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: aiam5013OpenThe Honorable Dave Durenberger United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510-2301; The Honorable Dave Durenberger United States Senate Washington D.C. 20510-2301; "Dear Senator Durenberger: Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1992 concerning a product developed by your constituent, McNaughton Incorporated of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The product is a device to prevent a child from opening the buckle of a safety belt without adult assistance. You requested information on any regulations that pertain to this product. The agency has received inquiries about similar products in the past. While we understand parents' concerns that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about these types of products because they could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. I am enclosing an August 6, 1986, letter from NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Ms. Ann Boriskie. As this letter explains, your constituent's product could not be installed by a commercial entity without violating Federal law. In addition, installation of your constituent's product by any person would be inconsistent with this agency's policy to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. You also asked for information on how McNaughton Incorporated could become involved in the national safety belt campaign. The Agency is currently working with a variety of public and private sector organizations to increase safety belt use to 70 percent by the end of 1992. The strategy focuses on increased law enforcement efforts coupled with aggressive community-based public information. There are many ways McNaughton can support these efforts. They can consider developing and implementing an in-house safety belt education program targeting their employees or applying for the 70 percent Honor Roll Program. They might be interested in supporting community awareness initiatives that promote the campaign, including the posting of billboards and the inclusion of safety belt messages in their on-going advertising. An expanded list of ideas is attached. If McNaughton Incorporated is interested in additional campaign information, they can contact Susan Gorcowski, Office of Occupant Protection, (202) 366- 2683. I appreciate your interest in the safety of motor vehicles and hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4101OpenMr. Peter Hofmann, Product Manager, Continental Products Corporation, 1200 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Peter Hofmann Product Manager Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Hofmann: This responds to your letter, asking three questions about any Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements for labeling tires as 'all- season' tires. I will answer your questions in the order they were presented in your letter.; >>>1. *Is there a definition issued by NHTSA regarding mud and sno tire tread design characteristics*?<<<; No, NHTSA has not issued any such specifications. For all of our tir regulations, except the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS, 49 CFR S575.104), a tire is subject to the same requirements, regardless of its specific design characteristics. That is *all* new passenger car tires must satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 109 and be labeled in accordance with Part 574. This is true whether the new passenger car tire is a mud and snow tire, all-season tire, high speed-rated tire, temporary spare tire, or a normal highway service tire.; Accordingly, the agency has had no reason to define particula characteristics of a mud and snow tire for any regulation or standard besides the UTQGS, and the agency has not done so.; The UTQGS apply to all new passenger car tires with a few exceptions One of the groups of new passenger car tires not subject to the UTQGS is 'deep tread, winter-type snow tires.' When all-season tires were first introduced, several manufacturers asked whether all-season tires qualified as deep tread, winter-type snow tires. The agency responded to these questions with an explanation of what the UTQGS means by the phrase 'deep tread, winter-type snow tires.' This discussion appeared at 44 FR 30140, May 24, 1979, and reads as follows:; >>>'While all-weather tires may share some characteristics of sno tires under industry categorization systems, they are not limited to acceptable use to winter periods by virtue of their construction. The qualifying language 'deep tread, winter-type' indicates NHTSA's intention to except only a strictly limited class of tires, the deep tread rubber and tread design of which makes year round use on passenger automobiles inadvisable. Since all-weather tires are designed with a tread depth which permits and is in fact intended for safe operation throughout the year, they do not qualify as 'deep tread, winter-type snow tires' for purposes of the applicability of the UTQG Standards.'<<<; Hence, for the purposes of the UTQGS, it is the manufacturer who must in the first instance, determine if a passenger car tire design incorporates a tread depth and design such that the tire qualifies as a deep tread, winter-type snow tire. A manufacturer making such a determination is not required to label the tire as a mud and snow tire, instead, the manufacturer simply is not required to comply with the UTQGS requirements for that tire design. In the course of its compliance enforcement for tires, the agency may reexamine the question of whether a particular tire design is a deep tread, winter-type snow tire. This is the only context in which the agency has ever addressed the issue of what constitutes a snow tire.; >>>2.*Can a tire have a paper label affixed stating that it is a mu and snow tire even if the symbol for a mud and snow tire is not molded into the tire sidewall*?<<<; NHTSA has no regulatory requirements specifying how or that a tire b labeled as a mud and snow tire. Therefore, your company may label mud and snow tires in any manner you wish without violating any NHTSA requirements.; It is possible that the Federal Trade Commission has established som requirements for the marketing of a tire as a mud and snow tire, under its authority to prevent 'unfair and deceptive' marketing practices. To learn if the Federal Trade Commission has any requirements, you may write to: Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.; You may also wish to learn if there are any voluntary industr standards for the labeling of mud and snow tires. The American standardization organization for tires is the Tire and Rim Association, Inc. You may contact them at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. naturally, the decision of whether to follow those voluntary industry standards is left to the discretion of your company.; >>>3.*Can a tire be labeled as an all-season tire even if no markin showing it is a mud and snow tire or all-season tire is molded into the sidewall?*<<<; The answer to this question is identical to the answer given above fo question number 2. NHTSA has no regulations specifying that an all-season tire must be so labeled on the sidewall, so your company will not violate any NHTSA requirements by marketing the tire as an all-season tire without molding information into the sidewall. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission to learn if they have any requirements and the Tire & Rim Association to learn if there is any voluntary industry practice in this area.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0007OpenMr. Louis F. Wilson Instant Traffic Lights 2580 W. Venice Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90019; Mr. Louis F. Wilson Instant Traffic Lights 2580 W. Venice Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90019; Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1991 with respect to the acceptability under Federal law of your product, the 'Instant Traffic Light. I regret that we do not appear to have a record of your earlier letters to the agency on this subject. The 'Instant Traffic Light' is a four-section unit intended to perform three functions, each indicated by a different color. A green light appears when the accelerator is applied, an amber light when the accelerator is released, and a red light when the brakes are applied. The lamp's shipping carton shows the unit mounted on the rear parcel shelf behind the rear window. The text on the carton says that the lamp is easy to assemble. You have asked whether the product meets Standard No. 108, whether it would be 'legal' in the U.S. 'and her territories', and whether the product could replace, or be an option to, the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the center high-mounted stop lamp. Finally, of the l6 States that have responded to your inquiry, an equal number (six) have indicated that the lamp is and is not acceptable to them, while the remaining four 'said they will follow the Federal requirement.' Standard No. 108 does not permit the center high-mounted stop lamp to be combined with any other lamp. This means that your product could not be used as original equipment on a passenger car, whether as standard equipment or as an option, or marketed and sold as replacement equipment for a center lamp on a passenger car that was originally equipped with it. However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to the 'Instant Traffic Light' if it is marketed or sold exclusively for use on passenger cars that were not originally required to be manufactured with the center stop lamp, i.e., those cars that were manufactured before September 1, l985. Under this circumstance, the question of the legality of use of the device is to be determined by the laws of the individual States. The 'territories' are 'States' for purposes of this discussion. Since there is no legal prohibition under Federal law for installation of your lamp only on older passenger cars, we presume that the four States that reserved their decision would permit it on pre - l985 vehicles registered and/or operating within their borders. We are aware that, nevertheless, there may be some owner interest in replacing original equipment center stop lamps with your product. We would like to advise that such replacement would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. There is no such restriction upon a vehicle owner who performs the replacement of the lamp himself. I hope that this responds to your questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4834OpenMr. Louis F. Wilson Instant Traffic Lights 2580 W. Venice Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90019; Mr. Louis F. Wilson Instant Traffic Lights 2580 W. Venice Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90019; Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1991 with respect to the acceptability under Federal law of your product, the 'Instant Traffic Light. I regret that we do not appear to have a record of your earlier letters to the agency on this subject. The 'Instant Traffic Light' is a four-section unit intended to perform three functions, each indicated by a different color. A green light appears when the accelerator is applied, an amber light when the accelerator is released, and a red light when the brakes are applied. The lamp's shipping carton shows the unit mounted on the rear parcel shelf behind the rear window. The text on the carton says that the lamp is easy to assemble. You have asked whether the product meets Standard No. 108, whether it would be 'legal' in the U.S. 'and her territories', and whether the product could replace, or be an option to, the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the center high-mounted stop lamp. Finally, of the l6 States that have responded to your inquiry, an equal number (six) have indicated that the lamp is and is not acceptable to them, while the remaining four 'said they will follow the Federal requirement.' Standard No. 108 does not permit the center high-mounted stop lamp to be combined with any other lamp. This means that your product could not be used as original equipment on a passenger car, whether as standard equipment or as an option, or marketed and sold as replacement equipment for a center lamp on a passenger car that was originally equipped with it. However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to the 'Instant Traffic Light' if it is marketed or sold exclusively for use on passenger cars that were not originally required to be manufactured with the center stop lamp, i.e., those cars that were manufactured before September 1, l985. Under this circumstance, the question of the legality of use of the device is to be determined by the laws of the individual States. The 'territories' are 'States' for purposes of this discussion. Since there is no legal prohibition under Federal law for installation of your lamp only on older passenger cars, we presume that the four States that reserved their decision would permit it on pre - l985 vehicles registered and/or operating within their borders. We are aware that, nevertheless, there may be some owner interest in replacing original equipment center stop lamps with your product. We would like to advise that such replacement would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. There is no such restriction upon a vehicle owner who performs the replacement of the lamp himself. I hope that this responds to your questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3521OpenMr. L. J. A. Mills, G. & C. Mills Plastics Inc., 9 Carrier Drive, Ontario, Canada M9V4B2; Mr. L. J. A. Mills G. & C. Mills Plastics Inc. 9 Carrier Drive Ontario Canada M9V4B2; Dear Mr. Mills: This responds to your recent letter asking whether an auxiliary win deflector which you sell must have a 'safety label.' Also, you ask whether you should send one of your products to the agency in order to obtain official approval.; The answer to your first question is yes. Section 108(a)(1) of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no person shall; >>>'(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce o deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . .; '(C) fail to issue a certificate required by section 114, or issue certification to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certification is false or misleading in a material respect.'<<<; Since your auxiliary wind deflector is a piece of motor vehicl equipment and is subject to Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, you are required by section 108 to certify that it complies with that standard. As noted on page 2 of our October 8, 1980 letter to Mr. Hingtgen (which you received), section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act requires the manufacturer or distributor to place a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside container in which the equipment is delivered. This label or tag must state (i.e., certify) that the item of equipment complies with all applicable safety standards, in this case Standard No. 205. You are correct in your assumption that you print this label or tag yourself. The agency does not provide the labels.; In answer to your second question, you should not send a sample of you product to the agency for approval. The agency does not grant prior approval of any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. As you can see from section 108 quoted above, the Vehicle Safety Act requires self- certification by the manufacturer that its product is in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency's enforcement program begins only after the manufacturer has certified its product (i.e., the agency may obtain an item of equipment or vehicle from the open market and determine whether it is in fact in compliance with all standards).; I hope this has answered all remaining questions you might have. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3633OpenMr. Matt Guzzetta, Vice President, Don Vesco Products, Inc., 7565 North Avenue, Lemon Grove, CA 92045; Mr. Matt Guzzetta Vice President Don Vesco Products Inc. 7565 North Avenue Lemon Grove CA 92045; Dear Mr. Guzzetta: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1982, asking about th legality of 'covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover.'; You reported that manufacturers of motorcycles and fairings ar producing such covers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration views this practice as prohibited and will take appropriate steps to make its views known. The legal authority for this is based upon a requirement of the SAE incorporated by reference in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or, alternatively, paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard.; SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions), *Sealed Beam Headlam Assembly*, is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A paragraph in each version states that, 'When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens.' SAE J580a applies to all sealed beam headlamps, while the scope of J580b is considerably narrower, including only those not covered by SAE J579c.; The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584 *Motorcycle Headlamps*. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles.; Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation o additional equipment 'that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required' by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicitly permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.; For the reasons stated above, the agency has concluded that no headlam may have a glass or plastic shield in front of it when in use, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is used.; As for the turn signals, no part of the vehicle may impair thei visibility through horizontal angles 45 degrees to the right and left of the vehicle (for right and left turn signals respectively) measured at the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. An unobstructed illuminated area of outer lens surface of at least 2 square inches excluding reflex is necessary to meet this requirement. You will have to judge for yourself whether the turn signal requirements are met with your planned cover in place.; If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1494OpenMr. J. B. Dyer, Vice President - Marketing, The Flxible Company, 323 N. Water Street, Loudonville, OH 44842; Mr. J. B. Dyer Vice President - Marketing The Flxible Company 323 N. Water Street Loudonville OH 44842; Dear Mr. Dyer: This responds to your April 23, 1974, questions whether Standard No 121, *Air brake systems; , is a proposal, whether buses manufactured after January 1, 1975, mus conform to Standard No. 121 under all circumstances, what 'cut- off date' exists for determination of brake equipment suppliers' ability to provide 121 components on time, and to what extent a bus must be completed to be certified as in compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards.; Standard No. 121 has been a final rule since February 27, 1972, and ha an effective date of January 1, 1973. In 1972 the effective date was postponed until September 1, 1974. Recently the NHTSA further delayed the effective date for trucks and buses until March 1, 1975, having concluded that suppliers will be able to supply all necessary components by that date.; All buses manufactured after the effective date of an applicabl standard must comply with its requirements, under S 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. S 1392(a)(1)), which states 'No person shall. . .manufacture for sale. . .any motor vehicle. . .on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect. . .unless it is in conformity with such standard. . . .'; You asked whether a trailer which is substantially complete before th effective date but lacks one or more parts due to parts shortages can be certified as conforming although it is equipped with a pre-121 brake system. By analogy with the rules allowing manufacturers to omit 'readily attachable' items to be added later in the chain of distribution (Import regulations S 12.80, Parts 567, 568), the NHTSA will accept a good-faith determination that a vehicle is substantially completed, where only a few parts subject to shortages are missing.; I would also like to answer a technical question raised by R. E. House of your engineering staff. In an April 23, 1974, letter he asked for an interpretation of the S5.6.4 language 'The parking brake control shall be separate from the service brake control.' as it applies to the DD-3 two-step brake release. The S5.6.4 requirement for a separate parking brake control is intended to address the actuation of the brake. We interpret this language not to prohibit the use of a two-step release involving a manual and a foot control.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2133OpenHonorable H. S. Knight, Director, United States Secret Service, 1800 G Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20226; Honorable H. S. Knight Director United States Secret Service 1800 G Street N.W. Washington DC 20226; Dear Mr. Knight: This is in response to the November 19, 1975, request from the Secre Service for a description of the application of the Federal bumper standard (Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*) to vehicles whose bumper systems are modified.; Standard No. 215, the Federal motor vehicle safety standard tha applies to automobile bumpers, specifies performance requirements with which vehicles must comply. Full- sized passenger cars must be manufactured to withstand a series of longitudinal pendulum and barrier impacts at 5 mph front and rear and corner pendulum impacts at 3 mph front and rear without incurring damage to lighting, cooling, fuel, exhaust, propulsion, suspension, steering, or braking systems, or to doors or other closures.; If, after a vehicle has been purchased for purposes other than resale its owner decides to modify its bumper system, section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563), as amended (Pub. L. 93-492), becomes applicable. Under that section manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. Modification of an automobile bumper that caused it no longer to comply with the requirements of Standard 215 in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture would be violative of section 108 if the modification was accomplished by one of the above-named persons.; If the bumper were modified by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, o motor vehicle repair business in such a way that the bumper either continued to meet or exceeded the requirements of Standard No. 215, section 108 would not be violated. All that is necessary is that the bumper continue to be capable of satisfying the performance requirements contained in the Standard on the date of the vehicle's manufacture.; A bumper system that has been modified by a person (individual corporate, or organizational) other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, need not remain in compliance with the provisions of Standard No. 215.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3755OpenMr. Anthony M. Peterson, Lansing Auto Glass Co., 827 E. Michigan Avenue, Lansing, MI 48912; Mr. Anthony M. Peterson Lansing Auto Glass Co. 827 E. Michigan Avenue Lansing MI 48912; Dear Mr. Peterson: This responds to your letter concerning the application of the rende inoperative provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to the replacement of vehicle windshields by motor vehicle repair businesses.; As explained in my letter of September 3, 1981, to Mr. Stanley, th agency does not consider fixing a damaged windshield to constitute a rendering inoperative of the windshield with respect to Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. That letter did caution that if a repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield, renders another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop would violate section 108(a)(2)(A).; You specifically asked whether in replacing a windshield a repair sho must use the same method (e.g., setting the glass with urethane) the original equipment manufacturer used to maintain the integrity of the installation. The agency does not consider the replacement of a damaged windshield to constitute a rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 212, *Windshield Mounting*, which establishes windshield retention requirements for new vehicles, regardless of the method used to maintain the integrity of the windshield.; Although section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would not apply to th replacement of a damaged windshield, product liability concerns dictate that a repair shop ensure that the replacement windshield is mounted securely. Mounting the windshield with the same method used by the vehicle manufacturer presumably would ensure that the replacement windshield had the same integrity as the original windshield installation.; You also asked about the effect of section 108(a)(2)(A) on a repai shop that replaces a windshield for a dealer who will resell the vehicle and a replacement of a windshield for an insurance company for one of its policyholders. Assuming that the repair shop is replacing a damaged windshield, section 108(a)(2)(A) would not apply.; I hope this discussion is of assistance to you. If you have any furthe questions please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff (202-426-1834).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3249OpenMr. Thomas A. Masterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. Thomas A. Masterson Morgan Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Masterson: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation o Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials* (49 CFR 571.205). You ask whether the abrasion test for vehicle windshield glazing must be conducted on both the exterior and interior surfaces of the windshield.; Your letter states that the 'Securiflex Inner Guard Windshield' wit which you are concerned consists of typical windshield glazing with an added layer of clear plastic bonded to one surface, which protects occupants from contact with shattered glass from the outer surface. Apparently, this interior plastic surface cannot pass the abrasion test required for windshield glazing.; Section 4 of the 'ANS Z26' standard which is incorporated by referenc in Safety Standard No. 205 specified that glazing material for use as vehicle windshields must comply with the tests indicated for 'Item 1' glazing, which includes abrasion Test 18. Footnote number 3 under the specifications for 'Item 1' glazing provides that 'multiple glazed units shall be tested on both sides using separate specimens for each side.' Therefore, both the interior and exterior surface of a vehicle windshield must comply with abrasion Test 18. We believe that this is a necessary requirement, for both the abrasion test and the other tests specified for 'Item 1' glazing. While the 'Securiflex' windshield might have sufficient abrasion resistance on the interior surface to prevent distortion of a driver's vision, manufacturers would be allowed to develop interior surfaces which had absolutely no abrasion resistance if only the exterior surface of the windshield is required to be tested.; This is not to say that a somewhat less stringent abrasion resistanc requirement for the interior surface of a windshield like the 'Securiflex' is not in order, if the safety advantages of this type glazing outweigh the potential problems of abrasion. However, for this to be allowed Safety Standard No. 205 would have to be amended to specify separate abrasion resistance requirements for the exterior and interior surfaces of multiple glazed windshields. Therefore, I suggest that you submit a petition to amend the standard and supply all necessary supporting data and information. I realize that you are concerned with the amount of time this would require, but such a distinction in the requirements cannot be accomplished by interpretation. The agency would have to consider the disadvantages that might result from a reduction in the abrasion resistance requirements, as well as determine what increase on performance in other test would be required before such a reduction would be allowed.; This letter should in no way be considered a disapproval of th 'Securiflex' windshield. The information supplied in your letter certainly indicated that this windshield design is an advance in motor vehicle safety. If this is in fact the case, the agency will make every attempt to encourage the use of similar designs.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.