NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 1391 - 1400 of 16514

Interpretations	Date
search results table
ID: aiam0651 Open Mr. Vern A. Moultrie, Manager, Manufacturing & Service, Schetky Equipment Corporation, P. O. Box 13365, Portland, OR 97213; Mr. Vern A. Moultrie Manager Manufacturing & Service Schetky Equipment Corporation P. O. Box 13365 Portland OR 97213; Dear Mr. Moultrie: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1972, in which you reques clarification of the Certification requirements (49 CFR Part 567). You ask whether certification is necessary, mentioning specifically certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.108, when you install new dump bodies on used chassis manufactured both before and after January 1, 1968.; The motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new vehicles, an neither compliance with the standards nor 'Certification' is required if you are installing truck bodies on used chassis.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4612 Open Mr. P.H. Moes President U.S. Trade Corp. 1661 Katy Lane Fort Mill, SC 29715; Mr. P.H. Moes President U.S. Trade Corp. 1661 Katy Lane Fort Mill SC 29715; "Dear Mr. Moes: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1989 requesting an interpretation of your company's obligations and responsibilities when importing and converting motor vehicles for use in the United States. Specifically, you asked about the effects of the differing practices of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to indicating the importer of record on their respective import forms, Form HS-7 and Form 3250-1. You also asked about your obligations for annual CAFE reporting. Your understanding that the vehicle owner is normally shown as the importer of record on DOT Form HS-7 is correct. EPA, on the other hand, requires that for purposes of certification under EPA Form 3520-1, an independent commercial importer (ICI) registered with EPA must be shown as the importer of record. You indicated that these two different designations of the importer of record have caused confusion in your dealings with U.S. Customs officials. You state that those officials have sometimes required customs brokers to list your company as the importer of record on the DOT forms as well as on the EPA form. The Customs Service headquarters office has recognized that there has been some confusion in the past, but has indicated to NHTSA that it intends to clarify this matter with its field offices. You should thus instruct your brokers to continue to indicate the vehicle's owner as the importer of record on the DOT importation declaration, Form HS-7 and the checklist of conformance operations, Form HS-189, if submitted. With respect to CAFE reporting, section 501(9) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, (15 USC 1901, at 200l(9)) defines the term 'manufacture' as meaning '... to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the United States, or to import' (emphasis added). Thus, under the Cost Savings Act, an importer is clearly a manufacturer for purposes ofCAFE requirements. Section 502 of the Cost Savings Act (l5 USC 2002) requires all manufacturers to comply with the CAFE standards for their vehicles, and section 505 (l5 USC 2005) sets out CAFE reporting requirements for such manufacturers. (See also, 49 CFR /537.5). As with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391 et seq.), it is the importer of record, as shown on Form HS-7, who must comply with these reporting requirements. Your firm, however, may be required to report fuel economy data to EPA. See, 40 CFR //85.1510(f), 600.312-86.) I hope you have found this information helpful. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam1410 Open Mr. H.W. Gerth, Mercedes-Benz of No. America, One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, New Jersey 07645; Mr. H.W. Gerth Mercedes-Benz of No. America One Mercedes Drive Montvale New Jersey 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1973, asking whethe each of the following tire labeling formats used by the Michelin Tire Corporation complies with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard NO. 109:; 1. '2 steel tread plies/ 2 rayon body plies', 2. 'max. load 1,310 lbs at 36 psi max press.' We find that the first label format fails to conform to the standard Paragraph S4.3(e) requires the tire to be labeled with, 'the actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual number of plies in the tread area, if different.' The labeling format used by Michelin creates the impression, contrary to the stated requirements, that the number of plies in the sidewall and the tread area is the same. viz. '2'. We consider the body plies, running from bead to bead and lying under the plies in the tread area, to be counted also as plies in the tread area. Thus, the number of plies in the tread area is '4', 2 steel and 2 rayon. Moreover, while we understand the words 'body plies' to be essentially synonymous with 'sidewall plies', we fell there is little justification for departing from the word of the standard, which uses the word 'sidewall' in referring to plies.; We find the second labeling format, that dealing with maximu permissible inflation pressure and maximum load rating, to conform to Standard No. 109. The words 'permissible,' 'inflation,' and 'rating' are not essential to conformity as long as the appropriate values, clearly identified, are provided.; For your information, I point out that NHTSA test laboratories ar without authority to interpret Federal motor vehicle safety standards or provide such interpretations to companies whose products they test. Only interpretations issued in the form of correspondence signed by authorized NHTSA personnel or by notice published in the Federal Register are considered by this agency to be binding.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3587 Open Mr. Ronald E. DeVolder, Vice President, Roberts Motor Company, 550 N.E. Columbia Boulevard, Portland, OR 97211; Mr. Ronald E. DeVolder Vice President Roberts Motor Company 550 N.E. Columbia Boulevard Portland OR 97211; Dear Mr. DeVolder: This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1982, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You enclose photos of a 1982 Kenworth truck which has two pairs o front turn signal lamps: one set (incorporating a side reflector) mounted 58 1/2 inches above the road surface and which are 83 inches apart, the other, mounted approximately 81 1/2 inches above the road surface and which are 110 inches apart. You have asked whether the vehicle would comply if the lower mounted set were removed and an amber reflex reflector placed on each side of the fender as far forward as practicable.; The answer is yes. The mounting height of 81 1/2 inches does not excee the limit of 83 inches imposed by Table II of Standard No. 108. In addition, the lamps appear to meet the two further requirements that they be located as far apart as practicable and at the same height.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4242 Open Mr. Tim O. Edwards, Safety Specialist, Kansas Department of Transportation, Bureau of Personnel Services, 7th Floor, State Office Building, Topeka, KS 66612; Mr. Tim O. Edwards Safety Specialist Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Personnel Services 7th Floor State Office Building Topeka KS 66612; Dear Mr. Edwards: I am writing in response to your recent inquiry concerning interio over-head luggage racks on school buses. Your first question seeks this Agency's opinion on whether interior luggage racks on school buses should be considered 'projections likely to cause injury' under the National Minimum Schoolbus Standards. These standards are recommendations by the National Conference on School Transportation (NCST), and are not developed by NHTSA. Requests for interpretation of these Standards should be mailed to the Interpretation Committee, addressed to:; >>>Mr. Norman Loper, Coordinator of Pupil Transportation, Alabam Department of Education, 304 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130<<<; Requests for modification to these Standards and development of ne Standards should be directed to the chairman of the Interim Committee, addressed to:; >>>Mr. Bill G. Loshbough, Asst. State Supt. for Transportation, Dept of Education, Education Bldg., Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786<<<; In response to your second question, there are no federal standards o regulations which specifically address the issue of over-head luggage racks on school buses. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) S571.222 addresses the issue of school bus passenger seating and crash protection. Specifically, S5.3.1 of that standard establishes the head protection zones. As defined in S5.3.1.1, that zone extends up to a horizontal plane 40 inches above the seating reference point. If the luggage rack were to be located within the head protection zone, the rack would have to meet the head form impact requirement in S5.3.1.2 and the head form force distribution requirement in S5.3.1.3.; Please feel free to contact this office if you have any othe questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1040 Open Mr. Norman E. Salzman, General Manager, The Fairmount Press, P.O. Box 3, Bronx, NY 10453; Mr. Norman E. Salzman General Manager The Fairmount Press P.O. Box 3 Bronx NY 10453; Dear Mr. Salzman: This is in response to your letter to Mr. Paris of February 28, 1973 concerning the Federal odometer Disclosure Requirements.; You ask, first, whether provision has been made for resale by wholesaler. By this you appear to suggest that wholesalers are not, or should not be, required to give a statement upon each resale. Our reply is that a wholesaler is on the same footing as any other transferor. If he owns the vehicle, however briefly, and resells it, he must disclose the mileage upon resale.; Your second question concerns the penalty for not issuing the require mileage statement. Our reply is that a failure to disclose is a violation of the requirements of the Act and is therefore subject to injunction under section 410. Furthermore, in the event that there are problems with an odometer, your failure to submit a statement would seriously undermine your defense in an action brought under section 409.; Your last question is whether both the New York form and the Federa form are necessary. Although we do not have a copy of the New York form, it is our understanding that it contains the greater part of the information required by our regulations. If the balance of the information can be added, we would not object to the use of the New York form to satisfy the Federal requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0082 Open Mr. D. S. Jarman, National Service Manager, Service Department, Volvo, Incorporated, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. D. S. Jarman National Service Manager Service Department Volvo Incorporated Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Jarman: Thank you for your letter of May 15, 1968, concerning electricall heated glass which you anticipate using for rear windows in your motor vehicles.; The present glazing requirement for motor vehicles are covered in Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials.' Section S3, Requirements, stipulates that the glazing materials used must conform to U.S.A. Standard Z 26.1-1966, 'American Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' July 15, 1966. If the electrically heated glass you mentioned meets the requirements of Standard No. 205, we would have no objection to its use.; Sincerely, George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service;
ID: aiam4868 Open Mr. David A. White Manager, Reliability Grumman Olson P.O. Box 2005 Sturgis, MI 49091; Mr. David A. White Manager Reliability Grumman Olson P.O. Box 2005 Sturgis MI 49091; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your 'notification of noncompliance with 49 CFR Part 567 dated March 12, l99l, and addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement. Grumman has omitted to provide a VIN on the vehicle certification label, as required by section 567.4(g)(6). You have petitioned 'to have the noncompliance deemed inconsequential', and are 'seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility.' The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires notification and remedy for noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for defects that relate to motor vehicle safety. The requirement that Grumman fails to meet is not contained in Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, but in a regulation that is not part of the Safety Standards (Part 571). Thus, a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard has not occurred. Furthermore, failure to provide information on the certification label in accordance with Part 567 is not a 'defect'. The Act defines a defect as a 'defect in performance, construction, components or materials.' Clearly this does not exist. In sum, there is no legal obligation upon Grumman Olson to notify and remedy under these circumstances, and the company is free to take whatever action it deems desirable in this case. Failure to comply with Part 567 is a violation of the Safety Act for which a civil penalty may be imposed, but the agency does not intend to seek a penalty in this matter. Nonetheless, we encourage Grumman Olson to take steps necessary to ensure that further violations do not occur. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam5280 Open Mr. J. Frank Haasbeek President International Transquip Industries, Inc. 6131 Brookhill Drive Houston, TX 77087-1131; Mr. J. Frank Haasbeek President International Transquip Industries Inc. 6131 Brookhill Drive Houston TX 77087-1131; "Dear Mr. Haasbeek: Thank you for your recent letter to Vice Presiden Gore, concerning a rulemaking related to your product. You believe that this agency has proceeded too slowly in the rulemaking. The Vice President has forwarded your letter to me for a reply. I understand your concern over this issue, but please be assured that this agency is working diligently to reach a final decision concerning this rulemaking. As you know, the notice of proposed rulemaking was published in March of this year, and the agency received a number of conflicting comments. We must carefully assess all of the arguments raised by the commenters before reaching a final decision. We are nearing the completion of that process and expect to announce a final decision in January 1994. I hope this information is helpful and appreciate your patience in this matter. Sincerely, Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator ";
ID: aiam0578 Open Miss Donna M. Bernard, Scott's Trailer Market, 2020 Fremont Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101; Miss Donna M. Bernard Scott's Trailer Market 2020 Fremont Street Las Vegas NV 89101; Dear Miss Bernard: In reply to your letter of January 28, 1972, we are enclosing a copy o Regulation Part 574 - Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.; To answer your specific question whether the manufacturer i responsible for furnishing the tire serial numbers, as a matter of record, on the invoice of the vehicle, the regulation does not specify this requirement.; The manufacturer is not required to retain a record of tir identification numbers for each vehicle prior to shipment of the vehicle. Normally, the dealer records these numbers at the time of sale along with the purchaser's name and address. The manufacturer provides the means to record this information and the dealer remits the information to him.; If the manufacturer chooses to retain a record of tire identificatio numbers for each vehicle prior to shipment, although he is not required to do so, he may request the dealer to send him only replacement numbers involved in a change, plus name and address of purchaser.; Please let us know if you need further clarification of the subject. Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;