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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam4424OpenEllen A. Lockwood, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney District of Guam Suite 502-A PNB 238 O'Hara Street Agana, Guam 969l0; Ellen A. Lockwood Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney District of Guam Suite 502-A PNB 238 O'Hara Street Agana Guam 969l0; "Dear Ms. Lockwood: This is in reply to your letter of September 24 l987, to Jim Marquez, the former General Counsel of this Department. You have asked about the applicability to the Commmonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI) of l5 U.S.C. l38l, and l9 C.F.R. l2.80. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l38l et seq., as you have noted, applies to the CNMI through Section 502(a)(2) of the 'Covenant to Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States,' and is a 'State' within the meaning of l5 U.S.C. l39l. This means that it is a violation of l5 U.S.C. l397(a)(1)(A) to import into the CNMI any motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As authorized by l5 U.S.C. l397(b)(3), the Departments of Transportation and Treasury issued joint regulations to enforce the importation prohibition of l397(a)(l)(A). As the authority of the Customs Service is limited to the Customs Territory of the United States, these regulations apply only to 'States' within this Territory. They do not apply to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the CNMI, 'States' that lie without the Customs Territory of the United States. It is our understanding that each of these 'States' enforces l397(a)(1)(A) within its borders through an Executive Order issued by the Governor, designating an appropriate local agency for this task. In the Virgin Islands, for example, the Department of Public Safety will not register any vehicle that lacks the label required by 49 C.F.R. Part 567 Certification certifying compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose representative copies of correspondence that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has had with the Virgin Islands and the CNMI on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0467OpenMr. James V. Blethen, 924 47th Avenue, N.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55421; Mr. James V. Blethen 924 47th Avenue N.E. Minneapolis Minnesota 55421; Dear Mr. Blethen: In your letter of October 21 to Mrs. Petruska, out docket clerk, yo ask whether your rearview mirror idea is 'legal or permissible.' My answer, of course, is restricted to the permissibility of such a mirror by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Federal Motor Vehicle SAfety Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors*, doe not apply to mirrors *per se* by specified requirements that must be met by rearview mirrors mounted in new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. There are no Federal safety requirements directly applicable to mirrors, and thus manufacture and sale of your rearview mirror is not prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle SAfety Act of 1966.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4977OpenMr. Lance Watt Director of Engineering The Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, Ohio 43105-2859; Mr. Lance Watt Director of Engineering The Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware Ohio 43105-2859; "Dear Mr. Watt: This responds to your letter of February 11, l992 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to several scenarios regarding the wiring and use of optional brake retarder transmissions on city transit buses manufactured by your company. In your current design, the retarder is designed so that it is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn illuminates the stop lamps. You have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 20. 1990, confirming that this design conforms to Standard No. 108, specifically S5.5.4 which states that 'The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes.' Since that time, several additional scenarios have presented themselves. First, some customers have requested that the transmission retarder be activated when the accelerator pedal is released, rather than when the brake pedal is applied. In this configuration, the stop lamps would not be illuminated, 'and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed', unless the service brakes were also applied. However, some customers wishing this option would like to have the stop lamps illuminated by the retarder, that is to say, when the accelerator is released. Second, some customers have also requested a retarder cut-off switch in order to disable the retarder during icy or slippery road conditions. In such a case, the stop lamps would also be activated at the time of accelerator release 'with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes.' To date, your company has resisted these requests, but these customers, without a specific NHTSA interpretation on the point, threaten to declare your company a nonresponsive bidder on transit bus procurements. You have asked whether a noncompliance with section S5.5.4 would result 'if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers.' The purpose of the retarder feature is to provide supplemental braking to city transit buses. This braking results in the deceleration of the vehicle. A stop lamp is defined by SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width as one that indicates 'the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking.' Whenever the brake retarder is activated with the intent of diminishing speed by braking, Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamps be activated. The only mandate of the standard (S5.5.4) is that when the service brakes are applied, the stop lamps must be illuminated. Nor does Standard No. 108 prohibit illumination of the stop lamps by release of the accelerator pedal followed by activation of the retarder. This is because the intention of the driver is to diminish speed by the braking action of the retarder. We distinguish this situation from the one in an interpretation provided Larry Snowhite, Esq. on January 25, 1990, in which a device activated the stop lamps whenever the accelerator pedal was released, regardless of the intent of the driver. Activation of the stop lamps initiated by release of the accelerator pedal is permissible only when the intent of the driver is to reduce the speed of the vehicle by an immediate subsequent act of braking, whether that is achieved through his use of the service brake system, use of retarders, or a combination of the two. However, a configuration where the stop lamps operate in the absence of service brake application or activation of a retarder system (as appears to occur when a retarder cut off switch has been activated) would be subject to S5.1.3 of the standard. This prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In this instance, the retarder cut off feature would permit the stop lamps to send the false signal that the operator intended to stop or reduce vehicle speed when, in fact, there was no intent to do so. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0037OpenMr. Tsutosu Nomiyama, Managing Director, Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., 18, 2-Chome Marunouchi Chiyoda- Ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. Tsutosu Nomiyama Managing Director Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association Inc. 18 2-Chome Marunouchi Chiyoda- Ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Nomiyama: In your letter to me dated November 25, you have raised severa questions relating to the status of Japanese motorcycles manufactured after December 31, 1967, and shipped to the United States without windshields.; Specifically you have asked: >>>'1. Is the . . .understanding [correct] that the importation o motorcycles not equipped with windowshields and/or any glazing material will not violate the . . . National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.'<<<; *Answer*: Your understanding is correct. Motorcycles are not require to be equipped with windshields, and conformity to Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 is required only if motorcycles are equipped with windshields.; >>>'2. In case motor cycles without glazing material are imported, wha shall motorcycle manufacturers do in respect to certificate requirements according to Paragraph 114 of the Act and the Notice of October 31, 1967.'<<<; *Answer*: No certification is required for motorcycles which ar imported without glazing materials.; >>>'3. If certification is not required for motorcycles not equippe with glazing material, would there be any problem at the time of importation at U.S. Customs offices that may naturally seek safety certification on all motor vehicles covered by the Federal Standards.'<<<; *Answer*: Under the proposed joint regulations promulgated by th Treasury Department (Bureau of Customs) and the Department of Transportation covering importation of motor vehicles manufactured after December 31, 1967, vehicles not bearing certification will be admitted upon a declaration by the importer or consignee that such vehicle was manufactured on a date when no standards applicable to the vehicle were in effect. To insure that there is no difficulty at the port of entry, it is contemplated that Customs officials will be notified that motorcycles without windshields may be admitted without certification. The proposed joint regulations were published in the *Federal Register* for November 30, 1967, and I enclose a copy for your consideration.; You have further asked: 'Would there be any particular procedures tha could be taken by Japanese motorcycle manufacturers in advance to avoid such a possibility.'; *Answer*: If the motorcycles are shipped in a manner in which they ar not readily visible, it might be advisable to stencil the shipping containers with a legend to the effect that the motor vehicle therein is not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., a motorcycle not equipped with a windshield). Of course, any glazing material shipped for subsequent installation on a motorcycle must bear appropriate certification.; I hope this sufficiently answers your questions. Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M. D., Director |
|
ID: aiam5235OpenMr. William C. Longo Chief Executive Officer Ram Off Road Accessories P.O. Box 63915 Los Angeles, CA 90063; Mr. William C. Longo Chief Executive Officer Ram Off Road Accessories P.O. Box 63915 Los Angeles CA 90063; "Dear Mr. Longo: This responds to your letter concerning possibl liability involved with marketing a product you manufacture, particularly with respect to installation of the product on vehicles equipped with Supplemental Restraint Systems (SRS), also known as air bags. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. In a June 16, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, Troy Wood explained that the products are aftermarket decorative sheet metal accessories that attached to the exterior of vehicles. Your company also makes replacement bumpers for vehicles. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, this letter will discuss Federal laws which might be affected by the addition of your products on vehicles equipped with air bags. Potential liability questions should be addressed to a private attorney who is familiar with tort law. 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 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. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. 'Automatic crash protection' means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles, therefore, if your products are installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with your product installed. However, as explained in the phone conversation with Ms. Versailles of my staff, we understand your products are intended as items of after-market equipment. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: 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. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing your product on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. For example, the installer would have to be careful not to activate a sensor while attaching your product, causing the air bag to deploy. Please note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your product on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3836OpenMs. Doris A. Lindley, Purchasing Agent, Hayes Equipment Corporation, P.O. Box 526, 150 New Britain Avenue, Unionville, CT 06085; Ms. Doris A. Lindley Purchasing Agent Hayes Equipment Corporation P.O. Box 526 150 New Britain Avenue Unionville CT 06085; Dear Ms. Lindley: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requestin information on the tire registration requirements applicable to your company as a manufacturer of new trailers. Per your request, I have enclosed a copy of the Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Savings Authorization Act of 1982. You also asked for confirmation that your company, as the manufacturer of trailers, has sole responsibility for keeping records of the tire identification numbers of the tires shipped as original equipment on trailers sold under your company's name. Your understanding is correct.; The responsibility of the various parties for recording and keepin records of the tire identification numbers of new tires are set forth in 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*. Section 574.10 reads as follows:; >>>Each motor vehicle manufacturer, or his designee, shall maintain record of the new tires on or in each vehicle shipped by him or a motor vehicle distributor or dealer, and shall maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires. These records shall be maintained for a period of not less than 3 years from the date of sale of the vehicle to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale.<<<; As you can see from this language, it is the vehicle manufacturer tha has the sole responsibility for keeping records of the tire identification numbers of the tires shipped as original equipment on or in the vehicle and records of the first purchasers of those vehicles for purposes other than resale. This responsibility remains even if the tires on the vehicle are changed by a vehicle dealer or distributor, unless that dealer or distributor voluntarily notifies the vehicle manufacturer of the tire change. As long as the vehicle is sold with the tires that were shipped with it as original equipment, dealers and distributors of the vehicle have no responsibilities for either registering the tires or keeping any records. Should those dealers and distributors substitute tires on the vehicle other than those shipped as original equipment, they would have some responsibility for registering the tires with the tire manufacturer, per section 574.9, but it would be the tire manufacturer that would be responsible for keeping the records, not the dealers and distributors.; Should you have any further questions relating to tire registratio requirements, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2724OpenMr. R. E. Billman, Project Engineer, AM General Corporation, 32500 Van Born Road, Wayne, MI 48184; Mr. R. E. Billman Project Engineer AM General Corporation 32500 Van Born Road Wayne MI 48184; Dear Mr. Billman: This responds to your October 17, 1977, request for confirmation tha the brake system of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus to be imported by AM General conforms to S5.1.4, S5.3.3, S5.3.4, S5.4, and S5.6.4 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. An October 17, 1977, letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to Mr. Shillinger of AM General has already answered your question concerning S5.1.2.3 of the standard.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)(A)) requires, among other things, that no person manufacture or sell any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard. As the manufacturer of AM General Transit buses, I am sure you are aware that this provision makes it impossible for the NHTSA to 'approve' the compliance of a brake system in advance of manufacture of the vehicle because there can be no certainty that the vehicle as manufactured will actually comply.; In response to your statement that the bus must be tested to S5.4, 108(b)(2) of the Act provides that S 108(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to any person who establishes that he did not have reason to know, in the exercise of due care, that a vehicle is not in conformity with an applicable standard. The NHTSA has always interpreted 'due care' to mean that a manufacturer is free to use whatever method is reasonably calculated to assure itself that its products, if tested, would conform to the standard's requirements. Thus, dynamometer testing of the brakes on each bus would not be necessary if the manufacturer can, in the exercise of due care, assure itself on a reasonable basis, such as engineering calculations, that its products are capable of complying with the standard.; The NHTSA can confirm that S5.3.1 specifies that the tested vehicle b capable of stopping at least once in six stops in the specified stopping distance, within the 12-foot wide roadway, and without lockup of any wheel above 10 mph other than 'controlled lockup.' Section S5.3.1 specifies 'no lockup' performance and can be met by any design, including one which incorporates 'load sensing devices' that provide the specified performance.; Section S5.1.4 specifies '[a] pressure gauge in each service brak system . . . that indicates the service reservoir system air pressure.' In the case of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus, each of the three service brake circuits must be monitored by a gauge readily visible to the driver. The agency takes no position on the wisdom of deleting pressure gauges that monitor brake chamber air pressure.; Section S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 specify minimum actuation and release time for the service brakes, measuring the time to achieve 60 p.s.i. during actuation and the time to drop from 95 p.s.i. to 5 p.s.i. during release. While these 60- and 95-p.s.i. benchmarks appear in the standard, an interpretation of them has been issued because at least one manufacturer is using a maximum air pressure that is less than the benchmarks. I enclose a copy of the clarification to answer your question.; Your question about S5.6.4 is unclear, but the NHTSA can confirm tha the control lever that you showed to the NHTSA appeares (sic) to be identified in a manner that specifies the method of control operation. As we understand it, the arrow suggesting clockwise rotation of the handle, in conjunction with the word 'park', are intended to identify how to apply the parking brake. This interpretation only addresses an arrangement in which parking brake release is the opposite of parking brake application.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0719OpenMr. H. Foegelle, 420 No. Sacramento Street, Super Mold, Inc., Lodi, CA 95240; Mr. H. Foegelle 420 No. Sacramento Street Super Mold Inc. Lodi CA 95240; Dear Mr. Foegelle: This is in reply to your phone call of June 6, 1972. Under Part 574 the tire identification number may be placed on the side of the top cap area or may be branded into the tire in accordance with the regulation. If the top cap area is used, the number should be as close to the side-wall as is feasible so that the number will remain legible as long as possible. Seetthe (sic) enclosed amendment on this subject (Docket No. 70-12, Notice No. 9).; Sincerely, David Schmeltzer, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2374OpenMr. Donald J. Gobeille, Jr., Product Engineering and Development, Volvo of America Corporation, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. Donald J. Gobeille Jr. Product Engineering and Development Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Gobeille: This is in response to your April 6, 1976, request for interpretation regarding certain sections of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, when applied to the continuous loop seat belt assemblies provided on current Volvo vehicles.; Paragraphs S4.4(b)(1) and (2) specify performance requirements fo components in the pelvic restraint and upper torso restraint portions of a belt system, tested separately and in combination. You ask for verification of your interpretation that the requirements for separate testing of pelvic and upper torso portions are inapplicable to a continuous loop seat belt, on the basis that this type system can never in real life be subjected to forces only in the pelvic restraint.' Your letter includes an illustration of your test apparatus for determining compliance with paragraph S4.4(b), and you request verification that your procedure is correct.; Section S5.3(b) of the standard sets forth the test methods that woul be used in a determination of whether a Type 2 seat belt assembly conforms to the requirements of S4.4(b). Paragraph S4.4(b)(1) specifies that the pelvic restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 2,500 pounds, and S4.4(b)(2) specifies that the upper torso restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 1,500 pounds. The Volvo continuous loop belt systems are subject to these requirements. A recent NHTSA interpretation letter to Toyo Kojyo (copy enclosed) on the same subject sets forth the responsibilities of the manufacturer in cases where the specified test procedures may not be entirely suitable to a new safety component design. In testing continuous loop belt systems for compliance with S4.4(b)(1) and (2), the agency has interpreted S5.3(b) to necessitate the use of a clamp in the same fashion as suggested by Toyo Kojyo to ensure that the force is applied to the appropriate portion of belt webbing and hardware. It must be understood, of course, that the NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturer's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification. It is impossible for the agency to foresee whether the various aspects of a particular test procedure will be conducted in a proper fashion, based solely on a written description of that test procedure.; In the second part of your letter you asked whether the buckle crus requirements of paragraph S4.3(d)(3) of Standard No. 209, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S5.2(d)(3), are applicable to Volvo seat belt buckles and, if so, whether Volvo's interpretation as to how the test should be conducted is correct.; It is true that the buckle requirements were originally included in th standard to guard against possible damage to the buckle caused by the steering wheel in a crash situation. Since the issuance of the standard, new seat belt assembly designs have been developed in which the belt buckle is located between the front seats. As you pointed out in your letter, these buckles are not likely to be contacted by the steering wheel in a crash situation.; In view of the significant design changes that have occurred, th agency has reconsidered its 1972 interpretation to United States Testing Company on this subject. Because it is unlikely that any of these buckles would be damaged by compressive forces in a crash, we have determined that the requirements are inappropriate. Therefore, we conclude that the existing S4.3(d)(3) buckle requirements are not applicable to buckles that are located between bucket seats and attached to the console or to the end of a rigid cable or bar.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0349OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Distributors Association, P.O. Box 11088, Cincinnati, OH 45211; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Distributors Association P.O. Box 11088 Cincinnati OH 45211; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in response to your letter of May 12, 1971, in which yo inquired about the responsibilities, under Parts 567 and 568 of the NHTSA regulations, of a company that sells small trailer chassis in kit form, to persons who assemble them, add bodies, and sell them to users. You discussed the questions by telephone with Richard Dyson of this office on May 21, and this letter confirms the answers that Mr. Dyson gave you then.; Since the unit sold by the company in question is not assembled, it i not an 'incomplete vehicle' within the meaning of Part 568, and the company therefore has no responsibilities under that part to provide information to subsequent purchasers. The person who assembles the kit and adds a body is, of course, a manufacturer, and must certify the complete vehicle under S 567.4 of the Certification regulations. It appears that this certifier would normally rely on the chassis kit seller to provide the basic information concerning the vehicle characteristics, and the assurance that when assembled according to instructions it will conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards, so that he can responsibly certify the vehicle. We assume that the chassis kit seller would provide this information as a commercial responsibility, although the relationship is not at present governed by NHTSA regulations.; Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
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.