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: aiam3835OpenMr. Walter A. Genthe, President, Hella North America, Inc., P.O. Box 499, Flora, IL 62839; Mr. Walter A. Genthe President Hella North America Inc. P.O. Box 499 Flora IL 62839; Dear Mr. Genthe: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1984, with respect t the inclusion of other lighting functions in a replaceable bulb headlamp compartment. These functions could include parking lamps, turn signal lamps, or side marker lamps. The bulb used would meet Standard No. 108/SAE specifications for the function chosen and they would be incorporated into the compartment by a 'sealed attachment.' You represent that there will be no impairment of any function, and that the overall assembly will meet all photometric and environmental specifications. You have asked whether such a combination assembly is permissible under Standard No. 108.; The agency interprets Standard No. 108's specifications for replaceabl bulb headlamps as allowing only one bulb in a lamp assembly to be used for headlighting purposes. It is silent as to whether additional bulbs may be used to provide other lighting functions. This means that such a bulb is permitted.; Obviously the inclusion of a second bulb can affect the characteristic of the assembly, whether through heat build up, the introduction of contaminants through the junction of the bulb and assembly, etc. These problems would appear to be minimized under the assumptions set forth in your letter. We believe therefore that, under these conditions, an auxiliary bulb could be included in the headlighting compartment, provided that the assembly meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108 for each function. Problems that may develop in service would be subject to the safety related defects authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; If Hella proceeds with a multi-bulb design, we would like to reques that it share with us the types of tests it will be developing which it deems necessary to insure adequate safety performance, so that our knowledge of the art lamp technology may be broadened.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5148OpenMr. Steven C. Friedman Director of New Product Development Saddleman, Inc. P.O. Box 3656 80 West 900 South Logan, UT 84323-3656; Mr. Steven C. Friedman Director of New Product Development Saddleman Inc. P.O. Box 3656 80 West 900 South Logan UT 84323-3656; "Dear Mr. Friedman: This responds to your January 19, 1993, lette asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to 'tune' the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. Another Federal requirement that would affect a retrofit air bag is the 'render inoperative' prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. Please note that recently a manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide any crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants recalled its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true. I also note that, based on the product information you provided with your letter, NHTSA technical staff raised possible concerns about the air bag you are considering importing. The design differs from other air bags in two significant ways. First, while the crash sensor for air bag systems is normally located in the vehicle structure, yours is not. Second, while air bags generally are released toward the driver's chest from the steering wheel, your air bag would be released from above toward the driver's face and chest. For driver crash protection, the crash sensor of an air bag system must initiate deployment of the air bag early enough in a crash to position the inflated air bag between the driver and the steering wheel in time to cushion the impact. At the same time, it must not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. Given the ways in which the crash sensor of your system differs from other air bag systems, our technical staff questions whether it is possible for it to initiate deployment early enough in a crash to provide occupant protection yet not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. In addition, while the inadvertent deployment of any air bag system would raise safety concerns, the location of your air bag would increase those concerns, since it would appear to interfere with the driver's forward vision even after deflation. I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to get copies of these materials. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2377OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's July 20, 1976, questio whether the NHTSA's redefinition of 'school bus' (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975) includes buses designed for intercity transportation utilized in charter operation to transport school children to and from school or related events, and what constitutes 'interstate commerce' as that term is used in the redefinition. A second July 20, 1976, letter from Blue Bird Body requests reconsideration of two NHTSA interpretations of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*, that were issued in an April 26, 1976, letter.; The redefinition of school bus (effective April 1, 1977) states: >>>'School bus' means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstat commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.<<<; The definition is not intended to include intercity type buses o regular common-carrier routes, although they may be used in some circumstances to transport school students to and from school or related events. This bus type has never been considered a school bus under existing motor vehicle safety standards or Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17 (43 CFR 1204). In light of the major standard-setting activity undertaken by Congress for school buses under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (the Act) (15 UVS.C. S 1392(i), it is unlikely that such a broad change of regulatory direction would be contemplated by Congress without explicit discussion in the legislative history. The boundaries of coverage of the redefinition are explicitly left by the statute to agency determination, and the agency did not include the intercity buses you describe in the redefinition.; The meaning 'interstate commerce' in the redefinition is the same a for that term in S 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, which states that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import' non-complying vehicles. While the legislative history of the Act does not directly address the meaning of the term, the House of Representatives Committee Report stated:; >>>. . . The purpose of this section is to prohibit the manufacture sale, or importation into this country of vehicles . . . that fail to meet the Federal safety standards . . . (H.R. Rep. No. 1776, 89th Cong., 2d Sess 22(1966))<<<; The agency adopts the existing construction of the term set forth i *Katzenback v. McClurg*, 379 U.S. 294 (1974). To answer your specific question, however, it should be clarified that only the classification of the bus as a school bus is determined by the ambit of 'interstate commerce' in those infrequent cases where a sale does not occur. Blue Bird Body's responsibilities to conform to the standards arise directly from its manufacturing activities under S 108(a)(1)(A). For example, a bus built in Georgia must conform to the school bus standards if it is sold to a Georgia school for use in transportation of school students, even if it never leaves the State.; Your second July 20 letter requests reconsideration of the NHTSA' April 26, 1976, decision that the area of contact between headlining panels and the 'header' over the windows qualifies as a body joint subject to the requirements of the standard. You assert that the area of contact is not such a joint because it is covered by a molding and therefore does not 'enclose occupant space' and cannot be considered a 'surface component'.; 'Body panel joint' is defined in the standard to mean, with severa exceptions, the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component. Whether or not the joint itself is covered is not relevant to its status. The separate definition of 'body panel' does refer to the surface of the exterior or interior of the bus and to use of the panel in enclosing the bus occupant space. Thus, it is the body panel and not the joint which must form part of the exterior or interior surface of the bus. In the case you describe, the headlining panel does enclose the bus occupant space and constitutes a part of the interior surface of the bus. Thus it does form a 'body panel joint' at the point of contact with the header (a separate body component).; You also suggest that the requirements do not apply to a joint wher the edges of the body panel join a body component at a point other than at the edge of the body component. Your interpretation is incorrect. In the case you describe, the floor panel's edges form a right angle that is attached to a central portion of the tag panel at some distance from its edges. The definition of 'body panel joint' refers to contact between the edges of the body panel and another body component, without regard to the proximity of the edges of the body component.; You also request confirmation that a statement on rubrails in our Apri 26 letter is fulfilled by ensuring that, in testing a complex joint to which rubrails are fastened, the rubrails are modified so that they are not held by the gripping fixture of the tensile strength test machine. Your interpretation is correct.; In a related matter, the NHTSA would like to advise you of failure i our April 26, 1976, letter to respond fully to Blue Bird Body Company's February 13, 1976, letter. You asked if the cove molding that is attached at the border of the bus body floor against the sidewall of the bus body would qualify as a surface component whose edges form a joint subject to the standard's requirements. From your description of the cove molding and its use at the edge of the floor, the agency considers that it does not have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. A copy of your illustration of this component is attached for the benefit of interested persons.; Finally, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your July 28, 1976 letter to the Administrator, asking that the new definition of 'school bus' become effective on April 1, 1977, instead of October 27, 1976. Your request has been granted by a recent notice of rulemaking.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4470OpenMr. William B. Huber Senior Vice President Nuvatec/Inc. 3ll0 Woodcreek Drive Downers Grove, Illinois 605l5; Mr. William B. Huber Senior Vice President Nuvatec/Inc. 3ll0 Woodcreek Drive Downers Grove Illinois 605l5; "Dear Mr. Huber: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You stated that you manufacture an electronic instrument cluster for use with van conversions and class 'A' motorhomes and other vehicles. The gauges are of a bar graph type, and associated with each graph is an icon or symbol to indicate the graph function. During normal operation, the icons are illuminated to the same light intensity as the graphs. You stated that as an added feature, the icons blink when, and only when, that function becomes critical or dangerous, such as for low fuel, high temperature, low oil pressure, and low battery. You stated that some of your customers have expressed concern about using your instrument cluster because it may not comply with Standard No. 101, and you requested a formal opinion. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with Part 567, Certification. Persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers, distributers, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly rendering 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. Standard No. 101 (49 CFR Part 571.101) specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. The standard's requirements for displays are applicable only to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds. See section S5. For these vehicles, the gauges identified in your letter (fuel, temperature, oil pressure, and electrical charge) are displays regulated by the standard. The primary issue raised by your letter is whether the identification of gauges may flash. As discussed below, Standard No. l0l does not prohibit such flashing. Section S5.3.3 states: S5.3.3(a) Means shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions. (b) The means for providing the required visibility-- (l) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in S5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adopted to dark ambient roadway conditions. (2) May be operable manually or automatically, and (3) May have levels of brightness at which those items and their identification are not visible. (c) Effective September l, l989, if the level of brightness is adjusted by automatic means to a point where those items or their identification are not visible to the driver, a means shall be provided to enable the driver to restore visibility. (d) For a vehicle manufactured before September l, l989, the requirements of S5.3.3(b)(l) shall not apply to any gauge during the actuation of a telltale which shares a common light source with the gauge. Under section S5.3.3(a), means must be provided for making the identification of gauges, i.e., the icons or symbols in your design, visible to the driver under all driving conditions. The on-and-off cycling of the identification occurring during flashing would create momentary periods of time when the identification is not visible. However, it is our opinion that a flashing identification or other item is considered visible so long as it is visible during the on part of the cycle. This opinion is limited to the specific issue addressed above and does not constitute an opinion as to whether your electronic instrument cluster complies with Standard No. l0l. As you may know, several amendments were made to Standard No. l0l during l987. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the current standard. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure /"; |
|
ID: aiam1388OpenMr. J. E. Young, Supervisor, Safety Recall, Truck Division, International Harvester, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611; Mr. J. E. Young Supervisor Safety Recall Truck Division International Harvester 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60611; Dear Mr. Young: This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1974, and an earlie letter received from Mr. J. K. Smith dated December 14, 1973, forwarding to us for approval revised draft defect notification letters in International campaigns IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081), IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078), IH 73513 (NHTSA 730125), IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126) -- two drafts, IH 73520 (NHTSA 730207), IH 73521 (NHTSA 730208). You ask if the revised letters may be sent First Class mail as opposed to Certified mail.; We appreciate your efforts to comply with both the letter and spirit o the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577), but we find that your revised owner notification letters do not comply with the regulations. We deal with each notification separately below.; *IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081)*. The third paragraph of your letter appear to represent an attempt to comply with both S 577.4(c) requiring a description of the defect, and S 577.4(d), requiring an evaluation of the risk to traffic safety related to the defect. We find that this letter fails to adequately describe the defect as the phrase, 'unwanted vehicle speed' is vague, and consequently meaningless. Any speed in excess of the driver's input would be 'unwanted.' We believe to adequately describe the defect, the amount of unwanted speed should be quantified, at least in general terms. If, as quite likely, this may differ from vehicle to vehicle, we believe the letter should contain an indication of the most adverse case. In evaluating the risk you state that the condition can result in vehicle crash if not corrected by the driver. However, you do not indicate how the driver can correct the problem, and the facts as you present them, a jammed throttle linkage in a moving vehicle, seem to preclude any possibility that the driver can 'correct' the condition apart from somehow stopping the vehicle. Without a clear explanation, we believe that the reference to the possibility of correction is misleading. We do not, therefore, consider your statement to be responsive to the requirement of S 577.4(d)(1)(ii).; Section 577.4(e)(1)(ii) requires an estimate by the manufacturer of th day by which dealers will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect. Your letter states that most dealers have parts, but if they do not, that parts are 'usually' available at parts depots within 72 hours. We question the latter part of your statement, particularly as it appears in each notification letter you submit. The estimate must be a specific day, based on the facts of each particular campaign. The requirement assumes, because notification campaigns usually involve other than normal service items and apply to large numbers of vehicles, that manufacturers will take special steps to ensure the availability of parts. Your statement would be appropriate only if repairs can be accomplished using parts normally stocked by dealers, and your company is taking no special steps to supply parts to dealers (or parts depots). Even if this is the case, we believe your letter should include that explanation for your customers.; *IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078)*. We do not find this notification letter t comply with Part 577. In response to your question, the use of the words, 'may exist' in the first sentence of the second paragraph is not permitted under S 577.4(b), which calls for a precise statement. Your next sentence, indicating that the defect may not exist in each vehicle, is permitted under the regulations. Your description of the defect as some loss of 'stopping ability' fails to comply with S 577.4(c) for the same reason as the phrase 'unwanted speed' in campaign IH73505 (sic). The loss of braking power should be quantified, as the worst possible case if it varies from vehicle to vehicle. Our comments made with reference to IH 73505 regarding compliance with S 577.4(e)(1)(ii) are equally applicable here.; *IH 73513 (NHTSA 730125)*. This notification letter does not conform t Part 577 for reasons identical to those provided for campaign IH 73505, NHTSA 730081.; *IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126) 2 proposals*. We do not find the notificatio letter equating the defect with the violation of Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations to contain, for that reason, an appropriate description of the defect (S 577.4(c)) and we do not discuss that draft further. With respect to the the (sic) other draft, we do not find the description of the defect to be sufficient under S 577.4(c). Specifically, there is no explanation why the gas cap is incorrect, and how it can cause an explosion. In addition, the letter does not comply with S 577.4(e)(1)(ii) for the reasons provided in our evaluation of campaign notice IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081).; *IH 73520 (NHTSA 730207)*. This notification letter does not conform t Part 577 for reasons identical to those provided for campaign IH 73505, NHTSA 730081.; *IH 73521 (NHTSA 730206)*. This letter does not conform for reason similar to those provided for campaign IH 73503 (NHTSA 730078) and IH 73511 (NHTSA 730126). Specifically, to conform to S 577.4(c), the degree of additional brake pedal effort should be quantified, and an explanation should be provided on why the use of 'single wrap' brake hose can result in a loss of vacuum assist. Similarly, the letter does not conform to S 577.4(e)(1)(ii) for the reasons provided for campaign IH 73505 (NHTSA 730081).; The regulations require notification letters which conform to Part 57 to be sent Certified mail. Consequently, the revised letters must also be sent Certified mail.; Sincerely yours, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0960OpenMr. Satoshi Nishibori, Engineering Representative, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Liaison Office in U.S.A., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Liaison Office in U.S.A. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1972, concerning th definition of 'head impact area' in 49 CFR 571.3(b).; Your question is whether the lower portion of the dashboard depicted i your letter is within the head impact area. Without knowing the interior dimensions of the vehicle, we cannot give you a definite answer. We can, however, describe the circumstances under which the lower part of the dash might be within the head impact area.; Under paragraphs (a) through (c) of the definition, the test device i pivoted forward about specified centers until it contacts the vehicle. These contact points, which together comprise the head impact area, are divided into two groups, those above the lower line of the windshield glass (paragraph (b)), and those below (paragraph (c)). Although the measurement of the head impact area is a continuous process, the separation of the contact points into two groups was accomplished by paragraphs that are not parallel in structure. This has caused some confusion.; The intent of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition might have bee expressed in a single paragraph, reading as follows:; >>>With the pivot point to 'top-of-head' dimension at each valu allowed by the device and the interior dimensions of the vehicle, pivot the measuring device from a vertical position forward and downward through all arcs in vertical planes to 90 degrees each side of the vertical longitudinal plane through the seating reference point, until the head form contacts an interior surface or until it is tangent to a horizontal plane 1 inch above the seating reference point, whichever occurs first.<<<; In our opinion it would be appropriate for you to employ this procedur to determine whether any part of the lower dash pad in your drawing falls within the head impact area. The goal of your evaluation would be to determine whether it is possible for the test device to be pivoted downward so that it contacts the lower pad without first contacting the upper pad. If at a particular point the device contacts the upper pad, and if the device is at its minimum length of 29 inches and its pivot point is on the seating reference point, then the area of the lower pad directly beneath that contact point would not be contactable and would not be a part of the head impact area. If, however, there is a point at which the head form in its downward arc would miss the upper pad and contact the lower pad, the lower pad would at that point be within the head impact area. It is quite possible that some points on the lower pad would be within the head impact area, while others would not.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1672OpenMr. Raymond D. Martin, Jr., President, Tag-a-Long Trailers, Inc., P.O. Box F, Centreville, MD 21617; Mr. Raymond D. Martin Jr. President Tag-a-Long Trailers Inc. P.O. Box F Centreville MD 21617; Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your November 12, 1974, question whether th Tag-a-Long Models 105A-15 & 18, 105A-21, BBFD-25, BBSB-15, and BBSB-25 trailers qualify as 'Heavy hauler trailer(s)' which are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, until September 1, 1976. 'Heavy hauler trailer' is defined in S4. of the standard as follows:; >>>'Heavy hauler trailer' means a trailer with one or more of th following characteristics:; (1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension o the vehicle frame, or; (2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carryin surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent 'front-end structure' as that term is used in S 393.106 of this title.<<<; From the description you enclosed, it appears that the five models yo describe have primary cargo-carrying surfaces that are not more than 40 inches above the ground in the unloaded condition, and that they would therefore not be required to meet the standard until September 1, 1976.; I have enclosed a copy of the August 5, 1974, notice you requested. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4020OpenMr. R.A. Bynum, Associate Director, Pupil Transportation Service, Virginia Department of Education, P.O. Box 6Q, Richmond, VA 23216-2060; Mr. R.A. Bynum Associate Director Pupil Transportation Service Virginia Department of Education P.O. Box 6Q Richmond VA 23216-2060; Dear Mr. Bynum: Thank you for your July 31, 1985 letter to Administrator Stee concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength,* to your school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.; In a telephone call with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained tha Virginia wants to purchase new school buses for deaf and blind school children and plans to equip those buses with bathrooms. The bathrooms will be installed by a commercial shop after the State receives the vehicles from a dealer. You explained that the joints of the body panels enclosing the passenger compartment would comply with FMVSS No. 221. However, you asked us whether the panels covering the inside of the bathroom, comprising a 'Formica-type' material, must comply with the standard. As explained below, the answer is no.; Our safety standards and regulations are not applicable t modifications of motor vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles for purposes other than resale, with one exception. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides, in part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai 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...<<<; In your situation, section 108(a)(2)(A) requires the commercia business adding the bathroom to ensure that any device or element of design which was installed in compliance with Federal safety standards continues to comply with those standards after the work has been completed. For example, the installation of the bathroom compartment must not render inoperative the compliance of the school bus seats with FMVSS No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,* or the emergency exits with FMVSS No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release.* However, the joints of the panels would not have to comply with Standard No. 221 since the panels are being placed in a used vehicle. The agency does, however, urge persons making modifications to follow voluntarily our safety standards.; We would note that this agency has a set of different requirements tha would apply if the bathroom were added to a new school bus before its sale to you. In that situation, the person who installs the bathroom would be an alterer under our regulations, and required to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards, including FMVSS No. 221. (49 CFR Part 567.7); Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1222OpenMr. Robert E. Gross, 2111 W. 104, Cleveland, OH 44102; Mr. Robert E. Gross 2111 W. 104 Cleveland OH 44102; Dear Mr. Gross: Your complaint to the Federal Trade Commission dated June 8, 1973, ha been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which has responsibility for administering the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972.; Title IV of this Act prohibits the resetting of an odometer and i requires that a seller of a motor vehicle make a written disclosure of a vehicle's mileage to the buyer prior to transfer. From your statement it appears that the vehicle's odometer had been reset and that T & J Auto Sales failed to make the required statement.; There is no criminal liability under the Act for failure to conform t these requirements but there is a civil remedy available to you as a private party. If it can be shown that T & J reset the odometer after January 18, 1973, or failed to make the required statement with intent to defraud you, they may be liable to you for $1,500 without proof of any damages or for treble damages if they are greater.; You may wish to consult an attorney in this matter. A copy of th applicable provisions of the Act and the disclosure regulation are enclosed for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5261OpenMr. James E. Walker III Manager, LSI Laboratories Lighting Sciences, Inc. 7830 E. Evans Road Scottsdale, AZ 85260; Mr. James E. Walker III Manager LSI Laboratories Lighting Sciences Inc. 7830 E. Evans Road Scottsdale AZ 85260; Dear Mr. Walker: We are replying to your letter of October 4, 1993 with respect to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for taillamps. You believe that a discrepancy exists because paragraph S5.1.1 'requires equipment to be designed to Tables I, II you mean III , and S7, which references SAE J585e for the Tail Lamp,' whereas paragraph S5.1.1.11 'requires Table 1 of this specification to be substituted for the values achieved by Figures 1a and 1b, and in addition, to substitute Table 1 of SAE J585e by the values achieved by multiplying the percentages of Figure 1a by Table 1 and 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps.' You assume that the photometric requirements are those of Figure 1a, 1b, and 1c. Your assumption is correct. However, there is no discrepancy in the standard. The requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are set forth in Section S5. Paragraph S5.1.1 requires lighting equipment to comply with the SAE materials contained in the tables, except as may be provided in succeeding paragraphs of Paragraph S5.1.1. Tables I and III incorporate by reference SAE Standard J585e, Tail Lamps, September 1977. However, on March 3, 1993, NHTSA redesignated Paragraph S5.1.1.11 (with its references to Figures 1a and 1b) as S5.1.1.6, and revised it to include, among other things, the reference in paragraph S5.1.1.12 to Figure 1c. The same notice removed paragraph S5.1.1.12 from the standard. New Paragraph S5.1.1.6 states that instead of the photometric values specified in Table 1 of SAE J585e, taillamps shall comply with those of Figures 1a, 1b and 1c. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information, and hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.