NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam4629OpenMr. William L. Dunlap Engineering Manager Philips Industries, Inc. Dexter Axle Division 500 Collins Road Elkhart, IN 46515; Mr. William L. Dunlap Engineering Manager Philips Industries Inc. Dexter Axle Division 500 Collins Road Elkhart IN 46515; "Dear Mr. Dunlap: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.120, copy enclosed). I apologize for the delay in this response. You stated that your company manufactures rims that you sell to other wheel manufacturers. These wheel manufacturers combine your company's rims with center disc sections of their own design to produce finished wheels for use on light trucks and trailers. Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 specifies that each rim shall be marked with certain information. You asked whether your company, as the rim manufacturer, or any subsequent manufacturer that uses your company's rims to produce complete wheels is required to mark the rims in compliance with section S5.2(c). The answer is that the rim manufacturer is responsible for those markings, as explained below. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), the Safety Act) specifies 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 ... item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' In this case, section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 requires certain markings to appear on all newly manufactured rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. These requirements became effective August 1, 1977. Thus, section 108 of the Safety Act makes it illegal for any person to 'manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any rim manufactured on or after August 1, 1977 designed for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars unless that rim is marked in accordance with section S5.2 of Standard No. 120. Your company would violate this provision of the law if you were to sell light truck rims without the required markings, even if the party to whom you sold such rims was going to use the rims to produce completed wheel assemblies. You suggested in your letter that your company's markings on its rims used by other manufacturers to produce completed wheel assemblies may be misleading or unfair, because your company has no control over the integrity of the completed wheel assemblies. This may represent a misunderstanding of the meaning and purpose of the required rim markings. The markings and certification required on rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars by section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 provide information about only the rims, not the entire wheel assembly. In your letter, you indicated that other wheel manufacturers simply add center discs to your company's rims to produce completed wheel assemblies. In these circumstances, the accuracy of the markings and certification put on a rim by your company as the rim manufacturer would not be affected by another manufacturer simply adding a center disc to that rim to produce a completed wheel assembly. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3416OpenMr. Richard J. Izzo, Vice President, Superior Pontiac, Inc., 5201 Camp Road, Hamburg, NY 14075; Mr. Richard J. Izzo Vice President Superior Pontiac Inc. 5201 Camp Road Hamburg NY 14075; Dear Mr. Izzo: This responds to your letter of March 25, 1981, regarding Safet Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. You ask whether paragraph S4.1.4 of the rule, the 'highlighting' requirement, would be satisfied by placing a sticker bearing the number '55' in the appropriate location on the outside of the glass covering the speedometer. You were previously informed by agency staff that it is necessary to put the sticker inside the glass in order to comply with the standard. In a subsequent phone conversation with Joan Griffin of my office, you stated that you are importing new and used vehicles from Canada.; The information you received earlier is incorrect. As the term is use in paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 127, 'highlighting' refers to any method of placing emphasis on the numeral '55' so that it stands out from the other numerals on the mph scale. The standard does not specify how this is to be accomplished. Thus, it is not necessary for you to place the '55' sticker on the inside of the speedometer glass to comply with the standard. It will suffice if you put the sticker on the outside of the glass. However, we would prefer it if you put the sticker inside the glass, since it then would be more difficult to remove the sticker from the vehicle.; In your conversation with Ms. Griffin, you asked whether the use vehicles that you import from Canada must be brought into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards before they can be brought into the country. Used vehicles that are imported into the United States must be brought into compliance with all Federal safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. However, the vehicles do not have to be brought into compliance *before* they are imported. Nonconforming vehicles may be imported if the importer executes a bond for the value of the vehicles and brings the vehicles into compliance with all applicable standards within 120 days of the date of importation.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have any questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1581OpenMr. George Semark, Safety Engineer-Vehicles, Sheller-Globe Corporation, 2885 St. Johns Avenue, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. George Semark Safety Engineer-Vehicles Sheller-Globe Corporation 2885 St. Johns Avenue Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Semark: This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1974, inquiring as t the applicability of Part 581, the proposed bumper standard (39 FR 25237), to buses, specifically school buses.; The standard, as proposed, applies to passenger motor vehicles othe than multipurpose passenger vehicles. These vehicle categories are used in the standard as they are defined in Section 2 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513). The Act defines passenger motor vehicles as those vehicles with motive power designed to carry 12 persons or less, except motorcycles and trucks not designed primarily as passenger carriers. Multipurpose passenger vehicles are defined as passenger motor vehicles constructed either on a truck chassis or with features for occasional off-road use. Buses, which are defined at 49 CFR Part 571.3 but not in the Cost Savings Act, are motor vehicles designed to carry more than 10 persons.; The application section of the proposed bumper standard excludes fro coverage passenger carrying vehicles designed to seat 12 persons or less when they are either constructed on a truck chassis or possess features for off-road operation. Any vehicle defined under 49 CFR Part 571.3 that is designed to carry 11 or 12 passengers would, for the purposes of Part 581, be classified as either a multipurpose passenger vehicle or a passenger vehicle. If such a bus meets the multipurpose passenger vehicle definition it would be excepted from the standard's coverage. However, if the bus has neither features for occasional off-road use nor a truck chassis it would be subject to the Part 581 bumper standard.; A school bus is a subcategory of bus, and it would be subject to any o the requirements of the proposed bumper standard applicable to buses in general.; Thank you for your inquiry. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4279OpenThe Honorable Floyd D. Spence, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Floyd D. Spence U.S. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Spence: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from you constituent, Mr. George Seaborn of the South Carolina Association of School Superintendents, concerning Federal regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.; In his letter to you, Mr. Seaborn expresses his concern about a Federa regulation that 'excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than 10 persons from use by schools.' Mr. Seaborn explains that it would be difficult for school districts to comply with a restriction on van use since large vans are extensively used for pupil transportation. He believes that schools should be permitted to use vans since those vehicles are safe for transporting passengers other than school children.; I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our school bus regulations. A explained below, there is no Federal prohibition directed against schools or school districts which prevents them from using vans carrying 11 or more persons. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all 'school buses.' The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date.; The parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act are the manufacturers an sellers of new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act requires each person selling a new 'school bus' to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a van designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) is a 'bus,' and is a 'school bus' if intended for transporting students to and from school or related events.; A person may sell a new bus (including a van designed to carry 10 o more persons) to a school or school district provided that the vehicle meets our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.; Because our regulations apply only to the manufacture and sale of ne motor vehicles, we do not prohibit school districts from using their large vans to transport school children even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. Matters relating to motor vehicle use are determined by state law. However, in the event a South Carolina school district decides to buy a new school bus, we would like the district to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under the Vehicle Safety Act to sell complying school buses. The seller should know that he or she risks substantial penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold as a school bus.; Since Mr. Seaborn is interested in transporting students in vans, would like to clarify a few additional matters concerning our school bus regulations. In his letter to you, your constituent expresses a belief that large vans (i.e., buses) should be safe for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the Schoolbus Amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that special measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportation. Fifteen-passenger vans (i.e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent performance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency exits, windows and windshields and seating systems.; New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may b sold to school districts to transport their pupils to school related events. School districts may also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, because such vans are considered 'multipurpose passenger vehicles' (MPV's) and not 'buses' or 'school buses' under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require them to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Instead, they must meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's which also provide high levels of passenger safety.; I hope this information is helpful. We have provided similar letters t Representatives Robin Tallon and Butler Derrick who contacted us on behalf of Mr. Seaborn. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance to you and your constituents.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4783OpenMr. William Shapiro Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. William Shapiro Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh NJ 07647; "Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter about the built-i child seat Volvo has designed for the center rear seating position. The built-in seat uses the vehicle's lap-shoulder safety belt to restrain the child. I regret the delay in responding. You indicated in a telephone conversation that Volvo is considering designing the seat solely for children who weigh more than 50 pounds. Such a seat is not subject to the requirements of Standard 213 because the seat is not a 'child restraint' as that term is defined in the standard. Paragraph S4 of Standard 213 defines a child restraint system as 'any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds.' The agency would determine whether your built-in seat is designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds by considering available