NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam5420OpenDean Lakhani, President Gem Manufacturing Corp. 7752 W. 60th St. Summit, IL 60501; Dean Lakhani President Gem Manufacturing Corp. 7752 W. 60th St. Summit IL 60501; "Dear Mr. Lakhani: This responds to your letter requesting ou 'unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with' an air bag. Your company is a manufacturer of bumper guards. Recently your customers have indicated that auto manufacturers have stated that installation of a bumper guard in front of a bumper will interfere with the air bag and could void the warranty. This letter will address the effect under Federal laws of the installation of a bumper guard, however, our agency cannot comment on the effect on a manufacturer's warranty. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles, therefore, if a bumper guard is installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with the bumper guard installed. After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. This provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing a bumper guard on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. Please note that this provision would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that this provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install a bumper guard on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. You should also note that a bumper guard would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' under Federal law. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. It is not possible for NHTSA to provide an 'unequivocal opinion on the issue of whether the attachment of a bumper guard to the front bumper of a vehicle will interfere with' an air bag. This is because the answer to the question would depend on the designs of the bumper guard, the air bag, and the vehicle as a whole. The discussion which follows illustrates possible problems, identified by our technical staff, which bumper guards could cause with respect to air bags. First, a bumper guard attached to the bumper could possibly induce unwarranted air bag deployments if the guard extended vertically below the car bumper. Such a bumper guard could snag on travel surface irregularities, sharp inclines, or sharp incline departure angles which might otherwise not engage the vehicle structure. The potential impulsive nature of bumper guard snag might cause air bag deployment to occur at conditions differing from the crash severity for which the original manufacturer designed the air bag. Second, if a bumper guard were attached to the vehicle structure, rather than the bumper, it too could possibly produce deployments that are not intended. Such a system might impose direct loading into the vehicle frame without the energy absorption of the bumper moderating the impulse experienced by the crash sensor system which is calibrated to measure crash severity. Third, if a bumper guard were added to the front bumper of a vehicle in such a manner as to change the load path through the bumper to the car structure behind the bumper, it is possible that the crash impulse arriving at the crash sensor location might be altered from that of the original bumper, causing air bag deployment to occur either above or below the original manufacturer's deployment threshold. We cannot provide an opinion of whether, or under what circumstances, your bumper guard might cause these or other problems. We suggest that you consult with vehicle manufacturers and air bag manufacturers concerning how, and whether, your bumper guard can be installed on air bag-equipped vehicles in a manner that does not create problems. 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0622OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 48202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 48202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: In your letter of February 23 you present a fact situation in which final stage manufacturer receives a completed vehicle, 'such as a Ford Econoline,' and is instructed by the ultimate purchaser to add seats and seatbelts, flashing lights, etc. to transform the vehicle into a small school bus. You ask:; ???'Must this vehicle be certified as a bus, even though it had bee certified previously by the chassis maker as a completed truck? How would a person so certify?<<<; Where a completed, certified vehicle is altered after manufacture, th issue is whether sufficient modifications have been made to the original vehicle that the one who modifies it must be considered a manufacturer in his own right. Considering the scope of modifications you describe, and the change of vehicle type from 'truck' to 'bus' (if its carrying capacity is over 10 persons), or to 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' (if it can carry 10 persons or less), this question would most likely be answered in the affirmative. In such a case the modifying manufacturer would have to certify the vehicle as complying with all applicable standards. He would have the responsibility of ensuring that his modifications did not affect the vehicle's original compliance with the standards, as well as full responsibility for any standards that become newly applicable because of the change of vehicle type.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1930OpenMr. Richard Schlichting, President, Toledo Clutch & Brake Service, Inc., 2112-24 Monroe Street, Toledo, OH 43624; Mr. Richard Schlichting President Toledo Clutch & Brake Service Inc. 2112-24 Monroe Street Toledo OH 43624; Dear Mr. Schlichting: This responds to your April 21, 1975, questions whether a 121-equippe chassis must be certified to Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, after installation of a tractor conversion kit, whether an antilock wiring harness may be spliced for purposes of frame extension, whether additional weight (such as a body) or an axle may be added to a vehicle after it is sold and put into use, and whether the standard regulates the replacement of worn brake components. You state that it should be assumed that the vehicle has been delivered to the first user.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits th manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce, or importation of a vehicle which does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of manufacture. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). However, the Act also provides that this prohibition no longer applies to a vehicle (except in the case of importation) after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale. (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). The Act also prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or design (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).; These provisions mean that the manufacturer of the vehicle must assum responsibility for compliance and certification. Most trucks are built in several stages and completed by final-stage manufacturers like yourself. Cab-chassis are only incomplete vehicles which have not been certified, and therefore, whoever completes the vehicle and subsequently sells it or introduces it on the public highway must certify its compliance. In answer to your first question, it is the responsibility of the person who installs the fifth wheel, tractor protection system, etc., to certify compliance, whether or not the vehicle has been delivered to the first user. The owner himself would qualify as a final-stage manufacturer if he installed the conversion kit.; In answer to your third and fourth questions, the installation would b subject to certification unless it followed 'the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' 'Good faith' means that the first user could not, for example, buy a completed vehicle, drive it around the block and then install a non-conforming tag axle. Installation of a body after delivery to the first purchaser without compliance with Standard No. 121 would in most cases not appear to be good faith because the vehicle is not capable of use without the body.; It is permissible to make modifications to a vehicle that is already i service after the first purchase in good faith. A private party may make any change, but as noted above, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business such as yours cannot 'knowingly render inoperative' a safety device in the process of modification. In answer to question number five, Standard No. 121 regulates the manufacture of new vehicles only and does not contain provisions which limit use of replacement parts. The only restriction in replacement would be to avoid knowingly rendering inoperative safety devices or design.; In answer to question number three, the standard establishe performance levels and does not contain any design requirements concerning the wiring harness of antilock systems. We would advise that you contact the antilock manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer as to the wisdom of splicing antilock wiring.; For your information, I enclose a discussion of the standard whic addresses final-stage manufacture at page seven.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5070OpenMr. G. Thomas Owens Senior Engineering Representative Aetna Post Office Box 26283 Richmond, VA 23260-6283; Mr. G. Thomas Owens Senior Engineering Representative Aetna Post Office Box 26283 Richmond VA 23260-6283; "Dear Mr. Owens: This responds to your letter requesting informatio regarding the legal aspects of school bus safety standards. Specifically, you requested a book or pamphlet containing the requested information. By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to promulgate Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. In 1974 Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which, by amending section 121 of the Safety Act, directed the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, applicable to all school buses. Those standards became effective on April 1, 1977 and are included, along with the rest of the agency's safety standards, in 49 CFR Part 571. The Safety Act defines a school bus as a vehicle that 'is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' NHTSA further defines a school bus as a motor vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more persons, including the driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR 571.3. It is a violation of Federal law for any person knowingly to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. On the other hand, once a vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, it may be used to transport school children without violating Federal law, even though it may not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. That is because individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. Therefore, to ascertain whether one may use noncomplying vehicles to transport school children, one must look to state law. It is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children. Please find enclosed a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Specifically, the following standards include requirements for school buses: Standards 101 through 104, Standard 105 (school buses with hydraulic brakes) Standards 106 through 108, Standards 111 through 113, Standard 115, Standard 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brakes), Standards 119 and 120, Standard 121 (school buses with air brakes), Standard 124, Standard 131 (effective September 1, 1992), Standards 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard 205, Standards 207 through 210, Standard 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard 217, Standard 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard 220, Standard 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds), Standard 222, Standards 301 and 302. Some of the above-listed standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, such as Standards 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard 131 was promulgated on May 3, 1991 and may be found at 56 Federal Register 20370. It requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992, to be equipped with stop signal arms. Standard 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard 221 establishes strength requirements for school bus body panel joints. Standard 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants of school buses. Under the provisions of Standard 222, small school buses, that is those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must be equipped with lap belts. For large school buses, those with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through 'compartmentalization,' a concept which calls for strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Should you wish copies of our safety standards, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet prepared by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0788OpenMr. Walter Sniff, Quality Control Manager, Crown Steel Products Division, 1330 North Main Street, Orrville, OH, 44667; Mr. Walter Sniff Quality Control Manager Crown Steel Products Division 1330 North Main Street Orrville OH 44667; Dear Mr. Sniff: This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1972, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' asking for a determination of the term 'passenger compartment' in a van-type vehicle that has either a partial partition behind the driver's seat or no partition at all.; We would consider a reasonable interpretation of the phrase 'occupan compartment' found in S1 of the Standard, when applied to van-type trucks which have no physical barrier between the occupant and cargo compartments, to be that area forward of a vertical plane perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle and tangent to the rearmost point of any occupant seat in its rearmost position. In the case where there is a partial partition behind the driver's seat, we would consider the 'occupant compartment' to be that area forward of a vertical plane that constitutes an extension of the partial partition and is perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The cargo areas of such vehicles would not be considered 'vehicle occupant compartments' under S4.1 of the Standard, and the materials used in the cargo area need not comply with the Standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0272OpenMr. Harry B. Mitchell, Jr., President, Mitchell & Sons, Inc., 5961 E. 64th Avenue, Commerce City, CO 80022; Mr. Harry B. Mitchell Jr. President Mitchell & Sons Inc. 5961 E. 64th Avenue Commerce City CO 80022; Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is in response to your letter of December 16, 1970, requesting clarification of our October 8, 1970 letter on the subject of the compliance of your campers with Standard No. 206.; The second paragraph in our letter was intended to apply to both you 14-foot 6-inch and 12-foot 6-inch campers and should have read as follows: 'You are correct in stating that the door in camper bodies built according to either of the floor plans enclosed with your letter would not be required to comply with Standard No. 206 if, as it appears, no portion of a manikin positioned at any seating reference point would project into the door opening area.' Of course, it is your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to determine whether both types of your campers actually meet the provisions of that paragraph.; Please write if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4548OpenMr. Gary M. Ceazan Vice President Riken-America, Inc. PO Box 3698 Terminal Annex Los Angeles, CA 90051; Mr. Gary M. Ceazan Vice President Riken-America Inc. PO Box 3698 Terminal Annex Los Angeles CA 90051; "Dear Mr. Ceazan: This is in response to your letter asking whethe tires marked with both an ETRTO (European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization) size designation and a different ISO (International Standardization Organization) size designation can legally be imported into the United States. As discussed below, such tires cannot be imported into the United States, because they do not comply with the applicable safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. All new pneumatic tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.109), and all new pneumatic tires imported for use on motor vehicles other than passenger vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.119). Both of these standards prohibit 'dual-size markings,' or labeling two different size designations on one tire. In the case of passenger car tires, section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with 'one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used.' (emphasis added). This agency expressly prohibited dual-size markings on passenger car tires in a preamble amending Standard No. 109, 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. This prohibition was expressly repeated in subsequent amendments that addressed the question of tire labeling under Standard No. 109, see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974, and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. In the case of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, there is no express prohibition in Standard No. 119 against dual size markings. However, section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with 'the tire and size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1.' NHTSA has interpreted the use of the singular in the phrase 'tire size designation,' rather than the plural 'tire size designations,' to be a prohibition against marking more than one tire size designation on these tires. See the enclosed copies of my January 7, 1988 letter to Mr. E.W. Dahl and my February 16, 1988 letter to Mr. Mike Kaizaki. Since tires marked with two size designations would not comply with our tire standards, they could not legally be imported into the United States, according to the requirement specified in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). If you have any further questions about our tire standards or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures /"; |
|
ID: aiam2865OpenMr. Robert B. Kurre, Director of Engineering, Wayne Corporation, P. O. Box 1447, Industries Road, Richmond, IN 47374; Mr. Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering Wayne Corporation P. O. Box 1447 Industries Road Richmond IN 47374; Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No 208 applies to side-facing seats in multi-purpose passenger vehicle vans. You also ask to be advised of the criteria to be used for the installation of seat belts in these vehicles.; Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, does requir side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with one of the options under paragraph S4.2.2, since the side-facing seats in question would be considered designated seating positions. If a manufacturer chooses to install seat belts under one of the options of that paragraph, the seat belt assemblies must comply with Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*.; Safety Standard No. 210 does exempt side-facing seats from its strengt requirements, but all other requirements of the standard would be applicable. However, we strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side- facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements. Side-facing seats were excepted from the strength requirements specified in the standard because the forces acting on side-facing seats are different from those acting on forward or rearward facing seats and the requirements and procedures were specifically developed for these latter seats.; Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0858OpenMr. William E. McSherry, Product Manager, Panduit Corporation, 17301 Ridgeland Avenue, Tinley Park, IL, 60477; Mr. William E. McSherry Product Manager Panduit Corporation 17301 Ridgeland Avenue Tinley Park IL 60477; Dear Mr. McSherry: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to the nylon cable ties you manufacture.; Paragraph S4.1 of the Standard does not include nylon cable ties o their equivalent and, accordingly, these components are not subject to the requirements of the Standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3777OpenMr. J. Wuddel, Westfalische Metall Industrie KG, Hueck & Co., Postfach 28 40, 4780 Lippstadt, Germany; Mr. J. Wuddel Westfalische Metall Industrie KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Germany; Dear Mr. Wuddel: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1983, to Augus Burgett of this agency with respect to an illuminated plate positioned between the right and left rear lamps. The plate would be illuminated by a separate light source, and would 'expose the manufacturer's name and the vehicle type.' You have asked if such a plate would be allowed on the rear of the vehicle.; Paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10 prohibits the installation of any motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Each lamp on the rear of a motor vehicle under Standard No. 108 serves an informational purpose, either to mark the vehicle (taillamps, license plate lamps, hazard warning signals) or to indicate vehicle action (stop lamps, turn signal lamps, backup lamps). It is imperative for purposes of safety that the function of each rear lamp be clearly understood by drivers following the vehicle. Addition of a light source or lamp other than that required by Standard No. 108 contains the potential either for confusion or to mask the effect of one of the required lighting devices. In general, the agency is opposed to any lighting devices on the rear of vehicles other than those required by the standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |