ID: nht74-5.50

DATE: 04/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 5, 1974, requesting interpretations of two sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 (39 FR 10588).

Your first question was whether dummies are required to be positioned at each front outboard seating position even if such dummies are not specified for testing under Standard No. 208. The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 301 provides for testing with dummies at each front outboard seating position regardless of the Standard No. 208 testing provisions. Where, however, Standard No. 208 specifies additional test dummies, such dummies are to be included in the vehicle for Standard No. 301 testing.

Your second question was whether the dummies are to be restrained by belt systems until passive restraint systems become mandatory under Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is no. The dummies are to be restrained for testing under Standard No. 301 only by systems that require no action by the vehicle occupant. Therefore, dummies are not to be restrained during testing by belt systems, but only by the passive means, if any, that are employed in the vehicle.

Thank you for your inquiry. Yours Truly,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD

April 5, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is to request your interpretation of the FMVSS 301, Fuel System Integrity, issued through the Federal Register on March 21, 1974.

(1) S6.1 Frontal barrier crash which states:

" . . . . at each front cutboard seating position and at any other position whose protection system is required to be tested, by a dummy under the provisions of Standard No. 208 . . . . . . . ".

May we understand from the above requirement that regardless of the provisions of the MVSS 208, we will have to provide the test dummies at each front outboard seating position? And, on the other hand, that it will not be necessary to provide the dummy at the frontal barrier crash test in any other position where installation is not required under the mandatory passive restraint system provided for in the MVSS 208? (See attached figure.) (2) Also, the S7.1.1 which states:

"Each dummy shall be restrained only by means that are installed in the vehicle for protection at its seating position and that require no action by the vehicle occupant".

May we understand from the above that the dummy which is only provided at each front outboard seating position, from our understanding in (1) of the above, shall be restrained by lap and shoulder belts until the proposed effective date of the mandatory passive restraint system under MVSS 208? And, that(Illegible Words) be able to restrain the dummy by lap belt if it will be installed in the front seat to meet the rollover requirement under MVSS 208. (See attached figure.)

Thank you for your attention to our request. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the above.

Tatsuo Kato Staff, Safety

9.1.75 effective date of MVSS 301 9.1.76 proposal effective date of MVSS 208

(Graphics omitted) no dummy for rear seating position no dummy for rear seating position the dummy restrained by lap and shoulder seat belt for front seating position the dummy unrestrained or the dummy restrained by lap belt which is installed to meet the rollover requirement

ID: nht75-1.15

DATE: 06/06/75

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

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 29, 1975, question whether S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, permits a brake fluid warning statement on a filler cap to be partially obscured by two "contact blades" on the cap which apparently are inserted into a receptacle attached to the vehicle. The description you enclose is similar to one submitted with an earlier request which we evaluated in a March 3, 1975, letter to your representative, Mr. Paul Utans.

Sections S5.4.3 (b) requires that the statement be "located so as to be visible by direct view." As noted in our March 3 letter, this requirement prohibits an arrangement which would obscure any part of the statement. We also noted that S5.4.3(b) permits a location within 4 inches of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or cap to accommodate arrangements which do not permit use of the fuller cap as a location.

From the drawing you enclose, we conclude that the contact blades obscure part of the warning and it therefore would not comply with the requirement of S5.4.3(b). As an enforcement matter, we would find it impossible to allow a "minor noncompliance" and still be able to enforce a standard objectively. We do not consider the ability to turn the cap to expose the warning to constitute "visible by direct view."

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

April 29, 1973

Subject: Your Letter Dated March 3, 1975 to Mr. Paul Utans - N40-30 (TWH)

Dear Mr. Dyson,

In our inquiry of January 19, 1975, we informed you about 2 variants of our brake fluid reservoir filler cap with imprinted designation according to FMVSS 105-75 S. 5.4.3 asking you to examine them with regard to legality.

In your letter dated March 3, 1975 you rejected the version with contact blades displaced by 180 degrees because the fully insulated contact blades would partially obscure the statement. This design will therefore not reach the production stage. However, we intend to sell in the USA the version which only has two contact blades which are parallel to each other and are not insulated.

We believe that this design guarantees visibility of the statement by direct view which is required in S. 5.4.3. Furthermore we hold the view that this very important statement must still be visible after a 10 years' utilization in the vehicle.

According to our experience made with stickers or stamps, this requirement cannot be met since durable fixing of the warning statement cannot be ensured due to brake fluid running out and wetting of the sticker or stamp connected herewith as well as due to salt spray liquid and the like. In our opinion, such a warning statement which will not be legible after several service years, cannot be regarded as being within the meaning of this safety law.

We therefore kindly ask you to accept the stamping on the filler cap since this design ensures absolute and durable legibility. A further advantage would be that, when opening the filler cap, you automatically have to read the designation.

Finally we wish to refer to the 360 degrees turning capability of the contact blades so that the complete text can be seen at any time.

We kindly request you to re-examine our inquiry, and remain.

Yours truly,

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

(Beller)

(Dr. Strien)

Encl.:

3-04011-29

cc: P. Utans, Englewood

ID: nht95-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 13, 1995

FROM: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager, Vehicle Regulations, VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TO: Philip R. Recht, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Information, FMVSS No. 118 "Power Operated Window, Partition and Roof Panel Systems"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/17/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN (A43; STD. 118)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

This is a request for interpretation relating to the maximum squeezing force requirement in Paragraph S5 of FMVSS 118. Paragraph S5 states the maximum squeezing force performance requirements required to be met by power-operated window, partition or roo f panel systems (for simplicity we will hereinafter refer to these as "power operated systems") which are capable of being closed under conditions other than those permitted in Paragraph S4, Operating Requirements.

The purpose of Paragraph S5 is to enable manufacturers to provide power operated systems which can be closed with remote control devices capable of operation beyond the distances specified in S4 or under circumstances other than those expressly limited i n Paragraph S4 by providing an automatic reversing system that limits the squeezing force to 100 Newtons. The intent of the 100 Newton squeezing force limitation in Paragraph S5 is to avoid injury to a person whose hand may be caught in the opening of t he power operated system as it is closing.

The 100 Newton force limitation is a restriction on power-operated window and roof panel systems which must be assured of closing under all environmental conditions and especially under low temperatures or in the event of some ice or other interference i n the track of the window or roof panel. Volkswagen requests your interpretation whether a system which reverses the closing of the window partition or roof panel within the 100 Newton limitation on an initial attempt to close, but which is then capable of closing with a higher force limitation in order to overcome any resistance due to low temperature or snow and ice interference conditions would still comply with the provisions of the standard.

Such a system would operate as follows:

1. An attempt is made to close the power-operated system and because of an obstruction or resistance to closing it reverses before exerting a squeezing force of 100 Newtons or more and then stops.

2. In order to assure that the window or roof panel is closed, the operator again initiates the closing and this time the automatic reversal system is not triggered at the 100 Newton limit but at a higher force level to overcome the resistance.

The intent of the Standard and to requirement of paragraph S5 is that in the event of an initial obstruction from a human hand or possibly a pet, the system would reverse within the injury avoidance threshold of 100 Newtons. There is no specific provisi on in paragraph S5 with regard to repetitive closing operations. (The higher force level of the second closing operation is not a safety concern because the operator would be alerted to avoid action until the opening is clear and any person in the area w ould be alerted to the fact that the operator is attempting to close the window or roof panel.) Volkswagen therefore requests your interpretation whether the squeezing force limitation of Paragraph S5 applies only to the first operation of a system and n ot to subsequent operations immediately thereafter, which are separately initiated by an operator in order to assure the closing of the roof panel or power window under adverse conditions such as low temperature or the presence of ice in the window or ro of panel track.

Because the issue relates to certain vehicle design decisions, your response as soon as possible is requested and will be appreciated.

ID: nht94-6.4

DATE: May 4, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Distributors Ass'n. (OCC-9945)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have today received the preliminary data from one of the members of NYSBDA the following "fax".

As noted in the preliminary data of FMVSS 217 - there are a number of bus body distributors. As also noted these are small business operations and many, many things affect their ability to carry on a successful company profitable operation. Among the "things" is keeping current with the "school bus regulations". In the process of their daily business - the sales and pricing of their vehicles to comply with the requirements of state and federal regulations and standards is very important. I hope you are readily able to realize the point I am trying to make. Quick changes can be very detrimental to that profit factor as well as the individual position of accountability to, not only their customers - but to themselves.

As you can readily view from the following "fax" there are certain "conditions" that are acceptable to the manufacturer.

We have a special position here in New York State - in that the state regulations exceed the minimum 217 requirements (except for placement of left side emergency door). NYS requires added emergency exits, such as push-out windows and roof hatches based upon capacity of the vehicle.

The distributors now are faced here in New York State with a very large unknown factor. To meet the state regulations - for door (L/S/E/D) placement - with folding seat cushion - longer body length - aisle dimension factor at L/S/E/D. Anything that you can furnish and supply to me in a timely fashion - to help my association membership will be greatly appreciated.

Attachment

CARPENTER MANUFACTURING, INC.

BULLETIN NO. 94 - 34

May 3, 1994 TO: All Carpenter Distributors

SUBJECT: EMERGENCY EXIT - DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE

NHTSA has postponed enactment of certain parts of FMVSS 217 relative to emergency exits; this change was to have taken effect on May 2, 1994. We were notified by fax on May 2nd that the effective date of the "additional emergency exit" requirement "has been delayed until September 1, 1994."

Carpenter will allow its distributors to omit certain options on orders currently in-house at no change order fee, provided the following conditions are met:

1. Order is not on schedule or started at time of receipt of change order; 2. Change order must be received by Friday, 5/13/94; 3. Only options on list below can be deleted or changed; 4. No pre-built orders can be changed; 5. Body length change will require cancellation of current order and resubmission of new order at current pricing.

Approved option deletions are:

1. Side emergency door and related components; 2. Flip seats and 4-logged seats; 3. Heater plumbing and routing; 4. Roof hatches and push-out sash not required by state specs.

Please note that the rear door hold-open device and reflective striping around the rear door opening will still be required and cannot be deleted.

You must keep in mind that orders are being schedule constantly; therefore, it is important to get any change order faxed as soon as possible. You will be notified by Martin Miller as to whether or not your change order can be accepted.

You may cover more than one body order on each change order, but all bodies on a given change order must have identical changes.

Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division

ID: nht94-6.46

DATE: April 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Derrick Barker -- John Martin Designs (Stourbridge, West Midlands)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/22/93 from Derrick Barker to Mary Versilles (Versailles)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the buckle release requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You asked for the "tensile load requirements for the buckle and tongue." There is no specific requirement in Standard 213 for the tensile force that a child restraint buckle must withstand. Instead, the buckle must maintain its integrity when the child restraint is subjected to a simulated frontal impact at 30 mph with either a six-month-old (17 pounds (lbs.)) or three-year-old (33 lbs.) sized dummy restrained in the car seat. At the conclusion of the simulated impact, the force required to depress the latch button to release the buckle is measured and must be 16 lbs. or less.

You also asked for a copy of Procedure D of the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D756-78. Section S5.4.2 of FMVSS No. 213 sets forth those requirements by making reference to section S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209. which, in turn, leads to the reference to Procedure D of ASTM D756-78. The material you requested is enclosed.

In addition, you asked for a list of laboratories that test child safety seats and buckles. NHTSA does not endorse particular test laboratories. However, I can provide you with a list of laboratories we are aware of that conduct child restraint compliance tests. There may be other laboratories that can test child safety seats and buckles.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff if you have further questions.

LABORATORIES CONDUCTING CHILD RESTRAINT COMPLIANCE TESTS (Partial List - Addresses current as of Dec. 1993)

CALSPAN CORPORATION (CAL) 4455 Genesee St. Buffalo, NY 14225 Phone: 716-632-7500 FAX: 716-631-6843

COMMERCIAL TESTING CO. (CTC) (Flammability testing) 1215 S. Hamilton Street Dalton, GA 30722-0985 Phone: 404-278-3935 FAX: 404-278-3936

DETROIT TESTING LABORATORY, INC (DTL) 7111 E. Eleven Mile Road Warren, Mi 48092-0869 Phone: 313-754-9000 FAX: 313-754-9045

MGA RESEARCH CORPORATION (MGA) 12790 Main Road P.O. Box 71 Akron, NY 14001-0071 Phone: 716-542-5515 FAX: 716-542-4437

MGA PROVING GROUNDS 5000 Warren Road Burlington, WI 53105 Phone: 414-763-2705 FAX: 414-763-0934

MOBILITY SYSTEMS & EQUIP. CO. (MSE) 19867 Cajon Blvd San Bernadino, CA 92407 Phone: 909-887-1938 FAX: 909-887-5937

MOBILITY SYSTEMS & EQUIP. CO. (MAIN OFFICE) 9920 LaCienega Blvd., Suite 708 Inglewood, CA 90301 Phone: 310-641-3606 FAX: 310-641 -1930

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER OF OHIO (TRC) 10820 State Route 347 P.O. Box B67 East Liberty, OH 43319 Phone: 513-666-2011 FAX: 513-666-5066

UNITED STATES TESTING CO. (UST) - (Flammability testing) Engineering Services Division 291 Fairfield Avenue Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: 201-575-5252 FAX: 201-575-8271

UNITED STATES TESTING CO. (MAIN OFFICE) 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, NJ 07030 Phone: 201-792-2400 FAX: 201-656-0636

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE (UMTRI) 2901 Baxter Road Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2150 Phone: 313-936-1103

ID: nht94-2.28

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Derrick Barker -- John Martin Designs (Stourbridge, West Midlands)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/22/93 from Derrick Barker to Mary Versilles (Versailles)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the buckle release requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You asked for the "tensile load requirements for the buckle and tongue." There is no specific requirement in Standard 213 for the tensile force that a child restraint buckle must withstand. Instead, the buckle must maintain its integrity when the chil d restraint is subjected to a simulated frontal impact at 30 mph with either a six-month-old (17 pounds (lbs.)) or three-year-old (33 lbs.) sized dummy restrained in the car seat. At the conclusion of the simulated impact, the force required to depress the latch button to release the buckle is measured and must be 16 lbs. or less.

You also asked for a copy of Procedure D of the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D756-78. Section S5.4.2 of FMVSS No. 213 sets forth those requirements by making reference to section S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209. which, in turn, leads to the reference to Procedure D of ASTM D756-78. The material you requested is enclosed.

In addition, you asked for a list of laboratories that test child safety seats and buckles. NHTSA does not endorse particular test laboratories. However, I can provide you with a list of laboratories we are aware of that conduct child restraint complia nce tests. There may be other laboratories that can test child safety seats and buckles.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff if you have further questions.

LABORATORIES CONDUCTING CHILD RESTRAINT COMPLIANCE TESTS (Partial List - Addresses current as of Dec. 1993) CALSPAN CORPORATION (CAL) 4455 Genesee St. Buffalo, NY 14225 Phone: 716-632-7500 FAX: 716-631-6843

COMMERCIAL TESTING CO. (CTC) (Flammability testing) 1215 S. Hamilton Street Dalton, GA 30722-0985 Phone: 404-278-3935 FAX: 404-278-3936 DETROIT TESTING LABORATORY, INC (DTL) 7111 E. Eleven Mile Road Warren, Mi 48092-0869 Phone: 313-754-9000 FAX: 313-754-9045

MGA RESEARCH CORPORATION (MGA) 12790 Main Road P.O. Box 71 Akron, NY 14001-0071 Phone: 716-542-5515 FAX: 716-542-4437

