NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam4698OpenHerr T. Spingler Abt. K2/ELE2 Robert Bosch GmbH; Herr T. Spingler Abt. K2/ELE2 Robert Bosch GmbH; Dear Herr Spingler: This is in reply to your FAX of July l9, l990, t Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking for confirmation of an oral interpretation provided you by Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, defines (section S3) a replaceable bulb headlamp as 'a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sources.' In Europe you fix the lens to the reflector assembly with a rubber seal and clips. For the U.S. market you propose to add 'silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent removal of the lens.' Mr. Medlin informed you that this would be a 'bonded lens and reflector assembly.' The standard does not define 'bonded', but the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable. Any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond for purposes of the definition. If the application of silicone glue at four places between the lens and the reflector assembly is sufficient to prevent manual separation of the lens from the assembly, then it would be a sufficient bond. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely,, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5123OpenMr. Patrick R. Smorra Group Vice President Chrysler Corporation 38111 Van Dyke Avenue Sterling Heights, MI 48312; Mr. Patrick R. Smorra Group Vice President Chrysler Corporation 38111 Van Dyke Avenue Sterling Heights MI 48312; Dear Mr. Smorra: This responds to your letter of November 12 to th Administrator asking for a variance from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for vehicles that Chrysler Corporation would like to sell to foreign nationals for their use on vacation in the United States. You have inquired whether additional information is required. The agency would be willing to consider Chrysler's request through the medium of a petition for temporary exemption from one or more specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The temporary exemption, two years in duration, permits a manufacturer to sell up to 2,500 exempted vehicles in any 12-month period during the term of the exemption, subject to such terms and conditions as the agency deems appropriate. These exemptions are renewable. Indeed, NHTSA has already provided exemptions to General Motors for the same purpose as Chrysler's, pursuant to 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(d). For your guidance, I enclose a copy of the Federal Register notice that granted GM's original petition in 1988. Because of the necessity to afford the public an opportunity to comment, a petitioner should anticipate an elapsed time of approximately four months between the agency's receipt of its petition and a determination on it. Should you have questions on the exemption process, Taylor Vinson of this office will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263). You have also asked ' i f, upon expiration of the variance, the vehicle has not left the U.S. who is responsible for the delinquency?' This is an interesting question. The exemption is not provided directly to the purchaser. Instead, it is provided to a manufacturer to allow it to sell nonconforming vehicles to foreign nationals without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, subject to the purchaser's agreement to export the vehicle when (s)he leaves this country. Should a manufacturer sell an exempted vehicle to a foreign national knowing, or in the exercise of due care having reason to know, that the purchaser did not intend to export it, the manufacturer would have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against sale of nonconforming vehicles, notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle had been exempted. Moreover, if the manufacturer did not take appropriate steps to assure that the purchaser honored his or her commitment to export the vehicle, the agency could find that continuation of the exemption was no longer in the public interest, and cancel it. However, if the manufacturer did not know or in the exercise of due care have any reason to know that its exempted vehicles would not be exported, it would appear to have incurred no liability under the Act. As for a foreign national purchaser who fails to export a vehicle in conformity with the terms of the condition imposed by the manufacturer under the exemption, it appears that the purchaser could be deemed to have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against introduction into interstate commerce of a nonconforming vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that the manufacturer had received an exemption for the manufacture and sale of the vehicle. Finally, depending on the safety standards from which the vehicle had been excused, the owner of the vehicle might find it difficult to register it in a State without bringing it into full compliance with the safety standards. You have also asked, ' I n the unlikely event that this vehicle has an accident in which it is deemed undriveable, who is responsible for its disposition.' The answer to this question would appear to turn on the ownership of the vehicle. Since Chrysler does not intend to lease the exempted vehicles, we assume that it will transfer all right, title, and interest in them to the foreign national purchasers, and we assume that those owners will be responsible for the disposition of wrecked vehicles deemed undriveable. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam0321OpenMr. Warren S. Sumner, Sales Representative, Hamill Manufacturing Company, 61166 Van Dyke Road, Washington, MI 48094; Mr. Warren S. Sumner Sales Representative Hamill Manufacturing Company 61166 Van Dyke Road Washington MI 48094; Dear Mr. Sumner: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1971, in which you as certain questions concerning a child booster seat that you plan to market. You describe the booster seat as a rectangle about 6 inches in height, tapering to 4 inches in the front, and state that it would be advertised for use by children under 50 pounds and would not be designed to fall into the category of child seating systems under Standard No. 213. You also state that your engineers feel a booster chair will 'definitely help more five, six and seven year old children to use seat belts simply because these children will be able to see out of a vehicle.'; While you state that the booster seat 'would not be designed to fal into the category of child seating systems under Standard No. 213,' it is not clear from your description of the device that this is actually the case. If you wish an opinion on this matter, we will provide one, but to do so we will need some additional information. Specifically, we will need to know if the booster seat is to be designed or advertised for use with the vehicle seat belts, and if so, how it will be so designed or advertised.; The questionsyou (sic) ask concerning the booster seat are: (1) Can w set a minimum of 50 or 60 pounds?(2)Exactly (sic) what is the maximum child weight covered under MVSS No. 213? and (3) What recommended weight can we advertise as a minimum for our booster seat?; The answers to these questions do not depend on whether the standar applies to your booster seat. If the device is a child seating system, Standard No. 213 does not specify the minimum or maximum heights or weights for children who may use it. Under the standard, it is up to the manufacturer to determine, based upon the design of each particular child seating system, the heights and weights of children for which he recommends the child seating system.; If the device is not a child seating system, the manufacturer is no required to recommend any heights or weights for children who can use it. Should he choose to do so, however, the heights and weights recommended must be consistent with the safe use of the device.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5573OpenMilford R. Bennett, Director North American Operations Safety Affairs and Regulations General Motors Corporation 30200 Mound Road Warren, Michigan 48090-9010; Milford R. Bennett Director North American Operations Safety Affairs and Regulations General Motors Corporation 30200 Mound Road Warren Michigan 48090-9010; Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to General Motors' (GM's) inquiry raised in a June 16, 1995 meeting with the agency, regarding the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 for determining whether a vehicle is in the 'park' position. Under those procedures, a vehicle is deemed to be in park if it ceases rolling within 150 mm. You were concerned that different methods of measuring this distance could result in some vehicles not complying with the requirement that the vehicle roll less than 150 mm. The short answer to your question is that the test procedure is a 'static' measurement procedure. In other words, the agency will not measure the distance that a vehicle has rolled until after the vehicle has completely ceased moving. This agency recently amended Standard No. 114, adding test procedures to determine whether the key can be removed when the transmission is in positions other than the 'park' position and that the transmission remains locked in 'park' after key removal. (60 FR 30006, June 7, 1995) NHTSA initiated that action in response to a petition from the automotive industry alleging that such a procedure was needed to make the standard objective. Section S4.2.1(a)(3) of the amended standard specifies that ' e ach vehicle shall not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park.' To demonstrate that the vehicle is in 'park' prior to attempting to remove the key, the test procedures in S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both state: Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake (if present). Move the shift mechanism to the 'park' position. Apply the service brakes. Release the parking brake. Release the service brakes. . . . Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm after release of the service brakes. In the June 16 meeting with the agency, GM stated that vehicle movement could be measured in two different ways: dynamic or static. GM inquired as to which method NHTSA interpreted the standard as specifying, because the results using these two methods would be different. The 'dynamic' method of measuring vehicle movement was described by GM as measuring the maximum play-out of a spool of wire attached to the front bumper after release of the service brakes. The 'static' method would measure vehicle movement from a reference point on the wheels after the vehicle has come to a complete stop. Under the dynamic method, a portion of the measured play-out would be due to the 'rocking' motion of the vehicle's chassis on its suspension when the transmission engaged. The driveline components would also contribute some movement by temporarily storing some of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle by flexing and twisting. However, both of these contributions to total rearward movement are temporary, disappearing after the vehicle comes to rest, as in the static measuring method. GM presented test data for certain vehicles and theoretical worst-case calculations of static roll distance on non- production hypothetical vehicles and one test vehicle. The test data showed that dynamic measuring produces larger measurements of roll than does static measuring. NHTSA interprets the limitation on vehicle movement specified in S4.2.1(a)(3) as referring to static movement. The agency did not contemplate using the dynamic method. The agency intends to measure only permanent components of total vehicle movement, using the 'static' method. When conducting compliance testing, NHTSA will measure vehicle movement from a reference point such as the wheel centerline position. The starting time for the measurement will be at the moment before the service brakes are released. The ending time of the measurement will be when the vehicle has completely ceased moving, bouncing, and rocking (i.e., until the vehicle is again 'static'). This agency believes that its confirmation that the static test method is the proper method should relieve any realistic concerns regarding compliance of the 1996 model year vehicles GM tested, and probably of any future vehicles as well. The actual tests GM conducted in preparation for the meeting with NHTSA all showed static roll distances well within the requirements of Standard No. 114. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1863OpenMs. Mary Jo Apone, 23138 Demley Drive, Mt. Clemens, MI 48043; Ms. Mary Jo Apone 23138 Demley Drive Mt. Clemens MI 48043; Dear Ms. Apone: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975, commenting on th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) January 2, 1975, proposal to reduce the performance requirements of the Federal bumper standard.; 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 brought to light additional data. The NHTSA carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency concluded that the existing 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a Federal Register notice that was published March 12, 1975 (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6.)(sic); I would like to point out that the bumper standard, as it currentl exists, has no direct effect on occupant safety in collisions. The safety benefits of the standard relate to the prevention of damage to safety-related components such as headlmaps (sic), fuel and cooling systems and exhaust systems. It is the after-crash dangers that would exist if a vehicle were driven with any of the specified vehicle systems inoperative that the standard focuses on. Therefore, a reduction in the performance requirements would not expose occupants to greater hazards during a collision itself.; We appreciate your interest. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0771OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Factory Representative Office, Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ, 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. Factory Representative Office Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of June 19, 1972, concerning th application of Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to a pocket which is attached to a front seat back. You ask whether, under S4.2 of the standard, the upper portion of the sample will be tested as an assembly, as this is the manner in which it appears in the vehicle. The upper portion of the sample consists of one material folded over itself, with an adhesion process joining the folded segments at points approximately 3/4 inch apart, across the length of the material. An elastic band is inserted in the fold of the material. The configuration is actually representative of two materials, therefore, with an elastic between them.; Paragraph S4.2 of the standard provides that surface materials i assemblies such as this are tested separately, unless bonded, sewed, or mechanically attached to underlying material (S4.2(a)). The reference to 'bonded, sewed, or mechanically attached' is intended to refer to materials joined uniformly by these methods, at their adjoining surfaces. The adhesion process you have used does not join the materials in this fashion, as there is a significant amount of area where the materials are not joined at all. Consequently, we would not test the assembly in the manner in which it appears in the vehicle, but would treat the material as separate material.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5089OpenMrs. M. Frances Parton 5788 Cypress Cr. Tallahassee, FL 32303; Mrs. M. Frances Parton 5788 Cypress Cr. Tallahassee FL 32303; "Dear Mrs. Parton: This responds to your letter of October 7, 1992 requesting information on whether a 1992 van can be modified by installing swivel bases on the seats so that you can transfer from the seat to a wheelchair. It is unclear from your letter whether the seat you want modified is a front or a rear seat. As explained below, there is no federal requirement that expressly prohibits installing a swivel base on a seat, provided that the seats and belts continue to comply with the applicable safety standards. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that modifies a van for you along the lines described in your letter after you have purchased the van would be subject to the requirement of the Safety Act (at 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) 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 or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design installed in the van in compliance with applicable safety standards, this section prohibits any of the named commercial entities from making any modification or repair to the seats and/or their accompanying safety belts if such modification or repair would cause the vehicle no longer to comply with an applicable safety standard. Adding a swivel base to a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Based upon the information in your letter, it appears that the vehicle you wish to have modified would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) for purposes of NHTSA's regulations. Standard No. 208 requires an MPV to provide occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. Standard No. 208 also requires an MPV to have a lap/shoulder belt at every rear outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other rear seating position. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. As you can see, with the exception discussed below, there is nothing in Federal law that prohibits persons from adding a swivel base to a seat. Instead, Federal law requires that modifications to a van that include adding a swivel base to a seat be done in such a way that the seats and safety belts continue to provide the safety protection mandated by the safety standards. With respect to Standard No. 208's requirements for front seats, NHTSA has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from van converters and individuals, suggesting that the crash testing requirement for front seats in MPVs will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency has also received a petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) requesting an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement 'to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs.' On January 9, 1992, the agency granted the RVIA petition. On August 5, 1992, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the requirements of Standard No. 208 to give manufacturers of certain light trucks and vans the option of installing non-dynamically tested manual safety belts instead of complying with the dynamic testing requirements. However, the agency is aware that you and others who need to purchase a new vehicle need more immediate relief than a rulemaking can offer. Therefore, as explained in the NPRM, the agency has stated that it will not conduct any dynamic testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. If you need to have the swivel base added to a front seat, this should allow you to find a converter to make this modification while this decision is pending. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2259OpenMr. L. Frank Hay, President, Beachcomber Industries Ltd., P.O. Box 1660, North Railway Avenue, Morden, Manitoba R0G 1J0; Mr. L. Frank Hay President Beachcomber Industries Ltd. P.O. Box 1660 North Railway Avenue Morden Manitoba R0G 1J0; Dear Mr. Hay: This is in response to your December 31, 1975, letter concernin certification of the travel trailer that you manufacture.; This Department does not certify or otherwise issue advance approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Certification, under applicable law and regulations, must be done by the manufacturer. The Canadian and U.S. motor vehicle safety standards are not identical, so you must ensure that your travel trailers do in fact comply with all of the latter that are applicable. A pamphlet summarizing the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification. The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.; Please note that Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1399(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. Our records indicate that Beachcomber Industries Ltd. has not complied with this requirement.; The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agen pursuant to the Act require:; >>>(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding o Beachcomber Industries Ltd. under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; (2) The full legal name, principal place of business and mailin address of Beachcomber Industries Ltd.,; (3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products o Beachcomber Industries Ltd. that do not bear its legal name,; (4) A provision that the designation remain in effect until withdraw or replaced by Beachcomber Industries Ltd.,; (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.<<< In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent, the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.; Please note further that you are required by 49 CFR Part 566 *Manufacturer Identification*, to submit certain information to the NHTSA not more than 30 days after your vehicles begin to be imported into the United States. Copies of this regulation and the procedural regulations for designation of agent are also enclosed for your convenience.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0264OpenMr. John J. Trotsky, President, Juno Industries, Inc., Cassopolis Road, Cassopolis, MI 49031; Mr. John J. Trotsky President Juno Industries Inc. Cassopolis Road Cassopolis MI 49031; Dear Mr. Trotsky: Your letter of August 26, 1970, concerning the compliance of you cut-van motor home with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components has been forwarded to this office for reply.; You state that the door in the camper body is located so that n portion of a manikin in any designated seating position would project into the door opening in the side view. If, as it appears, you are correct, the door locks and door retention components on that door are not required to comply with Standard No. 206.; You also state that you believe that the doors on the cab comply wit Standard No. 206. As a manufacturer of multipurpose passenger vehicles, you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for the compliance of the cab doors with Standard No. 206. Although the van may have been manufactured as a truck, it must, when subsequently converted to a multipurpose passenger vehicle, comply with all multipurpose passenger vehicle standards in effect on the date of manufacture of your motor home. Therefore, you should ascertain, either from the van manufacturer or by your own tests, that the cab doors comply with Standard No. 206.; Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5066OpenMr. Spencer A. Darby Vice President, Engineering Sate-lite Manufacturing. Co. 6230 Gross Point Road Niles, IL 60648; Mr. Spencer A. Darby Vice President Engineering Sate-lite Manufacturing. Co. 6230 Gross Point Road Niles IL 60648; "Dear Mr. Darby: This responds to your inquiry about whether a warnin device would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR 571.125). You were specifically concerned about the implications of adding a battery operated flashing light to a warning device that otherwise complies with the Standard. You stated that placing flashing lights between the reflex reflectors would enhance the device's conspicuity at night. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements to you. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the 'Safety Act') gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. The Safety Act provides that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations. As your letter states, Standard No. 125 applies to 'devices, without self- contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle.' (emphasis added, see section S3) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In previous interpretations, the agency has determined that the phrase 'self-contained energy sources' includes such things as battery powered lights. Accordingly, a warning device to which a battery operated flashing light was added would not be subject to Standard No. 125. You also asked whether a vehicle required to have three '125 warning triangles' would be required to have three non-lighted complying triangles set out as well. Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate the use of warning devices. I am forwarding your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is authorized to regulate some motor vehicle operators and vehicle operations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |