ID: GF009138

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
Associate Director, Government. Relations
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway
PO Box 1100
Brea, CA 92822-1100




Dear Mr. Bush:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, "Occupant protection in interior impact". Specifically, you ask whether side curtain air bag tethers are considered a part of the "stowed system" that is subject to reduced impact speed upper interior component performance requirements. As discussed below, the answer is yes.

By way of background, S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201 sets minimum performance requirements for upper interior components by establishing target areas that must be properly padded or otherwise have energy absorbing properties to minimize head injury in the event of a crash. Compliance with the upper interior component requirements is determined, in part, by measuring the forces experienced by the Free Motion Headform test device (FMH) when it is propelled into certain targets on the vehicle interior at the speed of 24km/h (15 mph), or in some cases, at the reduced impact speed of 19 km/h (12 mph).

Air bag systems are frequently stowed (in their un-deployed state) in the same interior areas where certain test targets are located. Targets located on or near air bag systems are subject to reduced impact speed test requirements because the agency is concerned that requiring areas over the stowed portion of an air bag (or its attachment and other hardware) to meet more stringent 15 mph impact requirement could hinder their development and use. Thus, in order to accommodate the current systems and the development of new or additional air bag systems, we determined that use of a 12 mph impact speed, in conjunction with a full-vehicle dynamic side impact pole test, would best help realize the safety benefits of air bags. In relevant part, S6.2(b)(2) of FMVSS No. 201 reads as follows:

"Targets that are over any point inside the area measured along the contour of the vehicle interior within 50 mm (2.0 inch) of the periphery of the stowed system projected perpendicularly onto the vehicle interior surface, including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers, when the dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system is not deployed, shall be impacted by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 at any speed up to and including 19 km/h (12 mph) with the system undeployed" [emphasis added]

You ask if stowed side curtain tethers are considered part of the "stowed system" under S6.2(b)(2).As used in S6.2(b)(2), "stowed system" refers to a stowed dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system. The language ofS6.2(b)(2) specifies that in determining the area subject to reduced impact speed test requirements, consideration is taken of the stowed system, including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers. Side curtain air bag tethers are a part of the stowed dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system, and they are not "covers". Therefore, they are considered in determining whether the target issubject to reduced impact speed test requirements.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.4/17/06

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: 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: nht76-4.50

DATE: 12/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your October 29, 1976, request for confirmation that a recent NHTSA interpretation regarding the buckle crush requirements of Standard No. 209 (as stated in a letter to Volvo dated August 31, 1976) is applicable to BMW seat belt buckles.

Our letter to Volvo stated that "the existing S4.3(d)(3) buckle requirements are not applicable to buckles that are located between bucket seats and attached to the console or to the end of a rigid cable or bar." This interpretation constitutes an explanation of S4.3(d)(3) as its provisions apply to all seat belt buckles regulated by the standard. The interpretation is not applicable only to Volvo belt buckles or to buckles produced by any other individual manufacturer. It is the responsibility of each manufacturer to determine, in the first instance, whether or not his products fall within any standard's provisions, including provisions that are explained by means of an interpretation.

I am enclosing a copy of our August 31, 1976, letter to Volvo for your information. As requested, we have withdrawn your petition for rulemaking.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

November 16, 1976

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire -- Acting Chief Counsel, U. S. Department of Transportation NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Thank you for your letter N40-30 of October 29, 1976, informing us that our submission of September 28, 1976, concerning the Buckle Crush Requirements of S4.3(d)(3) is currently being reviewed by your Program Division.

Meanwhile, we have searched the docket and found that an interpretation in respect to the application of the buckle crush requirements has already been given by your office to Volvo of America Corporation with letter of August 30, 1976, according to which you conclude "that the existing S4.3(d)(3) buckle requirements are not applicable to buckles that are located between bucket seats and attached to the console or to the end of a rigid cable or bar".

