Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 3451 - 3460 of 16517

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam3274 Open Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Supervisor, Engineering Services Department, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Supervisor Engineering Services Department Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1980, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of Section S4.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; This section specifies requirements affecting school bus signal lamp 'when the bus entrance door is opened.' Blue Bird is designing an additional entrance door for its buses and you interpret S4.1.4 as requiring the same operational characteristics for the new door.; We confirm your interpretation that 'entrance door' means any entranc door on the school bus. Obviously the purpose of the requirement is not achieved if it is restricted to the traditional entrance door on the right front side of the bus and excludes any other entrance door.; Thank you for your interest in safety. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1249 Open Mr. John Holzer, 217-18 64th Avenue, Bayside, NY 11364; Mr. John Holzer 217-18 64th Avenue Bayside NY 11364; Dear Mr. Holzer: Thank you for your letter of September 7, 1973, requesting informatio concerning possible regulatory action involving plastic or glass gas filters.; Although we have no regulations concerning gasoline filters, the la under which our regulations are promulgated requires that where possible, our standards be based on performance rather than design requirements. This gives the automotive manufacturers maximum flexibility in conforming with the requirements and provides freedom to select whatever design he prefers in order to meet the requirements of the standard.; Our current fuel system requirements are contained in Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel Tanks, Fuel Tank Filler Pipes and Fuel Tank Connections, which was effective January 1, 1968. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information. We have recently issued an amendment to the standard and a proposed amendment which are intended to substantially upgrade fuel systems of motor vehicles between September 1, 1975 and September 1, 1977. Copies of these rulemaking actions are enclosed for your information (38 F.R. 22397 and 22417).; Motor vehicle manufacturers are free to choose the components an designs which they consider most appropriate to their performance requirements. It is quite possible that certain components cannot be used as original equipment because of periodic regulatory actions, for example, a manufacturer may consider a glass fuel filter hazardous when he is attempting the preservation of fuel system integrity incidental to a 20 mile-per-hour, fixed barrier collision.; We would suggest that contact be made with the automotive manufacturer and original equipment manufacturers for a more complete answer to your question.; If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate t contact us.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;
ID: aiam3624 Open Mr. F. E. Bettridge, Board Chairman, Middlekauff, Inc., 1615 Ketcham Avenue, Toledo, OH 43608; Mr. F. E. Bettridge Board Chairman Middlekauff Inc. 1615 Ketcham Avenue Toledo OH 43608; Dear Mr. Bettridge: This is in reply to your letters of September 27 and October 7, 1982 concerning your wish for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301.; In our letter of August 12, 1982, we informed you that the statemen which 49 CFR Part 568 requires an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the vehicle affords a basis for certification without the necessity of testing. We asked you which of the statements had been provided you. Your subsequent correspondence with us does not answer this question. You refer to a print furnished you by AM General Corporation after August 12 which, with your engineering studies, leads you to believe that you may comply, but the print is extraneous to the Part 568 statement.; Therefore, we would still like to know whether AM General has provide you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform with Standard No. 301, or, alternatively, with a statement that the vehicle will conform if no alterations are made in certain specified components of the incomplete vehicle. Perhaps you could send us a copy of that portion of the Part 568 statement pertaining to Standard No. 301.; We shall consider your petition further when we have this information. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1619 Open Mr. David J. Bate, Service Quality Manager, British Leyland Motors Inc., 600 Willow Tree Road, Leonia, NJ 07605; Mr. David J. Bate Service Quality Manager British Leyland Motors Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia NJ 07605; Dear Mr. Bate: We have reviewed your draft owner notification letter regarding th noncompliance of certain Jaguar 'E' Type 2+2 sedans which fail to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207. We find that your letter fails to conform to 49 CFR Part 577, 'Defect Notification' in two respects. It does not conform to section 577.4(b)(1), which specifies the content of the second sentence of each notification. We do not consider the determination that a safety related defect exists in these vehicles to have been made by the NHTSA Administrator. Such a determination can only follow proceedings held pursuant to section 113(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402(e)). No such proceeding has been held in this case. The correspondence you received is directed at what we consider to be a formalized settlement of the matter, and not a formal determination proceeding. The first two sentences of your second paragraph should therefore be changed to read:; >>>'British Leyland Motors Inc., has determined that a defect whic relates to motor vehicle safety exists in a range of 1968 to 1972 Jaguar 'E' Type 2+2's. The defect results from a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207.'<<<; In addition, section 577.4(e)(1)(ii) requires the notification t contain the manufacturer's estimate of the day by which his dealers or other service facility will be supplied with corrective parts and instructions. Your letter mentions only that parts will be in the hands of distributors by a 'campaign launch date.' The information must include an estimated date by which corrective parts will be in the hands of dealers.; In other respects your letter conforms to Part 577. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2936 Open Clarence W. Woody, Maryland Department of Transportation, 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E., Glen Burnie, MD 21062; Clarence W. Woody Maryland Department of Transportation 6601 Ritchie Highway N.E. Glen Burnie MD 21062; Dear Mr. Woody: This is in response to your letter of December 5, 1978, asking whethe the abbreviated odometer disclosure statement currently used on Maryland certificates of title may also be used on a Uniform Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Motor vehicle manufacturers are not required to provide dealers with odometer disclosure statements for new vehicles. Section 580.5 of Title 49 specifically exempts these transactions. Therefore, since there is no Federal requirements that any odometer disclosure statement be issued, you may include the abbreviated statement on the Uniform Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Manufacturers, however, would not be required by Federal law to complete it.; You should be interested to know that the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration will shortly issue a proposed notice of rulemaking that will allow use of the abbreviated form on all transfer of ownership documents, not merely the certificate of title.; If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4948 Open Mr. Robert A. Rogers, Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090-9015; Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015; "Dear Mr. Rogers: This responds to your request that this agenc determine that the new antitheft device to be installed on the MY 1992 General Motors Pontiac Bonneville line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Pontiac Bonneville vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. The agency has reviewed the changes to the system and for the following reasons concludes that the differences between the original system and one installed on the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville constitute a de minimis change. As you are aware, the Pontiac Bonneville car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because General Motors showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This antitheft device is known as the 'PASS-KEY' antitheft system. The exemption was issued on April 4, 1991, and appeared in the Federal Register on April 9, 1991 (56 FR 14413). As was stated in the April 1991 Federal Register notice, the 'PASS-KEY' antitheft system utilizes an ignition key, an ignition lock cylinder and a decoder module. Before a vehicle can be started, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key must be sensed by elements in the lock cylinder and its value compared to a fixed resistance in the decoder module. In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1992, two design changes were made in the 'PASS-KEY' antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Pontiac Bonneville. The new system on the Bonneville is known as 'PASS-KEY II,' and differs from 'PASS-KEY' as follows. First, in 'PASS-KEY II,' if a key other than the one with proper resistance for the vehicle is inserted, the decoder module will shut down the fuel injector pulses to the engine for three minutes plus or minus eighteen seconds. In 'PASS-KEY,' this shut down period is two to four minutes. Second, if, during the time the decoder module has shut down in 'PASS-KEY II,' trial and error attempts are made to start the engine with various keys, the timer will not reset to zero, as is the case with 'PASS-KEY.' GM states that this difference in functions will provide a similar level of performance as 'PASS-KEY' since the 'PASS-KEY II' module, while shut down, will ignore further attempts to start the system by means other than use of a key with the proper resistance pellet. Any further unauthorized attempt after the initial three minute shut down time will result in the module shutting down again. After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. In addition to providing some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, 'PASS-KEY II' also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for General Motors to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2). If General Motors does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter for MY 1992, we request that this agency be notified of such decisions. Sincerely, Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking /";
