NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam5519OpenMr. Paul Pinoski Project Engineer SLP Engineering, Inc. 1501 Industrial Way North Toms River, NJ 08755; Mr. Paul Pinoski Project Engineer SLP Engineering Inc. 1501 Industrial Way North Toms River NJ 08755; "Dear Mr. Pinoski: This responds to your letter to me in which yo requested an interpretation of the term 'vehicle capacity weight,' as defined in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110). I apologize for the delay in our response. FMVSS No. 110 applies to passenger cars. Section S4.3 of the standard requires a placard to be placed on the door of the glove compartment or other accessible place on which shall be displayed, among other things, the 'vehicle capacity weight.' This term is defined in S3 as meaning 'the rated cargo and luggage load plus 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' You asked how to obtain the 'rated cargo and luggage load,' so that you can calculate vehicle capacity weight. The agency does not define the term 'rated cargo and luggage load' or otherwise regulate how that load is determined. The term simply refers to the vehicle manufacturer's determination of the cargo and luggage carrying capacity of the vehicle. The choice of methodology to be used in making that determination is left to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. From a safety standpoint, the important issue is the overall value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a vehicle. That value is also known as the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The GVWR informs a vehicle owner how heavily he or she can load a vehicle. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR 'shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' (Emphasis added.) 'Rated cargo load' and 'rated cargo and luggage load' are interchangeable terms. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1080OpenMr. T. Hiramine, Director, Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd., No. 10 Mori Building, 28 Sakuragawa-Cho, Nishikubo, Shiba, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. T. Hiramine Director Takata Kojyo Co. Ltd. No. 10 Mori Building 28 Sakuragawa-Cho Nishikubo Shiba Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Hiramine: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1973, to Mr. Franci Armstrong, requesting various interpretations of Standards No. 208 and No. 209, with respect to safety belt systems.; Your first question, referenced to Figure No. 1 of the enclosure wit your letter, relates to the required strength of the webbing in the case where two widths are connected together in an upper torso assembly. Under the webbing strength requirements of S4.2(b) of Standard No. 209, both pieces of webbing in the upper torso restraint must, individually, meet a 4,000 pound strength test. Under the assembly performance requirements of S5.3(b) of Standard NO. 209, a common pelvic and upper torso restraint must meet a 3,000 pound strength test. The latter would be true regardless of whether sewing or other means is used to make the belt assembly.; Your second question, referenced to Figure 2 of the enclosure, relate to the bolt strength required in the belt assembly anchorage. Under the provisions of S4.1(f), 'equivalent hardware' is permissible in lieu of the 7/16 inch bolts. In such a case, the tests required under S4.3(c), as prescribed under S5.2(c), would be performed on the entire equivalent hardware, rather than on the individual components (bolts).; With respect to your third question, concerning the acceptability o belts that do not conform to the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209, our reply is that under the present circumstances such webbing would not conform to either Standard No. 208 or Standard No. 209. As a result of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in *Ford* v. *NHTSA*, belts installed under Standard No. 208's third option in 1973 (S4.1.2.3) will have to conform to Standard No. 209. Unless Standard No. 209 is amended with respect to its elongation requirements, therefore, energy absorbing webbing of the type you describe will not be permitted in 1974 cars,; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2263OpenMr. G.E. Adams, Technical Manager, Dunlop Limited, Engineering Group, Holbrook Lane Coventry CV6 4AA, England; Mr. G.E. Adams Technical Manager Dunlop Limited Engineering Group Holbrook Lane Coventry CV6 4AA England; Dear Mr. Adams: This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1976, requestin information concerning steps which you, as a manufacturer of wheel equipment which will be offered for importation into the United States, must take in order to comply with all applicable National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations.; You should be aware of 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification* and 49 CFR Part 573, *Defect Reports*. In addition, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, may be of interest to you. Copies of these rules and an information sheet entitled 'Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' are enclosed for your convenience.; Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. S1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made.; The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agen pursuant to the Act requires that it include:; >>>(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding o Dunlop Limited under the laws, corporate bylaws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; (2) The full legal name, principle place of business and mailin address of Dunlop Limited,; (3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products o Dunlop Limited that do not bear its legal name,; (4) A provision that the designation of agent remain in effect unti with drawn or replaced by Dunlop Limited,; (5) A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. Corporation, and (6) The full legal name and address of the designated agent.<<<; A copy of the procedural regulation for designation of agent i enclosed for your convenience.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0541OpenMr. Howard E. Ballard, Ballard Manufacturing Company, 1063 E. Third Street, Pomona, CA, 91766; Mr. Howard E. Ballard Ballard Manufacturing Company 1063 E. Third Street Pomona CA 91766; Dear Mr. Ballard: This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' You raise several questions in your letter which are restated below.; >>>1. 'What is the 'grace' period after the law comes into effect. .?'; Standard No. 302 was issued on December 9, 1970, and became effectiv with respect to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1972.; 2. 'Are we correct in assuming that slide-in campers and trave trailers are not affected by this law. . .?'; The Standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenge vehicles, trucks, and buses. It does not apply to trailers (including 'fifth-wheel trailers') or slide-in (including 'cab over') campers.; 3. 'Does the foam in quilted plastic material need to b flame-retardant if the plastic itself (non-quilted) is already flame-proofed?'; 4. 'If the 1/4 inch foam used in quilted material is flame-proofed must a 5 inch core of foam used in a fabricated cushion be flame-proofed, also?'; The Standard provides a detailed description of the components require to meet its requirements, and of the depth of the materials in those components that are required to be tested. Generally, the answer to both of these questions is yes, material within 1/2 inch of the surface of an item is subject to the requirements.; 5. 'On recover jobs, must we replace customer's old foam wit flame-retardant foam?'; Standard No. 302 does not apply to replacement parts of aftermarke materials.; 6. 'Must the plywoods used for backs in dinettes be flame-proofed i the plastic or cloth used to upholster them is already flame-proofed?'; You should note that the Standard does not require 'flame-proofing, rather that the specimens must not burn at more than 4 inches per minute. The test specimens are determined by depth, as stated in our preceding answer, not by the nature of the material. The answer would therefore depend on whether the plywood is within 1/2 inch of the surface.<<<; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1859OpenMr. Cleatis Mitchell, State Representative, District No. 52, House of Representatives, Salem, OR 97310; Mr. Cleatis Mitchell State Representative District No. 52 House of Representatives Salem OR 97310; Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is in response to your letter of March 3, 1975, requestin information concerning correspondence from 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 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 ageny-sponsore (sic) 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. 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: aiam3555OpenMr. Gary M. Ceazan, Vice President, Riken America, Inc., P.O. Box 3698 Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, Californian 90051; Mr. Gary M. Ceazan Vice President Riken America Inc. P.O. Box 3698 Terminal Annex Los Angeles Californian 90051; Dear Mr. Ceazan:This responds to your recent letter inquiring whethe it would be permissible for your company to label your tires in both the European metric size and the domestic P-metric size. Dual markings of sizes in the manner you have described are specifically prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S 571.109).; Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall b labeled with '*one* size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used.' A European metric size and its comparable domestic P-metric size are assigned different maximum load carrying capacities and different recommended maximum inflation pressures, because different formulae are used to calculate the load carrying capacities of the tires at the different inflation pressures. Because of the different load carrying capacities and recommended inflation pressures, substituting a European metric tire for a P-metric tire might cause the European metric tire to be unsafely overloaded. Dual markings could lead to such substitutions.; The dual-size markings you have requested were explicitly prohibite when this agency amended the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been expressly repeated in subsequent amendments addressing the question of tire labeling under the standard, *see* FR 10162, March 18, 1974, and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. The agency s reasoning is that these dual size markings are a representation by the manufacturer that a particular tire meets all requirements of Standard No. 109 for both listed sizes, which is not true. In fact, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars, i.e., by representing that the manufacturer's tire is an appropriate replacement for either European metric or P-metric tires. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The only purpose of that label is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe operation of the consumer's automobile.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1841OpenHonorable Lawton Chiles, United States Senator, Federal Building, Lakeland, FL 33801; Honorable Lawton Chiles United States Senator Federal Building Lakeland FL 33801; Dear Senator Chiles: This is in response to your letter of March 5, 1975, forwarding a inquiry from one of your constituents, Mr. Vincent Tetuan, concerning 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 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 March 12, 1975 which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; Mr. Tetuan appears to be directing his comments to what he believes t be a 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 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, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2447OpenMr. Byron Crampton, Truck Body and Equipment Association, 5530 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1220, Washington, D.C. 20015; Mr. Byron Crampton Truck Body and Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Ave. Suite 1220 Washington D.C. 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's November 8 1976, question whether any provision of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*, prohibits the certification of a vehicle following the addition of an axle system (typically known as a 'tag' or 'pusher' axle) that is not equipped with tires or rims at the time of sale and delivery to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale.; The answer to your question is no. The requirement of S5.1.1 tha '...each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet [specified requirements]...' prohibits the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but it is not a requirements that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale.; I would like to point out that S567.4(g) (4) of Part 567 *Certification*, requires that a gross axle weight rating be assigned to each axle system. Section S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 specifies that the GAWR be not more than the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to the axle in question. While the agency interprets Standard No. 120 to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate for that GAWR, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (such as Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*), would constitute a violation of S 108(a) (1) (D) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act:; >>> S108(a) (1) No person shall (A) ........... (c) Fail to issue a certificate required by section 114 of this title or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reasons to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect,..............<<<; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3722OpenMs. Mary Ruth Harsha, Office of General Counsel, 3M Center, P.O. Box 33428, St. Paul, MN 55133; Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha Office of General Counsel 3M Center P.O. Box 33428 St. Paul MN 55133; Dear Ms. Harsha: This responds to your company's recent letter regarding th applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety regulations to the sale and application of sun control films on motor vehicles. You ask whether our November 10, 1976, letter to your company on this same subject is still applicable, as well as several other questions.; Our November 1976 letter is still current. Solar films themselves ar not considered glazing materials under Safety Standard No. 205. As stated in that letter, however, the application of such films to motor vehicles by certain persons does give rise to responsibilities under Federal law. I am enclosing a copy of a recent letter of interpretation which discusses the pertinent Federal law on this subject.; I am also enclosing a copy of a telegram that we recently sent to th Hawaii Department of Transportation which discusses the preemptive effect of Safety Standard No. 205 over State laws governing the same aspect of motor vehicle performance, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et *seq*. (sic)). The Hawaii legislature has passed a law which attempts to allow dealers and businesses in that State to apply solar films on motor vehicles. Those films are allowed to reduce transmittance down to 35 percent. As pointed out in the enclosed telegram, Safety Standard No. 205 preempts that State statute in certain respects. The letter of interpretation and the telegram should answer all of your questions.; Please note that under Safety Standard No. 205 all windows in passenger car are considered requisite for driving visibility. Thus, all windows in a passenger car must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. In vehicles other than passenger cars, typically, only the windshield and front side windows are considered requisite for driving visibility. This means, for example, that a van could have solar films installed on windows behind the driver, since no transmittance requirements are specified for those windows.; I hope this has answered all your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2811OpenMr. Doug Mills, Rt. 1 Box 149, Tellico Plains, TN 37385; Mr. Doug Mills Rt. 1 Box 149 Tellico Plains TN 37385; Dear Mr. Mills: This responds to your recent letter asking additional question concerning the responsibilities of a person converting a pick-up truck into a dump truck, under Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. This office explained the general responsibilities of a person who alters a certified vehicle in a letter to your associate, Mr. Henry Brown, dated February 1, 1978. You now ask questions regarding specific aspects of the conversion operating and whether they can be accomplished without destroying a vehicle's compliance with safety regulations.; Unfortunately, it is impossible for the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) to answer your specific questions. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer or vehicle alterer to determine whether his vehicle is in compliance with applicable safety standards and to certify that vehicle. The NHTSA cannot review an alteration procedure such as the one with which you are concerned and state that it can or cannot be done in compliance with Federal regulations. There are no safety regulations which require a specific number of bolts or specific bolt locations, for instance. Likewise, Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, is specified only in terms of performance requirements, so the NHTSA cannot tell you whether a modified fuel filler neck will destroy a vehicle's compliance with the standard.; As stated in our previous letter, a person who alters a pick-up truc to convert it to a dump truck must certify that the truck remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. Further, the person who makes the conversion must assure that the alterations do not result in any 'safety related defects' whether or not there is a specific safety standard that is applicable. Therefore, you must determine for yourself whether the number of bolts you use, the bolt strengths and the bolt locations will result in safety hazards.; I can answer your question number 8 regarding possible liability fo removal and alteration of the truck bumper. The Federal safety standard for bumpers is only applicable to passenger cars, so you may alter a truck bumper with impunity provided the action does not result in a safety related defect.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |