NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam4894OpenMr. Ivan Lee Deputy General Manager Regulation Affairs Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108; Mr. Ivan Lee Deputy General Manager Regulation Affairs Hyundai America Technical Center Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor Michigan 48108; "Dear Mr. Lee: This responds to your letter of June 17, 1991 concernin an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that Hyundai would like to have the following percentage of its passenger cars meet the dynamic performance requirements of the standard in each applicable year: 1994 model year -- 20 percent 1995 model year -- 20 percent 1996 model year -- 50 percent 1997 model year -- 100 percent You ask whether this compliance schedule is acceptable. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the requirements of Standard No. 214. The new dynamic test requirements of Standard No. 214 are phased in over a three-year period, beginning on September 1, 1993. The October 30, 1990 final rule established two alternative compliance schedules. Each manufacturer must comply with either alternative, at its discretion. Under the first schedule, each manufacturer will have to meet the new side impact performance requirements based on the following phase-in schedule: 10 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l993, 25 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l994, 40 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l995, and All automobiles it manufactures on or after September l, l996. To accommodate variation in the numbers of vehicles manufactured each year, the standard also permits these percentages to be applied to a three-year average annual production rather than to a single year's production. See section S8 of Standard No. 214. Under the second schedule, no compliance will be required during the production year beginning September 1, l993, but full implementation will be required effective September 1, l994. The compliance schedule you suggest would not appear to comply with either alternative. Since your suggested schedule does not achieve full implementation until the 1997 model year, it clearly does not comply with the second schedule. Under the first schedule, for passenger cars manufactured between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995, the number of passenger cars complying with the dynamic performance requirements must not be less than 25 percent of (a) the average annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September l, l99l, and before September l, l994, by each manufacturer, or (b) the manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995. See sections S3(c) and S8.2 of Standard No. 214. However, under the compliance schedule you suggest, only 20 percent of Hyundai's vehicles would meet the requirements during the 1995 model year. (I assume that, by 1995 model year, you mean the period from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995. The rule refers to time periods, rather than to model years.) The agency has received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rule requesting that the agency allow use of 'carry-forward credits' during the phase-in of the dynamic test requirements. Such an approach could allow a compliance schedule like the one you suggested. The agency response to the petition will address the issue raised in your letter. The agency response is expected to be published in the Federal Register later this summer. Please review the agency response to the petitions for reconsideration when it is published. If you believe that you need further clarification, please contact us again. I hope that this information has been useful. If there are any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0584OpenMr. John F. Waldherr, Director of Engineering, Wells Manufacturing Corp., Fond Du Lac, WI 54935; Mr. John F. Waldherr Director of Engineering Wells Manufacturing Corp. Fond Du Lac WI 54935; Dear Mr. Waldherr: In your letter of February 2 you refer to paragraph S4.5.1 of Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and its reference to SAE Recommended Practice J564a, *Headlamp Beam Switching*, April 1964. You ask 'whether there is anything in your Docket related to Rule No. 108 to bring it up to either J564b or J564c.'; Perhaps you misread S4.5.1, but it does allow conformance with J564b a an alternative to J564a. No proposal has been issued requiring or allowing conformance with J564c.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2413OpenMr. Jim S. Green, Hux and Green, 204 W. North Street, Sikeston, MO 63801; Mr. Jim S. Green Hux and Green 204 W. North Street Sikeston MO 63801; Dear Mr. Green: This responds to your August 18, 1976, request to know th responsibilities of a manufacture of motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1381, *et seq*.). The information you request appears in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and I enclose an information sheet which explains how this material may be obtained. I have also enclosed copies of several of the pertinent regulations.; Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR Part 566), specifie identification information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of vehicles and equipment regulated by our standards.; Part 567, *Certification* (49 CFR Part 567), specifies the content an location of the certification label or tag that must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards. After a manufacturer has certified a motor vehicle, persons who alter it, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies (or minor finishing operations such as painting), and persons who change the vehicle's weight ratings, must be able to state that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply. The requirements for such alterers appear at S 567.7 and S 568.8 of NHTSA regulations. An example of a significant alteration is mounting of a snowplow to a certified vehicle.; It is common practice in the truck industry to manufacture vehicles i two or more stages, often by the manufacture of a cab-chassis by a large volume manufacturer, followed by the installation of a body or piece of work-performing equipment by a smaller manufacturer in the locality where the truck is being purchased. To assign responsibilities for the certification of such 'multi-stage' vehicles, the NHTSA has issued Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages* (49 CFR Part 568). The manufacturer of an 'incomplete vehicle' (such as a cab-chassis) must provide documentation to the intermediate and final-stage manufacturer of the vehicle on how to complete it so that it complies with all applicable standards. It is the responsibility of the final- stage manufacturer to affix the certification label discussed earlier, unless the incomplete- or intermediate-stage manufacturer assumes this responsibility.; In some cases, the two- stage process involves mounting a used body o a new chassis or mounting a new body on an old chassis. It is only when a new chassis is involved that the NHTSA considers the operation to be the manufacture of a new vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4197OpenMr. Davis Thekkanath, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, 2307 Oregon St., Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1986, regarding the placemen of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (sic) (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.; Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements* requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.; As you correctly noted, Part 567, *Certification*, requires the VIN t be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3652OpenMr. Kosti Shirvanian, President and Chairman of the Board, Western Waste Industries, P. O. Box 214, Gardena, CA 90247; Mr. Kosti Shirvanian President and Chairman of the Board Western Waste Industries P. O. Box 214 Gardena CA 90247; Dear Mr. Shirvanian: This is in reply to your letter of December 22, 1982, informing us tha the California Highway Patrol has advised one of your divisions to remove certain tires from service for failure to 'display the Department of Transportation's symbol on both sidewalls in violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 effective March 1, 1975.' You have also stated that the tires are acceptable in all other respects.; Paragraph S6.5(a), requiring use of the DOT symbol on tires covered b the standard specifically states, 'This symbol may be used on only one sidewall.' Therefore, the tires in question would not fail to comply with Standard No. 119 by having the DOT symbol on only one of the two sidewalls.; If there should, in fact, be other items of information missing fro the tires which render them technically noncompliant with the standard, we would be pleased to advise you further.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2940OpenMr. Stephen E. Hall, President, Esley Development Corporation, 6415 S.W. Canyon Ct., Suite 40, Portland, OR 97221; Mr. Stephen E. Hall President Esley Development Corporation 6415 S.W. Canyon Ct. Suite 40 Portland OR 97221; Dear Mr. Hall:This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1978 asking about your responsibilities, as the manufacturer of a snow plow headlamp holder, under the National traffic and motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Under the Act a truck, with or without snow plow attachment, is 'motor vehicle' and the plow itself and any associated equipment is considered 'motor vehicle equipment' since it is an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. But Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*, contains no requirements either for snow plow or accessory lighting, and your sealbeam holder therefore is not subject to regulation under the standard. However, as a manufacturer of 'motor vehicle equipment,' you are responsible for notification of purchasers and dealers, and remedy of any safety-related defects that may occur in your product. (Sec. 151 *et seq.* of the Act); As to 'what legal burden rests' with you as a 'manufacturer of th sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse' of your units once they leave your plant, we are uncertain what you mean by 'misuse.' If you mean that the holder is used in a way that you did not intend, then the question would appear to be one not answerable under Federal law. If the 'misuse' is attributable to a defect in the sealbeam holder, then the question would arise whether the defect is safety-related. If the answer is affirmative, then you would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the Act mentioned in the preceding paragraph.; We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Federal Highwa Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, for a reply to your question as to what Federal requirements must be met for use of your units 'on inter and intra state highways.'; Enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108 as you requested, as well as copy of the Act.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1395OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA, 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of January 15, 1974, asking whether school bus rear lighting system is permissible that activates the back-up lamps and flashes four red stop lamps when the gearshift is in reverse.; The system of supplemental school bus warning lamps you describe is on that is not specified by Standard No. 108. Although S4.6(b) states that 'All . . . lamps [other than those specified in S4.6(a)] shall be steady burning. . . ,' we interpret this requirement as covering only the systems specified by the standard. Therefore there is no Federal prohibition against your installation of such a system. However, the system would be subject to regulation by the individual States, some of which may have restrictions on the use of flashing lights.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3202OpenMr. J. Kawano, General Manager, U.S. Representative Office, Toyota Motor Co., Ltd., One Harmon Plaza, Secaucus, NJ 07094; Mr. J. Kawano General Manager U.S. Representative Office Toyota Motor Co. Ltd. One Harmon Plaza Secaucus NJ 07094; Dear Mr. Kawano: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation concernin the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in several Toyota vehicle models (Corolla Sedan, Corolla Coupe, Corona Sedan and Starlet). You assert that the rear seat hip room in these models ranges from 39.4 inches to 42.6 inches, and ask whether the vehicles would qualify as having only two designated seating positions.; Under the strict measurement technique specified in the amende definition of 'designated seating position' (SAE J1100a), the Toyota vehicle models in question would have the hip room dimensions you state. This is due to the fact that the SAE procedure specifies that hip room is to be the minimum dimension of the seat cushion. The Toyota designs include wheel wells and contoured side paddings at the intersection of the seat back and seat cushion that establish the minimum dimension of the seat. However, these structures only extend out 4 to 5 inches (approximation) from the seat back. If the hip room of the rear seats is measured midway of the seat cushion, all of the designs have greater than 50 inches of hip room, and ostensibly should have three designated seating positions. Nevertheless, since according to the measurement technique specified in the definition these seats have substantially less than 50 inches of hip room, the agency must conclude that the rear seats could qualify as having only two designated seating positions. This opinion is accompanied with several candid remarks, however.; The effective hip room of the Toyota seat designs is much greater tha the approximately 40 inches that is obtained by the technical measuring technique specified in the definition. If two outboard occupants move their hips several inches forward from the seat back in these vehicle designs, the wheel-wells and contoured side paddings are no longer impediments and there is over 50 inches of hip room, as noted above. Moreover, the design of these rear seats is such that use of the center position is 'invited.' There is at least 10 to 12 inches of well-padded hip room at the center portion of the seat between the inboard ends of the two seat belt assemblies installed in the seats. The manufacturer has given no indication that this space is not intended for occupancy. The agency is also concerned that this center position has no belt assembly to secure a child restraint system, particularly since the rear- center seat is statistically the safest position in a vehicle.; Frankly, with the wide center space that is available in these rea seat designs, we do not believe the manufacturer has made a sincere attempt to indicate to vehicle occupants that the seats are intended for use by only two occupants. It would be a simple matter for the manufacturer to make this obvious by use of a fixed armrest or some other impediment to use of the position. Furthermore, we believe that this message can be given to occupants without otherwise compromising the design the manufacturer wishes to achieve. If the manufacturer does not in fact wish to market the vehicles as having three-passenger rear seats, we do not understand why wide, well-padded center positions are present.; Finally, I am enclosing a copy of an earlier interpretation whic discusses the measurement procedure included in the definition of 'designated seating position.' As that interpretation pointed out, the agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition by finding 'loopholes' in the specified measurement procedure. If designs such as those displayed in the Toyota vehicles persist, without some clear indication that the center position is not to be used, the agency may find it necessary to amend the definition to provide that the hip room measurement is to be taken at the midpoint of the seat cushion. We hope that manufacturers will voluntarily alter designs of this type to conform to the intent of the definition, so that such an amendment is not necessary.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4528OpenThe Honorable Douglas H. Bosco House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Douglas H. Bosco House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Bosco: This is in reply to your letter of June l6, l988, wit reference to your constituent Jerry Yost of Occidental. Thank you for enclosing our previous correspondence on Mr. Yost's C-More Light invention. This device is a relay which would allow a headlamp's lower beam to remain in operation when the upper beam is activated. In my reply of August 3, l987, I advised you that the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard explicitly prohibits simultaneous activation of upper and lower beams in four-lamp headlighting systems other than the one we call Type F (S4.5.8 of 49 CFR 57l.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). I explained that our historical concern has been that the maximum candlepower limitations of the Federal standard might be exceeded. In your latest letter, you have enclosed a copy of a test report by Industrial Testing Laboratories and a letter from the California Highway Patrol. You have asked the steps, if any, that Mr. Yost should take to market legally his device. The test report is intended to show that maximum candela will not be exceeded when the device is used in a four-lamp headlamp system. California advised that the device appeared legal to install on vehicles equipped with Type F headlamp systems, and that 'this system is also permitted by California law as long as the photometric output is within the standards established for any other type of headlight. The ITL tests appear to show compliance'. We have reviewed the ITL test report, and find it indicative of the features and limitations of Mr. Yost's system. The test report shows a failure of the dual filament 2A1 lamp (second column from the left) at test point 4D-V where 3490 candlepower is measured. Note the maximum limitation of 2500 candlepower at that test point (third column from the right, same line). Contrasted with this is an unusually low reading of 2540 candlepower for the same test point with the single filament 1A1 lamp (third column from the left) when up to 5000 candela is allowed (fourth column from the right). The net result, however, is that the combined maximum of 6030 candlepower (fourth column from the left) is well within the allowable 7500 maximum of Standard No. 108 (first column from the right). In essence, the test report indicates that the light at test point 4D-V produced by the system under test does not achieve the balance contemplated by the standard, although the light at other test points meets the requirements of the standard. While the test report indicates that a system using the lamps tested might conform to Standard No. 108, this was achieved by using what appear to be two lamps of moderate performance. The agency believes it likely that replacement headlamps for such a system would more likely approach the maxima prescribed for 4D-V and other test points for Type 1A1 and 2A1 headlamps with the result that simultaneous operation of upper and lower beams would exceed the established limits. In other words, although an original equipment headlighting system using the relay might meet Federal photometric specifications, there is no assurance that replacement lights would. Type F systems have been designed to preclude exceeding the maxima. Thus, our concern remains for lighting systems using lamps other than Type F. The agency's views on simultaneous operation are discussed in further detail in a Federal Register notice published in l986, a copy of which I enclose (Docket No. 81-11, Notice l4). As I indicated before Mr. Yost's device may be legally installed as original or aftermarket equipment on any passenger car equipped with a Type F headlamp system. Use with any other original equipment headlighting system is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 108. As for aftermarket applications other than Type F, he should be aware of the statutory section (15 USC 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibiting manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard if installation of the relay would result in a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. We are providing a copy of this letter to the California Highway Patrol so that it may be aware of our views on this subject. Mr. Yost and the agency share a common desire to improve foreground lighting, a subject currently under study at NHTSA. We appreciate his interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001; |
|
ID: aiam3717OpenDavid I. Fallk, Esq., Robert W. Munley, P.C., Floor Eight, Penn Security Bank Building, P.O. Box 1066, Scranton, PA 18503; David I. Fallk Esq. Robert W. Munley P.C. Floor Eight Penn Security Bank Building P.O. Box 1066 Scranton PA 18503; Dear Mr. Fallk: This responds to your letter of July 11, 1983, concerning Standard No 121, *Air Brake Systems*, and the *PACCAR* case. The answers to your questions are as follows.; Your first question was whether, following *PACCAR*, a manufacturer wa required to comply with the applicable 121 standard for trucks which had been assembled but not delivered. The answer to that question is no, for the portions of the standard that were invalidated by the court. As noted in an enclosed letter (dated March 4, 1980), NHTSA concluded that the 'no lockup' and 60-mph stopping distances had been invalidated from the effective date of the standard. Therefore, after *PACCAR*, no manufacturer was required to comply with those invalidated portions of the standard, whether or not a vehicle had already been assembled.; Your second question concerned whether a manufacturer or anyone else i properly informed was prevented from disabling the anti-lock system, before it was put into service. The answer to that question is no. That issue is fully explained in two enclosed letters (dated September 11, 1979, and March 4, 1980). These letters explain the relationship of what your letter refers to as the section of the vehicle safety act to prevent disabling and Standard No. 121, in light of the *PACCAR* case.; I have also enclosed a letter (dated November 29, 1979), whic discusses the nature of Standard No. 121 as a performance standard. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |