NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam2268OpenHonorable Herman E. Talmadge, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20590; Honorable Herman E. Talmadge Chairman Committee on Agriculture and Forestry United States Senate Washington DC 20590; Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of April 1, 1976, forwardin correspondence from Mr. James A. Graham concerning the recently issued Part 581 bumper standard.; On March 4, 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) published a Federal bumper standard (41 FR 9346, 49 CFR Part 581) under the authority of Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513). The standard, effective September 1, 1978, specifies limitations on damage to non-safety related as well as safety-related vehicle components in low-speed collisions. Several manufacturers, including Gulf and Western Manufacturing Company, have filed petitions for reconsideration of the standard in conformance with NHTSA rulemaking procedures (49 CFR 553.35).; It is NHTSA's policy to issue a notice of action taken on petitions fo reconsideration within 120 days after publication of the final rule, unless action within that time is impracticable. Since the agency is currently in the process of considering the petitions received, it would not be appropriate for us to comment at this time on the remarks made by Mr. Graham in his letter.; I assure you that Mr. Graham's comments and the information containe in all of the petitions for reconsideration will receive thorough consideration. The agency's response to the petitions will be published in the *Federal Register*.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0255OpenIng. Andrea Catanzano, Automobili Lamborghini, 40019 S. Agata Bolognese (Bologna), Italio; Ing. Andrea Catanzano Automobili Lamborghini 40019 S. Agata Bolognese (Bologna) Italio; Dear Dr. Catanzano: Thank you for your letter of September 23 informing us of lamborghini' continue progress towards compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; I want to remind you that Standard No.. 211 precludes the use of whee nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps that incorporate winged projections, such as the one shown in the Espada photograph which I enclose. We have seen several Espadas manufactured in 1969 with wheels identical to this one, and were informed in one instance that the winged projections had been shipped form Italy with the car. Such a shipment violates the spirit, if not the letter of Standard No. 211.; There is no charge for the 'Program Plan for Motor Vehicle Safet Standards', enclosed at your request.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2792OpenMr. R. G. Wilkins, Product Safety and Reliability, Grove Manufacturing Co., Shady Grove, PA 17256; Mr. R. G. Wilkins Product Safety and Reliability Grove Manufacturing Co. Shady Grove PA 17256; Dear Mr. Wilkins: This responds to your recent letter asking whether plastic glazin materials may be used on the superstructure operator cabs of mobile construction cranes. Apparently, the upper superstructure cab is used only for craning operations and is distinct from the cab used to drive the crane over public highways.; Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazin Materials* (49 CFR Part 571.205), plastic glazing may be used only in locations to the rear of the driver in trucks or truck tractor cabs and only at levels not requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, plastic glazing could not be used in the windshield or windows to the right or left of the driver in the main driving cab of the mobile crane. It is our interpretation, however, that the superstructure operator cab is, effectively, to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is being used on the highway and could be equipped with plastic glazing materials meeting the requirements of Standard No. 205. This interpretation assumes that the operator cab cannot be used to drive the mobile crane on the highway. If the operator cab could be used as the driving cab, plastic glazing could only be used in locations to the rear of the driver at levels not requisite for driving visibility.; Please contact this office if you have any questions concerning thi interpretation.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5057OpenThe Honorable Dave Durenberger United States Senate 1020 Plymouth Building 12 S. 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402; The Honorable Dave Durenberger United States Senate 1020 Plymouth Building 12 S. 6th Street Minneapolis MN 55402; "Dear Senator Durenberger: Thank you for your letter on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Mark Gassert, regarding the installation of the Drivemaster One-Arm-Drive hand control system in a van. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you the following information. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety. If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an 'alterer' and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. Based upon the information in Mr. Gassert's letter, it appears that requirements for new light trucks and vans in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which were upgraded as of September 1, 1991, may be preventing him from purchasing a new van with a hand control system. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from van converters and individuals, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency has also received a petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) requesting an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement 'to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs.' On January 9, 1992, the agency granted the RVIA petition. On August 5, 1992, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the requirements of Standard No. 208 to give manufacturers of certain light trucks and vans the option of installing non-dynamically tested manual safety belts instead of complying with the dynamic testing requirements. I have enclosed a copy of the NPRM with this letter. Because of the importance of this subject, the agency has decided it is more appropriate to address it comprehensively, in the context of a rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to letters presenting individual cases and individual aspects of the subject. By addressing this subject comprehensively, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection. However, the agency is aware that Mr. Gassert and others who need to purchase a new vehicle need more immediate relief than a rulemaking can offer. Therefore, as explained in the NPRM, the agency has stated that it will not conduct any dynamic testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. This should allow Mr. Gassert and others to purchase a new vehicle while this decision is pending. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3880OpenMr. H. Tsujishita, Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., No.7,2-Chome, NIHONBASHI-HONCHO, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. H. Tsujishita Daihatsu Motor Co. Ltd. No.7 2-Chome NIHONBASHI-HONCHO Chuo-ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter of November 26, 1984, requesting severa interpretations of Standard Nos. 201, 208, and 210. The answers to your questions raised in Attachments I, II, and III of your letter are discussed below.; In attachment I of your letter, you asked about the requirement o S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201. You were specifically concerned about the language which provides that the length of the armrest is to be measured vertically in side elevation. You provided a drawing of an armrest and asked if the length is to be measured as shown in section (dimension) b of your Figure 1.; The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that there is at last inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. For this requirement to be meaningful, the covered surface must be contactable by the vehicle occupant. The vehicle occupant would not contact the base of the arm rest illustrated in your drawing. Therefore, the measurement should be made at dimension a in section A-A or dimension c in section B-B as shown in your Figure 1.; On question one of Attachment II, you asked about the application o Standard Nos. 208 and 209 to a safety belt system you are developing to meet S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. The system consists of a two point automatic belt and a Type 1 manual safety belt. You asked which requirements of Standard No. 209 apply to such an automatic belt. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of August 7, 1981 to Volkswagen which explains the application of Standard No. 209 to an automatic belt.; In question two of Attachment II, you state that your vehicle will hav four anchorages for each front outboard seating position (two anchorages for the automatic belt and two for the Type 1 seat belt assembly). You said that S4.4.1 of Standard No. 210 requires seat belt anchorages for Type 2 safety belts at each front outboard seating position and you asked what is meant by anchorages for a Type 2 belt. You also asked whether you must install any other anchorages at those positions in your vehicle.; Paragraph S4.1.1. of Standard No. 210 requires anchorages for a Type seat belt assembly to be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars. This is true regardless of whether the seating position is equipped with an air bag and a lap belt, with a single diagonal automatic belt or with any other system. Safety Standard No. 210 is independent of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. A Type 2 belt requires three anchorages (two for the lap portion of the belt and one for the upper torso restraint). The presence of the Type 2 anchorages in vehicles will allow vehicle owners to install easily Type 2 belts at their own initiative if they desire to do so for whatever reason. For example, if a single diagonal automatic belt system has been damaged, an owner may wish to replace it with a Type 2 manual belt system.; Under paragraph S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages fo automatic belts are exempted from the location requirements of the standard. This exception was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs to determine the optimum anchorage locations in terms of both effectiveness and comfort (43 FR 53440, Nov. 16, 1978). If, however, anchorage points for an automatic belt do not fall within the location specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, the manufacturer would have to provide additional anchorage points that could be used by a properly located Type 2 manual belt. Thus if your lap belt and upper torso anchorages fall within the location requirements for Type II belts, you would not have to provide any additional anchorages.; In question three of Attachment II, you asked what strength tes applies to anchorages used with an automatic belt and to the manual lap belt used in your system. You illustrated the test procedures you plan to use in your Figure 3. As explained below, the procedure shown in Figure 3(1) is correct and the procedure shown in Figure 3(2) is partially correct.; The agency has stated in an interpretation letter of July 23, 1980 t Mazda that the anchorages for a single diagonal automatic belt should be tested with a 3,000-pound force for purposes of Standard No. 210, in accordance with the test procedures of paragraph S5.2. This is the same force that is required for testing the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt system. This force requirement is applicable whether the single diagonal automatic belt is used alone or whether it is used in conjunction with a manual lap belt. The anchorages for the manual lap belt, however, would be required to withstand test forces of 5,000 pounds under paragraph S4.2.1 for Standard No. 210. The anchorages for the manual lap belt and for the automatic belt must separately meet their respective force requirements and would not have to be tested simultaneously since they are separate systems.; In question one of the Attachment III, you requested the agency t clarify the words 'fold' and 'tumble' used in S7.4.6 of Standard No. 208. You stated your understanding that 'fold' means to move the seat back forward as shown in your Figure 4-a and 'tumble' means to move both the seat cushion and seat back forward as shown in your Figure 4-b. Your understanding of both words is correct.; In question two of Attachment III, you asked the meaning of the wor 'receptacle' as used in paragraph S7.4.6.2 of Standard No. 208. The word 'receptacle' refers to the devices into which an occupant would insert the tang of a safety belt to fasten the belt.; I hope this satisfactorily answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1014OpenMr. R. Debesson, General Secretary, E.T.R.T.O., 49, Rue Barathon, 03-Montlucon, France; Mr. R. Debesson General Secretary E.T.R.T.O. 49 Rue Barathon 03-Montlucon France; Dear Mr. Debesson: This is in reply to your submission No. 65/109 of January 23, 1973 petitioning that temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 be provided for European tire manufacturers who manufacture high speed tires. Your petition points out that Standards No. 109 does not allow the manufacture of high speed tires designed to be inflated to relatively high inflation pressures, but which do not have commensurate load-carrying ability at those pressures. You indicate that such tires are commonly used in Europe for high speed passenger cars, and have hot produced safety problems.; The temporary exemption regulations (49 CFR 555, copy enclosed), i accordance with the statutory authority under which they were issued (P.L. 92-548), apply only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. They do not apply to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and the relief which they provide is accordingly not available to tire manufacturers.; The NHTSA is of the opinion that the requirements of Standard No. 109 emphasizing the load-carrying as well as the high speed capability of passenger car tires, should be suited to driving condition which predominate in the United States. Despite the facts, as you mention, that it is possible for motorists to exceed postal speed limits, and that areas do exist where speed limits are not posted, the NHTSA believes the high speed requirements of Standard No. 109 are sufficient to guard against tire failures under these conditions. At the same time, the NHTSA will consider petitions to amend Standard No. 109, submitted pursuant to NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR 553.31, .33), and E.T.R.T.O. is free to petition to amend the standard to include requirements for European-type high speed tires. Your petition should contain full supporting data for the amendments requested. We would expect you as well to include possible performance requirements for such tires.; You refer briefly in your letter to the performance of these tires whe tested pursuant to the planned Uniform Tire Quality Grading regulation. The NHTSA plans to publish in the very near future a revised notice of proposed rulemaking regarding this regulation, and we will be pleased to receive your comments to that proposal when it is published.; Yours truly, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3029OpenMr. John Cordner, Technical Assistant, Product Compliance, Subaru of America, Inc., 7040 Central Highway, Pennsauken, NJ 08109; Mr. John Cordner Technical Assistant Product Compliance Subaru of America Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennsauken NJ 08109; Dear Mr. Cordner: This is in response to your letter of May 23, 1979, addressed to Ms Eileen T. Leahy of my staff, in which you provide further information in support of your earlier request for this agency's opinion as to whether a 1980 4WD Hatchback Sedan to be imported by Subaru of America can be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV).; As I stated to you in my letter of May 31, 1979, the fact that vehicle is equipped with four-wheel drive is not, in itself, sufficient to qualify the vehicle as an MPV, as that term is defined in 49 CFR S 571.3. Your second letter lists six other features of the 1980 hatchback sedan which you state are designed to permit occasional off-road use. The additional features you describe are: a ground clearance of 8.07 inches, or 1.57 inches higher than a similar 2WD vehicle, adjusting devices to permit an additional 0.78 inches of ground clearance front and rear, an engine undercover to protect the engine from rocks and other debris, a clutch cover to prevent entry of dust and sand, bumper overriders to protect front and rear bumpers, and a tubular guard in front of the air dam for protection from rocks and other debris.; The ground clearance you describe exceeds that specified in th definition of automobiles 'capable of off-highway operation' contained in the fuel economy regulations (49 CFR S 523.5(b)(2)(iv)). In addition, the other features you describe appear to be designed to protect various parts of the vehicle from damage from rocks, sand and other types of debris that are more likely to be encountered in off-road driving. Therefore, all of the items you mention can be considered 'special features for occasional off-road operation' when determining the proper classification of the vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; Since the vehicle as you have described it in your letters has severa features in addition to four-wheel drive that make it suitable for occasional off-road use, it is the agency's opinion that the 4WD Hatchback Sedan would qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4216OpenMr. Toshio Maeda, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer, Nissan Research & Development, Inc., P.O. Box 8650, Ann Arbor, MI 48104; Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor MI 48104; Dear Mr. Maeda: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1986, concerning the safety bel contact force provision of the comfort and convenience requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You explained that Nissan is concerned about the requirements of S10.6 contained in the final rule published on March 21, 1986. You noted that a sentence contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking was not included in the final rule and asked whether this sentence had been inadvertently omitted.; In addition, you asked the agency to clarify the effect of the omitte sentence on belt systems which have less than 12 inches of webbing stored in the retractor once the belt is placed around the test dummy. You explained that Nissan considers the purpose of the requirement in the omitted sentence to be elimination of belt drag before measuring the belt contact force. You explained that requiring a manufacturer to pull 12 inches of webbing from the retractor before the belt contact test would require redesign of Nissan's belt systems, even though those systems meet the safety belt adjustment requirements of the standard. You asked the agency to provide that a manufacturer can pull the maximum allowable length of the belt stored on the retractor, rather than 12 inches, prior to conducting the belt contact force test.; As explained in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the sentenc contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking was inadvertently omitted from the final rule. NHTSA agrees that the purpose of the belt webbing pull requirement can be adequately met by pulling out the maximum allowable amount of the belt, when the belt has less than 12 inches of available additional webbbing (sic). Pulling the belt in this way will ensure that the belt retractor is working and webbing drag is reduced. Thus, the agency has modified the requirement to provide that prior to measuring the belt contact force the agency will pull out 12 inches of webbing or the maximum amount of webbing available when the maximum amount is less than 12 inches.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1444OpenMr. Bruce J. Motyka, 2030 Laura Lane, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; Mr. Bruce J. Motyka 2030 Laura Lane Des Plaines Illinois 60018; Dear Mr. Motyka: This is in reply to your letter of March 11, 1974, asking fo suggestions regarding problems you have experienced with your pickup truck-camper unit.; It appears from your letter that no violations of Federal requirement have occurred. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 and its companion Consumer Information requirement (49 CFR S575.103) about which we wrote to you through Senator Percy's office did not become effective until January 1, 1973, well after the time you bought your vehicle. Moreover, it is not correct to characterize the dealer who sold you the unit as a 'final-stage manufacturer.' Under NHTSA requirements a pickup truck is a completed vehicle, and a person who installs a slide-in camper into the cargo area of a truck does not become a manufacturer. While this is not the case with chassis-mount campers, it is with respect to slide-in campers.; I suggest that if you wish to proceed further you consult an attorney who would be able to best assess your chances of success in civil litigation. The dealer's employee who told you that the 'GVW plate meant nothing' was mistaken. The weight ratings provided on the plate represent the manufacturer's representation of the maximum safe weight of a fully loaded vehicle.; You might wish to examine the labels attached, pursuant to Standard No 126 and 49 CFR S575.103, to later models of both the pickup truck and camper you purchased. It os possible that those models and the ones you purchased are not substantially different. If that is the case the information on the labels can provide an indication of the extent that the weight ratings were exceeded by installation of the camper unit in question.; While I regret we cannot be of further assistance I wish you success i your efforts to solve this problem.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3479OpenMr. Jack DiMaio, Semperit of America, Inc., 156 Ludlow Avenue, Northvale, NJ 07647; Mr. Jack DiMaio Semperit of America Inc. 156 Ludlow Avenue Northvale NJ 07647; Dear Mr. DiMaio: This is in response to your telephone inquiry of October 13, 1981 asking whether tire tread labels required under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards must continue to be affixed to tires once applicable UTQG grades are added to sidewall molds for the tires. The UTQG regulation contemplates that tire grading information will be made available to consumers simultaneously through a variety of means, including tread labels (49 CFR S 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)), sidewall molding (49 CFR S 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)), and leaflets available at the point of sale (49 CFR S 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). While the regulation was recently amended to permit tire grades to be molded on the tire sidewall at any time up to six months after introduction of a new tire line (46 FR 41514, August 17, 1981), this change in no way affected the obligation imposed by S 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) that UTQG tread labels be affixed to all replacement tires to which the regulation applies. Thus, once the sidewall molding requirement takes effect for a line of tires, the regulation requires that UTQG information be displayed on the tires both by means of sidewall molding and by labels attached to the tread surface.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |