NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam2848OpenMs. Anna Racanelli, Assistant General Manager, Nippondenso Company, Ltd., 16 Henderson Drive, W. Caldwell, NJ 07006; Ms. Anna Racanelli Assistant General Manager Nippondenso Company Ltd. 16 Henderson Drive W. Caldwell NJ 07006; Dear Ms. Racanelli: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1978, to Mr. Vinson o this office requesting confirmation of interpretations of Paragraph S4.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; This confirms your interpretations. Paragraph S2, *Application* states the coverage of the standard: t specified vehicle types 'and to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies' i.e. those vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. The equipment items listed in Tables I and III are required motor vehicle lighting equipment, and any item manufactured as a replacement for one of these items that has been original equipment on 1972 or later model vehicles, must meet Standard No. 108's requirements and be so certified.; Paragraph S4.7 allows certification by means of a DOT symbol placed o the item itself. No specific design or size is required. The manufacturer may certify by other means as well, specifically those set forth for all equipment items covered by a standard, in Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403): 'a label or tag on [the] item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered'. We would view an indelible stamp on the container as 'a label' within the meaning of Section 114 if Nippondenso wished to certify by this means.; I have no other suggestions regarding use of the DOT symbol, excep that it should be of a size and in a location sufficient to readily identify the item as meeting Federal requirements, thereby avoiding any possible misunderstanding.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1767OpenMr. R.W. Hildebrandt, Group Director of Engineering,Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Group,901 Cleveland Street,Elyria, Ohio 44035; Mr. R.W. Hildebrandt Group Director of Engineering Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Group 901 Cleveland Street Elyria Ohio 44035; Dear Mr. Hildebrandt:#This responds to your letter of January 17, 1975 requesting confirmation if a telephone discussion between Mr. R.J. Clifford of Bendix and Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates and labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*. Your letter posed several questions and suggested their answers. The answers which you have presented represent correct interpretations of Standard No. 106-74.#Please Forgive our delay in responding to your request of October 1, 1974, for an interpretation of the term 'manufacturer of the hose assembly' as used in S5.2.4(b) of the standard. The NHTSA is aware of the problems which you have pointed out, and the issue will be dealt with in a forthcoming notice in the Federal Register.#Your truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4565OpenMr. Clarence M. Ditlow III Executive Director Center for Auto Safety 2001 S Street, NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009; Mr. Clarence M. Ditlow III Executive Director Center for Auto Safety 2001 S Street NW Suite 410 Washington DC 20009; "Dear Mr. Ditlow: This responds to your most recent letter to m concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available. In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter 'reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers.' You stated that you would welcome a 'substantive response' to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response. Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicles every time they ride in those vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will 'kill people.' To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the public that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the quality of their safety belts. Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this reason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models. You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, 'because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone.' You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap belts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no 'possible scientific basis' for GM's conclusion. NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any particular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences. However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment as to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2262OpenMr. Michael J. Murphy, President, National Automobile Theft Bureau, 390 North Broadway, Jericho, NY, 11753; Mr. Michael J. Murphy President National Automobile Theft Bureau 390 North Broadway Jericho NY 11753; Dear Mr. Murphy: This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1976, concernin 'track sheets' and 'autotels.'; Section S4 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 *Flammability of Interior Materials*, lists those components of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements. I have enclosed a copy for your information. An 'autotel' under the back seat, between the frame and the body, or pasted to the top of the gas tank does not fall within the ambit of the standard. Consequently, it is our view that this most important and effective deterrent to vehicle theft is not discouraged by any existing motor vehicle safety standard.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed tha Standard No. 302 be amended to include all materials exposed to the occupant compartment air space. If this amendment is adopted, an 'autotel' under the seat presumably would fall within the purview of the standard. In this case, the 'autotel' could not burn at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. We believe that this would not prove an impediment to the continuation of the 'autotel' program as a flame-retardant paper is readily available.; If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do no hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2798OpenMr. Robert B. Kurre, Wayne Corporation, P.O. Box 1447, Industries Road, Richmond, IN 47374; Mr. Robert B. Kurre Wayne Corporation P.O. Box 1447 Industries Road Richmond IN 47374; Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your February 28, 1978, letter asking whether portion of your van-type school bus have to comply with the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. You enclosed pictures showing portions of the bus designated in pink and yellow and question the standard's applicability to them.; The head protection zone requirements do not apply to portions of th school bus that are considered part of the bus sidewall. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers the sidewall to include those surfaces that run parallel to the outboard edge of a forward facing seat. Accordingly, the portions of your bus designated in yellow in the pictures need not comply with the requirements since they are part of the bus sidewall structure. The pink portions of your photographs represent part of the bus structure that is perpendicular to the bus sidewall. The NHTSA does not consider them to be part of the bus sidewall structure. Therefore, since they fall within the head protection zone they must comply with all of the requirements applicable to that zone.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2632OpenMr. William F. Cox, President, Cox Trailers, Inc., Grifton, NC 28530; Mr. William F. Cox President Cox Trailers Inc. Grifton NC 28530; Dear Mr. Cox: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1977, informing us of you wish to relocate combination stop, tail, turn signal and side marker lamps 'to the upper rear fender' of the boat trailers that you manufacture. You have asked whether this location complies with the requirements of Standard No. 108.; I am sorry that we cannot give you the interpretation you seek Standard No. 108 requires that rear side marker lamps be mounted 'as far to the rear as practicable,' and stop, tail, and turn signal lamps must be mounted 'on the rear.' Even though, in your opinion, at your planned fender location 'the lights will pass all of the required photometric and visibility requirements', when the trailer is carrying a boat the lamps are more likely to be visible 'on the rear.' (sic) as the standard requires.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3920OpenMr. Troy C. Martin, Specifications Chief, State Purchasing and General Services Commission, P.O. Box 13047, Capitol Station, Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Building, Austin, TX 78711- 3047; Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications Chief State Purchasing and General Services Commission P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Building Austin TX 78711- 3047; Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your January 24, 1985 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about our school bus safety standards.; Your first question asked whether a bus manufactured to accommodate passengers and 3 wheelchair positions to be used for carrying students would be classified as a school bus. The answer to your question is yes. Whether a vehicle is a school bus depends on the seating capacity of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions, as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3, in the vehicle. 'Designated seating position' is defined as:; >>>any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least a large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jumpseats....<<<; Consistent with this definition, we have also counted position designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Since your vehicle carries 10 passengers plus a driver, for a total of 11 persons, it is a school bus under Part 571.3 of our regulations.; The second part of this question asked whether this vehicle would b required to comply with the seating requirements of FMVSS No. 222. The answer is yes. Each new school bus must comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 222. Some different requirements apply to school buses having gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, than to school buses with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds. For example, the seat spacing requirements of Standard No. 222 do not apply to the lighter school buses, since these vehicles are required to have safety belts.; Your second question asked whether a vehicle manufactured to carry student passengers would be classified as a school bus. The answer is no. Such a vehicle does not have the passenger capacity of a bus, and is thus not a school bus. Although the school bus safety standards would not apply to this vehicle, it would have to meet the standards set for a multipurpose passenger vehicle.; Your third and fourth questions concerned side facing seats fo handicapped passengers. You first asked whether seat barriers must be placed forward and rearward of a side facing seat, when the seat is positioned between rows of forward facing seats.; I assume that you are concerned with buses having GVWR's greater tha 10,000 pounds, since the seat spacing requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 222 apply only to these heavier school buses. In a preamble to a July 12, 1976, Federal Register notice (41 FR 28506), the agency determined that the seat spacing requirements of S5.2 are not appropriate for side facing seats designed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. Therefore, a restraining barrier is not required forward of a side facing seat. However, a restraining barrier must be provided rearward of any side facing seat that has a forward facing seat next to it, in order to compartmentalize the passengers in the forward facing seat.; Your fourth question assumed that S5.2 applied to side facing seats You asked whether the back of a forward facing seat positioned in front of a side facing seat could be used to meet the barrier requirements of S5.2. As discussed above, S5.2 does not apply to side facing seats.; Your fifth question asked whether safety belts are required for sid facing seats on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, and on school buses with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds. For school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, Standard No. 222 requires that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 210, be met 'at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.' Thus each seating position in a small school bus must have a safety belt and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of those standards. Side facing seats on the heavier school buses are not required to have safety belts.; Your sixth question asked if we have information on the use of shoulde straps and harnesses with lap belts for passenger seats on school buses. NHTSA has not conducted any tests on the use of shoulder straps or harnesses with safety belts on school buses. You might want to contact school bus manufacturers to discuss how 3-point belt systems can be used in school buses.; Your last question asked whether NHTSA has any plans at the present t delete the safety belt requirements for school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less. Although NHTSA has no present plans to delete the safety belt requirement for the lighter school buses, the agency is presently reviewing the Canadian test data to which you referred in your letter. If we believe there is a need to propose to amend Standard No. 222, the public will have an opportunity to submit comments.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3473OpenMr. John H. Shafer, Director, Traffic and Safety Division, Department of Transportation, 1220 Washington Avenue, State Campus, Albany, NY 12232; Mr. John H. Shafer Director Traffic and Safety Division Department of Transportation 1220 Washington Avenue State Campus Albany NY 12232; Dear Mr. Shafer: This responds to your September 8, 1981 letter enclosing correspondenc from Mrs. Barbara Stephens asking about extending the seat spacing in a school bus that is designed to transport handicapped children. You ask for general guidance in this area.; First, let me say that the safety standards apply to manufacturers o vehicles as well as those individuals that alter new motor vehicles. Further, repair businesses are not permitted to render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with the safety standards. On the other hand, nothing prohibits an individual from rendering inoperative the compliance of his or her own vehicle with any safety standard.; In specific reference to seat spacing in school buses, two genera rules apply. First, seat spacing is not regulated in vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. Accordingly, any modification of seat spacing in these vehicles is permissible. Second, in vehicles with GVWR's in excess of 10,000 pounds, seat spacing is regulated, and a manufacturer may not produce a vehicle whose spacing exceeds the specifications set in Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. Further, a repair business may not affect the seat spacing in a way that would violate the standard. An owner, however, may change the spacing in her or her own vehicle.; The agency has specifically provided for the transportation of th handicapped by allowing the installation of side-facing seats in school vehicles designated for handicapped transportation. We would suggest that this is a more suitable approach than extending seat spacing. By extending seat spacing, a school would be taking its vehicles out of compliance with the safety standards. In the event of an accident involving one of these vehicles, the school might be subject to unnecessary liability for having made these modifications to its vehicles.; I hope that this will be of use to you in advising schools of th Federal requirements, and if I can be of further assistance, please contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3189OpenMr. Doug Smith, 3595 Santa Fe Avenue #156, Long Beach, California 90810; Mr. Doug Smith 3595 Santa Fe Avenue #156 Long Beach California 90810; Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to your December 6, 1979, letter asking questions abou Standard No. 211, *Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps*. In particular, you ask whether winged projections are permitted in a rim as long as they do not extend beyond the lip of a rim or the sidewall of a tire.; When the standard was issued, the agency concluded that winge projections could catch the clothing of children or pedestrians thereby posing safety hazard. As a result the standard prohibits the use of all winged projections regardless of the extent to which they extend from a rim. The standard however, only prohibits winged projections and does not affect other projects from a rim.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3023OpenMr. Raymond L. Smallwood, Retread Plant Manager, Montgomery Tire Service, Inc., Box 515, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760; Mr. Raymond L. Smallwood Retread Plant Manager Montgomery Tire Service Inc. Box 515 Gaithersburg Maryland 20760; Dear Mr. Smallwood: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1979, with respect to you wish to import used truck tire casings for the purposes of recapping. You have been advised in a telephone conversation with our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that there are two ways to do this: the casings must bear DOT markings, or be accompanied by some proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975, the effective date of the truck tire standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119. So believe that this is impossible and have requested our advice.; There is an additional solution whose feasibility we will leave to you determination. While Section 108(a)(1)(A)(15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as we interpret it, prohibits the importation of used truck tires that do not comply with Standard No. 119, Section 108(b)(3) (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b)(3)) allows their importation under bond 'to insure that any such [tire] will be brought into conformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard' (The corresponding provision of the importation regulation is 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(3)). Since the agency presently has no standard that applies to the retreading of truck tires, the applicable standard would be that in effect when the tires was new - Standard No. 119. Thus, if Montgomery Tires Service can demonstrate that its retreaded truck tires conform to Standard No. 119, and are willing to affix a DOT symbol to each tire as certification of that fact, your casings may enter the country under bond as provided for in 19 CFR 12.80 (b) (i) (3), releasable when upon an affirmation of compliance to Standard No. 119.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |