ID: aiam0151

Dear Mr. Mizuno:#Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1969, to Dr William Haddon, Jr., concerning the location and the identification of the windshield washer switch on the steering column.#The system as you describe it appears to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, however, the Bureau does not issue approvals of any specific system, and the development of equipment to comply with the standard is the responsibility of the individual manufacturer.#In reference to your second question about the identification of the windshield washer switch, Paragraph S3.2 reads, in part, '.... The following controls, when mounted on the instrument panel, shall be identified to permit recognition -- >>>... (c) Windshield Washing System, ....'<<<#This section of the regulation does not apply to the identification of controls in any position other than on the instrument panel.#Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam1112

Dear Mr. Thomas: This is in reply to your letter dated February 28, 1973, asking whethe a planned wholly owned subsidiary of Leaseway Transportation Co. would be required to certify vehicles which it readies for service adding numerous components, including fifth wheels, for another company, also a wholly owned subsidiary of Leaseway Transportation Co. You state that under this arrangement title is always held by some component of the Leaseway organization.; Persons who install fifth wheels have generally been considered to b 'final-stage manufacturers' under NHTSA certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568). Final-stage manufacturers, including those who complete vehicles for their own use, are required to complete such vehicles in conformity with applicable Federal standards, and to certify that conformity pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 567, 568. The NHTSA position is that the status of the title does not affect the basic responsibility of final-stage manufacturers to certify the conformity of vehicles that they manufacture.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1113

Dear Mr. Thomas: This is in reply to your letter dated February 28, 1973, asking whethe a planned wholly owned subsidiary of Leaseway Transportation Co. would be required to certify vehicles which it readies for service adding numerous components, including fifth wheels, for another company, also a wholly owned subsidiary of Leaseway Transportation Co. You state that under this arrangement title is always held by some component of the Leaseway organization.; Persons who install fifth wheels have generally been considered to b 'final-stage manufacturers' under NHTSA certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568). Final-stage manufacturers, including those who complete vehicles for their own use, are required to complete such vehicles in conformity with applicable Federal standards, and to certify that conformity pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 567, 568. The NHTSA position is that the status of the title does not affect the basic responsibility of final-stage manufacturers to certify the conformity of vehicles that they manufacture.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-3.16

DATE: 05/12/76

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: INDEPENDENT TEXTILE TESTING SERVICE, INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 18, 1976, concerning testing procedures pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

As you point out, S5.1.3 of the standard provides that thin, heat resistant wires are used to support a "specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning." One of your customers asserted that support wires should be used in testing his materials, and you have asked when the use of support wires is appropriate.

Your interpretation of the standard in this case is commendable, and your test practices are calculated to demonstrate clearly the exercise of due care that a particular product complies with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, an NHTSA July 19, 1971, interpretation of Standard No. 302 (copy enclosed) permits use of support wires when any bending of the tested material occurs. At the time of that interpretation, it was believed that the support wires would not influence the test results.

More recent testing by the agency demonstrates that the support wires do significantly affect burn rates, and the agency intends to issue an interpretative amendment of the standard that will limit use of support wires.

Thank you for your responsible approach to testing products that are required to conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

SINCERELY,

INDEPENDENT TEXTILE TESTING SERVICE, INC.

February 18, 1976

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We are an independent testing laboratory, whose services include conducting the tests for flammability, including the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302. A question concerning the test procedure and method has been brought to our attention and we need an official interpretation.

The test method states, "A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat-resistant wires, spanning the width of the u-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals". We have always interpreted this statement to mean that if the material would have a tendency to become almost vertical upon ignition you would support the material with the wires, otherwise the wires would not be needed; as an example, a specimen of plastic or a headlining material would be supported by the wires. A large percentage of our testing is on materials related to carpeting, either woven or tufted, and we do not use the wires for support since the material does not have a tendency to become vertical during the test.

A manufacturer has sent us some material which is to be used as an upholstery fabric and asked us to conduct the test No. 302. We conducted the test according to the procedure; however, we did not use the support wires on this material as we felt the material was not covered under the above statement. The material was cut into four specimens, two specimens in the machine direction and two specimens in the "cross-machine" direction. Two specimens are tested with the "face up" in both directions and two specimens are tested with "face-down" in both directions, as we cannot determine prior to the test which will give us the most adverse results (para. S5.2.2). The material failed the test. We are enclosing a copy of the test results with the manufacturers name blotted out.

When the manufacturer received the report, he was quite upset, as a copy of his letter to us shows. The material, according to him, should be tested using the support wires which in this case allows the material to pass the test; however, if the support wires are not used, the material will almost always fail the test. We have told him that we do not conduct the test so that the results would always be beneficial to the manufacturer, but that we conduct the test in accordance with the standard and our interpretation of the test method which in some cases is not beneficial to the manufacturer. It is our opinion that flammability tests are not conducted in such a way as to suit a manufacturer because he wants a passing report, but that the test should be conducted under the most adverse conditions so as to give a true look at the material being tested.

I am enclosing a piece of the material in question and hope to have a ruling as soon as possible as to whether or not support wires should be used with this material. We have other tests to perform which we are holding until we hear from you.

Cornelius C. Setter

INDEPENDENT TEXTILE TESTING SERVICE, INC.

TEST NUMBER

-REPORT-

CONSUMER: (Illegible Words)

SUBJECT: (Illegible Words) (Illegible Text)

ID: 04-005953_Airpumpdf

Mr. Michael J. Gidding
Brown & Gidding
3201 New Mexico Avenue, NW
Suite 242
Washington, DC 20016

Dear Mr. Gidding:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry asking whether we would consider a rechargeable electric air pump manufactured by your client, Intex Recreation Corporation, to be an item of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. As explained below, our answer is no.

The Intex pump is a small, electronic, portable air pump that appears to be primarily used to inflate or deflate air mattresses and other similar inflatable items. The product can be powered by either: (a) plugging a power cord into a household 110-120 volt AC electrical outlet; (b) attaching a 12 volt DC power cord into a 12 Volt DC "automobile cigarette lighter or accessory outlet" (the pump includes a 12-volt DC adaptor that is designed for use with a vehicles cigarette lighter); or (c) using rechargeable batteries that are recharged by plugging the pump into the household 110-120 Volt AC outlet. There is no indication that the pump may be used to inflate a tire. My understanding is that the pump is sold by Wal-Mart and by some camping stores.

We understand that at an earlier point in time, the product literature included an instruction that the rechargeable battery could be recharged by attaching the pump to the vehicles cigarette lighter outlet. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was informed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) that there have been two complaints that allege that the pumps rechargeable batteries exploded while the pump was being charged by way of the vehicle cigarette lighter. No injuries were reported. As a result of these reports, Intex revised its instructions to indicate that the pump may only be charged or recharged by household 110-120 AC voltage only. The instructions also state: "Do not charge pump with DC power cord," and "Do not charge/recharge with DC power source."

The term "motor vehicle equipment" is defined in the Safety Act as (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)):

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;
(B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle [emphasis added]; or
(C) any device or an article or apparel (except medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner) that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury, or death.

The agency uses two criteria in determining whether an item is an "accessory" under the Safety Act. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The second is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If a product satisfies both criteria, then the product would be an accessory. In determining a products expected use, NHTSA considers product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product.

Although Intexs pump is depicted on its packaging material and instructions as being used in motor vehicles and includes as a standard feature a 12-volt adapter enabling its use in a vehicle, we do not conclude that a substantial portion of the expected use of the pump is related to the operation or maintenance of a motor vehicle. The pump is not exclusively powered by the vehicles automobile lighter. It has two other power sources which enable its use by a consumer outside the vehicle. In addition, the pump only functions to inflate items such as air mattresses. This function (inflating air mattresses and the like) does not constitute a suitable nexus to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. That is, there is hardly a nexus between the pump and the operation, maintenance, care, ease of or enhanced use of a vehicle. Because the first prong of the two-part test for an accessory is not met, we conclude that the Intex pump is not an item of motor vehicle equipment.

We note that the Intex pump is a consumer product subject to regulation by the CPSC. We are informing CPSC of the outcome of this letter.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:vsa
d.12/9/04

ID: nht89-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/89

FROM: SAMSON HELFGOTT -- HELFGOTT AND KARAS

TO: ERICA K. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/30/89 FROM ERICA Z. JONES TO SAMSON HELFGOTT, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 108, VSA SECTION 108(A) 2(A); REPORT DATED 06/01/87 FROM NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNI NG LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKING RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132, DATED 09/09/88, BY MERRILL J. ALLEN, IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATION OF AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENT; BIOGRAPHICAL IN FORMATION OF MERRILL J. ALLEN, DATED 09/09/88 EST; SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS H-85-30 ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

My client, Harold A. Caine, and the Safety Autodrivers Foundation for Education (S.A.F.E.) of Freeport, New York, have come up with a proposal for an amber (SAE approved) lamp that would be placed adjacent to the center high mounted brake lamp of a ve hicle. The amber lamp would have its own independent wiring and separate compartment so as not to interfere in any way with the operation of the center brake lamp. The amber lamp would be illuminated upon ignition and remain on until such time as the b rake lamp is illuminated so that the two lamps would be mutally exclusive and the following driver would be presented with either an amber or a red lamp, but not both together.

