ID: nht92-9.37

DATE: January 28, 1992

FROM: Carl J. Clement -- Clement Associates

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to Carl J. Clement (A39; Std. 302; Std. 201)

TEXT:

I am in the process of inventing an automotive sun-visor which has the promise of improving upon the safety of currently used sun-visors. Within a week or so I shall have completed a mechanical protype which will serve as a means of testing electronics and optics. Enclosed is a patent disclosure which explains the device in greater detail.

I have been advised that, before proceeding further, I should research Federal and State agencies which have to do with regulations concerning automobiles, particularly automobile interiors. For example, are there regulations which would preclude the installation of an automatically-moving 3" high X 6" wide visor between the driver's eyes and the windshield?

I should appreciate your advice and a copy of any regulations with which I must comply, or which might be changed should the invention be viewed favorably by your or other government agencies.

ID: nht93-9.13

DATE: December 14, 1993

FROM: Michael S. Marczynski -- Sales Representative, Anita's Auto World

TO: Office Of The Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/3/94 From John Womack To Michael S. Marczynski (A42; Std. 108; 205; 208; 216; 302; VSA 109(A)(2)(A))

TEXT: Dear Chief Council,

This letter is in regards to a telephone conversation on 12-14-93 with a Mr. Entwhistle of your Washington office. The topic of the conversation was about obtaining a formal written notice from you concerning the legal installation of roll pans, and convertible tops on light-duty pick-up trucks. Some of our customers have expressed concern over the legal aspects of having these items installed in their vehicles. If at all possible, could you please address this issue in letter form for us. We are a professional body/paint shop located in Lansing, Michigan, and would like to perform this after-market installation as a service to our customers. I feel a written letter would carry more validity for us.

Thank-you for your time. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (517) 487-2220.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88

FROM: JACK SATKOSKI -- SPECTRA ENTERPRISES

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Jack Satkoski (Std. 201; Std. 302; VSA 108(A)(2)(a))

TEXT: I have enclosed five sketches and a photograph of a sun visor extender being developed for market at Spectra Enterprises. The product is called the ADD-VISOR and consists of a magnetic base and moveable panel that attaches by means of velcro straps to t he existing auto, truck, or RV's sun visor. The moveable panel is designed so that it can be positioned in areas to block the sun not covered by existing sun visors.

The size of the product is 11.5 in by 4.5 in., has rounded corners, and is made from soft and flexible vinyl related magnetic materials.

Can you please advise and send me copies if applicable, any federal standards this product will have to meet prior to marketing. I also require suggestions on similar contacts to make at the state level for possible standards that may apply.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Sincerely

enclosures

ID: aiam4395

Dear Mr. Lang: I am pleased to respond to your request for a written statement of th 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 restraint 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 release the buckle.; Although we understand your concern that young children not be able t 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 t 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 S571.213), which applies 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 that Standard before selling the product.; Additionally, as Mr. Kratzke explained, you are not required to ge '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. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) 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 other alleged safety-related defects.; Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to you product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 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 has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said two years ago on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:; >>>The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle forc 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).<<<; Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using th buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.; In addition, use of your product can be affected by sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Standard No. 213 specifies two elements of design with which a child restraint system might not comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 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 shield 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 S5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires that each material used in a child restraints (sic) system shall comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials* (49 CFR S571.302). If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) (sic) does not apply t 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 restraint 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 thi address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/88

FROM: CLAIRE HAVEN -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUADWEST

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-22-88 TO CLAIRE HAVEN, QUADWEST, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA; REDBOOK A33; STDS. 209, 208, 302; VSA 108(A)(2)

TEXT: As You can see by the enclosed letter, I've been corresponding with Carl Clark, Inventor Contact, at the Department of Transportation, regarding the Joyride Seatbelt Pad.

We propose to sell this pad as a comfort item to be used on the shoulder strap of a standard seatbelt. By eliminating the uncomfortable pressure and chafing of some seatbelts, we believe our product will increase the use seatbelts generally, thereby inc reasing the level of driver safety.

Mr. Clark has advised us that he see no objection to the use of Joyride Seatbelt Pad. Therefore, upon his advice, I am requesting a formal letter from you, as Chief Counsel, that our product does not take the manufacturer-installed seatbelt out of compl iance with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. A sample of the Joyride Seatbelt Pad is enclosed for your reference.

As we wish to distribute our new product shortly, we would be most grateful for you early reply.

Thank you for your help.

ID: 2879o

Robin C. Gelburd, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster
415 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017-1193

Dear Ms. Gelburd:

This is a response to your letter of January 12, 1988, asking for NHTSA's evaluation of your client's product intended for use with an add-on child restraint system to "cushion and insulate the child." The product, a sample of which was enclosed with your letter, is a fabric-covered rectangular seat-pad about 1/2 inch thick, surrounded at the top and both legs by a fabric-covered cushion. The product has a crotch-strap in the front, through which is inserted a belt that anchors on the legs of the rectangle. On the back of this product are two clips apparently to be used for anchoring the seat pad to the child restraint system. You asked generally whether this product will "contravene or compromise" Federal safety standards, particularly Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). Additionally, you asked us to "determine whether the product complies with relevant statutes and regulations within (NHTSA's) jurisdiction."

Your client's product falls within NHTSA's jurisdiction if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle equipment" as:

...any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle.

In determining whether an item is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to your client's seat-pad, we conclude that the seat-pad has no purpose other than use with a child restraint system and that it is intended to be used principally by consumers. Thus, the seat-pad would be an "accessory," and, therefore, is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. The Vehicle Safety Act gives this agency 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 Standard 213, 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 client's seat-pad. Hence, your client is not required to certify that this product complies with that standard before selling the seat-pad.

Although Standard 213 does not directly apply to your client's product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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...

There is an element of design incorporated in a child restraint system that may be affected by installing Hasbro's seat-pad. Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See 49 CFR 571.213, S7, referencing 49 CFR 571.302, S4. For your information, I enclose a copy of 571.302.)

If installing this seat-pad would denigrate the flammability resistance attributes of the child restraint system, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would "render inoperative" a design element installed in the child restraint system in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated 108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each 108 violation on each child restraint system where this design element was "rendered inoperative."

Second, your client should know that it will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if it offers this product for sale. As a manufacturer, your client will be subject to the requirements of 151-159 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. If your client or the agency determined that this seat-pad had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your client would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. repair the seat-pad so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the seat-pad with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

Your client, as the manufacturer, would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign. Except in the context of a defect proceeding, the agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects. Therefore, we are unable to say whether your client's seat-pad might contain such a defect.

However, I wish to express my concern with one aspect of this product. The cushion that surrounds the seat pad is uninterrupted, and seems to have no provision for passing the child restraint system belt around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would render inoperative a Federally required element of design that applies to child restraint systems. That kind of action would violate 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the offender to a civil penalty of $1000.00 for each violation.

Further, the seat pad has a crotch and lap belt assembly. I think it is possible that some parents may use the belt assembly on the seat-pad as a lap restraint for restraining a child's lower torso. Given that your client's seat-pad has a belt configuration similar to that which a user might expect to see in a child restraint with a crotch strap and lap belt assembly, parents may assume that the belt meets the performance requirements that apply to belts installed on child restraint systems. For example, a nonmetallic belt buckle (such as the buckle on the Hasbro sample) in a child restraint system must meet the temperature resistant specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials "Standard Practice for Determination of Weight and Shape Changes in Plastic," D756-78. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.2.) There are load requirements for both the buckle assembly and the webbing in a lap belt restraint system. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.1.) There are several other performance requirements in Standards 209 and 213 applicable to belts, buckles, and materials used on belts installed in child restraint systems.

I am sure that your client will want to minimize the chances of a parent mistakenly using the seat-pad belt assembly as a torso restraint. Hasbro may choose to alert parents not to misuse the belt on the seat-pad. One possible means of alerting parents would be to affix a "warning label" to the product.

Please understand that this explanation is not an agency "recommendation". NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When a potential motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer presents us with questions concerning a product, we use the information presented to explain how our statute and regulations may apply to such products. It is up to the manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#213 d:5/31/88

ID: nht88-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROBIN C. GELBURD -- MORRISON & FOERSTER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JANUARY 12, 1988 LETTER FROM GELBURD TO JONES IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of January 12, 1988, asking for NHTSA's evaluation of your client's product intended for use with an add-on child restraint system to "cushion and insulate the child." The product, a sample of which was enclosed with you r letter, is a fabric-covered rectangular seat-pad about 1/2 inch thick, surrounded at the top and both legs by a fabric-covered cushion. The product has a crotch-strap in the front, through which is inserted a belt that anchors on the legs of the recta ngle. On the back of this product are two clips apparently to be used for anchoring the seat pad to the child restraint system. You asked generally whether this product will "contravene or compromise" Federal safety standards, particularly Standard 213 , Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213). Additionally, you asked us to "determine whether the product complies with relevant statutes and regulations within (NHTSA's) jurisdiction."

Your client's product falls within NHTSA's jurisdiction if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in @ 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle eq uipment" as:

. . . any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor v ehicle.

In determining whether an item is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to your client's seat-pad, we conclude that the seat-pad has no purpose other than use with a child restraint system and that it is intended to be used principally by consumers. Thus, the seat-pad would be an "a ccessory," and, therefore, is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act.

The Vehicle Safety Act gives this agency 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 Standard 213, which applies to all new child restra int systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your client's seat-pad. Hence, your client is not required to certify that this product complies with that standard before selling the seat-pad.

Although Standard 213 does not directly apply to your client's product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an ap plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . .

There is an element of design incorporated in a child restraint system that may be affected by installing Hasbro's seat-pad. Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See 49 CFR @ 571.21 3, S7, referencing 49 CFR @ 571.302, S4. For your information, I enclose a copy of @ 571.302.)

If installing this seat-pad would denigrate the flammability resistance attributes of the child restraint system, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would "render inoperative" a design element installed i n the child restraint system in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated @ 108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each @ 108 violation on each ch ild restraint system where this design element was "rendered inoperative."

Second, your client should know that it will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if it offers this product for sale. As a manufacturer, your client will be subject to the requirements of @@ 151-159 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. If your client or the agency determined that this seat-pad had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your client would have to notify all product purchasers o f the defect, and either:

1. repair the seat-pad so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the seat-pad with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

Your client, as the manufacturer, would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign. Except in th e context of a defect proceeding, the agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects. Therefore, we are unable to say whether your client's seat-pad might contain such a defect.

However, I wish to express my concern with one aspect of this product. The cushion that surrounds the seat pad is uninterrupted, and seems to have no provision for passing the child restraint system belt around or through the pad and cushion. If the in stallation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would render inoperative a Federally required element of design that applies to child restraint systems. That kind of action would violate @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the offender to a civil penalty of $ 1000.00 for each violation.

Further, the seat pad has a crotch and lap belt assembly. I think it is possible that some parents may use the belt assembly on the seat-pad as a lap restraint for restraining a child's lower torso. Given that your client's seat-pad has a belt configur ation similar to that which a user might expect to see in a child restraint with a crotch strap and lap belt assembly, parents may assume that the belt meets the performance requirements that apply to belts installed on child restraint systems. For exam ple, a nonmetallic belt buckle (such as the buckle on the Hasbro sample) in a child restraint system must meet the temperature resistant specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials "Standard Practice for Determination of Weight and S hape Changes in Plastic," D756-78. (49 CFR @ 571.213, S5.4.2.) There are load requirements for both the buckle assembly and the webbing in a lap belt restraint system. (49 CFR @ 571.213, S5.4.1.) There are several other performance requirements in Stand ards 209 and 213 applicable to belts, buckles, and materials used on belts installed in child restraint systems.

I am sure that your client will want to minimize the chances of a parent mistakenly using the seat-pad belt assembly as a torso restraint. Hasbro may choose to alert parents not to misuse the belt on the seat-pad. One possible means of alerting parents would be to affix a "warning label" to the product.

Please understand that this explanation is not an agency "recommendation". NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When a potential motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer presents us with questio ns concerning a product, we use the information presented to explain how our statute and regulations may apply to such products. It is up to the manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Enclosure

ID: nht89-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/23/89

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33[2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATH LEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/20/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FRO M LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Ms DeMeter:

On January 17, 1989, I requested a status report on an invention for which I requested an evaluation. I have received no reply from you. As you see by the attached letter, I cleared this device for evaluation on September 10, 1988.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply.

Thank you.

Encl: My letter dated January 17, 1989

ID: 12196.ZTV

Mr. Walter Goodman
Project Coordinator
Recreational Electric Vehicles Int. LLC
9330 Industrial Trace
Alpharetta, GA 30201

Dear Mr. Goodman:

We have received your petition of April 8, 1996, to the Administrator requesting a temporary exemption from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your petition is incomplete, as Taylor Vinson explained when you phoned on April 29. I am enclosing a copy of the temporary exemption regulation (49 CFR part 555) so that my comments will be clearer.

First, every petition must contain arguments as to why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety. This information is required by Sec. 555.5(b)(7) and is lacking from your petition.

You have petitioned on alternative bases, which is permissible, but the requirements for each basis differ. Applications for exemptions for low-emission vehicles must contain the information specified in Sec. 555.6(b), and those for equivalent overall level of safety must follow the requirements of Sec. 555.6(d). Although you have explained in sufficient detail the exemptions you require and why you require them, the safety arguments required by subsections (b) and (d) have not been made. We suggest that you submit a revised petition that treats each basis separately. If you have any questions on the petition, you may call Taylor again at 202-366-5263.

For planning purposes, manufacturers should expect a decision three to four months after filing a petition that meets our requirements. This time is needed, in part, to prepare, publish, and evaluate comments to a Federal Register notice which is part of each temporary exemption proceeding.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:555 d:5/3/96

ID: nht93-5.25

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 15, 1993

FROM: Pat McCue -- Allied Service Systems Manufacturing

TO: Ed Jettner -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/10/94 from John Womack to Pat McCue (A42; Std. 302; Std. 208; Std.. 209; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

The intent of this letter is to advise your agency of the need for regulation on an occupant restraint system in ambulances. Hopefully, your technical staff can feed back information on how the regulations are put into effect and what criteria you use to test products or components that make up the restraint system.

The NFPA, National Fire Protection Agency, has required an occupant restraint system in ambulances for medics and attendants riding on the bench seat in the back of ambulances. Unlike other occupant restraint systems, the user must have the ability to move about to provide patient care while the vehicle is moving.

A fatal accident in Phoenix, Arizona on June 24, 1992, caused the Phoenix Fire Department to actively pursue a system to protect their personnel riding in the back of ambulances. This incident identified the need for a restraint system.

Allied Service Systems has produced a patented product which will meet the needs of the user. However, I know of no product specifications.

Enclosed are photos of our system, material specifications, and a copy of the NFPA requirement.

Please advise me of any input your agency can provide in terms of how regulations are established and how products are tested to meet standards.