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: aiam0260OpenMr. Louis C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Engineering Staff, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. Louis C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Engineering Staff General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter to Mr. Toms of October 15, 1970, i which you asked whether General Motors could provide one consumer information document to fleet purchasers of motor vehicles, rather than putting a booklet in each car as is done in the usual case.; The answer is yes. 49 CFR 575.6(a) requires that the information b provided 'to that purchaser', 'at the time a motor vehicle is delivered' to him. It does not require that the information be in the vehicle, or that there be one booklet per vehicle.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5432OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; "Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994 requesting an interpretation of how the term 'daylight opening,' as used in a recent amendment of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, would apply to various exits (57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020, December 2, 1992). Your letter references a March 24, 1994 interpretation letter to Mr. Bob Carver of Wayne Wheeled Vehicles. That letter discussed the term 'daylight opening' as follows: The term 'daylight opening' is defined in the Final Rule as 'the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.' An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the 'maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit,' we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. Your letter states that this interpretation represents a drastic change in what we understood from the wording of the final rule ... and what we were told by Rulemaking. We believed and were told that the definition of daylight opening applied to the exit opening itself and did not involve access to the opening. Access to and obstruction of openings are addressed later in the standard in section S5.4.2 School Bus Emergency Exit Extension. Before answering your specific questions, I would like to respond to these statements. You are correct that S5.4.2 includes requirements related to access to, and obstruction of, exits in that it specifies the minimum opening and the minimum amount of access required for various exits. However, the issue of minimum opening is separate from the issue, addressed in S5.2.3, of the maximum amount of area credited for any opening. Section S5.2.3 specifies the number and type of exits required on school buses. This section states: The 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. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening. Thus, S5.2.3 specifies the maximum amount of area credited for any opening. An interpretation of the term 'daylight opening' that allowed credit for the exit opening, regardless of obstructions, would be contrary to the plain language of the definition of that term. Giving credit for obstructed areas would also be contrary to the intent of the final rule, which is to increase the area on larger buses which is available for exit in an emergency. With respect to your report of receiving an oral interpretation from agency staff, I would also like to emphasize that, to the extent the public has any questions concerning the meaning of any NHTSA standard or regulation, the only agency interpretations which are authoritative and which therefore can be relied upon by members of the public, such as manufacturers, are those issued in writing by the Chief Counsel. We have reminded agency staff not to make formal, or informal, oral statements that might misinterpreted by manufacturers as official agency guidance on which they may safely rely. Your letter states that the March 24 interpretation 'raises other questions regarding the various school bus emergency exits.' Your questions and the response to each follows. By way of background information, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Rear Emergency Exit Door a. Section S5.4.2.1(a)(1) ... requires unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 30 centimeters deep. It is our rationale and interpretation that a seat back or other interior component that lies forward of this 30 centimeter deep parallelepiped is not an obstruction to the rear emergency door and would not result in a reduction of the area credited to the rear emergency door. (See figure 1a) Is this interpretation correct? In the case of a rear emergency exit door, the depth requirement in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) reflects a determination that an interior component outside that limit does not render the exit unusable. Therefore, an interior component outside the area bounded by the transverse vertical plane of the exit opening, the two longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the sides of the exit opening, and the transverse vertical plane parallel to and 30 centimeters away from the plane of the exit opening would not be considered an obstruction for determining the area of 'daylight opening.' b. School buses are typically equipped with 39-inch (99 cm) wide seats. At the rear emergency door, one of the rear seats is typically shifted forward to provide the clearance required by S5.4.2.1(a)(1). The other rear seat is typically allowed to be near or against the rear wall of the bus to fully utilize the available seating floor space and to provide maximum knee clearance. When viewed from the rear, this seat protrudes into the door opening, and according to the (March 24) interpretation ..., the area of the obstruction would not be credited to the exit. Following the logic of the interpretation, the area of the seat itself and the area above the seat could not be credited. We disagree with the logic of the interpretation that door exits are only used by movement along the floor. If the bus is on its side or top, the exit must be used from different approaches. It is therefore our logic and interpretation that only the actual area obstructed (i.e. the area of the seat and the area below the seat) cannot be credited to the exit. For the case in question, the area above the seat can be used in many accident scenarios and therefore can be credited as 'daylight opening.' (See figure 1b) Is this interpretation correct? You are correct that emergency doors will be used by people moving along an interior surface other than the floor if the vehicle is on its side or roof following an accident. As stated in the March 24 interpretation, in determining the amount of daylight opening, you should not credit any area which 'cannot be used for exit purposes.' In the case of the seat illustrated in incoming letter from Wayne, the area over the seat is 6.12 inches by 12.5 inches. However, in reviewing that letter in light of your question, we now agree that the area over the seat may be usable in some accident scenarios. For your exit, neither your letter nor figure 1b provide dimensions of the area over the seat. If the area is large enough to be usable in an accident scenario, that area can be credited towards the daylight opening. c. The rear emergency door on Blue Bird school buses is hinged on the outside, and the top portion of the door is angled forward when the door is closed. When the door is opened and held in the open position by the device required by S5.4.2.1(a)(3)(i), the door protrudes into the exit opening when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. It is our understanding, based on the interpretation of reference 3, that the protrusion of the door now constitutes an obstruction and the area of the obstruction cannot be credited to the exit area. (See figure 1c) Is this understanding correct? This is correct. Emergency Window Exits The seat backs of school bus seats can protrude into the lower region of side window exit openings. Side window exits when the bus is upright may be used by climbing over the seats. If the bus is on its side or top, the side window exits may be used from different approaches. Since areas of sufficient size above, in front of, and behind a protruding seat back could be used for different parts of the body, (i.e. head, knees, legs) when crawling out a side window exit in different vehicle orientations, it is our logic and interpretation that only the actual area of the seat back in the side window exit opening and the smallest area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edges of the exit opening constitute obstructions and cannot be credited to the exit. (See figure 2) Is this interpretation correct? In your illustrations, the area obstructed by the seat back protruding into the window opening clearly cannot be credited to the daylight opening. Whether area above or forward or rearward of the seat back can be credited depends on whether the size of the area is sufficient to be used in exiting the vehicle. Any of these areas which permits passage of the ellipsoid proposed in a December 1, 1993 notice of proposed rulemaking indicates that these areas clearly should be credited (58 FR 63321, see proposed S5.4.2.1(c)). NHTSA proposed this because it believed it reflected the minimum size window which could be used as an exit. If not cut off by obstructions from other unobstructed areas of the daylight opening of the window, as viewed in a plan view, it may be possible that smaller areas should also be credited. In all of the illustrations in figure 2, the seat back extends less than halfway up in the opening. Therefore, it appears that the area above the seat would be credited. We also agree that if the seat protrudes near the front or rear edge of the window opening, it is unlikely that the area between the seat back and the nearest edge of the opening would be usable. However, one of your illustrations shows the seat back protruding near the center of the window opening. In such an instance, it may be possible that the area on each side of the seat back is large enough to be usable. For example, a person might use the window by climbing over the seat, with either their legs straddling the seat, or their head and torso over one side of the seat and their legs over the other. Side Emergency Exit Doors Following the logic presented above regarding the use of emergency exits in different vehicle orientations, we disagree with the interpretation that area A2 (an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat) ... is not usable. In fact even when using the side emergency door when the vehicle is upright, a person would likely lean over the seat back and hold on to the seat, thus using area A2. Figure 3 enclosed is drawn more to scale than the illustration used in (the March 24 interpretation). We suggest the Agency review this illustration, conduct field research by using the exits in real buses, and then reconsider the interpretation ... regarding side emergency doors. We recommend that area A2 be credited as 'daylight opening' for a side emergency door. As explained in our response to question b on rear emergency exit doors, the area above some seats may be large enough to be credited toward the daylight opening. Front Service Door a. The lower portion of the grab handle on many school bus front service doors protrudes into the exit opening when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. (See figure 4) Based on the (March 24) interpretation ..., we understand that this protrusion now constitutes an obstruction. Is this understanding correct? This is correct. b. The front service door of most school buses leads to a stepwell and steps used to enter the bus. On front engine transit style school buses, the steps are typically angled to the rear and the riser to the first step is just a few inches inboard of the door opening. It is our logic and interpretation that steps in a stepwell do not constitute an obstruction and their presence does not reduce the area credited to the entrance door opening. (See figure 4) Is this interpretation correct? The steps provide the means of using the door, allowing a person to move between the ground and the floor level of the bus. They do not 'block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access' of occupants descending to the front service door. Therefore, although they are visible in the doorway when the doorway is viewed in a plan view, the steps are not obstructions within the meaning of the definition of daylight opening. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0630OpenMr. Robert Waggoner, c/o ABCO Insurance Brokers, P.O. Box 1066, Reseda, CA 91335; Mr. Robert Waggoner c/o ABCO Insurance Brokers P.O. Box 1066 Reseda CA 91335; Dear Mr. Waggoner: This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1972, requestin information on 'a new law effective January 1, 1972, that makes it mandatory that manufacturers of truck bodies and those repairing such items must now certify their product.'; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1381 *et seq*.) has required since January 1, 1968, that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment certify that the products they manufacture comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.101 *et seq.). The 'new law' to which you refer is actually regulations issued pursuant to Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) which amended existing regulations specifying the method by which manufacturers are to certify compliance. These regulations are the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) and the regulations governing 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages' (49 CFR Part 568). I have enclosed copies of both for your information.; These regulations apply to manufacturers and distributors of moto vehicles as defined in the regulations. They only apply to manufacturers of truck bodies if such manufacturers install the truck bodies on chassis, thus completing the vehicles. The regulations do not apply to one who only repairs truck bodies.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1922OpenMr. Jim Koester, Dairy Equipment Co., P.O. Box 1289, Madison, WI 53701; Mr. Jim Koester Dairy Equipment Co. P.O. Box 1289 Madison WI 53701; Dear Mr. Koester: This responds to Dairy Equipment's April 3, 1975 request for discussion of what constitutes the manufacture of a trailer in cases where used components from an existing vehicle are involved.; In response to a similar request from the Truck Trailer Manufacturer Association, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently prepared a comprehensive discussion of this subject, a copy of which is enclosed for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4673OpenLarry S. Snowhite, Esq. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. 1825 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006; Larry S. Snowhite Esq. Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo P.C. 1825 Eye Street NW Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Showhite: This replies to your letters asking for determination 'that the sale into the aftermarket as well as aftermarket installation of the Advanced Brake Light Device ('ABLD')...would not violate' any of this agency's statutes or regulations. As you have described it, the ABLD 'consists of a sensor attached to the accelerator pedal that senses the rate at which the foot releases the accelerator pedal. This signal is sent to a processor unit, which determines whether the brake lights should be turned on, and the duration of the illumination until the brake is applied. The ABLD is set so that the brake light will go off unless the brake is applied within one second of the ABLD's activation....' You believe that this avoids providing a misleading signal. You further indicate the manufacturer's willingness to alter the time interval if NHTSA's favorable opinion is required for it. You have not defined the term 'aftermarket', but we shall assume that you mean sales to vehicle owners of equipment for installation on their vehicles (as contrasted with sales to dealers for installation on new vehicles before their delivery). There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to the system described in your letter. This means that there are no Federal restrictions upon the importation, manufacture, or sale of the ABLD. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (specifically, l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), as you surmise, modifications to vehicles by a person other than the vehicle owner are permissible as long as they do not 'render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device...installed on...a motor vehicle...in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....' The essential question then is whether the installation of the ABLD renders partially or wholly inoperative the vehicle's stop lamps. As you know, in our interpretations on lighting equipment, we have noted a close relationship between the statute's rendering inoperative prohibition for the aftermarket with the standard's impaired effectiveness prohibition for supplementary original equipment. Primarily, maintaining that relationship is done in order to avoid regulatory inconsistency with interpretations under which installation of an item of aftermarket equipment might be deemed acceptable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while its installation as original equipment would violate Standard No. 108. There are two types of supplementary original, or aftermarket, lighting equipment: those that operate independently of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires, and those that operate in connection with that equipment. A separate red rear fog lamp would be an example of the former. The ABLD is an example of the latter, because it has a direct effect upon the operation of the stop lamp. An aftermarket device that has an effect upon the operation of required lighting equipment cannot be deemed permissible unless that effect is consistent with the operation and purpose of the required equipment. As you stated, the SAE defines a stop lamp as one whose function indicates 'the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking'. You have argued that 'The ABLD is consistent because it 'clearly and unambiguously indicates' an operator's intent to apply the brake. Your client, however, does not make that claim for the ABLD, it concedes that 'there will be circumstances in which the brake will not be engaged after the ABLD is activated.' The heart of our concern is that while the standard requires the stop lamp to operate in only one particular circumstance, the ABLD causes the stop lamp to operate at an earlier time when the lamp is supposed to be unlighted. Further, the ABLD's activation of the stop lamp indicates only that the operator has released the accelerator. It does not necessarily follow that the brake pedal will later be applied. Under this fact situation, the stop lamps fulfill a purpose other than for which they are installed. This can only create the potential for confusion and dilution of the effectiveness of the stop signal. For the reasons stated above, we have concluded that installation of the ABLD in the aftermarket would render the stop lamps partially inoperative. Because this conclusion does not depend upon whether the ABLD would be acceptable using the different parameters of performance to which it is apparently capable of being adjusted, there appears to be no reason to discuss this matter with you before completion of this interpretation, which would further delay our response. We would like to discuss several other points. You have stated that 'Illuminations of the brake lights for one second or less occur frequently during normal driving without the ABLD', and have sought to allay our concerns with the manufacturer's willingness to reduce the stop lamp activation time from one second to something less if that is required for a favorable interpretation. You have also provided information that the ABLD comes into operation only when the foot is released from the pedal at a rate consistent with an intent to apply the brake, as in an emergency situation. While we appreciate these arguments, we do not find them persuasive. The short periods of illumination to which you refer are occasioned by application of the brake pedal, no matter how brief that application is. The offer to reduce the activation time of the ABLD if it is not followed by a brake application would reduce but not eliminate stop lamp activation for purposes other than to indicate a stop or diminished speed. As for foot-movement time, there appears to be no indication in the University of Michigan study that you submitted that the ABLD was activated in traffic emergencies. The foot-movement time measurements seem consistent with removal of the foot from the accelerator under ordinary traffic situations, and thus there should have been no instances of ABLD activation. Your most recent letter contained a copy of a report of an independent field study of the ABLD in Israel, which 'found that rear-end accidents were reduced by 75 percent.' However, the report states that the ABLD-equipped vehicles ('except a few') were also equipped with center high-mounted stop lamps. Since any reductions in rear-end accidents that were experienced by the test fleets cannot be attributed solely to the ABLD, the data must be viewed as inconclusive. The acceptability for use of the ABLD must also be determined under the laws of the individual States. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you get in touch with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for further advice. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4389OpenMr. James R. Thompson, Vice President of Marketing, Dutcher Motors, Inc., 100 Western Maryland Parkway, Hagerstown, MD 21740; Mr. James R. Thompson Vice President of Marketing Dutcher Motors Inc. 100 Western Maryland Parkway Hagerstown MD 21740; Dear Mr. Thompson: This letter responds to your inquiry concerning classifying a vehicle the 'TransiTaxi,' which your company manufactures. You inform us that although in 1985 you classified this vehicle as a bus, you now have a question whether this is a proper classification. You state that you use Ford truck components in your vehicle design, and describe your vehicles as larger than the Ford Bronco.; You state further that if you must classify this vehicle as 'passenger car,' you would find it 'financially impossible to go through the crash-testing procedures required.' You ask us to consider issuing either an interpretation or an exemption, cite your maximum annual production of only 500 units as factor, and offer to bring a 'demonstrator' vehicle to Washington. You enclose specifications with your correspondence that say the standard 'TransiTaxi' seats a maximum of seven passengers.; First, please understand that under our certification requirements (4 CFR 567) for the vehicle safety standards, a manufacturer initially determines a vehicle's type using the definitions set out in 49 CFR S571.3, and certifies that the motor vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. However, a manufacturer's classification does not bind the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; Under S571.3, a ''Bus' means a motor vehicle with motive power, excep a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' Since your vehicle is designed to carry a maximum of seven passengers, it appears that your vehicle is not a bus.; Your specifications indicate your use of design elements associate with a truck chassis. For example, the front twin I-beam suspension (coil springs) is designed for trucks, and the ground clearances and curb weight more nearly match truck specifications than for other types of; PAGE 2 WAS INADVERTENTLY MISSING FROM THE ORIGINAL Finally, if you wish to certify your Transitaxi as a bus, you may wis to consider using a larger chassis suitable for completion with the requisite seating capacity.; I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1471OpenMr. J. P. Koziatek, Director, Technical Services, Questor Juvenile Products Company, 771 N. Freedom Street, Ravenna, OH 44266; Mr. J. P. Koziatek Director Technical Services Questor Juvenile Products Company 771 N. Freedom Street Ravenna OH 44266; Dear Mr. Koziatek: This responds to your April 9, 1974, petition to substitute th proposed performance requirements for child harness testing under Standard No. 213, *Child seating systems*, for the performance requirements of Standard No. 209, *Seat belt assemblies*, to which Questor's Model 275 child harness is presently subject. As reasons for the substitution, you cite the inappropriateness of attachment hardware requirements (S4.3(c)) and the configuration of the test device (Figure 7) of Standard No. 209 as well as the desirability of testing to dynamic performance requirements which may become a part of Standard No. 213.; The Standard No. 213 dynamic test values which you recommend are onl proposals at this time. Interested parties have not had a full opportunity to comment on them and the NHTSA has not, of course, had the opportunity to fully evaluate them. For these reasons your petition to substitute these new dynamic tests for the Standard No. 209 static tests is denied.; You state that testing of the Model 275 to the assembly performanc requirements of Standard No. 209 (S4.4(c)) is complicated by the configuration of the test device for Type III harnesses, which is not suited to test a child harness such as the Questor NO. 275 that utilizes the adult front lap belts and the rear adult lap belt or the package shelf as attachment points.; Paragraph S5.3(c) (2) of Standard No. 209 directs that in such a cas 'attachment shall be. . .in accordance with the [manufacturer's] installation instructions'. As adherence to Model 275 installation instructions requires a front and rear adult belt installation (and in some cases a package shelf) the use of an actual vehicle bench seat in a passenger car would be an appropriate method to evaluate the assembly under S4.4(c) of Standard No. 209. Moreover, because the 12-inch extension requirement for an assembly tested under S4.4(c) is based on zero deflection of the test device, the actual vehicle seat should be modified to eliminate deflection.; The NHTSA has previously determined that the requirements of S4.3(c) o Standard No. 209 do not apply to bolts used to secure an adult upper torso restraint, other than the continuous loop type. Similarly, we interpret this provision not apply to the child harness upper torso restraint described in your letter. The bolts would be regulated with respect to strength only by the assembly performance requirements of S4.4(c).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4223OpenMs. Dixie Hawkins, Mid-South Motors, Inc., 2617 Scottsway, Memphis, TN 38115; Ms. Dixie Hawkins Mid-South Motors Inc. 2617 Scottsway Memphis TN 38115; Dear Ms. Hawkins: This is in response to your letter of September 17, 1986, in which yo asked for a determination from the Agency concerning the Tennessee Certificate of Title and the Federal odometer disclosure requirements, 49 C.F.R. Part 580. The Tennessee title cannot be used in lieu of a separate odometer disclosure statement.; The title fails to meet the regulatory requirements because it does no include a space for the buyer's signature. This Agency considers the signature to be essential. It is an acknowledgment that the purchaser is aware of the mileage and prevents the purchaser from later alleging that he was not informed of the mileage or that the mileage was different from that appearing on the title. Furthermore, the buyer's signature is important to investigative and prosecutorial efforts.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration allows the use o the abbreviated disclosure statements such as those which appear on the Tennessee title. Although a shorter disclosure might sacrifice clarity to a degree, the Agency regards this as an acceptable price for gaining the benefits of a combined title and odometer disclosure. When the odometer has been repaired or replaced, the box on the title which should be checked depends on the circumstances surrounding the repair or replacement. If the mileage indicated on the odometer remained the same as before repair or replacement, you should check the box which states:; >>>I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odomete reading as stated above reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle described below.; <<>>I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odomete reading as stated above is not the actual mileage of the vehicle described below, and should not be relied upon.<<<; If you have any questions do not hesitate to call Judith Kaleta a (202) 366-1834.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1021OpenMr. J. W. Kennebeck, Manager, Safety and Development, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. J. W. Kennebeck Manager Safety and Development Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This is in response to your letter of February 26, 1973, in which yo asked a question concerning the relationship of the seat belt interlock and warning system required by Standard No. 208.; You asked whether the informative warning system, required by S7.3.5. to operate when the driver turned the ignition to 'start' position and 'the operation of the seatbelt systems required by S7.4.1 to start the engine has not been performed', is required to operate when the driver turns the ignition to start under the 'free start' provisions of S7.4.3.; The answer is no. The 'start' warning of S7.3.5.4 is only required t operate when a seatbelt operation 'required to start the engine' has not been performed. When the engine is free to start under S7.4.3, the warning is not required. Of course, if the driver puts the vehicle in gear, the warning must sound under the provisions of S7.3.1 if the required seatbelt operations have not been performed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1534OpenMr. Frank R. Schubert,Heavy Vehicle Systems Group,The Bendix Corporation,901 Cleveland Street,Elyria, Ohio 44035; Mr. Frank R. Schubert Heavy Vehicle Systems Group The Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria Ohio 44035; Dear Mr. Schubert:#This responds to your April 29, 1974, request fo approval of your banding designs to meet the requirements of Standard No. 106, *Brake hoses*,for labeling brake hose assemblies.#The NHTSA interprets a band a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. From these statements, you should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of any design.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant 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.