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: aiam4882OpenMr. Michael L. Harmon President Classic Interiors 30244-2 County Road 12 West Elkhart, IN 46514; Mr. Michael L. Harmon President Classic Interiors 30244-2 County Road 12 West Elkhart IN 46514; "Dear Mr. Harmon: This responds to your letter asking whether Standar No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, permits the installation of a built-in child restraint system (i.e., a child restraint system that is an integral part of the vehicle) in a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and if so, what requirements apply. As discussed below, a child restraint system built into an MPV would fall within the definition of 'child restraint system' in Standard No. 213 and would therefore have to comply with all the provisions of the standard that are generally applicable to child restraint systems. Since such a restraint would not be portable, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, by its own terms, or those of the compliance test procedure for that requirement, specifically applicable to 'add-on child restraint systems' only. Since it would be built into an MPV instead of a passenger car, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, for the same reasons, specifically applicable to 'built-in child restraint systems' only. The following sections of Standard No. 213 contain requirements that would apply to a child restraint built into an MPV: S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability). The principle requirements of the standard that would not apply are those in S5.l.l relating to dynamic performance. In view of the importance of the dynamic performance requirements for ensuring the safety of child restraint systems, we intend to begin rulemaking to apply those requirements to all built-in systems, not just to those installed in passenger cars. In the meantime, we suggest that manufacturers of such systems for MPVs carefully consider whether the systems provide protection comparable to that provided by built-in child restraint systems in passenger cars. You should also be aware that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1381-l431) imposes responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety-related defects. Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. If the manufacturer or the agency determines that a safety-related defect (or noncompliance with an FMVSS) exists, the manufacturer is obligated under 151 et seq. of the Act to notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Legal Analysis Standard No. 2l3 applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft. See section S3. The term 'child restraint system' is defined as 'any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.' See section S4. A child restraint system that is an integral part of an MPV would come within this definition. Some of Standard No. 2l3's requirements apply generally to 'child restraint systems,' i.e., without regard to whether a child restraint system is built-in or add-on or whether, if it is built-in, it is installed in a car or other type of vehicle. Since a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV comes within the definition of 'child restraint system,' it is required to meet all such requirements unless excepted. The following sections of Standard 213 contain requirements which apply generally to 'child restraint systems': S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability). In a number of instances, however, particularly with respect to dynamic performance, Standard No. 2l3 either specifies separate requirements for 'add-on child restraint systems' and 'built-in child restraint systems,' or provides a test procedure for these two types of child restraint systems only. The standard defines 'add-on child restraint system' without respect to the type of vehicle to which it might be added, i.e., as 'any portable child restraint system.' The term 'built-in child restraint system' is defined more restrictively, as 'any child restraint system which is an integral part of a passenger car.' (Emphasis added.) A child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV does not come within either of these definitions, since such a restraint is neither portable nor a part of a passenger car. Therefore, Standard No. 2l3's requirements for 'add-on child restraint systems' and 'built-in child restraint systems,' do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV. Similarly, those requirements for which the standard specifies a test procedure for 'add-on child restraint systems' and 'built-in child restraint systems' only do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2055OpenMr. John. H. Mueller, The Weatherhead Company, 300 East 131st Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44108; Mr. John. H. Mueller The Weatherhead Company 300 East 131st Street Cleveland Ohio 44108; Dear Mr. Mueller: #This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1975 concerning the banding requirements of Standard No. 106-74. You asked whether the requirements for a band may be avoided in the situation where a hose manufacturer makes a hose assembly to a vehicle manufacturer's 'specified requirements,' under the exception for hoses 'assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer.' #The exception in the standard for assemblies made by a vehicle manufacturer cannot be interpreted to apply to those made by a hose manufacturer, as you suggested, so the answer to your question must be no. It is the intent of the standard to distinguish between the two situations you described. #We are presently reviewing the labeling requirements of the brake hose standard in light of your letter and other information. If you wish to present further data and other arguments toward the revocation of the banding requirement, the appropriate form in which to do so would be a petition for rulemaking under Pard 552. #Your truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0068OpenMr. William Lagerquist,Vice President,Minnesota Automotive, Inc.,502 Patterson Avenue,.Mankato,Minnesota 56001; Mr. William Lagerquist Vice President Minnesota Automotive Inc. 502 Patterson Avenue .Mankato Minnesota 56001; Dear Mr. Lagerquist:#Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1968, to th Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105.#Basically, when a car dealer modifies a conforming vehicle, he then assumes responsibility for the vehicle s compliance to all applicable standards if that vehicle is distributed to a purchaser for purposes other than resale. Specifically, if a car dealer installs the Model 7900 Driver Training Brake on a conforming vehicle that he sells, than compliance to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, as well as other applicable standards, is required. in the case where the dealer owns and loans the vehicle with the installed Model 7900, we would hope that he would again comply.#The enclosed ,literature may be of additional assistance to you in response to your inquiry.#Sincerely,Joseph R. O Groman,Acting Director,Office of Performance Analysis,Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam5285OpenThomas D. Price, President Strait-Stop ABAS Marketing, Inc. P.O. Box 5644 Norman, OK 73070; Thomas D. Price President Strait-Stop ABAS Marketing Inc. P.O. Box 5644 Norman OK 73070; "Dear Mr. Price: This responds to your letter concerning this agency' notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock braking system (58 FR 50739, September 28, 1993). You noted that the proposed definition for 'antilock brake system' incorporates the terminology 'rate of angular wheel rotation,' and requested a definition of this terminology. You also suggested that there is ambiguity as to the precise meaning of the word 'performance,' apparently with respect to the way that word is used in the preamble. Accordingly, you requested a definition of that word as well. By way of background information, the purpose of publishing NPRM's is to provide all interested persons an opportunity to comment on regulations being considered by the agency. If an interested person believes that the proposed regulatory text and/or the agency's explanation in a preamble concerning a proposed regulation are unclear, the appropriate place to make that argument is in a comment on the NPRM. If a person believes that a portion of the proposed regulation should be clarified in a particular manner, that recommendation also should be included in a comment. Similarly, if a person believes the agency's explanation for the proposed rule is unclear, the person can identify in comments the portion of the explanation at issue and explain the implications his or her concern has on the agency's decision concerning a possible final rule. Since the questions and views in your letter are in the nature of comments on the pending NPRM, we are placing a copy of your letter in the public docket for that NPRM. I want to assure you that your comments will be considered at the same time all the other public comments are considered. Only after considering the comments will NHTSA reach a decision on whether to issue a final rule. NHTSA does not issue separate letters or documents responding to individual public comments in a rulemaking. Instead, after carefully considering all comments, NHTSA provides its responses in the next relevant rulemaking notice, e.g., a final rule or a notice terminating the rulemaking. While we cannot provide specific responses to your questions, we note that pages 50742 and 50743 of the NPRM provide an extensive discussion about how the agency derived its definition for antilock braking system. This discussion explains that the definitions were derived in large part from the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J656, 'Automotive Brake Definitions and Nomenclature' (1988), and the Economic Commission for Europe's Regulation 13 (1988). We have enclosed for your information a copy of that SAE Recommended Practice, which uses the terminology 'rate of angular rotation of the wheel(s).' With respect to your question about the meaning of 'performance,' we note generally that each of this agency's safety standards specifies those requirements that are deemed necessary to obtain the desired safety performance from a particular vehicle system or item of equipment. Any design that will satisfy the requirements may be used for the system or item of equipment. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2540OpenMr. Robert N. Townsend, Townsend & Townsend Attorneys at Law, P. O. Box 366, 111 W. Second Street, Parsons, TN 38363; Mr. Robert N. Townsend Townsend & Townsend Attorneys at Law P. O. Box 366 111 W. Second Street Parsons TN 38363; Dear Mr. Townsend: This responds to your February 9, 1977, letter in which you ask how th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determines whether a school bus must comply with the new school bus safety standards.; On April 1, 1977, several new standards will become effective relatin to the construction of school buses: Standard No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*, and Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. Further, several old standards have been amended to provide special requirements for school buses. These amendments also become effective on April 1.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (Pub. L. 89-563), as amended (Pub. L. 93-492), prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect that does not conform to the standard. This means that any school bus manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, must comply with the school bus safety standards, regardless of the date on which the bus is actually sold or introduced into interstate commerce.; For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a new chassis, yo are permitted to choose as the date of manufacture either the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (as defined in Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages)*, the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. Only those standards in effect on the date chosen to represent the date of manufacture would be applicable to the vehicle, irrespective of the date upon which the vehicle is sold to the ultimate consumer.; I am enclosing copies of the new school bus safety standards and Par 568 for your information.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0087OpenMr. Philips B. Boyer, 2911 West 12th Street, Little Rock, AR 72204; Mr. Philips B. Boyer 2911 West 12th Street Little Rock AR 72204; Dear Mr. Boyer: This is in response to your letter of June 24 to the Department o Transportation asking if manufacturers of motor homes are 'required to equip the seats in such units with seat belts.'; The self- propelled motor home is classified as a 'multipurpos passenger vehicle' for purpose of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Currently seat belt installations and seat belt assembly anchorages are not required for multipurpose passenger vehicles, but if a seat belt assembly is provided by the vehicle manufacturer it must meet the requirements of Federal standard No. 209.; On October 14, 1967 the Federal Highway Administrator establishe dockets to receive comments on possible requirements for seat belt installations and seat belt assembly anchorages in multipurpose passenger vehicles. These comments are now under evaluation.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2110OpenMr. Brian Gill, Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., P.O. Box 50 - 100 W. Alondra Blvd., Gardena, CA 90247; Mr. Brian Gill Assistant Manager Safety & Environmental Activities American Honda Motor Co. Inc. P.O. Box 50 - 100 W. Alondra Blvd. Gardena CA 90247; Dear Mr. Gill: This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1975, in which yo request an interpretation of Standard No. 301 as it applies to a vehicle with an electric fuel pump that operates only when the ignition switch is in the 'ON' position and the engine oil pressure is within the normal operating range.; You indicate in you letter that, in effect, the fuel pump can onl operate when the vehicle's engine is running. Paragraph S7.1.3 of Standard No. 301 requires that an electrically driven fuel pump be operating at the time of the crash tests if the pump 'normally runs when the vehicle's electrical system is activated.' It appears from your letter that activation of the electrical system by switching the ignition to 'ON' will not by itself activate the fuel pump. As a result, the pump need not be operating at the time of the crash tests.; Sincerely, Frank A Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3351OpenMr. S. A. Spretnjak, Excel Industries, Inc., 1120 North Main Street, Elkhart, IN 46514; Mr. S. A. Spretnjak Excel Industries Inc. 1120 North Main Street Elkhart IN 46514; Dear Mr. Spretnjak: This responds to your August 15, 1980, letter asking several question about your responsibilities for complying with Federal safety standards. You state that you manufacture a sun roof that can be installed by either an original vehicle manufacturer or a subsequent vehicle alterer.; Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to note tha Federal safety standards apply to different manufacturers depending upon the standard involved. Equipment standards are the responsibility of equipment manufacturers while vehicle standards fall within the responsibilities of a vehicle manufacturer or alterer. For sun roofs, Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, is an equipment standard and might apply to an equipment manufacturer who manufacturers sun roofs if they contain any glazing materials. Some vehicle safety standards might be affected also by the installation of a sun roof. The installer of a sun roof would be entirely responsible for compliance with all of the vehicle safety standards affected by the sun roof installation.; Your first question asks who certifies the sun roof if it is installe as original equipment on a vehicle. The equipment manufacturer who manufacturers the glazing would be responsible for certifying the glazing in accordance with Standard No. 205. The installer of the sun roof, the vehicle manufacturer, would certify the vehicle in compliance with all of the safety standards.; Second, you ask the same question as above with respect to a va conversion or motor home construction. Again, the equipment manufacturer would certify to the glazing standard, and the van converter or motor home builder would certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, *Certification*.; Third, you ask who must certify if a dealer adds a sun roof before sal of the vehicle to its first purchaser. The equipment manufacturer certifies to the glazing standard, and the installer of the device would attach an alterer's label to the vehicle in accordance with Part 567.7.; Your fourth question asks who certifies if a body shop adds the su roof for a vehicle owner. As always, the sun roof glazing is certified by the equipment manufacturer. Businesses that modify used vehicles are not required to recertify those vehicles in compliance with any of the safety standards. Such businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard.; Fifth, you ask whether as a window manufacturer your onl responsibility is to certify to Standards Nos. 205 and 217. As stated earlier, you would have responsibility to certify to Standard No. 205. However, Standard No. 217 is a vehicle standard, and only a vehicle manufacturer or alterer has responsibility for certifying compliance with that standard.; Your final question asks about testing for compliance with the safet standards. Testing is usually conducted by vehicle manufacturers for those standards that apply to vehicles. For standards that apply only to equipment, the testing is usually done by the equipment manufacturer. When a vehicle is altered and the alterer must attach a label indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards, the alterer can certify compliance through any means that, in the exercise of due care, he or she feels is sufficient to assure compliance with the safety standards. Methods available to alterers include: retesting, simulated testing, mathmatical (sic) modeling, or any other device appropriate for assessing continued compliance with the standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4494OpenMr. Troy C. Martin Specifications/Inspections Chief Texas State Purchasing & General Service Commission Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Bldg. P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-3047; Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications/Inspections Chief Texas State Purchasing & General Service Commission Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Bldg. P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Station Austin Texas 78711-3047; "Dear Mr. Martin: This is a response to your letter of last year wher you stated your concern respecting the installation of 'latches' on the rear doors of a school bus of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR (small school bus), and asked a number of questions on release mechanisms for required rear emergency doors on these small school buses. I regret the delay in this response. You said that the State of Texas has a school bus specification that requires 'the first-closed (left-hand) door)' to have a latching mechanism at the top and bottom. Your supplier tells you that this specification conflicts with provisions of Federal safety standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (Standard 217). You go on to express your concern that a single mechanism would hold both doors closed, and that this feature increases the risk of injury from accidental or intentional opening. You believe that where a small school bus has two rear doors, if each door is secured independently, then there is a decreased risk of a student's falling through a door opened inadvertently. Let me begin my answer with some general information on the requirement for a rear emergency door in a small school bus. As your supplier suggests, there can be instances where independently securing the rear doors on a small school bus would violate Standard 217. Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires a manufacturer of these buses to install either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) one emergency door on the vehicle's left side and one push-out rear window. Where a manufacturer chooses to meet this requirement by installing one rear emergency door, the door may be hinged on either side of the vehicle. When a manufacturer installs more than one rear door exit, the question of whether both exits are 'emergency doors' under paragraph S5.2.3.1 of Standard 217 depends upon whether one or both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of a specified parallelepiped under paragraph S5.4.2.2. The purpose of the school bus emergency exit requirements is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit from the vehicle in the event of an emergency. (44 FR 7961, 7962, February 8, 1979.) Question 1: Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered 'emergency doors' in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217? If a manufacturer installs more than one rear door on a small school bus, and intends one door to be a rear emergency door under S5.2.3.1 and one to be a regular door for loading and unloading passengers, then the designated rear emergency door is a sufficient rear emergency exit so long as it will permit unobstructed passage of the device specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2 of the Standard. In a case such as this one, the manufacturer must label the emergency door appropriately, and otherwise ensure that the designated rear emergency door meets the performance, accessibility, and release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus. On the other hand, if the manufacturer installs two rear doors on a small school bus, and if both of those doors must be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, then both doors constitute a rear emergency exit under S5.2.3.1. In this case, the two doors together must meet the applicable provisions of Standard 217. There is yet another possibility that a manufacturer may install a second rear exit and designate it as an emergency exit. Assuming that at least one exit meets Standard 217's requirements for a rear emergency door exit, NHTSA would not prohibit installing this additional emergency exit. However, as the agency long has held, that 'extra' emergency exit must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses. Question 2: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require separate, independent operation, that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment? Again, the answer to this question depends upon whether one door can meet the unobstructed test measurement for a required rear emergency door. Let me begin this answer by explaining the release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus. Under paragraph S5.3.3, a required small school bus rear emergency door generally must have a release mechanism that allows (1) a single person (2) to operate the door manually (3) from in or outside the vehicle's passenger compartment without the use of remote controls or tools (4) irrespective of whether the vehicle's power system fails. (Paragraph S5.3.3 also sets the maximum permissible magnitude of force and the permissible direction in which a force must be applied to operate the release mechanism.) In an interpretation of March 17, 1982, this agency stated that the release mechanism is the mechanism that keeps the door from opening. In other words, the release mechanism is what you refer to in your letter as the door 'latch.' If the test device described in my answer to your first question passes through unobstructed only when both doors are open, then the door release mechanism must be operable for both doors from inside the vehicle passenger compartment irrespective of whether a person outside the vehicle operates the outside release mechanism. Further, this same release mechanism must be operable from outside the vehicle. In this circumstance, a separate release mechanism for each door would not comply with the Standard. If only one door needs to be open, and the manufacturer has designated the second door as an emergency exit, then this additional emergency door still must be operable from inside the passenger compartment. In this case, independent release mechanisms may be appropriate, but a release mechanism on an additional emergency exit need not be operable from outside the vehicle. (S5.3.2.) If only one door needs to be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, and the manufacturer neither intends the second door to be an emergency door, nor designates it as an emergency exit, then the second door is a regular door for loading and unloading passengers. Standard 217 would be inapplicable to this second door. Question 3: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened to insert the 45' high by 22' wide x 6' deep parallelepiped? If both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of the specified parallelepiped, then there must be a single emergency release mechanism (or latch) for both doors. In a case such as this, there must be an audible alarm under S5.3.3 whenever the release mechanism is not closed and the vehicle ignition switch is 'on.' That alarm should sound if either door is unsecured. Question 4: Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelepiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand door closed? In your question, the manufacturer may designate either door as the required S5.2.3.1 emergency exit if the door accommodates the test device. The warning system then must sound when the release mechanism on the designated rear emergency door is open and the vehicle ignition switch is 'on.' For example, if in your question, the manufacturer designated the right-hand door as the required rear door emergency exit, then the warning system must sound whenever the release mechanism for that door is open and the vehicle ignition position is 'on.' As I stated in Question 1, the second rear door could be an 'additional' emergency exit, or a regular means for loading and unloading passengers, then the additional door would have to meet such other requirements as may apply to these exits. Question 5: Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelepiped even though the left-hand door is close by the latches of the right-hand door? In this circumstance, Standard 217 would prohibit installing a separate release mechanism on each door. Recall that S5.2.3.1 requires on a small school bus, 'one rear emergency door,' or one side door and one push-out window. If the manufacturer chooses to install the rear emergency door, then under S5.4.2.2, the specified parallelepiped must pass through that rear emergency door without obstruction. If both doors must be open to accommodate the test device, then both doors constitute the single, rear emergency door which the Standard requires. Under paragraph S5.3.3, the required rear emergency door must have its own release mechanism. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0984OpenMr. Don Riggs, Mechanical Engineer, Motorola, Inc., 1301 E. Algonquin Road, Schaumburg, IL 60172; Mr. Don Riggs Mechanical Engineer Motorola Inc. 1301 E. Algonquin Road Schaumburg IL 60172; Dear Mr. Riggs: This is in reply to your letter of January 8, 1973, in which you as whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to after-market equipment, and if so, which standards so apply. There are some Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to after-market items, although most do not. The standards which apply are as follows: No. 106, 'Hydraulic Brake Hoses', No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment', No. 109, 'New Pneumatic Tires', No. 116, 'Hydraulic Brake Fluids', No. 117, 'Retreaded Pneumatic Tires', No. 125, 'Warning Devices', No. 205, 'Glazing Materials', No. 209, 'Seat Belt Assemblies', No. 211, 'Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps', and No. 213, 'Child Seating Systems'.; You ask further whether there are any States that have motor vehicl safety standards applicable to after-market items of motor vehicle equipment. Whenever a Federal safety standard is in effect, State or local regulations applying to the same aspect of performance must be identical to it (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). It is possible that some State or local authorities have requirements for some areas not covered by the Federal standards, but you will have to collect such information from those authorities.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.