As we have indicated in our submission, BMW's seat belt buckle assembly is also of rigid design and is located between the front bucket seats. We, therefore, assume that our buckle, as described in our letter of September 8, 1976, would be exempted from the requirements of S4.3(d)(3). Inasmuch as you have provided a favorable interpretation on the question of buckle crush requirements to Volvo, we assume that this interpretation is also applicable to BMW's seat belt buckle. We would appreciate receiving confirmation from you that the interpretation given to Volvo is also applicable to BMW's seat belt and buckle configuration. If you agree, you may consider our September 28, 1976 submission withdrawn.

Very truly yours, Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- Manager - Safety Engineering, BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

cc: BMW-AG

ID: nht79-3.26

DATE: 07/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 4, 1979, letter asking several questions relating to manufacturer's responsibilities to maintain first purchaser lists and to certify vehicles in compliance with the safety standards.

Your first question asks whether a manufacturer is permitted to replace its first purchaser lists with lists of most recent purchasers when that information comes to a manufacturer's attention. You point out that Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification, requires manufacturers to notify vehicle owners or the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires in section 158 (15 U.S.C. 1418) that manufacturers maintain lists of first purchasers of their vehicles. The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate the issuance of defect and noncompliance notifications to vehicle owners. Lists of the most recent purchasers of a manufacturer's vehicles would be even more efficient for recall purposes than would first purchaser lists. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that maintaining lists of most recent purchasers of a manufacturer's vehicles satisfies the statutory requirement to maintain first purchaser lists.

In your second question, you ask about the labeling requirements of individuals that modify incomplete vehicles. In the fact situation you present, International Harvester (IH) certifies a chassis-cab in accordance with the agency's certification regulations and transfers it to an IH dealer who performs some minor modifications on the chassis-cab prior to its delivery to a final-stage manufacturer. The IH dealership is either owned or controlled by IH. You ask what type of certification label the IH dealer should attach.

You suggest that an alterer's label might be the appropriate label to use. The other possibilities that you recommend are the use of an intermediate manufacturer's label or merely removing and amending the chassis-cab label attached to the incomplete vehicle. You suggest that the latter is more appropriate since the dealer modifying the chassis-cab is owned by IH, and therefore, it constitutes the same manufacturer that constructed the chassis-cab. You state further that to require an intermediate manufacturer's label appears to be inappropriate since that label would show that the chassis-cab and the intermediate manufacturer are both the same corporation.

Alterer's labels are only used by individuals or businesses modifying vehicles that have been certified by a final-stage manufacturer. Therefore, an alterer's label would be inappropriate in this instance since the chassis-cab has not been certified as a completed vehicle.

The agency concludes that in the case where a manufacturer's wholly owned dealership is modifying a certified chassis, the label on the chassis-cab should be removed and a correct label should be added. In these instances, the chassis-cab is still within the control of the original manufacturer. Therefore, it is appropriate for that manufacturer to assume the responsibility for the modifications made by its dealers. The dealer is not an independent business of the type that must attach an intermediate manufacturer's label. Accordingly, your dealer may amend the incomplete vehicle label as a result of its modifications.

ID: 86-4.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/86

FROM: DON PANZER -- SPRAY RIDER INC

TO: NHTSA, Legal Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/86, TO DON PANZER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29, STANDARD 111

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Enclosed please find a photograph, illustration and description of a device designed to serve as a supplementary hazard warning signal for automobiles.

Since this device is a light and is designed to be incorporated as part of the external rear-view mirror assembly I would appreciate an interpretation of it's suitability for the North American automotive market as per standards No. 108 (Lights) and No. 111 (Mirrors).

Should you require any information not already contained in this letter I would be please to hear from you.

Yours sincerely,

SUPPLEMENTARY HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FOR AUTOMOBILES

This patented device serves as a supplementary hazard warning light for automobiles. It is included within the body or housing of the side rear-view mirror and may face in the same direction as the reflective element of the mirror. Alternatively, it may be exposed to the front, back and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions. It is designed to flash synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lights. Like current hazard warning lights this device can also perform as a directional signal

Present hazard warning lights are usually included in the front and rear light clusters. In bad weather or because of an accumulation of dirt,ice,etc. on the lenses, hazard warning lights can become less effective. Furthermore, if emergency work is being carried out on a vehicle, for example changing a tire, one or more of the existing warning lights can be invisible for relatively long periods of time thus reducing the warning to approaching traffic.

Like the high-mount brake light this device is located higher up on the vehicle to provide better visibility to oncoming traffic. Furthermore, because it is part of the side mirror configuration it is mounted well outside the range of the front and rear light clusters thus making it potentially more conspicious than current hazard warning lights.

FOR MORE INFORMTION CONTACT: Don Panzer SPRAY-RIDER, INC.

1

HAZARD WARNING APPARATUS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES

This invention relates to electrical, hazard warning apparatus for motor vehicles, of the kind in which, when required, lamps are made to flash continuously on the outside of the vehicle to warn other road users of the presence of the vehicle in a stationary and possibly dangerous position. Such hazard warning apparatus is hereinafter referred to as "of the kind described".

Hazard warning lamps at present fitted to motor vehicles are usually included in the front and rear lamp clusters. In bad weather conditions or because of an accumulation of dirt on the lenses, hazard warning lamps in both these positions can become less effective. The hazard warning lamps at the rear of the vehicle are more likely to be ineffective than those at the front for these reasons.

When work is being carried out, for example the changing of a wheel, one or both hazard warning lamps, at the front or rear, can be invisible for relatively long periods and so give a misleading signal or fail to give any warning at all to approaching vehicles.

An indication that the usual position of hazard warning lamps is not really satisfactory is that on emergency vehicles special hazard warning lamps are usually fitted high up, for example on the roof of the vehicle.

It is an object of the present invention to improve the effectiveness of hazard warning apparatus.

The present invention consists in hazard warning apparatus of the kind described which comprises, in addition to hazard warning lamps at the front and rear of the vehicle, a repeater hazard warning lamp in or on an exterior, rear-view mirror.

To give a driver the required field of view exterior, rear-view mirrors must project well to the side of the vehicle, and be mounted at or above the waist, or window-sill level of the vehicle body. A repeater hazard warning lamp provided, according to the invention, in or on the rear-view mirror is therefore in a conspicuous position and at a higher level than the usual front and rear lamp clusters. The invention is applicable to exterior, rear-view mirrors adapted to be mounted in any of the usual positions on a vehicle, including on the door, wing, or windscreen pillar of the vehicle or on a laterally-projecting bracket clamped to the gutter rail of the vehicle body or to a luggage rack on the roof.

Most motor vehicles now have an exterior rear-view mirror on the near side in addition to one on the off-side of the vehicle. Each exterior rear-view mirror is preferably provided with a repeater hazard warning lamp.

It is preferred, and may be required by law, that the repeated hazard warning lamp flashes synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps.

Hazard warning lamps often serve also as direction indicators, the lamps on only one side at a time of the vehicle then being arranged to flash. In such apparatus the repeater hazard warning lamp may then be

3 arranged to be operated with the front and rear hazard warning lamps on the same side of the vehicle.

The repeater hazard warning lamp may be included within a body of the rear-view mirror and may face in the same direction as the reflective element of the mirror. Alternatively it may be exposed to the front, back and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions.

Within the same inventive concept the present invention comprises a motor vehicle exterior, rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp adapted to be connected to and operated by hazard warning apparatus of the motor vehicle.

The present invention will now be described by way of example within reference to the accompanying drawing which is a perspective view of a rear-view mirror for mounting on the door of a motor vehicle and as seen when the observer is looking forwards from the rear of the vehicle.

The door mirror shown in the drawing comprises a mirror head 1 and a mounting bracket 2 by which the mirror is mounted on the vehicle door. The mirror head has a cowl-shaped body 3, which may be made from metal or plastics, foamed polyurethane for example. The body 3 houses a reflective element 4 and a repeater hazard warning Lamp 5 comprising a cavity 6 within the body 3 opening at a window 7 facing in the same direction as the reflective element 4, an electric lamp bulb 8 in the cavity 6 and a 'hazard' orange coloured plastics lens 9 closing the window but shown in the drawing partly broken away to show the lamp bulb 8. The lens 9 is secured by screws 10 engaging screw

4, threaded holes 11 in lugs 12 on the body 3. The bulb 8 is a festoon bulb mounted in a conventional festoon bulb holder 13 in front of a reflector 14. Though only one lamp bulb 8 is shown, there could be more than one bulb arranged, for example end to end to provide better light distribution and greater safety if one should fail. Other types of electric lamp bulbs may be provided.

Though the window is shown as arranged along the upper edge of the reflective element 4, and this is probably the best position, it could be along either of the other two outer edges of the reflective element 4, that is the lower edge 15 or the outer side edge 16.

A further window, facing forwards could be provided in the mirror head body so that the light of the repeater hazard warning lamp would also be visible from the front of the vehicle. Alternatively the repeater hazard warning lamp 5 could be mounted on a flat top of the body with an inverted, hollow, transparent or translucent cover over the lamp bulb so that the light would be visible in all directions.

The repeater hazard warning lamp 4 is electrically connected by a cable (not shown) which passes through the interior of the body 3 and the mounting bracket 2, the vehicle door and door pillar (not shown) to the wiring of the conventional hazard warning apparatus of the vehicle.

This hazard warning lamp apparatus according to the invention is well able to provide additional protection in hazard situations. The mirror in which the repeater hazard warning lamp is included can perform the normal functions to an extorior, rear-view

5 mirror. As the repeater hazard warning lamp is in a higher position than the conventional front and rear lamp clusters it is less exposed to soiling by road dirt. During forward motion of the vehicle the cowling shape of the body 3 protects the lens 9 from road spray.

6 CLAIMS

1. Hazard warning apparatus of the kind described which comprises, in addition to hazard warning lamps at the front and rear of the vehicle, a repeater hazard warning lamp in or on an exterior, rear-view mirror.

2. Hazard warning apparatus according to claim 1 wherein there is an exterior, rear-view mirror on each side of the vehicle and each mirror is provided with a repeater hazard warning lamp.

3. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in claim 1 or claim 2 wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp is included within a body of the exterior rear-view mirror.

4. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in any proceding claim wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp faces in the same direction as the reflective element of the rear-view mirror.

5. Hazard warning apparatus as claimed in any preceding claim wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp flashes synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps.

6. Hazard warning apparatus according to any preceding claim which is adapted to serve also as a direction indicator wherein the or each repeater hazard warning lamp is operable only with the front and rear hazard warning lamps on the same side of the vehicle.

7. A motor vehicle exterior, rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp adapted to be

7 connected to and operated by hazard warning apparatus of the motor vehicle.

8. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 7 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp is included within a body housing the exterior rear-view mirror.

9. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 7 or claim 8 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp faces in the same direction as the reflective element of the rear-view mirror.

10. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror as claimed in claim 9 wherein the repeater hazard warning lamp has a window adjacent an outer edge of the reflective element.

11. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror which is a door mirror.

12. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror which is a wing mirror.

13. A motor vehicle, exterior rear-view mirror including a repeater hazard warning lamp, substantially as described herein with reference to, and as illustrated by the accompanying drawing.

14. Hazard warning apparatus for a motor vehicle substantially as herein described.

ID: nht90-4.32

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 3, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase --General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Shizuoka Works, Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-22-90 from M. Iwase to E.Z. Jones (OCC 5135); Also attached to diagram entitled Re-Calibration Procedures in The Shops (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1990, to Erika Z. Jones, formerly the Chief Counsel, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 108.

You state that section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) of Standard No. 108 requires that the horizontal indicator of a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees, and you would like us to confirm our in terpretation of the method and procedures of recalibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage. You say that NHTSA "interprets as follows: If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop m anual, re-calibration could be addressed." (55 FR pages 4425 and 4426, February 8, 1990). You stated that Koito did not believe that this method is practicable.

We believe that you have misunderstood the Federal Register notice. The notice was the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv). Subsection (iv) states that the horizontal aim indicator of a VHAD "shall be capabl e of recalibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees . . . to accommodate any adjustment necessary for recalibrating the indicator after vehicle repair from accident damage." Ford Motor Company had commented that this requirement was unduly restrictive. It asked NHTSA to allow the option of a VHAD with only a vertical aim indicator if the headlamps as installed met a suggested horizontal aim specification of 0.0 +0.8/-0.4 degree.

NHTSA, believing in the importance of horizontal aim capablility, found that a principal area of concern was that circumstances could occur during the life of the vehicle that could adversely affect maintenance of correct horizontal aim, and that without horizontal aim capability, it was unclear that the accuracy of horizontal aim could be assured after repair of accident damage. It was at that point that NHTSA observed:

"Manufacturers could address this concern by providing dimensional data for precise structural alignment of the vehicle in shop manuals and appropriate instructions for performing the necessary and potentially extensive parts replacement and vehicle reco nstruction requisite for correct horizontal aim." However, NHTSA went on to say that this concern was already met by subsection (iv) which requires the horizontal aim indicator to be capable of recalibration after crash damage or vehicle repair. NHTSA denied

Ford's petition. Thus, it did not propose or adopt a requirement, as Ford wanted, that a manufacturer could provide instructions in place of a VHAD with a horizontal aim indicator. The existing requirement of subsection (iv) remained unchanged. Thus, it is the manufacturer's decision on how to provide for recalibration after crash damage and vehicle repair. Therefore, as long as a VHAD complies with subsection (iv), a manufacturer may provide whatever re-calibration instructions it deems appropriate.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: 20629.drn

Mr. Joseph P. Brennan
Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Sate-Lite Manufacturing Co.
6230 Gross Point Road
Niles, IL 60714

Dear Mr. Brennan:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your "new 12 oz. Automotive Emergency Warning Triangle" must meet Standard No. 125, Warning devices. You stated that the triangle is designed to be attached to a vehicle's window and can be deployed without leaving the automobile. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you will market the product for use with motor vehicles less than 10,000 pounds (lb) gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). As explained below, because your warning triangle is designed to be carried in motor vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less, Standard No. 125 does not apply to this product. However, since your product is "motor vehicle equipment," your company, Sate-Lite, as the manufacturer, is subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) laws.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Effective October 31, 1994, NHTSA amended Standard No. l25 so that the standard applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb. (See 59 FR 49586; September 29, 1994, copy enclosed.) If sold for use with buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb, your company's warning triangles must meet Standard No. 125's detailed specifications for a warning device. However, if the warning triangle is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb or less, Standard No. 125 would not apply.

Please note, however, that even if not covered by Standard No. 125, your warning triangle, as an item of "motor vehicle equipment," is subject to various provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, "Motor Vehicle Safety." Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA should determine 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. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your devices are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

You describe your product as meeting Standard No. 125's requirements for "retroreflectivity and fluorescence." In subsequent marketing efforts, please do not mention your product in conjunction with Standard No. 125. Although we understand that Sate-Lite is only citing the product's retroreflectivity and fluorescence features, we are concerned that some customers may interpret the statement to mean that the product meets all Standard No. 125 requirements. Customers who may believe your product meets Standard No. 125 may decide to use it in conjunction with vehicles 10,000 lb GVWR or greater, a use for which your product is not intended.

Finally, some states may regulate warning devices that vehicles 10,000 lb GVWR or less may or must use when the vehicle is stopped. Each state in which you sell your product can provide information whether there are any requirements in that state for warning devices to be used with vehicles that are 10,000 lb GVWR or less.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:125#VSA
d.10/22/99

ID: aiam4203

Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of several o our standards. First, I would like to apologize for the delay in this response to your letter. I have set forth the responses in the order you asked the questions in your letter.; 1. Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*. Paragraph S5.2.1 of this standard provides that the parking brak system on a passenger car and some school buses shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary *(to the limit of traction on the braked wheels) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade. You stated that your understanding of this provision was as follows. During the tests to determine compliance with this provision, the axles of the subject vehicle must be locked by the parking brake. Your understanding is that the vehicle is permitted to slide down the 30 percent grade, and would be considered as complying with this provision of Standard No. 105 no matter how it slides as long as the vehicle's axles do not turn. This understanding is correct.; The parenthetical note in section S5.2.1 was included in the standar to address the situation where a particular 30 percent grade might have a low traction coefficient. In this situation, a vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system had held the vehicle axles locked for the required amount of time. NHTSA did not intend vehicle sliding because of a loss of traction by the tires to be considered a failure of the parking brake system. To make this item clear, section S5.2.1 specifies that the parking brake system must hold the vehicle stationary only 'to the limit of traction on the braked wheels.' This language allows the standard not to specify the traction coefficient for the 30 percent grade. Since no particular traction coefficient is specified, compliance testing may be conducted on *any* 30 percent grade that satisfies the requirement of S6.9. That section requires that the parking brake test surface be clean, dry, smooth Portland cement concrete.; 2. Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims.* Paragraph S4.3 of this standard specifies that a placard containin certain safety performance indication shall be permanently affixed to 'the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location.' You asked if the door latch post, the inner surface of the glove compartment box, and the inward-facing surface of the driver's side door would be considered 'equally accessible locations.' Each of these locations could be equally accessible locations.; In several past interpretations, we have explained that locations fo the placard would be considered equally accessible if two conditions were met. These were:; >>>1. The alternative location must result in the placard bein positioned so that the vehicle operator can readily refer to it, and; 2. The alternative location must keep the placard relatively free fro exposure to substances that could destroy the placard or render it illegible.<<<; If you position the placard on any of your three alternative location so that the vehicle operator can readily refer to it and where the placard would be protected from substances that could destroy it, we would consider each of those alternative locations as 'equally accessible locations' for the purposes of Standard No. 110.; 3. Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302 sets forth a listing of th components of vehicle occupant compartments that must be certified as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. You listed nine components not specifically listed in paragraph S4.1 and asked whether those components were required to be certified as meeting the flammability resistance requirements. The answer to your question depend on whether the components are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.; paragraph S4.1. represents a complete listing of all components in ne vehicles that must comply with the flammability resistance requirements. Any component not identified in paragraph S4.1 is not subject to the flammability resistance requirements. The only item on that listing that might be applicable to the nine components about which you asked is 'any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' Thus, you must determine which of the nine components you asked about are so designed. We would assume that knee bolsters are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. These and any other of the nine components so designed must be certified as complying with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. Any of the nine components not designed to absorb energy are to required to comply with the flammability requirements.; 4. Part 575.101, *Consumer Information Regulations, Vehicle Stoppin Distance.*; You noted that S575.101 requires vehicle manufacturers to disseminat information about the minimum stopping distance for groups of passenger cars. Section 575.101(c) requires that each passenger car in the group to which the stopping distance information applies shall be capable of performing at least as well as the information indicates, *under the test conditions and procedures specified in S6 an S7 of Standard No. 105* (emphases added). You noted that those sections of Standard No. 105 specify both pre-burnish and post-burnish tests, and that the braking performance varies considerable for the two tests. You asked whether the consumer information on stopping distance must reflect the pre-burnish stopping distance. It need not reflect pre-burnish stopping distance.; As you noted, S575.101(c) specifies that the stopping distanc information should be measured under the test conditions and procedures specified in sections S6 and S7 of Standard No. 105. This specification was added in an amendment published on January 6, 1976 (41 FR 1066). Before that amendment, S575.101 had specified separate test conditions and procedures for the stopping distance information. Those conditions specified that the vehicle's brakes were to be burnished and then the stopping distance was to be measured. In place of those conditions, S575.101(c) now specifies that the stopping distance information should express the *minimum* stopping distances that can be met or exceeded by each vehicle in the group to which the information applies, using the test conditions and procedures of Standard No. 105. Since stopping distances decrease after burnish, the post- burnish results represent the *minimum* stopping distances that can be met or exceeded by the vehicles. Therefore, the pre-burnish stopping distances need not be reflected in the stopping distance information manufacturers make available to consumers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4205

Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of several o our standards. First, I would like to apologize for the delay in this response to your letter. I have set forth the responses in the order you asked the questions in your letter.; 1. Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*. Paragraph S5.2.1 of this standard provides that the parking brak system on a passenger car and some school buses shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (*to the limit of traction on the braked wheels*) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade. You stated that your understanding of this provision was as follows. During the tests to determine compliance with this provision, the axles of the subject vehicle must be locked by the parking brake. Your understanding is that the vehicle is permitted to slide down the 30 percent grade, and would be considered as complying with this provision of Standard No. 105 no matter how it slides as long as the vehicle's axles do not turn. This understanding is correct.; The parenthetical note in section S5.2.1 was included in the standar to address the situation where a particular 30 percent grade might have a low traction coefficient. In this situation, a vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system had held the vehicle axles locked for the required amount of time. NHTSA did not intend vehicle sliding because of a loss of traction by the tires to be considered a failure of the parking brake system. To make this intent clear, section S5.2.1 specifies that the parking brake system must hold the vehicle stationary only 'to the limit of traction on the braked wheels.' This language allows the standard not to specify the traction coefficient for the 30 percent grade. Since no particular traction coefficient is specified, compliance testing may be conducted on *any* 30 percent grade that satisfies the requirement of S6.9. That section requires that the parking brake test surface be clean, dry, smooth Portland cement concrete.; 2. Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims*. Paragraph S4.3 of this standard specifies that a placard containin certain safety performance indication shall be permanently affixed to 'the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location.' You asked if the door latch post, the inner surface of the glove compartment box, and the inward-facing surface of the driver's side door would be considered 'equally accessible locations.' Each of these locations could be equally accessible locations.; In several past interpretations, we have explained that locations fo the placard would be considered equally accessible if two conditions were met. These were:; >>>1. The alternative location must result in the placard bein positioned so that the vehicle operator can readily refer to it, and; 2. The alternative location must keep the placard relatively free fro exposure to substances that could destroy the placard or render it illegible.<<<; If you position the placard on any of your three alternative location so that the vehicle operator can easily refer to it and where the placard would be protected from substances that could destroy it, we would consider each of those alternative locations as 'equally accessible locations' for the purposes of Standard No. 110.; 3. Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302 sets forth a listing of th components of vehicle occupant compartments that must be certified as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. You listed nine components not specifically listed in paragraph S4.1 and asked whether those components were required to be certified as meeting the flammability resistance requirements. The answer to your question depends on whether the components are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.; Paragraph S4.1 represents a complete listing of all components in ne vehicles that must comply with the flammability resistance requirements. Any component not identified in paragraph S4.1 is not subject to the flammability resistance requirements. The only item on that listing that might be applicable to the nine components about which you asked is 'any other interior materials, including padding and crash- deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' Thus, you must determine which of the nine components you asked about are so designed. We would assume that knee bolsters are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. These and any other of the nine components so designed must be certified as complying with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. Any of the nine components not designed to absorb energy are not required to comply with the flammability requirements.; 4. Part 575.101. *Consumer Information Regulations, Vehicle Stoppin Distance*.; You noted that S575.101 requires vehicle manufacturers to disseminat information about the minimum stopping distance for groups of passenger cars. Section 575.101(c) requires that each passenger car in the group to which the stopping distance information applies shall be capable of performing at least as well as the information indicates, *under the test conditions and procedures specified in S6 and S7 of Standard No. 105. This specification was added in an amendment published on January 6, 1976 (41 FR 1066). Before that amendment, S575.101 had specified separate test conditions and procedures for the stopping distance information. Those conditions specified that the vehicle's brakes were to be burnished and then the stopping distance was to be measured. In place of those conditions, S575.101(c) now specifies that the stopping distance information should express the *minimum* stopping distances that can be met or exceeded by each vehicle in the group to which the information applies, using the test conditions and procedures of Standard No. 105. Since stopping distances decrease after burnish, the post-burnish results represent the *minimum* stopping distances that can be met or exceeded by the vehicles. Therefore, the pre-burnish stopping distances need not be reflected in the stopping distance information manufacturers make available to consumers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel