Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 3721 - 3730 of 16517

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam3384 Open Mr. Charlton C. Davis, Davis Trailer Mfg. Co., Rte 1, Highway 78E, Loganville, Georgia 30249; Mr. Charlton C. Davis Davis Trailer Mfg. Co. Rte 1 Highway 78E Loganville Georgia 30249; Dear Mr. Davis: This responds to your November &, 1980, letter to Mr. Kratzke of m staff, in which you requested information concerning the legality of using welded mobile home axles and mobile home tires on trailers.; We have no regulations concerning the axles which may be used o trailers. However, the use if mobile home tires on new trailers would violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR S571.120). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of this standard. Section S5.1 of the standard requires all new trailers equipped with tires for highway service to use tires that comply with either Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Use on Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, or Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars, tires which have the label 'For Mobile Home Use Only' have been expressly exempted from the performance requirements of Standard No. 119. Because of the exemption, these tires may only be used on mobile homes. Therefore, the use of these tires on new trailers would render the trailers in violation of Standard No. 120. A manufacturer using these tires on a new trailer would face a fine of up to $1,000 for each mobile home tire used, pursuant to the provision of section 108 and 109 of the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 11398). If you are aware of any such violations, the agency would appreciate any information you could supply.; As I Have stated above, we have no regulations specifying performanc requirements for the axles on trailers. If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1643 Open Mr. Jack M. Dubard, Dubard & Vail, P.O. Box 38, Booneville, MS 38829; Mr. Jack M. Dubard Dubard & Vail P.O. Box 38 Booneville MS 38829; Dear Mr. Dubard:This responds to your October 11, 1974, letter (JAH:nh asking whether a truck body manufactured in part before and in part after the effective date of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, must conform to the requirements of that standard. Standard No. 121 becomes effective for trailers on January 1, 1975, and for trucks and buses on March 1, 1975.; Standard No. 121 applies to air brake-equipped trucks, buses, an trailers, but not to truck bodies, which we consider to be items of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, if your client only makes and sells truck bodies, his products are not subject to Standard No. 121.; If your client combines a chassis- cab with a truck body, he may i many cases be manufacturing a new motor vehicle, and as such, be responsible for compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I have enclosed 49 CFR Parts 567, Certification, and 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, which set out the certification responsibilities of persons who manufacture vehicles in stages.; Section 568.8 states that a 'final-stage manufacturer' (frequently thi will be one who installs a truck body on a chassis cab) must certify the vehicle as conforming with all standards effective as of the date of manufacture of the 'incomplete vehicle,' the date of final completion, or any date between those two dates. The manufacturer makes this certification based both on documentation furnished by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer under S 568.4, and on the changes he has made to complete the vehicle.; Therefore, if your client completes a truck by adding a truck body t it, he must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable standards as of a date chosen by him within the specified period. For example, a vehicle completed by the addition of a body on March 15, 1975, which used a chassis-cab manufactured on February 1, 1975, could be certified as complying with all standards as of February 1, 1975. In this case, the vehicle would not be subject to Standard No. 121.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0951 Open Mr. Richard H. Trampenau, Marketing Specialist, DION FR Polyester Resins, Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company, P. O. Box 829, Redwood City, CA, 94064; Mr. Richard H. Trampenau Marketing Specialist DION FR Polyester Resins Diamond Shamrock Chemical Company P. O. Box 829 Redwood City CA 94064; Dear Mr. Trampenau: This is in reply to your letters of October 9 and December 4, 1972 concerning the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to motor homes and other multipurpose passenger vehicles.; You ask whether 'molded plastic exterior shells' of motor homes an other vehicles must meet the burn rate requirement of the standard, even when they are completely though variously covered in the vehicle interior. The answer to this question in both respects is no. Whether a material is subject to the requirement depends on whether it is used for producing any of the components listed under Paragraph S4.1 of the standard, either as a surface material, an underlying material, or a padding and cushioning material. Motor vehicle shells are not listed under Paragraph S4.1 and, therefore, they are not subject to the requirements of the standard.; You also ask whether 'molded plastic engine covers, separating th engine compartment from the passenger compartment,' must meet the burn rate requirement of the standard, even when they are completely though variously covered in the vehicle interior. Engine compartment covers are listed under Paragraph S4.1 of the standard, but they are subject to the requirements, as are all the listed components, only to the extent that they are part of the occupant compartment. Any material in the vehicle occupant compartment which covers that part of the engine compartment in juxtaposition with the occupant compartment would be considered an engine compartment cover. Under Paragraph S4.2 the portion of the engine compartment cover that must meet the requirements, as for any of the listed components, depends on whether the surface material is bonded, sewed, or mechanically attached to underlying material and thereby achieves an intimate joining of materials which are normally separate. The important question, then, is not so much how the covering for the molded plastic is attached, but how closely spaced are the attachment points. If the covering is not bonded, sewed, or mechanically attached to the underlying molded plastic so that an intimate joining is not achieved, then the covering would be considered the engine compartment cover and, under Paragraph S5.2.1, the thickness of the portion to be tested 'is that of the material as used in the vehicle, except that where the material's thickness exceeds 1/2 inch the specimen is cut down to that thickness.' On the other hand, if the covering and the molded plastic are attached so that an intimate joining is achieved, then the covering and the molded plastic would together be considered the engine compartment cover and, again under Paragraph S5.2.1, the thickness of the portion to be tested 'is that of the (composite) material as used in the vehicle, except that where the (composite) material's thickness exceeds 1/2 inch the specimen is cut down to that thickness.'; The manner of attachment, if any, of the molded plastic to its coverin does not affect the burn rate requirement. Where structural equipment such as shelves and bunks completely cover the molded plastic which separates the engine compartment from the passenger compartment, the engine compartment cover would not be subject to the requirements of the standard. However, should the structural equipment not completely cover the molded plastic engine cover, then it must meet the requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5600 Open Ms. Nancy Tavarez Bietrix Industries; Ms. Nancy Tavarez Bietrix Industries; "FAX 201-956-7070 Dear Ms Tavarez: This is in response to your FAX o August 8, 1995, with respect to the importation of 'Phoenix Halogen Auto Bulbs H4 series, H3, H1 and 9000 series- HB1 for the USA market.' We understand that you presently have a shipment of these awaiting entry. You state that 'Mr. Taylor Benson recently informed us that these lights required DOT approval.' Taylor Vinson repeatedly informed you on the phone that DOT does not approve bulbs or any other kind of equipment. If there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect covering an item of equipment, the manufacturer (or importer for resale) is responsible for certifying that the equipment complies with that standard. The certifier does not need DOT permission or approval for that action. The appropriate Federal regulations in this instance are Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment and 49 CFR Part 564 Replaceable Light Source Information. There is no Federal regulation that applies to the H4 bulb. Although the H4 bulb is legal for use only in motorcycle headlamps, neither Standard No. 108 nor Part 564 applies to motorcycle headlamp bulbs, and it is not necessary for H4 bulbs to be certified in order to enter the United States. H4 bulbs may not be used in headlamps for motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, the HB2 bulb, based on the H4, is legal for use in headlamps for all types of motor vehicles. If the H1 and H3 bulbs are to be used for auxiliary lamps such as fog lamps, there is no Federal regulation that requires their certification either. However, if the H1 and H3 bulbs are intended for use in headlamps (the markings on their boxes may indicate this), they are subject to both Standard No. 108 and Part 564. What we require is that the bulb be marked with (1) the name and/or trademark registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of its manufacturer or of its importer (Bietrix), (2) the ANSI number, ECE identifier, and manufacturer's part number, individually or in any combination, and (3) a DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is the certification by Phoenix or by Bietrix that the H1 or H3 bulb has been designed to conform to the specifications for these bulbs that are on file in Part 564. We believe that Phoenix should be aware of these specifications. For your information, '(1)' is required by paragraphs S7.7(h) and S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108, '(2)' by paragraph S7.7(h) and section VIII of Appendix A of Part 564, and '(3)' by paragraphs S7.7(g) and (h) of Standard No. 108. I am FAXing a copy of paragraph S7.7 and Part 564 for your information. The HB1 light source is required to be marked with the same information as the H1 and H3 as indicated above, but the authority for this is paragraph S7.7(f), this also requires the base to be marked 'HB1'. However, the DOT symbol in this instance would represent the certification by Phoenix or by Bietrix that the HB1 bulb has been designed to conform to the specifications of paragraph S7.7(a) and Figure 3 of Standard No. 108. Again, we believe that Phoenix should be familiar with the specifications for the HB1 light source. If the HB1 light sources (or H1s and H3s for headlamp use) you wish to import bear all these markings, you may import them under Box 2A of the HS-7 Declaration Form as equipment certified as meeting the standards. If they do not bear these markings, they may not be imported until marked and certified by Phoenix or by Bietrix according to the regulations discussed above. If you have further questions, please call Mr. Vinson at (202)366-5263. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";
ID: aiam4912 Open Mr. Ronald Van Campenhout US Liaison Officer ABC Coach/Van Hool 17469 West Highway 50 Winter Garden, FL 34787; Mr. Ronald Van Campenhout US Liaison Officer ABC Coach/Van Hool 17469 West Highway 50 Winter Garden FL 34787; Dear Mr. Van Campenhout: This responds to your letter of August 29 1991, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a situation you recently encountered in Florida. You state that 'one of our client's coaches was stopped by a DOT-inspector . . . and a compliance-audit with FMVSS-standards was performed.' According to the DOT inspector, 'the third, centrally mounted, rear stoplight needs to be illuminated, not only when the brake pedal gets activated, but also whenever the coach is parked with the engine running at high idle speed . . . .' It is your interpretation that the center light 'should only come on when pressure is applied to the brake pedal.' Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that applies to the center highmounted stop lamp. Standard No. 108 does not require that the center highmounted stop lamp be activated when a vehicle is parked with the engine running at idle. In fact, S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 specifies that the center lamp shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes. Thus, your interpretation is the correct one. There are other anomalies reported in your letter that I would like to address. First, Standard No. 108 does not require buses manufactured before September 1, l993, to be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp (and, after that date, only buses with a GVWR less than l0,000 pounds and less than 80 inches in overall width must be so equipped). Apparently, the inspector was not informed that the requirement for certain buses to be equipped with center highmounted stop lamps does not take effect for nearly two more years. Second, this agency has no inspectors performing compliance audits of vehicles in service. We surmise that your coach may have been inspected by either the Florida State DOT, or the U.S. DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for compliance with the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The FHWA, which concurs in this letter, does not require in its Motor Carrier Safety Regulations or elsewhere that stop lamps on a bus be illuminated when the service brakes are not being applied, even if the vehicle is idling. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam0402 Open Mr. William H. Maas, Coordinator, Product Safety Regulations, Harley- Davidson Motor Co., Inc., 3700 West Juneau Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53201; Mr. William H. Maas Coordinator Product Safety Regulations Harley- Davidson Motor Co. Inc. 3700 West Juneau Avenue Milwaukee WI 53201; Dear Mr. Maas: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1971, concerning a disput you are having with your supplier of glazing materials concerning who is the 'prime glazing material manufacturer' as specified in S3.4 of Standard No. 205, and who would consequently be required to obtain a manufacturers' code number under S5.2 of the proposed amendment to Standard No. 205, published January 9, 1971 (Docket 71-1, Notice 1) (36 F.R. 326). You indicate that you purchase the glazing material from your supplier, and cut it to size for motorcycle windshields. You state that your supplier claims that although he manufactures the material to specification, he considers it to be purely a raw material, and that he is not a motor vehicle window or windshield manufacturer.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 applies to 'glazin materials for use in . . .' specified types of motor vehicles, one of which is motorcycles. It applies to glazing material that is manufactured for use in these vehicles before as well as after it has been cut to size or installed in the motor vehicle.; If a manufacturer is producing glazing materials that he knows are fo use in motor vehicles he is, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturing glazing (1) which must comply with Standard No. 205 and (2) which he must certify, as specified in section 114 of the Act, and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed) as complying with the standard. A prime glazing material manufacturer may certify the material by the alternative method specified in S3.4 of Standard No. 205.; The standard clearly distinguishes between the prime manufacturer an those who merely cut the material, and places responsibility for compliance and certification on the former as well as the latter.; A producer of the basic glazing material, to be used in motor vehicles is a 'prime glazing material manufacturer' under the standard, and would be required to obtain the manufacturers' code mark under S5.2 of the proposed standard.; That proposal is currently under consideration, however, and it i recommended that no action be taken until a final regulation is published.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2595 Open Mr. James R. Green, 3396 Alma Street, Lynwood, CA 90262; Mr. James R. Green 3396 Alma Street Lynwood CA 90262; Dear Mr. Green: Your letter of April 8, 1977, to the President of the United State concerning the need for improved motor vehicle headlamp standards has been referred to this office for consideration and reply.; We have received considerable information regarding the effects o foreign and domestic motor vehicle headlighting equipment, including engineering papers and test data on 'selective yellow' headlamps. All information concluded that filtering of headlamps to produce yellow reduces the photometric intensity of the lamp, thereby reducing the actual seeing distance. Some vehicle operators subjectively concluded they can see further with yellow headlamps, but objective seeing distance tests with specific target characteristics and distances indicate a loss of seeing distance.; It is also true that while the original intent in using yello headlamps was to reduce the glare from oncoming vehicle headlamps, our current test data indicates that a yellow light does not reduce glare. The white light is, therefore considered safer and is the basis for requiring white light in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (copy enclosed).; Although this lighting standard is generally in accordance wit standards developed and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, it does not specifically require sealed-beam headlamps. However, it does require headlamps which are designed to be aimed properly when installed in prealigned mechanical assemblies. The lamp itself may be sealed-beam (filament is enclosed only by the lamp shell in an inert atmosphere) or it may be a halogen lamp (filament is surrounded by a small envelope containing a halogen gas). Specifically, the halogen-bulb headlamp is legal if incorporated into an otherwise legal motor vehicle headlamp.; I trust the foregoing is fully responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam5250 Open Mr. Richard A. Wennerberg Vice President, Marketing Services American Gas Association 1515 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22209; Mr. Richard A. Wennerberg Vice President Marketing Services American Gas Association 1515 Wilson Boulevard Arlington VA 22209; "Dear Mr. Wennerberg: This responds to your request for a lette explaining the status of Federal regulations applicable to compressed natural gas (CNG) containers for motor vehicles and CNG fueled motor vehicles. As you stated, representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the United States Department of Transportation, met with the American Gas Association (AGA) on August 16, 1993 to clarify your understanding of this agency's statutory authority with respect to the notice of proposed rulemaking for CNG fuel containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993) This letter, which you plan to forward to State officials interested in CNG fueled motor vehicles, summarizes this information. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA does not have the statutory authority to issue a standard for CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. Therefore, if the Federal government were to issue a standard applicable to the manufacture of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle, NHTSA is the only Federal agency authorized to do so. At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG containers, CNG fueled vehicles or any regulation dealing with the conversion of vehicles to be equipped with such containers. Therefore, until such time as a standard is issued, a manufacturer is not required to comply with any NHTSA or Department of Transportation safety standard related to CNG fuel systems. Nevertheless, manufacturers of CNG containers and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the container or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, NHTSA has certain restrictions on vehicle fuel system conversions, depending on who does the conversion and when the work is done. I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under our present regulations of converting new and used gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses NHTSA's vehicle alterer requirements (49 CFR 567.7) which apply to work on new vehicles, and the Safety Act's 'render inoperative' provision (108(a)(2)(A)), which applies to work on new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from 'knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed ... in compliance' with any FMVSS. If the agency were to ultimately decide to adopt the proposal, it would be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the 'render inoperative' issues that relate to vehicle conversions. For example, if NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG containers, all containers manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on new or used vehicles converted to CNG fuel. In addition to these current regulatory provisions, as mentioned above, NHTSA issued a proposed rule for CNG containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. As we explained at the August 16, 1993 meeting, the agency is currently reviewing the comments to the proposal for CNG containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. As we explained, the January 1993 notice was a proposal and does not necessarily reflect the precise requirements that will be contained in the final rule, assuming that a rule is issued. If a Standard is issued, each manufacturer would be responsible for certifying that its products meet with the requirements of that standard. This is so because the 'Safety Act' establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. You should also be aware that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam0052 Open Mr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, Post Office Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol Post Office Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: This is in reply to your letters of February 15 and March 8, 1968 concerning application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 205.; Glazing materials used in campers, pickup canopies, and covers mus conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 205.; I am enclosing a copy of FHWA Ruling 68-1 published in the Federa Register, Volume 33, Number 59 on March 26, 1968, and a copy of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (with Amendments and Interpretations through February 15, 1968).; Sincerely, William H. Risteen, Office of Standards on Crash-Injur Reduction, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;
ID: aiam2278 Open Mr. Tokio Iinuma, Staff, Safety, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632; Mr. Tokio Iinuma Staff Safety Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma: This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1976, inquiring as t the date on which a manufacturer will no longer have to comply with State bumper standard relating to property damage. According to section 110 od the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub L. 92-513) once a Federal bumper standard takes effect 'no State of political subdivision thereof shall have any authority to establish or enforce with respect to any passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment offered for sale any bumper standard which is not identical to' the Federal standard. The Part 581 bumper standard becomes effective September 1, 1978. As of that date, it preempts any State bumper standard which is not identical. Even though the standard becomes effective in stages, on September 1, 1978 (S5.1) and September 1, 1979 (S5.2), the preemptive effect is complete on the earlier date, September 1, 1978. Thus, a vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1978, and before September 1, 1979, will not have to meet a State standard, even though the State Standard may be identical to the requirements of the Federal standard that become effective on September 1, 1979.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed on Marc 12, 1976, to allow manufacturers to comply with the requirements of Part 581 before the mandatory September 1, 1978, effective date. If this proposal becomes final, any manufacturer who chooses to comply early with Part 581 and properly certifies his compliance will not be required to satisfy any non-identical State bumper standard. For purposes of that manufacturer, the Part 581 Federal bumper standard will be in effect.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel