NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam1104OpenMr. Ralph H. Ullenberg, President, Milwaukee truck Center, Inc., 10521 West Layton Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53228; Mr. Ralph H. Ullenberg President Milwaukee truck Center Inc. 10521 West Layton Avenue Milwaukee WI 53228; Dear Mr. Ullenberg: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you as several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds, a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico, (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date, (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating, if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date, (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.; It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issu underlies all your questions, that is, whether a final- stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.; A truck that is equipped at the time of its manufacture with tire inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S. C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.; The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped withou tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case in within this exception.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4039OpenMr. William R. Fink, President, Isis Imports, Ltd., P.O. Box 2290, U.S. Custom House, San Francisco, CA 94126; Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 U.S. Custom House San Francisco CA 94126; Dear Mr. Fink: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1985, to the forme Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt. Your company, Isis Imports, is an importer of Morgan passenger cars, and has heretofore imported them pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(iii). Upon advice of your attorney you have concluded that you may instead import them pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix), and wish to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of that fact.; More specifically, under 12.80(b)(1)(iii) an importer declares that hi vehicles was not manufactured in conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but that it has been, or will be, brought into conformity, he also is required to furnish a bond for the production of a conformity statement. Under 12.80(b)(1)(ix), the importer simply declares that the vehicle is an 'incomplete vehicle' as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, no bond is required as it is assumed that the vehicle will be completed to conform to the Federal safety standards and bear the certification of its final- stage manufacturer. Because the Morgans are received from Morgan Motor Company without 'major components of the fuel system: no fuel tank, fuel lines, carburetor, etc.,' you believe that they are 'incomplete vehicles,' which are defined by S568.3 as 'an assemblage consisting as a minimum of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations...to become a completed vehicle.'; We disagree with your conclusion. The rulemaking history of Part 56 clearly shows that the intent of the regulation is to cover vehicles whose manufacture has customarily been shared. As the agency commented in 1970, 'A large number of heavy vehicles of all types, of recreational vehicles, and of special purpose vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages, of which the first is an incomplete vehicle such as a stripped chassis, chassis cowl, or chassis cab to which one or more subsequent manufacturers add components to produce a completed vehicle.' (35 FR 4639) The Morgan, on the other hand, is a passenger car ordinarily manufactured in a single stage, and in this instance is nonetheless virtually complete when it arrives in the United States. It is therefore a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), and the agency will not accept any HS-7 forms evidencing attempts to enter the vehicles pursuant to 12.80(b)(1)(ix).; I enclose copies of a couple of rulemaking proposals on Part 568 s that you might have a better understanding of its thrust. Were we to accept your interpretation, S568.4(a) would require Morgan Motor Company to furnish a document with each vehicle advising Isis how compliance with each applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard might be affected by its final manufactured operations. Given the decision of Peter Morgan over the years not to conform his vehicles for the American market, we question whether he would furnish a document attesting that his product complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except 301, *Fuel System Integrity*.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4064OpenMs. Cynthia R. Syverson, Manufacturers Representative, P.O. Box 23314, Jacksonville, FL 32217; Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson Manufacturers Representative P.O. Box 23314 Jacksonville FL 32217; Dear Ms. Syverson: Thank you for your letter of January 7, 1986, inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a sun shading product you enclosed with your letter and asking whether the product complies with our standards. The product is a rolldown sun shade, which when extended covers a 15 x 18 inch area of a vehicle window with a piece of perforated plastic. The product is designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to this product.; Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety law and regulations affect your 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 certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.; We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazin Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; If you need further information, please let me know. I am returning under separate cover, the sample you sent.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3771OpenThe Honorable Robert A. Young, Member of Congress, 4150 Cypress Road, St. Ann, MO 63074; The Honorable Robert A. Young Member of Congress 4150 Cypress Road St. Ann MO 63074; Dear Mr. Young: Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the potentia hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the use of opaque glass in automobiles. Through the exercise of its motor vehicle safety authority, the agency has addressed a part of this potential problem. However, given the limitations on the agency's authority, additional State action is needed to eliminate this potential problem.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, th agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistances. The specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; In past interpretation letters, the agency has said that solar film an other materials used to make windows opaque are not glazing materials themselves and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance of abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to the first sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.; After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter th vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting or other film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not the installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 'Render inoperative' means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed to comply with a Federal safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a tinting or other film on a vehicle for an owner if that action would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance performance of the vehicle's glazing. Violation of the render inoperative provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; State law, rather than Federal law, governs the operational use o vehicles by their owners. Thus, it is up to the States to preclude owners from applying tinting or other films to their vehicle windows. A number of States have already adopted such laws. The agency would be glad to provide technical assistance on glazing requirements to the appropriate Missouri highway safety officials working on this problem.; I hope this explains the agency's authority to address the potentia problems posed by tinting and other films. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed |
|
ID: aiam5142OpenMr. Milford R. Bennett Acting Director Automotive Safety Engineering GM Environmental and Energy Staff Box 9055 Warren, MI 48090-9055; Mr. Milford R. Bennett Acting Director Automotive Safety Engineering GM Environmental and Energy Staff Box 9055 Warren MI 48090-9055; "Dear Mr. Bennett: We have received the petition by General Motors (GM for temporary exemption of a fleet of approximately 50 GM electric vehicles (GMEVs) from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GM would retain title to and ownership of the GMEVs which would be provided to private individuals and used for demonstration purposes over a 2-year period. The exemptions would be effective October 1, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, we are unable to consider the petition in its present form, and recommend that you either supplement it or withdraw and resubmit it when it has been revised in accordance with our procedures. First, we have comments on several of the Safety Standards from which GM has requested exemption. With respect to Standard No. 105, GM appears to have requested exemption from the standard in its entirety, commenting that until 'resolution of remaining EV regulatory issues associated with FMVSS 105 . . . GM is unable to certify the GMEV . . . as being fully compliant . . . .' We suggest that GM restrict its request for exemption to the specific sections of Standard No. 105 that may be affected by the pending resolution of issues involving brakes for electric vehicles and that this will facilitate GM's argument that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the GMEV. We also prefer the use of objective data to subjective terms where practicable. GM has requested exemption from some of the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 because the possibility exists that candlepower values may be 'slightly below' the minimum requirements 'at a few test points'. Is it possible to identify the test points and to quantify the potentially lower candela at those points? Similarly, GM has argued that 'preliminary testing has indicated that' the GMEV will 'substantially comply' with Standards Nos. 208, 212 and 219. Under section 555.6(c)(2), a petitioner shall provide '. . . testing documentation establishing that a temporary exemption will not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle . . . .' Therefore we ask GM to submit the preliminary test reports in substantiation of its petition. Finally, GM has also failed to set forth the arguments required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7) as to why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We note in passing the unusual use in the petition of the argument that 'the GMEV will provide an overall level of safety that is substantially equivalent to the level of safety of nonexempted vehicles.' The argument of overall safety equivalence is the basis for exemption provided by Section 555.6(d), not Section 555.6(c) where a petitioner must demonstrate that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. However, we interpret GM's argument to mean that it views its failures to meet Standards Nos. 201, 208, 212, and 219, as technical in nature with essentially no degradation in safety, let alone a degradation that approaches unreasonableness. For this reason, we believe all the more strongly that GM should provide the preliminary test report results mentioned above. When we have received GM's new petition, we shall prepare a Federal Register notice requesting public comment. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1464OpenMr. R. Debesson, General Secretary, European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, Avenue Brugmann, 32, 1060 Bruxelles, BELGIUM; Mr. R. Debesson General Secretary European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation Avenue Brugmann 32 1060 Bruxelles BELGIUM; Dear Mr. Debesson: This is in reply to your Submission Nos. 78 and 79, of February 1 1974, and February 19, 1974, respectively. In Submission No. 79 you request that several corrections be made to the Tables of the Appendices of Standard Nos. 109 and 110 as they appeared in the *Federal Register* on November 1, 1973 (38 FR 30234). In Submission No. 78 you request new additions to the Tables.; You request in Submission No. 79 that Footnote No. 1 of Table I-S an I-T in standard No. 109 be corrected. A correction of those footnotes was published in the *Federal Register* on February 5, 1974 (39 FR 4578), and we enclose a copy. You also request that in Table I-C of Standard No. 109 the test rim width for the 165-15 tire size designation be changed to 4 1/2 inches. That correction was published in the *Federal Register* of November 13, 1973 (38 FR 31309), copy also enclosed.; You further request that Table I-D be corrected by changing the tes rim width of the 145-10 tire size designation to 4 1/2 inches, by changing the minimum size factor of the 230-15 tire size designation to '37.30,' and by changing the test rim width of the 165-400 tire size designation to '4.65.' Our review of previous publications show these three items and we will publish a correction regarding them. You also request changed in several load inflation values in Tables I-H and I-N. The November 1, 1973, publication is incorrect with respect to these load values as well, and we will publish a correction regarding them.; We cannot, however, grant your request that we correct in Table I-F th 16 psi (from '705 to '760') for the 5.60 R 15 and 5.90 R 13 tire size designations without first receiving a formal submission from E.T.R.T.O. requesting the change. The 705-pound load is a carryover from earlier Tables, and we cannot conclude that the Table as published on November 1 is in error. Accordingly, if you wish the load value to be modified to 760 pounds you must request such a change in accordance with the abbreviated rulemaking procedures published in the *Federal Register* on October 5, 1968 (33 FR 14964). Upon receipt and approval of E.T.R.T.O.'s submission, we will make the requested change in the subsequent quarterly amendment to the Tables.; You ask in Submission No. 78 that we add to Table I-H the 165 SR 1 tire size designation and the alternate rim size 500b. No amendment is necessary to include the 165 SR 13 tire size designation in Table I-H. Tire size 165 R 13 is listed, and Footnote 1 of the Table allows the 'S' to be placed adjacent to the 'R.' We will, however, add the 5.00B rim as an alternative rim size for the 165 R 13 tire size designation in the next quarterly amendment to the Tables.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5370OpenMr. James Schaub Midas Muffler Shop 180 Gause Blvd. Slidell, LA 70458; Mr. James Schaub Midas Muffler Shop 180 Gause Blvd. Slidell LA 70458; "Dear Mr. Schaub: This responds to your letter asking us about Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 with regard to replacing brake rotors and/or drums. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that local automobile dealership service departments do not follow manufacturers' recommendations in this area, causing your customers to believe that your shop is fraudulently selling and installing parts on vehicles when they are not needed. You requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105 in this regard, and asked whether there is any basis for fraud in replacing rotors and drums when they are outside manufacturer safety tolerances. You stated that if you can present an established standard to your customers, you can prevent them from believing they have been taken advantage of. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, specifies requirements for hydraulic brake systems and associated parking brake systems. The standard applies to new motor vehicles. While you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 105, that standard is of little relevance to your situation. This is because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to a motor vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. The Safety Act does include some provisions which are relevant to used vehicles. In particular, the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. However, this provision would ordinarily not be relevant to a decision whether to replace, or mill or turn, worn brake drums and rotors. With respect to your desire to show your customers an established standard in this area, I can call your attention to NHTSA's vehicle in use inspection standards. These standards set forth criteria for, among other things, inspecting service brake systems. You should be aware that these standards were developed for use by the States in establishing their inspection requirements. Thus, the standards only apply to the extent that they are adopted by individual States. I have enclosed a copy of the standards for your information and particularly call your attention to section 570.5(f). That section, which applies to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, reads as follows: (f) Disc and drum condition. If the drum is embossed with a maximum safe diameter dimension or the rotor is embossed with a minimum safety thickness dimension, the drum or disc shall be within the appropriate specifications. . . . This section reflects the importance NHTSA places on following manufacturer recommendations in this area. The states may regulate the repair of motor vehicles. We suggest that you investigate the laws of Louisiana to see whether they affect your situation. We cannot advise you about Federal or state requirements concerning fraud. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, your state government, and/or a private attorney about this matter. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2210OpenMr. John L. O'Connell, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles, State Street, Wethersfield, CT 06109; Mr. John L. O'Connell State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles State Street Wethersfield CT 06109; Dear Mr. O'Connell: This is in response to your letters of June 24, 1975, and May 30, 1975 regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217 and 205. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions.; In your letter of June 24, 1975, you asked whether Standard No. 21 applies to school buses, and if so, whether Connecticut's regulations concerning emergency exits for school buses are in conflict with the Federal standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, 49 CFR 571.217, was amended to specify requirements for emergency doors for school buses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 202 of the Motor Vehicle and Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1484, 15 U.S.C. 1392).; Since Standard No. 217, as amended, applies to school buses, effectiv October 26, 1976, any State regulations which differ are voided by S103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The Connecticut regulations are, therefore, preempted by Standard No. 217, since S103(d) requires the State regulations to be 'identical' to the Federal standard.; It should be noted, however, that while the State of Connecticut ma not issue a regulation which differs from similarly applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements, Connecticut (or any of its political subdivisions) may in its own contracts for school bus purchases require more stringent specifications, as long as the Federal minimum requirements are met.; In your letter of May 30, 1975, you asked whether Lucite AR and othe similar rigid plastics are allowed for use as side windows of buses under Standard No. 205, even though S5.1.2.1 does not list the use for 'Item 12' rigid plastics.; 'Item 12' is a classification created by the NHTSA for rigid plastic which comply with all the tests required of 'Item 5' rigid plastics as defined in ANS Z26, with the exception of the test for resistance to undiluted denatured alcohol. Paragraph S5.1.2.1, Item 12 - *Rigid plastics*, provides that 'Item 5' safety plastic materials may be used in motor vehicles *only* in the locations specified, at levels not requisite for driving visibility. These locations include 'Standee windows in buses' and 'readily removable windows'. However, there is no provision in S5.1.2.1 which allows the use of 'Item 12' plastic materials for fixed, side windows in buses.; Standard No. 205 defines readily removable windows in buses having GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds to include pushout windows and windows mounted in emergency exits that can be manually pushed out of their location in the vehicle without the use of tools, whether or not one side remains hinged to the vehicle. Rigid plastics can only be used for side windows in buses if the side window is a readily removable window as defined by S5.1.1.4 or a standee window.; I hope this letter clarifies your questions concerning Standard Nos 217 and 205. Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1103OpenMr. Ralph H. Ullenberg, President, Milwaukee truck Center, Inc., 10521 West Layton Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53228; Mr. Ralph H. Ullenberg President Milwaukee truck Center Inc. 10521 West Layton Avenue Milwaukee WI 53228; Dear Mr. Ullenberg: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you as several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds, a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico, (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date, (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating, if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date, (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.; It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issu underlies all your questions, that is, whether a final- stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.; A truck that is equipped at the time of its manufacture with tire inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S. C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.; The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped withou tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case in within this exception.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4455OpenMs. Joanne Salvio Fire Research Corporation 26 Southern Blvd. Nesconset, NY 11767; Ms. Joanne Salvio Fire Research Corporation 26 Southern Blvd. Nesconset NY 11767; "Dear Ms. Salvio: This responds to your November 10, 1987, lette asking whether the 'Guardian Gate' your company manufactures for firefighting vehicles is subject to Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. The answer to your question is yes, if the Gate is installed on new vehicles and if the area into which the door leads contains one or more seating positions. The advertising material you enclosed states that the Guardian Gate 'is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus sic .' The advertisement said that the unique feature of the Guardian Gate is its locking mechanism which enables the gate to be locked 'on both its sides to the vehicle, the cab side, as well as the pump panel side.' The advertisement said this 'dual locking' feature is intended to minimize the likelihood that the gate will be opened either unintentionally or because of 'hazardous conditions' (an explanation of which the advertisement did not include). Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 206 states: 'Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. ...' (S4 exempts certain types of doors from Standard No. 206, but these are doors that are readily removable or that are not provided for retaining occupants. Since the Guardian Gate falls into neither of these two categories, the exemptions are not relevant to your inquiry.) From the information you provided in your letter and in telephone calls between you and Ms. Hom of my staff, we understand that the standing area on the firefighting vehicle enclosed by the Guardian Gate contains a jump seat. Because 'seating accommodations' referred to in S4 include jump seats, a Guardian Gate that is installed to enclose a jump seat area on a new firefighting vehicle must comply with Standard No. 206. This determination is consistent with an August 13, 1980 letter from NHTSA to Mr. L. Steenbock of the FWD Corporation (copy enclosed), in which this agency stated that a door leading to a standing area that contains no seating position would not have to comply with Standard No. 206. Because Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks (e.g., firefighting vehicles), and not to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types, you may sell the Guardian Gate to vehicle owners without regard as to whether the Gate complies with the performance requirements of the standard. However, we urge you to consider meeting those requirements voluntarily, to ensure that the Gate will perform to specified levels for the safety of firefighters riding in the 'jump seat area' of the vehicle. You should also be aware that you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to ensure that your product contains no defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
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.