NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 6621 - 6630 of 16515

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam2810 Open Mr. Edwin S. Kirby, The Johnson Manufacturing Co., 605 Miami Street, Urbana, OH 43078; Mr. Edwin S. Kirby The Johnson Manufacturing Co. 605 Miami Street Urbana OH 43078; Dear Mr. Kirby: This responds to Johnson Manufacturing's May 4, 1978, request fo confirmation that the requirement in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that reservoirs 'withstand' specific pressure does not require testing of a multi-compartment reservoir compartment-by-compartment.; Your understanding of the 'withstanding' requirement in S5.1.2.2 an S5.2.1.3 is correct. Although the agency sought to clarify that compartment-by-compartment testing was the proper interpretation of this requirement (42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977), problems with the interpretation resulted in its withdrawal (43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978) and adherence to the existing interpretation that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir. Under this interpretation only the circumference of the outer reservoir shell is measured, and internal baffles are not stressed by separate compartment-by-compartment testing.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5286 Open Mr. C.N. Littler Coordinator-Regulatory Affairs MCI/TMC Engineering Centre 1558 Willson Place Winnepeg, Manitoba R3T 0Y4; Mr. C.N. Littler Coordinator-Regulatory Affairs MCI/TMC Engineering Centre 1558 Willson Place Winnepeg Manitoba R3T 0Y4; "Dear Mr. Littler: This responds to your FAX and phone call of July 30 1993 to Mary Versailles of my office. Your FAX enclosed information on a vehicle, the AMF Invader, which is built on a remanufactured MCI chassis, and advertised and sold as a new vehicle. You do not believe that such a vehicle should be considered a new vehicle. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, we can explain whether such a vehicle would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the implications of such a determination. I suggest you also contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it is appropriate to advertise this vehicle as new. To determine whether this vehicle can be titled and registered as new, you would have to contact the various states concerning their laws. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. After a vehicle's first retail sale, a provision affecting its modification is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) which provides: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. It is possible that modifications on an existing vehicle may be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle for purposes of compliance with the safety standards. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such modifications were completed. The agency has stated that a bus built with a new body is not considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle (see, for example, August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer). The agency has also stated that a bus constructed from an old body and a new chassis is a new vehicle (see, for example, July 17, 1981 letter to Mr. Larry Louderback). When neither the body nor the chassis are completely new, the agency looks to see if the vehicle has so deviated from the original components and attributes that it may be considered a new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a used vehicle (see, for example, April 22, 1991 letter to Mr. Kent Morris). You enclosed an article titled 'The New Invader' from the August 1993 issue of National Bus Trader magazine. The manufacturing process for the Invader is described beginning on page 14. Page 16 of this article states, 'the Invader is supplied with a new engine,' but the article does not contain enough information to determine whether the vehicle, which includes both new and old parts, would be considered new. If the Invader has a new body, NHTSA would considered the vehicle to be new if the chassis lacks the used components referenced in the Farmer letter. Any new vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture before the vehicle can be sold in the United States. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: AMF 1830 LeBer Street, Montreal Quebec, Canada H3K 2A4";
ID: aiam2543 Open Mr. R. A. Bynum, Supervisor, Pupil Transportation Service, Commonwealth of Virginia, State Department of Education, Richmond, VA 23216; Mr. R. A. Bynum Supervisor Pupil Transportation Service Commonwealth of Virginia State Department of Education Richmond VA 23216; Dear Mr. Bynum: This responds to your February 18, 1977, letter asking whether Standar No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, permits the use of a two-passenger front-row seat with a corresponding two-passenger front-row restraining barrier. Secondly, you ask whether the State of Virginia can require the use in joints of discrete fasteners and welding, and not adhesives, without conflicting with the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. Finally, you ask who must certify that a vehicle complies with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems.; The NHTSA has issued an interpretation allowing the use of a two passenger front-row seat with a two-passenger restraining barrier. This can be accomplished by the use of a two-passenger seat cushion and a three-passenger seat back as you suggest. I am enclosing a copy of the NHTSA interpretation for your information.; Regarding your second question concerning the use of adhesives in bu body joints, the Federal bus body joint standard requires only that joints meet a specified strength requirement. The NHTSA does not require any particular type of joint construction. Therefore, the purchaser and manufacturer can decide upon any method of joint construction as long as the joint meets Federal strength specifications.; Your final question asks who must certify that a small school bu (under 10,000 pounds) is in compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. To assign responsibility for the certification of multi-stage vehicles, NHTSA has issued Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (enclosed). The manufacturer of an 'incomplete-vehicle' (such as a cab-chassis) must provide documentation to the intermediate- and final-stage manufacturer of the vehicle on how to complete it so that it complies with all applicable standards. It is the responsibility of the final- stage manufacturer to affix a certification label unless the incomplete- or intermediate-stage manufacturer assumes this responsibility.; On a related matter concerning small school buses, it is ou understanding that school buses weighing under 10,000 pounds will be available after April 1, 1977.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam0084 Open Mr. George W. S. Smith, President, Ideal Manufacturing Company, 1107 South Seventh Street, Oskaloosa, IA 52577; Mr. George W. S. Smith President Ideal Manufacturing Company 1107 South Seventh Street Oskaloosa IA 52577; Dear Mr. Smith: Thank you for your letter of June 10, 1968, to Mr. J. O'Gorman of thi Bureau, concerning the requirements for side reflex reflectors as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108.; As noted in your letter, paragraph S3.1.1.6 of Standard No. 108 effective January 1, 1969, permits until January 1, 1970, the use of two side reflex reflectors on each side of vehicles that are less than 80 inches in overall width. On and after January 1, 1970, Standard No. 108 requires that these vehicles be equipped on each side with two side reflex reflectors and two side marker lamps.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;
ID: aiam2113 Open Mr. Lee, Tong Shin Chemical Products Co., Ltd., 325 - 12th Street, Palisades Park, New Jersey 07650; Mr. Lee Tong Shin Chemical Products Co. Ltd. 325 - 12th Street Palisades Park New Jersey 07650; Dear Mr. Lee: This is in response to your inquiry concerning the addition of th symbol 'DOT' to tires imported into this country, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of this office.; 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires tir manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto the sidewall of tires an identification number and the symbol DOT. The position of the identification number and DOT symbol is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of the Regulation. The symbol DOT, as stated in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic tires, 49 CFR 571.109, constitutes a certification that the tire conforms to all applicable safety standards.; Neither Standard No. 109 nor Part 574 prohibit the branding of th symbol DOT onto the tire after manufacture, as long as the information becomes part of the actual sidewall material. By branding the symbol DOT onto the tire you are certifying that the tires meet all the requirements of the motor vehicle safety standards based on information which, in the exercise of due care, you know to be accurate.; If you have further questions concerning this matter, please do no hesitate to contact me.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5639 Open Mr. Larry W. Strawhorn Vice President of Engineering American Trucking Associations 2200 Mill Road Alexandria, VA 22314-4677; Mr. Larry W. Strawhorn Vice President of Engineering American Trucking Associations 2200 Mill Road Alexandria VA 22314-4677; "Dear Mr. Strawhorn: This letter responds to your request for a interpretation of the antilock power circuit requirements set forth at S5.1.6.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This provision states that S5.1.6.3 Antilock Power Circuit for Towed Vehicles. Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997 and each single unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 that is equipped to tow another air-braked vehicle shall be equipped with one or more separate electrical circuits, specifically provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle(s). Such a circuit shall be adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable. (Emphasis added.) You believe that the phrase 'separate electrical circuit' allows for the continued use of the single SAE J560 connector if one of the seven pins provides full-time power for the ABS. You further believe that the ABS malfunction signal can be multiplexed on any circuit of the connector and that the other trailer devices can be powered off the circuit as long as the circuit is adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable. In the March 10, 1995 final rule, NHTSA decided to adopt the proposed full-time power requirement for trailer ABSs. (60 FR 13216) The agency explained that it amended the standard's wording to clarify that towing vehicles must have a corresponding separate circuit specifically provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle or vehicles. The agency stated that requiring a separate circuit 'will ensure the strongest possible source of electrical power from the tractor to ensure the functioning of all the ECUs and modulators that are employed in the antilock brake system, or systems, on single trailers, or multiple trailers and converter dollies in multi-trailer combinations. It also stated that this requirement will ensure a continuous malfunction indication whenever a malfunction exists. The agency further stated that it has left the decision about which type of connector should be used to the industry. In response to your question about the use of one of the pins in the seven-pin connector to provide full-time power for the ABS, the use of such a pin would be permissible provided that the pin services a 'separate' electrical circuit to 'specifically provide' full time power for the trailers in combination vehicles. This means that the circuit's sole function must be to provide ABS powering, i.e., other trailer devices may not be powered off this separate electrical circuit. This would preclude the use of the pin to power the ABS malfunction signal. Since the requirement for the ABS malfunction circuit did not specify that the circuit used for transmitting the malfunction signal be a 'separate' one, ABS malfunction signals can be multiplexed on other circuits with pins in the electrical connector, but not on the circuit and pins used to power the ABS system. It is important to note that the ABS semitrailer fleet study report (DOT HS 808 059) concluded that the voltages delivered by powering system approaches that employed dedicated separate circuits (i.e., the Cole Hersee, ISO, and 6-pin auxiliary systems) were well within the required limits for ECU powering, whereas, the voltages delivered through the stoplamp circuit did not perform as well. The agency concluded that these data indicate the superiority of a separate circuit powering of the trailer ABS and therefore, justify the separate circuit requirement. As you are aware, NHTSA received several petitions for reconsideration about the separate electrical circuit. The agency anticipates that the final rule in response to these petitions for reconsideration will have a detailed discussion of these requirements. In addition, the agency may decide to modify these requirements. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2406 Open Mr. Kenneth C. Ploeger, President, ACUTEK, 5th & Dryden, Odessa, MO, 64076; Mr. Kenneth C. Ploeger President ACUTEK 5th & Dryden Odessa MO 64076; Dear Mr. Ploeger: This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1976, to Mr. Lewis C Owen, Safety Standards Engineer, concerning an interpretation of the words 'optically combined' as they apply to your Acutek 301 combination rear lamp.; In the Acutek lamp, the data you submitted indicate that when th taillamp bulb is activated independently from the clearance lamp bulb, and vice versa, there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp. The amount of light 'spill' appears to be so small that it would not be interpreted (by a driver following the vehicle on which it is installed) as illuminating the lens of the taillamp when operated in the clearance lamp mode, and vice versa.; Accordingly, the Acutek 301 combination rear lamp appears to meet th requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.'; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam0591 Open Mr. Jerry Warner, Manager, Foam Sales & Engineering, Keyston Brothers, 1000 Brannan Street, San Francisco, CA, 94103; Mr. Jerry Warner Manager Foam Sales & Engineering Keyston Brothers 1000 Brannan Street San Francisco CA 94103; Dear Mr. Warner: This is in reply to your letter of February 9, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to an interior upholstered panel that you manufacture. You state that the panel is made up of a vinyl surface, a self-extinguishing foam, and a backing, and that the three materials must be tested as a single unit, or separately.; Paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 302 specifies as follows:>>>S4.2 Th portions of the components that shall meet the requirements of S4.3 are all of the following:; (a) The surface material taken separately if it is not bonded, sewed o mechanically attached to underlying material.; (b) A composite consisting of the surface material bonded, sewed o mechanically attached to underlying material, if such a composite is used in the component.; (c) Padding and cushioning materials taken separately, if thos materials are not bonded, sewed or mechanically attached to surface materials.<<<; Under the language of S4.2, your surface material, and the underlyin foam should be tested as a composite pursuant to subparagraph (b). If the backing is considered a padding or cushioning material, it should be tested separately pursuant to subparagraph (c).; A notice of proposed rulemaking which would amend paragraph S4.2 wa published May 26, 1971 (36 F.R. 9565), and a copy is enclosed for your information. We expect that a final rule based on this proposal will be published in the near future. Under the wording of the proposal your material would be tested under subparagraph (b) to a depth of 1/2 inch, and padding and cushioning material would be tested again under subparagraph (c).; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5269 Open Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa Vice President-Engineering Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1020 Princess Street Alexandria, VA 22314; Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa Vice President-Engineering Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 1020 Princess Street Alexandria VA 22314; Dear Mr. Vierimaa: This responds to your letter of October 19, 1993 with respect to the trailer conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108. You report that ' o ften a new tank trailer will be sold to a customer who will contract with another party to have a lining installed in the tank.' Because of the high heat used in the installation of the lining, retroreflective sheeting cannot be applied before the lining is installed. We believe that the trailer manufacturer is a more appropriate person for ensuring that its product meets the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 than the installer of the lining, or the owner of the trailer. We would like to suggest alternative methods of compliance, other than a direct application of retroreflective tape to the trailer sides, as a resolution of this problem. Standard No. 108 permits the use of reflex reflectors as an alternative to retroreflective sheeting. If the trailer manufacturer prefers retroreflective sheeting, the sheeting may be applied at a lower level if deemed 'practicable', or it may be applied to horizontal strips of aluminum that can be fastened to the sides of tank trailers and removed during the installation of the lining. You also state that 'non-tank trailers may be sold without conspicuity treatment when the owner wishes to contract the application of special paint and logo schemes.' Sale of a trailer under these circumstances, without its compliance with the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108, would be an apparent violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam2056 Open Mr. Ben Perchik, 1520 Dawn Drive, Louisville, Kentucky 40216; Mr. Ben Perchik 1520 Dawn Drive Louisville Kentucky 40216; Dera(sic) Mr. Perchik: #This is in response to your letter of July 29 1975, concerning tire identification markings, received by this agency on August 29, 1975. #I have attached two diagrams that illustrate the meaning of the tire code markings on new and retreaded tires. Immediately following 'DOT' is a two- or three-letter code (marked in red on the diagram) that indicates the manufacturer or retreader of the tire. I have also attached a list of the tire manufacturers and retreaders using each code. Following the manufacturer's code are two numbers representing the tire size (marked in blue on the diagram). Next, some tires will have three letters or numbers which represent an optional tire type code mainly of use to the manufacturer (marked in yellow on the diagram). The last three numbers represent the date of manufacture (marked in green on the diagram). #I hope this information proved useful to you. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;