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: aiam5463OpenMr. John Sheppard Sales and Marketing Manager Reflexite Canada, Inc. 6790 Kitimat Road, Unit 18 Mississauga Ontario L5N 5L9 Canada; Mr. John Sheppard Sales and Marketing Manager Reflexite Canada Inc. 6790 Kitimat Road Unit 18 Mississauga Ontario L5N 5L9 Canada; "Dear Mr. Sheppard: We have received your letter of November 2, 1994 asking whether certain conspicuity material could be used on trailers required to meet S5.7 of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed samples of the material. The material alternates red and white stripes 'oriented at a 45 degree angle to the edge of the roll.' Rolls are either 6 or 8 inches in width and 'will not have DOT-C2 marking.' In addition, we note that the horizontal length of the red segments is 5 1/2 inches (and presume an equal length for the white segments). Specifically, you have asked whether this material could 'be applied to the lower edge of the vehicle's rear doors as a compliant substitute for the 2' 'block pattern' material currently being used?' Paragraph S5.7's specifications for conspicuity material are intended to ensure uniformity of treatment in order to enhance the ability of drivers of other vehicles to detect large objects in the roadway under conditions when headlamps are used. While S5.7 does not require that the red and white color segments be rectangular, it does establish requirements for their length and width. Under S5.7.1.3(b), each segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm. The color segment separation of 5 1/2 inches on your sample is approximately 140 mm, and thus below the minimum permitted by the standard. Although currently, under S5.7.1.3(d), three widths of retroreflective material are permissible: 50 mm (DOT-C2), 75 mm (DOT-C3), and 100 mm (DOT-C4) and your widths of 6 inches (150 mm) and 8 inches (200mm) do not conform to these specifications, the agency has proposed that these be minimum minimum widths for the DOT grades indicated. We expect a final rule to be issued on this proposal in the near future. Because the retroreflective material discussed above would not comply with Standard No. 108's requirements for color segment length (and currently width), it could not be used as a substitute for the DOT-C2 material that you currently manufacture. Further, geometrically and photometrically complying material would require the appropriate DOT grade identification marking for use on a trailer required to comply with Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3071OpenMr. Hisakazu Murakami, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Suite No. 1012, 1028 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Suite No. 1012 1028 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your letter of July 3, 1979, asking several question concerning the definition of 'designated seating position' (49 CFR 571.3), as that term was recently amended (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979).; In your first question, you ask for confirmation that any bench o split-bench seat with less than 50 inches of hip room may never be required to have three or more than three designated seating positions, notwithstanding the capability of accommodating a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female. Your assumption is incorrect. As noted in the preamble to the recent amendment, the 50-inch specification does not mean that some vehicle seats with less than 50 inches of hip room should not also have more than two designated seating positions, if the vehicle and seat design is such that three positions would likely be used (44 FR 23232). The specification is merely the amount of space the agency will consider as conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions. The 50-inch caveat was included in the definition to simplify determinations of proper seating capacity by both manufacturers and the agency.; Your second question involves technical aspects of the amende definition of 'designated seating position'. The definition specifies that 'hip room' is to be measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). That standard defines 'hip room' as,; >>>'the minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimme surfaces on the 'x' plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in. (25mm) below and 3.0 in. (76mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in. (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.' (Area A in your diagrams.)<<<; Your question includes diagrams and asks whether various portions o vehicle seats or other components would be considered 'trimmed surfaces' within SAE Standard J1100(a).; Specifically, you ask whether slightly soft surfaces such as arm rests seat back contours or other raised portions of the seat cushion would be considered 'trimmed surfaces', for purposes of determining the minimum hip room dimension. The answer to your question is yes. The agency would probably consider all of the surfaces illustrated in your letter 'trimmed surfaces' and, strictly speaking, within the meaning of the SAE procedure. This interpretation must be qualified, however. The procedure specifies that 'hip room' is the minimum dimension 'between trimmed surfaces'. If a particular bench seat has distinct sections, the total dimension must be determined by adding the minimum dimensions of each section. For example, your Figure 5 illustrates a bench seat that includes a slightly raised center surface on the tunnel (in the center of the seat over the driveshaft). The lowest portion of Area A as defined in SAE J1100(a) would strike the side of this elevated center section, even though the top portion of Area A would be above the elevation. In such a case, there would be three distinct portions of the seat (the driver's seat, the passenger seat, and the center seat position) that should be measured separately and then added together to get the total dimension. Otherwise, only the portion of the seat on the driver's side of the center elevation would be measured under the strict wording of the SAE procedure--an absurd result.; Regarding these questions about the measurement procedure, I must mak several candid remarks. The agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition of 'designated seating position' by finding loopholes in the measurement procedure. Further, as noted above, even if the hip room as measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a) is less than 50 inches, a manufacturer may still be required to designate three seating positions. If the measured dimension is less than 50 inches only because of slight elevations or contours on the outside seat cushion, a manufacturer must designate at least three positions if these elevations or contours are not real impediments to three persons occupying the seat.; Determinations of designated seating capacity under the amende definition should not cause manufacturers any real problems. If a manufacturer truly only intends to market a particular bench or split-bench seat for two occupants, he can and should make this obvious by the seat design, regardless of whether the total seat dimension is more than 50 inches or less than 50 inches. One simple way to do this is to install a permanent arm rest or console in the center portion of the seat.; I hope this response has clarified our position and will alleviate an problems you might have in making future determinations of proper designated seating capacity.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4676OpenMs. Linda B. Kent Senior Account Executive Market Development Fasson Specialty Division 250 Chester Street Painesville, OH 44077; Ms. Linda B. Kent Senior Account Executive Market Development Fasson Specialty Division 250 Chester Street Painesville OH 44077; "Dear Ms. Kent: Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretatio of whether the use of a product on motor vehicles would violate Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). This product, called 'Contra Vision,' is designed to display messages or advertising materials on windows and other clear surfaces, so that viewers on one side of the clear surface will see the message displayed, while viewers on the other side of the surface will see an essentially transparent surface without any message visible. According to your letter, this product 'will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses.' You asked for our opinion of whether this product complies with Standard No. 205. Some background on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulation affect this product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions. Your letter indicates that you are already aware that NHTSA has issued a safety standard that applies to the windows installed in motor vehicles. Specifically, Standard No. 205 requires that all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must comply with certain performance requirements. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement. Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with Contra Vision installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and the Contra Vision must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install Contra Vision on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install Contra Vision if the addition of Contra Vision to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install Contra Vision or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles. I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3070OpenMr. Hisakazu Murakami, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Suite No. 1012, 1028 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Suite No. 1012 1028 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your letter of July 3, 1979, asking several question concerning the definition of 'designated seating position' (49 CFR 571.3), as that term was recently amended (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979).; In your first question, you ask for confirmation that any bench o split-bench seat with less than 50 inches of hip room may never be required to have three or more than three designated seating positions, notwithstanding the capability of accommodating a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female. Your assumption is incorrect. As noted in the preamble to the recent amendment, the 50-inch specification does not mean that some vehicle seats with less than 50 inches of hip room should not also have more than two designated seating positions, if the vehicle and seat design is such that three positions would likely be used (44 FR 23232). The specification is merely the amount of space the agency will consider as conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions. The 50-inch caveat was included in the definition to simplify determinations of proper seating capacity by both manufacturers and the agency.; Your second question involves technical aspects of the amende definition of 'designated seating position'. The definition specifies that 'hip room' is to be measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). That standard defines 'hip room' as,; >>>'the minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimme surfaces on the 'x' plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in. (25mm) below and 3.0 in. (76mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in. (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.' (Area A in your diagrams.)<<<; Your question includes diagrams and asks whether various portions o vehicle seats or other components would be considered 'trimmed surfaces' within SAE Standard J1100(a).; Specifically, you ask whether slightly soft surfaces such as arm rests seat back contours or other raised portions of the seat cushion would be considered 'trimmed surfaces', for purposes of determining the minimum hip room dimension. The answer to your question is yes. The agency would probably consider all of the surfaces illustrated in your letter 'trimmed surfaces' and, strictly speaking, within the meaning of the SAE procedure. This interpretation must be qualified, however. The procedure specifies that 'hip room' is the minimum dimension 'between trimmed surfaces'. If a particular bench seat has distinct sections, the total dimension must be determined by adding the minimum dimensions of each section. For example, your Figure 5 illustrates a bench seat that includes a slightly raised center surface on the tunnel (in the center of the seat over the driveshaft). The lowest portion of Area A as defined in SAE J1100(a) would strike the side of this elevated center section, even though the top portion of Area A would be above the elevation. In such a case, there would be three distinct portions of the seat (the driver's seat, the passenger seat, and the center seat position) that should be measured separately and then added together to get the total dimension. Otherwise, only the portion of the seat on the driver's side of the center elevation would be measured under the strict wording of the SAE procedure--an absurd result.; Regarding these questions about the measurement procedure, I must mak several candid remarks. The agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition of 'designated seating position' by finding loopholes in the measurement procedure. Further, as noted above, even if the hip room as measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a) is less than 50 inches, a manufacturer may still be required to designate three seating positions. If the measured dimension is less than 50 inches only because of slight elevations or contours on the outside seat cushion, a manufacturer must designate at least three positions if these elevations or contours are not real impediments to three persons occupying the seat.; Determinations of designated seating capacity under the amende definition should not cause manufacturers any real problems. If a manufacturer truly only intends to market a particular bench or split-bench seat for two occupants, he can and should make this obvious by the seat design, regardless of whether the total seat dimension is more than 50 inches or less than 50 inches. One simple way to do this is to install a permanent arm rest or console in the center portion of the seat.; I hope this response has clarified our position and will alleviate an problems you might have in making future determinations of proper designated seating capacity.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5472OpenMary M. Mann, Director Federal Government Regulations National Marine Manufacturers Association Washington Harbour 3050 K Street, N.W., Suite 145 Washington, D.C. 20007; Mary M. Mann Director Federal Government Regulations National Marine Manufacturers Association Washington Harbour 3050 K Street N.W. Suite 145 Washington D.C. 20007; Dear Ms. Mann: This responds to your letter of September 15, 1994, t Patrick Boyd of this agency. As he has told you, we did not receive a copy of it until around November 9. You ask for confirmation of your understanding of the conspicuity requirements of S5.7.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to large boat trailers, based upon a meeting you had with him and Taylor Vinson of this Office earlier in the summer. We have paraphrased your concerns for conciseness in our discussion which follows. Side treatment 1. Paragraph S5.1.1.9 allows a double-faced clearance lamp to be mounted at or near the midpoint of wide boat trailers to indicate the extreme width. Paragraph S5.7.1.4, in essence, prohibits retroreflective material from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp. While the closest edge of the fender-mounted lamp will be further than 75 mm from the body-mounted retroreflective material, when viewed from the side the separation distance vanishes and the material appears next to the lamp. You asked whether this configuration complies with Standard No. 108. NHTSA regards this configuration as meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 since the actual physical distance between the closest edge of the lamp and the material is more than 75 mm. But the more important point is that the spacing of side conspicuity material is a consideration only for required side lamps. The amber lamp in question is a front clearance lamp and the proximity of side facing reflectors has no effect on its visibility from the side. 2. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires that the material cover at least half the trailer length and that it be distributed as even as practicable. For purposes of calculating the 50 percent minimum, you asked whether the following two applications are acceptable: a) The sheeting can be on the angled portion of the trailer that is the tongue, regardless of its effect on the reflectivity of the tape when viewed from the side. NHTSA has traditionally included the trailer tongue in determining the overall length of the vehicle for compliance purposes. Therefore, sheeting applied to the trailer tongue may be used in calculating the 50 percent minimum. (b) The sheeting need not all be on the same horizontal plane. This is correct. If a manufacturer applies sheeting to the tongue and fender in fulfilling the 50% minimum obligation, the material need not be at the same height as the other sheeting on the trailer. However, wherever applied, each discrete portion of sheeting must be mounted as horizontal as practicable. Rear Treatment 1. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1 specifies the application of three Elements of sheeting to the rear of trailers. However, it excuses container chassis and platform trailers without bulkheads from being equipped with Element 2 treatment, and trailers without underride protection devices from the requirements of Element 3. You asked whether NHTSA would also excuse boat trailers without bulkheads in the same manner as platform trailers, requiring compliance only with Element 1. This is correct. The configuration of a boat trailer without a bulkhead is essentially that of a platform trailer, and it may also be exempted from providing Element 2 conspicuity treatment. Due to their low heights, boat trailers are not equipped with rear underride devices, and those trailers without underride devices are excluded from the requirement for providing Element 3 treatment. 2. Element 1 retroreflective material is to be applied 'across the full width of the trailer' but under paragraph S5.7.1(a) it need not be applied to 'items of equipment such as door hinges and lamp bodies.' There is a cross member at the rear which will have conspicuity treatment across the full width, however, mounting brackets attached to the cross member obscure portions of the conspicuity treatment. You asked for confirmation that this configuration is in accordance with Standard No. 108. The exclusionary term 'items of equipment' is not limited to the two examples cited in S5.7.1(a), door hinges and lamp bodies. We believe that any equipment to which it is impracticable to apply retroreflective material may be excluded from the requirement. You have not included any pictures of the mounting brackets, but this will confirm that NHTSA regards the mounting brackets as 'items of equipment' to which the treatment need not be applied, if it is impracticable to apply material to it. In this event, application of conspicuity treatment across the full width of the cross member meets Standard No. 108 even if the subsequently added mounting brackets without treatment obscure part of it. 3. Does NHTSA interpret 'full width of the trailer' to include the rear of the fender assembly, so as to require the application of conspicuity treatment to it? You asked for confirmation that the phrase applies only to the rear of the frame. NHTSA has defined 'overall vehicle width' to exclude flexible fender extensions, but it has not adopted a definition for 'full width.' We understand from your first question, on the centrally mounted clearance lamp, that boat trailer fenders will be located at or near the center of the trailer rather than at the rear. Under this circumstance, we interpret 'full width' to include only the vehicle structure at the rear end of the trailer, including its frame and rear cross members. 4. With respect to the relative location of the edge of retroreflective sheeting to the edge of required lamps, S5.7.1.4(b) prohibits white sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp whether red or amber, while S5.7.1.4(c) prohibits red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required amber lamp only. You asked for confirmation 'that the edge of the red portion of the sheeting may abut a rear identification lamp but that the white portion of the sheeting must be at lease (sic) 3mm (sic) from those lamps.' (We believe you mean 3 inches). This is correct. S5.7.1.4(c) does not prohibit red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm (3 inches) to the red rear identification lamp, and the two may abut. However, S5.7.1.4(b) does not allow the edge of white sheeting to be closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of the identification lamp. Finally, you have asked for confirmation of your understanding 'that it is not acceptable for trailer manufacturers to give rolls of reflexive sheeting tape and instructions to dealers regarding its application. Rather, the sheeting must be installed at the factory.' We confirm your understanding. The manufacturer of the trailer is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon its completion and before its delivery for introduction into interstate commerce. As this certification includes compliance with S5.7 of Standard No. 108, the conspicuity treatment must be applied as part of the manufacturing process and not delegated to dealers. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3753OpenMr. Karl-Heinz Ziwicka, Manager, Safety & Emission Control Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc., Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwicka Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America Inc. Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Ziwicka: This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1983, asking for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to spacing of turn signal lamps on motorcycles.; As you have noted, SAE Standard J588e is the basic Federal requiremen for turn signal lamps referenced by Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 for all motor vehicles. One of the requirements of J588e is that the front turn signal must be separated from the low beam headlamp by at least 4 inches measured from the filament center of the turn signal to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the low beam headlamp. But, as you further point out, paragraph S4.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 relieves this restriction under certain circumstances. However, because Table IV of Standard No. 108 specifically requires a minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between the turn signal lamp and the headlamp on a motorcycle, you believe that it is unclear whether S4.3.1.7 relieves this restriction also, and have asked us for an interpretation that it does.; We are unable to provide the interpretation that you seek. True, SA J588e does incorporate a spacing restriction which is relieved by S4.3.1.7 under certain circumstances. However, although the requirements of J588e generally do apply to motorcycle turn signal lamps, the spacing restriction does not apply, having been superseded by the specific language in Table IV addressed to motorcycles. We believe that it is important to maintain a minimum edge to edge distance on motorcycles that exceeds the minimum allowable on other motor vehicles, in order to assure that the conspicuity of the turn signal will not be masked by the headlamp beam. Because the motorcycle headlamp beam is not fixed in relation to the road as an automobile headlamp is, its vertical and horizontal aim will change with the lean angle and the steering angle of the machine. The higher intensity portions of the beam will rise above the horizontal, thus producing more glare and reducing the conspicuity of the turn signal. Further, given the almost universal daytime use of headlamps, the lesser conspicuity of the turn signal on motorcycles during daylight hours must not be compromised.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0321OpenMr. Warren S. Sumner, Sales Representative, Hamill Manufacturing Company, 61166 Van Dyke Road, Washington, MI 48094; Mr. Warren S. Sumner Sales Representative Hamill Manufacturing Company 61166 Van Dyke Road Washington MI 48094; Dear Mr. Sumner: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1971, in which you as certain questions concerning a child booster seat that you plan to market. You describe the booster seat as a rectangle about 6 inches in height, tapering to 4 inches in the front, and state that it would be advertised for use by children under 50 pounds and would not be designed to fall into the category of child seating systems under Standard No. 213. You also state that your engineers feel a booster chair will 'definitely help more five, six and seven year old children to use seat belts simply because these children will be able to see out of a vehicle.'; While you state that the booster seat 'would not be designed to fal into the category of child seating systems under Standard No. 213,' it is not clear from your description of the device that this is actually the case. If you wish an opinion on this matter, we will provide one, but to do so we will need some additional information. Specifically, we will need to know if the booster seat is to be designed or advertised for use with the vehicle seat belts, and if so, how it will be so designed or advertised.; The questionsyou (sic) ask concerning the booster seat are: (1) Can w set a minimum of 50 or 60 pounds?(2)Exactly (sic) what is the maximum child weight covered under MVSS No. 213? and (3) What recommended weight can we advertise as a minimum for our booster seat?; The answers to these questions do not depend on whether the standar applies to your booster seat. If the device is a child seating system, Standard No. 213 does not specify the minimum or maximum heights or weights for children who may use it. Under the standard, it is up to the manufacturer to determine, based upon the design of each particular child seating system, the heights and weights of children for which he recommends the child seating system.; If the device is not a child seating system, the manufacturer is no required to recommend any heights or weights for children who can use it. Should he choose to do so, however, the heights and weights recommended must be consistent with the safe use of the device.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5441OpenMr. David Ori, Manager Bureau of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Control Division, Room 104 T&S Building Harrisburg, PA 17120; Mr. David Ori Manager Bureau of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Control Division Room 104 T&S Building Harrisburg PA 17120; "Dear Mr. Ori: This responds to your letter to Mr. James Gilkey of thi agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 to certain limousines. You were concerned about the permissibility of applying sun screening or window tinting to such vehicles during the original manufacturing process, and during the 'second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process.' By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under this authority, NHTSA issued Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials,' to specify performance requirements for various types of glazing and to specify the location in the vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. One provision in Standard No. 205 requires a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance in any glazing area requisite for driving visibility. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the vehicle's windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 205. As you correctly state, second stage manufacturers and alterers also have certification responsibilities. Specifically, a final stage manufacturer is responsible for certifying a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR 567.5. Accordingly, you are correct that a final stage manufacturer is required to certify that its finished product, including the glazing materials, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards. 49 CFR 567.7. However, this provision does not apply to the 'addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations, such as painting.' NHTSA views the addition of window tint film as a 'minor finishing operation.' Accordingly, a person adding such tint film would not be considered an alterer and therefore would not be subject to certification responsibilities. However, aside from certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30112a, 'a person may not...sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce...any motor vehicle...unless the vehicle...complies with all applicable standards .' Thus, it would be a violation of the statute to sell a new vehicle whose windows which are requisite for driving visibility had been tinted to allow less than 70 percent light transmittance. Moreover, with respect to vehicles that are no longer new, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business 'may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.' Thus, a person in any of these categories may not apply tint film that would cause the light transmittance of the glazing requisite for driving visibility to be under 70 percent. You stated your belief that limousines that seat less than 10 persons may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product, since such products would violate Standard No. 205. We wish to clarify one aspect of your statement. Limousines that seat less than 10 persons are considered 'passenger cars' under NHTSA's regulations. NHTSA considers all windows in a passenger car to be requisite for driving visibility, accordingly, all windows in a passenger car/limousine must have a minimum 70 percent light transmittance. However, please note that tinting may be used in these vehicles, provided the tinted windows meet the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. You further asked whether a limousine that seats 10 or more persons is subject to the Federal window tinting requirements. A limousine with a capacity of more than 10 persons is considered a 'bus' under our regulations. There are specific requirements in Standard No. 205 that apply to buses (or bus/limousines). Under these requirements, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered to be requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying section S6.1(b) of Standard No. 111), and thus subject to the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in a bus/limousine, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Accordingly, Standard No. 205 does not prohibit the use of tinted glazing materials for bus/limousine windows to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2655OpenMr. Paul J. Kelley, Assistant to the President, U-Haul International, 2727 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85036; Mr. Paul J. Kelley Assistant to the President U-Haul International 2727 North Central Avenue Phoenix AZ 85036; Dear Mr. Kelley: This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1977, concerning th language in Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) stating that 'to the maximum extent practicable, a bumper standard promulgated by the Secretary shall not preclude the attachment of detachable hitches.' In your letter you refer to correspondence dated May 5, 1976, on the same subject. I regret that due to an administrative oversight that letter was not answered.; In your letter you expressed your opinion that Congress intended i Title I to place an affirmative obligation on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to ensure that vehicles are produced with bumpers that can accommodate detachable bumper hitches. The main support offered for your position is a comment by Congressman William Springer made at the time the conference bill was presented to the full House of Representatives. Mr. Springer's statement was that 'bumpers should be practicable and allow for the use of bumper hitches, that is, the hitches that you use to hook something else behind the automobile.' It appears that you have interpreted Mr. Springer's statement as indicating an intent that the bumper standard ultimately promulgated require that bumpers be designed to accommodate detachable bumper hitches.; Having reviewed the legislative history of Title I, I must disagre with your position. Congress was explicit in its direction that the agency express any bumper standard in minimum performance terms so as to allow the industry to make full use of its technological resources in devising a means of complying with the requirements. This mandate has been fulfilled by the agency. Part 581, *Bumper Standard*, provides that a vehicle be capable of meeting the specified damage criteria when involved in 5 mph impacts with a pendulum test device and a fixed barrier. Manufacturers are free to satisfy that performance level in whatever manner they choose. That manufacturing freedom would be compromised were the agency to require the production of vehicles with bumper systems suitable for detachable bumper hitches. Such a result would clearly be contrary to Congress' Title I directive.; With regard to the contracts with Calspan and Minicars, the vehicle developed under those programs are not required by law to satisfy a particular set of safety criteria. Under those contracts vehicles that meet high levels of safety, damage-resistibility, and fuel economy are to be developed. Accommodation of detachable bumper hitches is not a factor in any of those areas of concentration.; I want to assure you that the NHTSA shares your interest in providin the public with a means to tow. Our actions under Title I preserve the ability of manufacturers to produce bumper systems that continue to satisfy that public need.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam4671OpenMr. Dennis T. Johnston Senior Executive Engineer Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs Sterling Motor Cars 8953 N.W. 23rd Street Miami, Florida 33172; Mr. Dennis T. Johnston Senior Executive Engineer Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs Sterling Motor Cars 8953 N.W. 23rd Street Miami Florida 33172; "Dear Mr. Johnston: This responds to your letter reporting a change i the locking system to be installed on the MY 1991 British Sterling car line. Although your letter does not explicitly request the agency determine that the change is of a de minimis nature and that therefore the Sterling vehicles containing the change would be fully covered by the previously granted exemption for Sterling vehicles, we are treating the letter as making such a request. The alternative to making such a request is to submit a modification petition under 49 CFR 543.9(b) and (c)(2). As you are aware, the Sterling car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Austin Rover showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on July 16, 1986, and appeared in the Federal Register on July 22, 1986 (51 FR 26332). In your letter, you stated that beginning with the start of MY 1991, Sterling Motor Cars (Sterling) plans an improvement in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Sterling vehicle. The change involves the consequence of opening of the trunk when the system is armed. Currently, the system, once armed, activates when the trunk is opened, even if it is opened with the key. In order to avoid this, the antitheft device must first be disarmed before the trunk is opened. It is our understanding that Sterling plans to change the system by allowing the system to be disarmed by opening the trunk with a key and rearmed by closing the trunk lid. However, if the trunk were to be forced open without a key, the alarm would still be activated. After reviewing the planned change to the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the change is de minimis. While the change means that opening the trunk with a key will no longer activate the alarm, the agency does not believe that activating the alarm under those circumstances contributes to theft prevention. The agency concludes that the antitheft device, as modified, will continue to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Sterling to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 543.9(b) and (c)(2). If Sterling does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Sterling notify the agency of such decisions. Sincerely, Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking"; |
|
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.