indications of the manufacturer's design intent, e.g., the physical suitability of the seat for use by children who weigh less than 50 pounds, and the manner in which the seat is labeled and marketed. The agency would look to see whether the seat is clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by the system. We would also consider any indications in Volvo's marketing efforts and point of sale materials regarding the size and age of child that the seat is designed to restrain. Finally, we would consider any size and age information included in the vehicle's owner manual. You also indicated Volvo may consider designating the seat as suitable for children weighing more than 40 pounds. If the seat were so designated, it would no longer be a seat designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds, and therefore be a child restraint system subject to Standard 213. You ask whether, if Standard 213 applies to your seat, the standard permits such a seat. You state that the seat would meet the labeling and performance requirements of the standard. You believe that Standard 213 permits the seat because the final rule that amended 213 to set requirements directly applicable to built-in seats (53 FR 1783, January 22, 1988) said that paragraph S5.4.3.3 of the standard allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness system. You are correct that the standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Paragraph S5.4.3.3 provides, in part, that 'each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child' must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 (i.e., provide upper and lower torso restraint, and a crotch restraint (for seats for children weighing over 20 pounds), of a specific form). The definition of a 'child restraint system' specifically excludes the vehicle's lap/shoulder belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language of S5.4.3.3, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems applies only to seats that have belts, and not to a seat such as yours that uses the vehicle's belt system. Please note that Standard 213 sets limits on knee excursion for built-in seats (S5.1.3.1(b)). Thus, although your seat is not required to have a crotch strap, the seat must be designed to prevent a child from sliding excessively forward and down, legs first ('submarining'). The agency would like to emphasize its concern that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the lap belt should be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis of a child, the area of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. We cannot determine from your drawing whether the vehicle lap belt would be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. The instructions for the proper use of the built-in seat that are required by S5.6.2 of the standard should inform users how to properly adjust the belt system, so to avoid submarining and imposing impact loads to the child's abdomen. The agency is also concerned that the sitting height of some children who may occupy the seat might not be high enough for the shoulder belt to be properly positioned when attached. Instead, the belt might pass in front of the child's neck or face. For those cases, if no other option is available, NHTSA believes that the shoulder belt should be placed behind the child's back. We recommend that you include information in the printed instructions about such adjusting of the shoulder belt for small children. As a reminder, NHTSA will use these adjustment instructions per S6.1.2.3.1 to position the three year old dummy in the seat if the agency tests the seat in its compliance program. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3046OpenMr. Paul Schuil, 27 Seneca Avenue, Emerson, NJ 07630; Mr. Paul Schuil 27 Seneca Avenue Emerson NJ 07630; Dear Mr. Schuil: This responds to your recent letter asking whether smoked, tinted an mirrored windows may legally be used on vehicles operating on U.S. highways.; The Federal requirements for glazing materials on motor vehicles ar set forth in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205). This standard specifies performance requirements for the various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each glazing type may be used. Smoked, tinted and mirrored glazing may be used in certain vehicles in certain locations. For example, smoked glass may be used in side windows of trucks and buses. However, glazing material for use in any vehicle at levels requisite for driving visibility (e.g., windshields) must have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. Most smoked glass would not pass this requirement. I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 205 for your information. If you have any questions after reviewing the standard, contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3553OpenJerry Manzagol, Director, New Mexico Transportation Department, Motor Vehicle Division, Manuel Lujan Senior Building, Santa Fe, NM 87503; Jerry Manzagol Director New Mexico Transportation Department Motor Vehicle Division Manuel Lujan Senior Building Santa Fe NM 87503; Dear Mr. Manzagol: This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1982, requesting th approval of the revised New Mexico odometer disclosure for use in lieu of the Federal odometer disclosure statement. In October 1981 you submitted New Mexico's proposed odometer disclosure statement to the agency for approval for use in lieu of the separate Federal odometer form. The agency reviewed the form and determined that it could not be substituted for the Federal form unless the third alternate certification was rephrased to comport with the requirements of the Federal odometer law and the transferee's signature was added.; The agency has reviewed New Mexico's revised odometer disclosur statement and has now determined that it can be substituted for use in lieu of the Federal odometer disclosure statement.; If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4296OpenCharles Schamblin, Flag-It Fluorescent Signaling Device Co., Post Office Box 1709, Bakersfield, CA 93302; Charles Schamblin Flag-It Fluorescent Signaling Device Co. Post Office Box 1709 Bakersfield CA 93302; Dear Mr. Schamblin: Your letter of December 29, 1986, to Michael M. Finkelstein has bee referred to my Office for reply. You also addressed a letter of January 9, 1987, to my Office. Because these letter concern the same matter, this response addresses them both. In the December 29 letter, you asked about the appropriate color for your product, the Flag-It Fluorescent Signaling Device. The device, which you enclosed with your correspondence, is a rectangular green fluorescent strip, designed to be permanently attached to and hang vertically from the license plate frame on the front of a motor vehicle.; You state that you designed this device 'especially to meet th requirements for fluorescent material in the front of motor vehicles.' You ask for a 'letter of certification' that your device can be used and sold in the Unites States.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ha authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicle and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.; Your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment under S102(4) of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and as such, falls under NHTSA's jurisdiction. However, none of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards applies to your product.; Standard 125, *Warning Devices*, sets uniform design specifications o reflective warning devices used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle. As is apparent from the provisions regarding the scope and applications of the standard, Standard 125 applies to devices designed to be carried in motor vehicles and erected when needed to warn approaching traffic. It does not apply to warning devices designed to be permanently attached to a motor vehicle. Nevertheless, you may wish to use the colors specified in paragraph S5.3. They are the ones which the agency believes most appropriate for warning devices subject to the standard.; Standard 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* applies to reflective devices. While the agency notes that your product includes reflective material, Standard 108 covers aftermarket reflective devices only to the extent that the aftermarket device replaces required original reflective equipment. Because the kind of device you described is not subject to any Standard 108 requirement as original reflective equipment, it is likewise not subject to any such requirement as aftermarket equipment.; Finally, please be aware that if you or the agency finds your produc to contain a safety-related defect after you market the product, you are responsible for conducting a notice and recall campaign under S154 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414).; Further, you should be aware that State law may apply to equipment suc as your signaling device. You may wish to consult the state and local transportation authorities in the areas where you intend to market your product.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1094OpenMr. Lowell Liebenstein, President, Gil-Mar Welding Corp., 2142 Maple Road, Grafton, WI 53024; Mr. Lowell Liebenstein President Gil-Mar Welding Corp. 2142 Maple Road Grafton WI 53024; Dear Mr. Liebenstein: This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1973, asking how to compl with NHTSA Certification regulations in cases where you supply a trailer chassis or frame only, and another manufacturer installs the body. In another example, you supply the vehicle without an axle assembly, which is, we assume, also installed by another party.; Based on your letter, the procedures to be foloowed in certifyin vehicles such as these are those contained in NHTSA regulations for 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages' (49 CFR Part 568, copy enclosed). Briefly, these regulations require the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, who would be you in these cases, to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a document indicating the extent that the incomplete vehicle a document indicating the extent that the incomplete vehicle conforms to Federal standards, and what the final stage manufacturer must do in order that the completed vehicle will conform to all applicable standards.; If upon your review of these regualtions you have further questions, w will be pleased to respond to them.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3103OpenMr. Mark K. McDonald, PACCAR, Inc., Business Center Building, P.O. Box 1518, Bellevue, Washington 98009; Mr. Mark K. McDonald PACCAR Inc. Business Center Building P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue Washington 98009; Dear Mr. McDonald: This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1979, concerning Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.; You have asked whether a manufacturer must designate a vehicle a 'incomplete vehicle' if, although it is shipped in an incomplete form, its completed type is known. The 'incomplete vehicle' type was established to deal with situations where the manufacturer did not know what the vehicle's final type would be when it assigned the VIN. If the final form the vehicle will take is known to the manufacturer, it may identify that type in the VIN, or it may designate it as an incomplete vehicle. The agency would prefer, however, that the final type be indicated.; There is no requirement that use of a particular vehicle typ designation for VIN purposes be consistent with any other documentation regarding shipment or sale of vehicles manufactured in more than one stage, except that the actual VIN must be used where it appears on the documentation. For example, a vehicle may be designated an incomplete vehicle for the purposes of the NHTSA certification requirements and a truck for the purposes of the VIN requirements.; You have also asked the agency to confirm that engine horsepower nee not be directly or indirectly decipherable from the VIN. This is essentially correct. 'Engine type' is defined in S3 of the standard to mean a power source with defined characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement and net brake horsepower. Thus, encoding an engine manufacturer's basic model number would be sufficient. There remains, however, a question as to the point at which two engines with the same characteristics except for horsepower become two different engines. The agency intends to resolve this question in a notice in the Federal Register.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|