NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: nht91-2.20

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TO: Billy S. Peterson -- President, Automotive Safety Testing, Inc. at TRC of Ohio

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-7-91 from Billy S. Peterson to Office of Chief Council (OCC 5709)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1991, to the Office of Chief Counsel asking for a clarification of allowable mounting locations and photometric output requirements for tail/stop lamps on passenger cars.

One of your clients wishes to mount "two-part" stop/tail lamps "so that one lamp is mounted on the fixed quarter panel and a duplicate lamp is mounted on the trunk lid." Each part of the two-part lamp is a combination tail/stop lamp. You have asked whether the minimum photometric requirements must be met by "the lamp mounted to the quarter panel or may the portion mounted on the trunk lid count toward the photometric requirements."

Your "two-part lamp" would be treated as two separate lamps. For purposes of compliance, only one of these two adjacent lamps must be designed to conform to Standard No. 108, and this conformance must be independent of any "contribution" by the adjacent lamp. Although Standard No. 108 permits either the deck or the body mounted lamp to be the complying lamp, it would be our preference that the body mounted lamp be the one that complies, so that the benefit of a conforming stop/tail lamp would be realized during those occasions when the lid may be raised.

ID: nht88-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/17/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT CUZZI -- BREDA TRANSPORTATION, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 12-9-87, FROM ROBERT CUZZI, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, RE: 020-1287

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are excluded from coverage under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. I regret the delay in respondin g to your letter.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 301 applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and to all new school buses. The buses you manufacture for sale as muni cipal transit buses are excluded from Standard No. 301 because their GVWR is greater than the 10,000 pound limit established for the standard.

You asked also whether there are any other Federal standards that might apply to the fuel tanks on your transit buses. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) f or their direct reply as to the applicability of any FHWA or UMTA regulations to your transit vehicles. You might also contact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to see whether that agency has any requirements affecting the fuel tanks on your bus es. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

ID: aiam3185

Dear Mr. Libman: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1979, inquiring if it i permissible for your suppliers to cut off the DOT serial numbers on used tires before selling those tires to your company. You stated in your letter that your company buys used tires from several companies. These tires generally either have cuts in the tread or sidewalls or are out of round. Your company then resells the tires to another company, which resells the tires to the public.; The answer to your question is no. The presence of the DO identification number on tires is required by several of this agency's regulation. Our tire identification and record keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) requires that each manufacturer place the DOT number on at least one sidewall of each tire that it manufactures. The number serves several purposes. It is indispensable in aiding consumers to identify tires subject to a recall campaign for safety defects and noncompliance with the safety standards. It also aids this agency in enforcing its tire safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 109 (Passenger car tries, 49 CFR 571.119) and 119 (Tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, 49 CFR 571.119) require that each tire manufacturer certify that its tires conform to all applicable Federal safety standards by branding or molding the DOT number on the tire.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), states that, 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on... an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' By removing the DOT identification number from a tire, the person would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tires which is included on the tire for compliance with the requirements of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Section 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1874

Dear Mr. Rhodes: This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. William R. Langer, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal Bumper Standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register Notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1970 (sic) model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency sponsored studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975, which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Langer has directed his comments to what he believes to be proposed requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. Such an understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The January 2, 1975 proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face (plastic) systems. The March 12, 1975 notice reiterates the agency's position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The requirements proposed in the March notice, however, ensure that a wide variety of materials could continue to be used in bumper systems.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam5071

"Dear Mr. Leone: This responds to your FAX of August 6, 1992, to Taylo Vinson of this Office, asking for rules and regulations of the Department on electric vehicles. I understand that you talked with Mr. Vinson later in the day, and received an overview of the matter. I further understand that you intend only the construction of a single experimental vehicle, and have no plans for its production. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the introduction into interstate commerce, by any person, of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a violation, for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 may be imposed. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are set out in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. There are no standards that apply specifically to electric vehicles, and the standards that apply to your project car are those that apply to 'passenger cars' in general. However, the manufacturer of an electric vehicle may petition us for a temporary exemption (up to 2 years) from one or more of the safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle. The temporary exemption regulations are found at 49 CFR Part 555. An exemption covers up to 2,500 vehicles per year for any 12-month period that the exemption is in effect. Regulations governing the licensing of motor vehicles are the prerogative of the individual States. Thus, you should inquire as to what Rhode Island requires for your contemplated vehicle. There is a regulatory gap which your situation highlights, and that is the legal status of a person who intends to build only a single motor vehicle. Such a person is not a 'manufacturer' under the Act, since the operative portion of the definition of 'manufacturer' is one who manufactures or assembles 'motor vehicles'. The temporary exemption authority appears directed towards commercial enterprises and not single motor vehicles. Nevertheless, we believe we have the authority to exempt a single motor vehicle under these provisions. If you wish to consult us further in this matter, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to help you. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4226

Dear Ms. Kreeger: This responds to your letters of June 27, 1986, and July 11, 1986, an your subsequent phone conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the safety belt installation requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following information is of assistance to you.; As Mr. Oesch discussed with you, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, sets forth the safety belt installation requirements for passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses. The standard, a copy of which is enclosed, regulates only the installation of safety belts and does not require their use. However, the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carriers has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 392.16) that requires safety belt use by operators of trucks and buses involved in interstate commerce. Belt use is also governed by State mandatory use laws.; S4.2.2 and S4.3 of the standard set forth the safety belt installatio requirements for new multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). Our regulations (49 CFR 571.3) define an MPV as a 'motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' S4.2.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208 require the installation of a safety belt for each designated seating position in a MPV.; S4.4 of the standard sets forth the safety belt installatio requirements for buses. Our regulations define a bus as a 'motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' S4.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of a safety belt at only the driver's designated seating position in a bus. The agency has set additional safety belt requirements for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires the installation of a safety belt at the passenger seats in those small school buses. A copy of Standard No. 222 is enclosed.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2006

Dear Mr. Long: This is to confirm your telephone conversation of July 31, 1975, wit Mark Schwimmer concerning the treadwear test procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* (UTQGS).; You had previously pointed out that the A78-13 and other tires ar available neither as original equipment nor as recommended replacement options on any 1975 model passenger cars, although they are available as replacement options for the 1974 Ford Pinto. You had asked whether it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to conduct treadwear testing for such tires on a 1975 Pinto, in light of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) statement that; >>>tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which the are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. (40 FR 23076, May 28, 1975)<<<; As Mr. Schwimmer explained to you, the UTQGS rules does not dictate th method by which a tire manufacturer must conduct his testing to assign grades. It merely specifies the procedures which the NHTSA will follow when testing tires for compliance with the rule. While the surest way for the tire manufacturer to be confident of compliance would be to follow these procedures in every detail, he is not legally obligated to do so. His obligation is simply to ensure that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the specified procedures, his tires are capable of achieving the grades which he has assigned to them. He may fulfill this obligation by whatever means he believes reliable and necessary. Thus, for example, he might choose a 1975 Pinto to test an A78-13 tire, if he is confident that the model year change in the Pinto will have no effect on the tire's treadwear performance. This decision is his, however. The NHTSA, in its compliance testing, would test such a tire on a 1974 Pinto or on some other passenger car for which it is original equipment or a recommended replacement option.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1850

Dear Mr. Marx: This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Jim Lee Martin, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal Bumper Standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a Federal Register notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5 mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1979 model year. The impact requirements would then be increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency sponsored studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published on March 12, 1975 (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Martin has directed his comments to what he believes to be proposed requirement that vehicles manufactured in the future be equipped with plastic bumper systems. Such an understanding of the proposal is incorrect. The January 2, 1975 proposal was aimed at enabling a reduction in vehicle weight. In the preamble to that notice, the NHTSA cited soft face bumpers as one type of system that could produce a significant weight reduction. However, no proposal was made to require the use of soft face (plastic) systems. The March 12, 1975 notice reiterates the agency's position that bumpers which are lighter in weight than those currently in mass production could and probably would be developed. The requirements proposed in the March notice, however, ensure that a wide variety of materials could continue to be used in bumper systems.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1888

Dear Senator Bayh: This is in response to your letter requesting information concernin correspondence from Mr. James A. Graham, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal bumper standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a *Federal Register* notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5-mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1979 model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency-sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a *Federal Register* notice that was published on March 12, 1975 (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; In his letter Mr. Graham objects to the standard's regulation o surface damage, such as dents, stating that this is not the type of damage which should be addressed by an agency developing safety standards. The surface damage criteria are proposed as part of a standard being promulgated under Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513). The Cost Savings Act directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a bumper standard that will obtain the maximum feasible reduction of costs to the public and the consumer. As such, the standard is not to be limited to affecting safety-related damage. Factors such as insurance costs and consumer time and inconvenience are to be considered in the rulemaking as well.; Mr. Graham's comments will be placed in the public docket where the will receive every consideration.; We appreciate your interest and that of Mr. Graham in this area o motor vehicle safety and performance.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam1885

Dear Senator Talmadge: This is in response to your letter requesting information concernin correspondence from Mr. James A. Graham, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal bumper standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a *Federal Register* notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5-mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1979 model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency-sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a *Federal Register* notice that was published on March 12, 1975 (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; In his letter Mr. Graham objects to the standard's regulation o surface damage, such as dents, stating that this is not the type of damage which should be addressed by an agency developing safety standards. The surface damage criteria are proposed as part of a standard being promulgated under Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513). The Cost Savings Act directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a bumper standard that will obtain the maximum feasible reduction of costs to the public and the consumer. As such, the standard is not to be limited to affecting safety-related damage. Factors such as insurance costs and consumer time and inconvenience are to be considered in the rulemaking as well.; Mr. Graham's comments will be placed in the public docket where the will receive every consideration.; We appreciate your interest and that of Mr. Graham in this area o motor vehicle safety and performance.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;