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: aiam0776OpenMr. Robert S. Jacobs, 5-J Manufacturing, 7000 S. Angora Road, El Paso, TX 79934; Mr. Robert S. Jacobs 5-J Manufacturing 7000 S. Angora Road El Paso TX 79934; Dear Mr. Jacobs: This is in response to your letter of June 20, 1972, requesting copie of Department of Transportation requirements regarding the manufacture of small boats, truck camper shells, camping trailers, and boat trailers. The NHTSA does have requirements regarding some of these components. All truck campers are required to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials,' while those campers designed for mounting on incomplete vehicles (as distinguished from those mounted on pick-up trucks) that are manufactured after September 1, 1972, must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, 'Door Locks and Door Retention Components.' Camping and boat trailers must conform to Standard No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.' In addition, manufacturers of these products (campers, trailers, etc.) must certify that their products conform to the standards in the manner set forth in the Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568). Information on how to obtain copies of NHTSA requirements is enclosed.; We have referred your request for rules and regulations regarding th manufacture of small boats to the United States Coast Guard, and have requested that they respond directly to you.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5574OpenMr. Michael A. Norman 2820 Nine Mile Road Richmond, VA 23233; Mr. Michael A. Norman 2820 Nine Mile Road Richmond VA 23233; "Dear Mr. Norman: This responds to your letter of June 30, 1995, wit respect to the 'Auto Truckers Courtesy Light.' This is the device that you discussed with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 29. You have applied to the Virginia Department of Transportation for evaluation of this product who will make a decision on July 13. We assume that you wish to know whether the product is permitted by Federal regulations. As we understand it from the description, photos, and drawings that you enclosed, the device consists of a large sign with a 'thank you' message that would be illuminated by two small amber lamps in the upper corners. The device could be mounted on the rear underride guard of a large truck or trailer, or on the rear cargo door. The purpose of the device is to enable the driver of the vehicle on which it is installed to show appreciation 'to a trailing motorist for blinking his lights to assist the truck operator in changing back to the right hand lane after passing.' In addition ' t he device operates with audio and visual indicators with three second automatic delay cut off.' You told Taylor Vinson that the intent is to sell this product in the aftermarket. As Mr. Vinson indicated, the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting (Standard No. 108) contains no specifications applicable to the manufacture and sale in the aftermarket of supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment such as this. This means that the device may be manufactured and sold without violating any Federal law administered by the Department of Transportation. There remains, however, the issue of whether its installation and use would violate a Federal proscription that forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from 'making inoperative' motor vehicle lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 (or equipment installed that was necessary to comply with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). With respect to supplementary lighting equipment, we generally ask ourselves whether the 'message' sent by required lighting equipment is likely to be made less effective if it and the device are used simultaneously. The effectiveness of the required lighting equipment is especially important with respect to oversized vehicles such as large trucks and trailers. With respect to your device, we foresee the possibility that the driver of a large vehicle on which it is installed might have to apply the brakes at the moment that the two small amber lamps are activated that illuminate the 'thank you' sign, thus impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamps (we would probably reach a different conclusion if the message was related to the brake lamps, i.e., if it said 'Stop'). Therefore, the installation of your device by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would appear to violate the Federal proscription against making safety equipment inoperative. The proscription, however, does not apply to the owner of the vehicle which, if a company, could have the device installed in its own private repair facilities, or if the owner is a person, by the owner. This means that the individual States in which the device is to be used may accept or reject the device as they determine to be appropriate. We are unable to advise you how the laws of the individual States would apply to the device, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to assist you (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1537OpenMr. J. W. Lawrence, Truck Group, White Motor Corporation, P.O. Box 91555, Cleveland, OH 44101; Mr. J. W. Lawrence Truck Group White Motor Corporation P.O. Box 91555 Cleveland OH 44101; Dear Mr. Lawrence: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of S5.3.1. of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*. That section permits certain vehicles to avoid the stopping distance requirement if their brakes conform to a retardation formula and values found in another section of the standard (S5.4.1).; The language of S5.3.1.2 makes clear that any truck in the describe category need not meet the stopping distance requirements if its brakes satisfy the retardation formula and values of S5.4.1, and therefore none of the exceptions found in S5.4.1 apply to vehicles subject to the requirements of S5.3.1.2.; This interpretation also appears in the preamble to Notice 2 of Docke No. 73-10, and is enclosed for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4735OpenMs. Marcia M. Avis 1697 Latham Birmingham, MI 48009; Ms. Marcia M. Avis 1697 Latham Birmingham MI 48009; "Dear Ms. Avis: This responds to your letter to this agency askin about Federal regulations that apply to 'an accessory seat pad' for booster seats and child restraint systems. I regret the delay in responding. Your letter describes your product as a fabric seat cushion which is intended to provide comfort and head support to a child when the child is sleeping in the restraint system. You state that the cushion would be 'held in place' on the seat with 'the strap system inherent to the booster seat along with the weight of the child on the seat.' There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for child restraint systems (Standard No. 213) applies only to new systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket seat-pad. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the seat-pad. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your seat-pads contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. If your product would be installed by commercial businesses instead of child seat owners, those businesses would have to do so in a manner consistent with section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The provision states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' Thus, this provision prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from installing your seat-pad if the addition of your product would negatively affect the compliance of a child restraint with Standard 213 and if the installing business were aware of that effect. There are elements of design incorporated in a child restraint system pursuant to Standard 213 that may be affected by installation of a seat-pad. For example, Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See paragraph S5.7 of Standard 213, referencing Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed).) Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with FMVSS No. 213. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108. In addition, Standard 213 sets crash protection requirements for all new child restraint systems. It is unclear from your letter whether the seat-pad has provision for passing the belt systems of a child restraint around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would likely be regarded as having knowingly rendered inoperative a Federally required element of design in child restraint systems, in violation of 108(a)(2)(A). The prohibitions of 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Nevertheless, this agency urges you to voluntarily ensure that your seat-pad would not render inoperative the crash protection and flammability resistance of any child restraint. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1167OpenMr. Ken Watts, Baruch Manufacturing Co., Box 385, Linden, New Jersey 07038; Mr. Ken Watts Baruch Manufacturing Co. Box 385 Linden New Jersey 07038; Dear Mr. Watts: This is in response to your request of June 9, 1973, for informatio concerning Standard 125, Warning devices. You inquire about the sale and use of non-conforming devices manufactured both before and after January 1, 1973, the preemption effect of this standard on State laws, use of an NHTSA recommendation in promotional literature, and the availability and content of Docket 4-2.; The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture of non-conformin devices on or after the effective date of Standard 125. This means a device manufactured before the effective date of January 1, 1974, may still be legally offered for sale after that date. Any non-conforming devices manufactured after January 1, 1974, would be subject to a penalty of up to $1,000 per device. In addition, the NHTSA could (1) seek an injunction to restrain further manufacture and sale, (2) order defect notification, and (3) recommend a recall campaign of those devices already sold.; The NHTSA takes no position on the issue of product liability i private litigation stemming from the use of 'old style' devices or conforming devices, and the NHTSA is not in a position to indicate to you the point of view of private insurance companies.; This standard preempts State law by establishing one set o requirements for warning devices without a self-contained energy source, and prohibiting any State standard that is not identical to the Federal one. It is unlikely that these devices could be prohibited in local use because no alternative can be legally manufactured after January 1, 1974.; The NHTSA does not recommend any particular product subject to th motor vehicle safety standard. To state or imply NHTSA approval of a particular device or recommendation of its use as motor vehicle standard equipment would be a misrepresentation. Each manufacturer must mark a warning device with the DOT symbol or the statement that the device complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (S5.1.4(c)).; Docket 4-2 is open to public inspection without any notice o application requirements between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (4:15 p.m. from now until July 9, 1973). It does not contain comprehensive material on State regulations. The Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, should be able to supply you with this information. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4365OpenMr. Ernest Farmer, Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Department of Education, Office of Commissioner, Nashville, TN 37219-5335; Mr. Ernest Farmer Director Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Office of Commissioner Nashville TN 37219-5335; Dear Mr. Farmer: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking how ou regulations apply to the refurbishment of used school buses. I would like to apologize for the delay in this reply. In your letter, you explained that the Tennessee Department of Corrections plans to use prison labor to 'refurbish' used school buses. The refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. You are concerned that this undertaking might conflict in some way with our regulations applicable to school buses, and posed five specific questions as to how our regulations would apply to your planned refurbishment.; Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide som background information. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*. (sic) gives this agency the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Thus, all new school buses must be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to school buses. Additionally, the Safety Act prohibits commercial establishments, such as repair businesses or school bus dealers, from performing modifications to school buses after they have been sold, if those modifications cause the used bus no longer to comply with the safety standards. As a general rule, however, vehicle owners are not subject to this prohibition, and are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the modified vehicle complies with the safety standards.; It is possible that a vehicle owner's modifications would be s substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle instead of just a modified vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when a modified truck or school bus has been so substantially altered that it is considered a new vehicle, we have set forth specific criteria in 49 CFR S571.7(e) of our regulations. In past interpretations of our regulations, NHTSA has applied S571.7(e) to school buses that are assembled combining new and used components, because school buses are typically manufactured with a truck chassis. Under S571.7(e), a modified school bus or truck is *not* considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission and drive axle(s) are not new *and* at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.; I will now address your specific questions in the order they wer presented:; 1. Has NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of schoo buses?; Yes, we have. As explained above, we have set forth specific criteri to allow refurbishers to determine whether a refurbished school bus is a new bus, subject to all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, or a refurbished used bus.; Further, while we encourage effective school bus maintenance programs we would be concerned if a refurbishment program has the effect of avoiding the replacement of obsolete school buses. The school bus safety standards do not apply to school buses that were manufactured before April 1, 1977. It is possible that a refurbishment program could be used to continuously recondition these old buses that do not comply with any school bus safety standards, and use them for pupil transportation. We believe that school buses complying with the Federal school bus standards are one of the safest means of transportation, and that school bus safety will improve as complying school buses replace older non-complying school buses. We certainly hope that school bus owners will ensure that their fleets are replenished with complying school buses.; In addition, I am enclosing a copy of a Federal Register notice w published on September 23, 1985, (50 FR 38558), which denied a petition for rulemaking from the Blue Bird Company concerning the remanufacture of school buses. In this notice, we expressly encouraged school bus operators to consider voluntarily meeting Federal school bus safety standards when they refurbish their school buses.; 2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer' certification?; The original school bus manufacturer's certification means that th school bus as sold was manufactured to comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification does not mean that a school bus continues to comply with the safety standards after it is sold, since that obviously depends on many factors beyond the manufacturer's control, such as maintenance, any accidents, any modifications, and so forth. Since the original manufacturer's certification is limited to the vehicle's condition at the time of sale, it cannot be 'voided' by any subsequent actions of the vehicle owner.; If you were asking whether a refurbisher is required to make a separat certification in addition to the original manufacturer's certification, the answer depends on whether the refurbished school bus is considered 'new' or simply refurbished, according to the criteria set forth in S571.7(e). If the refurbished school bus is new according to those criteria, the refurbisher is required to certify that the school bus complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and affix its own certification label to the school bus. If the refurbished school bus is not considered new, the refurbisher is not required to affix another certification label. Instead, the refurbisher simply allows the original manufacturer's certification label to remain on the school bus.; 3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to recertif all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?; The answer to this question depends on whether the refurbished buse are considered new under S571.7(e). If the buses are not new according to those criteria, no additional certification is necessary as explained above. However, the specification sheet for the refurbishment that was enclosed with your letter indicates that the refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. Every school bus that is equipped with a new engine or drive axle would be considered a new school bus, according to S571.7(e). Additionally, each school bus on which the engine, transmission, and/or rear axle are replaced with used components will be considered a new school bus, unless two of those three components came from the same vehicle. If your refurbishing constituted the manufacture of a new vehicle, the State of Tennessee would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles.; As explained above, each refurbished school bus that is new, accordin to the criteria of S571.7(e), must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. However, the manufacturer does not make any certification directly to the agency. Instead, the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to furnish a certification with the vehicle. We have promulgated a regulation that sets forth how each vehicle must be certified as complying with the Safety Act (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed). As you will see, this regulation requires that the manufacturer permanently affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed for your information an information sheet that describes generally the responsibilities of manufacturers of new motor vehicles.; 4. Is the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTS standards?; As explained above, the refurbishment program is permitted, provide that it complies with the applicable requirements.; 5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by th Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?; If the State of Tennessee engages in operations during school bu refurbishing that make it a manufacturer of new vehicles, according to S571.7(e), the State would be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Safety Act itself and this agency's regulations issued pursuant to the Safety Act. The State would also be responsible for remedying any vehicles that either do not comply with applicable safety standards or that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not provide advice on the State's potential liability under State law for manufacturing and refurbishing school buses. Therefore, you might wish to consult an attorney familiar with Tennessee law for information on these matters.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if yo have any further questions on this program.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4670OpenMr. W. Marshall Rickert Motor Vehicle Administrator Maryland Department of Transportation 6601 Ritchie Highway Glen Burnie, MD 21062; Mr. W. Marshall Rickert Motor Vehicle Administrator Maryland Department of Transportation 6601 Ritchie Highway Glen Burnie MD 21062; "Dear Mr. Rickert: Thank you for your letter seeking this agency' opinion as to whether the State of Maryland may amend its motor vehicle regulations to permit the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows, for individuals who may desire this for medical reasons. I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the legal principles that relate to your question. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA') is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that impose requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not 'render inoperative' any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows 'inoperative' within the meaning of Standard 205. This Federal prohibition is similar to that imposed by section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law, which provides: A person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle . . . in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of . . . the United States or of this State . . . unless the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administrator. The 'render inoperative' provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which aftermarket tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, although section 22-104 appears to preclude aftermarket tinting by any person if the result would be to reduce the level of light transmittance below 70 percent, Maryland may amend its rules or regulations to permit such tinting by individuals, for medical or any other reasons deemed valid by the State. However, Maryland has no authority to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the 'render inoperative' prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of Maryland law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements. In adopting Standard 205, NHTSA determined that a minimum light transmittance of 70 percent is necessary to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. This is the same level of light transmittance contained in the Safety Code of the American National Standards Institute. If, as your letter suggests, Maryland is considering permitting vehicle owners to modify their vehicles such that their windows will have a lower level of light transmittance, we would urge you to carefully consider the safety consequences of such an exemption. Please let me know if you need any further information on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1188OpenMr. Dennis C. Sullivan, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA 94106; Mr. Dennis C. Sullivan Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco CA 94106; Dear Mr. Sullivan: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1973, inquiring as to you responsibilities regarding the conformity and certification of motor vehicles on which Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG & E) performs certain manufacturing operations. You indicate that the operations involve 'body transfers,' in which used bodies are first removed from used trucks chassis, repaired and repainted, and then transferred to new cabs and chassis. The two questions you raise are:; >>>1) Must the vehicle comply with Federal motor vehicle safet standards at the time of the body transfer, and; 2) If not, need it comply at the time of sale to the public.<<< You indicate that your position is that you believe the answer to bot questions to be negative, that with respect to the first question, the vehicle need not conform nor be certified as conforming because no 'sale' of the vehicle has occurred, and with respect to the second question, you argue that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding used vehicles (Sec. 108(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. S 1397 (b)(1) appear to exempt these vehicles from conforming to the standards when they are sold.; We must disagree with both of your conclusions. We agree that th operations performed by PG & E, adding used bodies to new chassis, make PG & E a 'final-stage manufacturer' as defined in the Certification and Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568). The Certification regulations require that final-stage manufacturers who complete vehicles for their own use ascertain and certify conformity to all applicable standards as of the time the final-stage manufacturing operations are performed. We do not agree that section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)) applies only in connection with the sale of vehicles. That section also requires conformity with respect to the introduction and delivery for introduction of vehicles in interstate commerce. We have construed this language to include the use of any vehicle by its manufacturer on the public highways, even if the vehicle has not been sold. The responsibility for certification under the regulations is concomitant with the responsibility for conformity, and, similarly, is not dependent upon a vehicle sale.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, in our view, als requires a vehicle used by its manufacturer to conform to all applicable standards at the time of its eventual sale by that manufacturer. Our conclusion is based upon section 108(b)(1), which requires conformity until the first purchase of the vehicle for a purpose other than resale. where a manufacturer uses his own vehicles, that purchase would not take place until the manufacturer ultimately sells the vehicle. However, the NHTSA is aware that conformity of vehicle systems which deteriorate under normal use may be impossible to maintain, and as a matter of administrative practice does not consider it necessary for such a manufacturer to renew conformity when his use of the vehicle has been bona fide.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1472OpenMr. Douglas A. Hughes, Director of Transportation, Heavy & Specialized Carriers Conference of American Trucking Associations, 1155 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Suite 711, Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Douglas A. Hughes Director of Transportation Heavy & Specialized Carriers Conference of American Trucking Associations 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W. Suite 711 Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Hughes: This responds to your April 23, 1974, request for an explanation of th meaning and use of the term 'Gross axle weight rating' (GAWR) in Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The concept of GAWR and 'Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) ar interrelated, and the two terms are defined as follows:; >>>'Gross axle weight rating' or 'GAWR' means the value specified b the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.; 'Gross vehicle weight rating' or 'GVWR' means the value specified b the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.<<<; In both cases it is the manufacturer who specifies the values, and h is free to specify whatever values he himself decides are correct. Both the NHTSA in its compliance tests, and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety on the road, will judge the vehicle on the basis of the values assigned. Therefore it is in the interest of the manufacturer to assign values which accurately reflect the load-bearing ability of the vehicle and its suspension.; The sum of the GAWR's must at least equal the specified GVWR to avoi overloading the axle systems, and the GAWR sum may, of course, exceed the GVWR. Typically the manufacturer balances the commercial advantage of specifying a higher GVWR against the expense of higher GAWR's.; The GAWR is measured at the tire-ground interfaces which means that th tires, wheels, brakes and suspension components are included in the determination. Typically an axle assembly is rated by its manufacturer, who takes into account the braking ability of the axle to stop the load. Although this factor should always have been taken into consideration, the advent of Standard 121 may cause axle and brake manufacturers to reassess the values they have assigned to brake systems in the past.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4220OpenMr. Tsuyoshi Shimizu, Vice-President, MMC Services, Inc., 3000 Town Center - Suite 1960, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Tsuyoshi Shimizu Vice-President MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center - Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Shimizu: Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. You asked how the instrument panel impact protection requirements of S3 of the standard would apply to an occupant compartment interior described in your letter. In particular, you asked whether the 'center console' described in your letter would be considered a console assembly that is exempt from the requirements of S3.1 of the standard. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; S3.1 of the standard sets forth the head impact protection requirement for the instrument panel. S3.1.1, in turn, sets out several exemptions to the instrument panel performance requirements. S3.1.1(a), which provides that the performance requirements do not apply to 'console assemblies,' is the first exemption which is relevant to your design. As depicted in your letter, there is a short structure, which you referred to as the center console, that is mounted on the floor of the vehicle and is located primarily between the vehicle seats. The gear shift lever is mounted in this structure. Although the structure is connected to the bottom of the instrument panel, you pointed out that there is a 'gap,' which appears to be an indentation, between 'the instrument panel and the center console which makes the console and instrument panel area distinct and separate areas.'; The purpose of the head impact requirement is to ensure that portion of a vehicle's instrument panel which are mounted forward of the front seat and are likely to be struck by an occupant's head in a frontal impact provide adequate protection. Thus, the head impact protection requirements apply primarily to the upper portions of the instrument panel. As stated in an interpretation letter of January 12, 1983, to the Blue Bird Body Company, the agency considers the instrument panel to be the vehicle structure below the windshield used to mount a vehicle's gauges. Since the 'center console' described in your letter is a low-lying structure mounted on the floor and lies primarily between the vehicle seats, the agency would consider it to be a console assembly rather than a part of the instrument panel.; The second exemption which is relevant to your design is S3.1.1(e) o the standard. That section exempts areas of the instrument panel that are 'below any point at which a vertical line is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel.' The area labeled section B in your diagram is such an area and thus does not have to meet the performance requirements of S3.1. The exemption of S3.1.1(e) would also apply to the 'center console' depicted in your diagram, since it also lies below the point at which a vertical line is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel. The area labeled section A in your diagram is covered by the standard and thus would have to meet the requirements of S3.1; If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.