Accordingly, there would be no confusion between these lamps. We believe that there would be no impairment of the center brake lamp and that the amber lamp would not render the center brake lamp inoperative in any way, since it would operate independ ently thereof. We also do not believe that there would be any impairment from any other existing lamps.

We would appreciate knowing whether such amber lamp would be acceptable both for original equipment as well as for the after-market sales, under terms of Standard #108.

In a test conducted by Dr. A. James McKnight of the National Public Services Research Institute (Attachment A), he has found that with the presence of such amber lamp,

the improvement in breaking response time was between 0.2 sec. and 0.3 sec.

We believe that this improvement may occur for a number of reasons. Firstly, the presence of the amber lamp adjacent to this center brake lamp and preferable directly below the center brake lamp, focuses the attention of the rear driver to the center of the leading vehicle so that when the brake lamp turns on, it saves some time from the rear driver having to first focus his attention onto that center point at the back of the leading vehicle. Secondly, the illumination of an amber lamp psychologica lly gives a "warning" effect to the trailing driver so that he is already in a state of awareness and readiness when the brake will be applied and the red lamp is turned on. Thirdly, the lamp provides the effect of a rear running light as is supported b y the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (Attachment B).

One feature of the amber light system is to include the use of a photo-electric cell that would control the brightness and prevent glare, based on existing ambient lighting conditions. The brightness would be within the minimum and maximum range of S tandard #108. The areas of red and amber illumination will also comply with the Standard #108 requirements.

It has additionally been found that the amber color is better perceived than either the green or the red color and, especially at greater distances, the amber lamp will be more easily visible. In addition, the amber lamp illumination will not be subj ect to chromeostereopsis errors in distance judgment by any part of the driving population, whereas green or red could be subject to a significant error in judgment of its distance.

In support of these explanations, I am also enclosing an affidavit from Dr. Merrill J. Allen, Professor of Optometry at Indiana University, together with some biographical information about him (Attachment C). This affidavit was originally submitted in the United States Patent and Trademark Office as part of the prosecution of a patent application to Mr. Caine. The application has been allowed and is shortly expected to issue.

We would appreciate receiving your response on this matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely yours,

ENCLOSURE

ID: aiam2129

Dear Mr. Kato: This is in response to your letter of April 22, 1975, posing severa questions relating to Standard No. 302, 49 CFR 571.302. We are sorry for the delay in responding, but unfortunately your letter was filed in the docket as a response to a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning Standard No. 302.; Your first question relates to the requirement that the surface of th specimen closest to the occupant compartment air space face downward on the test frame. This requirement is now found in S5.2.2 of Standard No. 302, as published on September 16, 1975 (40 FR 42746). Through error, S5.2.2 was not amended when the standard was first amended on March 31, 1975 (40 FR 14318). This requirement applies to all test samples regardless of their thickness.; Your second question lists five components and asks whether they ar included within Standard No. 302 as amended by Docket No. 3-3, Notice 7, and whether they would be included within Standard No. 302 if the amendment proposed by Notice 8 is adopted. Our answers follow:; >>>1. The wiring harness illustrated in your letter need not currentl meet the requirements of the standard, but would have to meet the requirements if it was located within 1/2 inch of the surface of the floor covering and Notice 8 was adopted as presently proposed.; 2. The roof lamp need not currently meet the requirements of th standard, but would have to meet these requirements if Notice 8 was adopted as proposed.; 3 and 4. The door lock and door handle knobs need not meet th requirements of the standard, but would have to if Notice 8 was adopted.; 5. The floor grommets need not currently meet the requirements of th standard, but would have to meet these requirements if Notice 8 was adopted and they were within 1/2 inch of the surface of the carpet.<<<; You are correct, therefore, in your analysis of the effect of Notice as stated in your letter.; Your third question relates to whether the air space located behind th instrument panel and underneath the seat will be considered as part of the occupant compartment air space if Notice 8 is adopted. Assuming that the air behind the instrument panel is sealed off from the passenger compartment, it would not be considered part of the occupant compartment air space. The air under the seat cushion would be considered part of the occupant compartment air space unless it too is sealed off from the passenger compartment.; We trust these answers will be helpful to you. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Isuzu Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard McCarl American Isuzu Motors Inc. Whittier, California 90601

Dear Mr. McCarl:

This responds to your November 23, 1981 letter regarding the applicability of motor vehicle certification requirements to a new vehicle to be imported by Isuzu Motors. This small utility vehicle would be certified as a truck. Isuzu dealers will offer for the vehicle an optional rear seat which can be installed by simply bolting it to the vehicle. The basic vehicle already has the necessary mountings for the seat, so the seat installation can apparently be readily accomplished. You have asked whether installation of these seats constitutes "alteration" of the vehicle by the dealer, requiring the addition of an alterer's label in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7.

Based on your description of the seat installation process, it appears that dealers installing the seats would be subject to 49 CFR 567.6, "Requirements for persons who do not alter certified vehicles or do so with readily attachable components." Since the seats appear to be "readily attachable components," section 567.6 requires dealers to leave the manufacturer's certification label in place and requires no alterer's label to be added.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Patricia Hill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell, Michigan 48843

Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1985, asking about the effect of our regulations on a safety belt design you have seen. You explained that the design uses "a rigid member to support a webbing guide near the shoulder of a front seat occupant. This rigid member was rigidly attached to the roof of the vehicle." You asked several questions about this design, which are answered below.

You first asked whether the rigid member would be considered a seat belt anchorage, a piece of attachment hardware or a common component for the purposes of our standards. We cannot provide a definitive answer without having further details about and preferably a drawing of the structure. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that the rigid member would be an anchorage.

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, defines an "anchorage" as a device that transfers safety belt assembly load to the vehicle structure. Since the rigid member is attached to the roof at one end and to a safety belt webbing guide at the other, it appears to be intended to transfer loads to the vehicle structure. Thus, it would have to meet the strength and location requirements of the standard.

You also asked if one or both ends of the rigid member are required to meet the upper torso restraint location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. If, as discussed above, the rigid member is intended to transfer loads, then it would have to meet the location requirement of S4.3.2. That section states that the "anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint shall be located within the acceptable range" shown in Figure 1 of the standard. The purpose of the requirement is to specify the angle at which the shoulder belt crosses the occupant's chest. Thus, the portion of the anchorage that controls the angle of the shoulder belt must be within the zone specified in Figure 1.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

2150 Hacket Road Howell, Michigan 48843 September 19, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

This requests an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Recently a proposed Type 2 continuous loop seat belt installation was inspected that used a rigid member to support a webbing guide near the shoulder of a front seat occupant. This rigid member was rigidly attached to the roof of the vehicle.

I am aware two previous requests for interpretation (Ford and Toyota) have been made that have some measures of similarity to the present issue. However, both the Ford and Toyota cases differed significantly from the subject seat belt assembly; webbing was used vice a rigid member to locate a webbing guide near the shoulder of a front seat occupant.

Following are my specific requests for interpretation.

1. Is the above described rigid member a seat belt anchorage, a piece of attachment hardware, or possibly a common component?

2. Are one or both ends of the rigid member required to meet the upper torso restraint location requirements of FMVSS No. 210, Section 4.3.2? Sincerely, Patricia Hill

ID: nht79-3.49

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 20, 1979, letter asking a question concerning Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention. You ask whether paragraph S5.4.2.1(a) permits the parallelepiped device to compress the seat cushion when it is inserted in a school bus emergency exit in accordance with the test procedures of the standard. The answer to your question is no.

Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a) states that each rear emergency exit must provide "an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped device . . ." If the parallelepiped device compresses the seat cushion while being inserted in the bus, its passage is not unobstructed as required by the standard. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that the device must enter the vehicle without compressing the seat cushion.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

July 20, 1979

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Subject FMVSS #217, Section - S5.4.2.1(a)

Dear Mr. Tilton:

In reference to the above section of the standard, we quote in part: "In the case of a rear emergency door, an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped . . . . ."

In a case where the parallelepiped is inserted into the opening. The result is that the parallelepiped compresses the seat cushioning foam. Question, does the opening comply with FMVSS 217 (S5.4.2.1(a))?

Thanking you in advance, I remain.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer