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: aiam2072OpenMr. Dennis E. David, Manager, Legislative Section, Kawasaki Motors Corporation, U.S.A., 1062 McCaw Avenue, P.O. Box 11447, Santa Ana, CA 92711; Mr. Dennis E. David Manager Legislative Section Kawasaki Motors Corporation U.S.A. 1062 McCaw Avenue P.O. Box 11447 Santa Ana CA 92711; Dear Mr. David: Your letter of August 22, 1975, addressed to Mr. Robert F. Hellmuth Office of Defects Investigation, has been referred to this office for reply. You have identified all model year Kawasaki motorcycles models KZ400, H1, H2, and Z1 equipped with Kawasaki accessory half-fairing installed as containing a defect related to motor vehicle safety. The defect involves the fatigue failure of the mounting bracket which attaches the half- fairing to the motorcycle.; Kawasaki has developed a new bracket for the KZ400 and Z1 models an intends to repair those models by installing the new bracket in place of the old. However, you have indicated that Kawasaki has been unsuccessful in developing a satisfactory mounting bracket for the models H1 and H2.; Based on the above facts, you have addressed two questions to th agency which will be answered in the order presented.; >>>1. To facilitate replacement of the mounting brackets on the model KZ400 and Z1, we intend to ship the newly designed parts to the Kawasaki Dealer nearest to the owner of the motorcycle. It is then our intention to direct the owner to go to this dealer for the replacement.; Question: Is it allowable for us to so direct the owner, and if so, ma such directions be given in the notification letter sent pursuant to *Part 577*, *Defect Notification*?<<<; *Answer* - It is allowable for Kawasaki to so direct the owner, an such directions may be given in the notification letter sent pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 577.; >>>2. Is it allowable to repurchase the half-fairing from the owners o the models H1 and H2 (estimated quantity 25 total for both models), and if so, is it allowable for Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. to contact these customers by telephone prior to sending a notification letter as required by Part 577?<<<; *Answer* - Unfortunately, it is not allowable to repurchase th half-fairing from the owners of the H1 and H2 models. The half-fairings are items of 'motor vehicle equipment' as defined in section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S 1391(4) hereinafter 'the Act'). Congress has explicitly limited the options of manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment containing a defect related to motor vehicle safety. While repurchase of a motor vehicle is permissible when a safety related defect is contained therein, such is not the case when the defect is contained in an item of motor vehicle equipment. *Compare* 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2)(A) *with* 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2)(b), *accord* H.R. Rep. No. 1452, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 26-29 (1974).; Half-fairings can make a safety contribution by shielding the ride from flying stones or other small debris and reducing driver fatigue on long trips. It is therefore reasonable that Congress would require that such equipment be either repaired or replaced but not repurchased when it contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If Kawasaki is unable to repair the defective half-fairings on H1 and H2 models, the law requires that it replace them 'without charge with . . .identical or reasonably equivalent' items of replacement equipment. 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2)(B). Replacement may involve the design of a new half-fairing by Kawasaki or provision of a similar item of equipment produced by another manufacturer.; Thank you for your inquiry. Should you have any questions with regar to these matters, please contact the undersigned at 202-426- 9511.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3620OpenMr. Harry Epstein, Kastar, Inc., Station Road at Sunrise Highway, Bellport, NY 11713; Mr. Harry Epstein Kastar Inc. Station Road at Sunrise Highway Bellport NY 11713; Dear Mr. Epstein: This responds to your letter of October 1, 1982 (and letter of Augus 31, 1982) requesting information concerning the Federal requirements applicable to auxiliary wind deflectors for passenger car doors. Your letter states that Mr. Kevin Cavey of this agency indicated that plastic wind deflectors do not have to meet any government regulations.'; We apologize, but the information given to you by Mr. Cavey wa incorrect. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The wind deflectors you plan to manufacture are pieces of motor vehicle equipment, and they are subject to Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials* (copy enclosed).; Incorporating by reference ANS Z26,' the American National Standard' Safety Code for Glazing Materials, Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. Under the requirements of this standard, an auxiliary wind deflector to be used on a passenger vehicle at levels requisite for driving ability may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials, depending upon its proposed location on the vehicle (the various types of glazing are designated as Items' in the standard). The acrylic plastic material you propose to use is probably an Item 4 glazing, which may be used as a wind deflector placed on the side window of a vehicle. An AS-4 glazing material must meet Test No. 2, Luminous Transmittance,' which requires that the material show regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of not less than 70 percent irradiation.' You will have to make the determination whether your material in fact qualifies as an Item 4 material, or any of the other Item numbers mentioned above.; Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification an marking requirements. The requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraphs S6.1-S6.3. While not explicitly stated in your letter, it appears that you do not manufacture the glazing to be used in your deflector, but instead purchase it from a prime glazing manufacturer and then cut it yourself. If this assumption is correct, then the certification and marking requirements applicable to you are of ANS Z26, you are required under this paragraph to mark any section of glazing that you cut with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was taken. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to those found on the acrylic sheets you purchased. Each item must also be certified pursuant to Section 114 of the 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 a 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 Safety Standard No. 205.; Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicl equipment such as wind deflectors must comply with applicable safety standards prior to its first purchase by someone for purposes other than resale. The manufacture or installation of a wind deflector that does not conform to the standard, or the installation in a new vehicle in a location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, would be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109, anyone who violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) is subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation.; Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilitie under the Act regarding safety defects. Under Section 151 *et* *seq*., such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Again, Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact Hugh Oates o this office if you have any more questions (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4860OpenMr. Mark A. Pacheco Vice President Innovative Industries of Tampa, Inc. 5126 Le Tourneau Circle Tampa, FL 33610; Mr. Mark A. Pacheco Vice President Innovative Industries of Tampa Inc. 5126 Le Tourneau Circle Tampa FL 33610; "Dear Mr. Pacheco: This responds to your letter in which you aske about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a 'Walk Machine,' looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines 'motor vehicle' as: A ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. Your letter did not indicate whether the 'Walk Machine' would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a 'motor vehicle' even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the 'Walk Machine' indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles. Because this vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle,' none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4018OpenNorman Friberg, P.E., Manager, Product Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Norman Friberg P.E. Manager Product Compliance Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Friberg: This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated June 27, 1985 for a determination that a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; Paragraph S4.3 of the standard requires that a specified placard sho the recommended tire size designation. Volvo has provided labels on approximately 3,200 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state '185/65R15' but the correct information is '185/70R15.' However, Volvo intends to mail correct placards 'to owners of all affected vehicles.'; By providing the corrective placard, Volvo will remedy th noncompliance. Because the noncompliance will no longer exist, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moot. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Volvo will provide owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek re-notice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.; The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and d not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.; Our records indicate that Volvo is in technical noncompliance with 4 CFR Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*, by failing to file a report within 5 days of its determination of the existence of the noncompliances. We will, however, treat the submission of information in your petition as a Part 573 report. Part 573 also requires 6 quarterly reports on the progress of recall campaigns. In your situation, the campaign will be accomplished in a single mailing. We ask that you furnish the agency with a report of the number of letters sent and the number of letters returned as undeliverable in lieu of the Part 573 quarterly reports.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0834OpenStanley D. Bynum, Esq., Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, 1500 Brown-Marx Building, Birmingham, AL, 35203; Stanley D. Bynum Esq. Bradley Arant Rose & White 1500 Brown-Marx Building Birmingham AL 35203; Dear Mr. Bynum: This is in reply to your letter of July 31, 1972, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'.; You ask whether your client is justified in assuring its customers tha the mattress ticking it manufactures complies with Standard No. 302 after a testing company has reported that it does. Whether a product must meet the requirements of a federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined by the 'application' section of each standard. Standard No. 302 is by its terms applicable to specific types of motor vehicles, and individual items of motor vehicle equipment are not included. Of course, components which are incorporated into motor vehicles covered by the Standard will normally be required by contract with the motor vehicle manufacturer to conform to all relevant standards before the first purchase by a user.; The basis upon which a manufacturer makes a determination that vehicle or component conforms to a standard is within his own discretion. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approval of any item of motor vehicle equipment as conforming to any motor vehicle safety standards.; You ask further, 'to what extent, if any, will the manufacturer of product which in its original state complies with federal law be held responsible for noncompliance despite alteration of the product by the ultimate consumer'. Generally, a manufacturer is not liable for the noncompliance of its product resulting from the alterations of a consumer. However, if the manufacturer could reasonably expect consumers to perform the alteration, then the NHTSA might consider the resultant nonconformity to be a safety related defect under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Finally, you are correct in assuming that the NHTSA views 15 U.S.C S1397(b)(2) to mean that a 'manufacturer may escape the penalties contained in S1398 of title 15 upon a showing that it 'did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care' that its product was substandard'.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2886OpenMr. William M. Nettles, Rome Engineering & Manufacturing Co., P.O. Box 707, Claxton, GA 30417; Mr. William M. Nettles Rome Engineering & Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 707 Claxton GA 30417; Dear Mr. Nettles: This responds to REMCO's September 14, 1978, request to know th Federal braking requirements for an air-braked or pulpwood trailer.; In addition to the requirements of Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses* the only Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard regulating the braking of air-braked vehicles is Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. As you know, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Standards also apply to the use of air-braked vehicles in interstate commerce.; All of the requirements of Standard No. 121 apply to the manufacture o a logging or pulpwood trailer except for the 'no lockup' provision of S5.3.2. Specifically, S5.3.2.2 of the standard states:; >>>S5.3.2.2 When stopped in accordance with S5.3.2, any traile designed exclusively for harvesting logs or pulpwood and constructed with a skeletal frame and no means for attachment of a solid bed, body, or container, and with an arrangement of air control lines and reservoirs designed to minimize damage in off- road operations, need not meet the requirements relating to wheel lockup, but must nevertheless meet the requirements of staying within the 12-foot lane.<<<; There is no exclusion from the parking brake requirements of S5.6 Therefore, a parking brake capability using an energy source unaffected by loss of service brake air pressure is required. The standard specifies performance, not design, and does not require installation of a spring brake design. I have enclosed a copy of a recent proposal that would modify the requirements so that pulpwood trailers would not be required to provide parking brake capability. The reasons for this proposal are listed in the preamble to the notice. This proposal has not been made final.; For clarification, I would add that 'heavy hauler' trailers ar excluded from the entire standard until January 1, 1979. Heavy hauler trailers are defined to include the so-called 'pole trailers' used in logging that have air brake lines that adapt to fore-and-aft extension of the trailer.; I am also enclosing a *Federal Register* notice that explains th effect of a recent court decision on the 'no lockup' requirement for trailers.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1909OpenMr. Roger Pelletier, Accounting Department, Traffic Div., P.H. Plastics, Inc., Parc Industriel, P.O. Box 220, Levis, Quebec, Canada G6V 6N8; Mr. Roger Pelletier Accounting Department Traffic Div. P.H. Plastics Inc. Parc Industriel P.O. Box 220 Levis Quebec Canada G6V 6N8; Dear Mr. Pelletier: This is in response to your letter of April 11, 1975, requestin information concerning the registration of certain vehicle types and laws relating to maximum length, width, and weight of vehicles.; It is unclear from your letter what you mean by 'registratio certificate.' The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) requires that all vehicles used on United States highways be certified by their manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR Part 567 and 568 specify the manner in which this certification must be accomplished. If by 'registration certificate' you are referring to the necessary licensing of a vehicle for operation on United States roadways, I suggest you contact the States in which you would be operating your vehicles for the answers to your questions.; The questions you ask relating to 'special licenses' for 3-axle van and transportation of your own raw materials and products are also unclear. As I stated above, NHTSA regulations only require that you certify the compliance of your vehicles with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. We do not limit the type of products that may be imported into this country.; With regard to your question concerning maximum limitations on traile and van length, width, and weight, this agency has no regulations which restrict the size of vehicles. As long as they meet the performance criteria established in our various safety standards, they have satisfied the provisions of the Traffic Safety Act. States generally have a limitation on the size of vehicles that operate on their roadways. Therefore, for this reason also, I suggest that you contact the States whose laws might affect the use of your vehicles within the United States.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2501OpenMr. George I. Whiston, Mechanical Section Engineer, British Standards Institution, Head Office 2 Park Street, London W1A2BS; Mr. George I. Whiston Mechanical Section Engineer British Standards Institution Head Office 2 Park Street London W1A2BS; Dear Mr. Whiston: This responds to the British Standards Institution's December 2, 1976 request to know what constitutes 'first purchase of a new motor vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale' as this phrase is used on (sic) S 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1397(b)(1) and S 567.7 of NHTSA regulations (*Part 567--Certification*). You also ask to know the legal basis for any distinction between 'original equipment' and 'replacement equipment' as those terms are used in regulation of motor vehicles and equipment in the United States.; I can confirm your understanding of S 567.7 of our regulations, as se forth in the statements which you designate as '(a)' and '(b)'. With regard to statement '(b)', S 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle incompliance (sic) with an applicable standard. Thus a dealer could not make the sunroof alteration if he knew that installation rendered inoperative the minimum roof crush capabilities specified by Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*.; Your statement designated '(c)' is not necessarily correct. The NHTSA' interpretation of the meaning of 'first purchase' relies substantially on the modifier 'in good faith.' Thus the agency evaluates the circumstances of the purchase with a view to whether or not there is an attempt to circumvent the requirements of law and applicable regulation. For example, when purchasers asked for disconnection of ignition interlock systems by dealers after contracting for the purchase of a vehicle, the agency required that bona fide physical delivery take place without an immediate return of the vehicle to the dealer for disconnection. As a practical matter, the new provision of the Act discussed above (S 108(a)(1)(A)) prohibits dealer action of this type in the future.; Since the 1974 amendments to the Act, there has been a distinctio between 'original equipment' and 'replacement equipment'. I have enclosed a copy of our proposal to implement this distinction for purposes of Federal regulation. I believe your question actually addresses the practices of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. You may wish to contact one or more of those organizations for an answer to your questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3106OpenMr. Leo Bachynsky, Laboratory Manger, R. E. Dietz Company, 225 Wilkinson Street, Box 4833, Syracuse, NY 13221; Mr. Leo Bachynsky Laboratory Manger R. E. Dietz Company 225 Wilkinson Street Box 4833 Syracuse NY 13221; Dear Mr. Bachynsky: This is in reply to your letter of August 21, 1979, asking for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it may apply to a proposed new product of your company.; This product, as you have described it, is a bi- directional Emergenc Vehicle Warning Lamp, with one lens facing to the front of the vehicle, and one to the rear. Each lens contains a 5/8 inch wide bank of relfex (sic) reflector around its periphery. The lamp would be supplied in a variety of colors (red, blue yellow) and a similar device. Less the reflex reflector area, is currently in production.; You have asked whether the inclusion of the reflex reflector in th device, 'impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment' within the prohibition of S4.1.3. You have also asked whether the equipment and location tables of Standard No. 108 restrict the use of a red reflex reflector facing the front and yellow reflex reflector facing the rear.; The determination of whether installation of additional lightin devices impairs the effectiveness of required equipment may be made either by the vehicle manufacturer or by NHTSA. Since your company already markets an emergency vehicle warning lamp we shall assume for purposes of discussion that vehicle manufacturers have determined that the lamp as currently manufactured does not impair other lighting equipment. Nor does it appear to us that the addition of the limited reflex reflector area would contribute to a degradation of the effectivenss (sic) of required lighting equipment, although a definitive judgment could not be made until the lamps were actually installed on a vehicle. The tables do not apply to supplementary lighting equipment such as your emergency lamp though the agency believes there is less likelihood of confusion if the public associates amber lighting devices with the front part of a vehicle, and red ones with the rear.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1821OpenMr. K.L. Hinze, President, Central Electric Company, P.O. Box 1447, 1810 Eleventh Street, Portsmouth, Ohio 45662; Mr. K.L. Hinze President Central Electric Company P.O. Box 1447 1810 Eleventh Street Portsmouth Ohio 45662; Dear Mr. Hinze: #This is in response to your letter of January 21 1975, to Mr. Howard Dugoff of this agency, requesting a manufacturer's designation number for the brake hose assemblies which you manufacture. #S5.2.4(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, was amended on January 29, 1974 (39 F.R. 3680, Docket No. 1-5, Notice 9), and again on February 26, 1974 (39 F.R. 7425, Docket No. 1-5, Notice 10). #In place of an assemble's code number, assigned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, S5.2.4(b) of the standard now requires:#>>>A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Standards Enforcement, 'Brake Hose Identification,' National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. The marking may consist of a designation other than block capital letters required by S5.2.4.<<<#The designation need not include your company's address, or even its complete name, as long as it identifies the company and is filed with the NHTSA as described above. Furthermore, you do not need a separate designation for each of your two stores. #You have also described a Dymo label marker and requested approval of its use as a means of complying with the banding requirements of S5.2.4. the NHTSA interprets a band as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot easily be removed. Furthermore, all of the label information must remain visible after the band has been affixed. From this discussion, you should be able to determine the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance because the material, installation method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of the specific design. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.