NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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

Displaying 6061 - 6070 of 16517

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam0586 Open Mr. Irving Frank, Frank and Frank, Counselors at Law, 11 Park Place, New York, New York 10007; Mr. Irving Frank Frank and Frank Counselors at Law 11 Park Place New York New York 10007; Dear Mr. Frank: Thank you for your letter of December 22, 1971, in which you requeste safety information pertaining to 1964 Chevrolet hood latching mechanisms.; Our Offices of Defects Investigation and Accident Investigation an Data Analysis have made a search of their files, and have found no specific information relating to defects in 1964 Chevrolet hood latching. I should like to point out that, inasmuch as Federal motor vehicle safety standards first became effective on January 1, 1968, we have not in all cases received information pertaining to defects which may have affected earlier vehicles. We have, however, monitored a recall campaign affecting potentially defective hood latch mechanisms on 1969 Mercury Cougars, wherein the possibility of binding components could cause the hood to open while the vehicle is in motion. In this connection, we are enclosing a copy of a report, Motor Vehicle Safety Defect Recall Campaigns, covering calendar year 1969. Your attention is invited to page 13 of the report for a brief summary of the action, and to page 1 for instructions for obtaining further detailed information relative to this campaign. We are, of course, continuing to be alert for further problems in this area.; Regarding designs of hood latch systems, we favor the type system yo describe in which two complete operations are necessary before the hood can be opened completely. I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 113, entitled Hood Latch Systems, which has required secondary latch positions or secondary hood latch systems on most vehicles since January 1, 1969.; Thank you for your inquiry. Do not hesitate to contact me if I can b of further assistance.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam2411 Open Mr. Byron A. Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's letter o September 14, 1976, inquiring as to the effect of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, on State laws relating to air brake performance. You ask whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can impose requirements pertaining to parking brake release on trucks and buses which differ from provisions contained in the Federal standard.; I believe that the question you raised is identical to a questio raised by the State of California, International Harvester Company, and White Motor Corporation in October 1974, prior to the effective dates of Standard No. 121. It was our opinion at that time that promulgation by a State of a more restrictive parking brake requirement providing for the installation of a release not specified in Standard No. 121 was prohibited by S 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3129 Open Mr. H.A. Ritzenthaler, VDO-ARGO Instruments Inc., 980 Brooke Road, P.O. Box 2630, Winchester, Virginia 22601; Mr. H.A. Ritzenthaler VDO-ARGO Instruments Inc. 980 Brooke Road P.O. Box 2630 Winchester Virginia 22601; Dear Mr. Ritzenthaler: This is in response to your letter of January 25, 1979, in which yo stated your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 127, Speedometers and Odometers, and asked that we advise you if action taken in accordance with this interpretation would place your company in violation of the standard. This letter is to confirm that your interpretation is correct.; According to your interpretation of Safety Standard 127, thos provisions which become effective for new motor vehicles on September 1, 1979 and September 1, 1980 are not applicable to speedometers and replacement parts produced for use in motor vehicles manufactured before those dates. This is correct because Safety Standard 127 is a vehicle standard and an equipment standard which applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, motorcycles, and buses manufactured after the standard's effective dates and to speedometer and odometers for use in such vehicles. (Section 3, Safety Standard 127).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1114 Open Mr. F.A. Stewart, Vice President, Safety & Reliability, AM General Corporation, Wayne, MI 48184; Mr. F.A. Stewart Vice President Safety & Reliability AM General Corporation Wayne MI 48184; Dear Mr. Stewart: This is in reply to your letter of March 22, 1973, concerning th conformity of buses manufactured by AM General Corporation with paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.' Your letter states, enclosing a drawing, that the side sash construction in these buses includes an aluminum tie bar that connects the upper and lower portion of the sash, and is located on the inside and at the center of the glass. You state this configuration precludes testing as specified in S 5.1.1, which specifies that the head form applying the load be placed at the center of the glazing. You request that the standard be revised to permit testing with the head form located as close as possible to the center of the glazing.; Based on the information you have provided, we are of the opinion tha the configuration of this window should be treated under paragraph S5.1 as two separate windows, even though only one sheet of window glazing is used. The tie bar appears to be an integral part of the window sash, and by preventing an occupant from contacting the window at that point, performs essentially the same function as a conventional divider strip. Consequently, we would expect to test this window configuration by applying the head form to the center of each half of the glazing surface.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4316 Open Mr. Barry Bartlett, President, Canadian Automotive Radiator, Air Industrial Park, P. O. Box 189, Debert, Nova Scotia, BOM 1GO, CANADA; Mr. Barry Bartlett President Canadian Automotive Radiator Air Industrial Park P. O. Box 189 Debert Nova Scotia BOM 1GO CANADA; Dear Mr. Barlett(sic): Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1987, concerning Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity. You asked the agency to confirm that the requirements set out in the standard apply only to fuel systems installed as items of original equipment in new vehicles and do not apply to aftermarket fuel systems. Several of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply both to original and aftermarket equipment. Standard No. 301, however, applies only to fuel systems installed as items of original equipment in new vehicles.; Although the agency does not have any standards that directly apply t aftermarket fuel systems, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes aftermarket fuel systems, are subject to the requirements in section 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes those responsibilities.; In addition, installation of your product can be affected by sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair shop that installs replacement fuel tanks must ensure that it does not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301.; The prohibition of Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individua vehicle owner who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.; If you have any further questions , please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3579 Open Mr. John I. Kitchen, President, Tri-City Tires, Inc., 1016 Butt Street, Chesapeake, VA 23324; Mr. John I. Kitchen President Tri-City Tires Inc. 1016 Butt Street Chesapeake VA 23324; Dear Mr. Kitchen: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff askin for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR S571.120) concerning the use of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. Specifically, you wanted to know whether a DOT symbol was required to appear on any retreaded tires so used.; Pursuant to your request in a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke he sent you a copy of a March 22, 1978 letter from this agency to Dorsey Trailers. That letter stated that retreaded tires could be used on new trucks and trailers, and that retreaded tires used for that purpose are not required to have a DOT symbol. This conclusion is mandated by the requirement in 49 CFR S574.5 that 'the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Standard is applicable.' Since no safety standard applies to retreaded tires for use on trucks and trailers, it follows that the DOT symbol must not appear on those tires.; In your recent letter, you enclosed a copy of a September 29, 198 letter from this agency to Elgene Tire Company. That letter states that, for purposes of Standard No. 120, used tires are interpreted to include retreaded tires. As you noted in your phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, an implication of this interpretation seems to be that retreaded tires are required, as used tires, to have a DOT symbol.; The agency position regarding the presence of the DOT symbol o retreaded tires has been consistent since 1978, i.e., that the controlling provision on that issue is S574.5 and therefore the DOT symbol is not required to appear on retreaded truck tires, and, indeed, must not appear on those tires. Retreaded truck tires without the DOT symbol may be used on new trucks and trailers in full compliance with Standard No. 120. To clarify this point, the agency published a proposal on October 30, 1980 (45 FR 71834) to amend Standard 120 so that it expressly permits the installation of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. (A copy of the proposal is enclosed) Final action on that proposal is expected this summer.; I trust that this response clears up the confusion to which you allude in your letter regarding these requirements. Should you have any further questions in this area, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1544 Open Mr. Kevin J. Adams, Director, Department of Parking & Transit Facilities, University of Virginia, 408 Brandon Avenue, Charlottesville, VA 22903; Mr. Kevin J. Adams Director Department of Parking & Transit Facilities University of Virginia 408 Brandon Avenue Charlottesville VA 22903; Dear Mr. Adams: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1974, asking whether ther are any Federal laws that would have a bearing on the University of Virginia's contemplated decision to purchase a tire grooving machine to regroove tires that will be used on buses operated by the University.; The NHTSA has recently amended Federal 'Regrooved Tire' regulations (4 CFR 569, copy enclosed) to prohibit any person from regrooving his own tires (49 CFR S 569.7). The regulation would apply to the University with respect to the tires you contemplate regrooving for use on university buses, and should certainly bear on your decision to purchase a tire regrooving machine.; The amendment to the regulation resulted from litigation (Nationa Association of Motor Vus Owners v. Brinegar, 483 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973)) in which the United States Court of Appeals held that under section 204 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1524) Congress authorized this agency to permit only the sale of regrooved tires.; There are presently some efforts being made in the Congress to amen the Safety Act to alter the effect of this court deicsion. No final action of any kind has been taken, however, and we do not know whether or when such action might be taken.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3083 Open Mr. Robert J. Wahls, Freedman Seating Company, 400 Academy Drive, Northbrook, IL 60062; Mr. Robert J. Wahls Freedman Seating Company 400 Academy Drive Northbrook IL 60062; Dear Mr. Wahls: This responds to your recent letter asking how much deflection o deformation of seat belt anchorages is allowed under the requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, for anchorages that are attached to or are a part of revolving pedestal seats. You mention cases in which seat bases deflect so much that the seat touches the floor before the forces required by the standard are attained.; As noted in your letter, paragraph S4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 21 specifies that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. Likewise, the agency has stated in the past that the force requirements of Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided structural integrity of the seats is maintained.; Although Safety Standard No. 210 would allow some deformation of th seat base for anchorages that are part of pedestal seats, the structural integrity of the seats would have to be maintained during the force test. Further, you should note that Safety Standard No. 207 requires the forces for testing seats and the forces required by Safety Standard No. 210 to be applied simultaneously for seats that have belt assemblies attached to them. Thus, the pedestal seats discussed in your letter would have to maintain their structural integrity when subjected to the combined forces required by both standards. The agency would not consider pedestal seats to be in compliance with these requirements, if the seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened.; I hope this letter has clarified the agency's position regarding th force requirements of both Safety Standard No. 210 and Safety Standard No. 207.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4746 Open Mr. C. Coleman Bird Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz 1300 Nineteenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. C. Coleman Bird Pepper Hamilton & Scheetz 1300 Nineteenth St. N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; "Dear Mr. Bird: This responds to your request for an interpretation b this office as to whether a portable back massage device capable of being used in an automobile and powered by the vehicle's electrical system constitutes a piece of motor vehicle equipment as that term is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act). I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The product you described in your letter consists of an inflatable cushion that conforms to the user's back and contains two electric massage units capable of massaging the upper and lower portions of the user's back. The device can also provide heat. It is designed for use either indoors or in a vehicle by means of an adapter which plugs into the cigarette lighter. When the device is used in a vehicle, it is simply placed on the seat, and does not require any additional installation, other than connection to a power supply. You have asked three questions about this device, which I have discussed below. Your first question was whether this device would be considered an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act? Section 102(4) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines, in part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle..... (Emphasis added.) Since the portable back massage device is not original equipment or sold for replacment or improvement of any original equipment, it would be included within this definition only if it were an 'accessory.' In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an 'accessory,' the agency considers the following two criteria: First, when a substantial portion of the expected uses of a product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, the product should be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the Safety Act. Second, if the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of such motor vehicles, we would consider it to be an accessory. Based on the limited information you have provided, I am unable to reach a conclusion as to whether the back massage device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. However, I will explain the considerations the agency focuses upon when applying the above critieria to specific products. We would determine the expected uses of a product by considering the product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store which retails the product, as well as any available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that products found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not necessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. For example, if the device is portrayed in advertising as being in used in motor vehicles, includes as a standard feature a 12 volt adapter enabling its use in a vehicle, and is sold through retail outlets specializing in automotive equipment and accesories, it would be more likely to be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment than a product which did not have these characteris- tics. In evaluating the second criteria, the agency looks at whether the product is intended primarily for the use of consumers, rather than by professionals such as automotive repair and service personnel. Your second question concerned whether the back massager would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the device is not determined to be an item of motor vehicle equipment, it is beyond the scope of the agency's authority to regulate it. Even if it is determined to be motor vehicle equipment, and therefore subject to other provisions of the Safety Act, there is no Standard applicable to this type of device. With regard to your final question, we do not generally provide advice about the authority of other Federal agencies. However, if it is not considered motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission may have requirements governing such a device. It is also possible the Food and Drug Administration might consider it to be a medical device subject to that agency's regulation. In addition, some States may choose to regulate such devices. I am enclosing an information sheet which describes the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards program, and how to get copies of the standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have further questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam0705 Open Mr. John W. Kourik, Chief Engineer, Automotive Products, Wagner Electric Corporation, 11444 Lackland Road, St. Louis, MO 83141; Mr. John W. Kourik Chief Engineer Automotive Products Wagner Electric Corporation 11444 Lackland Road St. Louis MO 83141; Dear Mr. Kourik:The following interpetations (sic) are submitted i response to your letter of March 16, 1972, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems and are numbered as the questions were in your letter.; >>>1. The 30 skid number surface referred to in the Standard is wet an measured by the ASTM B-274-65T procedure omitting water delivery as specified in paragraph 7.1 of that procedure.; 2. In S5.1.6 total electrical failure 'means any electrical failur within the antilock electrical system circuitry which would cause loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle.; 3. S5.1.6 does not at present require the activation of the antiloc warning device so long as proper antilock control remains on at least one wheel or axle.; 4. The requirement for an antilock warning device is not limited to failure in the power supply at the antilock electrical connection. However, an electrical failure in a vehicle which causes failure of the whole vehicle electrical system is not expected to activate the warning system since there would be no power to energize it.; 5. In S5.1.7, for air over hydraulic brake systems, the 6 psi pressur is measured in the power air chamber coupled to the master cylinder used to convert air pressure to hydraulic pressure.; 6. The wording of S5.1.7 is not intended to exclude the use of an auxiliary hand application valves for controlling the trailer brakes as long as there is also a foot treddle valve which controls the brakes of the towing vehicle and any towed vehicle.; 7. The stoplight on a trailer is to be actuated whenever the servic brakes on the trailer are applied. S4.5.3 of FMVSS No. 108 states 'the stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon the application of the service brakes.'; 8. The intent of S5.2.1.2 is for the service reservoir capacity, to b eight times the combined volume of all of the service brake chambers.; 9. In S5.3.2 the 90 psi pressure is to be fully applied to the traile at the start of the stop.; 10. In S5.3.2, the air compressor and air supply system of the towin vehicle are expected to be operating normally.; 11. In S5.3.3, the towing vehicle brakes may be by-passed by an convenient means so long as it does not cause the air pressure applied to the trailer to fall below 90 psi.; 12. In S5.3.2, item 4 and 5 of Table I are not applicable. 13. A truck tested brake may be run on a dynamometer by a manufacture for his own purposes but compliance with S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3 of the Standard will be determined by the Government by testing a new brake assembly identical to the one on the vehicle.; 14. Same answer as for 13 above. 15. The intent of S.5.4 is for a new brake assembly identical to th one on the vehicle to be tested on a dynamometer for conformance with S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3.; 16. Same as answer for 15 above. 17. In S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, for air or hydraulic brake systems the 'brake chamber air pressure' is the air pressure in the power chamber coupled to the master cylinder usedto (sic) convert air pressure to hydraulic pressure.; 18. Same answer as for question 17. 19. The Standard does not consider tandem ratings, it addresses onl the GAWR of each individual axle.; 20. Vehicles conforming to S5.6.1 must have a parking brake on eac individual axle of a tandem axle arrangement.; 21. In S5.6.2(a) 'Gross vehicle weight rating' is correct fo semi-trailers as well as trucks and buses, gross axle weight rating is not meant.; 22. Semi-trailers are not excluded from meeting the alternat requirement of S5.6.2.; 23. A dolly is classified as a trailer and is a separate vehicle. 24. In S5.6.2, the unloaded dolly weight does not include an unloade semi-trailer.; 25. In the dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1, the dynamomete inertia for each brake assembly is based on 1/2 the GAWR of the axle. The rating for each axle is required to be stated separately. If, in the example you give, you choose to give 17,000 pounds as the rating for each axle, then the dynamometer inertia would be at 8,500 pounds for each brake assembly.<<<; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

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.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam0586 Open Mr. Irving Frank, Frank and Frank, Counselors at Law, 11 Park Place, New York, New York 10007; Mr. Irving Frank Frank and Frank Counselors at Law 11 Park Place New York New York 10007; Dear Mr. Frank: Thank you for your letter of December 22, 1971, in which you requeste safety information pertaining to 1964 Chevrolet hood latching mechanisms.; Our Offices of Defects Investigation and Accident Investigation an Data Analysis have made a search of their files, and have found no specific information relating to defects in 1964 Chevrolet hood latching. I should like to point out that, inasmuch as Federal motor vehicle safety standards first became effective on January 1, 1968, we have not in all cases received information pertaining to defects which may have affected earlier vehicles. We have, however, monitored a recall campaign affecting potentially defective hood latch mechanisms on 1969 Mercury Cougars, wherein the possibility of binding components could cause the hood to open while the vehicle is in motion. In this connection, we are enclosing a copy of a report, Motor Vehicle Safety Defect Recall Campaigns, covering calendar year 1969. Your attention is invited to page 13 of the report for a brief summary of the action, and to page 1 for instructions for obtaining further detailed information relative to this campaign. We are, of course, continuing to be alert for further problems in this area.; Regarding designs of hood latch systems, we favor the type system yo describe in which two complete operations are necessary before the hood can be opened completely. I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 113, entitled Hood Latch Systems, which has required secondary latch positions or secondary hood latch systems on most vehicles since January 1, 1969.; Thank you for your inquiry. Do not hesitate to contact me if I can b of further assistance.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam2411 Open Mr. Byron A. Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's letter o September 14, 1976, inquiring as to the effect of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, on State laws relating to air brake performance. You ask whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can impose requirements pertaining to parking brake release on trucks and buses which differ from provisions contained in the Federal standard.; I believe that the question you raised is identical to a questio raised by the State of California, International Harvester Company, and White Motor Corporation in October 1974, prior to the effective dates of Standard No. 121. It was our opinion at that time that promulgation by a State of a more restrictive parking brake requirement providing for the installation of a release not specified in Standard No. 121 was prohibited by S 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3129 Open Mr. H.A. Ritzenthaler, VDO-ARGO Instruments Inc., 980 Brooke Road, P.O. Box 2630, Winchester, Virginia 22601; Mr. H.A. Ritzenthaler VDO-ARGO Instruments Inc. 980 Brooke Road P.O. Box 2630 Winchester Virginia 22601; Dear Mr. Ritzenthaler: This is in response to your letter of January 25, 1979, in which yo stated your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 127, Speedometers and Odometers, and asked that we advise you if action taken in accordance with this interpretation would place your company in violation of the standard. This letter is to confirm that your interpretation is correct.; According to your interpretation of Safety Standard 127, thos provisions which become effective for new motor vehicles on September 1, 1979 and September 1, 1980 are not applicable to speedometers and replacement parts produced for use in motor vehicles manufactured before those dates. This is correct because Safety Standard 127 is a vehicle standard and an equipment standard which applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, motorcycles, and buses manufactured after the standard's effective dates and to speedometer and odometers for use in such vehicles. (Section 3, Safety Standard 127).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1114 Open Mr. F.A. Stewart, Vice President, Safety & Reliability, AM General Corporation, Wayne, MI 48184; Mr. F.A. Stewart Vice President Safety & Reliability AM General Corporation Wayne MI 48184; Dear Mr. Stewart: This is in reply to your letter of March 22, 1973, concerning th conformity of buses manufactured by AM General Corporation with paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.' Your letter states, enclosing a drawing, that the side sash construction in these buses includes an aluminum tie bar that connects the upper and lower portion of the sash, and is located on the inside and at the center of the glass. You state this configuration precludes testing as specified in S 5.1.1, which specifies that the head form applying the load be placed at the center of the glazing. You request that the standard be revised to permit testing with the head form located as close as possible to the center of the glazing.; Based on the information you have provided, we are of the opinion tha the configuration of this window should be treated under paragraph S5.1 as two separate windows, even though only one sheet of window glazing is used. The tie bar appears to be an integral part of the window sash, and by preventing an occupant from contacting the window at that point, performs essentially the same function as a conventional divider strip. Consequently, we would expect to test this window configuration by applying the head form to the center of each half of the glazing surface.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4316 Open Mr. Barry Bartlett, President, Canadian Automotive Radiator, Air Industrial Park, P. O. Box 189, Debert, Nova Scotia, BOM 1GO, CANADA; Mr. Barry Bartlett President Canadian Automotive Radiator Air Industrial Park P. O. Box 189 Debert Nova Scotia BOM 1GO CANADA; Dear Mr. Barlett(sic): Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1987, concerning Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity. You asked the agency to confirm that the requirements set out in the standard apply only to fuel systems installed as items of original equipment in new vehicles and do not apply to aftermarket fuel systems. Several of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply both to original and aftermarket equipment. Standard No. 301, however, applies only to fuel systems installed as items of original equipment in new vehicles.; Although the agency does not have any standards that directly apply t aftermarket fuel systems, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes aftermarket fuel systems, are subject to the requirements in section 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes those responsibilities.; In addition, installation of your product can be affected by sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair shop that installs replacement fuel tanks must ensure that it does not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301.; The prohibition of Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individua vehicle owner who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.; If you have any further questions , please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3579 Open Mr. John I. Kitchen, President, Tri-City Tires, Inc., 1016 Butt Street, Chesapeake, VA 23324; Mr. John I. Kitchen President Tri-City Tires Inc. 1016 Butt Street Chesapeake VA 23324; Dear Mr. Kitchen: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff askin for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR S571.120) concerning the use of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. Specifically, you wanted to know whether a DOT symbol was required to appear on any retreaded tires so used.; Pursuant to your request in a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke he sent you a copy of a March 22, 1978 letter from this agency to Dorsey Trailers. That letter stated that retreaded tires could be used on new trucks and trailers, and that retreaded tires used for that purpose are not required to have a DOT symbol. This conclusion is mandated by the requirement in 49 CFR S574.5 that 'the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Standard is applicable.' Since no safety standard applies to retreaded tires for use on trucks and trailers, it follows that the DOT symbol must not appear on those tires.; In your recent letter, you enclosed a copy of a September 29, 198 letter from this agency to Elgene Tire Company. That letter states that, for purposes of Standard No. 120, used tires are interpreted to include retreaded tires. As you noted in your phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, an implication of this interpretation seems to be that retreaded tires are required, as used tires, to have a DOT symbol.; The agency position regarding the presence of the DOT symbol o retreaded tires has been consistent since 1978, i.e., that the controlling provision on that issue is S574.5 and therefore the DOT symbol is not required to appear on retreaded truck tires, and, indeed, must not appear on those tires. Retreaded truck tires without the DOT symbol may be used on new trucks and trailers in full compliance with Standard No. 120. To clarify this point, the agency published a proposal on October 30, 1980 (45 FR 71834) to amend Standard 120 so that it expressly permits the installation of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. (A copy of the proposal is enclosed) Final action on that proposal is expected this summer.; I trust that this response clears up the confusion to which you allude in your letter regarding these requirements. Should you have any further questions in this area, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1544 Open Mr. Kevin J. Adams, Director, Department of Parking & Transit Facilities, University of Virginia, 408 Brandon Avenue, Charlottesville, VA 22903; Mr. Kevin J. Adams Director Department of Parking & Transit Facilities University of Virginia 408 Brandon Avenue Charlottesville VA 22903; Dear Mr. Adams: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1974, asking whether ther are any Federal laws that would have a bearing on the University of Virginia's contemplated decision to purchase a tire grooving machine to regroove tires that will be used on buses operated by the University.; The NHTSA has recently amended Federal 'Regrooved Tire' regulations (4 CFR 569, copy enclosed) to prohibit any person from regrooving his own tires (49 CFR S 569.7). The regulation would apply to the University with respect to the tires you contemplate regrooving for use on university buses, and should certainly bear on your decision to purchase a tire regrooving machine.; The amendment to the regulation resulted from litigation (Nationa Association of Motor Vus Owners v. Brinegar, 483 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973)) in which the United States Court of Appeals held that under section 204 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1524) Congress authorized this agency to permit only the sale of regrooved tires.; There are presently some efforts being made in the Congress to amen the Safety Act to alter the effect of this court deicsion. No final action of any kind has been taken, however, and we do not know whether or when such action might be taken.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3083 Open Mr. Robert J. Wahls, Freedman Seating Company, 400 Academy Drive, Northbrook, IL 60062; Mr. Robert J. Wahls Freedman Seating Company 400 Academy Drive Northbrook IL 60062; Dear Mr. Wahls: This responds to your recent letter asking how much deflection o deformation of seat belt anchorages is allowed under the requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, for anchorages that are attached to or are a part of revolving pedestal seats. You mention cases in which seat bases deflect so much that the seat touches the floor before the forces required by the standard are attained.; As noted in your letter, paragraph S4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 21 specifies that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. Likewise, the agency has stated in the past that the force requirements of Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided structural integrity of the seats is maintained.; Although Safety Standard No. 210 would allow some deformation of th seat base for anchorages that are part of pedestal seats, the structural integrity of the seats would have to be maintained during the force test. Further, you should note that Safety Standard No. 207 requires the forces for testing seats and the forces required by Safety Standard No. 210 to be applied simultaneously for seats that have belt assemblies attached to them. Thus, the pedestal seats discussed in your letter would have to maintain their structural integrity when subjected to the combined forces required by both standards. The agency would not consider pedestal seats to be in compliance with these requirements, if the seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened.; I hope this letter has clarified the agency's position regarding th force requirements of both Safety Standard No. 210 and Safety Standard No. 207.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4746 Open Mr. C. Coleman Bird Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz 1300 Nineteenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. C. Coleman Bird Pepper Hamilton & Scheetz 1300 Nineteenth St. N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; "Dear Mr. Bird: This responds to your request for an interpretation b this office as to whether a portable back massage device capable of being used in an automobile and powered by the vehicle's electrical system constitutes a piece of motor vehicle equipment as that term is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act). I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The product you described in your letter consists of an inflatable cushion that conforms to the user's back and contains two electric massage units capable of massaging the upper and lower portions of the user's back. The device can also provide heat. It is designed for use either indoors or in a vehicle by means of an adapter which plugs into the cigarette lighter. When the device is used in a vehicle, it is simply placed on the seat, and does not require any additional installation, other than connection to a power supply. You have asked three questions about this device, which I have discussed below. Your first question was whether this device would be considered an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act? Section 102(4) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines, in part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle..... (Emphasis added.) Since the portable back massage device is not original equipment or sold for replacment or improvement of any original equipment, it would be included within this definition only if it were an 'accessory.' In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an 'accessory,' the agency considers the following two criteria: First, when a substantial portion of the expected uses of a product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, the product should be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the Safety Act. Second, if the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of such motor vehicles, we would consider it to be an accessory. Based on the limited information you have provided, I am unable to reach a conclusion as to whether the back massage device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. However, I will explain the considerations the agency focuses upon when applying the above critieria to specific products. We would determine the expected uses of a product by considering the product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store which retails the product, as well as any available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that products found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not necessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. For example, if the device is portrayed in advertising as being in used in motor vehicles, includes as a standard feature a 12 volt adapter enabling its use in a vehicle, and is sold through retail outlets specializing in automotive equipment and accesories, it would be more likely to be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment than a product which did not have these characteris- tics. In evaluating the second criteria, the agency looks at whether the product is intended primarily for the use of consumers, rather than by professionals such as automotive repair and service personnel. Your second question concerned whether the back massager would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the device is not determined to be an item of motor vehicle equipment, it is beyond the scope of the agency's authority to regulate it. Even if it is determined to be motor vehicle equipment, and therefore subject to other provisions of the Safety Act, there is no Standard applicable to this type of device. With regard to your final question, we do not generally provide advice about the authority of other Federal agencies. However, if it is not considered motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission may have requirements governing such a device. It is also possible the Food and Drug Administration might consider it to be a medical device subject to that agency's regulation. In addition, some States may choose to regulate such devices. I am enclosing an information sheet which describes the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards program, and how to get copies of the standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have further questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";
ID: aiam0705 Open Mr. John W. Kourik, Chief Engineer, Automotive Products, Wagner Electric Corporation, 11444 Lackland Road, St. Louis, MO 83141; Mr. John W. Kourik Chief Engineer Automotive Products Wagner Electric Corporation 11444 Lackland Road St. Louis MO 83141; Dear Mr. Kourik:The following interpetations (sic) are submitted i response to your letter of March 16, 1972, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems and are numbered as the questions were in your letter.; >>>1. The 30 skid number surface referred to in the Standard is wet an measured by the ASTM B-274-65T procedure omitting water delivery as specified in paragraph 7.1 of that procedure.; 2. In S5.1.6 total electrical failure 'means any electrical failur within the antilock electrical system circuitry which would cause loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle.; 3. S5.1.6 does not at present require the activation of the antiloc warning device so long as proper antilock control remains on at least one wheel or axle.; 4. The requirement for an antilock warning device is not limited to failure in the power supply at the antilock electrical connection. However, an electrical failure in a vehicle which causes failure of the whole vehicle electrical system is not expected to activate the warning system since there would be no power to energize it.; 5. In S5.1.7, for air over hydraulic brake systems, the 6 psi pressur is measured in the power air chamber coupled to the master cylinder used to convert air pressure to hydraulic pressure.; 6. The wording of S5.1.7 is not intended to exclude the use of an auxiliary hand application valves for controlling the trailer brakes as long as there is also a foot treddle valve which controls the brakes of the towing vehicle and any towed vehicle.; 7. The stoplight on a trailer is to be actuated whenever the servic brakes on the trailer are applied. S4.5.3 of FMVSS No. 108 states 'the stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon the application of the service brakes.'; 8. The intent of S5.2.1.2 is for the service reservoir capacity, to b eight times the combined volume of all of the service brake chambers.; 9. In S5.3.2 the 90 psi pressure is to be fully applied to the traile at the start of the stop.; 10. In S5.3.2, the air compressor and air supply system of the towin vehicle are expected to be operating normally.; 11. In S5.3.3, the towing vehicle brakes may be by-passed by an convenient means so long as it does not cause the air pressure applied to the trailer to fall below 90 psi.; 12. In S5.3.2, item 4 and 5 of Table I are not applicable. 13. A truck tested brake may be run on a dynamometer by a manufacture for his own purposes but compliance with S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3 of the Standard will be determined by the Government by testing a new brake assembly identical to the one on the vehicle.; 14. Same answer as for 13 above. 15. The intent of S.5.4 is for a new brake assembly identical to th one on the vehicle to be tested on a dynamometer for conformance with S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3.; 16. Same as answer for 15 above. 17. In S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, for air or hydraulic brake systems the 'brake chamber air pressure' is the air pressure in the power chamber coupled to the master cylinder usedto (sic) convert air pressure to hydraulic pressure.; 18. Same answer as for question 17. 19. The Standard does not consider tandem ratings, it addresses onl the GAWR of each individual axle.; 20. Vehicles conforming to S5.6.1 must have a parking brake on eac individual axle of a tandem axle arrangement.; 21. In S5.6.2(a) 'Gross vehicle weight rating' is correct fo semi-trailers as well as trucks and buses, gross axle weight rating is not meant.; 22. Semi-trailers are not excluded from meeting the alternat requirement of S5.6.2.; 23. A dolly is classified as a trailer and is a separate vehicle. 24. In S5.6.2, the unloaded dolly weight does not include an unloade semi-trailer.; 25. In the dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1, the dynamomete inertia for each brake assembly is based on 1/2 the GAWR of the axle. The rating for each axle is required to be stated separately. If, in the example you give, you choose to give 17,000 pounds as the rating for each axle, then the dynamometer inertia would be at 8,500 pounds for each brake assembly.<<<; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam0586

ID: aiam2411

ID: aiam3129

ID: aiam1114

ID: aiam4316

ID: aiam3579

ID: aiam1544

ID: aiam3083

ID: aiam4746

ID: aiam0705

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?