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: aiam5192OpenMr. 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 17, 1993 regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Both questions relate to S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, which was added by the final rule to read as follows: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1. Your two questions and the answer to each follows. 1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21, Notice No. 2 proposed the use of 'one inch wide' retro-reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a 'minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape.' The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a 'minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape.' Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro-reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide. Based on your description, the conversion of 1 inch in S5.5.3(c) to 3 centimeters (cm) resulted in a .46 cm increase in the minimum size retroreflective tape which must be used. You also note that 3 cm retroreflective tape is not commercially available. You are correct that there is a discrepancy between the NPRM and the final rule about the size of the tape. Pursuant to Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801, July 29, 1991), the agency converted U.S. units of weights and measurements to 'metric equivalents' in the November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49413, 49422). The term 'metric equivalents' was used by the agency because the metric conversion was not intended to result in a substantive change of the final requirements. The .46 cm increase in the tape size was thus inadvertent. In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. 2. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that 'each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter.....' The retro- reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening. In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retroreflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape. You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape, and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retroreflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear push out window or rear door), for two reasons. First, you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivets, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off. NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six inches. When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1978OpenClark Brown, Esq., Richards, Watson, Dreyfuss & Gershon, 615 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017; Clark Brown Esq. Richards Watson Dreyfuss & Gershon 615 South Flower Street Los Angeles CA 90017; Dear Mr. Brown: This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1975, in which yo request an interpretation that roof vent covers in recreational vehicles are excluded from the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. Further, you ask our interpretation of the extent to which States may procedurally regulate the conformity of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment with Federal safety standards.; We have reviewed the extensive brief you submitted in relation to th applicability of Standard No. 205 to recreational vehicle roof vent covers manufactured by injection molding, and have determined that roof vent covers fall within the purview of the Standard. Nevertheless, we concur in your view that roof vent covers manufactured by the injection molding process are not susceptible to testing under the procedures found in USAS Z26.1. Consequently, we intend to issue in the near future proposed rulemaking which would establish a surrogate testing procedure for this type of roof vent cover. Until this new procedure is adopted, the NHTSA intends to take no action against manufacturers who do not certify that their injection molded roof vent covers meet the requirements of Standard No. 205 which incorporate the requirements of USAS Z26.1.; With respect to State action concerning the conformity of moto vehicles and equipment to motor vehicle safety standards, we are currently reviewing our position in light of a suit brought last month against the State of Pennsylvania. We shall advise you when a conclusion has been reached.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3945OpenAB Tunaverken, Narjeholmevagen 18, S-633 46 Eskilstuna, SWEDEN (Sverige); AB Tunaverken Narjeholmevagen 18 S-633 46 Eskilstuna SWEDEN (Sverige); Dear Sirs: This responds to your recent letter to this office seeking informatio about this agency's requirements applicable to the importation of rims for use on trucks and buses. You were particularly interested in learning the requirements for you to use the DOT symbol on your rims, and asked what technical support the agency would need to make that determination.; All rims for use on trucks and buses which are imported into or sold i the United States customs territory must satisfy Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.120, copy enclosed). This standard specifies two requirements applicable to these rims. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims mounted on a new vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle. That is, the rims size must be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer. This requirement is the sole responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will be mounted on the rim.; The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim b marked by the rim manufacturer with five specified items of information. These are:; >>>(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim' published nominal dimensions,; (2) The rim's size designation and, in the case of multi-piece rims the rim type designation,; (3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the ri manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards,; (4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark or symbol, and; (5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.<<< You stated that you were interested in knowing the requirements for yo to mark your rims with the symbol 'DOT.' The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity test the rims to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the Untied States, the individual rim manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with all applicable standards. In the case of rims for use on trucks and buses, Standard No. 120 contains all the applicable requirements. The certification need not be based on actual tests, the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Obviously, with respect to the requirements for rims for use on trucks and buses, no testing is necessary since the standard only sets marking requirements for those rims. Once the manufacturer determines that these rims satisfy those requirements, it marks the symbol 'DOT' on the rims.; If either your company or this agency determines that the imported rim do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 or determine that the rims contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company would be required to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Section 154 (a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if the rims fail to comply with Standard No. 120 or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect of noncompliance and must either:; >>>(1) repair the rim so that the defect or noncompliance is removed or; (2) replace the rim with an identical or reasonably equivalent rim tha does not have a defect or noncompliance.<<<; Whichever of these options is chosen, the rim manufacturer must bea the full expense and cannot charge the rim owner for the remedy if the rim was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.; Additionally, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which appl to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This requires either the actual manufacturer of the rims or your company as the importer to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to the agency within 30 days of the date these wheels arrive in the United States.; The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, *Procedural Rules*. Thi regulation requires that actual manufacturer of these rims to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agency for service of process in this county. Your company may be designated as the agent, if the manufacturer so chooses. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agency must contain the following six items of information:; >>>1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and bindin on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address of your company,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed b the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.<<< This designation must be received by this agency before these wheel and rims are imported into the United States.; If you need further information, or a clarification of any of th information set forth herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4629OpenMr. William L. Dunlap Engineering Manager Philips Industries, Inc. Dexter Axle Division 500 Collins Road Elkhart, IN 46515; Mr. William L. Dunlap Engineering Manager Philips Industries Inc. Dexter Axle Division 500 Collins Road Elkhart IN 46515; "Dear Mr. Dunlap: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.120, copy enclosed). I apologize for the delay in this response. You stated that your company manufactures rims that you sell to other wheel manufacturers. These wheel manufacturers combine your company's rims with center disc sections of their own design to produce finished wheels for use on light trucks and trailers. Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 specifies that each rim shall be marked with certain information. You asked whether your company, as the rim manufacturer, or any subsequent manufacturer that uses your company's rims to produce complete wheels is required to mark the rims in compliance with section S5.2(c). The answer is that the rim manufacturer is responsible for those markings, as explained below. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), the Safety Act) specifies that 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any ... item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' In this case, section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 requires certain markings to appear on all newly manufactured rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. These requirements became effective August 1, 1977. Thus, section 108 of the Safety Act makes it illegal for any person to 'manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any rim manufactured on or after August 1, 1977 designed for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars unless that rim is marked in accordance with section S5.2 of Standard No. 120. Your company would violate this provision of the law if you were to sell light truck rims without the required markings, even if the party to whom you sold such rims was going to use the rims to produce completed wheel assemblies. You suggested in your letter that your company's markings on its rims used by other manufacturers to produce completed wheel assemblies may be misleading or unfair, because your company has no control over the integrity of the completed wheel assemblies. This may represent a misunderstanding of the meaning and purpose of the required rim markings. The markings and certification required on rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars by section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 provide information about only the rims, not the entire wheel assembly. In your letter, you indicated that other wheel manufacturers simply add center discs to your company's rims to produce completed wheel assemblies. In these circumstances, the accuracy of the markings and certification put on a rim by your company as the rim manufacturer would not be affected by another manufacturer simply adding a center disc to that rim to produce a completed wheel assembly. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3416OpenMr. Richard J. Izzo, Vice President, Superior Pontiac, Inc., 5201 Camp Road, Hamburg, NY 14075; Mr. Richard J. Izzo Vice President Superior Pontiac Inc. 5201 Camp Road Hamburg NY 14075; Dear Mr. Izzo: This responds to your letter of March 25, 1981, regarding Safet Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. You ask whether paragraph S4.1.4 of the rule, the 'highlighting' requirement, would be satisfied by placing a sticker bearing the number '55' in the appropriate location on the outside of the glass covering the speedometer. You were previously informed by agency staff that it is necessary to put the sticker inside the glass in order to comply with the standard. In a subsequent phone conversation with Joan Griffin of my office, you stated that you are importing new and used vehicles from Canada.; The information you received earlier is incorrect. As the term is use in paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 127, 'highlighting' refers to any method of placing emphasis on the numeral '55' so that it stands out from the other numerals on the mph scale. The standard does not specify how this is to be accomplished. Thus, it is not necessary for you to place the '55' sticker on the inside of the speedometer glass to comply with the standard. It will suffice if you put the sticker on the outside of the glass. However, we would prefer it if you put the sticker inside the glass, since it then would be more difficult to remove the sticker from the vehicle.; In your conversation with Ms. Griffin, you asked whether the use vehicles that you import from Canada must be brought into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards before they can be brought into the country. Used vehicles that are imported into the United States must be brought into compliance with all Federal safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. However, the vehicles do not have to be brought into compliance *before* they are imported. Nonconforming vehicles may be imported if the importer executes a bond for the value of the vehicles and brings the vehicles into compliance with all applicable standards within 120 days of the date of importation.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have any questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1581OpenMr. George Semark, Safety Engineer-Vehicles, Sheller-Globe Corporation, 2885 St. Johns Avenue, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. George Semark Safety Engineer-Vehicles Sheller-Globe Corporation 2885 St. Johns Avenue Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Semark: This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1974, inquiring as t the applicability of Part 581, the proposed bumper standard (39 FR 25237), to buses, specifically school buses.; The standard, as proposed, applies to passenger motor vehicles othe than multipurpose passenger vehicles. These vehicle categories are used in the standard as they are defined in Section 2 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513). The Act defines passenger motor vehicles as those vehicles with motive power designed to carry 12 persons or less, except motorcycles and trucks not designed primarily as passenger carriers. Multipurpose passenger vehicles are defined as passenger motor vehicles constructed either on a truck chassis or with features for occasional off-road use. Buses, which are defined at 49 CFR Part 571.3 but not in the Cost Savings Act, are motor vehicles designed to carry more than 10 persons.; The application section of the proposed bumper standard excludes fro coverage passenger carrying vehicles designed to seat 12 persons or less when they are either constructed on a truck chassis or possess features for off-road operation. Any vehicle defined under 49 CFR Part 571.3 that is designed to carry 11 or 12 passengers would, for the purposes of Part 581, be classified as either a multipurpose passenger vehicle or a passenger vehicle. If such a bus meets the multipurpose passenger vehicle definition it would be excepted from the standard's coverage. However, if the bus has neither features for occasional off-road use nor a truck chassis it would be subject to the Part 581 bumper standard.; A school bus is a subcategory of bus, and it would be subject to any o the requirements of the proposed bumper standard applicable to buses in general.; Thank you for your inquiry. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4279OpenThe Honorable Floyd D. Spence, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Floyd D. Spence U.S. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Spence: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from you constituent, Mr. George Seaborn of the South Carolina Association of School Superintendents, concerning Federal regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.; In his letter to you, Mr. Seaborn expresses his concern about a Federa regulation that 'excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than 10 persons from use by schools.' Mr. Seaborn explains that it would be difficult for school districts to comply with a restriction on van use since large vans are extensively used for pupil transportation. He believes that schools should be permitted to use vans since those vehicles are safe for transporting passengers other than school children.; I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our school bus regulations. A explained below, there is no Federal prohibition directed against schools or school districts which prevents them from using vans carrying 11 or more persons. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all 'school buses.' The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date.; The parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act are the manufacturers an sellers of new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act requires each person selling a new 'school bus' to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a van designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) is a 'bus,' and is a 'school bus' if intended for transporting students to and from school or related events.; A person may sell a new bus (including a van designed to carry 10 o more persons) to a school or school district provided that the vehicle meets our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.; Because our regulations apply only to the manufacture and sale of ne motor vehicles, we do not prohibit school districts from using their large vans to transport school children even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. Matters relating to motor vehicle use are determined by state law. However, in the event a South Carolina school district decides to buy a new school bus, we would like the district to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under the Vehicle Safety Act to sell complying school buses. The seller should know that he or she risks substantial penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold as a school bus.; Since Mr. Seaborn is interested in transporting students in vans, would like to clarify a few additional matters concerning our school bus regulations. In his letter to you, your constituent expresses a belief that large vans (i.e., buses) should be safe for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the Schoolbus Amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that special measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportation. Fifteen-passenger vans (i.e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent performance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency exits, windows and windshields and seating systems.; New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may b sold to school districts to transport their pupils to school related events. School districts may also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, because such vans are considered 'multipurpose passenger vehicles' (MPV's) and not 'buses' or 'school buses' under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require them to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Instead, they must meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's which also provide high levels of passenger safety.; I hope this information is helpful. We have provided similar letters t Representatives Robin Tallon and Butler Derrick who contacted us on behalf of Mr. Seaborn. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance to you and your constituents.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4783OpenMr. William Shapiro Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. William Shapiro Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh NJ 07647; "Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter about the built-i child seat Volvo has designed for the center rear seating position. The built-in seat uses the vehicle's lap-shoulder safety belt to restrain the child. I regret the delay in responding. You indicated in a telephone conversation that Volvo is considering designing the seat solely for children who weigh more than 50 pounds. Such a seat is not subject to the requirements of Standard 213 because the seat is not a 'child restraint' as that term is defined in the standard. Paragraph S4 of Standard 213 defines a child restraint system as 'any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds.' The agency would determine whether your built-in seat is designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds by considering available indications of the manufacturer's design intent, e.g., the physical suitability of the seat for use by children who weigh less than 50 pounds, and the manner in which the seat is labeled and marketed. The agency would look to see whether the seat is clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by the system. We would also consider any indications in Volvo's marketing efforts and point of sale materials regarding the size and age of child that the seat is designed to restrain. Finally, we would consider any size and age information included in the vehicle's owner manual. You also indicated Volvo may consider designating the seat as suitable for children weighing more than 40 pounds. If the seat were so designated, it would no longer be a seat designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds, and therefore be a child restraint system subject to Standard 213. You ask whether, if Standard 213 applies to your seat, the standard permits such a seat. You state that the seat would meet the labeling and performance requirements of the standard. You believe that Standard 213 permits the seat because the final rule that amended 213 to set requirements directly applicable to built-in seats (53 FR 1783, January 22, 1988) said that paragraph S5.4.3.3 of the standard allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness system. You are correct that the standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Paragraph S5.4.3.3 provides, in part, that 'each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child' must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 (i.e., provide upper and lower torso restraint, and a crotch restraint (for seats for children weighing over 20 pounds), of a specific form). The definition of a 'child restraint system' specifically excludes the vehicle's lap/shoulder belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language of S5.4.3.3, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems applies only to seats that have belts, and not to a seat such as yours that uses the vehicle's belt system. Please note that Standard 213 sets limits on knee excursion for built-in seats (S5.1.3.1(b)). Thus, although your seat is not required to have a crotch strap, the seat must be designed to prevent a child from sliding excessively forward and down, legs first ('submarining'). The agency would like to emphasize its concern that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the lap belt should be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis of a child, the area of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. We cannot determine from your drawing whether the vehicle lap belt would be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. The instructions for the proper use of the built-in seat that are required by S5.6.2 of the standard should inform users how to properly adjust the belt system, so to avoid submarining and imposing impact loads to the child's abdomen. The agency is also concerned that the sitting height of some children who may occupy the seat might not be high enough for the shoulder belt to be properly positioned when attached. Instead, the belt might pass in front of the child's neck or face. For those cases, if no other option is available, NHTSA believes that the shoulder belt should be placed behind the child's back. We recommend that you include information in the printed instructions about such adjusting of the shoulder belt for small children. As a reminder, NHTSA will use these adjustment instructions per S6.1.2.3.1 to position the three year old dummy in the seat if the agency tests the seat in its compliance program. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3046OpenMr. Paul Schuil, 27 Seneca Avenue, Emerson, NJ 07630; Mr. Paul Schuil 27 Seneca Avenue Emerson NJ 07630; Dear Mr. Schuil: This responds to your recent letter asking whether smoked, tinted an mirrored windows may legally be used on vehicles operating on U.S. highways.; The Federal requirements for glazing materials on motor vehicles ar set forth in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205). This standard specifies performance requirements for the various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each glazing type may be used. Smoked, tinted and mirrored glazing may be used in certain vehicles in certain locations. For example, smoked glass may be used in side windows of trucks and buses. However, glazing material for use in any vehicle at levels requisite for driving visibility (e.g., windshields) must have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. Most smoked glass would not pass this requirement. I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 205 for your information. If you have any questions after reviewing the standard, contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3553OpenJerry Manzagol, Director, New Mexico Transportation Department, Motor Vehicle Division, Manuel Lujan Senior Building, Santa Fe, NM 87503; Jerry Manzagol Director New Mexico Transportation Department Motor Vehicle Division Manuel Lujan Senior Building Santa Fe NM 87503; Dear Mr. Manzagol: This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1982, requesting th approval of the revised New Mexico odometer disclosure for use in lieu of the Federal odometer disclosure statement. In October 1981 you submitted New Mexico's proposed odometer disclosure statement to the agency for approval for use in lieu of the separate Federal odometer form. The agency reviewed the form and determined that it could not be substituted for the Federal form unless the third alternate certification was rephrased to comport with the requirements of the Federal odometer law and the transferee's signature was added.; The agency has reviewed New Mexico's revised odometer disclosur statement and has now determined that it can be substituted for use in lieu of the Federal odometer disclosure statement.; If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.