NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam0357OpenMr. Sidney W. Smith, Director of Engineering, Williamsen Body & Equipment Company, 1925 Indiana Avenue, P. O. Box 1076, Salt Lake City, UT 84111; Mr. Sidney W. Smith Director of Engineering Williamsen Body & Equipment Company 1925 Indiana Avenue P. O. Box 1076 Salt Lake City UT 84111; Dear Mr. Smith: This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 1971, requesting a interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. Part 574) as it applies to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.; The final-stage manufacturer, as a vehicle manufacturer, under sectio 113(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, is required to keep a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and to maintain a record of the tires shipped on or in the completed vehicle (49 C.F.R. 574.10). Although the final-stage manufacturer may designate someone to maintain the records required under section 574.10 of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, the legal responsibility for maintaining the records remains with the final-stage manufacturer.; However, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediat manufacturer, may assume 'legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by (the Act) with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured . . .'(49 C.F.R. 568.7). In such a case, the responsibilities for maintaining the records required by the Act and by the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation will be assumed by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediate manufacturer, and the final-stage manufacturer will be relieved of all liability for maintaining the records.; Under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, th manufacturer is not required to keep a record of tires manufactured before May 22, 1971, but sold after that date. However, where feasible, we recommend that the manufacturer maintain some system whereby he can identify the type of tire on vehicles he sells as well as the purchaser of the vehicle.; For your convenience, we have enclosed copies of the Act with it amendments, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, and the Certification Regulation.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3982OpenMr. Thomas J. Moravec, President, Tow-All, Inc., 10501 E. Bloomington Freeway, Bloomington, MN 55420; Mr. Thomas J. Moravec President Tow-All Inc. 10501 E. Bloomington Freeway Bloomington MN 55420; Dear Mr. Moravec: This responds to your letter of May 20, 1985, concerning Federa requirements applicable to the motorized hitch or 'Supplemental Power Unit' (SPU) being developed by your company.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*. (the Act). Under the Act, a motor vehicle is defined as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways.' You letter states that the SPU is a motorized single axle unit with an automatic transmission. In addition, your letter, the accompanying photographs, and descriptive material indicate that the SPU could be attached between a small car and a large trailer to permit the small car to safely pull the trailer long distances at highway speeds.; Based on this information, the agency concludes that the SPU is a moto vehicle and falls within the trailer classification. Under 49 CFR Part 571.3, a trailer is defined as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another vehicle.' An information sheet for manufacturers is enclosed.; The following regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standard are applicable to trailers:; >>>49 CFR Part 565, *Vehicle Identification Number - Conten Requirements*; 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification* 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification* (see S567.4 for trailers) Standard No. 106, *Brake Hoses* Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements* Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids* Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Tha Passenger Tires* (sic); Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Tha Passenger Tires* (sic); Standard No. 121, *Air Brake System* (sic)<<< Copies of these regulations and standards can be obtained by writin to: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. An information sheet for ordering copies is also enclosed.; State regulations applying to trailers and their use on the road should be checked for any State in which your company's trailers are to be sold.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2690OpenMr. Robert W. Locke, Manager RV Sales, Indiana Mills and Manufacturing, Inc., 120 W. Main Street, Carmel, IN 46032; Mr. Robert W. Locke Manager RV Sales Indiana Mills and Manufacturing Inc. 120 W. Main Street Carmel IN 46032; Dear Mr. Locke: This is in response to your letter of October 4, 1977, to Mr. Franci Armstrong of our Office of Standards Enforcement, in which you asked whether our regulations require seat belts in fifth wheel vehicles.; Our seat belt requirements are specified in Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), which applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. I am assuming that by fifth wheel vehicle you mean a towed vehicle attached to the towing vehicle by means of a fifth wheel. If I am correct in this assumption, these vehicles would be classified as trailers, which are not subject to Standard No. 208. There would therefore be no Federal requirement for seat belts in these vehicles.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5155OpenMr. Greg Hixson President Hixson and Netherton Distributing P.O. Box 28995 Dallas, TX 75228; Mr. Greg Hixson President Hixson and Netherton Distributing P.O. Box 28995 Dallas TX 75228; "Dear Mr. Hixson: This responds to your March 30, 1993, letter askin for information on any regulations concerning aftermarket airbags. I am enclosing two letters dated March 26, 1993, to Mr. Steven C. Friedman and Mr. Jay Lee that explain the operation of Federal law with respect to aftermarket airbags. I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in both letters. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures "; |
|
ID: aiam1116OpenMr. John E. Huisman, Davies, Gibbs, Strayer, Stoel and Boley, Twenty-Third Floor, 900 S W Fifth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204; Mr. John E. Huisman Davies Gibbs Strayer Stoel and Boley Twenty-Third Floor 900 S W Fifth Avenue Portland OR 97204; Dear Mr. Huisman: This is in reply to your letter of April 10, 1973, concerning th status under the Federal odometer disclosure requirements of a bank which purchases a motor vehicle purchase money security agreement.; You are correct in understanding that the Act does not anticipate tha a bank will be required to give or receive an odometer disclosure statement in conjunction with the sale of a purchase money security agreement. In referring to a 'security interest', in 49 CFR Part 580, we did not intend to create an artificial distinction between States in which the bank holds only an 'interest' and States, such as Oregon, in which the bank actually takes title. It is our opinion that the bank should in neither case be required to execute a disclosure statement, and that the bank's 'ownership' of a vehicle by virtue of its purchase of a purchase money security agreement would not make the bank a transferor or transferee as those terms are employed in 49 CFR Part 580.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4314OpenMr. Bruce W. Smith, President, Unit Corporation, R.R. 2, Box 1, Loogootee, IN 475553; Mr. Bruce W. Smith President Unit Corporation R.R. 2 Box 1 Loogootee IN 475553; Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to your letter, in which you sought this agency' 'recommendation' on one of your new products. The product in question is a sun visor intended to be used on rear-facing toddler seats. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.; This agency has promulgated the Federal motor vehicle safety standard under the authority granted by Congress in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.). In the case of your sun visor, the only safety standard with which you would be concerned is Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213), a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Please note that the Safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, including Standard No. 213, do not apply to the child restraint system after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule then is that aftermarket accessories, such as your sun visor, may be added to child restraint systems without violating Standard No. 213.; This general rule is, however, limited by the provision of sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies, 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...'; There are two elements of design incorporated in child restraints i compliance with Standard No. 213 that might be affected by adding your sun visor. First, all child restraints are required to incorporate resistance to flammability. Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213 specifies, 'Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302.' I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information. Second, child restraints recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That section requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing material with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your sun visor would impair either the flammability resistance or the head impact protection designed into a child restraint to which the visor is attached, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing the visor would be rendering inoperative a Federally required element of design, thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each child restraint on which a Federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation of section 108.; Since child restraint owners are not among the parties listed i section 108(a)(2)(A), they are not required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design provided under either the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 213 or the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, this agency would urge you to voluntarily ensure that your sun visor would not render any such elements inoperative.; Additionally, you should be aware that you will be a manufacturer o motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture the child restraint sun visor for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your sun visor had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either:; >>>1. repair the visor so that the defect is removed, or<<< >>>2. replace the visor with an identical or reasonably equivalen product that does not have the defect.<<<; Whichever of these options were chosen, you as the manufacturer woul have to bear the full expense of the notification and remedy. This means you could not charge owners of the visor for the remedy if the visor were first purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.; I would also like to make clear that this explanation is not an agenc 'recommendation'. NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When we are presented with questions from potential manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment, we only explain how our statute and regulations would apply to such products. It is up to the potential manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product.; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please feel free to contract Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1546OpenMr. K. Nakajima,Director/General Manager,Factory Representative Office,Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc.,Lyndhurst Office Park,1099 Wall Street, West,Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071; Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst New Jersey 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima:#This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1974 t Dr. Gregory asking whether the five master Cylinder reservoir designs indicated would meet the requirements of S5.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105-75.#Each of these designs appears to conform to S5.4.1 providing that the reservoir capacity requirements of S5.4.2 are met. It appears that Designs (3) and (4) would require additional fluid for the clutch.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4744OpenMr. Karl-Heinz Faber Senior Vice President Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645-0350; Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Senior Vice President Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive P.O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645-0350; "Dear Mr. Faber: This is in response to your letter of April 19, 199 to Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201). More specifically, you stated in your letter that future Mercedes-Benz vehicles will come equipped with new armrests between the two front and, where applicable, two rear seating position. The new design will have a built-in compartment that can accommodate car phone storage. It will be covered by a lift-up lid that will afford easy access to the phone. Your letter indicated that your company believes the lift-up lid on this armrest would not be subject to the provisions of S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 for 'interior compartment doors,' since those provisions do not apply to doors incorporated in center armrests. However, your letter indicated your company's belief that the new armrests would be subject to the requirements of S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, which applies to folding armrests. As explained more fully below, these beliefs appear to be correct applications of the standard. At the outset, I would like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards would apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer, and that the agency opinions may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information. With those caveats, I agree with you that sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 do not appear to apply to the lift-up lid on your armrest design. Section S3.3 of Standard No. 201 requires that interior compartment doors 'located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position' remain closed when tested in accordance with the demonstration procedures in section S3.3.1 of the Standard. It is not clear if the lift-up lid on your armrest design would qualify as an 'interior compartment door' within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR 571.3 ('any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects'). If the armrest is designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid on the armrest would be considered an 'interior compartment door.' If the armrest is not designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid would not be an 'interior compartment door' and S3.3 and S3.3.1 would not apply to it. Even if the lift-up lid were considered an interior compartment door, it would not appear to be subject to sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of the Standard. This is because those sections apply only to interior compartment doors 'located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position . . . .' Only interior compartment doors located in the listed components must comply with S3.3 and S3.3.1. Since an armrest is not among the listed components, interior compartment doors located in an armrest are not subject to S3.3 and S3.3.1. You also discussed the applicability of section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201 to your armrest design. Section S3.5.2 applies to armrests that folds into the seat back or between two seat backs. Based on the information supplied in your letter, we agree that your armrest design would be subject to section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, because it is a folding armrest between two seat backs. We also agree with your suggestion that Mercedes-Benz may comply with section S3.5.2 by ensuring that this armrest design is 'constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material.' I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or need some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3081OpenHonorable David Boren, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Boren: This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Weaver, regarding problems he is having with the automatic belt system on his Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, the belt system does not properly fit Mr. Weaver, and Volkswagen has stated it cannot lower the driver's seat to correct the problem because of Federal regulations.; Before getting into the details of this matter, I want to express m admiration for Mr. Weaver in his efforts to obtain the benefits of his safety belts. It is discouraging to hear that a person wishing to use his belts is unable to do so. However, I must stress that we have no authority to compel a manufacturer to alter a vehicle in a situation like this. The most we can do is attempt to clarify whether it is federal law or other factors that led to Volkswagen's reluctance to make the alterations desired by Mr. Weaver.; The discussion in the letter you received from Mr. Kenneth Adams Volkswagen's Washington representative, needs some clarification. Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger cars to be equipped with safety belts that adjust to fit drivers ranging in size from the 5th-percentile adult female (weighing about 102 pounds) to a 95th-percentile adult male (weighing about 215 pounds). Therefore, the regulation requires safety belts to fit *at least* 90 percent of the driving population. Of course, nothing prohibits manufacturers from designing their belts to fit 100 percent of the population, and the agency encourages manufacturers to do so. The standard is only a minimum requirement, allowing manufacturers some leeway because of unusual body sizes at either end of the spectrum.; Mr. Adams also stated in his letter to you that lowering the seat woul change the performance characteristics of Volkswagen's belt system and would make it necessary 'to begin the entire testing process for certification again.' This statement too requires clarification. At the present time, Safety Standard No. 208 does not require safety belts as installed in motor vehicles to meet dynamic performance requirements. Dynamically testing safety belts would entail restraining a test dummy with a vehicle's safety belts and testing their performance by crashing the vehicle into a test barrier. In such testing, the position of the seat in relation to the belts would be important. However, the current requirements do not involve testing safety belts inside the vehicle. They require that the belts meet certain laboratory tests and that belts capable to (sic) passing those tests be installed in new vehicles.; Further, regardless of the type of performance standards involved lowering the seat of a used vehicle could not raise any question about recertification. Certification relates to new vehicles exclusively. The only question which lowering the seat would pose under our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, would be whether lowering the seat would cause equipment installed pursuant to Federal safety standards to no longer be in compliance. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative safety equipment. If this prohibition is the concern of Mr. Adams of Volkswagen, perhaps he can clarify for you constituent how Volkswagen believes lowering the seat would violate that prohibition. Mr. Adams does not state that lowering the seat would preclude the belt system from adjusting to fit the range of people specified in the standard.; It may be that Volkswagen's reluctance to lower the seat stems from concern about products liability. Lowering the seat could very well alter the performance of the Volkswagen automatic belt system.; In an effort to promote further clarification of Volkswagen's position I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Adams. The only further thing I can do is suggest that Mr. Weaver contact Mr. Adams again and obtain his reaction to my letter. Perhaps we can then see what other alterations are available. I hope some adjustment can be made to accommodate Mr. Weaver.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam2043OpenMr. James H. Whitaker, Associate Professor, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06268; Mr. James H. Whitaker Associate Professor The University of Connecticut Storrs CT 06268; Dear Mr. Whitaker: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 22, 1975 which inquired about the status of tire grading standards.; On May 20, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio issued the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards with a series of effective dates beginning January 1, 1976 (40 FR 23073, May 28, 1975). On July 3, 1975, the regulation was republished with minor changes (40 FR 28071). On August 14, 1975, a stay of the effective dates was granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, pending review of the validity of the regulation in a suit brought by eight tire manufacturers.; For your convenience, I have enclosed copies of the Federal Registe notices referred to above.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |