ID: nht94-5.40

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Fabrycky

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 12/4/93 From David Fabrycky To NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-9433)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fabrycky:

This responds to your letter about an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. The product is a child safety seat buckle shield, which is intended to prevent a child from opening the buckle on a child restraint system. You state that your device would cover the buckle and prevent the child from gaining access to the pushbutton of a child seat buckle. To depress the pushbutton, the device requires that a latch be actuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle. You indicated that the device requires "manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simultaneously."

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have reservations about devices that interfere with the unbuckling of the seats. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and answers the questions in your letter about the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard 213 before selling the product.

Additionally, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

2

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said in a rule on the force level necessary to operate child restraint buckles:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722; August 21, 1985)

It appears that your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In determining the effect of a buckle shield on a child seat's compliance with Standard 213, NHTSA would evaluate the performance of the seat with the buckle shield installed. Standard 213 specifies several elements of design with which a child restraint system is unlikely to comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. That section also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. Your device will not allow the buckle to release when the force is applied because it will cover the buckle and require force to be applied "in many directions simultaneously." Your device would thus cause the child restraint to no longer comply with that requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot

3

legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard 213 requires each material used in a child restraint system to comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of their child restraints.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: 9433

Mr. David Fabrycky
1633 W. Willeta St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Dear Mr. Fabrycky:

This responds to your letter about an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. The product is a child safety seat buckle shield, which is intended to prevent a child from opening the buckle on a child restraint system. You state that your device would cover the buckle and prevent the child from gaining access to the pushbutton of a child seat buckle. To depress the pushbutton, the device requires that a latch be actuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle. You indicated that the device requires "manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simultaneously."

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have reservations about devices that interfere with the unbuckling of the seats. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and answers the questions in your letter about the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard 213 before selling the product.

Additionally, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, there are several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said in a rule on the force level necessary to operate child restraint buckles:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722; August 21, 1985)

It appears that your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In determining the effect of a buckle shield on a child seat's compliance with Standard 213, NHTSA would evaluate the performance of the seat with the buckle shield installed. Standard 213 specifies several elements of design with which a child restraint system is unlikely to comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. That section also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. Your device will not allow the buckle to release when the force is applied because it will cover the buckle and require force to be applied "in many directions simultaneously." Your device would thus cause the child restraint to no longer comply with that requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard 213 requires each material used in a child restraint system to comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of their child restraints.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#VSA d:5/12/94

ID: aiam1133

Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1973, in which you as whether an 'infant car hammock' which you manufacture is required to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. A picture of the hammock, which you enclosed, shows the hammock attached to both rear doors of a vehicle, and extending between them, with a child lying on it.; As pictured, the hammock is not subject to Standard No. 213. Th standard applies, at present, to devices for seating and restraining a child being transported in a motor vehicle. Effective November 1, 1973, it will apply to all devices for seating a child being transported in a motor vehicle, irrespective of whether the device is used for restraint. Because the hammock is not designed to seat a child, it is not subject to the standard. A copy of the standard is enclosed.; We are presently developing proposed amendments to the standard tha would apply to all types of infant and child restraints, including devices in which children do not sit. These proposals will be published in the *Federal Register* when completed.; We are enclosing a copy of our consumer information booklet, 'What t Buy in Child Restraint Systems'. Our recommendations for infant carriers and car beds are found at the center pages of the booklet.; We hope the information we have provided answers your questions and w appreciate your concern for child restraint safety.; Sincerely yours, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht72-6.61

DATE: DECEMBER 28, 1972

FROM: TATSUO KATO -- ENGINEERING REP, NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

TO: LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA

COPYEE: J. W. CARSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 16, 1973 FROM E.T. DRIVER, NHTSA, TO TATSUO KATO, NISSAN MOTOR CO.

TEXT: This is to request the answer to the following questions regarding MVSS 124 which we explained at a meeting held in the Office of NHTSA, on Friday, December 8, 1972.

1. We are using a two-barrel, down draft type carburetor with a linkage as shown in the attached schematic drawing (see Figure 1). We have designed the accelerator control system that has at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position, that is, whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force, the primary valve of the carburetor is closed by sources of energy of spring A and B and the secondary valve is done by spring A, B and C. Although in the event of failure of the spring C, the secondary valve is usually returned to the initial closed position by the lever L which is actuated by the torsion spring A and B as explained at the meeting, there is a possibility of slightly opening the secondary valve because of endplay by the tolerance of the production so that engine speed might slightly increase more than engine idle speed specified in our manuals.

Under the aforementioned situation, may be understand that the increase of engine idle speed resulting from the endplay caused by failure of the spring C will not be included in the scope of "Overspeed" which is stated in S2 of MVSS 124, that is, in the case of malfunctions, tolerance to the idle speed will be accepted by NHTSA.

If the tolerance is accepted, we would like to know the acceptable range (if possible, by rpm = revolution per minute of engine) of the increase of engine idle speed.

2. It is difficult to decide the components of accelerator control system which we have to consider a severence or disconnection which is specified in MVSS 124, S5.2, "The throttle shall return to the idle position from any accelerator position or any speed of which the engine is capable whenever any one component of the accelerator control system becomes disconnected or severed!'

Under the abovementioned situation, in case of our model PL610, we do not consider breakage of parts such as mounting brackets or mounting bolts as a portion of severence or disconnection, but we do only the portion with the mark X in the attached drawing. (see Figure 2). May we understand the definition of the portion of severence or disconnection as mentioned above?

Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Attachments

CONDITION OF FULL THROTTLE

In case of breakage of Spring "C" secondary valve is returned - by Linkage L.

Condition of Secondary Valve with possibility of opening.

(Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 2 SIDE VIEW

Graphics omitted)

FIGURE 2 FRONT VIEW

Graphics omitted)

ID: Davis_8129-2

Douglas Davis, Vice President
Davis Aircraft Products Co. , Inc.
1150 Walnut Avenue
Bohemia, NY 11716-0525




Dear Mr. Davis:

This responds to your letter in which you ask about the load requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. In your letter you suggest that there is an "overtest" condition with regard to one of the upper torso restraint components under the agencys test procedure (TP-209-05, January 17, 2003). As explained below, FMVSS No. 209 requires that a D-ring withstand the required force in the context of the test procedure specified in the standard, which is reflected in TP-209-05. As such, the procedure illustrated in TP-209-05 does not result in an "overtest".

FMVSS No. 209 specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies to ensure that such assemblies provide occupants with a minimum level of protection in a crash. As noted in your letter, S4.4 of the standard establishes the performance requirements for seat belt assemblies. S4.4(b)(2) requires structural components in an upper torso restraint to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N when tested in accordance with S5.3(b) of the standard. The S5.3 test procedure applicable to S4.4(b)(2) is illustrated in Figure 10 of the laboratory test procedure, TP-209-05 (copy enclosed). We note that a revised version of the test procedure has been issued, TP-209-05 (August 22, 2005), but that no revisions have been made to Figure 10.

In your letter, you stated that under the test procedure illustrated in TP-209-05 Figure 10, a D-ring would experience a resultant force greater than 6,672 N. You stated that this resultant force created "an over test condition".

We disagree that the test procedure illustrated in TP-209-05 results in "an over test condition". As indicated above, S4.4(b) specifies that, with certain exceptions not relevant to your question, the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must meet specified requirements "when tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b)". (Emphasis added. ) While S4.4(b) requires certain components (including a D-ring) in the upper torso restraint to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N, the procedure with respect to how that force is applied is specified in S5.3(b).

S5.3(b)(2) specifies that the 6,672 N force is applied as a tensile force in the manner prescribed in S5.3(b)(1). Through referencing S5.3(a)(2), S5.3(b)(1) specifies that the assemblys attaching bolts are attached to an anchorage bar in a manner that results in the angle nearest to 90 degrees between webbing and attachment hardware, except that eye-bolts are vertical. This procedure is represented in Figure 10 of TP-209-05.

We recognize that the resultant force exerted on a D-ring is greater than the tensile force applied to the seat belt assembly. However, S4.4(b)s performance requirement is written in the context of a specified test procedure for the entire seat belt assembly. The higher force experienced by a D-ring is the result of the specified test procedure. As such, the illustrated test procedure does not result in an "overtest".

If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:209
d.12/8/05

ID: nht75-6.12

DATE: 04/04/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; A.G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your safety defect notification and remedy campaign (NHTSA No. 75-0022) concerning a nut used to secure the front exhaust pipe bracket to the automatic transmission housing which may loosen.

The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject vehicles does not entirely meet the requirements of section 153 of the 1974 amendment to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Specifically, your letter fails to inform recipients that they may notify the Secretary of Transportation if they are unable to have the defect remedied without charge, as required by section 153(a)(6). The address for this purpose may be given as: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590. We also believe that your statement, "although the possibility of a fire is remote," is a disclaimer, and is prohibited by 49 CFR @577.6. Likewise use of the word "may" in your second sentence implies that possibly a defect does not exist and is therefore also prohibited. Your letter also fails to contain an evaluation of the risk to motor vehicle safety as required by section 153(a)(2).

It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification letter and send a copy to each owner whose vehicle has not yet been corrected. A copy should also be sent to this office.

If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426-2840. A copy of the 1974 amendment is enclosed.

SINCERELY,

Dear Customer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

A defect, which relates to motor vehicle safety, may exist in some 1975 model Audi 100 vehicles equipped with automatic transmission which were manufactured between September, 1974 and the middle of January, 1975.

This defect involves the possible loosening of a securing nut which holds the front exhaust pipe support bracket to the transmission housing. In the event that this becomes loose, the support bracket could vibrate to the point where it might touch and possibly damage the return fuel line.

In the interest of your safety, it is essential that the securing nut, together with the supporting bracket, is replaced on your vehicle as quickly as possible.

Although the possibility of a fire is remote, we urge that you immediately get in touch with the service manager of your authorized Audi dealership and make arrangements for the necessary work to be performed on your car. If you notice any fuel drippings when your car is parked, use no open flame and contact your Audi dealer immediately. This work will require approximately 1/2 hour and, of course, will be done without any charge to you. Necessary replacement parts have either already been shipped to your dealership or will arrive not later than the 14th of February.

While we very much regret the inconvenience, which we know this matter will cause you, we know that you will want to make prompt arrangements for the necessary work to be completed on your Audi as quickly as possible.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

G. Meier -- TECHNICAL SERVICE MGR.

ID: 3326o

Mr. C. S. Allen
Commander
Department of California Highway Patrol
P.O. Box 942898
Sacramento, CA 94298-000l

Dear Mr. Allen:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No.l02, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. That standard requires vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions have a starter interlock. You stated that you believe that a vehicle would not meet the standard if it was also equipped with a starter interlock bypass switch. As discussed below, we agree with your position.

According to your letter, the California Highway Patrol has become aware that a school bus manufacturer "has been building vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions which, although equipped with the interlock required by 49 CFR 57l.l02 S3.l.3, are also equipped, at the driver's position, with a momentary contact push-button switch, the purpose of which is to bypass the transmission neutral safety switch." If the driver uses one hand to operate the bypass switch and the other hand to operate the regular starter key-type switch, the bus can be started with the transmission shift lever in a forward or reverse drive position.

You noted that the manufacturer stated its belief that the bypass switch complies with Standard No. l02 since the switch is regarded as "an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts." You stated that it is your position that "the bypass switch renders buses equipped with automatic transmissions in violation of FMVSS l02" and that the manufacturer "appears to be interpreting FMVSS l02 as meaning that the starter shall not be capable of being started from the driver's position with the transmission in gear unless the driver intends to do that." Emphasis in original.

Section S3.l.3, which applies only to vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions, reads as follows:

S3.l.3 Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

It is our opinion that a vehicle would not meet this requirement if it can be started, when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position, by means of the regular starter key-type switch and a starter interlock bypass switch . In this instance, the engine starter would not be "inoperative." This opinion is not changed by the fact that the manufacturer may intend the bypass switch as an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts. The intention of the manufacturer does not change the fact that the engine starter would not be "inoperative," and Standard No. l02 does not provide for any exceptions to this requirement (for covered vehicles).

We are referring your letter to our Office of Enforcement for appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel / ref:l02 d:l2/30/88

ID: nht80-2.16

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 24 1980 NOA-30

Mr. James E. Forrester Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220 Washington, D.C. 20015

Dear Mr. Forrester:

This responds to your March 17, 1980, letter asking for an interpretation of the certification label requirements as they apply to a manufacturer who performs some manufacturing operation on a stripped chassis. You indicated in your letter that the stripped chassis is not a chassis-cab and, therefore, does not have a certification label. You further stated that the second manufacturer's modification of the stripped chassis do not convert it to a chassis-cab.

The chassis certification label requirements of Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, apply only to chassis-cabs as that term is defined in Part 567. Since the incomplete vehicle to which you refer is not a chassis-cab at either of the first two stages of its manufacture, it is not required to be labeled. The second manufacturer is required to amend the incomplete vehicle document where necessary to show the effects of its changes to the incomplete vehicle.

Your second question poses a similar hypothetical, except that the second manufacturer completes the incomplete vehicle to the point where it is a chassis-cab. In this instance, the second manufacturer is required to attach the chassis-cab certification label. Also, all necessary amendments must be made in the incomplete vehicle document.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

17 March 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Roger Tilton

Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm your oral interpretation of certification procedures involving stripped chassis and chassis cabs. A member of TBEA plans to modify stripped chassis and is seeking guidance as to the proper procedures.

Your interpretation was that:

(1) In the case where they start with a stripped chassis and do work that does not cause it to become a chassis cab, their only responsibility under Parts 567 and 568 is to provide an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document as described in Part 568. No certification label is required in this instance.

(2) Where they start with a stripped chassis and their work results in the incomplete vehicle being classified as a chassis cab then they are considered the chassis cab manufacturer and are required to:

(a) provide an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document (Part 568)

(b) attach a certification label which contain the statements of Part 567.5a

The location of the certification label must be in accordance with Part 567, Certification.

Your written confirmation of the above is requested.

Sincerely yours,

James E. Forrester Manager of Engineering Services

ID: nht88-4.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: C. S. ALLEN -- COMMANDER-DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 20, 1988 LETTER FROM ALLEN TO WOOD

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. That standard requires vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions have a starter in terlock. You stated that you believe that a vehicle would not meet the standard if it was also equipped with a starter interlock bypass switch. As discussed below, we agree with your position.

According to your letter, the California Highway Patrol has become aware that a school bus manufacturer "has been building vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions which, although equipped with the interlock required by 49 CFR 571.102 S3.1.3, are a lso equipped, at the driver's position, with a momentary contact push-button switch, the purpose of which is to bypass the transmission neutral safety switch." If the driver uses one hand to operate the bypass switch and the other hand to operate the reg ular starter key-type switch, the bus can be started with the transmission shift lever in a forward or reverse drive position.

You noted that the manufacturer stated its belief that the bypass switch complies with Standard No. 102 since the switch is regarded as "an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts." You stated that it is your position that "t he bypass switch renders buses equipped with automatic transmissions in violation of FMVSS 102" and that the manufacturer "appears to be interpreting FMVSS 102 as meaning that the starter shall not be capable of being started from the driver's position w ith the transmission in gear unless the driver intends to do that." Emphasis in original.

Section S3.1.3, which applies only to vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions, reads as follows:

S3.1.3 Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

It is our opinion that a vehicle would not meet this requirement if it can be started, when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position, by means of the regular starter key-type switch and a starter interlock bypass switch. In this instance, the engine starter would not be "inoperative." This opinion is not changed by the fact that the manufacturer may intend the bypass switch as an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts. The intention of the ma nufacturer does not change the fact that the engine starter would not be "inoperative," and Standard No. 102 does not provide for any exceptions to this requirement (for covered vehicles).

We are referring your letter to our Office of Enforcement for appropriate action.

ID: aiam1894

Dear Mr. Domm: This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1975, asking that th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concur in your preliminary decision to classify two new International Harvester vehicles as multipurpose passenger vehicles.; The definition of multipurpose passenger vehicle, which appears at 4 CFR Part 571.3 *definitions*, describes vehicles falling within that category as ones with motive power, except trailers, designed to carry 10 persons or less and constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.; According to your letter, the two vehicles in question satisfy both th truck chassis and the features for occasional off-road use criteria. If this is the case, and the other specified criteria are met as well, your vehicles would be properly classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles for purposes of complying with applicable motor vehicle safety standards.; The NHTSA is not in a position to formally endorse your classification However, it appears from the information you have provided that the vehicles in question are multi-purpose passenger vehicles as defined in Part 571.3 (sic); Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel