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: aiam4872OpenMr. Paul R. Kirchgraber Souvenirs of the Future Suite 201-71 3435 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405; Mr. Paul R. Kirchgraber Souvenirs of the Future Suite 201-71 3435 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica CA 90405; Dear Mr. Kirchgraber: This is in reply to your letter of April 16 1991, with respect to which Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if any, must be met in order to sell an exterior tire/wheel cover with reflective characteristics that will help to make 'the vehicle more visible to the surrounding traffic.' In addition, you 'want to be certain that the reflective nature of the fabric used in this cover does not present a safety hazard', and ask for the citation to 'appropriate federal test standards from the code of federal regulations for similar automotive accessories.' There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for reflective material of this nature, or for wheel coverings on exterior-mounted tires. The standard on vehicle lighting, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, does prohibit, as original equipment, the installation of a 'reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment' that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. It is theoretically possible that your material could create glare in the eyes of a following operator so that (s)he would fail to respond to a stop signal, or a turn signal. The samples submitted with your letter are too small for us to judge its reflectivity, and we suggest that you conduct your own tests, approaching a vehicle with the tire cover from the rear, with headlamps on the lower beam. This, to us, is preferable to your redesigning the material to conform to any federal test standard relating to reflectivity. Although the color of lighting equipment on the rear is generally red, with amber permitted for turn signals, and white required for back up lamps, we do not believe that the use of additional colors would create any confusion. In short, we believe that the wheel cover will be perceived for the wheel cover it is. I hope that this responds to your concerns. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5647OpenMr. Ken Van Sciver Sciver Corporation Post Office Box 1283 Broomfield, CO 80038; Mr. Ken Van Sciver Sciver Corporation Post Office Box 1283 Broomfield CO 80038; "Dear Mr. Van Sciver: This responds to your letter of October 3, 199 to this office requesting information on any safety standards applicable to the Auto Bib, a new product you are developing and marketing. From the promotional material you furnished with your letter, your Auto Bib can be described as a portable cover, of Naugahyde fabric, that clips between the window and door molding of a vehicle's door. The Auto Bib unrolls downward to cover the door, and is intended to protect the door's upholstery from damage caused by children, pets, and the sun. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing and testing motor vehicles and equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. If a vehicle or item of equipment is found not to comply with applicable standards or is found to have a safety defect, the manufacturer is responsible for remedying the noncompliance or defect at no charge to the customer. NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, or grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Turning now to the Auto Bib, NHTSA would classify it as an item of motor vehicle equipment, defined in 49 U.S.Code (U.S.C.), 30102(7)(B) as any 'part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle.' Specifically, the Auto Bib is an accessory if it meets two tests: a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, and b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. After reviewing the product literature you enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the Auto Bib is an accessory. The Auto Bib was designed and is being marketed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be in motor vehicles. Even its name indicates its intended purpose. Secondly, the promotional literature makes it clear that the Auto Bib is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, as distinguished from professional vehicle repair businesses, since its stated purpose is to preserve motor vehicle upholstery from damage by children, pets, and the sun. While the Auto Bib is a motor vehicle accessory, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards applicable to this product. However, you as the manufacturer are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30116 - 30121 which set forth the recall and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. As noted earlier, in the event that you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. You asked about state or local requirements that may apply to your product. NHTSA has no information on such requirements. You may, however, be able to obtain some relevant information in that regard from: Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 898-0145, Fax (202) 898-0148 I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3859OpenMr. Kevin C. Graves, Firma Leupp, Lerchenfelder Str. 63, 1070 Wien, Austria; Mr. Kevin C. Graves Firma Leupp Lerchenfelder Str. 63 1070 Wien Austria; Dear Mr. Graves: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch, of my staff asking for information about testing your client's child restraint system for use in automobiles. You indicated that you were interested in making arrangements for testing that child restraint system under the U.S. requirements. You also stated that the restraint has been tested for compliance with the European ECE Regulation 44, and asked for instructions on how to proceed with testing, how much time should be allowed for testing, and an estimate of the costs involved in testing.; Every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in o imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213) (copy enclosed). This standard sets forth performance and labeling requirements which must be satisfied by the child restraint system. This country does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that the child restraint system fully satisfies all requirements of Standard No. 213. Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint systems comply with Standard No. 213. Certainly we recommend that a manufacturer selling child restraint systems in the United States test the systems according to the test procedures specified in the standard. Once a manufacturer determines that its child restraints meet the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by labeling that certification onto the child restraint, as specified in section S5.5 of Standard No. 213.; If your client decides to market its child restraint system in th United States, I would like to call your attention to the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45 (copy enclosed). That section requires that before offering any item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States, a manufacturer must designate an agent for the service of process. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under S551.45:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin or any o the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in S551.45(b).; Should you need further information on this subject, please feel fre to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4396OpenMr. Sidney A. Garrett, President, Brown Cargo Van Inc., 807 East 29th, Lawrence, KS 66046; Mr. Sidney A. Garrett President Brown Cargo Van Inc. 807 East 29th Lawrence KS 66046; Dear Mr. Garrett: This is in reply to your letter of June 29, 1987, to Taylor Vinson o this office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You state that you are a manufacturer of truck van bodies. With respect to intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors, you state that you are currently 'installing lights on our upper rail and reflectors just above the lower rail'. You have asked whether you are installing lights and reflectors on the front of each side that are unnecessary under current Federal regulations.; The requirements of Standard No. 108 come into effect only when a truc chassis is completed with the addition of the van body. Front side markers and reflectors on a truck must be located as far forward as practicable. This is generally in the front fender area, and not on the front edge of the van body. Thus, we think you are correct in concluding that the front lights and reflectors you install are unnecessary.; You have also asked 'whether compliance with Federal regulation constitutes compliance with the various States' regulations....' As a practical matter, the answer is yes. Under the Act, a State may have its own requirements for the number and location of side marker lamps and reflectors but they must be identical to Federal requirements. Once you comply with the Federal requirements for side marker lamps and reflectors you cannot be in noncompliance with any State requirement that may differ, because the Act prohibits States from having requirements that differ from those of Standard No. 108.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4023OpenMr. Jean Paul Turgeon, Security and Legality Manager, Prevost Car Incorporated, Ste-Claire, Quebec, Canada, GOR 2VO; Mr. Jean Paul Turgeon Security and Legality Manager Prevost Car Incorporated Ste-Claire Quebec Canada GOR 2VO; Dear Mr. Turgeon: This responds to your August 12, 1985 letter to Administrator Stee regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We apologize for the delay in our response.; Your questions concerned paragraph S5.3.2, which applies to buses othe than school buses. You asked whether the requirements of paragraph S5.3.2 may be met by: (1) release mechanisms located within the area defined by Figure 1 of the standard that are operated by a rotary or straight type of motion, and by (2) release mechanisms located within the area defined by Figure 2 operated by a straight type of motion.; Your understanding is correct. Rotary type motions may be used fo release mechanisms located in regions of low force application as shown in Figures 1 or 3 of the standard. Straight motions may be used for release mechanisms located in regions of low force application shown in Figures 1 and 3, and in regions of high force application shown in Figures 2 and 3.; Your second question asked whether the force application for a releas mechanism operated by a rotary motion is limited by S5.3.2 to 20 pounds. The answer is yes. Release mechanisms may be operated by a rotary type of motion in locations shown in Figure 1 or Figure 3 for low-force application. The magnitude of the force application must not be more than 20 pounds.; The second part of your question stated, 'In case of straight motion the force application is limited to 60 pounds.' This statement is not entirely correct. If the release mechanism is located in the low-force application areas shown in Figures 1 or 3, S5.3.2 specifies that the force applications must not exceed 20 pounds.; Your third question concerned the type of motions that are required t operate the release mechanisms. The first part of this question asked whether a rotary motion 'implies a rotation of the hand and twisting of the arm as for turning a door knob.' Standard No. 217 does not restrict you from using the particular type of rotary motion you described, provided that all other requirements of the standard can be met.; The second part of this question asked whether a straight motion mean 'a straight pull perpendicular to the emergency exit surface.' Paragraph S5.3.2(b) describes the direction of a straight high-force application as 'perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' Your understanding, therefore, appears to be in accordance with S5.3.2.; The final part of this question asked whether 'a pull reasonabl perpendicular, i.e. at 70 degrees instead of 90 degrees, would be acceptable.' The answer to your question depends on whether one or two force applications are necessary to release the emergency exit. If only one force application is necessary, the direction of the application must meet the 90 to 180 degree directional requirement of S5.3.2. No variation from the requirements of the standard is permissible. However, paragraph S5.3.2 permits the use of two force applications for a single opening. Only one of the two force applications is required to differ by 90 to 180 degrees from the direction of the initial push-out motion of the emergency exit.; Your final question asked whether a particular type of push out windo in your buses would comply with FMVSS No. 217. As you know, this agency does not pass approval on the compliance of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, each manufacturer is required to determine whether its products comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.; You asked whether a push out window with a mechanism that can b released by a pull not exceeding 60 pounds in a direction opposite to the direction of the opening would meet the requirements of S5.3.2. The answer to your question depends on the location of the release mechanism. If it is located in the regions shown in Figures 1 or 3 for mechanisms released by low-force applications, the magnitude of the force application must not exceed 20 pounds. Release mechanisms located in regions of high force application must be capable of operation by force applications not more than 60 pounds. Of course, the other requirements in FMVSS No. 217 pertaining to emergency exits and release mechanisms must also be met.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2685OpenMr. Robert P. Ducey, Grand Teton Trading Co., Box 2436, Jackson, WY 83001; Mr. Robert P. Ducey Grand Teton Trading Co. Box 2436 Jackson WY 83001; Dear Mr. Ducey: This responds to your letter of September 12, 1977, requestin information concerning the certification requirements for acrylic glazing to be used in motor vehicles. Specifically, you are interested in the separate certification responsibilities of the company that manufactures the acrylic sheets, the company that cuts and shapes the acrylic, and the company that constructs aluminum frames around the acrylic and sells windows to the customized van market.; Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.3 of Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazin Materials*, specify that prime glazing material manufacturers shall certify each piece of glazing that is for use in motor vehicles in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, *et seq*.) and with section 6 of the ANS Z26 standard. These requirements would be applicable to the company from which you buy acrylic sheets, since that company would qualify as a prime glazing material manufacturer.; As a manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing for us in a motor vehicle, your company would be required to certify its product in the same fashion as your supplier (paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205). Please note, however, that under section 6 of ANS Z26 your company is required to mark any section of glazing that it cuts with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was cut. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to the certification markings on the acrylic sheets you purchased.; The company that constructs aluminum around the glazing and sell windows to the customized van market would be required to certify its product in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment (including glazing) may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must certify that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, Standard No. 205 in this case.; Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4506OpenJay D. Starling, Manager Strategic Business Development ARCO Solar, Inc. 4650 Adohr Lane P. O. Box 6032 Camarillo, CA 93010; Jay D. Starling Manager Strategic Business Development ARCO Solar Inc. 4650 Adohr Lane P. O. Box 6032 Camarillo CA 93010; "Dear Mr. Starling: I am writing in response to your letter tha requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation as to whether the ARCO Solar 'G-33 Charge Saver' is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment', as defined in Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The product literature you enclosed with your letter describes the 'G-33 Charge Saver' as a '12 Volt car battery maintenance system, designed to overcome natural battery self-discharge and drain from constant electrical loads...It is operated by simply placing it in sunlight on the dashboard and plugging it into the car lighter whenever the vehicle is parked.' It also claims that the 'G-33 Charge Saver' can help to: 'Extend Battery Life Prevent Dead Batteries Provide Quick Starts.' Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines, in part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle......(Emphasis added.) In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an 'accessory' the agency has looked at the following two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and second, whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. From the product literature provided, the ARCO Solar 'G-33 Charge Saver' is advertised for use with a motor vehicle and appears to be marketed for the ordinary user of motor vehicles, with emphasis on the ease of installation of the charge saver. We would therefore consider your solar powered battery charger to be a vehicle accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment covered by the Vehicle Safety Act. If the ARCO Solar 'G-33 Charge Saver' will be installed in new or used vehicles by a commercial business, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). These businesses could sell your product, but could not install it if the installation would adversely affect the vehicle's compliance with any FMVSS. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect. The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by installing the ARCO Solar 'G-33 Charge Saver' even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. The Act also requires the recall and remedy of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determine that the ARCO Solar 'G-33 Charge Saver' contains such a defect, you must recall and repair or replace the item without charge to the purchaser. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1019OpenMr. W. S. Magenau, President, Chesapeake Marine Products, Route 456, Deale, MD 20751; Mr. W. S. Magenau President Chesapeake Marine Products Route 456 Deale MD 20751; Dear Mr. Magenau: This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1973, in which yo suggested, with reference to a previous interpretation, that boat trailer assemblers be allowed to use the 'altering distributor' certification of 49 CFR S 567.6, rather than certifying the vehicle as the manufacturer under S 567.4.; The altering distributor label was not designed to deal with assembler of vehicles, but with persons who alter vehicles that have already been completed and assembled. A basic prerequisite to its use is that there be a vehicle that already has been certified. I take it that your suggestion really amounts to requiring the supplier of the unassembled parts to certify the vehicle.; We are unwilling to do this on the basis of our present information. I is true that a boat trailer is among the simplest vehicles on the road, but considering vehicles generally, we must consider a vehicle as a functioning whole, not as a group of parts. There may easily be problems caused by the way in which it is assembled, and we do not consider it reasonable to require a manufacturer of parts, against his will, to take responsibility for the final assembly. Although it is conceivable that such a scheme could work with very simple vehicles, it certainly could cause large problems with more complex ones.; We permit the unassembled parts manufacturer to certify if he wishes Furthermore, the person who assembles the vehicle can require a written commercial warranty that the vehicle will conform if properly assembled, which will protect him in certifying the vehicle. I recommend one of these courses of action as a matter of good business practice.; If the unassembled parts manufacturer does certify the package i accordance with S 567.4(g)(1)(ii), then it would be permissible for a distributor to use S 567.6 where he deviates from the certifier's instructions.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1018OpenMr. W. S. Magenau, President, Chesapeake Marine Products, Route 456, Deale, MD 20751; Mr. W. S. Magenau President Chesapeake Marine Products Route 456 Deale MD 20751; Dear Mr. Magenau: This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1973, in which yo suggested, with reference to a previous interpretation, that boat trailer assemblers be allowed to use the 'altering distributor' certification of 49 CFR S 567.6, rather than certifying the vehicle as the manufacturer under S 567.4.; The altering distributor label was not designed to deal with assembler of vehicles, but with persons who alter vehicles that have already been completed and assembled. A basic prerequisite to its use is that there be a vehicle that already has been certified. I take it that your suggestion really amounts to requiring the supplier of the unassembled parts to certify the vehicle.; We are unwilling to do this on the basis of our present information. I is true that a boat trailer is among the simplest vehicles on the road, but considering vehicles generally, we must consider a vehicle as a functioning whole, not as a group of parts. There may easily be problems caused by the way in which it is assembled, and we do not consider it reasonable to require a manufacturer of parts, against his will, to take responsibility for the final assembly. Although it is conceivable that such a scheme could work with very simple vehicles, it certainly could cause large problems with more complex ones.; We permit the unassembled parts manufacturer to certify if he wishes Furthermore, the person who assembles the vehicle can require a written commercial warranty that the vehicle will conform if properly assembled, which will protect him in certifying the vehicle. I recommend one of these courses of action as a matter of good business practice.; If the unassembled parts manufacturer does certify the package i accordance with S 567.4(g)(1)(ii), then it would be permissible for a distributor to use S 567.6 where he deviates from the certifier's instructions.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2483OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, 5272 River Road, Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20016; Mr. David J. Humphreys 5272 River Road Suite 400 Washington D.C. 20016; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This responds to your November 24, 1976, letter in which you as whether a draft certification label and owner's manual (submitted along with your letter) that are designed to accompany a camper would comply with Standard No. 126, *Truck-Camper Loading*.; The camper you describe uses a third axle which can support varyin amounts of the 'total cargo weight' of the caper, as this term is used in the standard. Although this camper falls within the definition of a slide-in camper, the NHTSA concludes that the requirements of Standard No. 126 are not appropriate and were not intended for this type of camper. Campers employing third axles as part of their support pose loading problems which Standard No. 126 does not adequately address. The required statements and figures in S5.1.2(c) and (e) of the standard address the concept of 'center of gravity' not 'effective center of gravity' to which you refer in your letter.; Although we have interpreted the requirements of Standard No. 126 to b inappropriate and inapplicable to the camper you describe, we recognize a need to provide the purchaser with sufficient information to ensure that the load capabilities of trucks will not be exceeded and that the 'effective center of gravity' of the camper will correspond to the center of gravity of the truck. The information detailed in your letter should aid the purchaser in the safe installation of the camper. Without this information improper installation could more easily occur, which would affect the overall safety of the vehicle.; At this time, we are not able to make ny comments regarding potentia handling problems that may arise because of the additional axle. The NHTSA will, therefore, continue to study the use of campers with third axles. If the agency identifies problems in this configuration or discovers accidents resulting from improper installation of the camper, we would consider amending Standard No. 126 to include appropriate requirements for campers with third axles.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting 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.