ID: nht76-1.8

DATE: 07/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pacet International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your June 15, 1976, question whether Arcoflex windshield wiper blades must be certified as being in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards before they may be sold as aftermarket equipment through vehicle distributors' dealer parts programs.

Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, requires vehicles to be equipped with a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets specified performance requirements. It is up to vehicle manufacturers to certify that each vehicle they produce conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 104, in accordance with the certification procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 567.

Standard No. 104 is not an equipment standard, however, and is not applicable to wiper blades sold in the aftermarket. Therefore, there is no requirement that Arcoflex windshield wiper blades be certified, so long as they are not installed on vehicles as part of the wiping system prior to the first sale of the vehicle.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

PACET INTERNATIONAL

The Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Gentlemen

This Company imports Arcoflex windshield wiper blades from Italy and sells them through the import aftermarket throughout the US. It is my understanding that your Department has no interest in this activity.

Recently, however, we have endeavored to sell our product to the import car manufacturers' US distributors for marketing through their dealer parts programs. The representatives of some of these companies have expressed the concern that, since they are wholly owned by the car manufacturers, your Department may wish for our product to be certified, even though it will not be used as original equipment on their cars.

Please be kind enough to clarify, therefore, whether or not Arcoflex wiper blades need to be certified by your Department before they may be sold through import car distributors' dealer parts programs.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated, since important sales decisions depend upon your reply.

Yours very truly,

Peter W Mole

ID: nht76-2.21

DATE: 04/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Limited

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1976, requesting information concerning steps which you, as a manufacturer of wheel equipment which will be offered for importation into the United States, must take in order to comply with all applicable National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations.

You should be aware of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR Part 573, Defect Reports. In addition, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, may be of interest to you. Copies of these rules and an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" are enclosed for your convenience.

Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made.

The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agent pursuant to the Act require that it include:

(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding on Dunlop Limited under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

(2) The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of Dunlop Limited;

(3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products of Dunlop Limited that do not bear its legal name;

(4) A provision that the designation of agent remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Dunlop Limited;

(5) A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

(6) The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

A copy of the procedural regulation for designation of agent is enclosed for your convenience.

ID: 2041o

T.P. Bailey, Legislation Engineer
International Automotive Design
I.A.D. House
Dominion Way
Worthing, Sussex BN14 8LU England

Dear Mr. Bailey:

This responds to your letter of June 10, 1988, in which you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (49 CFR 571.104). More specifically, you asked two questions about the requirements set forth in section S4.1.2, Wiped area, of Standard No. 104.

You first asked whether section S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 applies only to passenger cars. The answer to this question is yes. Section S4.1.2 reads as follows: "When tested in accordance with SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, each passenger car windshield shall ..." (emphasis added). The underlined language explicitly limits the requirements to passenger car windshields. Hence, the windshields on other vehicle types are not subject to the requirements of S4.1.2.

Your second question involved the dimensions of "Area A" used to determine whether a car complies with the wiped area requirements in section S4.1.2. Section S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104 specifies that the dimensions for "Area A" are established as shown in SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, and specifies that at least 80 percent of "Area A" must be wiped. Following the procedures set forth in the SAE Recommended Practice, you noted that "Area A" on a hypothetical vehicle would extend to the daylight opening area on one side of the windshield and extend beyond the daylight opening area on the other side of the windshield. When calculating the percentage of Area A that is wiped, your letter sets forth four different possible dimensions for Area A and asks which is used to determine whether the vehicle wipes at least 80 percent of Area A. Again section S4.1.2 explicitly answers this question. That section specifies that each passenger car windshield shall wipe 80 percent of Area A that "is within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 1 inch from the daylight opening."

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:104 d:ll/3/88

ID: 24780.drn

Mr. Kenneth Reed
Product Legislation and Compliance
Jaguar Cars
555 MacArthur Blvd.
Mahwah, NJ 07430-2327

Dear Mr. Reed:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of "daylight opening" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. You ask whether the daylight opening should be measured to the edge of complete blackout area, the start of dot fade area, or to some point in between. As explained below, the daylight opening is measured to the edge of complete blackout area on the windshield.

Daylight opening is defined at S3 of Standard No. 104 as: "the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface, as defined in paragraph 2.3.12 of section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963."

Paragraph 2.3.12 of the SAE standard states:

The term "Daylight Opening" (abbreviated DLO) refers to the maximum unobstructed opening through any glass aperture, including reveal or garnish moldings adjoining the glass, according to a given direction or projection. If not specified the dimension will be the vertical projection.

I note that SAE Recommended Practice J1100, which you quote, is a later SAE document, and not the one referenced in Standard No. 104. One difference between the definition of "daylight opening" in the older document and the one in J1100 is that the newer one treats "opaque coatings" in the same manner as reveal or garnish moldings.

Opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield are now used for the function once served by moldings, i.e., covering the glue around the edges of the windshield. Given this changed technology, we believe it is appropriate to treat opaque coatings around the edge of the windshield in the same manner as moldings, in interpreting the term "daylight opening" in Standard No. 104. However, this is only true for what you refer to as "complete blackout" or "truly opaque" areas. The dot fade area is not truly opaque, and is not analogous to moldings. Thus, daylight opening is measured to the edge of complete blackout area.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.5/6/03

ID: 77-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 17, 1977, letter concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, for passenger cars. You requested confirmation of your interpretation that the standard specifies no requirements for outside rearview mirrors on the passenger's side of the vehicle when the inside rearview mirror meets the field of view performance requirements of paragraph S5.1.1 of the standard.

Your interpretation is correct. If the inside rearview mirror of a passenger car meets the specified performance requirements, the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an outside rearview mirror on the passenger's side. However, a manufacturer is free to equip its vehicles with outside right-hand mirrors, either plane or convex, if he choses.

You should note that each passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view performance requirements of paragraph S5.1.1 must have an outside rearview mirror of unit magnification installed on the passenger's side of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

January 17, 1977

Frank A. Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, FMVSS 111, Paragraph 5.3, states that "each passenger car whose inside rear view mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of S 5.1.1, shall have an outside rear view mirror of unit magnification installed on the passenger side . . . " (emphasis added).

In Paragraph S 5.3, the emphasis is placed on the inside rear view mirror, which does not meet the field of view requirements of S 5.1.1.

It is BMW's understanding that the outside rear view mirror on the passenger side, whether of unit or non-unit magnification, does not fall within the jurisdiction of FMVSS 111, when the vehicle's inside rear view mirror meets the field of view requirements of S 5.1.1.

Your confirmation in writing of this understanding would be appreciated.

Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager, Safety Engineering

ID: 6320.jeg

Mr. John Lovstedt
Highway Safety Manager
DOT/HWY-V, Room 511
Kapolei, Hawaii 96707

Dear Mr. Lovstedt:

This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between Federal and State laws relating to kit cars. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

In your letter, you cited the example of a kit car in which everything except the engine and transmission is new. As you suggest in your letter, this would be considered a new motor vehicle under Federal law. The assembler would be the "manufacturer" of the vehicle. Under Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle. The manufacturer would also have to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

You stated, however, that Hawaii State law allows a person to build, register, use, and sell for use on the public roads such a vehicle without certifying compliance with the FMVSS, and asked whether this portion of the law would be in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30103. You also stated that you do not see how a person could ever "legally register" a car like this, yet people seem to be registering them in other states.

While we decline to provide an opinion about the Hawaii law you cite, I will note that the issue of whether a kit car is considered to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle is a matter of Federal law, not State law. Thus, a person who manufactured a kit car that did not comply with the FMVSS and sold it, offered it for sale, or introduced it into interstate commerce would be in violation of Federal law, regardless of any State laws.

The issue of whether the person could legally register the vehicle would be a matter of State law. However, even if the State law did permit such registration, the person would still be in violation of Federal law.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.10/29/03

ID: 77-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is applicable to all school buses or only to school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

You are correct in your statement that school buses are included in the broader classification, "buses", for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless otherwise specified in a particular standard. Safety Standard No. 301-75 is applicable to passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, including school buses under 10,000 pounds. The standard is also applicable to larger school buses, and the distinction is made in the standard since the large school buses are the only vehicles having a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds that are covered by the standard.

Safety Standard No. 301-75 was made applicable to all school buses pursuant to a mandate under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(i) (1) (A)).

SINCERELY,

COLLINS INDUSTRIES INC.

MAY 6, 1977

FRANK BERNDT ACTING CHIEF COUNCIL

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS PART 571.301-7S-1 STATES THAT SCHOOL BUSES WITH GVWR GREATER THAN 10,000 POUNDS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 6.5 OF 301. HOWEVER, SCHOOL BUSES BELOW 10,000 POUNDS GVWR ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN 301. I UNDERSTAND THAT ALL SCHOOL BUSES MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF BUSES IN GENERAL UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE IN FMVS STANDARDS. BY DEFINITION, A SCHOOL BUS IS A BUS. IS MY INTERPRETATION CORRECT ACCORDING TO NHTSA?

A REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE OF OUR CHASSIS SUPPLIERS CALLED TO MY ATTENTION THAT ONLY THE LARGE SCHOOL BUSES (OVER 10,000 GVWR) WERE MENTIONED IN 301. HE SEEMED TO BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS COULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN SCHOOL BUSES LESS THAN 10,000 GVWR ARE NOT INCLUDED IN 301.

I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REPLY AND WILL APPRECIATE ANY INFORMATION YOU GIVE ME.

JAMES M. BEACH DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING

ID: nht74-1.5

DATE: 09/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Technical Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 (ZTV) Sep 19 1974

Mr. Bernard Belier U.S. Resident Engineer for Citroen, S.A. U.S. Technical Research Corporation 801 Second Avenue New York, New York 10017

Dear Mr. Belier:

This is in further reply to the petition of November 16, 1973, by Citroen, S. A. for rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

The petition has been thoroughly reviewed by engineering and legal staff personnel of this agency. Before a recommendation is made to the Administrator on the merits of your petition, we request that you furnish further information to us.

First of all, NHTSA is interested in obtaining any available data which will support the contention that the Citroen central power braking system provides a level of safety equivalent to a fully split system with indefinite residual failure mode performance such as is currently required by FMVSS 105-75. Do the highway accident statistics provide such support? Is the incidence of accidents occurring to Citroen vehicles attributable in whole or part to brake failures significantly different from the norm for other European passenger cars? Can it be demonstrated that when failures of the service brakes do occur in emergency situations, drivers are able to adjust their behavior patterns sufficiently quicly to bring the vehicles to a safe stop using the hand operated emergency brakes?

We wuld also like Citroen to provide data to substantiate that the "emergency" system can meet the deceleration requirement of 10 fpsps. What are Citroen's views on an appropriate burnish procedure for testing the emergency braking system? In addition to this, can the 10 fpsps deceleration requirement be achieved using the service brakes with a subsystem accumulator depleted?

Finally, we request data on the costs and leadtime required for Citroen to convert the single central power system to a dual, or full split system.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Maurice Clavel Assistant to the President S.A. Automobiles Citroen

ID: nht78-2.36

DATE: 05/26/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Doug Mills

COPYEE: CHARLES H. BRADLEY

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking additional questions concerning the responsibilities of a person converting a pick-up truck into a dump truck, under Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. This office explained the general responsibilities of a person who alters a certified vehicle in a letter to your associate, Mr. Henry Brown, dated February 1, 1978. You now ask questions regarding specific aspects of the conversion operation and whether they can be accomplished without destroying a vehicle's compliance with safety regulations.

Unfortunately, it is impossible for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to answer your specific questions. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer or vehicle alterer to determine whether his vehicle is in compliance with applicable safety standards and to certify that vehicle. The NHTSA cannot review an alteration procedure such as the one with which you are concerned and state that it can or cannot be done in compliance with Federal regulations. There are no safety regulations which require a specific number of bolts or specific bolt locations, for instance. Likewise, Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is specified only in terms of performance requirements, so the NHTSA cannot tell you whether a modified fuel filler neck will destroy a vehicle's compliance with the standard.

As stated in our previous letter, a person who alters a pick-up truck to convert it to a dump truck must certify that the truck remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. Further, the person who makes the conversion must assure that the alterations do not result in any "safety related defects" whether or not there is a specific safety standard that is applicable. Therefore, you must determine for yourself whether the number of bolts you use, the bolt strengths and the bolt locations will result in safety hazards.

I can answer your question number 8 regarding possible liability for removal and alteration of the truck bumper. The Federal safety standard for bumpers is only applicable to passenger cars, so you may alter a truck bumper with impunity provided the action does not result in a safety related defect.

ID: nht78-3.14

DATE: 04/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: P. Arquin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking what loading conditions are applicable for purposes of measuring the wheelbase of passenger cars, under the new phased-in passive requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Apparently, the wheelbase of one of Peugeot's vehicles having an independent rear suspension varies as a function of the vehicle loading.

The phased-in passive requirements of Standard No. 208 were based on a determination of the lead time necessary to engineer passive restraints into each size class of automobile. Wheelbase was chosen as a measure to delineate the phasing requirements because it is directly related to vehicle size and because it is a well-defined quantity that does not vary significantly within a given car line.

For purposes of measuring wheelbase, the vehicle is loaded according to the general test conditions of Standard No. 208. These test specifications, including loading, are meant to approximate the likely condition of the vehicle under normal driving circumstances. Since a vehicle having a variable wheelbase will generally carry the same weight as the average automobile of its size, it is appropriate that the wheelbase on such a vehicle be determined under the loading conditions specified under Standard No. 208. Therefore, Peugeot should measure the wheelbase of its vehicle under the loading conditions specified in paragraph S8.1.1(a) of the standard.

SINCERELY,

U.S. TECHNICAL RESEARCH COMPANY

February 8th, 1978

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Re.: Wheelbase Cutoff Points for FMVSS-208 Application

Dear Mr. Levin:

Certain automobiles with independent rear suspensions have a wheelbase which varies as a function of the vehicle loading. In order to determine the effective date of FMVSS-208 for one of our vehicles, it is necessary for us to know under which loading conditions the wheelbase should be measured. "Curb Weight" as defined in CFR 49, Chapter V, Subchapter A, Part 571, Subpart A, R 571-2 and "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" as defined in 36 F.R. 2511 (Feb. 5, 1971) have been suggested by your staff as the most probable possibilities

We would appreciate receiving a prompt official clarification on this matter.

P. Arquin Government and Engineering Liaison