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: 9439

Sgt. Dennis Platt, Supervisor
Vehicle Safety & Equipment Section
State of Utah
Department of Public Safety
Utah Highway Patrol
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119-5994

Dear Sgt. Platt:

This responds to your letter of December 7, 1993, requesting confirmation of a statement made by a NHTSA officer that there is no federal regulation that requires replacement of a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the two letters discussed above. 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

Enclosures ref:208 d:12/30/93

ID: 9443

Mr. Steve J. Brooks
Program Manager
IAD West Coast, Inc.
5761 McFadden Avenue
Huntington, Beach CA 92649

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your letter asking about the operation and classification of a commercial vehicle you wish to manufacture. The vehicle will carry fewer than 10 passengers and its GVWR will be 11,500 pounds. You were particularly interested in the type of operator's license that would be required of the driver.

Driver licensing requirements for vehicle operators are determined by state law. Since the vehicle's GVWR will be less than 26,000 lbs, and the vehicle will presumably be designed to carry fewer than 15 passengers, the driver will not be required, under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Commercial Driver Licensing (CDL) regulations, 49 CFR part 383, to qualify for a commercial driver license. However, some states require that drivers obtain a commercial driver license to drive vehicles that have lower GVWRs. The driver licensing requirements of the state in which the vehicle is registered, will apply. For more information about the CDL requirements, you can contact the FHWA Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0834.

Vehicle classification is relevant for the regulations and standards of our agency. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each FMVSS for motor vehicles applies to one or more particular types of vehicles, e.g., a standard might apply to passenger cars, buses, trucks, and/or trailers.

To determine which FMVSSs apply to their vehicles, manufacturers classify their vehicles using the definitions in 49 CFR part 571.3 of NHTSA's regulations. Under part 571.3 (copy enclosed), your vehicle, which you said is built in a bus/truck chassis, appears to be a "truck" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle." Under part 567, a manufacturer must state the vehicle classification on the vehicle's certification label and certify that its motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA may take issue with a manufacturer's vehicle classification in an enforcement proceeding if the agency does not agree with the manufacturer's classification.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:567#571 d:4/7/94

ID: 9448

Mr. J. Hulshof
Nedap N.V.
P.O. Box 6
7140 AA Groenlo
The Netherlands

Dear Mr. Hulshof:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Patrick Boyd requesting a written interpretation concerning whether your sunroof would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118, "Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. We do not approve, endorse, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. In response to manufacturers' requests for interpretations of the FMVSS's, we try, to the extent possible, to provide information that will help them make their determinations of compliance. However, these responses are based on information provided by the manufacturer, and are subject to the findings of actual compliance testing by the agency. Should the agency, in the future, examine your product and detect an apparent noncompliance or defect, those results will control.

You explain in your letter that your power-operated sunroof (which is a power operated "roof panel system" under Standard 118) can be closed only in four circumstances. In three of these, the ignition key must be activated. In the fourth, the sunroof can be closed when there is "Continuous operation of Central close mechanism, not capable [sic] closing the roof panel from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle."

Standard 118 requires sunroofs other than those that have an automatic reversing feature to close only in certain circumstances. One of those (S4(a)) is when the key controlling the vehicle's engine is in the activated (i.e. "on", "start" or "accessory") position. The three circumstances you described where the ignition key must be activated to operate the sunroof appear to satisfy S4(a).

With regard to the fourth circumstance, Standard 118 also permits sunroofs to close "Upon continuous activation of a remote actuation device, provided that the...device shall be incapable of closing the [sunroof] from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle" (S4(d)). The circumstance you described appears to satisfy S4(d). Your sunroof will close only upon continuous operation of a "Central close mechanism," and the mechanism is incapable of closing the sunroof from a distance of more than 6 meters from the vehicle.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:118 d:4/12/94

ID: 9449

Mr. Robert Matulich
8801 Ravenna Avenue, NE
Seattle, WA 98115

Dear Mr. Matulich:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to your product. According to promotional literature that accompanied your letter, your "Clear Vu Mirror" is an attachment to exterior mirrors that clears raindrops, dust, and mist, thus making a mirror "virtually self-cleaning." I am pleased to explain the applicability of our regulations to your product.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs.

NHTSA currently has no FMVSSs that directly apply to the product you plan to manufacture. NHTSA issued an FMVSS for vehicle rearview mirrors (FMVSS No. 111), but the standard applies to new vehicles, and not to aftermarket mirror products. If your product were manufactured and sold as part of a new vehicle, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 111. The standard sets field of view requirements for new motor vehicles, and your product would have to be mounted on a new vehicle such that it does not block the field of view required by FMVSS No. 111. However, since Standard No. 111 applies only to new vehicles, it does not apply to your product.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect you and your product. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ...." It is conceivable that your product, when placed on a vehicle's exterior mirror, could "render inoperative" the vehicle's ability to comply with FMVSS No. 111. Persons in the aforementioned categories cannot install your product if it blocks the field-of-view required by FMVSS No. 111, or otherwise caused the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 111.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your product were placed on an exterior mirror by the vehicle owner, the render inoperative provision would not apply. Nevertheless, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref 111 d:4/7/94

ID: 9450

Mr. J. Frank Haasbeek
President
International Transquip Industries, Inc.
6131 Brookhill Drive
Houston, TX 77087-1131

Dear Mr. Haasbeek:

Thank you for your recent letter to Vice President Gore, concerning a rulemaking related to your product. You believe that this agency has proceeded too slowly in the rulemaking. The Vice President has forwarded your letter to me for a reply.

I understand your concern over this issue, but please be assured that this agency is working diligently to reach a final decision concerning this rulemaking. As you know, the notice of proposed rulemaking was published in March of this year, and the agency received a number of conflicting comments. We must carefully assess all of the arguments raised by the commenters before reaching a final decision. We are nearing the completion of that process and expect to announce a final decision in January 1994.

I hope this information is helpful and appreciate your patience in this matter.

Sincerely,

Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator

ref:121 d:12/23/93

ID: 9457

Mr. Matt Gerrity
7624 Rohrer Dr.
Downers Grove, IL 60516

Dear Mr. Gerrity:

This responds to your letter, forward to us on December 9, 1993, by Representative Harris W. Fawell, regarding the removal of the air bag in your 1990 Coupe de Ville. Because you have a physical handicap, you had your vehicle modified by the installation of a hand control system over the steering wheel. You are concerned that, in the event the air bag should activate, the steering device would probably pop off causing serious injury. You also stated that dealers and other mechanics are reluctant to disconnect the air bag because of Federal law.

As discussed below, in certain limited situations, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has exercised its discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowance when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. While the disconnection of an air bag by a dealer or motor vehicle repair business would ordinarily be a violation of Federal law, this is to advise you that this agency would not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer or repair business that disconnected the driver side air bag in your vehicle. If you show this letter to your dealer or mechanic, you should be able to get this work performed.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

Removal or disconnection of an air bag by any of the named commercial entities would violate the "render inoperative" prohibition, since air bags are installed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. However, in certain situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, NHTSA has been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need, and indicated that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. We will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. For example, S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After the air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. The readiness indicator should not be modified, so other drivers who may expect an air bag will be aware that the air bag is not functional.

I would also like to caution your dealer or mechanic to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag disconnection as this procedure could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "render inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, that current and subsequent owners and users of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you would have the air bag reconnected before selling the car. I urge you to have this work performed so that future users of the vehicle will have the protection the air bag affords.

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

cc: Representative Harris W. Fawell United States House of Representatives 2342 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-1313

ref:208 d:12/30/93

ID: 9459ez

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter asking for our concurrence that '103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts a "California flammability standard" as that standard applies to child restraint systems. The standard you enclosed is California Business and Professions Code, Division 8, Chapter 3, '19006 and '19161. I apologize for the delay in this response.

Because it was not readily apparent from your letter that the California flammability standard applies to child restraint systems, Ms. Fujita of my staff contacted California state officials for more information about the standard. We were informed by Mr. Art Anderson, Chief of the California Highway Safety Office, that California does not have a flammability standard for child restraint systems. Mr. Anderson was aware that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302 applies to child restraints by way of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

As you point out, Federal preemption issues would arise if California had a flammability standard for child restraint systems that covered the same aspect of performance as FMVSSs 213 and 302. However, in view of Mr. Anderson's statement that California has no flammability standard for child restraint systems, we need not address those issues today.

We hope this information is helpful. Mr. Anderson of the California Highway Safety Office (telephone (916) 445-0527) said he will be happy to answer any questions you might have about California's requirements. If you any further questions about '103(d), please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Art Anderson ref:213#302 d:6/9/94

ID: 9460a

Mr. Winston Sharples
President
Cantab Motors, Ltd.
RR1, Box 537
Round Hill, VA 22141

Dear Mr. Sharples

We have received the application of Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The application meets our procedural requirements, and a Federal Register notice requesting comment is being prepared for publication.

We shall inform you when the Administrator has reached a decision on this matter, which we estimate will be between the middle of September and the middle of October.

Cantab's previous exemption from Standard No. 208 expired on May 1, 1993. Accordingly, Cantab may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) if it has manufactured for sale and sold vehicles manufactured after that date. Its application states that "[i]n the preceding twelve months, Cantab has manufactured nine Morgans for sale in the United States." Within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, please furnish the total number of Morgans that Cantab has manufactured for sale after May 1, 1993, and sold in the United States, between May 1, 1993, and the date of your response. Cantab should be aware that any sales of nonconforming vehicles before a grant of its application may be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). If Cantab determines that it has manufactured and sold noncomplying vehicles, then it is required to notify and remedy the noncompliance according to statute. Alternatively, it may file an application for a determination pursuant to 49 CFR Part 556 that its noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. If this application is granted, Cantab would be excused from the statutory requirement to notify and remedy.

As a final matter, the application indicates Cantab's belief that it would be exempt from the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 214 for 1995 since only .75 car would be subject to the requirement. Although .75 car is less than one

vehicle, the agency rounds up from .50 vehicle in its calculations of compliance. For the same reason, the 1.87 vehicle estimated for 1996 compliance would be two vehicles, not one. The application is sufficient to cover both years.

If you have any questions on this matter, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202- 366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref: 214

ID: 9460b

Mr. Winston Sharples
President
Cantab Motors, Ltd.
RR1, Box 537
Round Hill, VA 22141

Dear Mr. Sharples

I enclose a copy of an order of the Administrator granting the petition by Cantab Motors for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 214. The exemption from Standard No. 208 will expire on September 1, 1997, and that for Standard No. 214 on September 1, 1998.

In accordance with agency regulations on the subject, within 30 days after your receipt of this letter please provide the Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, with a copy of the certification label reflecting the exemption that will be used on Cantab's vehicles (49 CFR 555.9(a)).

We have received your letter of August 17, 1995, which admits that Cantab manufactured and sold nine vehicles manufactured after the expiration of its previous exemption that did not conform with Standard No. 208, and which enclosed a petition for a determination of inconsequentiality on this matter. This is currently under review.

If you have any questions, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555 d:9/25/95