NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam0345OpenMr. Donald W. Taylor, Product Techniques Section Manager, SAAB-Scania of America, Inc., 100 Waterfront Street, New Haven, CT 06506; Mr. Donald W. Taylor Product Techniques Section Manager SAAB-Scania of America Inc. 100 Waterfront Street New Haven CT 06506; Dear Mr. Taylor:#This is in reply to your petition of March 12, 1971 for amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Control Location, Identification, and Illumination*.#You petitioned that the abbreviation for the defroster control identification be changed from 'DEF' to 'DEFR.' In the preamble to the reconsideration and amendment of Standard No. 101, (36 F.R. 8269, May 4, 1971), a copy of which I enclose, this agency noted that additional identifying words or symbols are permissible if they do not conflict with the required or permissible words and symbols set out in Standard No. 101. In our opinion your use of 'DEFR' would create no conflict.#You also petitioned that certain controls located below the drivers H point and available to all passengers be exempted from the control identification illumination requirement. The recent amendment to Standard No. 101 no longer required illumination of all heating and air conditioning controls, but only those that direct air directly upon the windshield. We believe this may be responsive to your petition.#Finally, you asked that we define our position on bilingual control identification. Identification in a language other than English is permissible, in the language of the preamble to the recent amendment, 'as long as the additional words . . . do not conflict with the required words . . .'#We hope this answers your questions.#Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2378OpenMr. Ray W. Murphy, Director, Research and Development, Freightliner Corporation, 4747 N. Channel Avenue, P.O. Box 3849, Portland, OR 97208; Mr. Ray W. Murphy Director Research and Development Freightliner Corporation 4747 N. Channel Avenue P.O. Box 3849 Portland OR 97208; Dear Mr. Murphy: This responds to your July 23, 1976, question whether the 'no lockup requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the 'no lockup' performance is provided by means of an antilock system. Sections S5.3.1 (trucks and buses) and S5.3.2 (trailers) specify that the vehicle shall, under various load, road surface, and speed conditions, be capable of stopping; >>>. . .without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 mph, except for: (a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system. . . (b)<<< This basic requirement is stated in performance terms, permitting manufacturer to choose any brake system design that will ensure that the wheels do not lock up under the specified conditions.; The exception to the 'no lockup' requirement set forth above permit 'controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system.' Manufacturers demonstrated, during the course of rulemaking, that properly functioning antilock systems might be designed to allow wheel lockup for a fraction of a second, and that antilock design should not be inhibited by a prohibition on all lockup. The agency made the 'controlled lockup' exception a part of the standard (36 FR 3817, February 27, 1971) and has subsequently interpreted the term to permit manufacturers latitude in the design of their systems.; In compliance with the basic requirement, most manufacturers hav equipped each axle of a vehicle with a valve to regulate the air pressure that applies the brakes, sensors at each wheel to send a signal when a wheel is locking up, and a logic module that receives the signals and instructs the valve when to release air pressure to prevent lockup ('axle-by-axle control'). Recently, some manufacturers have simplified their systems by utilizing only one valve and logic module to modulate the air supply to both axles of the typical tandem axle system found on many trucks and trailers ('tandem control'). Two approaches to wheel sensor placement have been used for tandem control systems. If it is possible to predict which of the two axles will lock first during braking, sensors may be placed on this axle only, knowing that reduced air pressure in response to a signal from the 'sensed' axle will also release the brakes on the 'unsensed' axle. In other cases, where it is not possible to predict which axle will lock first, tandem control systems may have sensors on all four wheels of the tandem.; In November 12, 1974, and March 7, 1975, letters of interpretation t Dana Corporation, the NHTSA confirmed that a manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. Thus, tandem control is not prohibited by the standard, regardless of the number of wheel speed sensors provided. When Dana asked if lockup on the unsensed axle of a single-axle sensor system would qualify for the 'controlled lockup' exception of the requirement, the agency said that it would not, reasoning that the logic module would not exert effective control over the lockup of the unsensed axle without benefit of input signals from wheels on that axle. Therefore, according to the Dana interpretation, the unsensed axle in a single-axle sensor system could not be allowed to lock at all, even momentarily, during the service brake stopping test. No data of actual performance was submitted with the Dana letter.; Your letter argues that the NHTSA's interpretation of 'controlle lockup' (to Dana Corporation) creates an anomalous and unjustified restriction on the use of 'tandem control.' Your submission, and data received by the agency from other interested persons, demonstrate that the Dana interpretation does not adequately reflect the degree of control which a single-axle sensor system actually can exert over the unsensed axle of a tandem system. Based on analysis of the submitted data, it appears that the amount of lockup permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the available antilock systems. While there is a measurable difference in stopping performance between 'axle-by-axle' control and 'tandem control,' the standard already permits either of these means to satisfy the requirements. When the narrower question of the performance difference between sensors on one or both axles is analyzed, it is apparent that virtually no difference exists in the stopping distance of vehicles equipped these two ways. The effective lateral stability available during a stop also appears comparable regardless of placement of sensors on one or both axles. A technical report summarizing these findings will be placed in the public docket as soon as possible.; For this reason, and based on review of test data unavailable at th time of the Dana interpretation, the agency concludes that its interpretation of 'controlled lockup' in response to the question posed by Dana should be, and is hereby, withdrawn. It is the agency's interpretation that the 'controlled lockup' exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3990OpenMr. Robert D. Bagg, 387 Chestnut Street, Oneonta, NY 13820; Mr. Robert D. Bagg 387 Chestnut Street Oneonta NY 13820; Dear Mr. Bagg: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staf concerning Federal regulations that might affect a product you have developed. The information submitted with your letter describes the product as a collapsible partition that attaches to the rear of the front seat in a motor vehicle. The purpose of your product is to keep heat within the front portion of a car. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agenc to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued several standards that apply or affect the use of your product. First, we have issued Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which applies to all glazing installed in a motor vehicle, including the glazing used in an interior partition. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference Standard ANS Z-26, 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highway,' of the American National Standard Institute. A copy of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z-26 are enclosed for your reference.; Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various type of glazing and also regulates the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The various types of glazing are designated as 'Items' in the standard. Under the requirements of this standard, an interior partition to be used on a passenger vehicle at locations requisite for driving visibility, such as the device you have developed, may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, Item 11A, or Item 14 glazing materials.; Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification an marking requirements for glazing materials. The marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (i.e. those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraph S6.1 of the standard. In addition, section 6.3 of the standard requires each item of motor vehicle equipment to be certified pursuant to section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Standard No. 205.; Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, new motor vehicl equipment, such as interior partitions, must comply with applicable safety standards prior to sale. The manufacture, sale, or installation of a partition that does not conform to the standard, or the installation of a partition in a new vehicle in a location that is not authorized in Standard No. 205, would be in violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109(a), anyone who sells motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable safety standards is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Installation of your device could also be affected by Standard No. 201 *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. Section 3.2 of Standard No. 201 sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat to protect the heads of rear seat occupants thrown forward in a crash. A copy of Standard No. 201 is enclosed for your reference. Therefore, if your device were installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, as equipped, complies with all standard (sic) including Standard No. 201.; Installation of your product in a used vehicle could be affected b section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with Safety equipment. That section provides, in part, that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .<<<; Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business may add your product to a motor vehicle, if that action would 'render inoperative' the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that 'render inoperative' an element of a safety standard.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act does not apply to individual vehicl owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners can, themselves, add your product to their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, installation of your product by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law.; Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilitie under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under Sections 151 *et seq*., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. Again, Section 109(a) imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in motor vehicle equipment. A copy of the Vehicle Safety Act and an information sheet outlining the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers is enclosed.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have any more questions.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5147OpenJay Lee, President Pacific Agritrade Inc. 2601 Elliott Ave. Suite 5139 Seattle, WA 98121; Jay Lee President Pacific Agritrade Inc. 2601 Elliott Ave. Suite 5139 Seattle WA 98121; "Dear Mr. Lee: This responds to your January 14, 1993, letter askin for information on how to have an air bag you wish to import from Korea tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Safety Act to mean 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' (Emphasis added.) NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to 'tune' the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as original equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.) While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the 'render inoperative' prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true. I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2682OpenMr. Donald H. Carter, 300 W. 11th Street, Reno, Nevada 89503; Mr. Donald H. Carter 300 W. 11th Street Reno Nevada 89503; Dear Mr. Carter: This is in response to your letters of August 24, 1977, and October 8 1977, concerning your Ford F-150 pickup truck.; The November 1976 date on your truck's certification label refers onl to the date of actual manufacture of the vehicle, not its model year. Virtually all manufacturers, including Ford, utilize a model year which does not correspond to the calender year. Typically, for American manufacturers, this model year begins on September 1 of the previous calender year, i.e., model year 1977 began on September 1, 1976. Manufacturers usually begin manufacture of their vehicles as early as July in order to have sufficient vehicles in their showroom by September start of the model year.; All Federal motor vehicle safety standards specify a date on whic their requirements become effective. Thus, the manufacturer must indicate by the certification label that its vehicles are in compliance with all Federal standards in effect on the date of the vehicles' manufacture. Whether a vehicle is marketed as a particular model year vehicle depends upon the manufacturer's own marketing practice. the certification date does not represent the model year date.; Finally, your first letter stated that your vehicle was ordered o November 4, 1976, with a 3 month delivery interval. Every manufacturer produced a large number of vehicles before there are orders for a specific vehicle, and maintains them in various storage locations around the country. When the manufacturer receives and order from a dealership for a specific vehicle, it will first determine whether it already has such a vehicle in stock, and if it does, it will ship that vehicle rather than specially manufacture a new vehicle.; However, if there is no identical vehicle in stock, it wil manufacturer one specifically for that order, which can take from a few days to several months to program into the assembly line and produce. As a dealership has no way to know in advance whether the vehicle it ordered is in stock or will have to be specially manufactured, it will often state a delivery date that anticipates the longest possible delay which would result from special manufacture. There is thus no reason for concern over the fact that your vehicle was manufactured in the same month it was ordered. Either Ford had such a vehicle in stock, or it was able to manufacture one with very little delay.; I hope that this letter has answered your concerns. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1807OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Director, Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Director Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This responds to the Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Associatio February 6, 1975, petition to amend Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, by exempting completed vehicles permanently from S5.3.1 of the standard (stopping distance) and until March 1, 1976, from S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 (actuation and release), if they have been 'certified' to these requirements as incomplete vehicles. You base this request on the commercial desirability of modifying the standard brake system on incomplete vehicles to accommodate additional axles, modification of the wheelbase, or installation of accessories. You conclude that testing of each modified vehicle would be involved in certification to the standard, and that such a burden is unreasonable.; We do not believe that a delay in the application of S5.3.1, S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121 to multi-stage vehicles would be advisable. As you know, the agency did consider postponing the standard in December, and decided against it based partly on information indicating that such a last-minute delay would be disruptive and wasteful. The conclusion would be even more valid today. Since the standard applies only to completed vehicles, it could not be suspended for completed vehicles as you suggest with the chassis still required to comply. Even if this were possible, it might cause anomalous and even hazardous results, since the final-stage manufacturers could disregard any design cautions of the chassis manufacturers, and could remove or disable portions of the chassis brake systems. Furthermore, even a complete delay in the standard with respect to the classes of vehicles with which you are concerned would probably not accomplish your purpose, since the chassis manufacturers could not be expected to produce chassis conforming to the standard with accompanying documentation, during the period of delay.; With regard to testing, your assumption that each vehicle must b road-tested following modification of the braking system may not be correct. For example, your members could establish categories of models which share a common brake system modification, and certify them all on the basis of tests on the most adverse configuration in the category. Alternatively, joint testing might be undertaken with a major supplier of brake and axle components. In the case of standard models, your members might be able to rely on the supplier's warranty of his products' capacities.; Neither of these methods would require road testing of each vehicl manufactured, nor would every model have to be road tested. A manufacturer must simply satisfy himself in the exercise of due care that the vehicle is capable of meeting the stopping performance requirements if it were tested by the NHTSA. What constitutes due care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment to small manufacturers, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.; Accordingly, your petition for delay of Standard No. 121 is denied. Yo and your members may be assured that, within the limits of the law, this agency will be understanding in its approach to problems experienced by intermediate and final-stage manufacturers as they bring their vehicles into conformity with the new standard.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam0715OpenMs. Hope C. Kocher, Secretary, International Houseing Incorporated, 32 West Penn Avenue, Cleona, PA 17042; Ms. Hope C. Kocher Secretary International Houseing Incorporated 32 West Penn Avenue Cleona PA 17042; Dear Ms. Kocher: This is to acknowledge your letter of May 19, 1972, regarding tir identification and recordkeeping.; Regulation Part 574 requires a vehicle manufacturer to maintain record of tires on each vehicle shipped to a dealer and requires that he maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser of the vehicle for a period of three years. The purpose, of course, is to enable him to locate tires in the event of a recall. The name and address of the purchaser is provided by the dealer. The manufacturer is not required by the regulation to record each identification number for each tire, but may do so by group or category. There is a strong possibility that all tires on one vehicle will be of the same brand and will have the same identification number. The manner in which a manufacturer chooses to maintain the tire records is optional and the dealer would be expected to cooperate in his system of recording data. It is primarily a matter of agreement between manufacturer and dealer.; In the event the original tires on a vehicle are changed by the deale prior to sale, he must report the new tire identification numbers and the purchaser's name and address to the manufacturer of the tires sold with the vehicle.; We note that your letter refers to registration of *serial* numbe rather than *identification* number. It is the latter that is subject to the regulation.; We trust this information answers your questions. Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2728OpenMr. Kenneth R. Brennan, Mobile Equipment Division, Hendrickson Mfg. Co., 8001 West Forty-Seventh Street, Lyons, IL 60534; Mr. Kenneth R. Brennan Mobile Equipment Division Hendrickson Mfg. Co. 8001 West Forty-Seventh Street Lyons IL 60534; Dear Mr. Brennan: This responds to your November 21, 1977, letter asking whether a schoo bus that is propelled by a propane-fueled engine is required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity* (49 CFR 571.301-75).; Paragraph S3 of Safety Standard No.301-75 specifies that the standar applies to school buses that have gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds and use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. Since the boiling point of propane is below 32 degrees F, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would not be applicable to a school bus propelled by a propane engine.; Please contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5517OpenAllen F. Brauninger, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207-0001; Allen F. Brauninger Esq. Office of the General Counsel Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington D.C. 20207-0001; "Dear Mr. Brauninger: This responds to your letter asking whether window shade intended for use on an automobile is motor vehicle equipment. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. From the materials you sent us, we assume that you are referring to the roll-down shades that suction onto the rear side window of vehicles, usually for the purpose of keeping the sun off the faces of children strapped into child safety seats. The answer to your question is yes. The window shades are an accessory (a type of motor vehicle equipment) under 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7). As explained in my September 16, 1994, letter from this office to Mr. Harleigh Ewell of your office, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) uses two criteria in determining whether a device is an 'accessory.' The two criteria are whether: (1) A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, and (2) it is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to the window shades, we conclude that they are accessories. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. We assume that the window shade you are referring to has packaging that shows that its purpose is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun while the vehicle is in operation. The shade would typically be acquired and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle). Since the shade satisfies both criteria, it is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has issued no safety standards that apply specifically to window shades that are sold separately from the vehicle. However, as you know, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are responsible under our statute for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects. If you will send us the information you have regarding the incidence of accidents caused by these window shades, we will forward it to the appropriate NHTSA office. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5002OpenThe Honorable Phil Gramm United States Senate 2323 Bryan Street, #1500 Dallas, Texas 75201; The Honorable Phil Gramm United States Senate 2323 Bryan Street #1500 Dallas Texas 75201; "Dear Senator Gramm: Thank you for your letter on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Frank Sonzala, Senior Vice President of International Transquip Industries (ITI), regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. ITI is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling its product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice, reviewed Mr. Sonzala's concerns, and I am pleased to provide you the following information. By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI. The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (ITI uses the term 'original equipment manufacturers') relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with 'any single leakage-type failure' of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage- type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired. For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, ITI would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. ITI states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. ITI argues that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting its position. After consulting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm with a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm. As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with any single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaphragm. The usage of the term 'any,' when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing. We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure. ITI also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failures in a vehicle's brake system. We hope that this information is helpful. Sincerely, Frederick H. Grubbe Enclosure: Constituents Correspondence cc: Washington Office"; |
|
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.