Str. S.W. Washington, D.C., 20590

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to confirm information given to me from your office on the phone today. I called asking about possible regulations regarding accessory items sold for us in automobiles.

I am a manufacturer of a product that will be used as a pad to cushion seatbelts. It is attached with velcro, is made of 1/4" foam and velcro (808 cotton 208 polyester), and is completely and easily removable. It will be sold in stores to the general public.

I was told by your office staff there is a regulation stating car manufacturers and dealers cannot render inoperative any part of the car, but when an individual does after a car is purchased regarding accessory items such as this is their choice.

I would appreciate a prompt reply in writing to confirm this regulations interpretation and a copy of the specific regulation.

I am also interested in knowing if there are any regulations regarding material content. Are there restrictions on types of material used for flammability anything else we need to know before we sell this product? Thank you for your interest in this matter.

Sincerely,

Melinda Maggs

ID: aiam0818

Dear Mr. Zsoka: This is in reply to your letter of July 13, 1972, concerning th applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302 to your sponge rubber weather-stripping for replacement.; Standard No. 302 does not apply to replacement parts or aftermarke materials. You are correct in your observation that sponge rubber weather-stripping is not included in the list of motor vehicle interior materials to which Standard No. 302 applies.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: 1985-02.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 15, 1985 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This responds to your recent letter to this office seeding an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). Specifically, you asked whether center high-mounted stop lamps are required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. They are not required to do so. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 lists all the components in new vehicles which are required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. They are not required to do so. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 lists all the components in new vehicles which are required to comply with the flammability requirements of the standard. The only item on the list in Section S4.1 which might conceivably apply to center high-mounted stop lamps is "any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash." Assuming that your center high- mounted stop lamps are not designed to absorb energy on contact by an occupant, they would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302. Although interior lights are not required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, the agency has noted that almost all such lights now in production use fire-resistant plastic lenses and fixtures. Liability might be found under State and common law if the newly required center high-mounted stop lamps were to incorporate highly flammable plastic components, while the other interior lights incorporated fire-resistant plastic components. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions in this area. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-3.12

DATE: 03/07/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: YKK Zipper (U.S.A.) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 13, 1975, in which you ask whether zippers fall under the purview of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302.

S4.1 of the standard states that the following components of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses must meet its requirements:

Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

To the extent that a zipper in a part of any of these components, it would fall within the ambit of the standard while recreational vehicles are not currently covered by Standard No. 302, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued on November 15, 1974, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to extend the coverage of the standard to include recreational vehicles (copy enclosed).

You should also be aware that other rulemaking relevant to the coverage of the standard is underway and will soon be published in the Federal Register. For this reason, we recommend you subscribe to either the Government Printing Office Safety Standard subscription service or an equivalent commercial service as detailed in the enclosure.

SINCERELY,

YKK ZIPPER (U S A) INC

February 13, 1975

Chief Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

We are manufacturers and suppliers of zippers and zipper chain to the Recreational Vehicle Industry and are confronted with a problem regarding Specification FMVSS-302 - Flammability Act.

We need a legal interpretation as to whether or not zippers are exempt from this 302 Spec. . No one is the R.V.I. Industry seems to have a clear concept as to the exemption or the inclusion of zippers.

The zipper industry feels that zippers are exempt from 302 as they are also exempt in the important field of Infants Wear (DOCFF 3-71).

Since time is of the essence we would appreciate a clear and concise legal interpretation immediately. Your attention to this matter will be most appreciated.

Thank you.

VICE PRESIDENT, SALES

ID: 1983-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Able Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jim Cowen Manager Able Body Company P.O. BOX 1868 Joplin, MO. 64802

Dear Mr. Cowen:

This is in reply to your letter of May 26, 1983, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Standard No. 302 existing in truck sleeper berths that you manufacture is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

We do not believe that Able Body has the legal responsibility to file a petition of this nature. Your description of the company as a manufacturer of "sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks" indicates that Able Body is a supplier of original equipment which is installed in trucks rather than the manufacturer of the truck itself. While Able Body may have a contractual obligation with truck manufacturers to provide them with evidence of compliance with Standard No. 302, the truck manufacturer itself assumes ultimate responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act for compliance with that standard by affixing a label to each truck certifying compliance with all applicable standards. This means that the truck manufacturer has the legal responsibility to notify purchasers and remedy noncompliances in its products involving Standard No. 302, even though the component concerned was produced by another company. As the obligation to notify and remedy rests upon the truck manufacture, only that party may petition for an inconsequentiality determination.

When noncompliances occur, they must be reported to the agency pursuant to 49 CFR 573 Defect and Noncompliance Reports. Under this regulation either a component or a vechicle manufacturer may report a noncompliance to NHTSA if the noncompliance exists only in original equipment of a single vehicle manufacturer. However, if the noncomplying component has been used in the vehicles of more than one manufacturer, the manufacturer of the component and all vehicle manufacturers must file individual noncompliance reports. We have no record that Able Body has filed a Part 573 report on this matter. I enclose a copy of Part 573 for your information.

We would appreciate prompt filing of a Part 573 report by Able Body and/or relevant truck manufacturer(s). You may advise your customers of their right to file an inconsequentiality petition.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

May 26, 1983

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C.

Dear Administrator:

Able Body Company, P.O. Box 1868, Joplin, Missouri, a corporation chartered in and under the laws of the state of Missouri, wishes to petition the NHTSA for exemption from notification and remedy requirements on the grounds of an inconsequential noncompliance to FMVSS 302.

Able Body Company manufactures sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks. During a routine update of testing for compliance with FMVSS 302 on April 8, 1983, a specimen of the speaker grill mesh from a Motorola speaker grill (Motorola Part Number RV 1001) failed the burn test. The specimen burned at a rate of 6.48 in/min. Motorola was contacted and further samples were tested. As a result, on May 3, 1983, it was determined that all of the Motorola grills that had been installed by Able Body Company were out of compliance. The speaker grills were installed in pairs in 1371 sleeper berths made between May 1977 and May 1983.

Able Body Company feels that the noncompliance in this case is inconsequential for the following reasons:

1.) The grills in question measure 6 inches by 6 inches. This represents 0.5% of the surface area of the passenger compartment of a sleeper berth. Since the speaker grills are such a small area, the probability of their involvement in a fire is correspondingly small.

2.) The grills in question weigh one ounce each. This represents 0.19% of the total lining material available to burn. If a fire did occur and if it involved the grills, they would be consumed in approximately one minute each and be of no further support for combustion.

3.) The grills are located 27 inches above the mattress. This location is above the most likely risk area, from reclining smokers.

4.) Since the most likely source of fire is from a passenger who smokes, a test was made to try to ignite a grill with the coal of a cigarette. While the coal melted a hole in the mesh it did not ignite the grill. Since the grill will only readily ignite from an open flame, the probability of involvement is futher reduced..

5.) The Motorola RV 1001 grills were installed in 1371 Able Body sleeper berths. This represents a small number compared to the total number of berths. During the same period (1977-1983), Able Body manufactured 2158 other sleeper berths that did not include the Motorola grill.

Able Body Company feels that the above reasons are sufficient and therefore make this petition. If there are any questions regarding this matter, please notify us at once.

Respectfully submitted. Jim Cowen, Manager

ID: nht75-3.13

DATE: 06/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Emmons Brothers

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 1, 1975, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability, and in amplification of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.

As Mr. Schwartz advised you, Standard No. 302 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Thus, the standard would apply to mattresses used in trucks. Further, it has been proposed to extend Standard No. 302 to campers and trailers other than those sold exclusively for the transportation of cargo (copy enclosed). Consequently, as you requested, I have enclosed a copy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, a recent amendment to that standard, and a proposed amendment which may also be of interest to you.

ID: nht75-3.11

DATE: 11/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 22, 1975, posing several questions relating to Standard No. 302, 49 CFR 571.302. We are sorry for the delay in responding, but unfortunately your letter was filed in the docket as a response to a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning Standard No. 302.

Your first question relates to the requirement that the surface of the specimen closest to the occupant compartment air space face downward on the test frame. This requirement is now found in S5.2.2 of Standard No. 302, as published on September 16, 1975 (40 FR 45746). Through error, S5.2.2 was not amended when the standard was first amended on March 31, 1975 (40 FR 14318). This requirement applies to all test samples regardless of their thickness.

Your second question lists five components and asks whether they are included within Standard No. 302 as amended by Docket No. 3-3, Notice 7, and whether they would be included within Standard No. 302 if the amendment proposed by Notice 8 is adopted. Our answers follow:

1. The wiring harness illustrated in your letter need not currently meet the requirements of the standard, but would have to meet the requirements if it was located within 1/2 inch of the surface of the floor covering and Notice 8 was adopted as presently proposed.

2. The roof lamp need not currently meet the requirements of the standard, but would have to meet these requirements if Notice 8 was adopted as proposed.

3 and 4. The door lock and door handle knobs need not meet the requirements of the standard, but would have to if Notice 8 was adopted.

5. The floor grommets need not currently meet the requirements of the standard, but would have to meet these requirements if Notice 8 was adopted and they were within 1/2 inch of the surface of the carpet.

You are correct, therefore, in your analysis of the effect of Notice 8 as stated in your letter.

Your third question relates to whether the air space located behind the instrument panel and underneath the seat will be considered as part of the occupant compartment air space if Notice 8 is adopted. Assuming that the air behind the instrument panel is sealed off from the passenger compartment, it would not be considered part of the occupant compartment air space. The air under the seat cushion would be considered part of the occupant compartment air space unless it too is sealed off from the passenger compartment.

We trust these answers will be helpful to you.

YOURS TRULY,

ID: 1985-04.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Scottie Brown Jones -- comfit Designs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Ms. Jones: Thank you for your letter dated July 29, 1985 inquiring about Federal requirements applicable to children's car seat covers which you manufacture for sale as accessories to child restraint systems.

This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq. (the Act). Under the Act, the agency has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Paragraph S5.7 of that standard requires each material used in a child restraint system to conform to the requirements of S4 of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR Section 571.302). These flammability resistance requirements apply to new child restraint systems used in motor vehicles or aircraft. The flammability resistance requirements in Standard No. 302 must be met by aftermarket seat covers for child restraint systems only if such seat covers are installed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair shops. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install a seat cover for a child restraint system which does not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

However, aftermarket seat covers which are sold to and installed by child restraint owners need not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, the agency urges all manufacturers of such seat covers to comply voluntarily with our safety standards.

A copy of Standard No. 302 is enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Scottie Brown Jones July 29, 1985 Comfit Designs 1721 S. La Rosa Dr. Tempe, AZ 85281

Mr. Steve Oesch NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC, 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Please advise as to the Federal requirements an/or regulations in regard to children's car seat covers (removable cloth covers sold in children's departments as an accessory to a car seat). I have been in contact with Shirley Barton at NHTSA (202/425-9294) who was unable to supply me with this information over the phone and suggested that I direct my inquiry in writing to you.

I have a small cottage industry. I have designed a children's car seat cover using 9 oz. terry cloth (86% cotton, 14% polyester) and gingham (35% cotton, 65% polyester) which I intend to market. This cover was originally intended to protect a child in the summer from the extremely hot plastic and vinyl used in many car seats. It fits any size toddler or infant car seat, is removable and would be purchased as a car seat accessory. Unlike covers already on the market, my design dose not use a fill and is, therefore, exempt from a bedding lisence. Other than that, it uses materials not unlike those already on the market (terry cloth and gingham). The major difference is that it covers more of the car seat than any other product presently available.

I appreciate your quick response to this inquiry. If you should have any further questions. I would be glad to answer them. I can be reached before 10:30 a.m. EDT at 602/967-1547. after that time please call 602/965-6163. Sincerely, Scottie Jones cc. Mr. Radovich

ID: nht80-4.19

DATE: 11/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Questor Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 4, 1980, concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether instruction booklets provided with child restraints must meet the flammability requirement of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. The answer is no. They do not have to comply with Standard No. 302.

Section 5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires each material used in a child restraint to conform to performance requirements of Standard No. 302. You asked whether the installation instructions, which are required by section 5.6 to accompany the child restraint, must comply with the flammability requirements of section 5.7. Since the installation instructions, unlike an affixed label, are not a physical part of the child restraint system, they do not have to comply with section 5.7.

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

Questor Juvenile Products Company

September 4, 1980

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Ref.: NOA-30

In your letter of April 22, 1980, to Mr. Don Gerken of Cosco Home Products, you indicated that Section 5.7, FMVSS 213, requires "each material used in a child restraint system" to conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 302. You also indicated that because the label, installation diagram, and tag materials are affixed to the child restraint, they would have to comply with FMVSS 302. You further stated that if the label, diagram, and tag do not adhere at every point of contact, Section 4.2.1 requires them to meet the performance requirement of the standard when tested separately.

In previous discussion with NHTSA personnel, installation and use requirements of children's car seats indicated that an instruction booklet might be required to accompany each child restraint system in order to describe adequately the various methods of installation for multi-purpose child restraint systems. NHTSA personnel had suggested during these conversations that such an instruction booklet be provided with a pocket attached to the child restraint system for retention of the booklet. As a matter of interpretation, could you please advise if such an instruction booklet, which would normally be manufactured of paper stock, must meet the flammability requirements of FMVSS 302? To the best of my knowledge, owners' manuals furnished with automobiles are not required to meet FMVSS 302. In our attempt to provide a convenient and permanent storage location for child restraint system instructions booklets, I would hope that NHTSA would not require these booklets to meet FMVSS 302 because they would be included with the child restraint.

Since the effective date of FMVSS 213's revised requirements is fast approaching, your expeditious response to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

J. P. Koziatek, P. E. Director, Technical Services

ID: 1985-02.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ernest Astle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Astle Purchasing Agent Alco Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 724 Logan, Utah 84321

Dear Mr. Astle:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR 571.302). Specifically you asked if the requirements of that standard apply to aftermarket seat covers. While the standard applies only to new motor vehicles, its requirements do indirectly affect some aftermarket seat covers. As explained in greater detail in the attached letter to Mr. Cederbaum regarding the same issue, rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed in a vehicle pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is prohibited if done by certain commercial enterprises, but is permitted if done by the vehicle owner. Thus, if a seat cover in a complying vehicle were replaced with a noncomplying seat cover by one of those enterprises, that act would violate the above prohibition. The same act, if done by the owner, would not be a violation.

Should you need further information or have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Alco Manufacturing Company

April 7, 1985

Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Council NHTSA Room #5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Steve

Reference to the phone call on February 22, 1985, concerning Motor Vehicle Saftey Standard NO. 302, pertaining to manufacturers of after market seat covers.

Does the after market manufacturer need to comply to the Federal Standard by law. Or does it not matter, except for product liability Insurance, if the covers should be flammable enough to cause fire.

I understand that as long as the ultimate consumer installs the covers the product Liability claim are void.

Do the Jobbers, that install covers, need to meet the 302 if they manufacturer covers?

J. C. Penney Company states that the 302 is their standard. Could this be their policy to protect them from any suits?

Please answer the above questions and statements by letter and/or by publication.

Thank You

Ernest Astle Purchasing Agent

kj