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: aiam4598OpenMs. Karen E. Finkel Executive Director National School Transportation Association P.O. Box 2639 Springfield, VA 22152; Ms. Karen E. Finkel Executive Director National School Transportation Association P.O. Box 2639 Springfield VA 22152; "Dear Ms. Finkel: This responds to your recent letter to my offic asking whether school buses used by school bus contractors regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must have push-out windows, even when those buses are used for purposes other than school transportation. The answer to your question depends on the effect of our and FWHA regulations on the vehicles in question. We will only address the effect of NHTSA's requirements in this letter, and will ask FHWA to reply to you directly on FHWA requirements for push-out windows. Under NHTSA's requirements, the answer is no. As you know, the buses you describe would have to comply with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for school buses if they are sold as 'school buses,' i.e., for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. (49 CFR /571.3) The determination of the intended use of the vehicle would be made at the time the new vehicle is first sold to the 'school bus contractors.' Any person selling the new buses to the contractors who knows that the vehicles would be used as school buses would be required to sell complying school buses. Since vehicles need only meet the FMVSS's applicable to their vehicle type (e.g., 'school buses'), the school buses need not meet FMVSS's for non-school buses, even though the school buses might also be used for purposes other than school transportation. Conversely, any person selling a bus to a contractor knowing that the bus would not be so used, would not be required to sell a complying school bus. FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, does not generally require push-out windows for school buses, except a push-out rear window is required if a manufacturer decides to satisfy FMVSS No. 217's school bus emergency exit requirements by selecting the option (S5.2.3.1(b)) that calls for such a window. Further, FMVSS No. 217 does not require push-out windows for non-school buses. The agency proposed to require push-out windows for non-school buses early in the rulemaking history of Standard No. 217 (35 FR 13025, August 15, 1970), but decided against such a requirement because devices other than push-out windows appeared to be effective for emergency egress. 37 FR 9394, May 10, 1972. Thus, new buses sold to bus operators for non-school bus purposes need not have push-out windows under Standard No. 217. For your information, NHTSA has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR 44623, November 4, 1988) to review Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements for school buses. Among the issues under consideration by the agency is the desirability of a requirement for push-out windows. NHTSA is presently reviewing the comments received on the notice. A copy of the notice is enclosed. In summary, a new bus sold for purposes that include carrying school children must meet our FMVSS's for school buses. This is so even if the bus is also used for non-school purposes. Our FMVSS's for school and non-school buses do not now generally require push-out windows. We expect the FHWA will provide you with an interpretation of their requirements for push-out windows shortly. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1260OpenHonorable Dewey Bartlett, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Dewey Bartlett United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Bartlett: This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1973, forwarding to u correspondence from Mr. G. N. Nichols, President, Midwestern Products, Incorporated, Tulsa, concerning the applicability of Federal regulations to an air suspension auxiliary axle manufactured by Midwestern Products. According to the manufacturer's advertising brochure, this axle, the 'Micro-Air Retractable Safety Axle,' is intended to be used on pick-up and bobtail trucks, particularly in the recreational vehicle and related fields.; There are presently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards o regulations that apply to the manufacture of these axles. However, persons who install them on *new* pick-up trucks or other vehicle types (a 'new' vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is one that has not yet been sold to a user) may be considered as vehicle alterers under provisions of NHTSA certification regulations which are to become effective February 1, 1974 (Docket No. 72-27, copy enclosed), and would be required to affix to the vehicle the label described in section 567.7 of those regulations.; Midwestern Products should be aware of these requirements whether i installs the Micro-Air axle or whether the installation is done by other parties. In the former case Midwestern would be responsible for affixing the required label, and in the latter it should provide the relevant information for the label regarding weight ratings to the party making the installation.; The NHTSA does not maintain a mailing list to provide copies of NHTS notices and regulations. Copies are available as indicated on the enclosed sheet, 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.'; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1077OpenMr. Guenter Storbeck, Product Planning Manager, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Guenter Storbeck Product Planning Manager Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Storbeck: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1973, regarding th classification of the Volkswagen Model 131 (The VW Thing) for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; Based on a review of your letter and its enclosures, we accept you classification of the Model 181 as a Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4275OpenMr. Jeffrey L. Link Head, Certification Government Relations Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea, CA 92621; Mr. Jeffrey L. Link Head Certification Government Relations Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea CA 92621; Dear Mr. Link: This responds to your letter to Mr. Brian McLaughlin formerly with our office of Market Incentives, seeking an interpretation of the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to give you some general background information on the statutory provisions underlying the theft prevention standard. Section 602(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2022(a)) specifies that this agency shall promulgate a vehicle theft prevention standard that applies with respect to - (1) the covered major parts which are installed by manufacturers in passenger motor vehicles in lines designated under section 603 as high theft lines, and (2) the major replacement parts for the major parts described in paragraph (1). The term 'line' is defined in section 601(2) as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design.' Finally, section 603(d) of the Cost Savings Act provides that the Secretary may not render the standard inapplicable to any line which at any time has been subject to the standard, except if the line is exempted under section 605 because it is equipped with an effective antitheft device as standard equipment. With this background, I will now address the two statements in your letter. 1. A manufacturer that is not required to mark a 1987 line in accordance with the theft prevention standard, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the line is not an actual or likely high theft line, will not be required to mark a new 1990 line bearing the same name as the 1987 line, even if subsequent annual surveys of vehicle theft rates show that this line's theft rate is higher than the median theft rate. This statement is inaccurate in two important areas. First, when a line is modified from one model year to the next, NHTSA does not simply treat a new model year's line as a continuation of the previous model year's line even if both groups of vehicles have the same name. Indeed, the definition in section 601(2) does not allow the agency to do so. Instead, the statutory definition requires the vehicle groups to have both the same name and be similar in construction or design. The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be a front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the predecessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles. This means that your assumption that new vehicles carrying the same name as older vehicles will necessarily be treated as the same line is incorrect. Second, there is no statutory prohibition against the agency reclassifying a line it previously determined to be a likely low theft line as a high theft line, based on actual theft data, if the line was introduced into commerce after January 1, 1983. In your example, let us assume that NHTSA determined that the 1987 line was a likely low theft line, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 542. If actual theft data for 1987, 1988, and 1989 showed the line was in fact a high theft line, the Cost Savings Act does not forbid NHTSA from selecting the 1990 model year cars as a high theft line, even if the 1990 version of the line were just a continuation of the line from previous model years. Such a selection would obligate the manufacturer to mark the line in accordance with Part 541 beginning in the 1990 model year. For lines introduced into commerce on or before January 1, 1983, Congress specified the procedure to be followed to determine whether the line is high theft in section 603(a)(1)(A) of the Cost Savings Act. Lines that were not selected as high theft lines according to that procedure cannot be selected as high theft lines according to the procedures to be followed for lines introduced into commerce on or before January 1, 1983 and if the 1990 version of the line were just a continuation of the 1987 line, your understanding is correct. The agency cannot reclassify such a line even if subsequent theft data shows the line's theft rate is higher than the median theft rate. 2. A manufacturer that is required to mark a 1987 line in accordance with the theft prevention standard, because NHTSA has determined that the line is an actual or likely high theft line, will be required to mark a new 1990 line bearing the same name as the 1987 line, even if subsequent annual surveys of vehicle theft rates show that this line's theft rate is lower than the median theft rate. This statement if also inaccurate. For the reasons set forth above, the new 1990 line is not automatically treated as the same line as the 1987 line, even if it bears the same name. If it were not considered to be the same line as the earlier one, NHTSA would make a determination of whether the new 1990 lines was a likely high or low theft line, following the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 542. However, if the line were determined to be a continuation of the old line, and not a new line, your statement would be accurate. Section 603(d) of the Cost Savings Act prohibits the agency from rendering the standard inapplicable to any line which at any time has been subject to the standard, unless the line is exempted pursuant to section 605 of the Cost Savings Act and if, (1) the 1987 version of a line was subject to the theft prevention standard, and (2) the 1990 version of the line were deemed a continuation of the 1987 line, the 1990 version of the line must be subject tot he marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. If you have any further questions or need more information about this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika S. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1427OpenMr. Martin V. Chauvin, Chief, Carrier Inspection Section, New York State Dept. of Transportation, 1220 Washington Avenue, State Campus, Albany, NY 12226; Mr. Martin V. Chauvin Chief Carrier Inspection Section New York State Dept. of Transportation 1220 Washington Avenue State Campus Albany NY 12226; Dear Mr. Chauvin: This is in reply to your letter of January 7, 1974, inquiring whethe the words emergency door' may be used in lieu of emergency exit' under S5.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. You indicate that New York's regulations manual specifies the use of the words, emergency door,' and that a revised printing of the manual presently under way still contains this requirement.; While the NHTSA does not consider the phrase emergency door' to b synonymous with emergency exit (we do not believe push-out windows or other non-door emergency exits are appropriately marked emergency door'), we would not consider a bus to fail to conform to Standard No. 217 if its emergency doors were marked emergency door.' Emergency exits other than doors, however, must be marked emergency exit.; NHTSA standards apply only to vehicles manufactured after a standard' effective date. Standard No. 217 does not apply to buses in use that were manufactured before its effective date of September 1, 1973.; I point out that the provisions of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act dealing with preemption of State requirements (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) prohibit New York from enforcing its requirement that emergency exits be marked emergency door.'; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4625OpenMr. George A. Van Straten President Van Straten Heated Tail Light Co. Inc. Route l, Box 224 Baraga, MI 49908; Mr. George A. Van Straten President Van Straten Heated Tail Light Co. Inc. Route l Box 224 Baraga MI 49908; Dear Mr. Van Straten: This is in reply to your letter of July 12, l989 to this Office, requesting a copy of any agency correspondence with Thomas Gravengood, as well as an interpretation of Federal requirements as they apply to heated motor vehicle lamps produced by your company. Your company manufactures 'heated lights' which are intended to melt snow that accumulates on them in the winter months. In Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3, l989, to us he stated: 'All lights, lenses, and materials to assemble the heated safety lights have already been certified and passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have been advised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that there is no motor vehicle safety standard no. for heated lights. In order for us to do business at the O.E.M. level we require a letter of approval from you to us that we may pass on to our customers so they may start ordering and we may start producing.' We have no authority to 'approve' or 'disapprove' items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, an equipment manufacturer 'approves' each of its own products that are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard by certifying that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or (if it is a vehicle manufacturer), that the vehicle on which the lamp is installed, complies with the standards. However, we can advise you of the relationship of your product to Standard No. 108. This should prove helpful in dealings at the O.E.M. level. There are two types of O.E.M. lighting equipment: lamps that are required by Standard No. 108, and supplementary lamps that do not come under its coverage. Although your product literature indicates that the highmounted heated taillamp supplements the original equipment lamp, it is not clear whether the heated signal lamp serves as the required signal lamp or is a supplement to the original equipment. Accordingly, this letter discusses how Standard No. 108 treats both original required and original supplemental lighting equipment. If you are the manufacturer of original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed, the vehicle manufacturer, and not you, has the legal responsibility under the Act and Standard No. 108 of ensuring that the equipment complies with the standard, and of certifying that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a practical matter, however, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet Federal standards, but the 'certification' they may insist upon is not required by the Act. You are correct that there is no standard that applies to heated lamps as such. The Federal standard that applies is the one imposed by Standard No. 108 for the particular equipment item (taillamps or signal lamps in this instance). If you are manufacturing a lamp as an original equipment supplement to required original lighting equipment, the burden remains on the vehicle manufacturer who installs it. The only restriction on a supplementary lamp that Standard No. 108 imposes is that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S5.1.3, formerly paragraph S4.1.3). Your lamps 'splice into' the wiring for the taillamps and 'marker lamps', according to your product literature. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that this installation does not negatively affect the performance of the required taillamps and signal lamps, or otherwise impair its effectiveness. If the vehicle manufacturer determines that no impairment exists, then it may certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Observing that the product literature depicts the heated taillamp installed in the upper corners of a school bus body, we must also call attention to an additional provision of Standard No. 108. The location depicted is one that is frequently used for the clearance lamps required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 (formerly S4.4) forbids the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps. Thus, your lamp cannot optically combine these two functions if it is to be used as new vehicle equipment. Other enclosures to your letter indicate that at present the heated lamp is being installed on buses in use, that is to say, as non-original equipment. The requirements imposed by Standard No. 108 and the Act for aftermarket manufacturers of lighting equipment differ from those for original equipment. If the lamp you produce is intended to replace an original equipment certified lamp, it is considered replacement equipment. As a manufacturer of a replacement taillamp or signal lamp, the legal obligation to produce a complying equipment item falls squarely upon you, as does the certification responsibility. If the lamp is intended only to replace a supplemental lamp, you are not required to certify. However, there may be instances in which your lamp is interchangeable with original certified equipment, and even though you may not intend it as replaceable lighting equipment, you may encounter questions from state and federal authorities if it is not manufactured and certified in accordance with Standard No. 108. Finally, you should be aware of your responsibilities under the Act in the event that your products do not comply with Standard No. 108, or incorporate a safety related defect (an example would be the inability of the lens to withstand the heat produced during the lamp's operation without warping or cracking). If you or this agency determine that a noncompliance or safety related defect occurs in any item of replacement equipment that you manufacture, you have the obligation to notify purchasers, and to remedy the problem through repair, repurchase, or replacement of the item. With respect to original equipment, this obligation falls upon the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed. If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them. As you requested, we are enclosing a copy of Mr. Gravengood's letter of April 3. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0666OpenMr. L. D. Brown, Manager Truck Tank Division, Renick & Mahoney Division, Garsite Products, Inc., 10 E. Grand Bouldvard (sic), Deer Park, L.I., NY 11729; Mr. L. D. Brown Manager Truck Tank Division Renick & Mahoney Division Garsite Products Inc. 10 E. Grand Bouldvard (sic) Deer Park L.I. NY 11729; Dear Mr. Brown: This is in reply to your letter of March 8, 1972, concerning th application of Federal standards and regulations to airport refuelers. In a conversation with Michael Peskoe of this office on March 30, 1972, you amplified certain questions you asked in your letter, which are dealt with below.; Initially, you asked whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standard apply to airport refuelers. In the conversation of March 30, you indicated that these refuelers are similar to most tank trucks, and that while operated on or about airports, may frequently be driven on public roads such as perimeter roads between oil tanks and the airport. We would consider these vehicles to be motor vehicles within the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act because of their use on public roads, and would consider them to be trucks under the motor vehicle safety standards.; Your second question concerned the fact that, at present, curb weight of chassis furnished to you are not accurately reflected by the manufacturer's specifications, the latter generally being lower than the former. We indicated to you in our phone conversation that the Certification requirements which became effective January 1, 1972, will eliminate this problem by requiring manufacturers to provide gross vehicle and axle weight ratings.; Your third question concerns a chassis which you ordered before th Certification regulations became effective, on which you planned to install a specific tank. The chassis has now been delivered, and it has a GAWR for the rear axle which is 400 pounds less than the weight of the fully loaded tank. While the establishment of both GVWR and GAWR for the vehicle when completed is the responsibility of your company as the final-stage manufacturer, we would consider mounting the tank on this chassis without modifying the latter to accommodate the additional load to raise substantial questions as to the safety of the completed vehicle. If the chassis cannot be modified, we strongly recommend against installing the tank on it.; You ask how you can recognize chassis that have been manufactured afte January 1, 1972. Each such chassis, if an incomplete vehicle under the regulations, must be delivered to you with an 'incomplete vehicle document' specifying the date of manufacture. A chassis-cab manufactured before that date must bear a label stating its date of manufacture.; Finally, you ask whether in some situations the chassis manufacture can become the final-stage manufacturer. Sections 567.5 and 568.8 of the regulations provide for a situation where an incomplete vehicle manufacturer may assume all responsibility for the vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. In such a case the incomplete vehicle manufacturer will have the responsibility for certification otherwise borne by the final-stage manufacturers.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3949OpenRuss L. Bomhoff, Precision Pattern, Inc., 1643 S. Maize Rd., Wichita, KS 67209; Russ L. Bomhoff Precision Pattern Inc. 1643 S. Maize Rd. Wichita KS 67209; Dear Mr. Bomhoff: Thank you for your letter of April 18, 1985, concerning th applicability of our safety standards to a passenger van you are designing. Specifically, you asked whether you can install a stationary, side-facing passenger seat with lap safety belts. As discussed below, you can use such a seat with a lap safety belt, but its use would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 207, *Seating Systems*, 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. A copy of each of those standards is enclosed.; Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, thei attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat beck.; Standard No. 208 sets requirements for the installation of safety belt in motor vehicles. You stated that the vehicle you are designing is a passenger van that carries under 10 passengers. If your vehicle carries a total of 10 persons (9 passengers and a driver) it would be considered either a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), if it is manufactured on a truck chassis or has special features for occasional off-road use, or a passenger car.; If your vehicle is a passenger car, section 4.1.3(c) of the standar provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder safety belt) that conforms with Standard 209 and the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements of S7.1 and S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If your vehicle is a MPV, then S4.2.2, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds or less, or S4.3, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 or Type 2 safety felt that conforms to Standard No. 209.; Standard No. 210 sets performance requirements for safety belt anchorages in passenger cars, MPV's, trucks, and buses. The standard exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to the anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1974OpenMr. Robert L. Asbury, President, Premier Seat and Accessory Co., 2350 Pleasant Avenue, Hamilton, OH 45015; Mr. Robert L. Asbury President Premier Seat and Accessory Co. 2350 Pleasant Avenue Hamilton OH 45015; Dear Mr. Asbury: This is in response to your letter dated March 25, 1975, requesting a opinion as to whether safety helmets for firemen are covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*.; The answer to your question is no. Firemen's helmets are not designe primarily to protect their wearers in the event of a motor vehicle accident, but are intended to provide protection from falling debris and sparks while firefighting. Consequently, different design criteria apply and the designs commonly used differ rather greatly in appearance and performance from most motorcycle helmets.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5464OpenMr. Yoshiaki Matsui Manager, Legal & Homologation Section Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9 13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui Manager Legal & Homologation Section Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9 13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; "Dear Mr. Matsui: We have received your letter of November 16, 1994, t Patrick Boyd of this agency, asking for an interpretation of the final rule that amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on November 2, 1994. The rule amended S5.1.2(c) to specify, in pertinent part, that 'after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors . . . shall not show . . . haze that exceeds 7 percent . . . .' The amendment is effective November 1, 1995. You have presented two fact situations with respect to replacement reflex reflectors, and ask whether the amended haze requirement is applicable in each case. These are: 'First case - replacement reflex reflectors manufactured after the effective date, but the vehicle to which the reflex reflectors are fitted is no longer manufactured after the effective date.' Motor vehicle replacement equipment is governed by S5.8 of Standard No. 108. S5.8.1 requires that any reflective device manufactured to replace any reflective device on any vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies shall be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. Paragraphs S5.8.2 through S5.8.9 permit certain specified items of replacement equipment to be manufactured to original equipment specifications (e.g., earlier versions of SAE standards no longer specified for original equipment on motor vehicles), however, reflex reflectors are not included among them. This means that any reflex reflectors manufactured on and after November 1, 1995, whether original or replacement, must conform with the 7 percent haze limitation, regardless of the date of manufacture of the vehicle. 'Second case - Replacement reflex reflectors manufactured before the effective date, which may be fitted to a vehicle manufactured before or after the effective date. (In this case, the same type of vehicles are manufactured before and after the effective date continuously.)' A replacement reflex reflector manufactured before November 1, 1995, to replace a reflex reflector on a vehicle manufactured either before or after November 1, 1995, is subject to the requirement that the plastic materials used in them shall show no haze in a visual inspection after the outdoor exposure test because that is the requirement in effect at the time the replacement reflex reflector is manufactured. As a practical matter, it would appear to make no difference when the reflector was manufactured or to which specification. The amendment is not intended to change manufacturing techniques or composition of plastics materials in any way. Because it is impossible not to have some degree of haze at the end of the three-year test period, Standard No. 108 was amended to make it more objective and practicable, and the measured haze limit raised to 7 percent, at which point haze is visible to the naked eye. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht 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.