ID: aiam0458 Open Mr. Orlando Rodriguez, Export Manager, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Orlando Rodriguez Export Manager Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Rodriguez: Secretary Volpe has asked me to reply to your letter of October 18 1971, concerning the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 in the territories and possessions of the United States.; The Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issue thereunder apply in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, and American Samoa. Motor vehicles, including buses, manufactured for sale and imported into those areas must meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Only one standard applicable to buses, No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, specifically does not apply to buses manufactured for sale outside the Continental United States. There are no Federal standards applicable to school bus bodies, so that the wooden bodied buses in American Samoa, of which you spoke, are not prohibited by the Act. School buses manufactured for sale in Puerto Rico are required, however, to have a warning light system.; I hope this clarifies the matter for you. Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator
ID: aiam2465 Open Mr. John J. Giesguth, Director, Bureau of Pupil Transportation, Division of Field Services, Department of Education, P.O. Box 2019, Trenton, NJ 08625; Mr. John J. Giesguth Director Bureau of Pupil Transportation Division of Field Services Department of Education P.O. Box 2019 Trenton NJ 08625; Dear Mr. Giesguth: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1976, requestin information on the legal aspects of the change in the definition of 'school bus.'; Effective April 1, 1977, the definition of 'school bus' in Title 49 o the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR S 571.3) will read as follows:; >>>'School bus' means a bus that is sold or introduced in interstat commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.<<<; The definition of 'bus' will continue to read as follows: >>>'Bus' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer designed for carrying more than 10 persons.<<<; The new definition of school bus will include many of the van- typ vehicles that are classified as Type II school vehicles under Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17. If a Type II van is designed to carry more than 10 persons, and if it is sold for purposes that include 'carrying students to and from school or related events,' it will have to be sold with all the equipment specified for school buses by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It will therefore have to have school bus lights as specified by the standard on lighting (49 CFR S571.108).; Our experience with the comparative accident patterns of Type I an Type II buses does not justify the use of different lighting systems for the two types. In view of Congress's expressed desire to have the school bus standards uniformly applicable to buses of all sizes, we consider it appropriate to apply the lighting standard to all school buses.; We understand your concern with the effects that the newly applicabl requirements will have on your purchase of Type II vans. However, we are persuaded that the requirements are reasonable and that they will protect school children.; If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, John W. Snow, Administrator
ID: aiam0008 Open Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki 2303 N. 44th Street, #14-237 Phoenix, AZ 80058; Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki 2303 N. 44th Street #14-237 Phoenix AZ 80058; Dear Mr. Dembecki: This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991 asking for an 'evaluation' of your 'Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: 'complete' one and two bulb units 'for l984 and older vehicles', and one and two 'electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991.' In your opinion, 'since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed.' We understand that your 'complete' unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the 'electronic module' intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer. Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. 108 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. 108 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard. With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. 108 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps. Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam2035 Open Mr. Jerry W. McNeil, Director of Engineering, American Trailers, Inc., 1500 Exchange Avenue, Box 26568, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73126; Mr. Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering American Trailers Inc. 1500 Exchange Avenue Box 26568 Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73126; Dear Mr. McNeil: #This responds to your letter of August 12, 1975 concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 106-74, Brake Hoses, to an anchor coupling. #You enclosed a diagram depicting the installation of two of these couplings, and suggested that they are not subject to the labeling requirements of the standard. This interpretation is correct. 'Brake hose end fitting' is defined in Standard No. 106-74 as: #>>>a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose.<<< #The anchor couplings which you have described are attached to the ends of completed brake hose assemblies, rather than to the ends of brake hoses. Therefore, they are not 'brake hose end fittings' subject to the standard's requirements. #It appears from your letter that you might not consider the nylon tubing to be 'brake hose'. If the nylon tubing is flexible, However, such an interpretation would be incorrect. 'Brake hose' is defined in the standard as: #>>>a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.<<<# Thus flexible chassis plumbing and other flexible conduits, in addition to rubber brake hoses, are subject to the standard's requirements. #Sincerely Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;