NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 1171 - 1180 of 16514

Interpretations	Date
search results table
ID: aiam2267 Open Mr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 22, 1976, request fo interpretation of the provision of Standard No. 217, Emergency Exits, that requires unobstructed passage of a described parallelepiped through the opening provided by an open rear emergency door in the case of a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds (S5.4.2(a)). The dimensions of the parallelepiped are 45 inches by 24 inches by 12 inches, and it is oriented so that the 45-inch dimension is vertical, the 24-inch dimension is parallel to the opening, and the lower surface is in contact with the bus floor.; You point out that unobstructed passage' through the opening could b considered to occur when the rearmost surface of the parallelepiped coincides with a vertical transverse plane that intersects the outer surface of the bus body at either the top or the bottom of the opening, or intersects the inner surface of the bus body at either the top or the bottom of the opening.; The NHTSA considers unobstructed passage of the parallelepiped to occu when its rearmost surface coincides with the vertical transverse plane that intersects the outer surface of the bus body at the bottom of the opening in question. Thus, your intention to assure compliance by measuring unobstructed passage at the point when the rearmost surface is flush with the bus body outer surface appears justified. The agency does not consider the bus body outer surface to include rub rails or trim materials for purposes of this measurement.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5408 Open Mrs. Carmen Colet Vice President John Russo Industrial, Inc. 575 West San Carlos Street San Jose, CA 95126; Mrs. Carmen Colet Vice President John Russo Industrial Inc. 575 West San Carlos Street San Jose CA 95126; "Dear Mrs. Colet: This responds to your request for an interpretatio whether Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applies to your 'aircraft rescue and fire- fighting vehicle.' As explained below, the answer is no. Your letter states that your company is constructing the vehicle 'to satisfy proposed U.S.A.F. and D.O.D.' specifications. The vehicle is made to operate on airfields. You described the unusual configuration of the vehicle as having a 'cockpit' that is 'similar to 117A Stealth Fighter,' having bumpers that are 5 feet high, and having a 'power water turret on top.' You further stated that vehicle uses tires 54 inches high and over two feet wide, that are made to be run on only for 20 minutes, at a speed of up to 65 miles per hour. Enclosed with your letter is a picture of the vehicle, which you asked be kept confidential. Although your request for confidentiality does not comply with NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 512 Confidential Business Information, in order to save time, I will not publicly disclose the picture. The FMVSSs apply only to 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). 'Motor vehicle' is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as: a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. We have interpreted this language to mean that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. In an interpretation letter of December 28, 1979, to Walter Motor Truck Company, NHTSA determined that the Walter airport crash-fire-rescue vehicle does not qualify as a motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS. Your description of your aircraft rescue vehicle indicates that the vehicle is to be used only within an airfield. In particular, the size and 20 minute running time of the tires, appears to make the vehicle impracticable for highway use. Based on the information you have provided, and our understanding that your vehicles are neither used on public roads nor suitable for such use, we conclude that the 'aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicle' is not a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, your vehicle is not subject to Standard No. 115. Since you are not a manufacturer of a 'motor vehicle,' you do not have to furnish NHTSA with information pursuant to 49 CFR part 566 Manufacturer Identification. Enclosed with this letter is your picture of the aircraft rescue and fire- fighting vehicle. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam3925 Open Mr. Jeffrey Richard, JBR Manufacturing, P.O. Box 415, Fairfield, IA 52556; Mr. Jeffrey Richard JBR Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield IA 52556; Dear Mr. Richard: This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safet standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a 6 inch by a 4 inch sheet of 1/8 inch thick semi-transparent rubber that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films o other sun screen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered, continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.; After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may alter thei vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.; If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair busines installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; I am enclosing the sample of your product you sent with your letter. I you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1918 Open Mr. A. L. Aslan, Aslan Truck Service, P.O. Box 291, Kingsburg, CA 93631; Mr. A. L. Aslan Aslan Truck Service P.O. Box 291 Kingsburg CA 93631; Dear Mr. Aslan: Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1975, explaining your reason for not purchasing bulk agricultural commodity trailers that conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You said that you expect that the new systems will be disabled or destroyed by rough usage in the fields, and that you intend to manufacture trailers that do not conform to the standard.; We have no reason to believe that the new axle systems will be mor susceptible to field hazards than are present systems. Most antilock systems are designed so that the outboard sensor is enclosed in the hub and the wiring harness is routed inside the axle to the antilock module. There are antilock systems that incorporate the antilock module and air valve in the same location as the relay valve found on pre-121 vehicles. We therefore expect little change in the susceptibility of these vehicles to field hazards.; You stated that you intend to manufacture air-braked trailers for you own use which do not comply with Standard No. 121. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq.) prohibits the manufacture of non-complying vehicles after the effective date of an applicable standard as follows:; >>>S 1397(a)(1) No person shall -- (A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or delive for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, . . .<<<; From your description, your plans to build vehicles which woul subsequently be introduced in interstate commerce (i.e., driven on the public highway) would appear to be in violation of this section. Civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation can be assessed under S 1398 of the Act.; I am interested in hearing form you on your experience with Standar No. 121 if you choose to purchase any complying vehicles. In any case, I would like to assure you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in the process of monitoring the standard's economic impact. The NHTSA will attempt to identify any modifications that would lower the standard's cost while achieving comparable levels of safety.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator
ID: aiam2637 Open Mr. John B. White, Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept., Michelin Tire Corporation, New Hyde Park P.O., P.O. Box 3467, New York 11040; Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept. Michelin Tire Corporation New Hyde Park P.O. P.O. Box 3467 New York 11040; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking who must mark a ri in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, in those cases where the rim is manufactured by one manufacturer and then supplied to a wheel manufacturer who welds the rim to a disk making a completed wheel.; The National Traffic Safety Administration has determined that the ri marking must be undertaken by the rim manufacturer. The rim manufacturer is best able to supply the required rim information and undertake the certification required by S5.2 of the standard. The subsequent addition of the disc to the rim should not alter the information marked on the rim.; Sincerely, Joseph J., Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4649 Open Mr. Jim Bowen Vice President of Quality, Service and Parts Gulf Stream Coach, Inc. P.O. Box l005 Nappanee, IN 46550; Mr. Jim Bowen Vice President of Quality Service and Parts Gulf Stream Coach Inc. P.O. Box l005 Nappanee IN 46550; "Dear Mr. Bowen: This responds to your letter concerning th installation of a television receiver in view of the driver of a vehicle. You asked whether the television is required to be off, when the ignition switch is turned on. I regret the delay in responding. Your question is responded to below. 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 Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. I have enclosed a copy of a June 4, l987 letter, addressed to Panasonic, which discusses a number of issues relating to the installation of television receivers in motor vehicles. The letter notes that NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers. The letter also explains that is possible that the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards. With respect to your specific question concerning whether a television receiver installed in view of the driver of a vehicle is required to be off when the ignition is turned on, I would like to draw your attention to one requirement of Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays. Section S5.3.5 of that standard reads as follows: Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (ll0.6 mm) rearward of the manikin 'H' point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (l) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent glare visible to the driver. If a television receiver installed in view of the driver is capable of operation while the vehicle is in motion, it would be subject to this requirement. While NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers, the installation of a television receiver in view of the driver which is capable of operation while the vehicle is in motion would raise obvious safety concerns related to possible driver distraction. If you are considering such installation, we recommend that you carefully evaluate the safety implications of such action. Finally, I note that state laws may cover the installation of television receivers in motor vehicles. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators may be able to provide information on that issue. Its address is: 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam3476 Open Mr. Morris Wiant, Coleman Company, Inc., 250 North St. Francis, Wichita, KS 67202; Mr. Morris Wiant Coleman Company Inc. 250 North St. Francis Wichita KS 67202; Dear Mr. Wiant: This is in response to your telephone conversation of September 17 wit Roger Fairchild of this office, in which you requested written confirmation that your company's vehicle identification number system as described in your June 8 letter to this agency complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not giv advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4219 Open Mr. Paul Meeker, Senior Product Designer, Century Products, Inc., 1366 Commerce Drive, Stow, OH 44224-1793; Mr. Paul Meeker Senior Product Designer Century Products Inc. 1366 Commerce Drive Stow OH 44224-1793; Dear Mr. Meeker: This responds to your letter to Mr. Vladislav Radovich of ou Rulemaking division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you noted that Collier-Keyworth now sells a child seat with a movable shield that is not spring- loaded. A movable shield that is not spring loaded will remain in position in front of the child seat occupant, even if the crotch strap attached to the shield is not properly fastened. You stated that your company would like to build a child seat with a movable shield that is not spring-loaded, and stated your opinion that shields need not be spring-loaded to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213.; Your opinion is correct if read narrowly, because no provision o Standard No. 213 requires or ever has required movable shields on child restraints to be spring-loaded. However, if a child restraint incorporates a movable shield, section S.6.1.2.1.2 of Standard No. 213 specifies that the child restraint must be certified as complying with test configuration II. In test configuration II, the child restraint is subjected to a 20 mile per hour frontal crash. Section S6.1.2.3.1(c) provides that none of the child restraint belts are to be attached during this test, unless the belts are an integral part of the movable shield. Because of this requirement and the agency's interpretations thereof, child restraints have generally incorporated spring-loaded movable shields. This agency discussed these provisions and their applicability to the Collier-Keyworth non-spring-loaded shields at length in a July 3, 1985, letter to Mr. Frederick Locker. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information.; If you have any further questions about this subject after reviewin the letter to Mr. Locker, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3026 Open Mr. Don M. Carnahan, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Old Capitol Building, Olympia, WA 98504; Mr. Don M. Carnahan Superintendent of Public Instruction Old Capitol Building Olympia WA 98504; Dear Mr. Carnahan: This responds to your May 10, 1979, letter asking about modification of buses to reduce seating capacity so that they no longer must comply with school bus safety standards.; First, let me clarify several points. In applying motor vehicle safet standards, we define a 'school bus' as a bus that transports children to or from school or related events. Our regulations further define 'bus' as a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The phrase 'more than 10 persons' includes the driver. Accordingly, any vehicle that transports 11 people is a bus.; Your first problem appears to involve how to determine whether vehicle is designed to carry more than 10 persons. You indicate, for example, that some manufacturers have attached labels to their vehicles stating that they are designed to transport 15 passengers. However, some of the vehicles only have 8 or 9 seats. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration measures vehicle capacity by the number of designated seating positions. Therefore, a vehicle that has 8 designated seating positions is not a bus. Such a vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle. If you are unsure of the vehicle type, refer to the vehicle certification label located on the door pillar post or on the inside of the door. That label lists the vehicle type as established by its manufacturer.; Any vehicle that is sent from its manufacturer and certified i compliance with multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) standards may be used to transport school children. These vehicles, since they are not buses, need not comply with the school bus safety standards. On the other hand, any vehicle that is certified as a bus, but not a school bus, should not be used to transport school children.; You ask whether a bus can be modified by removing seats so that i would no longer be of a passenger capacity that would require it to comply with the school bus safety standards. In theory such a modification is permissible. If a dealer makes such a modification, it must attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, Certification, of our regulations. Since the dealer would be changing the vehicle type (from bus to MPV), it must make sure that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to the new vehicle type. This might be difficult since some different standards apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles than apply to buses. However, it is conceivable that the initial vehicle manufacturer might be able to assure the dealer that the vehicle was built in compliance with all necessary standards. In such a case, the dealer could attach a label, and the vehicle would be properly certified.; If a school modifies its own vehicles, it need not attach a label Also, it need not assure that the vehicles comply with any standards. In the event of an accident, however, a school could incur substantial liability if it were operating a vehicle that was not in compliance with the appropriate safety standards.; In your final question you ask what agency enforces the standard against dealers and manufacturers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration enforces all of the motor vehicle safety standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3532 Open Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager, Safety and Emission Control engineering, BMW of North America, Inc., Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager Safety and Emission Control engineering BMW of North America Inc. Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Ziwica: This responds to your letter asking several questions about the use o informational readout displays in relation to FMVSS 101-80 Controls and Displays, 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems and 208 Occupant Crash Protection.; Each of your questions assumes the use of informational readou displays as telltales. The light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101- 80 currently prevent informational readout displays from being used as telltales. Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires that informational readout displays must have at least two light intensity values, a relatively high one for daytime use and a relatively low one for nighttime use. The same section requires that the light intensity of telltales shall not be variable. Since it is not possible for an informational readout display to simultaneously meet both requirements, such a display cannot be used as a telltale.; The agency has recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM that would permit informational readout displays to be used as telltales. We have enclosed a copy of that notice.; I would like to point out the following statement in the NPRM: >>>Various amendments may be necessary to Standard No. 101-80, as wel as to several other safety standards which include requirements for warning indicators, to permit fuller use of informational readout displays. The amendments proposed by this notice are a first step in that direction.<<<; We would welcome any comments that you might have on this matter t assist us in future rulemaking. You may also wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking on any changes that you believe should be made.; The following discussion explains the effect that the proposal woul have on your questions.; Question 1 Your first question asks whether the words 'Fasten Seat Belts' may b used in an informational readout display instead of the seat belt warning symbol under FMVSS 101-80 and 208.the answer would be yes under the proposal. The NPRM states:; >>>Sections S4.5.3.3(b) and S7.3 of S571.208 would be amended to permi the words 'Fasten Belts' or Fasten Seat Belts' as an alternative to the seat belt warning symbol in informational readout displays.<<<; Question 2 Your second question concerns the possibility of allowing cancellatio of telltales by voluntary action on the part of the driver. The question asks whether it is permissible to provide a push button that enables drivers to cancel telltales. The answer to this question, which is not dealt with in the NPRM, is no.; While the question is asked separately for the seat belt telltale an telltales not required by any safety standard in the first place, the answer is not dependent of that distinction. Section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101-80 requires that the light intensity of each telltale shall not be variable and shall be such that, when activated the telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. We interpret this section to mean that a telltale cannot be cancellable. If it were cancellable, the telltale would not meet requirements that it not be variable and that it be visible to the drive under all daytime and nighttime conditions.; We note that the activation requirements for the seat belt telltal depend on whether it is for a manual belt or automatic belt. For a manual belt, section S7.3 of Standard No. 208 states that the seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position must be equipped with a warning system that activates for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds a continuous or flashing light. Thus, while a manufacturer has the discretion to provide an activation time of between 4 and 8 seconds, the telltale still may not be cancellable.; Section S4.5.3.3 requires a different type of warning system fo automatic belts. While the audible signal must be activated for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds, the visual warning light must be activated for as long as the belt is not fastened.; Question 3 Your third question asks whether it is permissible to use a information readout display to meet the visual brake warning system requirements of Standard NO. 105. The answer would be yes under the proposal.; Section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105 states: >>>Each indicator lamp shall have a lens labeled in letters not les than 1/8-inch high, which shall be legible to the driver in daylight when lighted. The lens and letters shall have contrasting colors, one of which is red....<<<; It is our interpretation that the illuminated pattern of letters an glazing of an information readout display would constitute a 'lens labeled in letters.' This interpretation leaves unanswered other questions about whether a particular informational readout display would meet other requirements of Standard No. 105, such as the color requirement of section S5.3.5.; Question 4 Your fourth question asks whether an informational readout displa specifying specific brake problems constitutes separate indicator lamps under the language of Standard NO. 105, if a brake warning lamp is present which separately fulfills the requirements of S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105. The answer is no.; Section S3 of Standard No. 105 specifies various performanc requirements for brake system indicators lamps. Under section S3.5, a manufacturer may meet the requirements either by a single common indicator or by separate indicator lamps.; It is our interpretation that if a manufacturer separately meets th requirements of section S3 by a single common indicator lamp, additional indicator lamps that are added voluntarily by the manufacturer are not subject to Standard No. 105's requirements.; Question 5 Your fifth question asks about the requirements for an informationa readout display which is a telltale. The NPRM proposes the following language:; >>>S5.3.3.2 Telltales and gauges incorporated into informationa readout display--<<<; >>>(a) Shall have not less than two levels of light intensity, a highe one for day and a lower one for nighttime conditions.<<<; >>>(b) In the case of telltales and gauges not equipped with a variabl light intensity control, shall have a light intensity at the higher level provided under paragraph (a) of this section whenever the headlamps are not illuminated.<<<; >>>(c) In the case of telltales and gauges equipped with a variabl light intensity control, shall be visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions when the illumination level is set to its lowest level.<<<; The agency does find the system that you are considering developin very interesting. If you do submit a petition for rulemaking, there is one issue that we would appreciate your addressing. Our initial reaction to the idea of permitting drivers to cancel telltales is one of concern, since drivers might either cancel a telltale inadvertently or simply forget that they have done so. An informational readout display which flashed its warnings in sequence might answer those concerns. We would appreciate your addressing the safety consequences of those and any other alternatives that your might be considering.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel