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: aiam2277OpenHonorable Charles E. Wiggins, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Charles E. Wiggins House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Wiggins: This is in response to your letter of March 9, 1976, concerning th Tire Identification and Recordkeeping Requirements administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments concerning this progra and your obvious efforts to familiarize yourself with the way it is administered. It is clear from your letter that you share my view that these requirements should be made as effective and efficient as possible, thereby increasing consumer safety while lessening the burden on tire dealers.; As you are aware, the Congress in 1970 amended the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require manufacturers and retreaders of tires to maintain the names and addresses of purchasers so that they could be notified of any defect. This step was taken only after attempts by manufacturers and the NHTSA to inform owners of defective tires proved ineffective. As you point out, Congressional action would be necessary to eliminate the program.; In your letter, you address four areas in which you believe the tir registration program is either ineffective or inefficient. I would like to discuss each one individually to ensure that your questions are answered comprehensively.; The first question you raise deals with the cost your constituent, small tire dealer, is obligated to incur to satisfy the requirements of the program. In order to understand fully the cost involved, it would be useful to consider precisely what is required by the regulation.; >>>1. A dealer must fill out a tire identification form supplied by th manufacturer for each purchase. This requires entering the name and address of the purchaser, the tire identification number which appears on the tire(s), and the company's name and address or number on the form. Only several minutes are required to complete the form.; 2. Once a month, the dealer must send the forms to the manufacturer o the tires.<<<; We are unable to understand how the regulation appreciably increases small businessman's cost of doing business. It is our view that additional staff is not necessary to carry out the registration of tires, and we have no information which would suggest the contrary.; The situation would be somewhat more complex if your constituent sol tires manufactured by more than one firm, as each manufacturer supplies its own form which must, of course, be returned to the appropriate manufacturer. In this case, however, we have required that manufacturers supply to the dealers upon request a form with a standardized format to simplify completion.; The second matter you raise is the failure of some dealers to complet the registration forms. I share with you a concern that despite provision for substantial penalties, some dealers insist on breaking the law. It had been the policy of the NHTSA to delay strict enforcement of the regulation in the belief that dealer unfamiliarity with the regulation might be the cause of the poor response and that the situation would improve. In view of the continued unsatisfactory rate of compliance, the NHTSA has advised me that it will increase enforcement action to eliminate competitive advantage based on noncompliance.; Another issue raised in your letter is the cost of administering th regulation as compared to its benefit. I have queried the NHTSA as to their estimate of this cost and have been advised that the one dollar figure which you cited in your letter relates to all costs of both the manufacturer and dealer to register and maintain records for all four tires on a vehicle rather than a single tire. I am sorry for any confusion which might have arisen. Even utilizing a higher cost figure, however, it is NHTSA's view, in which I concur, that the expense of tire registration is not exorbitant in terms of helping to insure that a motorist will be advised if a tire he purchased is defective and could lead to death, a serious injury, or damage to his vehicle. As I am sure you realize, the purpose of any insurance program, be it fire insurance for the home or health insurance for the individual, is to protect all insured individuals against the catastrophic loss that only some of the insured individuals will actually experience.; It is of course difficult to associate a dollar figure with th potential damage which could be caused by a defective tire. In this regard, however, you may be interested in knowing that a Federal jury in Florida last year returned a $2,300,000 judgment against Sears Roebuck & Company in a tort action involving a defective tire.; You also suggest in your letter that only 25,000 tires were recalled i 1974. Our records, however, indicate that 1,098,000 tires were recalled in 1974 in 31 recall campaigns. Further, 2,526,480 tires have been recalled in the 119 recall campaigns initiated since the inception of the program. It is my view that the program should continue in light of the defect potential inherent in the sale of 200,000,000 tires annually.; In addition to planning increased enforcement, the NHTSA is evaluatin the consumer response rate in tire defect notification campaigns to determine whether it can be improved and whether the low response rate is due in large part to tires no longer being in the hands of the initial purchaser. I have already requested the National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council to conduct a broad study of the safety defect and recall problem, which includes a consideration of the adequacy of the tire recall effort. Based on these evaluations, the NHTSA should be able to determine if legislative action is necessary.; Let me assure you I appreciate your personal interest in this matter. Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr. |
|
ID: aiam4209OpenMr. H. Tsujishita, Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept., Head Office, Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., 1, Daihatsu-Cho, Ikeda City, Osaka Prefecture, JAPAN; Mr. H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office Daihatsu Motor Co. Ltd. 1 Daihatsu-Cho Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN; Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1986, asking thre interpretation questions concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, *Controls and Displays*, and 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. The answers to your questions are provided below.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.; Your first question concerns the visibility requirements for the uppe beam telltale (indicator). As noted by your letter, section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101 provides that the light intensity of each telltale shall be such that, when activated, that telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. The upper beam telltale is one of the telltales subject to that requirement. You note, however, that section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108 requires a high beam indicator that conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a (except that the signal color need not be red). J564a provides that the upper beam indicator should be 'plainly visible to drivers of all heights under normal driving conditions when headlights are required.' Based on this provision, you suggest that the upper beam telltale is not required to be visible to the driver under the daytime conditions when headlamps are not needed. As discussed below, your understanding is incorrect.; The difference between these two requirements is not so great as yo suggest. The reference to 'normal driving conditions' in J564a includes a variety of non-nighttime conditions (e.g., driving at dusk or dawn, and driving in daytime rainstorms) when headlamp use may be required by the States. To the extent that Standard No. 101 requires the telltale to be visible under daylight driving conditions not covered by Standard No. 108, manufacturers must meet the broader requirement. Manufacturers are required to meet all applicable safety standards. We note that while Standards No. 101 and 108 each cover upper beam telltales and specify different requirements, it is possible to meet the requirements of both standards simultaneously.; You stated that under daylight conditions the upper beam cannot dazzl oncoming drivers and that there is therefore no need to inform the driver that the upper beam is on. While there may be less need for this telltale during daylight than at night, Standard No. 101 reflects our believe that there is still a need and requires that the telltale be visible under all daytime and nighttime conditions (if the upper beams are actually on).; Your second question concerns the upper beam telltale minimum are requirement. SAE Recommended Practice J564a, which, as noted above, is referenced by section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108, provides that the upper beam indicator should consist of a 'light, with a minimum area equivalent to that of a 3/16 in. diameter circle.' You asked how this requirement would apply to two designs.; In the first design, the outline of the telltale symbol would lighte while the area within and around the telltale symbol would not. You suggested that the framed area, i.e., the area within the telltale that is framed by the outline but not lighted itself, can be counted into the minimum area requirement. As discussed below, that is incorrect. In the second design, the telltale symbol would be superimposed on a rectangle. In this case, the entire area within the rectangle would lighten, except for that covered by the symbol itself. You suggested that the lighted area other than that covered by the symbol can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. As discussed below, that is correct.; In referencing SAE Recommended Practice J564a, Standard No. 10 requires that the upper beam indicator must consist of a light, and also specifies the minimum area for that light. It does not specify the shape of the light. If the light is a simple circle which is lighted in its entirety (with the identification required by Standard No. 101 placed adjacent to the circle), that lighted circle must be at least 3/16 inch in diameter. If the light is some other shape, such as the shape of the upper beam symbol or a rectangle in which only part of the area is lighted, the total area which is lighted must be at least as large as the area of a 3/16 inch circle. Thus, in the case of the first design discussed above, only the outline area (i.e., the blue lighted area) of the upper beam symbol can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. The unlighted interior part *i.e., the black area) of the symbol cannot be counted toward the minimum area requirement. In the case of the second design discussed above, the entire (blue) area within the rectangle that lightens can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. However, that part of the rectangle which does not lighten, i.e., the (white) part covered by the symbol, cannot be counted.; Your third question concerns Standard No. 101's illuminatio requirements for a side marker lamp control that is incorporated into the master lighting switch. As suggested by your letter and as discussed below, illumination is not required if the identifying symbol for the side marker lamps is marked on the master lighting switch.; While Table I of Standard No. 101 requires that side marker lam controls be identified with the side marker lamp control symbol and that such identification be illuminated, it also provides that separate identification is not required if controlled by the master lighting switch. Thus, for side marker lamp controls that are incorporated into the master lighting switch, use of the side marker lamp control symbol is voluntary. Since such identification is not required by Standard No. 101, it is our opinion that the standard does not require manufacturers to illuminate such identification if they choose to provide it voluntarily.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3036OpenMr. A. M. Dahm, President, Macdonald Equipment Company, P.O. Box B, 7333 Highway 85, Commerce City, CO 80022; Mr. A. M. Dahm President Macdonald Equipment Company P.O. Box B 7333 Highway 85 Commerce City CO 80022; Dear Mr. Dahm: This responds to your January 2, 1979, letter asking whether it i permissible to mount a snow plow on a vehicle when the weight of the snow plow will cause the vehicle to exceed its gross axle weight rating (GAWR). The answer to your question is no.; The GAWR of a vehicle is determined and established by a vehicle' manufacturer and represents a manufacturer's assessment of the maximum weight that each axle can safely sustain. When this weight rating is exceeded by the addition of equipment to a vehicle, the safety of a vehicle is jeopardized. Over a period of time, the excessive weight borne by the axle could result in unusual wear and eventual failure of the axle.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require manufacturers to label their vehicles with GAWR's to avoid the overload problem that you mention in your letter. The NHTSA has not granted exceptions from this requirement for snow plows. If you mount a snow plow on a new vehicle prior to first purchase, you must be sure that the vehicle continues to comply with all Federal safety standards and regulations. If the weight of the plow exceeds the GAWR of the vehicle, the vehicle would no longer comply with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. Further, the compliance of other safety standards could be impacted by the addition of that weight.; In the case of used vehicles on which you mount a snow plow, manufacturer, repair business, distributor, or dealer may not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with the safety standards. The attachment of a snow plow that exceeds the gross axle weight rating would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 120. Accordingly, whether a vehicle is new or used, the additional weight of a snow plow that would exceed the GAWR of a vehicle would not be permissible.; The NHTSA understands the budgetary constraints of municipalities However, financial considerations must be balanced against the potential loss of life that can occur when vehicles are routinely overloaded. Accordingly, vehicles that have snow plows or other devices mounted on them should have sufficient GAWR's to carry their intended load.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4659OpenFrau Margret Schmock Robert Bosch GMBH Abt. K2/ELE2; Frau Margret Schmock Robert Bosch GMBH Abt. K2/ELE2; "W. Germany FAX Number 07121/35-1792 Dear Frau Schmock: This is i reply to your FAX of September 6, l989, to Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, asking four questions with respect to requirements for the center highmounted stop lamp. 'l. Is it allowed to use 6 wedge-base-bulbs (3cp) on one high mounted stop lamp?' Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 does not prescribe the number of bulbs to be used in the center highmounted stop lamp. Although paragraph S5.1.1.27(e) (formerly S4.1.1.41(e)) states that 'the bulb' shall be replaceable without the use of special tools, the intent of this language is not to restrict the number of light sources in the center lamp, but to ensure that any and all light sources are readily replaceable. Therefore, it is acceptable in principle to use 6 bulbs. The sole limitation is that the maximum candlepower limitation of the lamp specified in Figure l0 must not be exceeded. '2. SAE J186 Nov.82 says that the effective projected luminous area shall not be less than 29 square centimeters. How would you measure the projected luminous area of a lamp with 6 bulbs?' It is acceptable to measure the area as if the lamp contained only a single bulb. Incidentally, the November l982 version of SAE Jl86 has not been incorporated by reference into Standard No. l08 as the requirement for center highmounted stoplamps. The correct reference is Jl86a, September l977 (which does not contain the 29 square centimeter specification, that specification is expressed as 4 1/2 square inches in paragraph S5.1.1.27(a)). '3. Must each bulb reach the required photometric values?' No. Photometrics are a measure of the light output at specified test points measured from outside the lamp. Therefore, it is the lamp that meets the photometric requirements, and not the light source or sources. '4. What will happen, if one bulb is defect?' The specification for the lamp applies at the time it is sold to a retail customer. Thus, all bulbs in a lamp must be functional at that time. If a manufacturer chooses to design a lamp to meet the photometric specification when one bulb is not functioning, that would provide an extra measure of safety that is not required by Standard No. 108. Obviously, an inoperative light source should be replaced at the owner's earliest convenience, and the requirement that the light source be replaceable without special tools is intended to add to the convenience of replacement. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3466OpenKenneth R. Brownstein, Counsel, Paccar, Inc., P.O. Box 1518, Bellevue, WA 98009; Kenneth R. Brownstein Counsel Paccar Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue WA 98009; Dear Mr. Brownstein: This responds to your letter of September 16, 1981, in which yo requested our views on whether Paccar may use its name on the certification label of vehicles manufactured by its Mexican affiliate.; This agency's regulations provide that each vehicle's certificatio label must contain 'the full corporate or individual name of the actual assembler of the vehicle.' See 49 CFR 567.4(g)(1). The only relevant exception to that requirement is set forth in section 567.4(g)(1)(i), which states that if 'a vehicle is assembled by a corporation that is controlled by another corporation that assumes responsibility for conformity with the standards, the name of the controlling corporation may be used.' Thus, the answer to your question depends upon whether Paccar 'controls' Kenworth Mexicana, the Mexican affiliate.; Your letter states that Paccar effectively owns a 49 percent interes in Kenworth Mexicana, the maximum permitted under Mexican law. Based on your telephone conversations with Roger Fairchild of this office, we understand that the vehicles to be produced in Mexico are of Paccar design, with Paccar control over all matters relating to compliance with safety standards. In fact, any design changes in the vehicle must apparently be approved by Paccar under your agreement with the Mexican company.; In these circumstances, we conclude that Paccar may use its corporat name on the Mexican vehicles' certification labels notwithstanding the less than majority equity interest in the Mexican company. The 'controlling corporation' exception to the general requirement that the vehicle assembler's name must appear on the certification label was enacted in recognition of the fact that 'particularly in some foreign countries, assembly of a vehicle may be performed by a subsidiary corporation controlled by a parent that is the generally known 'nameplate company.'' The agency determined that in such a situation, 'no important purpose is served by requiring the name of a lesser-known subsidiary corporation on the label.' See 34 FR 11360, July 9, 1969. Further, the agency has previously stated in one of its interpretations that the 'purpose of the manufacturer's designation in the certification regulations is to identify the company that has primary technical responsibility for conformity of the design and quality control of the assembly.' Particularly with respect to the design aspects, Paccar meets this test.; If you have further questions in this area, please feel free to contac us.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1375OpenMr. Joshua E. Bruner, Rogue Racing, 1858 East 3rd Street, Tempe, AZ 85281; Mr. Joshua E. Bruner Rogue Racing 1858 East 3rd Street Tempe AZ 85281; Dear Mr. Bruner: Dr. Gregory asked me to respond to your January 3, 1974, letter askin whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposal to modify the definition of Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle would affect importation of The Thing.; The proposed modification would reclassify vehicles like The Thing a passenger vehicles, but it would not prohibit their importation. Volkswagen would have to incorporate several additional safety features in The Thing to meet the higher standards for passenger cars.; We have not made a final decision on the proposed redefinition Volkswagen as the manufacturer of The Thing might be able to give you a better evaluation of The Thing's future than we have at present.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3348OpenMr. S.A. Spretnjak,Excel Industries, Inc., 1120 North Main Street, Elkhart, Indiana 46514; Mr. S.A. Spretnjak Excel Industries Inc. 1120 North Main Street Elkhart Indiana 46514; Dear Mr. Spretnjak: This responds to your August 15, 1980, letter asking several question about your responsibilities for complying with Federal safety standards. You state that you manufacture a sun roof that can be installed by either an original vehicle manufacturer or a subsequent vehicle alterer.; Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to note tha Federal safety standards apply to different manufacturers depending upon the standard involved. Equipment standards are the responsibility of equipment manufacturers while vehicle standards fall within the responsibilities of a vehicle manufacturer or alterer. For sun roofs, Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, is an equipment standard and might apply to an equipment manufacturer who manufacturers sun roofs if they contain any glazing materials. Some vehicle safety standards might be affected also by the installation of a sun roof. The installer of a sun roof would be entirely responsible for compliance with all of the vehicle safety standards affected by the sun roof installation.; Your first question asks who certifies the sun roof if it is installe as original equipment on a vehicle. The equipment manufacturer who manufacturers the glazing would be responsible for certifying the glazing in accordance with Standard No. 205. The installer of the sun roof, the vehicle manufacturer, would certify the vehicle in compliance with all of the safety standards.; Second, you ask the same question as above with respect to a va conversion or motor home construction. Again, the equipment manufacturer would certify to the glazing standard, and the van converter or motor home builder would certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, *Certification*.; Third, you ask who must certify if a dealer adds a sun roof before sal of the vehicle to its first purchaser. The equipment manufacturer certifies to the glazing standard, and the installer of the device would attach an alterer's label to the vehicle in accordance with Part 567.7.; Your fourth question asks who certifies if a body shop adds the su roof for a vehicle owner. As always, the sun roof glazing is certified by the equipment manufacturer. Businesses that modify used vehicles are not required to recertify those vehicles in compliance with any of the safety standards. Such businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard.; Fifth, you ask whether as a window manufacturer your onl responsibility is to certify to Standards Nos. 205 and 217. As stated earlier, you would have responsibility to certify to Standard No. 205. However, Standard No. 217 is a vehicle standard, and only a vehicle manufacturer or alterer has responsibility for certifying compliance with that standards.; Your final question asks about testing for compliance with the safet standards. Testing is usually conducted by vehicle manufacturers for those standards that apply to vehicles. For standards that apply only to equipment, the testing is altered and the alterer must attach a label indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards, the alterer can certify compliance through any means that, in the exercise of due care, he or she fells is sufficient to assure compliance with the safety standards. Methods available to alterers include: retesting, simulated testing, mathematical modeling, or any other device appropriate for assessing continued compliance with the standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4177OpenMr. Larry H. McEntire, Administrator, School Transportation, Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, FL 32301; Mr. Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation Florida Department of Education Tallahassee FL 32301; Dear Mr. McEntire: I regret the delay in responding to your letter to this office askin whether certain 'mini-vans' designed to carry a maximum of eight persons are classified by NHTSA as 'passenger cars' or 'multipurpose passenger vehicles' (MPV's), for purposes of complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; I would like to begin by clarifying that the classification of particular vehicle is determined in the first instance by its manufacturer, and not by NHTSA. Under our certification requirements (49 CFR Part 567), manufacturers are required to specify the type of their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in Part 571.3 of our regulations and must certify that their motor vehicles comply with all the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. We define an MPV in Part 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle ... designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.'; Information we have received regarding manufacturer certificatio discloses that manufacturers classify *cargo- carrying* models of the Ford Aerostar, and G.M. Astro and Safari as 'trucks.' A 'truck' is defined in Part 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle...except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' We understand that *passenger* models of mini-vans designed to carry up to eight passengers utilize the same type of chassis used in truck models. It is likely, therefore, that the passenger model mini-vans you asked about would be classified as MPV's instead of passenger cars. This is verified by the 'MPV' classification given by manufacturers to the Chrysler mini-van and Toyota Van.; On a related matter, you asked for our comments on your Department' recommendation to your school boards that they not condone parents' use of conventional vans (i.e., vans not meeting Federal or State school bus safety regulations) to transport school children to school-related events. Mr. Arnold Spencer of Rockledge, Florida, recently wrote to our office concerning the above recommendation and requested us to explain how our school bus regulations apply to persons owning vans. I have enclosed a copy of our April 25, 1986, response to Mr. Spencer which you might find helpful.; I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions please feel free to contact us.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0837OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, 1972, regarding th applicability of the requirements of S5 and S6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles conforming to S4.3.2 and to buses conforming to S4.4.2 of the standard.; Although sections S6.2 and S6.3 have been amended to refer to bel systems, the reference applies only to vehicles that are required by S4 to meet the injury criteria by use of seat belts. Vehicles manufactured under the options of S4.3.2 and S4.4.2 are not required by the terms of those sections to meet either the occupant crash protection requirements of S5 or the injury criteria of S6. Such vehicles are therefore not affected by the amendments to S6.2 and S6.3, and continue to be exempt from compliance with S5 and S6.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1725OpenEarl W. Kintner, Esq., Messrs. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, 1100 Federal Bar Building, 1815 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Earl W. Kintner Esq. Messrs. Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn 1100 Federal Bar Building 1815 H Street N.W. Washington DC 20006; >>>Re: Petition for Rulemaking - Proposed Amendment of S4.5.6, Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, As Revised, *October 31, 1970.*<<<; Dear Mr. Kintner: This is in response to the petition for rulemaking of January 1 submitted on behalf of your client, Ideal Corporation, for an amendment of S4.5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, 35 F.R. 16840.; It is our understanding, based upon the meeting held on February between representatives of your firm, Ideal Corporation, and NHTSA, that your client wishes to continue its established marketing practice of selling variable load flashers in the after market and of advertising these flashers as 'all purpose' flashers. We understand further that variable load flashers frequently are purchased as replacements for fixed load flashers. When a variable load flasher is installed as a replacement for an original equipment fixed load flasher, it does not provide the outage indication required by S4.5.6. Your client therefore questions whether, under these circumstances, it could properly certify compliance with Standard No. 108 when the standard becomes applicable to replacement equipment.; The amendment proposed in the petition would add the following sentenc to S4.5.6:; >>>'Variable load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment b Standard 108 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 herein, where such devices shall operate in accordance with Tables I and III, as applicable.'<<<; In our view Standard No. 108 permits your client to continue it practice and to properly certify compliance. S2 states in pertinent part that the standard applies to 'lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies.' This means that equipment must comply with applicable requirements regardless of whether it is used as original or replacement equipment. For example, original and replacement variable load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, 'Automotive Turn Signal Flashers,' October 1965. It is not intended that a variable load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by S4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher.; Although there presently is no legal prohibition on the advertising an sale of variable load flashers, we believe that your client should, in the interest of safety, either market variable load flashers only as replacements for like items or call prospective, purchasers' attention to the fact that the flashers do not provide an outage indication. While the owner of a vehicle originally equipped with a fixed load flasher should be free to balance the merits of a fixed load flasher (such as the outage indication) with those of a variable load flasher (such as the continuing flash), he should not be misled as to the characteristics of each type, including the one with which his vehicle was originally equipped.; Please advise us within 10 days of the date of this letter if you wis to pursue this petition further, otherwise we shall consider the petition withdrawn.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting 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.