MGA PROVING GROUNDS 5000 Warren Road Burlington, WI 53105 Phone: 414-763-2705 FAX: 414-763-0934

MOBILITY SYSTEMS & EQUIP. CO. (MSE) 19867 Cajon Blvd San Bernadino, CA 92407 Phone: 909-887-1938 FAX: 909-887-5937

MOBILITY SYSTEMS & EQUIP. CO. (MAIN OFFICE) 9920 LaCienega Blvd., Suite 708 Inglewood, CA 90301 Phone: 310-641-3606 FAX: 310-641 -1930

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER OF OHIO (TRC) 10820 State Route 347 P.O. Box B67 East Liberty, OH 43319 Phone: 513-666-2011 FAX: 513-666-5066

UNITED STATES TESTING CO. (UST) - (Flammability testing) Engineering Services Division 291 Fairfield Avenue Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: 201-575-5252 FAX: 201-575-8271

UNITED STATES TESTING CO. (MAIN OFFICE) 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, NJ 07030 Phone: 201-792-2400 FAX: 201-656-0636

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE (UMTRI) 2901 Baxter Road Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2150 Phone: 313-936-1103

ID: nht91-5.49

DATE: September 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Wayne Trueman -- BX-100 International

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-31-91 from Wayne Trueman to Barry Felrice (OCC 6314); Also attached to letter dated September 24, 1991 from Wayne Trueman to Marvin Shaw

TEXT:

This responds to your recent inquiry about installing your brake equalizer on new school buses and retrofitting this device on used school buses. A brake equalizer is a valve system that proportions the brake pressure between front and rear brakes. After explaining that California law provides that school bus brake systems may be modified only with the written approval of the school bus chassis manufacturer, you asked whether other states have similar requirements about written authorization. You also asked whether there are any special regulations pertaining to school buses that need to be considered prior to installing or retrofitting your product into school bus air brake systems.

I regret that we are unable to provide information concerning state requirements in this area. However, you may be able to obtain the information you desire by contacting individual state directors of pupil transportation. I have enclosed a list of those state officials, as published in School Bus Fleet magazine in January 1991.

I can, however, explain Federal requirements that are relevant to installing your product in new and used school buses. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about brake equalizers. However, since this device is tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new truck, buses (including school buses), and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If your brake equalizer is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including FMVSS No. 121. (see 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

(49 CFR 567.7)

If the device is installed on a used vehicle (i.e., retrofitted) by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in 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. (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A))

You may wish to review the Federal Highway Administration's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which sets forth inspection and maintenance requirements for commercial motor vehicles, including some school buses. (49 CFR Parts 393 and 396.)

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

List of State Directors of Pupil Transportation. (Text omitted)

ID: GF001069

Michael Price, Project Manager
Mobilized Systems, Inc.
1032 Seabrook Way
Cincinnati, OH 45245

Dear Mr. Price:

This responds to your February 10, 2004, e-mail and subsequent phone communications with George Feygin of my staff, regarding certain U.S. Military Trailers that are being shipped to the United States from Europe for repairs. Specifically, you ask whether these trailers must comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) while they are in transit on U.S. highways from the seaport of entry to the repair facility in Cincinnati Ohio, and back to the seaport.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issues FMVSS applicable to new vehicles and equipment (49 CFR Part 571). Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSS.

49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that "no standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications."  [Emphasis added]

In the present case, youve indicated that the trailers were designed and manufactured as military command posts and sold directly to the military in conformance with specific contractual specifications. Accordingly, the trailers in question are exempt from applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Even if the trailers were not manufactured for, and sold directly to the military, they could be operated on public roads in the United States without being brought into conformity with all applicable FMVSS. While 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits the

introduction into interstate commerce of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable FMVSS, Section 30112(b)(3) exempts from this prohibition "a motor vehicle intended only for export, labeled for export on the vehicle . . . and on the outside or any container or the vehicle . . . and exported." Accordingly, so long as the trailers are labeled "for export only," they could be operated on U.S. roads from the seaport to the repair facility and back without having to be brought into compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:224
d.3/23/04

ID: nht90-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: THEO BOSE -- WEBASTO HEATER, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM THEO BOSE -- WEBASTO HEATER INC DATED 07/19/89 TO FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ON CLARIFICATION OF TITLE 49 393.77[12]

TEXT: You wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) asking about requirements for "diesel fuel burning coolant heaters and air heaters" that you import for installation in trucks, buses and school buses. According to the installation instructions for the heaters, they are connected either to the fuel tank of the vehicle or to a separate fuel tank. The FHWA forwarded us your letter with regard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for this standard. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSS's applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance wit h our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards . This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.)

The Safety Act defines the term "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (@ 102(5); emphas is added.) As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for compliance with the Safety Act and applicable regulations.

There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the heating unit you describe. Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) applies only to completed new motor vehicles, and not to components of fuel systems. (The standard applies to trucks and buses with a g ross vehicle weight rating of 10,000

pounds or less, and to school buses.) However, Federal law may affect the installation of your product, depending on who installs the heating unit and when the work is performed.

If the heating unit were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's. If the heater were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed school bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. These certification requirements apply to the vehicle manufacturer and alterer regardless of whether the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system. Of course, if the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system, th e vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 should be carefully scrutinized. (I have enclosed a copy of our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) for your information.)

If the heater were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not be subject to the certification requirements outlined above. Instead, the installer would have to ensure that it di d not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 301. This is required by @ 108 (a) (2)(A) of the Safety Act. If the modification of the vehicle entailed connecting the heater to the vehicle's fuel system, compliance with Standard No. 301 would of course be especially germane to whether the modification had rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance.

The prohibition of @ 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Feder al motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safe ty. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the heater is in stalled on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht94-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: Allan E. McIntyre -- Vice President, Engineering and New Product Development, Sprague Devices, Inc.

TO: Rodney Slater -- Administrator, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Allan E. McIntyre (A43; Std. 104)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Slater:

The purpose of this letter is to request your office for an interpretation/understanding of FMVSS-104 regarding evaluation procedure or how to undertake ammendment / revision of FMVSS-104.

By way of background please note that Sprague Devices, Inc. of Michigan City, Indiana both designs and markets components for windshield washer systems for trucks, buses and multipurpose vehicles. Secondly, I serve as Chairman of the SAE subcommittee re sponsible for windshield wiping and washer documents specifically SAEJ198 and 1944. I also chair a similar task force under the direction of TMC (The Maintenance Council of ATA).

My specific inquiry is regarding FMVSS-104- S4. 2.2 describing windshield washer requirement for truck, bus and multipurpose vehicles. Document lists SAE recommended Practice J942 of 11/65 (with modification). J942 has been superceded by an "a" and a " b" revision at SAE level. It also pertains specifically to PASSENGER CAR WINDSHIELD WASHER SYSTEMS.

SAE recognized the need of a document specifically addressing commerce vehicles, etc., and had chartered my subcommittee to develop such a document. J1944 is the result of our subcommittee activity and has been both approved and published in SAE Handboo k. (Copy attached). Its purpose is to follow the overall format of the J942 document while recognizing that advancements in technology allow for more strigent requirements, increased performance levels, etc. J1944 is overall a "tougher" document compa red to the J942 series.

Would the above situation allow for documentation of compliance to FMVSS-104 through use of the new J1944 recommended practice or is it necessary to evaluate per J942 as specifically written?

Second inquiry relates to the above also. If it is necessary to evaluate per J942 (both recognizing its' being superceded by "a" and "b" and more recently J1944) how does one petition for a revision in FMVSS-104?

There are other areas in FMVSS documents that are similar in nature to the above and therefore your response to this specific question could in essence respond to the inquiries of many.

Respectfully,

Enclosures

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104; SAE J1944 - Truck and Bus Multipurpose Vehicle Windshield Washer System

(Text of enclosures is omitted.)