ID: nht72-3.31

DATE: 11/27/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letters of September 8 and October 16, 1972, raise a question concerning the applicability of S4.3 of Standard 207 to certain folding seats in recreational vehicles. Your position is that the typical dinette seat that folds down to form a bed is "a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants" and is therefore excepted from the restraining device requirement of S4.3.

In a letter that we sent to Auto Top, Inc. on September 8, 1972, we distinguished between excepted seats and non-excepted seats on the basis of the degrees of arc through which the back could be adjusted. A back adjusting only a few degrees would be excepted under this interpretation, while a seat that folded flat to make a bed would not be excepted and would therefore have to have a restraining device. After reconsidering the background of these exceptions, we have decided to modify that interpretation. Although there is likely to be a difference between these seats in the degree of protection they give the occupant, we cannot find that this difference was reflected in the drafting of the S4.3 exceptions.

The S4.3 exceptions were created by a notice of rulemaking published April 4, 1967 (32 F.R. 5498). The exception in issue here was adopted in response to a petition by the Rover Company, who requested special treatment for a seat with a back that had a range of adjustment from 77 degrees to the horizontal down to 19 degrees to the horizontal. In granting an exception to the type of seat depicted by Rover, the agency therefore included seats with backs that folded until they were substantially horizontal. We must thus conclude that a seat whose back folds backward with respect to the seat cushion to form a bed is not required under S4.3 to have a device to restrain the backward folding of the seat back.

However, the exemption granted in response to the Rover petition does not cover the case you have described. A seat having a back that folds for the occupant's comfort but that also folds in another manner is required to have a restraining device for the second folding mode. The usual example of such a seat is a front seat in a two-door sedan that folds forward for entry to the rear and has a back that adjusts through a rearward arc for the occupant's comfort. Such a seat must have a restraining device to prevent forward movement because the adjustment of the back is not "only" for the occupant's comfort. A dinette seat that has an additional folding or hinging mode must therefore have a restraining device to guard against the effects of the seat's folding in this mode during a crash. For example, a seat whose base is hinged to move the bottom cushion into the space between the dinette seats must be restrained by a device conforming to S4.3.

With specific reference to the type of seat shown in the attachments to your letters, the downward motion of the seat back would be exempt under S4.3, but the motion of the bottom cushion is such that it would have to have a restraining device conforming to S4.3.

As you describe the seat, a restraining device is provided. However, without subjecting it to a compliance test under S4.3.2 we are unable to say whether it conforms to S4.3.

ID: aiam4089

Dear Mr. Tsujishita: Thank you for your letter of October 25, 1985, concerning th requirements of Standard No. 208 and Part 581. In addition, your letter asked about the status of a response to your July 17, 1985 letter. Unfortunately, my office had not previously received a copy of your letter of July 17, 1985. This letter addresses the Standard No. 208 questions you raised. We will shortly be responding to your other questions as well.; You asked about the automatic restraint phase-in requirements o Standard No. 208. You said that it is not clear how the requirements of S4.1.3 of the standard would apply to a manufacturer that will first start manufacturing cars for the United States during the phase-in period. On April 12, 1985 (50 FR 14589), the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking which would affect the way in which a manufacturer calculates the amount of passenger cars that must be produced with automatic restraints during the phase-in period. The notice proposed that instead of using a three year average of its passenger car production for the U.S., a manufacturer could use its actual production during each of the three years of the phase-in to calculate the amount of cars that must have automatic restraints. In the case of a new manufacturer, the manufacturer would not have three prior years of U.S. production and thus would have to use its actual production during each of the affected years. We have just issued a final rule adopting that proposal. I have enclosed a copy of that final rule.; For illustrative purposes, the proposal, if adopted, would have th following effect on the examples you used. In your first example, you assumed a new manufacturer starts manufacturing passenger cars for the U.S. on August 1, 1987, and produces 3,000 cars a month. For the first phase-in period (September 1, 1986 - August 31, 1987), the manufacturer would have produced 3,000 cars and would have to equip 10% of them (300 cars) with automatic restraints. For the second phase-in period (September 1, 1987 - August 31, 1988), the manufacturer would produce 36,000 passenger cars (12 x 3,000/vehicles per month) and would have to equip 25% of them (9,000 cars) with automatic restraints. For the final phase-in period (September 1, 1988 - August 31, 1989), the manufacturer would also produce 36,000 passenger cars and would have to equip 40% of them (14,400 cars) with automatic restraints.; In your second example, a new manufacturer begins production o passenger cars for the U.S. on September 1, 1987, and produces 3,000 cars a month. During the second phase-in period, the manufacturer would have to equip 9,000 of its passenger cars with automatic restraints. During the final phase-in period, the manufacturer would have to equip 14,400 of its passenger cars with automatic restraints.; You also asked about the requirement of S4.5.1 that a vehicle must hav a maintenance label for any crash-deployed occupant protection system. You asked if the requirement only applies to air bags and does not apply to seat belt systems. The requirement applies to any crash deployed system. Thus, it applies to air bags and would also apply to an automatic safety belt that does not move into position until a crash occurs.; Finally, you asked about the warning system requirements of Standar No. 208 that would apply to a passenger car that has an automatic safety belt that meets the frontal crash protection requirement and also has a manual lap belt, provided in accordance with 4.1.2.1(c) to meet the side impact and rollover requirements of the standard. You noted that the manual belt would be required to meet the warning system requirements of S7.3, while the automatic belt would have to meet the warning system requirements of S4.5.3.3. You asked if the passenger cars must have two different safety belt warning systems with two warning lights and two audible signals.; The purpose of both warning system requirements is similar. Th requirements of S7.3 are meant to remind the driver to reengage a safety belt, in one case a manual belt and in the other a detached or released automatic belt. In addition, S4.5.3.3 is meant to warn a driver that a motorized belt is not in its locked position. Both warning system requirements specify the use of the same types of equipment, a 4 to 8 second audible warning and a continuous or flashing light. Since the purpose of the two warning system requirements is similar and they use the same equipment, the agency believes it is reasonable for a vehicle only to have one warning system, as long as it met the requirements of S5.4.3.3 and S7.3.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 2652o

Ms. Joanne Salvio
Fire Research Corporation
26 Southern Blvd.
Nesconset, NY 11767

Dear Ms. Salvio:

This responds to your November 10, 1987, letter asking whether the "Guardian Gate" your company manufactures for firefighting vehicles is subject to Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. The answer to your question is yes, if the Gate is installed on new vehicles and if the area into which the door leads contains one or more seating positions.

The advertising material you enclosed states that the Guardian Gate "is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus [sic]." The advertisement said that the unique feature of the Guardian Gate is its locking mechanism which enables the gate to be locked "on both its sides to the vehicle; the cab side, as well as the pump panel side." The advertisement said this "dual locking" feature is intended to minimize the likelihood that the gate will be opened either unintentionally or because of "hazardous conditions" (an explanation of which the advertisement did not include).

Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 206 states: "Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. ..." (S4 exempts certain types of doors from Standard No. 206, but these are doors that are readily removable or that are not provided for retaining occupants. Since the Guardian Gate falls into neither of these two categories, the exemptions are not relevant to your inquiry.)

From the information you provided in your letter and in telephone calls between you and Ms. Hom of my staff, we understand that the standing area on the firefighting vehicle enclosed by the Guardian Gate contains a jump seat. Because "seating accommodations" referred to in S4 include jump seats, a Guardian Gate that is installed to enclose a jump seat area on a new firefighting vehicle must comply with Standard No. 206. This determination is consistent with an August 13, 1980 letter from NHTSA to Mr. L. Steenbock of the FWD Corporation (copy enclosed), in which this agency stated that a door leading to a standing area that contains no seating position would not have to comply with Standard No. 206. Because Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks (e.g., firefighting vehicles), and not to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types, you may sell the Guardian Gate to vehicle owners without regard as to whether the Gate complies with the performance requirements of the standard. However, we urge you to consider meeting those requirements voluntarily, to ensure that the Gate will perform to specified levels for the safety of firefighters riding in the "jump seat area" of the vehicle. You should also be aware that you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to ensure that your product contains no defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:206 d:2/11/88

ID: 16-005785 FAMA Interp [FINAL]

ID: 11621MLV

Mr. Powell M. Smith II
President
Alamo Mobility, Inc.
8666 Huebner Road, Suite 104
San Antonio, TX 78240

Dear Mr. Powell:

This responds to your letter of March 1, 1996, requesting:

permission to disable an airbag in a vehicle being modified for a driver who has a physical disability. Her condition requires that the OEM steering wheel be replaced with a smaller 13" wheel. In addition, in order to drive from her wheelchair, she must be positioned so close to the wheel that it appears that deployment of the airbag will cause bodily injury.

In summary, our answer is that the vehicle may be modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on a vehicle to accommodate a condition such as you describe. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since the situation you describe is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag on the vehicle to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the vehicle. In addition, the modifier should take care in making the modifications. The modification may cause the air bag to deploy, and the manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is resold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser of the modifications and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment, if appropriate.

Finally, I note that an air bag may not be required for this vehicle. NHTSA has amended Standard No. 208 to allow an exclusion from the automatic protection requirements for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles "manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities." That term is defined to include:

vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.

This exclusion will not be available under the new regulation that requires the installation of air bags to meet the automatic protection requirements. That regulation will be phased in beginning with vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 (1998 model year). All vehicles must comply the following year. NHTSA is, however, examining issues concerning the undesired side effects from air bags, including interactions with special adaptive equipment for persons with disabilities. I have enclosed a previously published request for comments, related to this issue, for your information.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#208 d:4/2/96

ID: 1983-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Benchmark Research Inc. -- Gary Fulmer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary Fulmer Benchmark Research, Inc. 9921 NE 135th Pl., #1 Kirkland, WA 98033

Dear Mr. Fulmer:

This responds to your letter asking whether an adapter you plan to manufacture for attachment to child restraint systems must be tested for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). The adapter you plan to manufacture snaps onto the bottom of the tube frame of child restraints, and unfolds legs and wheels to convert the car seat into a stroller. Your device does not need to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. However, you might wish to test it to ensure that it does not constitute a safety-related defect when attached to a child restraint and for purposes of product liability.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." The stroller adapter you plan to produce is not designed to perform any of these functions, and therefore is not a child restraint within the meaning of Standard No. 213. Because the devise is not a child restraint system, it need not comply with any of the requirements of Standard No. 213.

One requirement which might be applicable to the use of your device is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which states "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or other motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, 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 could be important if the attachment of your stroller adapter to a child restraint system caused the child restraint system to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. It appears from your letter, however, that the purchaser of your device would attach it to a child restraint, and not a manufacturer or dealer. The statutory prohibition is not violated when a purchaser attaches a device to an item or motor vehicle equipment. Hence, if my understanding is correct, this would not present any difficulties for your company.

There are two possible reasons which might lead you to try to test this adapter to learn if it affects the performance of child restraint systems to which it is attached. First, if the attachment of your adapter causes the child restraint to provide a lower level of safety, or if all or part of the adapter were to separate from the child restraint in a crash situation, the adapter might well be found to contain a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. Sections 151-154 of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414) require that when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser.

Second, you may wish to consult an attorney for advice on potential product liability issues which would arise from attaching your adapter to certified child restraint systems. It is possible that some testing of your adapter attached to a child restraint system in a crash situation would be helpful in the event of a product liability suit.

Should you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Benchmark Research Inc. Office of Chief Council 9921 N. E. 135th Pl. #1 Vehicle Safety Commission Kirkland, Wa. 98033 400 7th St. S.W. June 28, 1983 Wash., D.C. 20950

To whom it may concern:

A friend of mine, Bob Rodwell from the Small Business Development Center in Seattle called you Monday regarding testing of a product I have. You mentioned that it is not required of this product. Per your discussion with whom I need a written response from you for my records stating that testing of this devise is not necessary.

To refresh your memory and to give you a framework to state your opinion on the product, I am writing a summary of the product.

Briefly, it is a permanently attachable adapter that snaps to the bottom tube frame on all standard child safety car seats. This device houses a set of four folding legs with wheels that click into folded and unfolded position, using a modified version of a standard gurny, the attachment to the car seat frame is universal, being able to adapt to any size and shape.

In summary, this device allows one to simply unsnap the seat belt, leaving the child strapped in the car seat, pull the adapter frame handle, pulling the car seat out car, the legs then unfolding and locking by themselves as part of the gurny action. Now you simply rotate the car seat 90 degrees to lock, and roll the entire device away. I have a prospective buyer for this product and would appreciate hearing from you on this matter as soon as possible since it will help to expedite sale of the item. Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Sign off: 8:47 A.M. Eastern Time, FEBRUARY 7, 1996

ID: nht74-3.24

DATE: 10/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Northland Equipment Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 19, 1974, which refers to our letter of July 17, 1974, to the Distributors' Association regarding the use of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating by a final-stage manufacturer who adds an additional axle to the vehicle. Our position in that letter was that a gross vehicle weight rating which was so unrelated to vehicle capacity that it suggests a motive such as avoidance of an applicable standard could be construed as a false and misleading certification or a potential safety related defect. You point out that this result works a hardship on persons who customarily add axles because they are unable to determine an appropriate gross vehicle weight rating to use for Certification purposes.

The NHTSA's concern, and indeed the thrust of the Certification requirements, is that vehicles as manufactured will conform to all applicable safety standards when carrying expected loads. However, we are not unmindful, and do not wish to give the impression of ignoring, practical problems connected with compliance with the requirements. Our hope is that the industries involved could collectively resolve their mutual problems, preferably without, but possibly with, assistance from Government regulation. We would certainly consider any concrete proposals for amending the regulations applicable to incomplete and intermediate vehicle manufacturers to resolve this problem, as long as such proposals do not abrogate the primary purposes of the requirements. The use of the incomplete vehicle manufacturers weight ratings is not satisfactory in this respect. We would welcome any future communications you or the various associations might have with respect to possible solutions to this problem, and will be happy to meet with you at your request.

ID: nht76-5.73

DATE: 02/10/76

FROM: JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TO: S. L. TERRY -- VICE PRESIDENT PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS CHRYSLER CORPORATION

TITLE: N40-30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1/22/76 FROM S. L. TERRY -- CHRYSLER CONSUMER AFFAIRS TO JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR

TEXT: Dear Mr. Terry:

This is in response to your letter of January 22, 1976, in which you discussed Chrysler's position with respect to the recently proposed amendment of Standard No. 105-75 that would make a low brake fluid level indicator optional instead of mandatory. You asked that we provide assurance that if the proposal is not adopted, the existing requirement for the indicator will be delayed, in recognition of the fact that manufacturers have passed the latest point at which money must be committed for engineering and tooling the indicator for September production.

I will hereby provide that assurance. We recognize that if manufacturers do not delay their financial commitment past the usual period for preparation to meet a requirement, when the agency proposes to delete the requirement, the money is likely to be wasted even if the agency proceeds as proposed. We expect manufacturers to hold off their commitment of tooling and other expenses for a requirement that we have proposed to delete, and if we should decide not to go ahead with the proposal, we will take the required leadtime into account in resetting the effective date.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Patricia Jackson -- Patael Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/19/94 EST. LETTER FROM PATRICIA JACKSON TO MR. RACHT

TEXT: This responds to your letters asking about safety standards, particularly those about fire safety, for a product you call the Booster Buddy Cushion. According to promotional literature accompanying your letter, the Booster Buddy Cushion is placed under infant/toddler car seats to protect the car's upholstery and to provide additional comfort to young children. The literature also indicates that older children situated in booster seats (and on actual vehicle seats) could lean on this device.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, appro ve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represen ts our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter and promotional literature.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Booster Buddy Cushion. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pad/cushion that is used with a child safety seat.

While no FMVSS applies to the Booster Buddy Cushion, 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 of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event 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.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the Booster Buddy Cushion would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "make s inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Our FMVSSs require specific levels of performance for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Specifically, FMVSS No. 302 specifies flammability resistance requirements for vehic le interiors. Any person listed in @ 30122 who installs a Booster Buddy Cushion must ensure that the product does not undermine the vehicle's compliance with those flammability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of @ 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

We note that the pad/cushion you wish to manufacture can be used without a child seat, to cushion and support the head of a sleeping older child. We do not consider the pad/cushion to "position children" in a manner that a child seat positions children to better use a vehicle's belt system. Rather, the Booster Buddy Cushion simply provides a surface that a child may lean on. However, we are concerned about the possibility that consumers might use your product, instead of a child seat, with a child wh o should be restrained in a car seat. We recommend that you inform consumers purchasing your product that the Booster Buddy Cushion is not a child restraint system and must not be used as one.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw or Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10535

Ms. Patricia Jackson
Patnel Company
25 St. Edward Lane
Florissant, MO 63033

Dear Ms. Jackson:

This responds to your letters asking about safety standards, particularly those about fire safety, for a product you call the Booster Buddy Cushion. According to promotional literature accompanying your letter, the Booster Buddy Cushion is placed under infant/toddler car seats to protect the car's upholstery and to provide additional comfort to young children. The literature also indicates that older children situated in booster seats (and on actual vehicle seats) could lean on this device.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter and promotional literature.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Booster Buddy Cushion. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pad/cushion that is used with a child safety seat.

While no FMVSS applies to the Booster Buddy Cushion, 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 of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event 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.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the Booster Buddy Cushion would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. '30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Our FMVSSs require specific levels of performance for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Specifically, FMVSS No.302 specifies flammability resistance requirements for vehicle interiors. Any person listed in '30122 who installs a Booster Buddy Cushion must ensure that the product does not undermine the vehicle's compliance with those flammability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of '30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

We note that the pad/cushion you wish to manufacture can be used without a child seat, to cushion and support the head of a sleeping older child. We do not consider the pad/cushion to "position children" in a manner that a child seat positions children to better use a vehicle's belt system. Rather, the Booster Buddy Cushion simply provides a surface that a child may lean on. However, we are concerned about the possibility that consumers might use your product, instead of a child seat, with a child who should be restrained in a car seat. We recommend that you inform consumers purchasing your product that the Booster Buddy Cushion is not a child restraint system and must not be used as one.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw or Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213#302 d:3/3/95