NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam3424OpenMr. Erik Sundelin, Diplomengineer, Trelleborg AB, Tire Division, Box 501, Fack 231 01, Trelleborg, Sweden; Mr. Erik Sundelin Diplomengineer Trelleborg AB Tire Division Box 501 Fack 231 01 Trelleborg Sweden; Dear Mr. Sundelin: This responds to your recent letter asking for information concernin the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S 571.119), as it applies to motorcycle tires. Specifically, you asked what markings must be on the sidewalls of knobby motocross tires (motorcycle tires designed for off-road use) to satisfy the requirements of Standard 119.; If your company designs the tires exclusively for off-road use, with n expectation that they will be used when the motorcycle is on the public roads, Standard 119 is not applicable to the tires. Therefore, no markings would be required on the sidewall of the tires. On the other hand, if you believe the motocross tires will, in fact, be used on the public roads, as well as off-road, they must meet the marking requirements specified in section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed).; Standard No. 119 and its marking requirements apply to all new tire designed for highway use on non-passenger-car motor vehicles. In response to the petitions for reconsideration of Standard 119, the agency stated that manufacturers of motocross tires would have to determine if the tires were designed for highway use (see 39 FR 5191, February 11, 1974, copy enclosed). In the absence of a showing to the contrary, however, this agency would assume that motorcycles equipped with motocross tires are ridden on the public highways to and from race competition or trail use, which would mean the tires are subject to the requirements of Standard 119.; Following the publication of the above-mentioned notice, a manufacture of motocross tires requested an interpretation of Standard 119, and stated that its motocross tires are not suitable for use on public roads, and are not designed for such use. The agency responded that such tires are not subject to the requirements of Standard 119, based on this set of circumstances.; However, as noted above, each manufacturer must make thi determination. Please note that if you decide that the tires are not subject to Standard 119, 49 CFR Part 574 prohibits the DOT certification label from appearing on the sidewall of the tire. Please further note that a manufacturer's determination of this point is not dispositive. That is, this agency has authority to independently re-examine the manufacturer's determination. If the manufacturer's determination was incorrect, the manufacturer would be liable for civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each tire imported into this county which did not meet all the requirements of Standard 119. If you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2665OpenMr. R. W. Hildebrandt, Group Director of Engineering, Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Group, The Bendix Corporation, 901 Cleveland Street, Elyria, OH 44035; Mr. R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director of Engineering Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Group The Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria OH 44035; Dear Mr. Hildebrandt: This is to advise you that the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) has decided to grant The Bendix Corporation's September 14, 1977, petition requesting the revision of the parking brake release requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. A similar petition was received from Fruehauf Corporation and it is also being granted.; You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceedin does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision to the issuance of the rule will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.; You also requested written confirmation that the interpretation o S5.6.3 of FMVSS No. 121 given by NHTSA to Motor Coach Industries, Inc. on April 14, 1976, would pertain to the air/spring parking brake system described in your letter. Your assumption is correct, and this letter constitutes such written confirmation.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0658OpenMr. Joseph Mazzafro, Manager Production Engineering, Strick Corporation, U.S. Highway No. 1, Fairless Hills, PA 19030; Mr. Joseph Mazzafro Manager Production Engineering Strick Corporation U.S. Highway No. 1 Fairless Hills PA 19030; Dear Mr. Mazzafro: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1972, enclosing sampl certification labels and requesting our review and comments. The labels you have submitted follow correspondence to you from NHTSA dated February 18, 1972, wherein we disapproved an earlier format you wished to use. Your revised label consists of multiple listings using punched holes and overlays to indicate appropriate information.; We do consider your revised label to be completely consistent with th Certification regulations (Part 567) in that the information is still presented in a way that is somewhat (and we might add unnecessarily) confusing. This confusion occurs because you do not fully delete information that is inapplicable to the vehicle in question. For example, regarding GVWR and GAWR in samples 2 and 3, you do not delete the entire number (leaving the zeroes and the suffix, lbs.) and it is not clear, in our view, whether the figures have been deleted or whether the label is disfigured. We believe the entire figure should be deleted where it is not applicable. Similarly, in the case of month and year, and vehicle number, all the information you wish to omit should be completely deleted. This would require deletion of all months other than the month of manufacture and all numbers other than the vehicle number.; Finally, in using an overlay (sample 4), the overlay should be done i such a manner that the label does not give the appearance of having been tampered with.; We trust this clarifies the situation. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3977OpenMr. V. Stuart James, Executive Vice President, X-Ten Corporation, 855 Sansome Street, San Franciso(sic), California 94111; Mr. V. Stuart James Executive Vice President X-Ten Corporation 855 Sansome Street San Franciso(sic) California 94111; Dear Mr. James: this responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems* (49 CFR S571.121). Specifically, you asked if the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 must be satisfied by trailers which are 'heavy hauler trailers' within the meaning of S4. As Mr. Kratzke told you in a telephone conversation, heavy hauler trailers are exempted from all the requirements of S5.3, including the timing requirements.; You stated that your company is manufacturing extendable containe chassis trailers. The brake lines in those vehicles are designed to extend with the vehicle frame. S4 of Standard No. 121 defines, in part, a heavy hauler trailer as a trailer whose 'brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame...' Thus, your trailer would be considered a heavy hauler trailer for the purpose of Standard No. 121.; Section S5.3 sets forth road test requirements, compliance with whic must be certified for all trucks, buses and trailers. Generally, all trailers are required to be certified as complying with the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4. This general rule is limited by the last sentence of the S5.3, which specifies, 'However, *a heavy hauler trailer* and the truck and trailer portions of an auto transporter *need not meet the requirements of S5.3*' [Emphasis added] Thus, heavy hauler trailers are expressly exempted from all the requirements of S5.3, including the timing requirements.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2235OpenMr. Heinz W. Gerth, Vice President, Engineering and Service, Mercedes- Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, P. O. Box 350, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. Heinz W. Gerth Vice President Engineering and Service Mercedes- Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive P. O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, concerning th applicability of the pendulum impact requirements of Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, to vehicles that are capable of height adjustment through the suspension system controls.; You described in your letter a system on your 450SEL 6.9 liter mode which allows a driver to adjust the height of the vehicle with the suspension system controls. When the vehicle is in the elevated position, a red warning lamp in the instrument cluster is illuminated in order to alert the driver to the fact that the vehicle is not in its recommended driving position for normal road conditions. In addition, the owner's manual informs the driver that the vehicle should be operated in the raised position only when being driven on rough terrain.; Standard No. 215 requires that vehicles be capable of complying wit certain damage criteria when impacted at any height between 16 and 20 inches by a pendulum test device. Since the 450SEL is constructed in such a manner as to allow its operation at a range of heights, testing for compliance with the pendulum impact requirements must be conducted with the vehicle in all such positions.; There is no language in the standard which would limit it applicability to vehicles in only their recommended driving position for normal roadways. The range of heights available for operation must be addressed during compliance testing and the vehicle must satisfy the damage criteria at all levels. The warning light that is activated when the vehicle is in the raised position and the owner's manual warning that the vehicle should be operated in the raised position only when driving over rough terrain do not alter the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure vehicle compliance at all positions with the bumper pendulum requirements. The vehicle is capable of being driven at any and all times in the raised position and, therefore, must comply with the bumper standard's pendulum requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0208OpenMr. W. B. Colquhoun, Executive Vice-President, Norton Villiers Corporation, North Way, Andover, Hampshire, England; Mr. W. B. Colquhoun Executive Vice-President Norton Villiers Corporation North Way Andover Hampshire England; Dear Mr. Colquhoun: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1970, enclosing ten copies o the Consumer Information for motorcycles produced by Norton Villiers Corporation.; Your submittal has on its face eliminated the problems that were calle to your attention in our letter of January 9. The form in which the information is presented deviates, however, from the form prescribed by the regulations, sections 375.101 and 106. The most significant deviation is the omission of the explanatory statements that are required for both types of information. The figures included with each section of the regulations should be followed closely in your presentation of the information to purchasers.; Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Director |
|
ID: aiam2720OpenMr. Tokio Iinuma, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., P.O. Box 1606, 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632; Mr. Tokio Iinuma Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma: This responds to your October 4, 1977 letter asking whether Standar No. 118 *Power-Operated Window Systems*, prohibits the operation of power windows when the ignition key is in the 'Accessories' position.; Standard No. 118 requires only that power windows be inoperable whe the key is in the 'off' position or is removes from the lock, with certain exceptions outlines in S3. It is permissible for the windows to operate normally when the key is in the 'Accessories' position.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3832OpenMr. Masakatsu Kano, Executive Vice President, MMC Services, Inc., 3000 Town Center, Suite 1960, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Kano: This responds to your letter inquiring about the test specifications o Safety Standards 203 and 204 and the New Car Assessment Program. You specifically asked about the positioning of a tilting steering wheel for each of those tests. The answers to your questions are as follows.; Standard No. 203 incorporates by reference Society of Automotiv Engineers Recommended Practice J944, December 1965. SAE J944 provides that a steering wheel is to be mounted at the angle specified by the manufacturer's 'package drawing.' Therefore, a tilting steering wheel would be placed at the nominal design position set by the manufacturer.; Standard No. 204 does not specify the positioning of a tilt wheel. I Standard No. 204 compliance testing, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance positions adjustable steering columns and wheels at the midpoint of the tilt and telescope adjustments. In the case of your particular tilting steering wheel, there is no midpoint. Thus, we would test the vehicle with the steering wheel in the position which is closest to the geometric center of the steering column. Based on the sketch enclosed in your letter, it appears that tilt positions 2 and 3 of your wheel are at an equal distance from the geometric center of the steering column. Therefore, your tilt tilt (sic) steering wheel should be capable of complying when tested in either of those positions.; The New Car Assessment Program does not use the Standard No. 208 tes procedures, but instead uses its own set of test procedures. Those procedures specify that an adjustable steering wheel is to be positioned at the midpoint of its tilt adjustment. Since there is no midpoint for your wheel, the wheel would be set at the position closest to the geometric center of the steering column. As discussed above, the agency would use either position 2 or 3 for your tilt wheel.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2370OpenMr. Kenneth R. Thompson, Jr., Vice President, Modular Ambulance Corp., 1801 So. Great Southwest Parkway, Grand Prairie, TX 75057; Mr. Kenneth R. Thompson Jr. Vice President Modular Ambulance Corp. 1801 So. Great Southwest Parkway Grand Prairie TX 75057; Dear Mr. Thompson: We have received your letter of July 26, 1976, petitioning for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75. When you forward the financial statements promised we shall prepare a notice for the *Federal Register*.; I would like to comment on two aspects of your petition. The first i that in our opinion, each manufacturer supplying you with a chassis is an 'incomplete vehicle' manufacturer as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, and should be able to provide you with sufficient information, in the incomplete vehicle document accompanying each chassis, to enable you to insure that your ambulances upon completion conform with Standard No. 301-75. I enclose a copy of a recent letter that we sent General Motors expressing our view on this subject. Since your problem is basically similar, as part of your good faith efforts to meet Standard No. 301-75 you should attempt to obtain compliance information from your chassis manufacturers as soon as you can. We would like to be informed if you are unable to obtain this information.; My second comment is that your petition presents the 'worst case approach, based upon the presumed necessity to crash test each of the 11 models you manufacture. As a matter of clarification, there is no legal requirement that a manufacturer conduct a barrier test before he certifies compliance with Standard No. 301-75. He must, however, have a reasonable basis for certification that the vehicle, if barrier tested, would meet Standard No. 301-75. Many manufacturers prefer the assurance that is provided by testing according to a standard's procedure. However, engineering calculations, computer simulations, etc., can often provide a reasonable basis for certification. You may wish to reevaluate your petition's cost estimates in light of this.; Yours truly, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3998OpenMr. Alan R. Kroner, Republican Staff, Illinois State Senate, State Capitol, Springfield, IL 62706; Mr. Alan R. Kroner Republican Staff Illinois State Senate State Capitol Springfield IL 62706; Dear Mr. Kroner: Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1985, concerning Federa requirements for safety belts in modified vans and their effect on state safety belt use laws. I regret the delay in our response.; According to your letter, a handicapped individual purchased a van an had the front seat removed to permit him to operate the vehicle from his wheelchair. You first inquired whether the vehicle is required to be equipped with a safety belt under Federal law.; This agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection*, that requires the installation of occupant restraint systems in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. Depending on its seating capacity and use, a 'van' would be classified under our regulations as a bus, truck or MPV. Regardless of that classification, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a safety belt system for the driver's seating position. Belt systems may be required at other seating positions as well, depending upon the vehicle's classification. These requirements apply to any vehicle until its first sale to a consumer.; While our safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles, there ar some statutory restrictions on subsequent alterations. If a van were modified after its first sale to a consumer, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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....<<<; Accordingly, none of those commercial businesses could lawfully remov a safety belt installed in compliance with Standard No. 208, since such an action would 'knowingly render inoperative' that safety device. This prohibition applies only to commercial businesses, not to individuals. Vehicle owners may themselves remove a safety belt without violating Federal law. They would, however, have to comply with any State law on vehicle equipment.; Thus, in answer to your first question, a manufacturer of a van i required by Federal law to provide a safety belt system at the driver's position, and certain commercial businesses are prohibited from removing the belt.; You also requested our opinion as to whether the owner/driver of th modified van would be required to wear a safety belt under the new Illinois safety belt use law. We do not believe it would be appropriate for this agency to offer an opinion on that question, since it requires an interpretation of state law. You may wish to consult with the State Attorney General's Office or counsel for an appropriate State agency on the matter, as they are in a better position to discuss Illinois state law.; I appreciate your interest in safety belt usage and hope thi information is of assistance to you.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |