NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam1675OpenMr. Bob Rauscher,Product Engineer,Galesburg Division,The Gates Rubber Company,P.O. Box 1196,Galesburg, Illinois 61401; Mr. Bob Rauscher Product Engineer Galesburg Division The Gates Rubber Company P.O. Box 1196 Galesburg Illinois 61401; Dear Mr. Rauscher:#This responds to your letter of October 9, 1974 requesting interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake hoses*, as applied to the labeling of air brake hose.#You have asked whether the designation 'AI-II' is permitted on hose for which the Type I and Type II dimensions listed in Table II are identical. Because such a designation is potentially misleading, it is not permitted. To comply with the standard, such hose should be labeled 'AI-AII'.#You have also asked whether hose labeled to indicate Type I or Type II dimensional characteristics may be used in brake hose assemblies which are constructed with permanently attached end fittings. S7.2 states:#>>>In the case of a hose intended for use in a reuseable assembly, 'AI' or 'AII' shall indicate Type I or Type II dimensional characteristics of the hose as described in Table III.<<<#Air brake hose which is designed for use with either permanent or reuseable end fittings falls within the meaning of 'hose intended for use in a reuseable assembly.' Therefore, such hose must be labeled with 'AI' or 'AII' (or 'AI-AII' as explained above.) Use of such hose with permanent end fittings is not prohibited under Standard No. 106-74.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4477OpenMr. Joseph F. Mikoll Vice President Transportation Equipment Corp. 712 North Van Buren Way Hopkins, MN 55343; Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll Vice President Transportation Equipment Corp. 712 North Van Buren Way Hopkins MN 55343; "Dear Mr. Mikoll: This responds to your recent request for confirmatio of your understanding that school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less would comply with the existing requirements of the safety standards if those buses were equipped with a new occupant protection device your company is considering producing. As explained below, this device could not be installed in small school buses as a substitute for safety belts at those seating positions. Assuming those seating positions are equipped with safety belts, the seating positions could also be equipped with this device if the addition of the device does not prevent the safety belts from complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The new device you are considering producing is a 'safety bar.' This bar consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. These curved poles are joined by three cross members that are parallel to the seat and are covered with padding. The padded surface is angled at the top slightly back from the vertical. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants will be protected by the 'safety bar,' so that the padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is designed to protect. When the seat whose occupants are to be protected by this 'safety bar' is unoccupied, the padded surface rests approximately on the latitudinal centerline of the seat. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the 'safety bar' and then sit down. The 'safety bar' will then rest on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap that resembles a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash. The crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222). That section provides that these school buses must be capable of meeting the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) as it applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, at all seating positions other than the driver's seat. The requirements of Standard No. 208 that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements specified for passenger cars in either S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208. Each of these three subsections of S4.1.2 requires each rear designated seating position to be equipped with a safety belt. S4.1.2 gives manufacturers the option of substituting a protection system 'that requires no action by vehicle occupants' for a safety belt at any or all rear designated seating positions. Your proposed 'safety bar' requires two specific actions by vehicle occupants, i.e., lifting the bar so that the seat can be occupied and buckling the strap to hold the bar in place. Therefore, the 'safety bar' could not be considered a protection system that 'requires no action by vehicle occupants,' for the purposes of S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, each rear designated seating position in small school buses equipped with this 'safety bar' must also be equipped with safety belts. Assuming that these seating positions were equipped with safety belts, the installation of 'safety bars' in small school buses would be a voluntary action on the part of the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA has said in several prior interpretation letters that the systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided that the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the safety belts in this case) to comply with the Federal safety standards. If this is the case, the 'safety bars' could be provided as a supplement to safety belts on small school buses. To install these 'safety bars' in any new school bus, the manufacturer would have to certify that a bus with the 'safety bars' installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. Thus, if any part of the 'safety bar' was within the head protection zone or leg protection zone, the 'safety bar' would have to be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of S5.3. Additionally, the manufacturer would have to certify that the school buses with these 'safety bars' installed complied with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with emergency exits of a minimum size. This means the 'safety bars' could not obstruct emergency exits located adjacent to seats. If you decide to manufacture these 'safety bars,' your company will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). As such, you will have several responsibilities, including the responsibility specified in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if your company or the agency determines either that the safety bar contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet is enclosed, which describes briefly this and other statutory and regulatory responsibilities of manufacturers and explains how to obtain copies of our regulations. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3218OpenMr. R.W. Fink, Manager/Information Systems, Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc., P.O. Box 653, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201; Mr. R.W. Fink Manager/Information Systems Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Inc. P.O. Box 653 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53201; Dear Mr. Fink: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1980, to Mr. Vinson o this office asking for an opinion whether S5.2.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 permits a passenger footboard of the nature you are considering for production.; S5.2.5 requires that 'footrests' be provided that, for passengers, fol rearward and upward when not in use. 'Footrest' is not defined but we view it as a term sufficiently broad to encompass both the round footpegs which predominate in the industry, as well as the footboard you propose to use. From the blueprint that you enclosed, the footboard when folded appears to be well within the permanent vehicle structure, and thus to meet the intent if not the letter of S5.2.5. We therefore see no legal reason why you may not introduce it into production.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1225OpenMs. Dianne Black, British Leyland Motors, Inc., 600 Willow Tree Road, Leonia, NJ 07605; Ms. Dianne Black British Leyland Motors Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia NJ 07605; Dear Ms. Black: This is in response to your letter of August 21, 1973, in which yo inquire whether British Leyland Motors Inc. may add to the consumer information leaflets for prospective purchasers, required by NHTSA regulations, the consumer information required by the Environmental Protection Agency.; As long as the information required by NHTSA is presented in conformit with 49 CFR 575, we have no objection to the inclusion within the same covers of additional information relative to EPA requirements. This would permit any format which includes EPA information without detracting from the clear and unconditional presentation of tabular information required under S 575.6(a) of Part 575.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4027OpenMr. Ezio Masina, Product Manager, Forjas Taurus, S.A., Av. do Forte, 511, 90 000 Porto Alegre - RS, Brazil; Mr. Ezio Masina Product Manager Forjas Taurus S.A. Av. do Forte 511 90 000 Porto Alegre - RS Brazil; Dear Mr. Masina: Thank you for your letter of September 3, 1985, to Mr. Franci Armstrong of this agency, concerning the 'DOT' label required on motorcycle helmets sold in the United States. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.; You explained that you have reviewed Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, and believe that your helmets comply with the requirements of this standard. You asked if you could place the 'DOT' label on your helmets sold outside of the United States.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has n jurisdiction over helmets sold outside the United States. Therefore, our regulations would not affect how you label your helmets. We, of course, urge you to use the label only on helmets which, in fact, do comply with our standard. In addition, the label should not indicate that NHTSA or the Department of Transportation has endorsed or approved your product. We also recommend that you check the labeling requirements of the countries in which you plan to sell your helmets.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4532OpenJerry Swisher, Esq. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. Findlay, OH 45840; Jerry Swisher Esq. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. Findlay OH 45840; "Dear Mr. Swisher: This responds to your letter of May 20, 1988, i which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.109). Specifically, you asked if either of three proposed courses of action would comply with the labeling requirements specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 109. That section reads as follows: 'Each tire shall be labeled with the name of the manufacturer, or the brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer in the manner specified in Part 574.' None of your proposed courses of action would satisfy this requirement, as explained below. You first asked if it is permissible to have no identification on the sidewall as to the name of the manufacturer or the brand name owner, but to simply use the identification numbers assigned to Cooper Tire under Part 574. Section S4.3.2 of Standard No. 109 explicitly requires each tire to be labeled with the manufacturer's name or a brand name and the identification number assigned to the manufacturer. Tires that are identified solely by an identification number would not comply with this requirement. Second, you asked if a tire could be labeled with three different brand names. Section S4.3.2 uses the singular tense to identify the name that must appear on the sidewall (name of the manufacturer or the brand name) and connects the alternative with the disjunctive 'or.' This grammatical structure indicates that only one name, either that of the actual manufacturer or the brand name owner, shall be labeled on the tire. The agency chose this grammatical structure to ensure that consumers would not be confused about the identity of the brand name or manufacturer of the tire. Accordingly, S4.3.2 prohibits Cooper from selling passenger car tires labeled with the names of three different brand name owners. Third, you asked if a generic term such as 'All Season' or 'Performance' would satisfy the requirement of S4.3.2 that either the name of the manufacturer or a brand name be labeled on the tires. Clearly, a generic term like 'Performance' is not the 'name of the manufacturer,' Cooper in this case. The 'brand name' refers to the name under which a tire is sold at retail, whether it is identical to the manufacturer's name (e.g., Firestone), a name owned by the manufacturer and used in place of its corporate name (i.e., a house brand, such as Falls that is manufactured by Cooper), or a name owned by someone other than the manufacturer (i.e., a private brand such as Atlas that is made by several manufacturers). My understanding of this proposed course of action is that the tires would be advertised and sold at retail as tires made by one of the three brand name owners, presumably using its brand name, not under the name 'All Season' or 'Performance.' Therefore, these generic terms would not be considered brand names for the purposes of section S4.3.2. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0822OpenMr. Thomas C. Morrill, Vice President, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Bloomington, IL 61701; Mr. Thomas C. Morrill Vice President State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Bloomington IL 61701; Dear Mr. Morrill: This is in further response to your letters of May 3 and August 8 1972, requesting that the NHTSA make available to insurance companies, such as State Farm, 'vehicle identification numbers' (VIN's) which the companies could then utilize to independently notify policyholders whose vehicles have been subject to manufacturers' defect notification campaigns.; The NHTSA has reconsidered your request and has determined to propose as an amendment to our Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573), that manufacturers be required to submit to the NHTSA the VIN's of vehicles subject to campaigns. The VIN's would be included in our public file and would be available to insurance companies and other groups who would wish to use them.; The NHTSA does not presently require manufacturers to submit the VIN' of campaigned vehicles (although the Defect Reports regulations do require manufacturers to compile the numbers for their own use). Because this will be a new requirement, the NHTSA is obligated by law to initiate rulemaking to provide for comments by interested persons, and to consider such comments in the decision as to whether the rule should be issued. We will take steps to publish the appropriate notice in the nearest possible future.; Your continuing interest in motor vehicle safety is, of course, greatl appreciated.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam1730OpenMs. Brenda Nolan, P.O. Box 172, Action, MA 01720; Ms. Brenda Nolan P.O. Box 172 Action MA 01720; Dear Ms. Nolan: A copy of your October 21, 1975, letter to Peterson Baby Products ha been forwarded to this agency by the Consumer Product Safety Commission for our consideration. In your letter, you indicated to the Peterson Company that you have experienced problems with their 'safety shell' child carrier as follows: A child can climb out of one model, vehicle seat belts do not readily attach to one model, while in both models, directions for adjustment of a tether strap appear inadequate, the child harness system does not adjust easily, and the padding materials are insufficiently durable.; Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Seating Systems*, regulates certai safety aspects of the type of child restraint system that seats a child for transportation in a motor vehicle. Peterson products subject to the requirements of the standard have been tested under NHTSA enforcement programs without failure.; Standard No. 213 does not include durability requirements for th padding or other material of the device. The standard does establish requirements for the retention of a simulated child's torso in the system when it is subject to frontal crash forces. This test, however, would not ensure that a child would be retained in the system if it attempted to release itself from the system. A 'child proof' system would make routine release by the parent extremely difficult.; As for belt webbing, the present standard only requires tha installation instructions be provided with the system, and that the webbing fit snugly those children for which the system is recommended. There are no requirements for the ease of seat belt hardware operation.; The NHTSA has proposed a more comprehensive child restraint standar that would regulate all child restraint systems, and would subject them to testing under dynamic loads that should result in upgraded performance of child restraint systems. I have forwarded your letter to the public docket on this rulemaking so that your views will be considered in the rulemaking process.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0988OpenSenator Herman E. Talmadge, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510; Senator Herman E. Talmadge Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Talmadge: This is in reply to your inquiry of January 16, 1973, on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Ski Bashinski. As Executive Director of the Georgia Independent Auto Dealers Association, Mr. Bashinski was concerned that the Federal Odometer Disclosure Requirements might become effective at a date earlier than that suggested in the notice of proposed rulemaking on the subject.; The regulations to which Mr. Bashinski refers were proposed by th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on December 2, 1973, (sic) pursuant to Title IV, Odometer Requirements, of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, P.L. 92-513. The effective date proposed was six months after issuance of a rule.; After reviewing the comments to its proposal, the NHTSA issued th Odometer Disclosure Requirements as a final rule on January 31, 1973. In the light of comments indicating a need for a prompt effectiveness, the rule will go into effect March 1, 1973. The other provisions of Title IV went into effect by operation of law on January 18, 1973, and require the assistance of the disclosure statement if they are to be fully effective.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4162OpenThe Honorable Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Kansas Senate, 430 Delaware Street, Leavenworth, KS 66048; The Honorable Edward F. Reilly Jr. Kansas Senate 430 Delaware Street Leavenworth KS 66048; Dear Mr. Reilly: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dennis D Furr of Lansing, Michigan.; As we understand his letter, Mr. Furr contacted you to express hi concern about a Michigan state law which permits loading school buses up to 110 percent of the number of persons for which the bus has a rated seating capacity. He believes that installation of safety belts in school buses would reduce the likelihood that excessive numbers of children would be carried on each school bus seat.; You asked for information on Mr. Furr's suggestion for school bu safety belts. I am pleased to explain the two sets of regulations we have for school buses, both of which are relevant to school bus seating accommodations. Before I begin, I would like to note that in July 1985, we responded to an inquiry on Mr. Furr's behalf from U.S. Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., asking about requirements limiting school bus passenger capacities. In our response, we explained how manufacturers currently determine the passenger capacities of their school buses and that we know of no safety problem related to their calculations. A copy of our letter is enclosed for your information.; As explained in our letter to Senator Riegle, the first set o regulations we have for school buses, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Some of Mr. Furr's concerns involve one of those safety standards, Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, which specifies requirements for safety belts in small school buses. Standard No. 222 currently does not require safety belts for passengers in large school buses (those with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds) because large school buses are already required to provide high levels of protection to passengers through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.; In his letter to you, Mr. Furr appears to be primarily concerned wit overloaded school buses and believes that safety belts would prevent schools from overcrowding school bus bench seats. We believe that this rationale for safety belts does not warrant a Federal requirement for belts on large school buses, since large school buses offer substantial protection to passengers and safety belts per se will not prevent users from overcrowding their buses. Thus, requiring safety belts in large school buses under Federal law would not assuredly lessen overcrowding of buses, and any possible improvement in seating accommodations would not be achieved.; On the other hand, we do not prevent States and local school district from ordering safety belts on their large school buses if they wish to do so. Thus, States may order school buses with safety belts if they believe this would reduce the likelihood that school buses would be overloaded. Issues relating to safety belts in large school buses are discussed in NHTSA's publication entitled, 'Safety Belts on School buses,' June 1985. I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.; Our second set of regulations for school buses, issued under th highway Safety Act, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Those recommendations are found in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed, which Mr. Furr refers to as 'Federal Standard 17.' This 'standard,' or guideline, recommends that States provide seating accommodations of minimum specified dimensions for each school bus occupant and that States coordinate seating plans to eliminate standees. To reiterate, however, Program Standard No. 17 is a guideline for the States and its adoption is determined by the States. We have no reason to believe that Michigan has not evaluated thoroughly its pupil transportation needs in determining whether to implement the standard's recommendations.; I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be o further assistance.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed |