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: aiam4987OpenMr. Michael Love Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno, Nevada 89520-3911; Mr. Michael Love Manager Compliance Porsche Cars North America Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno Nevada 89520-3911; Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992 requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps. Porsche wishes to install a center lamp on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that 'If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars.' Although Porsche's intended center lamp meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible. Nevertheless, you believe that this may be acceptable. You cite an opinion rendered Mazda in which NHTSA did not object to center lamps mounted on tailgates because, as we advised Mazda, the center lamp is a 'supplementary' lamp, and that 'Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps. . .' You further quote NHTSA's frequently repeated advisory that 'Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position. . . ,' and argue that Porsche's design 'fulfills the spirit of the height requirements under all conditions' and the height requirement itself 'under a majority of 'normal driving conditions.'' You further argue that even in the down position the triangular relationship between the center lamp and the stop lamps is retained. Finally, you argue that the proposed lamp conforms with NHTSA's philosophy to make Standard No. 108 more performance-oriented 'by fulfilling the photometric requirements at all positions.' I am sorry that we cannot concur in your interpretation. When we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The fact that the vehicle may not comply under all conditions of operation is, of course, of concern to us, but we try to weigh the realities of vehicle design and usage against the need of the public for safety. In the Mazda interpretation, there was no question that the vehicle as manufactured would comply with the locational requirement for center lamps when the tailgate was closed. The 'normal driving position' of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. In another interpretation, rendered years ago, the fact that a vehicle with hydraulic suspension would not meet the minimum height requirements for headlamps with the vehicle at rest was considered a technical noncompliance only because by the time the vehicle was in its normal operating condition (with the engine running and the car ready to move into the stream of traffic), the suspension had raised the vehicle to a height where the headlamps exceeded the minimum height requirements. By contrast, the center lamp on the Carerra will not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, that is to say, under low-speed urban driving conditions where the center lamp is most likely to achieve its purpose of reducing the frequency and severity of rear end impacts. This, to us, is the 'normal operating position' of the Carerra with respect to the location of the proposed center lamp. I would like to close by pointing out that the agency went to a considerable extent in considering the comments of manufacturers before adopting the requirements of S5.3.1.8, in order to minimize design restrictions consistent with safety. NHTSA proposed three alternative locations, and adopted one that was less restrictive than any of the alternatives. Subsequently, pursuant to petitions for reconsideration by vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA relaxed the location requirements of S5.3.1.8 even further. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4904OpenMr. Jt Covelli President Jt Covelli Marketing & Media 5501 Tolman Terrace Madison, WI 53711; Mr. Jt Covelli President Jt Covelli Marketing & Media 5501 Tolman Terrace Madison WI 53711; "Dear Mr. Covelli: This responds to your recent undated letter t Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to whether Federal law allows the use of decals on center highmounted stop lamps. You report that Wisconsin has no law governing the use of a decal on the brake light. THe subject is a complicated one under Federal law, but I shall try to explain it as simply as possible. There is no restriction under Federal law on the application of a decal to the center stop lamp, if the decal is placed there by the vehicle owner. Center stop lamps were not required on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, and there are no Federal restrictions upon application of decals to lamps on pre-l986 model cars that may have been retrofitted with them. With respect to application of the decal on the center lamp of a passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985, Federal law prohibits the application a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop, either before or after its sale to the first owner, if the application of the decal creates a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Conversely, such application is permitted if the lamp remains in compliance with all applicable Federal requirements with the decal installed. For example, the Federal standard calls for a minimum 'effective projected luminous area' of 4 l/2 square inches. Application of a decal to a lamp meeting the minimum area requirement would reduce the effective projected luminous area below 4 1/2 square inches, creating a noncompliance. On the other hand, if that area were large enough, and more than 4 1/2 square inches of it remained after the application of a decal, application of the decal would not create a noncompliance with the luminous area specification. The standard also calls for measurement of photometric performance at certain specified test points on the lamp. Obviously, the lamp must continue to provide the minimum photometric performance specified by the standard for those test points with the decal applied. Thus, whether application of a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop creates a noncompliance is dependent upon the size of the lamp and the size, lettering, and transparency of the decal. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: aiam1919OpenMr. Sumner Meiselman, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Sumner Meiselman Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Meiselman: This responds to the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association March 28 1975, request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) review its position that building a trailer from new materials in combination with the running rear of an existing trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards. You also request confirmation that modification of the barrel of a tank trailer to replace compartments or to add to its volume does not constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; NHTSA has already reconsidered its interpretation of what constitute the manufacture of a new truck in cases where components from an existing vehicle are used. Based on the high value of the drive train components found in powered vehicles, NHTSA has proposed an amendment of Part 571 that would supplant its earlier interpretation that, to constitute repair, the chassis of the existing vehicle must as a minimum be used in the new vehicle. The proposed amendment would establish that, in the assembly of a truck, a new vehicle is manufactured for purposes of compliance with and certification to applicable safety standards, unless the engine, transmission, and rear drive axles (as a minimum) of the rebuilt vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from an existing vehicle whose identity is continued in the rebuilt vehicle with respect to model year, vehicle identification number, and any other documentation incident to the vehicle's remanufacture and registration.; Our interpretation of what constitutes manufacture of a new traile (when use of components from an existing vehicle is involved) parallels our present interpretation of truck rebuilding in this area. We regret any confusion in our use of the term 'chassis', but we have made clear that the running gear and main frame of an existing vehicle, must, as a minimum, be used in the rebuilding of a vehicle to be considered a repair. I enclose copies of two letters which establish this point.; NHTSA does not view the manufacture of trucks and trailers a sufficiently similar to justify attempting to apply our newly-proposed position on truck rebuilding to trailer manufacture. The primary consideration of extremely high value of drive train components found in powered vehicles is not applicable to trailer manufacture. NHTSA also concludes that the economic considerations which discourage avoidance of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, in truck manufacture do not operate in trailer manufacture.; In regard to tank trailer modifications where the tank serves th purpose of and replaces the frame rails, we would not consider replacement of compartments in the tank to be manufacture of a new vehicle. Similarly, the addition of volume in response to the new weight limits would not constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2929OpenHonorable John M. Ashbrook, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable John M. Ashbrook House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Ashbrook: This responds to your December 19, 1978, letter asking whether it i required that school buses be built transport a minimum of 9 passengers.; As you suggest in your letter, there is no requirement that schoo buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers. The school bus safety regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require the compliance of those vehicles used to transport more than 10 children to or from school and related events. Vehicles with smaller passenger capacities may also transport children to and from school and need not comply with the school bus safety standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.