NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 3731 - 3740 of 16515

Interpretations	Date
search results table
ID: aiam2883 Open Honorable Bob Wilson, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Bob Wilson House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in response to your letter of October 17, 1978, concerning telephone call from your constituent, Mr. Stefan Dagrowski, urging standardization of the type of release on seat belts.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Cras Protection, issued March 10, 1971 (36FR4600), required that effective January 1, 1972, passenger car seat belt assemblies would be released at a single point by push button action. To that extent, the type of release on seat belts is standardized since our standards are primarily performance oriented, and the manufacturers are free to design however they wish to meet those performance requirements.; I hope this information is sufficient to satisfy Mr. Dagrowski' interest in standardized seat belt releases.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook
ID: aiam1606 Open Mr. Norman E. Salzman, General Manager, The Fairmount Press, P.O. Box 3, Bronx, NY 10453; Mr. Norman E. Salzman General Manager The Fairmount Press P.O. Box 3 Bronx NY 10453; Dear Mr. Salzman: This is in response to your letter of August 19, 1974, inquiring as t the compliance of your MVF odometer disclosure form with the Federal odometer requirements.; The MVF form enclosed in your letter fails to comply with ou regulation in several respects. The statement referring to the mileage indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer must be phrased to indicate that the disclosure document was executed at the time of the vehicle's transfer, not at some later time. In addition, the statement must be written in such a manner that it is clear it is to be completed by the transferor alone. To satisfy these criteria the statement should read; >>>'I, * , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicl described above, at the time of transfer to * is as follows:'<<<; Instructions are necessary on your form to ensure that the sectio specified for the disclosure of mileage is completed in a consistent manner by all persons. This can be accomplished by inserting the following statement above the lines provided for stating the vehicle's mileage:; >>>'(Complete line 1, and where applicable, complete line 2 and chec line 3.)'<<<; We urge you to reprint your disclosure forms to reflect the change suggested above as they are not currently in compliance with Federal odometer requirements.; Your interest is appreciated. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2929 Open Honorable John M. Ashbrook, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable John M. Ashbrook House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Ashbrook: This responds to your December 19, 1978, letter asking whether it i required that school buses be built transport a minimum of 9 passengers.; As you suggest in your letter, there is no requirement that schoo buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers. The school bus safety regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require the compliance of those vehicles used to transport more than 10 children to or from school and related events. Vehicles with smaller passenger capacities may also transport children to and from school and need not comply with the school bus safety standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0914 Open Mr. Robert H. Dougherty, Vice President & General Manager, Pride Products Co., Inc., 101 East Alameda Avenue, Burbank, CA 91502; Mr. Robert H. Dougherty Vice President & General Manager Pride Products Co. Inc. 101 East Alameda Avenue Burbank CA 91502; Dear Mr. Dougherty: This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1972, requestin information on the use of sample testing for determining conformity to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. You ask if there are sampling provisions to which manufacturers should currently be adhering.; There is no specified sampling provision for manufacturers to follow i testing their products for conformity to Standard No. 213. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires each item of motor vehicle equipment (for example, each child seat) to conform to the applicable safety standard in effect on its date of manufacture. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to decide what type of testing program is necessary to be reasonably certain that each item complies. The extent of his sampling should depend on such factors as the margin by which typical samples pass the performance requirements, the amount of variation in production that is present, and the degree to which substandard items can be detected by non-destructive techniques.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4404 Open Mr. M.B. Mathieson, Director of Engineering, Thomas Built Buses L.P., P.O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. M.B. Mathieson Director of Engineering Thomas Built Buses L.P. P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Mathieson: This is in reply to your letter of April 27, 1987, asking for clarification of my letter of March 20.; In that letter I answered your question as to whether the results o frontal barrier impact tests that occurred at 30.4 mph with a vehicle that exceeded the test weight limits would constitute either a noncompliance with Standard No. 301 or a safety related defect. Because the test was not conducted in accordance with Standard No. 301's conditions I replied that this would not be a noncompliance, and further, that those results 'do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of the vehicle.' This statement appears unclear to you.; By my earlier statement I intended to explain that we do not use safety standard's compliance test results (particulary if the test was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures) as the sole basis for a determination of a safety-related defect in the same aspect of performance governed by that standard. For example, having determined through rulemaking that a particular level of vehicle performance is expected in a 30 mph crash test, it would be inappropriate to use the results from an otherwise identical crash test conducted at 35 mph to form the sole basis for a determination of a safety-related defect in the tested vehicles. To do so would constitute, in effect, rulemaking to raise the impact speed in the standard to 35 mph. We completely agree, however, with your statement that 'there can be safety- related defects that are not addressed by the standards.' We also agree that the manufacturer has the responsibility to address safety defects that become apparent to him through test data or otherwise.; With this background, we will turn to your question. You have now pose a hypothetical in which your tests indicate that a fully-loaded school bus may encounter a severe leakage exceeding 4.1 ounces of fuel per minute in a head-on impact of 30 m.p.h. This may be evidence that could lead you to believe that there would be a significant number of failures if a school bus, in its normal operation with full complement of students, encounters a head-on collision at what appears to be a reasonable operating speed. This combination of factors might appear to pose an unreasonable risk to safety and afford the basis for the determination that a safety related defect exists.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0447 Open Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: In your letter of September 23, 1971, you asked whether Standard No 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applied to materials in the passenger compartments of vehicles.; The answer is yes. The standard, as stated in S4.1, applies t 'components of vehicle occupant compartments' only.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2180 Open Mr. L. David Minsk, Research Physical Scientist, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Cold Regions, Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, 03755; Mr. L. David Minsk Research Physical Scientist Department of the Army U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Hanover NH 03755; Dear Mr. Minsk: This responds to your December 11, 1975, request for copies of th Federal laws relevant to the use of trucks as carriers for snowplows and spreader bodies.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) primaril regulates the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment pursuant to authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. You requested copies of the Federal laws pertinent to the 'use' of a particular motor vehicle, but standards or laws regulating use are promulgated by the jurisdiction in which a motor vehicle is registered or driven.; It might be noted, however, that motor vehicle safety standards ar applicable to the installation of snowplows and spreader bodies on new trucks. For example, paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR 571.108), specifies that if motor vehicle equipment, including snowplows, would otherwise prevent compliance with the Standard by any required lamp or reflective device, an auxiliary lamp or reflective device meeting the requirements of the Standard must be provided. Similarily (sic), when a spreader body is installed on a chassicab, the completed trucks must comply with all applicable Federal standards.; The truck dealer or other person who installs motor vehicle equipmen on a truck that is certified as being in compliance with motor vehicle safety standards, prior to first sale of the vehicle, is responsible for ensuring that the truck remains in conformity. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the responsible party to the civil penalty provisions and other sanctions of the Act.; When a truck has been sold and is in 'use', the Act prohibits manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from making alterations that render inoperative any devices or elements of design installed in compliance with the Fderal (sic) safety standards.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5645 Open Mr. Edward Mansell Chief Engineer Polar Tank Trailer, Inc. 12810 County Road 17 Holdingford, MN 56340-9773; Mr. Edward Mansell Chief Engineer Polar Tank Trailer Inc. 12810 County Road 17 Holdingford MN 56340-9773; "Dear Mr. Mansell: This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1995 to Philip R. Recht, former Chief Counsel of this agency. You seek an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to some Food Grade Tank Trailers (FGTTs). Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires conspicuity sheeting to be placed 'across the full width of the trailer' and 'as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface.' You indicate that for many trailers the rear bumper is the closest practicable location (approximately 500 mm), but that, on some FGTTs, the load/unload ports are directly above the center portion of the rear bumper. The hot water to which the bumper is exposed degrades the conspicuity sheeting. 'Since installation of sheeting subject to frequent hot water run off is not practicable', you interpret this paragraph to allow the sheeting to be 'applied from the extreme ends of the bumper to points no more than 6 inches (150 mm) to the left or right of the area directly below the load/unload area.' You also state that 'otherwise, the center section of the sheeting should be located on the tank, above the load/unload area.' We believe that this interpretation meets the intent of the standard. Under paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a), the mounting height of the conspicuity material is based upon practicability, but the application 'across the full width of the trailer' is absolute. We interpret 'across the full width' to mean that the sheeting must cover the entire width of the vehicle, though not necessarily on the same plane or continuously. Thus, mounting above the load/unload area would be acceptable as a practicable location. Generally, the agency defers to a manufacturer's determination of practicability and will not question it if it is not clearly erroneous. It is not the intent of the standard that manufacturers 'redesign trailers to redirect the flow of wash water.' You also believe that, for FGTTs which use a cabinet to enclose the load/unload area, 'conspicuity sheeting should be mounted on the cabinet doors to augment the sheeting on the bumper.' Although you did not enclose a drawing of this configuration, it appears acceptable. We assume that, when viewed from the rear, the sheeting has the appearance of extending across the full width of the vehicle, even if the section on the cabinet doors is not on the same plane as that on the bumpers. This, too, is acceptable as a manufacturer's determination of practicability. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam4957 Open Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq. Howrey & Simon 1730 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20006-4793; Kenneth A. Gallo Esq. Howrey & Simon 1730 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington DC 20006-4793; "Re: Micho Industries and Safety Research Manufacturing Inc. Exemptio Petition Dear Mr. Gallo: This responds to your petition of December 18, 1992, on behalf of your clients, Micho Industries and Safety Research Manufacturing, Inc. The petitioners are manufacturers of an item of motor vehicle equipment called the 'R-Bar Restraining System.' They asked for an exemption for the R-Bar from compliance with the testing procedures set forth in 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.222 subsections S5.1.4(c) and S5.1.4.1 & 2 (1991) for purposes of determining whether the R-Bar (when attached to a passenger seat) deflects to within four inches of any part of another passenger seat. The petition was submitted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(B). Alternatively, you request consideration pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1410(a)(1)(B). Preliminarily, let me note that the provisions of section 1397(a)(2) apply to vehicles originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards but which are subsequently modified before or after their sale to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Section 1410(a) applies to a vehicle at the time of its manufacture. Section 1397(a)(2)(A) provides, in pertinent part: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . . Section 1397(a)(2)(B) provides that: The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from subparagraph (A) if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this chapter. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term 'render inoperative'. Thus, your petition asks, in effect, that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses be permitted to install the R-Bar in a school bus in use, even if the installation may cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 222. Although section 1397(a)(2)(B) was added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 'Act') in 1974, yours appears to be the first formal request for an exemption that the agency has received, and is therefore a case of first impression. Although NHTSA has provided advisory letters over the years interpreting 'render inoperative,' the NHTSA has not prescribed any 'regulation' pertinent to section 1397(a)(2). Congress did not write into the statute any limitation on the use of the section 1397(a)(2)(B) exemption authority apart from specifying that any exemption must be consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. However, the committee report in the House, where the exemption provision arose, suggested a limited scope of authority. The report stated that 'exemptions may be warranted for owners with special medical problems, who require special controls, or for emergency vehicles or police cruisers.' While these purposes were not expressly incorporated in the statute as limitations on the exemption authority, the agency believes that it would not be appropriate to issue an exemption based on other grounds unless there were a strong, compelling reason to do so. NHTSA does not believe that there is a strong, compelling basis for granting your clients' petition under section 1397(a)(2)(B). Indeed, NHTSA believes that the concept of using 'safety bars' as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns that would need careful evaluation before the agency would take any action to facilitate their use. One concern is whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. This is a complicated issue involving many variables, including type of crash (e.g., frontal, rear), positioning of occupants (sitting up straight, leaning forward, slouching, etc.), what happens when a large occupant is seated next to a small occupant (which could affect the position of the bar relative to the small occupant), and what happens if books, brief cases, lunch boxes, etc. are placed beneath the bar or on top of the bar (thereby affecting the position of the bar relative to the occupants and/or movement of the bar during a crash). Another concern is whether the bar could result in excessive loading of occupants' heads during a crash, from head contact with the seat back in front of the occupant, instead of loading that is spread more evenly over the occupant's body. I note that NHTSA does not have the information that would be necessary to assess your client's product in relation to these safety concerns. The agency has not conducted any testing of safety bars, and the very limited test information submitted with your client's petition does not provide a basis to make such an assessment. It is clear, however, that Standard No. 222 has been effective in ensuring a high level of occupant protection in school buses. NHTSA believes it would be inappropriate to take any action to facilitate the use of a device that potentially could reduce school bus occupant protection. Please note, as we have advised others, the prohibition in section 1397(a)(2)(A) does not extend to the owner of the vehicle. If a school bus authority has its own private service facilities, the installation of the R-Bar by the service facilities would not violate the prohibition. However, in view of our discussion above, we would not encourage a school bus authority to make that installation. The petitioners have also asked to be exempted pursuant to section 1410(a)(1)(B). This section excuses a noncompliance if the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety features which provide a level of safety which is equal to or exceeds the level of safety established in the standard from which exemption is sought. However, a petitioner under section 1410(a) must be the manufacturer of the new motor vehicle for which an exemption is sought. Thus, NHTSA can not consider your clients' petition under that section. The agency would be able to consider a petition under section 1410(a)(1)(B) that is submitted by a school bus manufacturer which wished to install the R-Bar in its vehicles. However, any such petition should address the safety concerns discussed earlier in this letter. We are returning the videotapes and two of the three copies of the petition that accompanied your letter. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263), who spoke with you previously on this matter. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam0017 Open Mr. Michael Maher President Association of Trial Lawyers of America 1050 31st Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007; Mr. Michael Maher President Association of Trial Lawyers of America 1050 31st Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20007; Dear Mr. Maher: This responds to your letter of April 19, 199 concerning what you consider faulty windshield replacement. You ask that this agency state that the 'render inoperative' provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(a)) 'will be applied to replacement of damaged windows.' The agency addressed this issue recently in a letter to Mr. James E. Rooks, Jr., of your staff. For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of that May 29, 1991 letter. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure;