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: aiam4884OpenMrs. Elizabeth Anania 3045 Granville Drive Raleigh, NC 27609; Mrs. Elizabeth Anania 3045 Granville Drive Raleigh NC 27609; "Dear Mrs. Anania: This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke o my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle. You explained that your husband, Vincent Anania, has some paralysis of his right arm and hand as a result of a stroke a year ago. You explained that your husband wishes to begin driving again and was recently evaluated by Bryant Driving School in Raleigh who determined that he was qualified to drive. However, the seat in your automobile does not move far enough back to allow your husband to enter the vehicle. You asked for permission to have your vehicle modified so that the seat can move further back. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulations will be of assistance to you. I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your husband's condition. We caution, however, that only modifications necessary to accommodate your husband's condition should be made to the seat. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5506OpenMajor Glen Gramse Minnesota State Police 444 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101; Major Glen Gramse Minnesota State Police 444 Cedar Street St. Paul MN 55101; "Dear Major Gramse: It has been brought to our attention by Mr. R.C Rost of Minnesota Body and Equipment that there is a question regarding Minnesota's law concerning buses used for Head Start programs. According to Mr. Rost, Minnesota prohibits these buses from being equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. He requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify any inconsistencies between the Federal and State law. As explained below, to the extent there is a conflict between Federal and State law, Federal law would prevail in this matter. All manufacturers and sellers of new school buses must comply with the Federal law by manufacturing and selling vehicles that are equipped with school bus lights and stop signal arms. By way of background, Congress has directed this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSSs for school buses, including ones requiring these buses to have warning lights and stop arms. The Federal law requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary, or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSSs for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement. NHTSA's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore 'schools' under NHTSA's statute. Accordingly, buses transporting students to and from Head Start facilities are defined as school buses under Federal law and are therefore subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Any manufacturer that omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 or the stop signal arm required by paragraph S5 of Standard No. 131 (or that delivers a bus with these devices inoperative), is in violation of Federal law, and subject to recall provisions and civil penalties. The effect of the statute's preemption provision is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that State standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light or stop arm requirements as a higher standard of performance. Thus, regardless of how a State defines 'School bus,' a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with warning lights or stop arms. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads (including the equipment on the vehicles), those State laws may not override Federal laws for what type of safety equipment must be installed on new vehicles. I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4770OpenMr. Samuel Kimmelman Engineering Product Manager Ideal Division EPICOR Industries, Inc. 3200 Parker Drive St. Augustine, FL 32084-0891; Mr. Samuel Kimmelman Engineering Product Manager Ideal Division EPICOR Industries Inc. 3200 Parker Drive St. Augustine FL 32084-0891; Dear Mr. Kimmelman: This is in reply to your letter of August 2, l990 with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. It is your understanding that, when a vehicle is delivered to its purchaser with dealer-installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You interpret the standards as requiring three specific aspects of performance, and you ask whether we agree with those interpretations. These aspects are: 'l. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer.' This is essentially correct. However, it is not the flasher that is certified but the vehicle in which the flasher is installed, Standard No. 108 does not require certification of original equipment lighting items, only replacement equipment items. Standard No. 108's requirements for turn signal flashers are those of SAE Standard J590b, Automotive Turn Signal Flasher, October l965, which are incorporated by reference. Under the Standard's Scope, the flashers 'are intended to operate at the design load for the turn signal system as stated by the manufacturer.' If a vehicle is designed for towing purposes, and its manufacturer offers an optional trailer hitch and associated wiring, then that manufacturer must equip the vehicle with a flasher capable of meeting a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load, and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer. That will be a variable load turn signal flasher. The manufacturer of the vehicle is the person responsible for ensuring that the flasher meets the vehicle's design load requirements, and that the vehicle is certified as conforming to Standard No. 108. '2. The hazard warning signal flasher must be certified as meeting the requirements of FMVSS-108 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer.' This is also essentially correct, and our comments are similar. Standard No. 108's requirements for hazard warning signal flashers are those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February l966, which are incorporated by reference. The Practice's Scope specifies that the flashers 'are required to operate from two signal lamps to the maximum design load . . . as stated by the manufacturer.' Thus, in order for the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard No. 108, it must equip the vehic1e with a flasher that operates over a load range of two lamps to the total hazard warning system load of the vehicle plus the trailer. '3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle.' This is correct. Under section S5.5.6 of Standard No. 108, any vehicle equipped to tow trailers and which uses a variable-load turn signal flasher is exempted from the failure indication requirements of the SAE standards on turn signals. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5110OpenMr. Daniel Cassese 28 Elva Road N. Weymouth, MA 01291; Mr. Daniel Cassese 28 Elva Road N. Weymouth MA 01291; "Dear Mr. Cassese: This responds to your letter of November 19, 1992 Your letter describes your invention called a 'Head Rest Extension.' You asked if this invention would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 201, 202, and 208. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards which could be relevant to a head rest extension: Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. These four standards apply only to new vehicles, not to items of individual equipment. If the head rest extension were installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including these four, with the head rest extension installed. However, as you have explained in a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, your product is intended to be an item of after-market equipment. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition does not require manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to certify that vehicles continue to comply with the safety standards after any aftermarket modifications are made. Instead, 'render inoperative' prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modifications that they know or should know will result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. Please note also that the 'render inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your head rest extension in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. You should also note that a head rest extension would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0497OpenMr. J. C. Eckhold, Automotive Safety Director, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI, 49121; Mr. J. C. Eckhold Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 49121; Dear Mr. Eckhold: This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1971, petitioning t amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' and offering comments concerning the notice of proposed rulemaking (Docket No. 3-3, Notice 4), published May 26, 1971 (36 F.R. 9565). You petitioned for the substitution of a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate for the 4-inch-per-minute horizontal burn rate presently specified. For the reasons stated below, your petition is hereby denied.; You base your petition on your belief that the expenditure fo materials that will comply with the 4-inch-per-minute burn rate cannot be justified in terms of the safety benefit achievable. In support of this you state that your analysis shows that the incidence of non-fuel fed fires is extremely low and the probability of injury is extremely remote. You further state that the cost necessary to comply with the standard's requirements as presently issued would involve an increase in vehicle cost from $4 to $10 per vehicle, while you presently have materials which you believe can meet a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate.; The Administration does not agree that there is insufficient data o which to justify the necessary expenditure to obtain a 4-inch-per-minute burn rate. There is ample evidence in the docket that the incidence and severity of non-fuel fires present an unreasonable risk to the public. The Administration has determined that in order for occupants to have sufficient time to escape from a vehicle fire, the material within the vehicle must have a horizontal burn rate that does not exceed 4 inches per minute. Ford has submitted no evidence to show that the 4-inch-per-minute burn rate is excessive or unreasonable from a safety standpoint. In addition, the high toxicity of some vehicle interior materials requires that they burn at a rate that is low enough that vehicle occupants will not be overcome by harmful gases before they can escape from the vehicle. We believe, based upon material found in the docket, that a burn rate of not more than 4 inches per minute is necessary to respond adequately to this need.; You argue further that your suppliers maintain that it would b difficult to meet the 4-inch-per-minute burn rate because of inherent variations in materials, and submit data showing that 'two vinyl coated seat fabrics of the same grain and dark colors' exhibited burn rates of .40 inches per minute and 6.25 inches per minute respectively. The NHTSA understands that the burn rate of some materials may vary. This fact will be taken into account, along with the frequency and extent of any test failures, in assessing whether a manufacturer has exercised due care. It would not be appropriate, however, to respond to the problem of variability by relaxing the overall burn rate. Such an action would probably result simply in manufacturers choosing cheaper and less safe materials.; You also argue that based upon your preliminary findings, aging o materials treated with fire retardants tends to nullify the retardant treatment and destroys the appearance of the material. Other data you submit shows a situation in which the flame retardants did not deteriorate, but the treatment caused deterioration of the material. The evidence available to the NHTSA does not, however, indicate that it is necessary to use flame-retardant treatments that display these undesirable characteristics in order to comply with the standard.; Finally, your petition contains no evidence that the 12-inch-per-minut burn rate that you recommend will allow sufficient escape time in the event of a vehicle fire. Based on the Administration's findings, such a rate would not provide the escape time necessary.; With reference to your comments concerning the proposed amendment t the standard of May 26, 1971, these will be considered as far as is practicable in that rulemaking action.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5579OpenThe Honorable Paul David Wellstone United States Senator 2550 University Avenue W., #100N St. Paul, MN 55114-1025; The Honorable Paul David Wellstone United States Senator 2550 University Avenue W. #100N St. Paul MN 55114-1025; "Dear Senator Wellstone: Thank you for your letter enclosin correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Kris Solberg, concerning our requirements for school buses. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA administers the Federal regulations for school buses. Ms. Solberg, principal of Grace Christian School, asks that our 'school bus' definition be narrowed so that it only encompasses vehicles carrying more than 15 passengers. Ms. Solberg believes that, at NHTSA's urging, Minnesota recently amended its school bus definition to include vehicles carrying 15 passengers. She states that, as a result of this change, schools cannot use conventional 15-passenger vans to transport students to school events, even though the vans are 'safe enough.' I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. The short answer to Ms. Solberg's question is that NHTSA cannot narrow the 'school bus' definition as she requests because the definition was set by Congress. Further, for safety reasons, we do not agree that the definition should be changed. As Ms. Solberg's letter suggests, school bus regulations exist on the Federal and State levels. On the Federal level are NHTSA's school bus regulations. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles by issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that each new vehicle must meet when sold. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Congress also defined a 'school bus' as a passenger motor vehicle 'designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' (Emphasis added.) Since the school bus definition was set by Congress, NHTSA is unable to revise it to exclude 15-passenger vans. Further, we do not agree that the definition should be narrowed to exclude vehicles. School bus-type vans have more safety features providing occupant crash protection than do conventional full-size vans. Narrowing the definition could result in school children being transported in vehicles that are not as safe as the vehicles used today. NHTSA believes that, while school bus vans are slightly more expensive than conventional 15-passenger vans, the increased level of safety justifies the higher costs. Thus, we recommend against changing the Federal definition of a 'school bus.' While the Federal government regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the States regulate the use of vehicles. According to Ms. Solberg's letter, Minnesota has decided to adopt NHTSA's 'school bus' definition into its regulations. In doing so, under Minnesota law, if a school wishes to use a 15- passenger van to carry students, the van must meet school bus safety standards. NHTSA does not require States to adopt our 'school bus' definition. However, we strongly support any decision by a State to do so. This agency attaches the utmost importance to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting 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: aiam4481OpenMr. Max J. Mizejewski Foreign Marketing Specialists, Inc. 14451 Chambers Rd., Suite 155 Tustin, CA 92680; Mr. Max J. Mizejewski Foreign Marketing Specialists Inc. 14451 Chambers Rd. Suite 155 Tustin CA 92680; "Dear Mr. Mizejewski: This is in response to your letter in which yo asked whether a product your company plans to import would be subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). According to your letter, this product, which you refer to as a 'Roadreader,' attaches to the front of a motor vehicle and has two sensors which give a visual and audible alarm when the vehicle drifts off a road. You indicated that this product would be connected to the wiring related to the turn signals. You noted that this device does not affect vehicle functions such as acceleration, braking, lighting, or visibility. You further stated that if required, you would provide the device to NHTSA or another government agency for inspection. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act') directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Title 49 CFR Part 571 contains the safety standards promulgated by the agency. Although you stated that this device does not affect the electrical wiring related to the turn lights, I suggest you closely review Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (Copy enclosed). This safety standard applies to both motor vehicle equipment installed in new motor vehicles and replacement equipment sold in the aftermarket. While I cannot conclusively say that this standard is or is not applicable to your product based on the limited facts in your letter, this standard may apply to your product because the wiring for your device is connected to components (i.e., turn lights) subject to the standard. For instance, S4.5.11 requires that components including the turn signal lamps must be wired to flash. More generally, S4.1.3 forbids the installation of an additional piece of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Therefore, a device such as yours is permissible as original vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. As for the sale of your product in the aftermarket for vehicles in use, Section 108 of the Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business 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 FMVSS. Since an importer is defined by the Safety Act as a manufacturer, you should assure that installation of your device does not render inoperative, in whole or in part, the turn signal lamp or any other item of motor vehicle equipment subject to Standard No. 108. As for your second question concerning inspection and approval of your product, you should be aware that NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Under Section 114 of the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. Further, as you noted, you would be responsible for recalling any safety-related defects which you or this agency finds in your product. You also should be aware that laws from particular States may apply to your device. Therefore, you may wish to contact the State and local transportation authorities in the areas where you intend to market your product. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203) may also be able to provide information about State laws concerning devices similar to your product. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2219OpenMr. Edward A. Green, President Henke Manufacturing Corp., Box 188, 525 Main, Janesville, IA 50647; Mr. Edward A. Green President Henke Manufacturing Corp. Box 188 525 Main Janesville IA 50647; Dear Mr. Green: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, letter concerning th relationship between snow plows that you manufacture and the front-axle GAWR's of the vehicles on which they are mounted. Your questions and our answers are as follows:; *Question 1*. 'Somewhere I read where fire trucks are not governed b FMVSS121 or axle weight restrictions as an emergency vehicle. Is this true?'; Standard No. 121 does not apply to fire fighting vehicles manufacture before June 1, 1976. In addition, it does not apply to such a vehicle manufactured from June 1, 1976, to August 31, 1977, that either has a GAWR for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more, or has two or more front, steerable axles with a GAWR of 16,000 pounds or more for each axle. Further, the standard does not apply to any vehicle meeting any one of criteria (a) through (d), as follows:; >>>(a) An overall vehicle width of 108 inches or more, (b) An axle that has a GAWR of 29,000 pounds or more, (c) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 33 mph, or (d) (1 A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 45 mph, and (2) An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR, and (3) No passenger-carrying capacity.; *Question 2*. 'Do you consider a snow plow an emergency piece o equipment?'; There are no exemptions in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard or regulations for 'emergency vehicles' or 'emergency equipment'.; *Question 3*. 'Would a D.O.T. compliance officer require a plow to b raised for weighing to check the GAWR?'; In determining whether a vehicle equipped with a snow plow has bee assigned an improper GAWR, the NHTSA will consider the load imposed on the axle system when the plow is in the raised position.; *Question 4*. 'The box or fold down flap I mention in letter - woul this be considered a legal method of meeting GAWR, assuming it was part of a snow plow procedure program?'; Our letter of May 9, 1974, explained that proper weight ratings depen on what you, as a vehicle alterer, know, or can reasonably be expected to know, about how the plow-equipped trucks are likely to be loaded. It stated further:; >>>A warning to the buyer not to exceed the rated cargo load or th weight ratings. . .would not be sufficient if it were reasonable to expect that the vehicles would, in practice, exceed these ratings at normal full load despite the warning.<<<; Similarly, if the volume-reducing purpose of the box or fold down fla described in your letter to county engineers is likely to be defeated (whether intentionally of (sic) accidentally), then neither would be sufficient to validate a GAWR that would otherwise be exceeded by a fully loaded axle. If, on the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that your recommended loading procedure will be followed, then it is permissible to base the GAWR on the correspondingly reduced 'full' load.; *Question 5*. 'When weighing a truck for compliance would a full loa of ballast be required even though the snow plowing procedure of governmental bodies call out a less than full load of ballast?'; The considerations discussed in no. 4 above apply here as well. *Question 6*. 'When we bid to a State where drawings and or detaile specifications of snow removal equipment are called out and no axle sizes or dump box sizes are called out are we responsible for this plow overweighing a front axle? We do not mount any equipment, we furnish equipment as specified.'; The primary responsibility for weight ratings is with the party who, b mounting the snow plow, is the vehicle alterer. If, however, your advertising or bids promote the use of the snow plow in situations where front axles are likely to be overloaded, then the plow may be considered to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, which would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4715OpenMr. Frederick H. Dambach President Execuline 997 Brook Rd. Lakewood, NJ 08701; Mr. Frederick H. Dambach President Execuline 997 Brook Rd. Lakewood NJ 08701; "Dear Mr. Dambach: This is in response to your letter requesting that reconsider my conclusion in a July 26, 1989, letter to you interpreting emergency exit requirements contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I regret the delay in responding. As is explained below, after reconsideration, I must still conclude that exits located in the roof of a bus do not satisfy the requirement contained in S5.2 of Standard 217, that 40% of the required emergency exit space on a transit bus must be located on each side of the bus. Your August letter argues that roof exits must be counted in determining compliance with S5.2 because the standard does not specifically state that a side is that part of a bus that is perpendicular to the floor. Instead, relying upon provisions of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) regulations at 49 CFR Part 393, you assert that the side of a bus is any part to the left or right of the roof centerline. While this may be true under the FHWA regulations, those regulations are being used in a completely different context than Standard No. 217, and concern lighting and marker requirements and specifications for towing for motor carriers. Standard 217, on the other hand, specifies requirements for the operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits in buses to ensure readily accessible emergency egress from these vehicles. Because of the different purpose and context of Standard 217 and the FHWA regulations, the definition of the word 'side' is not necessarily the same for those regulations. In fact, as I explained in detail in my previous letter to you, the structure and purpose of Standard 217 show that the word 'side' has a different meaning in Standard 217 than it does when used by the FHWA in Part 393. Moreover, and contrary to the assertion in your letter, Standard 217 is not a subpart of Part 393. Standard 217 is found in 49 CFR Part 571. The Standard is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), administered by NHTSA. Under Federal law, these standards are applicable to manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles. On the other hand, Part 393, administered by the FHWA, is a part of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which are applicable to motor carriers. Although NHTSA and FHWA coordinate with each other to avoid conflicts in our respective regulatory programs, the FHWA does not have authority over motor vehicle manufacturers. Likewise, NHTSA does not have authority over motor carriers. This agency has statutory authority to regulate the manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Additionally, our statute prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. However, this agency has no authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. Hence, NHTSA cannot require the vehicles used in your company's fleet to comply with Standard 217 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the individual States are free to regulate the operation and use of vehicles within their borders, provided that those regulations do not contravene any Federal laws or regulations. In this case, the State of New Jersey has chosen to adopt the provisions of Standard 217 and make it applicable to vehicles operated within New Jersey. This choice by the State of New Jersey does not contravene any of this agency's statutes or regulations. Thus, while I appreciate that New Jersey's decision to apply Standard 217 to vehicles operated in the State may have caused you difficulties, the wisdom and fairness of that decision is a matter to be decided by the State of New Jersey, not this agency. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood 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.