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: aiam4854OpenMr. Ian A. Munro Tubex Pty., Ltd. 96 Station St. Nunawading VIC 3131 AUSTRALIA; Mr. Ian A. Munro Tubex Pty. Ltd. 96 Station St. Nunawading VIC 3131 AUSTRALIA; "Dear Mr. Munro: This responds to your February 8, 1991 letter to Mr John Messera of NHTSA's Enforcement Office about the air brake hose (tubing) you manufacture. Your questions have been referred to my office for reply. By way of background, NHTSA administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported into this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Standard 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to 'brake hoses' (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties of $1000 per violation, and the notification and remedy provisions of the Safety Act. I have enclosed a copy of the Safety Act for your information. Your first question asks how you would 'register' your hose and 'air coil connectors' with NHTSA. By 'register,' we believe you mean the process by which a manufacturer files a designation with NHTSA that identifies the manufacturer. The manufacturer's designation is marked on its hose, end fittings and assemblies, and assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturer of noncomplying or defective brake hoses. The filing and labeling requirements for the manufacturer designation are in S7.2.1 for air brake hose, S7.2.2 for end fittings, and S7.2.3 or S7.2.3.1 for assemblies. To 'register' your designation (which may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol), you would simply file the designation in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division at the following address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. You may telephone Mr. Vernon Bloom of the Crash Avoidance Division at (202) 366-5277 if you have questions about filing your designation. Your second question asks whether compliance with SAE Standard J844, 'Nonmetallic Air Brake System Tubing' is sufficient to be assured of compliance with FMVSS 106. The answer is no. Your hoses must be certified as meeting FMVSS 106 to be sold in or imported into this country. To determine the answer to your question, you would have to examine SAE J844 and FMVSS 106, and compare their requirements. Where the requirements differ, FMVSS 106 is the standard that must be met. Your third question asks for information on all Federal requirements for the sale of nylon air brake tubing in the United States. I have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 106 for your reference. I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration, has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements for brake tubing, you can write to them at the address provided in the enclosed information sheet entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' In addition, I have enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hose) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States. The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information: 1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding 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 mailing address of the manufacturer, 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name, 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer, 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation, and, 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. 7. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. A final question raised in your letter is whether Table III of Standard 106 applies to rubber hose only. The answer is yes. NHTSA issued a final rule on February 25, 1991 (56 FR 7589) that amended Standard 106 so that Table III expressly applies to rubber brake hoses only, and not hoses made from plastic tubing. A copy of the rule is enclosed. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam2083OpenMr. Lowell E. Schellhase, Motor Vehicle Inspection, 523 E. 12th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319; Mr. Lowell E. Schellhase Motor Vehicle Inspection 523 E. 12th Street Des Moines Iowa 50319; Dear Mr. Schellhase: This responds to your May 29, 1975, letter to Mr. Vincent Esposito o the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you indicate your desire that a 'second independent means of stopping be made mandatory' on newly-manufactured motor vehicles.; Federal motor vehicle safety Standard No. 105-75 (49 CFR 571.105-75 becomes effective January 1, 1976, for passenger cars, and it establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems of these vehicles (copy enclosed).The test procedures for parking brake testing specify that the service brake control be released in testing the parking brake system. This has the practical effect of requiring a separate parking brake similar to that specified by the Iowa law you cited in your letter.; Federal motor vehicle safety Standard No. 121, (49 CFR 571.121) becam effective January 1, 1975, for air-braked trailers and March 1, 1975 for air-braked trucks and buses (copy enclosed). It establishes requirements for the service and parking brake systems of these vehicles. Section S5.6.4 of the standard states that 'The parking brake control shall be separated from the service brake control.'; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act i 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to on aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.; As noted, STandard No. 105-75 and Standard No. 121 include requirement for the parking brake control aspect of braking performance. The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to this aspect of performance in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulation scheme. If States were permitted to impose additional requirements in an area regulated by a Federal safety standard manufacturers would be confronted with an impossible task of compliance. This reasoning formed the basis of a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.; Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would b preempted by Standard No. 105-75 in the case of passenger cars, since the aspect of performance that would be affected is covers by the Federal standard. The same is true for motorcycles, covered by Standard No. 122, *Motorcycle Brake Systems*, and trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems, covered by Standard No. 121.; With regard to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles tha are equipped with hydraulic brake systems, the NHTSA is in the process of developing a hydraulic brake standard. I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance for consideration in developing the standard in this area.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0114OpenHonorable Jack Miller, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Jack Miller United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Miller: Thank you for your letter of August 13, 1968, calling my attention t Mr. Paul Johnston's comments and suggestions on the requirements for school bus signal lamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; As Mr. Johnston pointed out, Standard No. 108, effective January 1 1969, provides for optional use of either the eight-lamp or four- lamp signal system. This optional provision was adopted after careful consideration of the comments and recommendations which were received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making as published in the *Federal Register* on February 3, 1967. The 'Minimum Standards for School Buses', as published by the National Conference on School Transportation, and the regulations governing minimum standards for school buses in various states were also considered during development of the optional provision for signal lamp systems. Results of our studies and investigations indicated that approximately forty states were using either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system. Other states were using the adopted system with only minor variations in the installation and operational requirements.; Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, was published in th *Federal Register* on December 16, 1967. Under the procedural rules of the Federal Highway Administration, any person adversely affected by this order may petition the Administrator under Part 216, Subchapter B, Section 216.31 or Section 216.35, published in the *Federal Register* on November 17, 1967, a copy of which is enclosed. No petition of the adopted requirements for school bus signal lamps has been filed.; Although we do not dispute the safety benefits which Mr. Johnsto claims for a six-lamp system, I must emphasize that our long-range objective is the adoption of one nationwide system. Even with the presently adopted systems, a motorist could be faced with the problem of interpreting two sets of signals during a very short time period. This problem will become more prevalent with the anticipated increase in rapid interstate traffic. To permit the use of a third optional system, six-lamp or other, would further complicate the situation.; Standard No. 108 applies only to new school buses manufactured on o after January 1, 1969. Retrofitting of buses presently in operation is not required. Since Iowa's fleet of buses is presently equipped with a six-lamp system, it appears that considerable data on the effectiveness of this system could be accumulated from this fleet during the next several years, or until such time that a single nationwide system is proposed. We will be pleased to carefully review and consider any such data which Mr. Johnston can provide in the future.; In summary, it is the position of this Bureau that the provision o Standard No. 108 permitting optional use of either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system is reasonable, practicable and in the interest of highway safety. Therefore, we do not believe that a change in this provision to permit optional use of a third or six-lamp system is justified.; We have reviewed our files with respect to the written and persona contacts Mr. Arthur Roberts, Director of Pupil Transportation, has had with this Bureau.; This review indicates that the correspondence from Mr. Roberts wa submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Standard No. 112 (subsequently combined with Standard No. 108) as published in the *Federal Register* on February 3, 1967. It is not the practice of the Bureau to reply individually to the numerous responses received from published rule making notices, which often run to thousands of pages. However, a summary of the comments represented by the responses and the disposition of these comments is presented in the preamble to Standard No. 108 as published in the *Federal Register* on December 16, 1967. With respect to Mr. Roberts' visit on May 7, 1968, the topics of discussion related primarily to the technical requirements of Standard No. 108 and other information relative to the merits of converging Iowa's school buses to either the four-lamp or eight- lamp system. Our understanding was that Mr. Roberts received the information he was seeking at the time of his visit and that no follow-up correspondence was necessary on our part.; Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Director |
|
ID: aiam2129OpenMr. Tatsuo Kato, Staff, Safety, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., P. O. Box 1606, 560 Silvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 07632; Mr. Tatsuo Kato Staff Safety Nissan Motor Company Ltd. P. O. Box 1606 560 Silvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kato: This is in response to your letter of April 22, 1975, posing severa questions relating to Standard No. 302, 49 CFR 571.302. We are sorry for the delay in responding, but unfortunately your letter was filed in the docket as a response to a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning Standard No. 302.; Your first question relates to the requirement that the surface of th specimen closest to the occupant compartment air space face downward on the test frame. This requirement is now found in S5.2.2 of Standard No. 302, as published on September 16, 1975 (40 FR 42746). Through error, S5.2.2 was not amended when the standard was first amended on March 31, 1975 (40 FR 14318). This requirement applies to all test samples regardless of their thickness.; Your second question lists five components and asks whether they ar included within Standard No. 302 as amended by Docket No. 3-3, Notice 7, and whether they would be included within Standard No. 302 if the amendment proposed by Notice 8 is adopted. Our answers follow:; >>>1. The wiring harness illustrated in your letter need not currentl meet the requirements of the standard, but would have to meet the requirements if it was located within 1/2 inch of the surface of the floor covering and Notice 8 was adopted as presently proposed.; 2. The roof lamp need not currently meet the requirements of th standard, but would have to meet these requirements if Notice 8 was adopted as proposed.; 3 and 4. The door lock and door handle knobs need not meet th requirements of the standard, but would have to if Notice 8 was adopted.; 5. The floor grommets need not currently meet the requirements of th standard, but would have to meet these requirements if Notice 8 was adopted and they were within 1/2 inch of the surface of the carpet.<<<; You are correct, therefore, in your analysis of the effect of Notice as stated in your letter.; Your third question relates to whether the air space located behind th instrument panel and underneath the seat will be considered as part of the occupant compartment air space if Notice 8 is adopted. Assuming that the air behind the instrument panel is sealed off from the passenger compartment, it would not be considered part of the occupant compartment air space. The air under the seat cushion would be considered part of the occupant compartment air space unless it too is sealed off from the passenger compartment.; We trust these answers will be helpful to you. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5316OpenMr. William J. MacAdam President & CEO trans2 Corporation 37682 Enterprise Court Farmington Hills, MI 48331; Mr. William J. MacAdam President & CEO trans2 Corporation 37682 Enterprise Court Farmington Hills MI 48331; "Dear Mr. MacAdam: This responds to your request for an interpretatio that an electric vehicle that trans2 plans to manufacture is not a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Your counsel, Mr. James Freeman, informed Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff that you do not object to the manner in which this letter describes the trans2 vehicle. We have determined that the trans2 electric vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle' under the Safety Act. 'Motor vehicle' is defined at Section 102(3) of the Act as: A ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. It is unclear from your letter whether the trans2 vehicle is manufactured for on-road use. However, NHTSA has stated in past interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. These criteria appear to be met by trans2's vehicle. You stated that the top speed of the vehicle is 20 miles per hour. Photographs of trans2's vehicle show that it is approximately the size and height of a golf cart. From the side, the passenger compartment appears to be an oval. From the rear, the vehicle has tail lights built into the two headrests. These unusual body features make the trans2 vehicle readily distinguishable from 'motor vehicles.' Accordingly, we determine that trans2's vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Since the trans2 vehicle is not a motor vehicle, none of NHTSA's regulations or standards apply to it. Please note that except for the features of the trans2's vehicle described herein, the remaining vehicle specifications described in your letter of November 3, 1993 are protected under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. The protection will continue until trans2 discloses details of its vehicle to the public. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: James Freeman, Esq. Hogan and Hartson Columbia Square 555 13th St., NW Washington, DC 20004-1109"; |
|
ID: aiam5101OpenMr. Michael J. Motzkin Pioneer Plumbing Post Office Box 35833 Tucson, AZ 85740-5833; Mr. Michael J. Motzkin Pioneer Plumbing Post Office Box 35833 Tucson AZ 85740-5833; Dear Mr. Motzkin: This responds to your letter of October 14, 199 regarding Federal requirements pertaining to brake specifications. In particular you asked whether there are any regulations requiring automotive brake drums and rotors not to be milled beyond manufacturer specifications, and whether manufacturers are required to stamp their specifications on brake drums and rotors. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle 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. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its motor vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA has issued a number of safety standards which specify performance requirements for new motor vehicle brake systems and certain new brake equipment. The standards do not require manufacturers to stamp specifications on drums or rotors, although it is common practice for manufacturers to do so. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. The milling or turning of brake drums and rotors is typically performed during the course of repairing a used vehicle with worn brakes. We do not believe that the 'render inoperative' provision would ordinarily be relevant to such a situation. The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest you investigate the laws of Arizona to see whether they affect your situation. I hope this information is been helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0303OpenMr. Paul Peterson, Willett Company, 700 S. Desplaines Street, Chicago, IL 60607; Mr. Paul Peterson Willett Company 700 S. Desplaines Street Chicago IL 60607; Dear Mr. Peterson: This is in reply to a letter dated February 10, 1971, that was receive from Mr. William V. Reynolds of the National Association of School Bus Contract Operators asking that we send our reply to you. The letter asks two questions concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, which are restated below with our response.; >>>1. Is the standard applicable to a school bus operator who install seat belts (not presently required) at the behest of a school board for use when transporting children attending Special Education Classes?