NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam1002OpenMr. Spencer O. Moore, Merino and Moore, 651 Town and Country Village, Post Office Box 1334, Sunnyvale, CA 94086; Mr. Spencer O. Moore Merino and Moore 651 Town and Country Village Post Office Box 1334 Sunnyvale CA 94086; Dear Mr. Moore: This is in reply to your letter of February 1 to Mr. B.M. Crittenden Regional Administrator, concerning emergency flashers.; Effective January 1, 1969, all new automobiles were required to mee Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment,' which in turn required the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit to meet Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J910, January 1966. Prior to January 1, 1969, automobiles were required to meet the standards and regulations of the individual States. Since New York required hazard warning signals (4-way flashers) in 1966, most automobiles manufactured for sale throughout the United States were similarly equipped.; SAE J910 did not contain requirements relating the activation of th signal to the position or rotation of the steering wheel. Several States prohibited the operation of the subject signal on a moving vehicle, therefore, on many cars, this signal was cancelled by the rotation of the steering wheel, and consequently could not be activated even with the vehicle stopped with the steering wheel in certain positions.; We are unaware of similar complaints on the activation of the hazar warning signals.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3896OpenMr. H. Moriyoshi, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc., 24402 Sinacola Court, Farmington Hills, MI 48016; Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills MI 48016; Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1984, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it would apply to a contemplated parking lamp system.; Usually passenger cars are designed with two parking lamps, one on eac side of the vehicle front. Mazda would have two such lamps on each vehicle side, each of the two lamps flanking the headlamp. You have asked whether, in determining the H-V axis, one takes the axis as the center of each lamp, or should one consider the pair a single device and place the H-V axis at the midpoint between them.; Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be equipped with a minimu of two parking lamps, located 'as far apart as practicable.' Therefore, the outermost parking lamp, (the one located between the turn signal lamp and the headlamp is the lamp that must meet the parking lamp requirements of Standard No. 108, and the H-V axis for purposes of compliance would be determined at the center of the lens of that lamp. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under Standard No. 108 and does not have to meet the Standard's requirements, but it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Because of the difference in candela between parking lamps and headlamps, information available to us does not indicate that your supplementary parking lamp would have this effect, and consequently, the design would be permitted.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2784OpenMr. Karsten J. Vieg, Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, Illinois Department of Transportation, 2300 South Dirksen Parkway, Springfield, IL 62764; Mr. Karsten J. Vieg Governor's Representative for Highway Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield IL 62764; Dear Mr. Vieg: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1977, to th Administrator asking whether an Illinois standard applicable to school bus lighting is neither preempted by nor violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; Paragraph S4.1.4(b) (ii) of Standard No. 108 requires that: '>>>The [school bus signal lamp] system shall be wired so that th amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation and, if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened.'<<<; Under the Illinois requirement (4.2.18.2) the amber signal lamps appea to be activated only by manual or foot control (4.2.18.2(d)), and are automatically deactivated when the bus entrance door is opened (4.2.18.2(e) and (f)). The red signal lamps are activated before the bus entrance door is opened (4.2.18.2(e)) and remain activated when the door is opened (4.2.18.2(f)). Thus, these portions of the Illinois requirement comply with Standard No. 108.; As for the remaining portions of 4.2.18.2, they dictate sequentia operational requirements of the 8-lamp system and stop arm (an item of equipment not required by Standard No. 108). To accomplish this operation, 4.2.18.2 requires that 'A separate circuit breaker and a master switch shall be provided for this signal system.' You have asked whether this is preempted by Standard No. 108.; The aspect of performance involved here is that of wiring requirement for school bus warning lamps. Standard No. 108 specifies the manner in which these lamps shall operate but it is silent as to the ways this performance shall be achieved. Therefore Illinois is not preempted from requiring a separate circuit breaker and master cylinder in school bus lighting systems, a specification which is one of good engineering practice and probably used as a matter of course by most school bus manufacturers.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5041OpenMs. R. Marie McFadden Cable Car Concepts Inc. P.O. Box 6500 Deltona, FL 32728; Ms. R. Marie McFadden Cable Car Concepts Inc. P.O. Box 6500 Deltona FL 32728; "Dear Ms. McFadden: This responds to your June 23, 1992 lette requesting information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and seating in vehicles manufactured by your company. These vehicles are the 'Mini Trolley,' the 'Road Train,' and the 'Trolley Tram.' You indicated that these vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we 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. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to answer your specific questions, it is necessary to determine how each of your vehicles is classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a 'bus' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' Your literature indicates that the 'Mini Trolley' has a passenger capacity of 18, and that the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram' has a passenger capacity of 22. Therefore, both of these vehicles would be considered a 'bus' for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA defines a 'truck' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' The power unit of the 'Road Train' has seating capacity for only one passenger, and the primary use appears to be to draw the coaches. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a 'truck' for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA defines a 'trailer' as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' The coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations. Your specific questions and the answers to each follow. You asked us to answer these questions for vehicles manufactured both before and after September 1, 1991. 1. Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs. The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, buses such as the 'Mini Trolley' and the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram' are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at the driver's position, trucks such as the power unit of the 'Road Train' are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position, and trailers such as the coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position. The requirements for buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR). The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. Trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR. Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' are not required to have safety belts. 2. As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all. The seating requirements are contained in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. This standard includes strength requirements for all 'occupant seats' in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side- facing seats. Therefore, the driver's seat in the 'Mini Trolley' and the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram,' and all 'occupant seats' in the power unit of the 'Road Train' must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. The standard does not specify that seats must be made of a particular material, therefore, oak seats are permitted if they comply with the standard. As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207. We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats. As stated above, Standard No. 207 applies only to the driver's seat in buses such as the 'Mini Trolley' or the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram.' If the jump seat is in the power unit of the 'Road Train,' and if it is not a side- facing seat, it must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207 if it is an 'occupant seat' as defined in that standard. Section S3 of Standard No. 207 defines an 'occupant seat' as 'a seat that provides at least one designated seating position.' A 'designated seating position' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and 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 jump seats. Your letter does not contain enough information to determine whether your seat would be considered an auxiliary seating position. If it is, it is not subject to Standard No. 207. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0243OpenIng. Efrain Alvarez S., Cristales Inastillables de Mexico S.A., Av. Central N*o* 101, Sta. Clara Edo. de Mexico; Ing. Efrain Alvarez S. Cristales Inastillables de Mexico S.A. Av. Central N*o* 101 Sta. Clara Edo. de Mexico; Dear Ing. Alvarez: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1970, requesting th National Highway Safety Bureau's approval or comments on an Electrical Testing Laboratories Report No. 411430, concerning your CM-20 safety glazing material.; The National Highway Safety Bureau does not approve or confirm whethe specific motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment comply with Federal standards. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment bears the responsibility for ensuring that his product complies with applicable standards. Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. S1403), furthermore, requires manufacturers to 'certify' that their products comply with applicable standards, and specifies how this certification is to be accomplished. A notice published in the *Federal Register* on November 4, 1967, further explained how manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment may comply with this requirement. I enclose a copy of this notice and the aforementioned Act, with the appropriate sections marked for your information.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (S3.4) provides a additional method by which manufacturers of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles may certify that their products comply with that standard. This method may be used as a substitute for the methods specified in section 114 and the enclosed notice. It consists of labeling the glazing material with a label that meets the requirements of Section 6 of ASA Z.26.1-1966, 'Marking of Safety Glazing Materials', but to which has been added the symbol 'DOT', and a manufacturer's code number which is assigned by the Bureau on request. The label which you furnish in the appendix to your ETL Report No. 411430, provided the required 'AS'-designation, glazing-model number, and assigned DOT code mark are at least 0.070 inch in height, will meet this requirement. Should you desire to certify your glazing in this manner, we will furnish you with a manufacturer's code number.; Although the Bureau does not furnish approvals of glazing materials many states do require some form of approval before specific glazing material can be used in motor vehicles subject to their jurisdiction. For information regarding such approvals and assistance in obtaining them I suggest you write to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Attention: Mr. Armand Cardarelli, Suite 500, 1828 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.; In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment fo importation into the United States, you are required by section 110(e) of the Act (15 U.S.C. S1399(e)) to designate an agent for service of process purposes. The designation must conform to regulations governing its making (49 CFR 551.45), and I enclose a copy also with appropriate sections marked for your reference.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5411OpenMr. Eric T. Stewart Engineering Manager Mid Bus Inc. 3555 St. Johns Road P.O. Box 1985 Lima, OH 45801-1985; Mr. Eric T. Stewart Engineering Manager Mid Bus Inc. 3555 St. Johns Road P.O. Box 1985 Lima OH 45801-1985; "Dear Mr. Stewart: This responds to your letter of May 26, 1994, askin whether the daylight opening of a door located to the left of the driver's seat can 'be used in the calculations of required emergency exit area if it meets the performance requirements of Standard No. 217,' Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. The vehicle on which the door is installed has a capacity of 48 children or 40 adults and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms). During a June 27, 1994 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that you anticipate producing these vehicles as both buses and school buses. Accordingly, I will address the question separately for each of these vehicle types. As explained below, provided that the exit meets all the performance requirements for a side door exit, it may be possible to apply the area of such a door to the emergency exit area requirements for either type of bus. Non-School Bus The emergency exit requirements for non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are found in S5.2 of Standard No. 217. That section requires non-school buses to have 'unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total inches, to at least 67 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus.' That section further requires at least 40 percent of the areas for emergency exit to be on each side of the bus and limits the amount that can be credited for each exit to 536 square inches. If the door otherwise meets the emergency exit performance requirements, nothing in Standard No. 217 would prohibit counting the door as an emergency exit. Therefore, if the 40 percent distribution requirements are met, the unobstructed area of a door to the left of a driver on a non-school bus can be credited, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches. School Bus The emergency exit requirements for school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are found in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. That section states '(t)he area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus.' All school buses are required to have either a rear emergency door exit or a side emergency door exit and a rear push-out emergency window. To determine if additional emergency exits are required, the area of 'daylight opening' of the front service door and those required emergency exits is subtracted from the total area required. The formulas in S5.2.3 for subtracting the front service door and the required emergency exits refer to the 'size of the available front service door opening' (emphasis added). We interpret this language as allowing the subtraction of the 'daylight opening' of a single front service door. The drawings you faxed on July 12, 1994 indicate that the vehicle has a front service door to the right of the driver in addition to the door to the left of the driver. Since the daylight opening of only one front service door can be credited, the daylight opening of the door to the left of the driver cannot be credited as a front service door. If additional emergency exits are required, they must be added in the following order: 1) Left side emergency exit door near the mid-point of the passenger compartment (if the vehicle has a rear door exit) or right side emergency exit door (if the vehicle has a side door exit and rear push-out window), 2) emergency roof exit, 3) any combination of side emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, or emergency window exits. Since the door to the left of the driver is not credited as the front service door, the only opportunity for crediting the area would be under the third level above. The door could not qualify for category (1), above, because a left side emergency door must be located near the mid-point of the passenger compartment. 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"; |
|
ID: aiam1901OpenHonorable George Mahon, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable George Mahon House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Mahon: This is in response to your letter of February 13, 1975, forwarding a article from Modern Tire Dealer which cited a speech by Len Barnes of the Automobile Club of Michigan. Mr. Barnes' speech concerned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation. As we advised you in our letter of March 7, 1975, we believe the questions raised in Mr. Barnes' speech should be answered fully, and delayed our response until we could review our own data in this area.; By Act of Congress (Public Law 91-265), the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act was amended in 1970 to require manufacturers and retreaders of tires to maintain the names and addresses of first purchasers so that owners of defective tires may be notified of any defect. The legislative history of this amendment makes it clear that the Congress recognized the need for regulations in the area. Earlier joint attempts by manufacturers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to notify purchasers of defective tires produced inadequate results even in cases where the manufacturer offered to replace the defective tires free of charge. The poor results were attributable to the fact that owners could not be directly notified of the defect.; The magnitude of the problem which the regulation seeks to alleviate i clear. Since the inception of the program in 1966 through 1973, there have been 1,427,670 tires recalled in 88 separate defect recall campaigns. In 1973 alone, there were 116,743 tires recalled in 11 defect recall campaigns, rather than 'less than 100,000' as Mr. Barnes suggests. Further, information available to NHTSA indicates that the cost figure of 75 cents for each tire registration cited in Mr. Barnes' speech is too high, and that the actual processing cost is nearer to 25 cents. While it may be that the higher figure includes the labor cost attributable to salesmen filling out the forms and the office secretary mailing them to the manufacturer, we feel it is highly unlikely that the regulation necessitates hiring additional dealer staff.; Even utilizing Mr. Barnes' cost figures, however, it is NHTSA's vie that 75 cents for each tire registration is not an exorbitant expense in terms of insuring that a motorist will be advised if a tire he purchased is defective and could lead to death, a serious injury, or damage to his vehicle. As a comparison, an average family belonging to the Automobile Club of Michigan, which employs Mr. Barnes, would pay $68.00 or more for the road service protection and travel information offered by the club over the same two year period he was paying 75 cents per tire for defect insurance.; Mr. Barnes also suggests that consumers pay $1,100 for each defectiv tire recalled. This argument is clearly spurious, and ignores the basic purpose of insurance, including that marketed by Mr. Barnes' employer. Even using Mr. Barnes' figure, however, we consider $1,100 a small price to pay to save a life or avoid an injury. You may also be interested to note that a Federal jury in Florida recently returned a $2,300,000 verdict against Sears Roebuck & Company in a tort action involving a defective tire.; With regard to the effectiveness of the recordkeeping regulation, ou records indicate the percentage of tires being recorded is increasing, and should continue to increase when additional enforcement action is taken against manufacturers and dealers who do not comply with the regulation. Further, the percentage of tire failures has fallen from 6% in the 1968-69 period to less than 1% during 1974. Of course, what is most needed to make the regulation effective is the voluntary cooperation of retreaders and dealers in recording, reporting and maintaining the required information.; While this regulation indisputably places an added responsibility o retailers, we also believe that the burden is neither onerous nor unjustified in view of the danger to the consumer. The NHTSA has continually attempted to improve and simplify the procedures for the registration of tires, the most recent example being the Universal Tire Registration Format issued on June 3, 1974.; The alternative suggested by Mr. Barnes, utilizing governmen inspectors, would in our view be even more expensive than the current procedure. There are 67 new tire plants and over 6,000 retreading shops in the United States and many more abroad. To establish Federal inspectors and test equipment in each plant would be enormously expensive. Further, it would run counter to the basic premise of the Motor Vehicles Safety Program which is that manufacturers are self-certifiers, and must take full responsibility for defective vehicles and equipment they place on the market.; For these reasons, we are convinced that the requirement that dealer record the name and address of tire purchasers at the time of sale is reasonable and appropriate.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam0613OpenMrs. Avis M. Hicks, Administrator, Nevada State Purchasing Division, Department of Administration, Carson City, NV 89701; Mrs. Avis M. Hicks Administrator Nevada State Purchasing Division Department of Administration Carson City NV 89701; Dear Mrs. Hicks: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1971, in which you as certain questions relating to 'Gross Vehicle Weight Rating' (GVWR) as it would apply to our regulations, 49 CFR 567 and 568. Our requirement that certain weight ratings be applied to a label by vehicle manufacturers is a regulation and not a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; Gross vehicle weight rating as defined in S 568 of the regulation 'means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.' This was further clarified in the *Federal Register* on October 8, 1971, 36 FR 14583, 'To preclude the possibility of understating a vehicle's GVWR, however, the certification regulation is herewith amended to provide that the stated GVWR shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' Unloaded vehicle weight has been defined as '. . . the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants,' 36 FR 2511.; From the standpoint of the regulation itself, the only other limit o GVWR would be that it should not be more than the sum of the gross axle weight ratings (although it may be less), since otherwise the vehicle would obviously be supplied with axle systems inadequate for its carrying capacity.; Good engineering practice would dictate that weight ratings be based o the weakest component in the system regardless of what it, the weakest component, might be. Of course, weight distribution is one of the factors that must be considered in making these calculations. In the example you have cited, if a manufacturer supplied a rear axle on his vehicle with a stated axle weight rating of 13,000 pounds with tires on the axle having a sum total rating of something less he would be overstating the GAWR of a particular axle on his certification label. GVWR's should not be greater than the total tire capacity or as stated before the sum of the gross axle weight ratings.; If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0306OpenMr. Paul Maloney, Elliot Business Machines, Randolph Industrial Park, Randolph, MA 02368; Mr. Paul Maloney Elliot Business Machines Randolph Industrial Park Randolph MA 02368; Dear Mr. Maloney: This is in reply to your letter of January 22, 1971, requesting that comment whether your system fulfills the requirements of Part 574, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation.; I am sure you will appreciate the fact that the Administration canno approve each of the various systems developed. Your system, upon a cursory review, appears adequate, however, the regulation speaks for itself concerning the actual requirements.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5104OpenMs. Janet Taylor Marketing and Sales Manager A-PEX International Co., Ltd. 2900 Lakeside Drive Suite 101 Santa Clara, CA 95054-2812; Ms. Janet Taylor Marketing and Sales Manager A-PEX International Co. Ltd. 2900 Lakeside Drive Suite 101 Santa Clara CA 95054-2812; "Dear Ms. Taylor: This responds to your letter seeking information o how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device called the 'Tap Root Equipment Stand.' The equipment stand consists of a base plate which is bolted to the floor of a vehicle, a vertical tube which attaches to the base plate, and a rotating shelf at the top of the tube. The stand is intended to be used for portable equipment such as laptop computers, facsimile machines, and car phones. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering equipment stands. However, it is possible that the installation of an equipment stand could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards. All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an equipment stand is installed in a certified vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety 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 standard. Thus, if an equipment stand is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards. In order to determine how installation of the Tap Root Equipment Stand could affect the compliance of vehicles with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those addressing occupant crash protection and occupant protection in interior impact. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. By way of example, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires, among other things, that passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less meet specified performance requirements in a crash test. In particular, test dummies occupying the front outboard seating positions must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. Nothing in the testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of an equipment stand in the interior of vehicles. However, the Tap Root Equipment Stand appears to have hard surfaces and sharp edges, especially as compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the test dummy may contact in a crash. It may not be possible for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if the equipment stand was installed in an area contacted by the test dummy, or if the stand interfered with the deployment of air bags. Individual vehicle owners may modify their own vehicles without being subject to the federal safety standards. If the equipment stand is to be installed by such individual owners, however, I urge them to take potential safety hazards, such as those previously listed, into account before attempting to install the equipment stand. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are also subject to the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. If data indicated that a device such as an equipment stand exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, such as from sharp edges resulting in injuries during crashes, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall. I also note that, apart from the issue of whether the equipment stand itself posed any safety risk to vehicle occupants, it is possible that the means of installation could create problems. The manufacturer should ensure that the recommended means of installation would not result in such things as the seepage of vehicle exhaust gases into the passenger compartment or weakening of the metal floor pan. I hope this information is helpful to you and your client. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.