NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 2491 - 2500 of 16514

Interpretations	Date
search results table
ID: aiam2167 Open Mr. LeRoy E. Mueller, President, Wisconsin Trailer Company, Inc., Richfield, WI 53076; Mr. LeRoy E. Mueller President Wisconsin Trailer Company Inc. Richfield WI 53076; Dear Mr. Mueller: This responds to your November 26, 1975, request for confirmation tha the NHTSA permits the establishment of gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) for trailer axles based on use at a speed of less than 60 mph.; Your interpretation is incorrect. In the April 28, 1975, interpretatio letter to Mr. James Srch that was enclosed in the NHTSA's recent letter to you, it was stated that '. . .NHTSA has found it necessary to specify that GAWR's and GVWR's be calculated on the basis of highway speeds and not qualified by reduced speed ratings. . . .'; Since the NHTSA's November 20, 1975, letter to you, the agency ha published a proposal that would amend the definition of GAWR to conform to this interpretation. A copy is enclosed for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2537 Open Mr. Robert B. Kurre, Director Engineering, Wayne Corporation, P. O. Box 1447, Industries Road, Richmond, IN 47374; Mr. Robert B. Kurre Director Engineering Wayne Corporation P. O. Box 1447 Industries Road Richmond IN 47374; Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your oral request of February 17, 1977, for a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, as they apply to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. In particular, you ask how much force must be used when testing school bus seat belt anchorages for compliance with the standards.; As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration initially proposed that seat belt anchorages be installed in all school buses. At that time, we also proposed that each seat belt assembly be tested under a force of 1,500 pounds. A seat containing three seating positions would have had the three seat belt assemblies tested simultaneously with a possible resulting load upon the seat of 4,500 pounds. The requirement of seat belt anchorages in larger buses was dropped from the proposal based upon comments from school bus operators and as a result of our compartmentalization approach to passenger seating safety in school buses.; The present Standard No. 222 requires seat belts and anchorages i small buses and mandates testing of the anchorages as outlined in Standard No. 210. Standard No. 210 requires in S4.2.1 that each seat belt assembly sustain a force application of 5,000 pounds. Where two adjacent seating positions have a common seat belt anchorage mounted on a seat frame, the two seat belt assemblies must simultaneously sustain a 5,000 pound force for a maximum load on the seat of 10,000 pounds.; Standard No. 207, Seating System, requires the simultaneous testin of all seat-mounted seat belt assemblies, whether or not they have common anchorages. However, Standard No. 207 is not applicable to school bus seatsconstructed (sic) in accordance with Standard No. 222, and it is not necessary to test simultaneously all seat belt assemblies attached to anchorages mounted on a school bus seat frame.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2022 Open Mr. Dennis Replansky, Four Penn Center Plaza, Philadelphia, PA 19103; Mr. Dennis Replansky Four Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia PA 19103; Dear Mr. Replansky: This responds to your recent request for a discussion of wha constitutes the manufacture of a new trailer when used components from an existing trailer are utilized. As you are aware, a newly-manufactured air-braked trailer must, in all but a few cases, be equipped with an air brake system that conforms to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.; The use of new components in combination with used components t assemble a complete vehicle is a common practice in both truck and trailer operations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized this commercial practice by establishing that the use of a new body on a used 'chassis' that has already been certified does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. In contrast, placing a used body on a new chassis that has never been certified as a vehicle has been determined to create a newly-manufactured vehicle that must be certified. This distinction did not present difficulty to trailer manufacturers in the past, when they were only required to meet the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.; Since implementation of Standard No. 121, however, manufacturers hav had to determine whether the particular assembly they undertake contains a used 'chassis' which would not be required to meet the air brake standard. As a general matter, the NHTSA has stated that, as a minimum, the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and main frame of the existing vehicle must be used to qualify as a used 'chassis'. However, the many different types of trailer construction make it difficult to determine what constitutes the main frame of some configurations. The NHTSA has concluded that the load-bearing structural member(s) which run the length of the vehicle and support the trailer will be considered to be the 'main frame'.; In the case of monocoque van construction, the trailer side walls whic constitute the main load-bearing members through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of container chassis, the box frame that consitutes (sic the main load- bearing member through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of a platform trailer, the main frame members which run th length of the trailer must be reused in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of a tank trailer in which the tank serves the purpose o and replaces frame rails, the tank must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle. If a separate frame serves as the load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle, the tank could be replaced without the operation constituting the manufacture of a new vehicle. An inner tank may be replaced without certification as a new vehicle if the inner tank does not serve as a main load-bearing member.; Modifications of existing trailers to increase or decrease volumetri capacity or vehicle length are generally permitted without recertification. For example, the barrel of a tank trailer may be lengthened in response to the new weight limits without recertification of the vehicle.; In closing, it should be noted that Bureau of Motor Carrier regulation may differ on modification or rebuilding of vehicles in interstate commerce.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2472 Open Mr. Michael E. Bufkin, 1136 Gail Lane, Sleepy Hollow, IL 60118; Mr. Michael E. Bufkin 1136 Gail Lane Sleepy Hollow IL 60118; Dear Mr. Bufkin: This responds to your November 12, 1976, question whether a tire bran name owner is required by S 574.7(b) of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, to establish and maintain specified purchaser information on its tires if the distributor or dealer fails to provide that information as specified by S 574.8 of the regulation. You also ask whether a tire registration form with dimensions other than those specified in Figure 3 of the regulation may be provided to tire distributors and dealers.; Section 158(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. S 1418(b)) mandates the tire manufacurer's (sic) (including brand name owner's) responsibility to establish and maintain the purchaser information, independent of the distributor's or dealer's cooperation:; >>>S 158(a)(1) * * * * * (b) Every manufacturer of motor vehicle or tires shall cause th establishment and maintenance of records of the name and address of the first purchaser of each motor vehicle and tire produced by such manufacturer * * *<<<; Thus, the brand name owner's responsibility is a statutory one independent of any interpretation of Part 574.; With regard to the size of the tire registration form, S 574.7(a permits the use of any size form unless a dealer requests forms that conform to the universal format set forth in Figure 3. The agency has interpreted the requirement for provision of the universal format to not apply in the case of a dealer that sells only one brand of tire.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2188 Open Mr. Stuart R. Perkins, Director, Vehicle Safety, Jeep Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. Stuart R. Perkins Director Vehicle Safety Jeep Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Perkins: This responds to Jeep Corporation's October 16, 1975, petition t initiate rulemaking to amend the present definition of 'Unloaded vehicle weight' (49 CFR S571.3) which reads:; >>>'Unloaded vehicle weight' means the weight of a vehicle with maximu capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.<<<; Jeep requests that the definition be amended to 'indicate that th unloaded vehicle [weight] does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories.' The Jeep petition argues that the impracticality of conducting some dynamic testing with 'work-performing accessories' in place may force the discontinuance of some factory-installed accessories although factory installation may be more safe than a subsequent aftermarket installation.; The Jeep Corporation petition is denied. As a general matter, the NHTS has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept an optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with the component installed. The NHTSA has evaluated the potential problems of dynamic testing with heavy or protruding accessories in place and concludes that a decision on the practicality and wisdom of so doing should be made on a 'standard-by-standard' basis. As you noted, the NHTSA has provided for removal of work-performing accessories in conducting compliance tests under Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. If Jeep considers dynamic testing in other standards to be unjustifiably burdensome because of the necessity of testing with all accessories in place, it would be appropriate to petition for rulemaking to amend the standard in question.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;
ID: aiam2921 Open Mr. Dominic S. Piacenza, Franklin Pierce Law Center, 2 White Street, Concord, NH 03301; Mr. Dominic S. Piacenza Franklin Pierce Law Center 2 White Street Concord NH 03301; Dear Mr. Piacenza: This is in response to your letter of November 9, 1978, asking whethe a memorandum of understanding exists between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the apparent overlapping jurisdiction regarding tire marketing practices created by Section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act)(15 U.S.C. 1423). You ask whether NHTSA's jurisdiction extends solely to safety- related issues.; NHTSA's authority is not confined solely to the area of motor vehicl and traffic safety. For example, under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901) the agency has been given authority over the areas of fuel economy and economic losses to consumers as they relate to automobiles. While the Safety Act is primarily concerned with safety issues, Section 203 of that law does provide NHTSA with limited authority over tire marketing practices. The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104), issued by NHTSA under the authority of Section 203, provide information to consumers in tire performance areas relating to both safety and economic issues.; While the FTC is aware of and supports NHTSA's efforts in the field o tire grading, no memorandum of understanding exists with regard to the scope of NHTSA's activities. Section 205 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1425) does state that, in the event of conflict between orders or regulations issued under the Safety Act concerning motor vehicle tires and FTC orders or interpretations, the orders or regulations issued under the Safety Act shall prevail.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3633 Open Mr. Matt Guzzetta, Vice President, Don Vesco Products, Inc., 7565 North Avenue, Lemon Grove, CA 92045; Mr. Matt Guzzetta Vice President Don Vesco Products Inc. 7565 North Avenue Lemon Grove CA 92045; Dear Mr. Guzzetta: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1982, asking about th legality of 'covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover.'; You reported that manufacturers of motorcycles and fairings ar producing such covers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration views this practice as prohibited and will take appropriate steps to make its views known. The legal authority for this is based upon a requirement of the SAE incorporated by reference in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or, alternatively, paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard.; SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions), Sealed Beam Headlam Assembly, is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A paragraph in each version states that, 'When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens.' SAE J580a applies to all sealed beam headlamps, while the scope of J580b is considerably narrower, including only those not covered by SAE J579c.; The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584 Motorcycle Headlamps. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles.; Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation o additional equipment 'that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required' by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicitly permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.; For the reasons stated above, the agency has concluded that no headlam may have a glass or plastic shield in front of it when in use, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is used.; As for the turn signals, no part of the vehicle may impair thei visibility through horizontal angles 45 degrees to the right and left of the vehicle (for right and left turn signals respectively) measured at the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. An unobstructed illuminated area of outer lens surface of at least 2 square inches excluding reflex is necessary to meet this requirement. You will have to judge for yourself whether the turn signal requirements are met with your planned cover in place.; If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3263 Open Mr. R.W. Strauss, Stewart-Warner Corporation, Washington Offices, 425 - 13th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004; Mr. R.W. Strauss Stewart-Warner Corporation Washington Offices 425 - 13th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20004; Dear Mr. Strauss: This responds to your letter of January 24,, 1980, which requeste approval of an odometer design developed by Stewart-Warner in order to comply with section 4.2.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. Based on our understanding of the information that you have supplied, it appears that Stewart-Warner's design, which incorporates either a seventh wheel or a sixth wheel (for odometers which do not register tenths of a mile) printed with a series of the numeral 1 to indicate that the vehicle has traveled in excess of 99,999 miles or kilometers, would comply with section 4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 127.; Section 4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 127 requires that each odomete other than a motorcycle odometer:; >>>'clearly indicate to the vehicle driver by a sixth wheel or digi registering whole miles or kilometers or by a permanent means such as inking, when the number of whole miles or whole kilometers, as appropriate, has exceeded either at the manufacturer's option 89,999 or 99,999.'<<<; Stewart-Warner's design, as described in your letter, would registe whole miles or kilometers from 100,000 to 199,999. Once the vehicle in which the odometer was installed had traveled 200,000 miles or kilometers, or more, the additional wheel on the Stewart-Warner design would no longer register whole miles or kilometers but it would indicate that the vehicle milage had exceeded 99,999. Thus, the Stewart-Warner design, as we understand it, would apparently comply with section 4.2.3's requirement that each odometer indicate that such mileage has been exceeded.; Finally, I would emphasis that this letter only represents the agency' opinion based on the information supplied in your letter and the model that you provided. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not pass approval on any vehicle design or design for vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or items of vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicles or items of vehicle equipment in accordance with that determination.; I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not bee greatly inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3799 Open Mr. Ben Barbie, Stapleton Public Schools, P.O. Box 125, Stapleton, NE 69163; Mr. Ben Barbie Stapleton Public Schools P.O. Box 125 Stapleton NE 69163; Dear Mr. Barbie: This is in further reply to your phone call of February 13, 1984, t the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, regarding the remanufacture of school buses using older model bus bodies on new chassis. You asked whether the school bus safety standards apply to a school bus manufactured with a 1976 model year body mounted on a new chassis.; The applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards i determined by the date of manufacture of the motor vehicle. For vehicles that are completed in several stages, the manufacturer can treat as the date of manufacture the date of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as:; >>>an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassi structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.<<<; The effective date of the school bus safety standards was April 1 1977. Since the date of manufacture of the school bus chassis is after April 1, 1977, and the date of completion of the vehicle is after April 1, 1977, the completed school bus must meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards. It is extremely unlikely that the 1976 model year body will comply with the school bus standards since the body was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus standards. If your completed vehicle does not comply with the safety standards, your manufacturer, distributor, or dealer cannot certify it as conforming to such standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0766 Open Mr. Richard L. Curotto, Treasurer, Stutz Motor Car of America, Inc., Time & Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, New York 10020; Mr. Richard L. Curotto Treasurer Stutz Motor Car of America Inc. Time & Life Building Rockefeller Center New York New York 10020; Dear Mr. Curotto: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1972. As I understand it your company purchases Pontiac Grand Prix models for conversion into vehicles bearing the Stutz nameplate. Your converter, however, has a number of vehicles in stock, the majority of which will not be converted until after September 1, 1972. You ask, in effect, that we require compliance only with those Federal standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the original Pontiac Grand Prix, and that we do not require compliance with standards which may have come into effect after that time and before completion of the Stutz conversion.; The information contained in your letter indicates that the changes yo make to the Grand Prix are confined to cosmetic changes such as alteration of the exterior sheet metal, reupholstering the interior, and replacement of the back light with glazing conforming to Standard No. 205. If the converted Grand Prix conforms to those Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which temporary exemption was granted Stutz (Standards Nos. 104, 201, 205, 210 and 212), we will consider it permissible for General Motors to continue to be the 'manufacturer' of the vehicle for certification purposes. In that case, the date of manufacture is considered to be the date of completion by General Motors, and the original certification label should be retained on the car when converted.; The vehicle must nevertheless conform at the time of sale to all safet standards and other regulations (for example, 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information) that are applicable on its date of manufacture.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator