NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam5135OpenJames E. Schlesinger, Esquire Schlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey 3000 South Eads Street Arlington, VA 22202; James E. Schlesinger Esquire Schlesinger Arkwright & Garvey 3000 South Eads Street Arlington VA 22202; "Dear Mr. Schlesinger: This responds to your letter addressed to Walte Myers of this office, requesting an opinion concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). You stated in your letter that two tire manufacturers, A and B, both with production facilities in both Canada and the United States, produced tires for a brand name owner, Company C, in Canada. A, B, and C agreed that in the event of overproduction or if some of the tires were 'blems' (Company C refuses to accept blems, which are tires with minor cosmetic blemishes but structurally sound), A and B were free to market their tires elsewhere, including the United States. The tires manufactured for Company C contain the DOT number and the Canadian National Tire Safety Mark, but not the UTQGS information, which is not required in Canada. You stated that over a period of 1 1/2 years, A imported 10,622 tires into the United States while B imported 12,856 tires, including 4,644 blems, into the country. All were passenger tires and all sales occurred in 1990 and 1991. You then posed three questions based on those facts, which I will answer below in the order presented. First, by way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381) et seq., as amended (hereinafter Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. Section 203 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1423) directs the Secretary to prescribe, through standards established under Title I of the Act, a uniform quality grading system for motor vehicle tires. NHTSA issued the UTQGS under the authority of 203 and 112(d) (15 U.S.C. 1401(d)), which authorizes the Secretary to require manufacturers to provide performance and technical data to the first purchasers of motor vehicle equipment for purposes other than resale. The UTQGS may be found at 49 CFR 575.104. The penalties for violation of the UTQGS are set forth in the Act. Section 108(a)(1)(E) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(E)) prohibits any failure to comply with any rule, regulation, or order issued under 112. Sanctions for violation of 108 are set forth in 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398(a)), which provides civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108, up to a total maximum civil penalty of $800,000 for 'any related series of violations.' In addition, 110(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)) gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Title I of the Act, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS. With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions: 1. Is it unlawful to import, sell or distribute in the United States tires which do not have the UTQG information on the sidewall of the tire and/or on the paper tread label for the tire? ANSWER: Subject to the exceptions discussed in the answer to your question No. 3 below, 49 CFR 575.6(b) provides that: At the time a motor vehicle tire is delivered to the first purchaser for a purpose other than resale, the manufacturer of that tire or, . . . the brand name owner, shall provide to that purchaser the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to that tire. Subpart B includes 575.104 which, at (d)(1)(i)(A), requires that the UTQG information be molded onto or into the tire sidewall. Where a new tire line is introduced into the United States for the first time, however, the tire manufacturer or brand name owner may, for the first six months after the tire's introduction, provide the UTQG information by means of a paper label affixed to the tread surface of the tire. After that six-month grace period, the required information must be molded onto or into the tire sidewall. Although both the Act and the UTQGS are silent as to whether tires can be imported or distributed without the UTQGS information, there would be no point in doing so since the tires cannot legally be sold without that information. 2. If it is unlawful to import, distribute and sell tires in the United States without said UTQG information, what penalties are imposed on the manufacturer and/or brand name owner? ANSWER: As discussed above, civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation of 575.6(b) may be imposed, up to a maximum of $800,000. In addition, U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to restrain any such violations. 3. Would any of the exceptions of 49 CFR 575.104(c) apply in this case, and, if so, in what way? Is there any legislative history or interpretation of the meaning of 'limited production tires' as noted in this section, and what effects, if any, this limitation might have on the above fact situation? ANSWER: 49 CFR 575.104(c) provides that the UTQGS apply to new pneumatic passenger car tires. The standards do not apply, however, to deep tread, winter type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches, or 'limited production' tires. In order to qualify as a limited production tire, 575.104(c)(2) establishes four criteria, all of which the tires must meet: (i) The manufacturer's annual domestic production or importation into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires, (ii) The annual domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires, (iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, and (iv) The total annual production or importation into the U.S. by the manufacturer or, if the tire is marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase or purchase for importation into the U.S. by the tire's brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of (i), (ii), and (iii) above, does not exceed 35,000 tires. Section 575.104(c) also states that 'tire design' is 'the combination of general structural characteristics, materials, and tread pattern, but does include cosmetic, identifying or other minor variations among tires.' The factual scenario you described in your letter would suggest that the tires in question might meet the numbers criteria of (c)(2)(i) and (ii), but there is not sufficient information on which to base an opinion as to whether they meet the other two criteria. There is likewise insufficient information to determine whether the exceptions relating to deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, or tires with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches may apply to any or all the tires in question. The manufacturer(s) seeking to import those tires into the U.S. must make those determinations. For your additional information, I am enclosing a copy of 45 FR 23442, dated April 7, 1980, the final rule which initially exempted limited production tires from the UTQGS. That notice explains the rationale for exempting limited production tires and other background information you may find helpful. I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1176OpenMr. Krish Kudva, Manager, Philips Industries Inc., 4801 Springfield Street, Dayton, OH 45401; Mr. Krish Kudva Manager Philips Industries Inc. 4801 Springfield Street Dayton OH 45401; Dear Mr. Kudva: This is in reply to your letters of June 4 and June 22, 1973 concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials'. Your letter of June 4 asks which glazing materials may properly be used in motor homes under the Federal standard, and whether State laws which provide otherwise are invalid under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Your letter of June 22 asks what requirements apply for glazing materials used in travel trailers.; Our records indicate that we wrote on July 5, 1972, to Mr. Robert T Sanders of Philips Industries, in response to a letter from him concerning glazing requirements for chassis-mount and slide-in campers, trailers, and motor homes. Standard No. 205 has been amended since that date (on November 11, 1972, 37 FR 24035) and this letter reflects some of the changes in the standard made by that amendment.; The requirements for glazing for use in motor homes, which under NHTS definitions now includes chassis-mount campers as well as traditional motor homes, are essentially those specified in ANS Z26 for trucks, with certain exceptions. Thus, for windshields, AS 1 or AS 10 materials may be used. For windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, AS 1, AS 2, AS 10, and AS 11 materials may be used, and AS 3 may be used in the unusual situation where any such window is not requisite for driving visibility. All other windows may be AS 1, AS 2, AS 10, AS 4, and AS 8 materials. Additionally, windows other than windshields and those to the immediate right and left of the driver may be: AS 3, AS 5, AS 9, and AS 12 where not requisite for driving visibility, AS 6 where not forward- facing, AS 7 and AS 12 where neither at levels requisite for driving visibility nor forward-facing.; I would add that the term 'forward-facing' is not limited t windshields or behind-the-cab windows, as your letter implies, but applies to any window that is mounted in a plane transverse to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. It includes as well, for example, windows placed above the windshield, and any transverse interior partition.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 USC 1392(d)) does prohibit, as you indicate in your letter, any State or political subdivision of a State from establishing or continuing in effect with respect to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of the vehicle that is not identical to the Federal standard. The question raised by your letter is whether a State law which prohibits the use of glazing materials in locations of motor vehicles where they are specifically permitted to be used by the Federal standard is violative of section 103(d). It is our view that such a law is violative of section 103(d), and is invalid, as we believe that the use of a particular glazing material in specific vehicle locations is an aspect of performance that is covered by Standard No. 205. You are correct in adding, however, that under section 103(d) a State (or subdivision thereof) may require a higher standard of performance than that established by the Federal standard in vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use. You may, of course, refer to this letter in your discussions with any State authorities regarding these issues.; The interpretation in your letter of June 22 that Standard No. 205 doe not apply to glazing materials for use in travel trailers is correct.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4374OpenMajor Harry A. Crytzer, Bureau of Patrol, Pennsylvania State Police, 1800 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17110; Major Harry A. Crytzer Bureau of Patrol Pennsylvania State Police 1800 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg PA 17110; Dear Mr. Crytzer: This responds to your letter to our office and a telephone call betwee Trooper Monko of your department and Deirdre Hom of my staff, concerning how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations affect a certain modification of a school bus. I apologize for the delay in our response.; You explained in your letter and enclosures that the vehicle i question is a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds. The vehicle is being *leased* by the Governor Mifflin school district from a local dealer, Wolfington Body Company, who bought the vehicle from the school bus manufacturer, Collins Industries. Your letter said that Collins delivered the vehicle to Wolfington with an extra side door 'in place.' The side door was provided for purposes of installing a wheelchair lift. You stated that Wolfington could have installed a wheelchair lift, if it had wished to do so, however, in the case at hand, Wolfington sealed the door and installed rear seats provided by Collins in the bus.; You first ask whether the school bus dealer (Wolfington) is prohibite by Federal law from sealing the side door and installing the rear seats. The answer is no. However, Federal law does impose limitations on the modifications that may be made. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) states:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .<<<; Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits Wolfington from either removing disconnecting or degrading the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with applicable Federal safety standards. Thus, the school bus dealer cannot seal the door if the door had been installed on the vehicle to meet the requirements for emergency exits found in Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. In the case you describe, the school bus was provided with a rear emergency door which presumably satisfies Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. If the school bus is able to meet the requirements of the standard notwithstanding the sealed side door, then there is no 'rendering inoperative' of the vehicle's compliance with the school bus emergency exit requirements.; Nevertheless, Wolfington must ensure that no other safety design o item of equipment installed pursuant to applicable Federal safety standards was rendered inoperative by its modifications. For instance, the performance of the fuel system must be maintained to the level required by Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. Similarly, Wolfington must ensure that the seats previously certified to Standard No. 222, *School Bus Seating and Crash protection*, maintained their levels of performance.; Trooper Monko requested information on the Federal requirement applying to Collins and Wolfington, if Collins had delivered the school bus with the door sealed to Wolfington, the purchaser, and Wolfington had installed the lift and removed the rearmost seats. Wolfington is subject to the 'render inoperative' provisions of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act in this situation, just as it is in the situation discussed earlier. Thus, Wolfington must ensure that its modifications do not negatively affect the compliance of safety equipment and designs with Federal safety standards. Notably, the fuel system and seats on the school bus must continue to meet the applicable safety standards.; We note that a different set of our regulations would apply i Wolfington had obtained a new school bus from Collins to *resell* it to a school district. These regulations apply to the alteration of *new* vehicles, and impose certification responsibilities on dealers modifying new vehicles. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are interested in those regulations.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1526OpenMr. J. W. Kennebeck, Manager, Emissions, Safety & Development, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. J. W. Kennebeck Manager Emissions Safety & Development Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to your May 22, 1974, question whether Volkswagen' passive belt system may be equipped with a 'comfort clip,' and whether an optional Type I lap belt may be offered in conjunction with the passive system. Your passive system consists of an upper torso restraint and, in place of a lap belt, knee padding under the dashboard.; A vehicle which satisfies Standard No. 208, *Occupant cras protection*, may be equipped, at the option of the manufacturer, with additional safety belts which conform to Standard No. 209, *Seat belt assemblies*. Additional belts, like any required belt, must conform to the S7.2 requirements for latch mechanisms.; >>>S7.2*Latch mechanism*. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenge car shall have a latch mechanism --; (a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both th stowed and operational positions,; (b) That releases both the upper torso restraint and the lap bel simultaneously, if the assembly has a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release of the occupant, and; (c) That releases at a single point by a push-button action.<<< This requirement assures that the occupant crash protection provide under Standard No. 208 is not diminished by a complicated and slow series of belt latch mechanisms which could otherwise be introduced into the vehicle.; Volkswagens' passive upper torso restraint and a separate active la belt do not violate S7.2(b) in combination. Simultaneous release is required only 'if the assembly has a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release of the occupant.' As described, Volkswagen's upper torso restraint does not require unlatching for release of the occupant.; With regard to our regulation of 'comfort clips', we approved the us of a clip in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors, to relieve belt tension in limited circumstances. A copy of that letter is enclosed. In that case, the lap belt provided could be independently and firmly adjusted to limit occupant movement, providing protection in the event of lateral and rollover crashes. Until we have further details on the functioning of the Volkswagen clips, however, which we urge you to submit, we are unable to determine whether it would conform to the adjustment requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4724OpenMr. Larry F. Wort, Chief Bureau of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield, Illinois 62764; Mr. Larry F. Wort Chief Bureau of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield Illinois 62764; Dear Mr. Wort: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, l990, t Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to Federal requirements for front side marker lamps on trucks. The Ford C-CT Series Cab is equipped with a reflex reflector (apparently mounted on the door, to judge by the Exhibit A that you enclosed), but does not have a separate front side marker lamp. Ford states that it uses 'the roof mounted corner marker lamps to satisfy the side marker lamp requirements', and that they satisfy photometry and all other Federal requirements. You have asked whether 'the top of the cab clearance light may be used to fulfill the requirements for front side market lights. . . on cab over engine vehicles.' The answer is yes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not prohibit combining the front side marker lamp with any other lamp, and prohibits a front clearance lamp only from being optically combined with a front identification lamp (section S5.4, formerly S4.4). Although, under Table II of Standard No. 108, Location of Required Equipment, a front side marker reflector may not be mounted higher than 60 inches from the road surface, there is no corresponding limitation on the mounting height of front side marker lamps, which would preclude it from being located on top of the cab. The marker lamp must be located 'as far to the front as practicable', and the agency generally defers to the manufacturer's discretion in determining whether a location is practicable, unless it is clearly erroneous. Judging by the location of the combination clearance-side marker lamp shown in Exhibit A that you enclosed, we have no reason to question Ford's decision to locate the lamp there. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4231OpenMr. Francois Louis, Governmental Affairs Director, Renault USA, 1111 19th Street, NW Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Francois Louis Governmental Affairs Director Renault USA 1111 19th Street NW Suite 1000 Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Louis: Thank you for your letter of October 17, 1986, to Dr. Richar Strombotne of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. Your letter was referred to this office for reply. You have asked a number of questions concerning how the requirements of the standard apply to the automatic restraint system Renault intends to use in one of its vehicles. The answers to your questions are discussed below.; You explained that Renault plans to use, at both front outboard seatin positions, an automatic restraint system consisting of a motorized, detachable, two-point automatic belt and knee bolster. You stated that the automatic restraint system meets all the injury criteria of the standard when tested in the 30 mile per hour frontal barrier test of S5.1 of the standard. You also explained that Renault has decided to install voluntarily a manual lap belt with your automatic restraint system. You further stated that the addition of the manual lap belt does not affect the performance of the automatic restraint system, since your testing shows that the automatic restraint system can meet the injury criteria in a 30 mile per hour frontal barrier crash test both with and without the manual lap belt fastened.; As I understand your first question, you are, in essence, asking th agency to confirm that under S4.5.3 of the standard an automatic belt system with a single diagonal torso belt can be used in meeting the front crash protection requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) and can also be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2). As provided in S4.5.3 of the standard, an automatic safety belt system can be 'used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option.' Thus, you are correct that an automatic safety belt can be substituted for the Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt otherwise required by S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. This means that a Renault vehicle equipped with an automatic safety belt would not be subjected to the lateral crash test of S5.2 or the dynamic rollover test of S5.3.; Your second and final question concerned how our safety standards, i particular Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, would apply to a manual lap belt voluntarily installed by manufacturers with an automatic safety belt system. In a March 1, 1979 letter to Ford Motor Company, NHTSA stated that 'active lap belts and their associated anchorages are not required to comply with Federal safety standards if installed voluntarily by a manufacturer in addition to a single, diagonal passive belt.' In responding to Ford, NHTSA also noted that in past interpretations the agency has stated that 'systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the passive belt in this case) to comply with Federal safety systems.' In Renault's case, the addition of the manual lap belt does not appear to affect the automatic safety belt, since you stated that Renault can meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 both with and without the manual lap belt fastened.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1033OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc., Suite 406, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. David J. Humphreys Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc. Suite 406 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of January 31, 1973, requesting severa interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials', as it applies to motor homes and campers.; We find the interpretations as to the use of item 3 glazing containe in your letter to be correct. Your interpretation of 'levels not requisite for driving visibility' as meaning that other windows are available and more suited for driving visibility is reasonable, and acceptable for purposes of Standard No. 205.; We also find your interpretations on the use of items 4, 5, 8, and glazing materials to be correct. We do not agree, however, with your suggestion of allowing items 5 and 9 glazing to be used in camper windows adjacent to the truck cab rear window without regard to driving visibility. We agree it is unlikely with respect to most vehicles that such windows will be requisite for driving visibility, and will accept a good-faith, reasonable judgment decision on the question by a camper manufacturer. Consequently we do not believe that the remaining 'degree of uncertainty' will result in compliance problems for camper manufacturers.; Your conclusions regarding the application of items 6 and 7 glazing ar correct. We do not agree, however, that it is necessary or desirable to use such materials in any forward-facing windows, including those adjacent to the rear window of the truck cab. We believe the possibility of impact into these windows precludes the safe use in them of these glazing items, and item 13 glazing as well.; Your conclusions regarding the application of item 12 and item 1 glazing are correct. We appreciate your pointing out the lack of continuity in subparagraph designations for items 6, 7, 8, and 9. This was unintentional on our part, and your conclusion that the added subparagraphs should be read as following immediately those existing, regardless of letter designation, is correct. Finally, you are correct in your conclusion that the amendments to Standard No. 205 should be seen as overriding the headings for the various glazing items in the ANS Z26 standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4661OpenMr. Wolfred Freeman Freeman & Company P.O. Box 5062 San Marcos, CA 92069; Mr. Wolfred Freeman Freeman & Company P.O. Box 5062 San Marcos CA 92069; "Dear Mr. Freeman: This is in reply to your letter to June 22, l989, t the Administrator-Designate, General Curry, in which you 'petition...for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles.' You have designed 'a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks on the road.' We are treating your letter as a request for an interpretation of whether your device would be permissible for sale and use as an item of aftermarket equipment under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency. By aftermarket, we mean sale of the device for installation on cars and trucks in use, as contrasted with sales by dealers for installation on new cars. The principal regulation of this agency pertaining to motor vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. The only requirements it establishes for the aftermarket is for equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment specified by the standard (for example, headlamps and stop lamps). As your device is not a required item of motor vehicle lighting equipment, there is no Federal standard that applies to it. However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act has a direct relationship to the acceptability of aftermarket equipment. The Act prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard. Under Standard No. l08, this equipment includes stop lamps, turn signal lamps, hazard warning signals, turn signals, backup lamps, taillamps, and the license plate lamp. On large trucks, it also includes identification lamps and clearance lamps. If the potential effect of an auxiliary lighting device is to create confusion as to the intended message of any lighting device required by Standard No. l08, we regard the auxiliary light as having rendered the required lamp partially inoperative within the prohibition of the Act. Thus, the question is whether your device has the potential to create confusion so that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would be a violation of the Act. We do not conclude that the device has this potential. In your device, a steady-burning amber light would signal that the accelerator had been released (and that neither the accelerator nor brake pedal were being applied). Amber is the recognized signal for caution. This signal will extinguish when either the accelerator (green signal) or brake pedal (red signal) is applied. Furthermore, it is steady burning whereas other rear lamps where amber is an optional color (turn signals and hazard warning signals) flash in operation. Therefore, it does not appear that your device would create confusion with required items of lighting equipment. You must also consider whether the device would be acceptable under the laws of any State where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. However, we believe that in several Western States, there has been specific legislation that would permit your device. We appreciate your interest in enhancing vehicle safety through improvement in rear lighting systems. We believe that improvements, such as the center highmounted stop lamp, should be introduced as standardized, mandatory lighting equipment on vehicles, rather than as optional aftermarket devices. Contrary to your understanding, our studies of a system similar to yours showed no discernible improvement in reaction time or accident avoidance over current systems. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1199OpenMr. Charles J. Calvin, Managing Director, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Charles J. Calvin Managing Director Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Calvin: This is in reply to your letter of July 5, 1973, requesting a unifor location for trailer certifications labels required by both the Hazardous Materials regulations (49 CFR S 178.340-10) and NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). You request that location be specified as the 'forward half of the left side of the trailer.'; NHTSA Certification regulations, as you note, presently provide tha the certification label for trailers must be placed on the 'forward half of the left side of the vehicle' (49 CFR S 567.4(d)). This requirement does not distinguish between the frame and the tank shell, and the reference to 'vehicle' in the language of the provision is considered inclusion of both. The Certification regulations therefore appear to permit the location of the label that you request.; I note, however, the drawings in your letter, those titled 'Acceptabl Locations of Certification Labels' and 'Suggested Locations for Certification Labels', picture as an appropriate label location the front of the vehicle.; This location is not permitted by the NHTSA Certification regulations which clearly call for the label to be affixed to the vehicle 'left side'. While it is not clear whether you intended to request that the label be permitted to be affixed to the vehicle front, we do not find sufficient justification in your letter to depart from the existing requirements in this regard.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1463OpenMr. Ronald N. Granning, Vice President, Granning Suspensions, Inc., 3040 Wyoming, Dearborn, MI 48120; Mr. Ronald N. Granning Vice President Granning Suspensions Inc. 3040 Wyoming Dearborn MI 48120; Dear Mr. Granning: This responds to your March 21, 1974, request for an explanation o your certification responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as a manufacturer of liftable and 'additional' axles which are installed on completed vehicles by an independent truck equipment dealer or, in some cases, by the vehicle manufacturer at the factory.; Your responsibilities under Standard 121, *Air brake systems*, ar largely the same as your responsibility for certification of the GAWR of an axle under 49 CFR Part 567, although somewhat more complicated. It is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard 121 (49 CFR Part 567.4), and if the completed vehicle is altered, it is the responsibility of the vehicle alterer (49 CFR Part 567.7). The addition of an axle will change the GAWR-GVWR and the brake performance of the altered vehicle and will require recertification by the dealer who undertakes alteration.; A dealer is normally not equipped to recertify an altered vehicle except on the basis of certification information supplied to him by the manufacturer of the component that is being added. A component manufacturer like yourself might issue a performance guaranty which relies on the information that is supplied to him by the manufacturer of the basic parts (e.g. brakes, axles in your case) and which is conditioned on the observance of certain limits on installation. For instance, the reservoir volume requirement (S5.1.2.1) might be exceeded if the liftable axle manufacturer did not qualify his information by stating that a certain tank volume must be provided to serve the air chambers on his axle system. Another qualification could refer to brake actuation and release time as complying only if it did not reduce the brake actuation and release timing of the vehicle as a whole. The effect of your axle on each of the requirements would have to be determined.; We do not require certification of the axle by you as its manufacturer. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |