NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam4936OpenMr. Tadoru Yamamoto Technical Administration Div. Hino Motors, Ltd. 1-1, Hino-dai 3-chome Hino-shi, Tokyo 191, Japan; Mr. Tadoru Yamamoto Technical Administration Div. Hino Motors Ltd. 1-1 Hino-dai 3-chome Hino-shi Tokyo 191 Japan; "Dear Mr. Yamamoto: This responds to your letter concerning Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 113, Hood Latch System. You ask two questions about the applicability of the standard's requirements to your vehicle. As explained below, the vehicle must have a hood latch system, but need not have a second latch position on the system or a second hood latch system. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of any vehicle or equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer to determine whether your vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify your products in accordance with that determination. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter. Standard 113 requires that a vehicle's hood must have a hood latch system (S4.1). The standard also requires a front opening hood to have a second latch position on the latch system or a second hood latch system, if the hood has any open position that partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield (S4.2). The standard defines 'hood' as 'any exterior movable body panel forward of the windshield that is used to cover an engine, luggage, storage, or battery compartment' (S3). Your first question asks about the general applicability of Standard 113's requirements to your vehicle. You believe your vehicle is not subject to any of the standard's requirements because the front panel of the vehicle is not forward of the windshield, and is therefore not a 'hood' as defined by Standard 113. We disagree. According to the drawing you provided with your letter, the body panel appears to be forward of the windshield. We would consider the panel to be a hood, and subject to S4.1's requirement for a hood latch system. Whether the hood must have a secondary latch for the hood (either a second latch position on the hood latch system or a second latch system) is the subject of your second question. The answer is that the hood need not have the secondary latch. The secondary latch is required by S4.2 only for a front opening hood. According to the drawing you provided, your hood is essentially vertical, with the opening on the bottom of the hood. We consider a hood such as yours that is essentially vertical not to be a front opening hood. We note that a secondary latch for front opening hoods is required because such a hood is particularly hazardous if it were to unlatch during vehicle operation. The front opening design of the hood lends itself to flying open while the vehicle is moving, obstructing the driver's view through the windshield. However, an essentially vertical hood such as yours does not lend itself to such openings if it were to become unlatched. The secondary latch is therefore not required by the standard. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5624OpenMr. Curt Stiede BICS Manufacturing P.O. Box 2424 Columbia Falls, MT 59912; Mr. Curt Stiede BICS Manufacturing P.O. Box 2424 Columbia Falls MT 59912; "Dear Mr. Stiede: This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of m staff, and to subsequent telephone conversations with Mr. Myers, about this agency's standards for the product you manufacture. At Mr. Myers' request, you provided detailed schematics of your product and several pictures of it connected to various types of towed vehicles. It appears from these that the product is a trailer converter dolly. You stated that your product is intended as a towing device for a variety of trailers, such as 'gooseneck flatbed, equipment, utility, farm equipment, horse trailers, along with 5th wheel recreational vehicles.' You further stated that it has a combined load range of 3,500 to 15,000 pounds, depending on the trailer weight and engine power of the towing vehicle. You stated that there may be some state restrictions applicable to your trailer dolly, and suggested that some Federal regulations may have to be amended to address such a vehicle. By way of background information, this agency has the authority under Federal law to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and related regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers are responsible for 'self- certifying' that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. They must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Once the vehicle or equipment is sold to the first retail customer, the product is no longer subject to the FMVSSs. The first question you raise is whether your trailer dolly is a 'motor vehicle.' The answer is yes. 'Motor vehicle' is defined in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30102 as: A vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. Your trailer dolly clearly meets the definition of a motor vehicle since the dolly is designed to be drawn by mechanical power on the streets, roads, and highways. It is referred to in NHTSA regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 571.3) as a 'trailer converter dolly,' which is defined as 'a trailer chassis equipped with one or more axles, a lower half of a fifth wheel and a drawbar.' We note that a trailer converter dolly, although fabricated on a trailer chassis, is not a trailer. It is a motor vehicle designed to tow another vehicle rather than carry persons or property itself. The following standards and regulations apply to your manufacture of the trailer converter dolly. As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you must submit certain identifying information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed). You must also ensure that a dolly with a hydraulic braking system must meet FMVSS No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids (49 CFR 571.116). You must also comply with the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 567, Certification. In addition, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. The enclosed information sheet briefly describes those responsibilities. As Mr. Myers discussed with you, since your trailer dolly is designed and intended for interstate marketing and transport, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may have requirements applicable to your product. Accordingly, I will forward a copy of your letter to Mr. James Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, FHWA, this address, for further response. In the alternative, you may contact Mr. Larry Minor of Mr. Scapellato's staff at this address or at (202) 366-4012 to discuss pertinent FHWA regulations. Finally, you mentioned in your letter that some states may have certain restrictions or requirements for your trailer dolly. NHTSA does not have information on those state requirements. However, you may be able to obtain such information from: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1000 Arlington, VA 22203 (703) 522-4200 I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures "; |
|
ID: aiam0076OpenChester G. Parsons, President, Elgin Sweeper Company, 1300 West Bartlett Road, Elgin, IL 60120; Chester G. Parsons President Elgin Sweeper Company 1300 West Bartlett Road Elgin IL 60120; Dear Mr. Parsons: This is in response to your letter of April 17 requesting eithe confirmation of your opinion that it was 'not the intent of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to apply to' the three wheeled motor street sweeper manufactured by Elgin, or, in the alternative, consideration by the Federal Highway Administration of the establishment of a separate classification for these vehicles.; Three wheeled motor street sweepers are 'motor vehicles' within th meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. However, they do not fall into any of the vehicle types defined thus far, to which standards are applicable, and consequently there are no standards applicable to it at this time.; Sincerely, William Hadden, Jr., M.D. |
|
ID: aiam5274OpenMr. J. C. DeLaney Manager, Technical Programs Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. 2 Jenner Street, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92718-3812; Mr. J. C. DeLaney Manager Technical Programs Motorcycle Industry Council Inc. 2 Jenner Street Suite 150 Irvine CA 92718-3812; Dear Mr. DeLaney: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. You asked whether a motorcycle side stand complies with Standard No. 123 if the stand passes SAE J1587 Motorcycle Side Stand Retraction Test Procedure. Standard No. 123 specifies at S5.2.4 Stands that: 'A stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward.' Neither S5.2.4 nor any other provision of Standard No. 123 incorporates by reference, SAE J1587. Thus, if a motorcycle side stand passes the SAE J1587 test procedure, it does not automatically follow that the side stand complies with Standard No. 123. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0758OpenMr. Chester R. Ely, President, Mercury Fabricators, 8335 Atlantic Boulevard, Cudahy, CA, 90201; Mr. Chester R. Ely President Mercury Fabricators 8335 Atlantic Boulevard Cudahy CA 90201; Dear Mr. Ely: This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1972, in which you as whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 206 (Door Locks and Door Retention Components) and 302 (Flammability of Interior Materials) apply to aluminum sleeper cabs which you manufacture for what appears to be installation on truck tractors.; Each motor vehicle safety standard is by its terms applicable t specific types of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each vehicle or item of equipment to which a standard applies must conform to the standard until its first purchase by a user. Components which are incorporated into vehicles before their first purchase are considered to be part of the vehicle, and as a practical matter must conform to all standards applicable to it.; Standard No. 302 becomes effective September 1, 1972, and applies t trucks, which includes truck tractors. If a sleeper cab you manufacture is incorporated into a truck before its first purchase by a user, then it must conform to the standard. Moreover, the components to which the standard applies (paragraph S4.1) include mattress covers, and if you determine the standard applies under the criteria we have provided, mattress covers which you furnish must conform to the standard. You indicate you have tested the flammability of the cab utilizing a torch. While you may test for conformity to the standard in any way you choose, whether or not your product conforms to the standard will be determined by NHTSA utilizing the test procedures specified in the standard. Manufacturers who utilize procedures different from those in the standard should take care to correlate the results they obtained to those that would be obtained using the standard's procedures.; Standard No. 206 also applies to trucks, and will become effective fo all side doors leading to passenger compartments on September 1, 1972. Consequently, if the sleeper cabs you manufacture are incorporated into trucks before their first purchase the sleeper cabs must conform to Standard No. 206.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2765OpenMr. Garry Williams, Body Designer, Telsta Group, General Cable Corporation, P.O. Box 666, Westminster, CO 80030; Mr. Garry Williams Body Designer Telsta Group General Cable Corporation P.O. Box 666 Westminster CO 80030; Dear Mr. Williams: This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 1978, concernin placement of the rear identification lamps on a truck. Because the truck has a mast assembly located on the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and center of the rear axle, you have asked whether the lamps should be mounted 'on the mast as high as possible or on the rear face of the rear floor decking.'; Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires rea identification lamps to be mounted 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle....' If placement on the mast interferes with the operation of the lift, or if the lamp would be easily damaged in that location, that location would not appear to be 'practicable' within the meaning of Standard No. 108, and the deck location would fulfill the practicability requirements.; You have also asked which is more important in locating identificatio lamps: '(1) ...as high as possible on a stationary surface and face the lights toward the rear, or (2) to locate to the most rearward surface and then as high as possible on that surface'. Your first choice is the correct one. The purpose of the three lamp cluster is to identify large and frequently slow moving vehicles under conditions of reduced visibility. Therefore, it is more important for the lamps to be located high than it is for them to be at the rear end of the vehicle, for example, on the cab rather than at the deck end. However, the decision as to what is 'practicable' is initially that of the manufacturer and we have generally found those decisions to be correct.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3877OpenMr. Jerry D. Williams, Senior Vice President, American Transportation Committee, Highway 65 South, Conway, AR 72032; Mr. Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President American Transportation Committee Highway 65 South Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Williams: This is in further response to your December 12, 1984 letter to th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning our definition of a school bus. Your specific question asked, 'Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multipurpose passenger vehicles?' As explained below, a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons (i.e., 10 children and a driver) to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus. A vehicle carrying 10 or less persons would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle.; Under the definitions section of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standards (49 CFR Part 571.3), vehicles carrying 11 or more persons which are sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events are 'school buses.' Under our regulations, a vehicle which is designed to carry less than 11 persons would be considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Such a vehicle would be certified as complying with the safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles.; Ms. Deirdre Hom of my staff informed your associate, Mr. Joe Clark, o the above in a telephone call on December 14, 1985. This letter confirms the information given to Mr. Clark in that conversation.; If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact m office.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0308OpenMr. Kenneth W. Brown, Cabot Corporation, 125 High Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110; Mr. Kenneth W. Brown Cabot Corporation 125 High Street Boston Massachusetts 02110; Dear Mr. Brown: This will acknowledge your letter of March 10, 1971, to the Departmen of Transportation, requesting exemption from Retreaded Standard No. 117.; The Department of Transportation has not promulgated a standar entitled 'Retreaded Standard No. 117' consequently, no conformance is required until such a time as a retreaded standard becomes the law.; Sincerely, E.T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2335OpenMr. Richard McRay, Chief Engineer, Walter Motor Truck Company, School Road, Voorheesville, NY 12180; Mr. Richard McRay Chief Engineer Walter Motor Truck Company School Road Voorheesville NY 12180; REGISTERED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dear Mr. McRay: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1976 providing us you views with respect to defect notification. You appear to have concluded that you were not required to provide either a certification label or an incomplete vehicle document to Advance Mixer, Inc. (AMI) with respect to the 50 mixer trucks in question, but acknowledge the fact that 'the label furnished by us was . . . incorrect.' You wish to correct the error 'by requesting that the customer (AMI) remove the incorrect data plate from the vehicle.'; We have reviewed the information supplied with your letter and you argument that Walter acted as a sub-contractor to AMI for the purposes of constructing and assembling a proprietary item. They do not alter our conclusion expressed on June 10, 1976, that Walter, as the certifying manufacturer of a motor vehicle, has the obligation to inform the purchaser of the defect in the vehicle, and to remedy it.; Mixer trucks are vehicles manufactured in two or more stages as tha term is employed in 49 CFR Part 568. Their manufacture is begun by an 'incomplete vehicle manufacturer' (Walter) and completed by a 'final-stage manufacturer' (AMI). Certification of the completed vehicle, which is required by S 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, may be accomplished by either party. If the final stage manufacturer is to certify the completed vehicle, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer is required by S 568.4 to furnish an incomplete vehicle document with its incomplete vehicle. No such document need be supplied where the incomplete vehicle manufacturer is the certifying party. Regardless of what you believe to be the 'unusual circumstances' surrounding the construction of the 50 trucks, it appears that Walter nevertheless allowed itself to be the certifier of the trucks and supplied the incorrect labels that were affixed to them. Under those circumstances we believe that a court of law would find persuasive our argument that Walter was an incomplete vehicle manufacturer that had assumed 'legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act . . . with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured. . .' within the meaning of S 568.7(a), or alternatively that, it had failed to provide the incomplete vehicle document required by Part 568.; One of the certifying party's obligations is to notify vehicle owner and remedy the defect upon determination of the existence of a safety-related defect in a motor vehicle. We assume, of course, that AMI will cooperate in providing Walter appropriate weight rating information for the labels and a list of the purchasers of the 50 trucks. To expedite this matter I am providing AMI's Washington counsel with a copy of your letter of June 18 and this response.; As you know, pursuant to Section 109 of the Act a maximum civil penalt of $1,000 may be imposed for each violation, and there are 50 trucks involved here. Since the error apparently 'resulted from Walter's administrative misinterpretation' and not from an attempt to evade responsibilities, we would be willing to close our file without imposing civil penalties provided Walter conducts a suitable notification campaign. Otherwise we may institute proceedings under Section 152 to compel notice.; We request your further views within 20 days after receipt of thi letter. We would be willing to help you initiate the campaign by critiquing a draft notification letter should you wish to submit it with your response.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3174OpenMr. Thomas F. Brown, Executive Engineer, Vehicle Regulations and Standards, Mack Trucks, Inc., P.O. Box 1761, Allentown, PN 18105; Mr. Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations and Standards Mack Trucks Inc. P.O. Box 1761 Allentown PN 18105; Dear Mr. Brown: Thank you for your letter of November 21, 1979, pointing ou discrepancies in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as published in the Code of Federal Regulations and as published in 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.'; You are correct that the version of S4.1.5 appearing in 'Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' erroneously incorporates the paragraph of the Federal Register amendment notice finding that good cause had been shown for an immediate effective date. The error does not appear, however, in the official version of Standard No. 108 which appears in the Code of Federal Regulations.; The footnote reference to 'S4.4.2' and the reference to 'S3.1' in th interpretation do appear, however, in the Code of Federal Regulations. Originally, there was a paragraph S4.4.2 prescribing the testing sequence of combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers, referenced by footnotes in Tables I and III. As you may recall, there was a Standard No. 108a scheduled to become effective on January 1, 1973, which omitted S4.4.2 with its footnote reference, and added detailed performance and testing requirements for flashers under a new paragraph, S4.6. When Standard No. 108a was revoked, S4.4.2 was never reinstated as a requirement, though the footnote references to it still appear in Tables I and III as you have noticed.; With respect to the reference to 'S3.1' appearing in Note 2 to Standar No. 108 in the Code of Federal Regulations, this is the S3 which appeared in the December 16, 1967, version of Standard No. 108 cited by the Note. When Standard No. 108 was amended effective January 1, 1972, S3.1 became S4.1. Thus, the continued reference to S3.1, though confusing, is correct in its context.; Your final comment is that the amendments to Tables I and III affecting headlamps, as published on July 27, 1978, have not been picked up by the agency's publication 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.' You are correct. We hope that recent steps taken by this agency will end the problems that have been experienced with this publication. However, I must emphasize that the only legal version of Standard No. 108 is that appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations, currently revised as of October 1, 1978, plus amendments and corrections published in the *Federal Register* since that date.; We appreciate your calling these mistakes to our attention. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|