ID: aiam2355

Dear Mr. Martin: It has come to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration that General Motors Corporation is planning to include in its 1977 Cadillac incomplete vehicle document the following statement with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*:; >>>Conformity with FMVSS 301 is not substantially determined by th design of this incomplete vehicle and General Motors makes no representation as to conformity with this Standard.; The use of this statement would not comply with 49 CFR Part 568 *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*.; A copy of the March 8, 1976, letter from Mr. W.J. Owen of the Cadilla Motor Car Division to Mr. R.B. Kurre of the Wayne Corporation is attached for your reference. That letter was included in the petition of Wayne's Miller-Meteor Division for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 as applied to ambulances and funeral coaches that Wayne manufactures using Cadillac commercial chassis.; I understand that these chassis are delivered to Wayne with the fue system components already installed, that Wayne removes certain components in order to mount the body and that those components are reinstalled after the mounting of the body.; The incomplete vehicle document is required by S568.4(a)(7) to includ a--; >>>[l]isting (sic) by number of each standard...followed in each cas by one of the following types of statement, as applicable:; (i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to th standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle. ...; (ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture unde which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard. ...; (iii) A statement that conformity with the standard is no substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.<<<; There is a factual limitation on use of the third statement. It may no be used for standards conformity to which is substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle. Where the basic fuel system components, including fuel tank and lines and filler pipe, are included in the incomplete vehicles, compliance of the completed vehicle with Standard No. 301-75 is substantially determined by both the design of the incomplete vehicle and the manner of completion by the final stage manufacturer. Therefore, General Motors is required to include a statement of the first or second type with respect to Standard No. 301-75 in the incomplete vehicle documents accompanying Cadillac commercial chassis that are manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, and designed for completion into multipurpose passenger vehicles. Such chassis that are manufactured before that date are not required by Part 568 to include any statement concerning Standard No. 301-75, because there are no fuel system integrity requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles until that date.; The above discussion also applies to any other commercial chassi manufactured by General Motors for sale as incomplete vehicles.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht69-2.38

DATE: 09/05/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

COPYEE: SUBJ. FILE OAA; CHRON. FILE OAA; CHRON. FILE MVSPS; SUBJ. FILE 409; CHRON. FILE 409; SCHNEIDER, RM. 512, DONOHOE; FISTE, RM. 302A, DONOHOE; FHWA EX. SEO.(2); FHWA CONTROL #55

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 26, 1969, to the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, concerning the activation of stop lamps and hazard warning signal lamps.

Your letter poses three basic questions as follows:

1. Are spring brakes, which backup a primary air brake system, considered "emergency" brakes within the meaning of paragraph S3.4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 1087

2. Under Standard No. 108, does the Bureau prefer (a) a wiring system whereby the stop lamps override the hazard warning lamps, or (b) a wiring system whereby the hazard warning lamps override the stop lamps?

3. Are both of the above wiring systems permissible?

In answer to the first question, spring brakes, which back-up a primary air brake system, are not considered "emergency" brakes within the meaning of paragraph S3.4.4 of Standard No. 108. The basis for this opinion is the same as that contained in Mr. Fay's letter of April 25, 1968, to the Blue Bird Body Company. The Bureau now has under development a proposed standard for brakes which will be applicable to trucks. If under this standard, spring brakes are defined as emergency brakes, then the requirement of paragraph S3.4.4 of Standard No. 108 will be applicable.

In answer to the second and third questions, the Bureau has no well-founded research data to prove or disprove the effectiveness of the two different wiring systems for all vehicles covered by Standard No. 108. Use of either of the systems is permitted under Standard No. 108.

However, the regulations of the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR 392.22(a) and 392.23(a)) require flashing of the turn signal lamps as a vehicular traffic hazard warning signal whenever a vehicle is stopped under certain conditions. These regulations therefore do not allow overriding of the warning signal by the stop lamps. It is our belief that a flashing light, rather than a steady-burning light, conveys a more effective warning of a stopped vehicle. Consequently, trucks, buses, and trailers which after sale may be subject to Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations should be manufactured so that the stop lamps will not override the hazard warning signal. Consideration is being given to rule making(Illegible Word) which would make this mandatory for all trucks, buses, and trailers.

ID: aiam5549

"Dear Ms. Gazich: This responds to your letter asking about how thi agency's regulations might apply to your product, the 'Smart Rider.' In your letter, you described the Smart Rider as a 'new automobile accessory for children.' It is a vinyl seat back protector that slips over one or both of the front seats and secured, we assume, with the two 3/4 inch elastic bands. The answer to your question is that there are no standards that apply directly to the Smart Rider, but there are Federal requirements that may affect it. I summarize below the relevant safety standards and laws you should consider. As you recognized in your letter, the Smart Rider is an accessory, a type of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. NHTSA has not issued any standards for an accessory such as the Smart Rider. For that reason, you should not place any label on your packaging to the effect that it meets Federal standards. Although no standards apply directly to the Smart Rider, its installation may affect vehicle compliance with certain safety standards. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that requires, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with that standard. If the vinyl of the Smart Rider is stiff enough, it might distribute the impact of the occupant's head over a larger area of the seat back than the vehicle manufacturer intended. As a result, the foam in the seat back might not compress as deeply as the manufacturer intended, and the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how stiff the vinyl is, and this may not be a problem, but it is something of which you should be aware. Another standard that you might want to consider is Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. That standard requires that seat backs not burn or transmit a flame front across their surface at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. If the Smart Rider were installed as part of a new vehicle, it would be considered part of the seat back. Which legal requirements apply depend to some extent on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the Smart Rider installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standards No. 201 and 302. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from 'knowingly mak ing inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .' For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the Smart Rider were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the installer to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'make inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, our standards would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Smart Rider in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether the Smart Rider would be permitted. I want to emphasize that NHTSA has not made a determination regarding the safety of the Smart Rider. NHTSA has not done any testing of your product. I am merely informing you of the applicable law and identifying a few potential problem areas for your consideration. I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4773

Dear Herr Westermann: This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett o this agency with respect to 'multi bulb devices', specifically 'how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure lb have to be interpreted. . . .' You have asked this question because 'Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have --opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb.' Your question assumes that Standard No. 108 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-compartment lamps. We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September l988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, l990, an amendment to Standard No. 108 was published, effective December 1, l990, the effect of which is to restrict Figure 1b to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. Your question relates to 'signalling devices' for new motor vehicles, and Figure 1b shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December l, l990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width. SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width. In the May l990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for 'Multiple Compartment Lamp'. Such a lamp is 'a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens.' The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition. SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5.1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395 applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments. However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three 'lighted sections'. Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections. I hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4373

Dear Ms. Schonauer: Your letter of May 14, 1987, addressed to the office of Vehicle Safet Standards, was referred to me for reply. Along with your letter, you sent marketing literature, and samples of your product, a device you are marketing under the name 'Insta-cone.' Your literature indicates your intention to market this device principally as an emergency traffic warning device.; The product is made of bright orange corrugated paper and has thre connected triangular faces. You shipped your product folded along the legs of the triangles, and packaged in a clear paper wrapper. A user unfolds your device, and connects tabs and slots along the legs of the triangles to form a pyramid. At the base of two triangles that form the pyramid is a long tab with covered adhesive strips. According to your literature, a user assembles your product, uncovers the adhesive, and secures it to the ground with these adhesive tabs. Buried in one leg of the triangle is a small nail for securing the product in ground where the adhesive will not take hold.; You ask two questions. The first is whether this agency will send you letter stating that your product may be used to indicate the presence of a disable passenger vehicle. The second question is whether this agency will send you a 'statement...that it is a good idea for passenger vehicles to have a first aid kit, (your product), or even flares in the trunk in case of an accident or breakdown.'; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agenc of the Department of Transportation, and has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.; Standard 125, *Warning Devices* sets uniform design specifications fo devices used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a disabled vehicle. The Standard applies to any such device without a self-contained energy source that it designed to be carried in motor vehicles and erected when needed to warn approaching traffic. Your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and falls under this Standard. Thus, the 'Insta-Cone' must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configuration, color, and reflectivity. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with all applicable safety standards.; In answer to your first question, you do not need a letter from thi agency to market your device as a motor vehicle equipment for use to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, so long as your device meets FMVSS 125 requirements. However, NHTSA's preliminary review of your product indicates that the 'Insta- cone' may not comply with the color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability requirements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market and sell it as a warning device.; As I stated earlier in this letter, this agency does not endors commercial products. In answer to your second question, NHTSA must decline to supply you with the kind of statement you suggest.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0958

Dear Mr. Kropp: This is in response to your letter of November 28, 1972, regarding th applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to battery boxes which are installed in vehicle occupant compartments.; The components that must meet the requirements of the standard ar listed in Paragraph S4.1. However, components not listed specifically in Paragraph S4.1, such as battery boxes, will nevertheless be covered to the extent that they are made of materials 'that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash'.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam0452

Dear Mr. Nakajima: In response to your letter of September 28, 1971, regarding th application of F.M.V.S.S. No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to items which are not designed to be energy absorbing, such as the defroster nozzle and hose or the transmission shift lever boot, the Administration has found that your interpretation of the standard is correct: the phrase 'any other interior material' in paragraph S4.1 does not cover components of the occupant compartment which are not designed to absorb energy on contact with occupants in crash situations.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5369

"Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and displays and No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the standards in connection with three options your company is considering for changing its 'Tiptronic' automatic transmission system. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. The current Tiptronic automatic transmission system can be described as follows: The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventional automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 1. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift lever can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The right slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping the shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the 'M' position after being tapped. There are two gear position displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel. The middle console display, which is not illuminated, shows each of the 10 positions where the shift lever may be placed. It also shows the position which is selected. The display on the instrument panel, which is illuminated, has two columns which correspond to the slots on the middle console. However, while the left column (corresponding to the left slot or automatic function) shows the positions P R N D 3 2 1, the right column (corresponding to the right slot or manual function) shows the positions 4 3 2 1. In other words, the right column portion of the display shows the available gears and the actual gear selected rather than + M -. For both columns, the selected position or gear is indicated by an illuminated arrow. In your letter to NHTSA, you indicate that Porsche is considering the following three options for modifying its system: Option 1. The first proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot. Option 2a. The second proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot and the + and - positions on the right (manual) slot. Gear selection in the manual mode would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel. Option 2b) The third proposed modification would provide only one slot with the following positions (in order): P R N D M D. In the M position, gear selection would be accomplished by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel. For each of the proposed modifications, the shift lever positions would be labeled on the middle console, in the same manner as the current system. Similarly, the middle console would not be illuminated. The instrument panel display would not change for any of the options. You ask a number of questions concerning whether the Tiptronic system, as modified under options 1, 2a and 2b, would comply with Standards No. 101 and 102. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 which are relevant to your questions. Section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102 states: Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist: (a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted. (b) The transmission is not in park. S3.1.4.4 states: Effective September 23, 1991, all of the information required to be displayed by S3.1.4.1 or S3.1.4.2 shall be displayed in view of the driver in a single location. At the option of the manufacturer, redundant displays providing some or all of the information may be provided. Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position indicators. Section S5.1 requires that gear position display must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S5.3.1 and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102. In a April 2, 1989 letter to Porsche concerning the Tiptronic system, we concluded that, given the reference in Standard No. 101 to Standard No. 102, where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. 102 and the others do not, the requirements of Standard No. 101 must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. 102. With this background in mind, I will discuss the existing Tiptronic system and the three possible modifications. For the reasons discussed above and in our April 2, 1989 letter, while multiple gear position displays are permitted, one such display must comply with all of the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. Since your console display is not illuminated, it would obviously not comply with Standard No. 101. I will therefore address your letter in the context of whether the instrument panel display meets the requirements of the two standards. I assume that the instrument panel is activated during the times specified by Standard No. 102. Under section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102, there must be a display of all of the shift lever positions in relation to each other, and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. In our April 2, 1989 letter, we stated that your design has the following ten shift lever positions: P R N D 3 2 1 + M -. We noted that the right column of the alternative instrument panel displays identified in your letter showed either 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1 instead of + M -. We concluded that if the instrument panel display was to be used to meet the requirements of Standard No. 102, it would be necessary for the display to show the 10 actual shift lever positions, including + M -. Porsche evidently did not follow the opinion provided in that letter, since Porsche neither provided illumination for the console display nor showed the 10 actual shift lever positions, identified in our letter, on the instrument panel display. While we do not understand the reason for this decision by Porsche, we believe that one could reasonably argue that the + and - locations are not really shift lever 'positions,' since the shift lever cannot be left in those locations. Under this view, + M - could be seen as 'one' shift lever position, which is represented on the instrument panel by 4 3 2 1. We would accept this as an alternative way of characterizing the current Tiptronic system, and are therefore not aware of any compliance problems. I will now turn to the three possible modifications. Once again, since the non-illuminated console display would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, the relevant question is whether the instrument panel display meets the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. A common problem for all three options would be that the instrument panel display retained from the original Tiptronic system would not correspond to the shift lever positions of the modified designs. This could be corrected for options 1 and 2a simply by deleting the 3 2 1 portion of the left column. A more complicated correction would be needed for option 2a, since the display would need to show the following positions in relation to each other: P R N D M D. I have several other comments on your letter. You stated that for all three options, Porsche believes that it is not necessary to have the shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1, or to necessarily display those positions if selected automatically in the D position, as long as they as displayed when selected manually by use of the shift lever (in option 1) or shift rocker switch(es) (in options 2a and 2b). Porsche is correct that it is unnecessary to provide shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1. Moreover, to the extent that such shift lever positions are not provided but the gears are instead selected automatically in the D position or manually in the M position by tapping the shift lever or shift rocker switch, it is unnecessary to display the gears. You also stated the following: Porsche believes that under options 2a and 2b, both the shift lever and the shift rocker switch(es) would be considered as 'shift levers' during the period when they are capable of changing the transmission position. The 'shift lever position' would then be defined as the transmission position, or mode of operation, that was selected by manipulation of any combination of 'shift levers.' It follows then that identification of 'shift lever position' would entail identifying the distinct transmission operating modes, in relation to each other and the specific mode selected. . . . For options 2a and 2b, Porsche believes it is not necessary to illuminate the shift rocker switches, just as it is not necessary to illuminate the shift lever, under the provisions of FMVSS 101, as long as the display in the speedometer showing transmission position is illuminated. We would not view the shift rocker switch(es) as shift levers under any circumstances. Instead, for the vehicle designs at issue, the lever provided on the middle console would be the only shift lever. When the shift lever is in the 'M' position, the shift rocker switch(es) simply permit manual shifting that is akin to the automatic shifting that occurs when the shift lever is in the 'D' position. The rocker switch(es) could not be used to shift the transmission to P, R or N. Under these circumstances, we view the rocker switch(es) as a control which is auxiliary to the shift lever and unregulated by Standard No. 102. I note that we might take a different position if the rocker switch(es) permitted the transmission to be shifted to P, R or N, since Standard No. 102 includes requirements to prevent shifting errors. I also note that Standard No. 101 does not require transmission shift levers or controls which are auxiliary to shift levers to be illuminated. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ";

ID: nht87-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Wally Lang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Wally Lang Langco, In 1340 Walden Drive Elgin, IL 60120

Dear Mr. Lang:

I am pleased to respond to your request for a written statement of the legal requirements that would apply to a new product you plan to introduce. In telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke, of my staff, you described a new product that you would like to introduce. This product, which would be sold only as an item of aftermarket equipment, is a child safety seat belt buckle shield. This "buckle shield" is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle on a child r estraint system. The buckle shield would consist of a plastic strip that would completely cover the buckle on the child restraint. It would be clipped onto the child restraint belt on one side, and attached to the side of the buckle on the other side, so as to completely cover the buckle. To open the buckle, a person would have to firmly grasp the strip and pull it away from the child restraint system. The end of the strip clipped to the belt would pull off of the belt, thereby allowing the person to re lease the buckle.

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @571.213), which app lies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard No. 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 th at Standard before selling the product.

Additionally, as Mr. Kratzke explained, 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 products. In stead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically t ests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-1 59 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy 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 two years ago on the re lated topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

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 i nstances 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 t he child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 PR 33722, August 21, 1985)

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 Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (21 (A)). That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an i tem of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the federal motor vehicle safety standards. Standard No. 213 specifies the elements of design with which a child restraint system might not comply if your buckle shield Here installed. Section 55.4.3.5 of Standard No. 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 shiel d would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section @5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires that each materi al used in a child restraints system shall comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CER 5571.302). If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, co mmercial 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 No. 213. However, our policy is to encourage child res traint owners not to tamper with their child restraints. Installation of your product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5390

Dear Mr. Anderson: This responds to your letter of May 19, 1994 requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Section S5.5.3(c) reads: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color ... Your letter states that you are unable to continuously outline the perimeter of the rear emergency doors on your school buses due to the proximity of door hinges, tail light lenses, and a rubber gasket between the bottom edge of the door and the bumper. You ask: Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continuous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and down the left and right side of the double door opening with breaks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom? As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors? As explained below, your planned placement for the top and sides of the door, and your alternative placement for the bottom of the door would be acceptable. In a July 7, 1993 letter to the Blue Bird Body Company, NHTSA stated: NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets,rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on- the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter... When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape. According to this July 1993 letter, interruptions in the retroreflective tape to avoid and/or accommodate hinges (such as the hinge on the side of the rear emergency door) and other functional components are permitted if the interruption does not negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or does not reduce the conspicuity of the bus. NHTSA considers tail light lenses to be 'functional components' which do not have to be covered by the retroreflective tape. (Indeed, placement of the tape on the tail light lense could affect the efficacy of the light.) The interruptions in the tape for these components would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. Thus, the interruptions are permitted for the tape along the sides of your door. With regard to the bottom of your door, based on the pictures provided with your letter, it appears that there is no location available for the placement of retroreflective tape outside of the door's bottom edge. Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;