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: aiam1269OpenMr. Virgil V. Stanciu, Executive Vice President, Falcon Enterprises, Inc., 3960 South Marginal Road, Cleveland, OH 44114; Mr. Virgil V. Stanciu Executive Vice President Falcon Enterprises Inc. 3960 South Marginal Road Cleveland OH 44114; Dear Mr. Stanciu: This is in reply to your letter of September 6, 1973, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, 'Motorcycle Helmets.' You raise several questions in your letter which are restated below.; >>>1. 'It is our understanding that we are not required to seek o secure prior DOT approval to market helmets manufactured after March 1, 1974, but that we must satisfy ourselves that our product meets this specification. Is this correct?'; Yes. 2. 'It is also our understanding the DOT does not issue any approval o certification even if we present documents of compliance. Is this correct?'; Yes. 3. 'We are interested in your comments as far as the disposition o existing inventory of helmets manufactured prior to March 1, 1974, but available for retail sale following March 1, 1974.'; The standard will apply only to helmets manufactured on or after it effective date, it will not apply to helmets manufactured before its effective date but sold to the public after that date. Accordingly, you will be free to sell after the standard's effective date any helmets you have in stock which were manufactured before the standard's effective date.; 4. 'What mechanism do you foresee being set up to police our industr to assure the public of continued compliance?'; 5. 'In the event that a helmet is tested by DOT and found to b deficient with respect to the DOT requirements, we would like to know what action would be taken by DOT?'; Once any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard becomes effective violations of such regulations are federally enforced. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) purchases items covered by the standard in the open market, and tests them for compliance. Under section 109(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, whoever violates any regulation issued under the Act, including selling nonconforming equipment, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation to a maximum of not more than $400,000 for any related series of such violations.; 6. 'Presently our helmets are marketed as universal size with sizin bands included. Per section 5.6.1 (labeling), we are required to show the size of the helmet. We are somewhat at a loss as to which size we would show, since the helmet can be either small, medium, or large at the selection of the purchaser. Would you please comment?'; If the size of a helmet is adjustable, then the range of sizes withi which it can be adjusted must be given.; 7. 'Would you please furnish us with the method and the name of th person or persons whom we would communicate with for specific interpretation of the individual sections of this standard?'; Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safet Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; 8. 'Could you provide us with a list of DOT approved testing agencies?' Neither the DOT nor the NHTSA certify or approve testing agencies. Th basis upon which a manufacturer determines whether his product conforms to a standard is a matter within his own discretion.; 9. 'Does this standard supersede and set aside the current Stat regulations pertaining to motorcycle helmets?'; The motorcycle helmet standard is a comprehensive regulation coverin all relevant aspects of safety performance. Any State or local requirements for the design or performance of motorcycle helmets must be identical to the requirements of the Federal standard when that standard becomes effective. Any differing requirements will be void.<<<; A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which includes the referenced sections you are concerned about, and a copy of the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51 are enclosed in accordance with your request.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4591OpenMabel Y. Bullock, Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629; Mabel Y. Bullock Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh NC 27602-0629; "Dear Ms. Bullock: Thank you for your letter to Ms. Susan Schruth of m staff, regarding North Carolina General Statute 20-127, Windshields must be unobstructed. I regret the delay in responding. You enclosed a copy of the statute, the regulations implementing it, a copy of a December 18, l987 legal memorandum prepared by your department concluding that a State statute or regulation allowing 35% light transmittance through windows in motor vehicles would be preempted by current Federal safety laws and standards regulating this same subject matter, and a copy of a May 6, 1988 letter from the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) to Mr. William S. Hiatt, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for North Carolina, asserting that the North Carolina statute was not preempted by Federal laws and regulations. You asked for my opinion as to whether the North Carolina statute conflicts with any provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. /1381 et seq.) or with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.1 et seq.). Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, 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. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' Because of this statutory requirement, any manufacturer, importer, or dealer that installs solar films or other sun screen devices on new glazing materials or the glazing installed in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205. The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. See section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). Both before and after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including tinting, 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. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 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. Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles. The authority of States to regulate glazing is affected by section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. /1392(d)). This section provides that: w henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard. The effect of this provision of the Safety Act, with respect to the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205, is to expressly prohibit any State from specifying some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent specified in Standard No. 205 for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Each of the individual States has authority to enforce identical standards (i.e., a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Additionally, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in that State. Having provided this background, we want to turn now to the results of our review of the North Carolina statute and regulations, along with your office's memorandum concluding that the statute is preempted by Federal law. 1. New vehicles and new glazing for use in vehicles. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted if it specifies any requirements other than the requirements of Standard No. 205 (minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new vehicles or for new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act and Standard No. 205 require all new vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles to be delivered to the first purchaser with a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Section 103(d) of the Safety Act expressly preempts any non-identical State standard on the subject of window tinting. Section 20-127(d) of the North Carolina statute appears to permit a single application of tinted film with a light transmittance of as little as 35 percent to be applied to vehicle glazing after factory delivery, but before sale to the public. This provision is preempted by Federal law, as is any other provision of North Carolina law which specifies that new glazing and glazing in new vehicles shall have some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205. 2. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted by Federal law if it permits the commercial installation of sunscreen materials so that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205. This conclusion is based on the conflict between the North Carolina statute and the 'render inoperative' provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That provision prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or an item of glazing with any of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. Apart from the issue of preemption, I want to note that the provisions of State law cannot alter the effect of the 'render inoperative' prohibition in Federal law. Regardless of how North Carolina law treats the combination of the glazing and the tinting, if it results in less than 70 percent light transmittance, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on a vehicle would be liable for the Federal civil penalty discussed above. 3. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by individual owners themselves after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. As noted above, Federal law does not regulate modifications that individual owners themselves make to their vehicles or glazing after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, even if those modifications result in the vehicles or glazing no longer complying with the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance. The State of North Carolina is free to establish whatever restrictions, if any, it deems appropriate on individual owner modifications, without regard to the requirements of Standard No. 205. To the extent that the North Carolina statute seeks to address these individual owner modifications, it would not be preempted by Federal law. 4. Requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State of North Carolina. An individual State is free to establish whatever requirements it deems appropriate for vehicles to be registered in the State, provided that those State requirements would not prohibit the registration of vehicles that complied with the requirements of the Federal safety standards. Thus, the State of North Carolina is free to permit vehicles that do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 to be registered in North Carolina. To the extent that the North Carolina window tinting statute seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, it would not be preempted by Federal law. We have also reviewed the May 6, 1988 letter from MEMA to Mr. Hiatt, in which MEMA discusses why it believes North Carolina's statute would not be preempted by Federal law. The MEMA discussion does not address the 'render inoperative' provision in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits commercial businesses from adversely affecting the compliance of elements of design installed in a vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with a safety standard, regardless of whether the vehicle is new or used. As was previously stated, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from ever installing window tinting material for the owner of a car if the combination of the original glazing and the tinting material results in less than 70 percent light transmittance through any window of the car. To summarize, the North Carolina statute would be preempted to the extent that it seeks to permit some level of light transmittance other than that specified in Standard No. 205 for glazing in vehicles prior to the first purchase of the vehicles in good faith for purposes other than resale. Similarly, the statute would be preempted to the extent it seeks to permit the commercial installation of sunscreen materials with the result that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. However, the North Carolina statute would not be preempted to the extent that it seeks to regulate the modifications that owners themselves can make to their vehicles or to the extent that it seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, even if those requirements differ from those specified in Standard No. 205. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3254OpenMr. Adam Victor, Chairman and CEO, Gas Alternative Systems, 65 Rugby Road, Brooklyn, NY 11226; Mr. Adam Victor Chairman and CEO Gas Alternative Systems 65 Rugby Road Brooklyn NY 11226; Dear Mr. Victor: This responds to your March 1, 1980, letter asking what you must do t certify devices that you plan to import for sale in the United States. The devices to which you refer would convert an automobile's fuel system from gas to compressed natural gas or propane.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safet standards and requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. To certify compliance to the standards, manufacturers must test or conduct some form of analysis of their vehicles or equipment. The Federal government does not get involved in the actual certification process. Once a manufacturer determines that its equipment or vehicles comply with the standards, it can then certify the vehicles or equipment without getting government approval.; With respect to the device that you propose to import, the agency ha no safety standards applicable to this type of a device. Accordingly, as an importer of this equipment, you would have no certification responsibilities. However, the agency has a vehicle safety standard regulating fuel systems. If your device were designed to be installed in new motor vehicles, the manufacturer of those vehicles would be required to insure that your device would comply with the standard applicable to fuel systems. If your device would be installed on used vehicles, no manufacturer, dealer or repair business would be permitted to install it if such installation would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards.; To help clarify these general guidelines further, I am enclosing a cop of Part 567, *Certification*, which describes how to certify a vehicle in compliance with the safety standards. Further, I am enclosing a copy of our Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*, which details the fuel system requirements for motor vehicles. Finally, we have prepared a short letter that gives information on the installation of alternate fuel systems in motor vehicles and that is enclosed for your information.; If we can be of further assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1639OpenMr. Sol M. Edidin, Executive Director, Car and Truck Renting and Leasing Association, 1725 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Sol M. Edidin Executive Director Car and Truck Renting and Leasing Association 1725 K Street N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Sol: This responds to your July 25, 1974, letter and our subsequen discussions which raise the question whether the construction of a truck using the power train (rear axle, suspension, drive line, and engine) of a damaged 1972 truck and all or part of a new glider kit constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle, subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121 after March 1, 1975.; Re-use of components from an existing vehicle in the construction o another vehicle may or may not result in the manufacture of a new vehicle. The NHTSA has established that the addition of new components (such as a truck body) to the chassis of a used vehicle does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. Conversely, the addition of used components to a new chassis which has never been certified in a vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle, subject to the safety standards in effect for that vehicle class on the date of manufacture. This criterion has been relied on in the area of chassis-cab multistage manufacture.; Typically a 'glider kit' is a truck chassis on which a cab and fron axle system are mounted, which is purchased to permit the re-utilization of a power train from another vehicle. Since a glider kit typically incorporates a new chassis (as well as a new cab and front suspension), the NHTSA finds that the use of such a glider kit in the construction of a motor vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. To conclude otherwise would mean that a vehicle composed entirely of brand new components except the rear axle and perhaps the engine and transmission, would qualify as a used vehicle.; In answer to your question on the use of a portion of the kit: if th kit's chassis portion is used, we would consider the resultant vehicle to be a new motor vehicle. Conversely, use of only the cab portion would not be the manufacture of a new motor vehicle.; A new motor vehicle must conform to all applicable Federal moto vehicle safety standards. If it is *not* manufactured in two or more stages, the applicable standards are those in effect for the vehicle type as of the date of completion of the vehicle (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)) (49 CFR 567.4). If the vehicle has been manufactured in two or more stages in accordance with Part 568 (*Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages*, 49 CFR Part 568), it may be certified as of any date between the date of manufacture of the 'incomplete vehicle' and the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle. For example, a truck- tractor constructed of a 1972 power train and a glider kit on some date prior to March 1, 1975, may be certified as of the date that it reaches the 'incomplete' stage although its completion (such as by fifth-wheel installation) occurs after March 1, 1975.; The manufacturer responsible for certification under Part 567 (49 CF Part 567) will in many cases be the person who combines the used components with the glider kit. However, if he has manufactured only an 'incomplete vehicle' as that term is defined in Part 568, he would provide documentation with the vehicle required under S 568.4.; Although a glider kit manufacturer may use several serial number (e.g., body, engine) the NHTSA only requires one vehicle identification number to appear on the certification plate (S 567(4)(g)(6)). The manufacturer may use the serial number on the glider kit or may create his own vehicle identification number. It is my understanding that the States have established various practices for the registration of a vehicle which is partially constructed from a formerly registered vehicle. These practices vary greatly and you should check with the individual States regarding them.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3604OpenMr. R. H. Zelinski, Vice President, Corporate Engineering, Zimmer Corporation, P.O. Box 2127, Pompano Beach, FL 33061; Mr. R. H. Zelinski Vice President Corporate Engineering Zimmer Corporation P.O. Box 2127 Pompano Beach FL 33061; Dear Mr. Zelinski: Thank you for your letter of August 6, 1982, to the Administrato asking whether there is 'any blanket waiver of standards solely based on a small production of vehicles.'; You are correct that no such waiver exists. Even a single automobil manufactured for use on the public roads must meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless exempted by the Administrator under the provisions of Part 555. A manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production in the year preceding filing of his petition does not exceed 10,000 units is eligible to apply for an exemption of up to three years on a hardship basis. Any manufacturer of motor vehicles may apply for an exemption of up to two years on the three remaining bases that you mention but the exemption extends only to a maximum of 2500 vehicles in any 12-month period that the exemption is in effect.; Under the original exemption authority, in effect from 1968 to 1971 exemptions were available on a hardship basis and the threshold of eligibility was 500 units.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2916OpenMr. T.F. Brown, Mack Trucks, Inc., Engineering Division, P.O. Box 1761, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105; Mr. T.F. Brown Mack Trucks Inc. Engineering Division P.O. Box 1761 Allentown Pennsylvania 18105; Dear Mr. Brown: I regret the delay in responding to your August 31, 1978, lette requesting an interpretation of S5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. In that letter, you stated that you had been contacted by an employee of this agency's enforcement office and advised that the certification labels for Mack trucks did not comply with the requirements of that section. The reason given for this conclusion was that the labels used the word 'on' between the tire and rim information instead of the comma shown in the example following S5.3.3.; S5.3 requires that the labeling information specified in S5.3.1 S5.3.3 must appear in the format shown in the truck example following S5.3.3. This requirements does not mean that certification labels must be identical to the example in every respect. Minor variations are permitted. By 'minor variations', I mean such things as a slight difference in punctuation mark that do not change or obscure the meaning of the label. Mack's substitution of 'on' for a comma is such a minor variation and, accordingly, is permissible under the standard.; The label enclosed with your letter shows spaces to provide informatio for the front, rear and tree intermediate axles. When this label is used on vehicles with fewer than five axles, you should stamp 'not applicable', or words of similar import, in the spaces provided for axles which do not exist on the particular vehicle which is being labelled.; Without this indication, the label could be confusing and so would fai to clearly provide the required information for that vehicle. And indication of nonapplicability would alert the reader to that fact.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0182OpenMr. R. Debesson, General Secretary, E.T.R.T.O., 49, Rue Barathon, 03-Montlucon, France; Mr. R. Debesson General Secretary E.T.R.T.O. 49 Rue Barathon 03-Montlucon France; Dear Mr. Debesson: This will acknowledge your recent submittal of data to the Nationa Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the addition of the belted-bias tire construction as a new category within Table I of Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. Your submittal was not accompanied by a cover letter.; The National Highway Safety Bureau realizes that this construction o motor vehicle passenger car tires warrants consideration within Standard No. 109. We do not believe, however, that the introduction of additional tables to the standard is needed to cover belted-bias tires. The tables within the standard are becoming voluminous and the variety of size designations are confusing to the consumer.; During the recent ISO/TC 31 meeting in Rome, Mr. W.W. Jordan, Chief o the Tire Branch discussed briefly with members of your organisation our philosophy on the standardization of the tire size designations and load inflation schedules. We have been working closely with the American Tire and Rim Association in further developing the alphanumerical system for tire size designations. We believe we are approaching a workable, standardized solution to the problem. In this light, we understand that members of E.T.R.T.O. visit the United States at regular intervals and we would like to extend an invitation to your organization to have a representative meet with us to review this matter and your petition in detail.; The National Highway Safety Bureau, at the present time, does not pla to differentiate belted-bias type tire construction from other constructions, consequently, we will delay action on your petition until we have the opportunity to discuss it with your representative.; Sincerely, H.M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4968OpenMr. Douglas Kubehl Safety Engineering Associates, Inc. 2798 S. Fish Hatchery Rd. Madison, Wisconsin 53711-5398; Mr. Douglas Kubehl Safety Engineering Associates Inc. 2798 S. Fish Hatchery Rd. Madison Wisconsin 53711-5398; "Dear Mr. Kubehl: This responds to your letter of February 4, 1992 concerning the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. You asked for verification of your understanding of the requirements of two sections of Standard No. 209. Your discussion of these two sections and our response follows. In 209-S.4.4a(1), it is clearly stated that a loop force of 5000 pounds is required to produce a force of 2500 pounds on each structural component. However, part 209-S4.4b(4) seems to be a bit ambiguous. It states: 'The length of the pelvic restraint between anchorages shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when subjected to a force of 2500 pounds'. My interpretation of this statement is that one must employ a loop force of 5000 pounds to achieve 2500 pounds of force on each component, as specified in S4.4a(1). I am concerned that one could misinterpret the above statement as requiring a 2500 pound loop force, rather than the intended value of 5000 pounds. Your statements indicate a common misunderstanding of the requirements of S4.4 of Standard No. 209. A seat belt assembly would not be subject to the requirements of S4.4(a) and to the requirements of S4.4(b). If the seat belt assembly is a Type 1 seat belt assembly, defined in S3 as 'a lap belt for pelvic restraint,' the assembly is subject to the requirements of S4.4(a). Section S4.4(a)(1) requires a Type 1 seat belt assembly loop to withstand a force of 5,000 pounds. Section S4.4(a)(2) states that the length of the assembly between the anchorages shall not increase more than 14 inches or 36 centimeters when the load required in S4.4(a)(1) is applied. If the seat belt assembly is a Type 2 seat belt assembly, defined in S3 as 'a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints,' the assembly is subject to the requirements of S4.4(b). Section S4.4(b)(1) requires the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly to withstand a force of 2,500 pounds. Section 4.4(b)(4) states that the length of the pelvic portion of the assembly shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when the load required in S4.4(b)(1) is applied. Part 209-S5.3a, which addresses the performance of the belt assembly, refers to Figure 5 and requires a tensile force of 2500 pounds. It goes on to say that this force is equivalent to a 5000 pound force being applied to an assembly loop. Figure five is referred to several times throughout the passage, each reference requiring a specific force. Again, because the relationship of the tensile force to assembly loop force is not explicitly stated, we are concerned that one may mistake the tensile force to be the total loop force applied. The test procedure to determine compliance with the requirements of S4.4 of Standard No. 209 is found in S5.3 of that standard. The test procedure for seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.4(a) (a pelvic restraint) is found in S5.3(a). As you have correctly stated, a force of 2,500 pounds is applied to each component of the pelvic restraint, or a force of 5,000 pounds to the entire loop. The test procedure for seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.4(b) (a combined pelvic and upper torso restraint) is found in S5.3(b). The pelvic portion of such a seat belt assembly is tested by applying a total force of 2,500 pounds to the entire loop. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel "; |
|
ID: aiam2445OpenMr. David Edmonson, Chief Engineer, HM Vehicles, 6276 Greenleaf Tr., Apple Valley, MN 55124; Mr. David Edmonson Chief Engineer HM Vehicles 6276 Greenleaf Tr. Apple Valley MN 55124; Dear Mr. Edmonson: This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1976, to Secretar Coleman asking for copies of our regulations that would apply to a small vehicle, apparently three-wheeled, which you intend to manufacture in limited numbers.; I enclose a copy of an information sheet that tells where you ma obtain copies of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles, and of the regulations that apply to manufacturers. I also enclose a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the authority for the safety standards and regulations. If you have any questions after reviewing these materials, I will be happy to answer them for you.; Three-wheeled vehicles are classified, and will be for the foreseeabl future, as 'motorcycles.' A proposed redefinition which would have removed enclosed three-wheeled vehicles from the definition is in abeyance and consideration is being given, as you suggested, to establishing standards appropriate for all lightweight motor vehicles.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0478OpenMr. William B. Whitney, Vice President - Editorial Director, Tire Review, 11 South Forge Street, Akron, Ohio 44304; Mr. William B. Whitney Vice President - Editorial Director Tire Review 11 South Forge Street Akron Ohio 44304; Dear Mr. Whitney: This is in reply to your letters of August 10 and October 6, 1971 concerning the size requirements for retreaded tires as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117. You letter of August 10 enclosed a draft article that you requested we examine.; I have enclosed a copy of the Administration's action on the petition for reconsideration that were received in response to the standard as published April 17, 1971 (36 F.R. 7315). This action amends the size requirements of S5.1.2 of the standard by allowing a minus 3 per cent deviation from the section width specified in Table 1 of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 in addition to the plus 10 per cent deviation previously allowed. With reference to your draft article, its discussion of the size requirements, apart from the changes made by the amendment, is accurate.; The copies of Appendix A of Standard No. 109 that you were furnished o August 20 have been supplemented, and a copy of the additional material is also enclosed.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.