ID: 06-007782jeg

ID: 21937.drn

Jiri Misik, Chief
Type Approval Tests and Technical Regulations
SKODA, automobilov a.s.
Vslava Klementa 869

293 60 Mlad Boleslav
Cesk Republika (Czech Republic)

Dear Mr. Misik:

This responds to your request for information about "US field of vision" requirements for motor vehicle windshields for passenger cars and light duty vehicles. As explained below, the United States has no forward field of view standard for these vehicles.

In your letter, you noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, describes Areas "A," "B" and "C" to be cleared in motor vehicle windshields. In contrast you noted that in Europe:

In our case the edge of area "A" and "B" ... is not placed on the windshield but on the steel structure or even on the side window. This case is not mentioned in any US legislation which is related directly to wipe, wash and forward vision, anyway. Forward field of vision is only clearly defined in European Directive 77/649 and Australian ADR 8, clause 8.3.

With this background, you ask whether "there is a mandatory US provision to place the edge of 'A' area on the windscreen with regard to forward field of vision."

In response to your question, no provision in the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards specifies forward field of view requirements for vehicles other than school buses. As you note, we have Standard No. 104, which establishes requirements for motor vehicle windshield wiping and washing systems. Since Standard No. 104 regulates windshield wiper performance, it defines each of Areas "A," "B" and "C" so that only the part of each Area that is within the glazing 25 millimeters inboard of the daylight opening is counted for the computation of the minimum cleared percentage. Please note that these are requirements for areas of the motor vehicle windshield to be cleared of water or other liquids. We have no standard analogous to EU Directive 77/649 which would use Areas "A," "B" and "C" to specify areas of mandatory forward fields of view.

Another indication that Standard No. 104 does not specify forward fields of vision is seen in the fact that there is no requirement that Area "A," as bounded by the angles specified in Tables I, II, III or IV, must be completely included on the windshield glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.10/5/00

ID: 24204.rbm

Mr. Chad Compton
Monaco Coach Corporation
2700 S Nappanee Street
Elkhart, IN 46517

Dear Mr. Compton:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. Specifically, you have asked whether the load requirements for latch systems on the front entry door of a motor home can be reduced if the overall door latch system is composed of two, independently operating latch and striker assemblies. The answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 206 specifies certain performance requirements for door retention components. Paragraph S4.1.1 applies to all hinged side doors, other than cargo-type doors. The paragraph specifies that each door latch and striker assembly shall be provided with two positions consisting of a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. S4.1.1 then specifies that each assembly meet minimum level of force requirements for longitudinal loads (S4.1.1.1), transverse loads (S4.1.1.2), and inertial loads (S4.1.1.3). Compliance with the first two of these requirements is demonstrated using the test procedure detailed in paragraph 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991 (SAE-J839). Compliance with the third requirement is demonstrated either by agency-approved tests or in accordance with paragraph 6 of SAE-J839.

Nothing in the standard prohibits a door latch system that consists of more than one latch and striker assembly. However, because S4.1.1 applies to each latch and striker assembly rather than to each door latch system, the force requirements for longitudinal, transverse, and inertial loading must be met for each latch and striker assembly provided when the latch is engaged in both its primary and secondary position.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:206
d.5/13/02

ID: nht76-1.29

DATE: 12/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 1, 1976, letter to Mark Schwimmer of my staff, concerning the marking "V1" on passenger car tires.

The marking "V1" is not required by any Federal statute, motor vehicle safety standard, or other regulation to appear on the sidewall of passenger car tires. Furthermore, Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides in pertinent part:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard establshed under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

This provision, considered with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, prohibits any State from imposing any safety labeling requirements for passenger car tires other than those contained in that standard. Any differing safety labeling requirements, including the "V1" that you have mentioned, are thus preempted and void.

SINCERELY,

NOVEMBER 1, 1976

Mark Schwimmer N.H.T.S.A. Office of Chief Counsel

The marking V1 on passenger car tires, as you know, signifies compliance to the "minimum performance requirements and uniform test procedures for new tires for passenger cars and station wagons" issued by the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission on May 14, 1965 and later revised on October 11, 1965 and September 17, 1966.

To my knowledge no further revisions have been made, because the FMVSS 109 went into effect as of January 1, 1968. I assume, therefore, that the marking V1 should be applied only on the tires listed in the tables 1 - 6 of the regulation as follows: Table 1 - Domestic bias tires of the following series: Low Section (ex. 6.50-14) 4 & 8 P.R.

Super Balloon (ex. 6.70-15) 4 & 8 P.R.

Super Low Section (ex. 6.95-14) 4 & 8 P.R.

Table 2 - 70 Series, alpha numeric bias construction (ex. E 70-14) Table 3 - Domestic radial millimetric series from cross section Table 4 - European bias tires of the following series: Table 5 - European bias tires of the millimetric series (ex.

Table 6 - European radial tires of the millimetric series up to the cross section 155 (ex. 145 R 13) version A (32 psi)

I would like to know if the above is correct and therefore the marking V1 is no longer requested on the tires not included in this list.

If the requirements do not apply to every state in the United States, please notify me.

Thank you in advance for your reply on this matter.

PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION

Galileo Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager

ID: nht90-4.60

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 13, 1990

FROM: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re FMVSS No. 108 (Lamp, reflective devices, and associated equipment) Photometric Measurement Procedures for L.E.D. CHMSL

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-17-90 to M. Iwase from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your kind advice concerning photometric measurement procedures for L.E.D. center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL).

Photometric output of L.E.D. lighting device decreases as the time passes after activation, as shown in Figure 1. This is caused by the thermal characteristic of L.E.D. discrete itself. Our question is about the timing of photometry when the photometri c output of L.E.D. CHMSL should be measured for the verification of compliance with the photometric requirements of FMVSS No. 108. It is reasonable that it shall be measured when 5 minutes has elapsed after the lamp is energized, with the following reas ons, we think;

(1) Our real-car field test has been performed to see how often and how long foot brake application (stop lamp operation) is raised during actual driving in the certain urban area. As the result of our field test, it was found that the c ontinuance is for 5 minutes at best for our brake application (refer to Figure 2).

(2) Section 3.1.5.3 "Photometric Minumums" in SAE J1889 JUN88 specifies, as follows;

Photometric Minumums: For measurements to photometric minimum requiments, the test "device light output shall first be stabilized by energizing the device at laboratory ambient temperature (23 +/- 5 degrees C) until either internal he at builtup saturation has occured or 30 minutes has elapsed, whichever occurs first.

This provision is true of steady burn lamps, for example tail lamp, parking lamp, etc., however not true of stop lamp which is energized during just the period of service brake operation.

(3) S4.8 "Warpage Test on Devices with Plastic Components" and Table 1 "Cycle Time (Min)" in SAE J575 JUL83 specifies 5-on/5-off operating cycle for stop lamps.

Whether could our interpretation above-mentioned be legally accepted? Upon your kind review, your prompt reply would be highly appreciated.

Attachment

Figure 1. Photometric Output Of L.E.D. And Incandescent Bulb (Graph Omitted) Figure 2. Brake Application Period (Graph Omitted) Test Method: Three (3) vehicles (A, B and C) chosen at random were chased and measured brake application periods. Date: January 10, 1990 Location: Urban area (in Nagoya city)

Remark: Each test data of three vehicles is continuous, namely Vehicle A was measured the brake application for 72 minutes, and Vehicle B and C were measured for 24 minutes, respectively.

ID: 77-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oconomowoc Public Schools; Wisconsin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 3, 1977, letter asking whether the new school bus definition (effective April 1, 1977) precludes the use of vans which seat less than 10 passengers from transporting children to and from school.

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) authorized the NHTSA to redefine the term "school bus" to include all motor vehicles which seat 10 or more passengers and which transport children to and from school. The NHTSA redefined the term in accordance with the wishes of Congress for the purpose of prescribing safety requirements for buses that fall within the definition. The definition does not preclude the use of vans or any other type of motor vehicle which seat fewer than 10 passengers from transporting children to and from school. Such vehicles may transport children without complying with the school bus safety requirements.

SINCERELY,

Oconomowoc Public Schools

February 3, 1977

Charles E. Duke Deputy Administrator NHTSA

Members of the Wisconsin Legislature are attempting to define a school bus to allow some flexibility for vehicle use in the under 10 passenger capacity. Senate Bill 110 was introduced on Wednesday, February 2, 1977 with the leaders attempting to push it through without opposition. The bill has many fine features with only one specific area of concern on the part o school administrators.

In place of using the term "vehicles under 10 passengers," the author stated specifically "an automobile or station wagon that is not designed or constructed as a van" may be used. This is for transportation other than transportation of children to or from school. The proponents for this measure claim the new federal regulation to be enacted on April 1, 1977 will require all states to conform to this measure. Since many schools have small vans for use in lunch delivery, mail service, and the like, they find these vehicles very useful in transporting small groups like the golf team, forensic students, and band groups and at a minimum cost.

I am enclosing the portion of Bill 110 that pertains to vehicle on use of the description. Please review the measure and provide a ruling term "vehicles under 10 passengers" in place of "an automobile or station wagon that is not designed or constructed as a van" with reference to the new federal regulation.

The chairman of the review board on legislative measures stated yesterday that he felt a hearing on Bill 110 would be held by February 15, 1977. I realize the request is on short notice but also realize that without some interpretation from your agency, we will be forced to live with a measure that will be very costly and inefficient.

Thank you for your help and assistance.

Carlyle Holtan Director of Transportation

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: nht89-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- DEPUTY DIRECTOR TIRE DIVISION RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 109, PART 575.104; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO E. H. GALLOWAY -- UNIFORM T IRE QUALITY GRADING TEST FACILITY, RE INFLATION PRESSURES FOR TRACTION GRADING PROCEDURES IN UTQGS

TEXT: Dear Sir:

On behalf of domestic manufacturers of tires, the RMA requests that you reconsider the NHTSA position taken in your August 30, 1989 letter to E. H. Galloway concerning UTQG traction test inflation pressures. Your interpretation that metric designated ti res (including P-metric tires) which are labeled for maximum pressure in both kilopascals (kPa) and common english (psi) units should be treated the same as those labeled with english values only is contrary to long standing industry interpretation and p ractice.

The following is offered in support of our request:

1. All tires designed using the metric system are required by FMVSS 109, para. S4,3,4(a) to show not only kPa pressure information, but the equivalent value in english units (psi) in parenthesis. Thus, no tires can be sold or offered for sale in the U. S. market with pressures specified only in kilopascals.

2. Load Range B alpha-numeric and numeric tires are labeled 32 psi maximum inflation pressure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 24 psi. Standard load P-metric tires are labeled 240 kPa (35 psi) maximum inflation pre ssure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 180 kPa (26 psi). Since P-metric tires are normally used at slightly higher pressures by consumers in accordance with vehicle manufacturers recommendations, it is logical that they be tested at slightly higher pressures.

3. Industry and private testing organizations have been testing P metric tires for UTQG traction using 180 kPa at the NHTSA test facility in San Angelo, Texas for 10 years with no prior comment from NHTSA.

4. In summary, our members sincerely believe the intent of the regulation is to test alpha-numeric tires at 24 psi and P-metric tires at 180 kPa. We ask your timely reconsideration of your August 30, 1989, interpretation to minimize confusion within th e industry.

5. NHTSA has specified variations in test pressures for UTQG treadwear and temperature tests and in FMVSS 109 bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance and high speed tests to accommodate the differences between P- metric (240 kPa) and alpha numeric /numeric (32 psi) tires. The same philosophy should apply to traction testing.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-2.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 20, 1990

FROM: Wayne Brush -- Director, Material Management, Conceptor Industries, Inc.

TO: Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-25-90 to W. Brush from P. J. Rice; signature by S. P. Wood

TEXT:

Conceptor Industries Inc. ("Conceptor"), a subsidiary of Magna International Inc., in conjunction with the Electric Vehicle Development Corporation, the Electric Power Research Institute and several U.S. Electric Utilities is modifying General Motors Van s to produce electric powered vehicles for sale into the United States and Canada.

In January 1989, Conceptor made an application for a temporary exemption from three Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This exemption was subsequently granted in November 1989 (Docket No. EX 89-2; Notice 2) with an expiry date of November 1, 1990. Conceptor has completed its testing program and concluded that the vehicle meets paragraphs S5.1.1.3, S5.1.2, and S5.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.105 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, 49 CFR 571.124 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 12 4 Accelerator Control Systems, and paragraphs S6.2/S6.4, and S6.3/S6.4 of 49 CFR 571.301 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity.

The purpose of this letter is to seek your assistance in resolving a difficult administrative problem for both General Motors and Conceptor concerning the assignment of the vehicle identification number for the electric van. Both companies are aware tha t the vehicle may not fit the current definition of an incomplete vehicle as described in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 568 (49 CFR 568) due to the fact that the shell as manufactured by General Motors lacks a power train. However, the shel l does have the other minimum requirements, i.e. a frame and chassis structure, steering system, suspension system and braking system. Due to this variance from the definition your department has indicated that Conceptor must assign the VIN. While Conce ptor is prepared to do this, use of a VIN to that is to a large extent different than that used by General Motors causes serious administrative difficulties in terms of tracking warranty, safety recall campaigns, etc. With this in mind, General Motors h as suggested that Conceptor use a VIN while it uses the GM world manufacturer identifier, check digit, model, year and production sequence codes, has a unique vehicle description code placing an "X" as the engine type code. An example of the proposed VI N is shown below:

2GKGG35X1K4528366

I would appreciate your thoughts on whether this approach is acceptable to NHTSA and if so, some guidance on how to secure the necessary approval. Early resolution of this matter is very important to us as we hope to be in production on July 9, 1990.

I will contact your office early next week to set up a convenient time to meet and discuss this issue.

ID: nht87-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/05/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Patterson Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Barry Patterson President Patterson Incorporated 1920 Springfield Road Kelowna, B.C. VlY 7R8

Dear Mr. Patterson:

This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1987, asking for our "acceptance and recommendation" of a safety device "endorsed" by the government of the province of Saskatchewan. This device automatically activates parking lamps, and the lower beams of headlamps "with the touch of the Brake Pedal".

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to accept, recommend, or endorse any item of motor vehicle equipment. We can, however, discuss the relationship of your device to U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, Lamp Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act") under which the standard was issued. This standard applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. A device such as yours is permi ssible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. There is no indication in your descriptive literature that the effectiveness of packing lamps, headlamps, or the stop lamps would be impaired by the installation and operation of your device. With respect to sale in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, your device is not prohibited under the Act if its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner does not rend er inoperative in whole or in part any lamps installed to comply with Standard No. 108. We see no indication that this would occur. However, such an installer should be aware of the wiring requirement in Standard No. 108 that taillamps, parking lamps, si de marker lamps, and the license plate lamp shall be activated when the headlamps are on. The rules for operation of vehicles in use are established by the individual States, and several of these may have restrictions on the use of headlamps during daylight hours. For further information on this subject you should write the American Associati on of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

This agency has proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytime running lights, in a manner similar, though not identical, to the new requirement of the Canadian Ministry of Transport. If this proposal is adopted, the Act would prohibit any State f rom having a different standard than the Federal one. As of the effective date of such an amendment to Standard No. 108 daytime operation of frontal lighting should be permissible in all States. If you have any further questions we will be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James E. Campbell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James C. Campbell 2719 So. 29th Street Ft. Pierce, FL 33450

Dear Mr. Campbell:

This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1986, in which you have asked the following question:

"If someone has a patent on an invention, as in the case of the turn signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A. make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to that invention, or does he lose those rights once it becomes mandatory?"

The answer to your question is that rights given under a patent issued by the United States Patent Office cannot be divested by the actions of a governmental agency such as the N.H.T.S.A. Were we to require that a patented item of equipment be standard o n all passenger cars, the patent holder would retain all rights. However, it is important that you understand that the agency does not mandate the adoption of equipment of a proprietary nature. By law, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are defin ed as minimum standards for motor vehicle performance; to the extent practicable the standards specify performance requirements to be met (e.g., no more than 5 ounces of fuel spillage in the first 5 minutes following a 30 mph frontal barrier collision), leaving the design solution to the manufacturer who may incorporate proprietary components if he chooses.

The performance requirements of our standards vary in their degree of specificity. In some instances the agency has had to develop fairly specific requirements to ensure uniformity and interchangeability of replacement equipment items such as brake hoses , tires, and lighting equipment. This can increase the likelihood of the incorporation of proprietary elements. Many of the changes which are made to the standards are made in response to petitions from manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle eq uipment. This is especially true in the area of motor vehicle lighting which is covered by Standard No. instances, a petitioner may request a change which incorporates specifications which are covered by a patent. In these cases, the agency endeavors to insure that the technology is made available on a non-exclusive royalty-free basis to all who wish to use it before amending the standard.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Sir or Madam;

If someone has a patent on an invention, in the case of the turn signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to than invention, or does he lose those right s once it becomes mandatory?

Sincerely;

James E. Campbell