<<<; The answer to this question is no. Standard No. 213 applies only t child seating systems, and not to seat belts or persons who install seat belts. In addition, there are no other Federal requirements applicable to one who installs seat belts for passengers in either a new or used bus. There is, however, a Federal standard (No. 209) that requires all seat belt assemblies manufactured after March 1, 1967, to meet certain performance requirements. We strongly recommend that you examine the seat belts you wish to install to determine whether they were manufactured to comply with this standard. This can be done by examining the belt assembly, particularly its label or buckle assembly, for the date of manufacture, which may appear in an abbreviated fashion. Also, many seat belt assemblies manufactured after March 1, 1967, will be labeled with a specific statement that they comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This statement may alternatively appear on the box in which the belt assembly is delivered.; For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Bureau of Moto Carrier Safety regulation concerning requirements for seat belt assemblies at the driver's position, in buses under that agency's jurisdiction, which became effective August 1, 1970. These requirements would be applicable to you if the buses in question are subject to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.; >>>2. Is the standard applicable to devices designed by the schoo physiotherapy department and built in the school carpentry shop for use in transporting handicapped children with a handicap that is peculiar to that one child? (This includes both regular and van-type buses.)<<<; The answer to this question is yes. Standard No. 213 applies to al child seating systems for use in motor vehicles, including buses, regardless of whether the child seating system is manufactured by a company for sale or whether it is manufactured for persons for their own use, as in your case. If the standard poses a particular hardship in the situation you describe, however, we will be glad to discuss the matter further with the persons involved.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5551OpenMr. Donnell W. Morrison 1005 Drinnon Drive Morristown, TN 37814; Mr. Donnell W. Morrison 1005 Drinnon Drive Morristown TN 37814; Dear Mr. Morrison: This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1995 asking for a clarification of the letter of April 10 to you from the former Chief Counsel, Philip Recht. He explained Standard No. 108's requirements for the location of rear lighting on wide vehicles. As the letter stated, identification lamps are to be mounted 'as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable.' You speak of having seen 'semitrailers on the highway with all the rear lights at bed level' including clearance and identification lamps. As the letter also stated, the determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, to be made in its certification that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. Without further information on the semitrailers you saw, we cannot judge whether mounting the clearance and identification lamps at bed level was a clearly erroneous determination by the trailer's manufacturer. There are some configurations where there is no header on which to mount lamps and the top of the doors approaches the top of the vehicle. In those configurations, we would not contest the manufacturer's determination that mounting the lamps at bed level was 'as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable.' On the other hand, the semitrailers you saw might have failed to conform to Standard No. 108. I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. If you have any further questions you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2294OpenMr. Cornelius C. Setter, Independent Textile Testing Service, Inc., P. O. Box 1948, 1499 Murray Avenue, Dalton, GA, 30720; Mr. Cornelius C. Setter Independent Textile Testing Service Inc. P. O. Box 1948 1499 Murray Avenue Dalton GA 30720; Dear Mr. Setter: This is in response to your letter of February 18, 1976, concernin testing procedures pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*.; As you point out, S5.1.3 of the standard provides that thin, hea resistant wires are used to support a 'specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning.' One of your customers asserted that support wires should be used in testing his materials, and you have asked when the use of support wires is appropriate.; Your interpretation of the standard in this case is commendable, an your test practices are calculated to demonstrate clearly the exercise of due care that a particular product complies with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, an NHTSA July 19, 1971, interpretation of Standard No. 302 (copy enclosed) permits use of support wires when any bending of the tested material occurs. At the time of that interpretation, it was believed that the support wires would not influence the test results.; More recent testing by the agency demonstrates that the support wire do significantly affect burn rates, and the agency intends to issue an interpretative amendment of the standard that will limit use of support wires.; Thank you for your responsible approach to testing products that ar required to conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0753OpenMr. Satoshi Nishibori, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Satoshi Nishibori Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1972, in which yo requested our interpretation of the phrase in S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 which states that the angle of the belt is to be measured from the seating reference point to the 'nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage'.; The language in question was adopted in response to petitions fo reconsideration of the amended rule as published in 1970 (35 F.R. 15293, 35 F.R. 18116). Several petitioners had stated that measuring the angle from the seating reference point to the anchorage, as the standard then specified, would not accurately reflect the true angle of the belt because of the intervention of rigid attachment hardware between the anchorage and the webbing. The section was therefore amended to refer to the point at which the belt touched such attachment hardware.; In the diagram which you provide of a seat belt system in which th buckle is attached to the seat by means of a rigid bracket, we would consider the buckle itself to be a part of the attaching hardware. The contact point would therefore lie on the interface between the tongue and the buckle at the point nearest the seating reference point.; It does not appear from Figures 2 and 3 of your letter that any of th designated angles correspond exactly to the angle that should be measured under S4.3.1.3. In both figures the angle would be determined by the line between the reference point and the nearest point to it on the forward end of the buckle.; Please advise us if you have further questions on this point. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.