NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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

Displaying 1121 - 1130 of 6047

Interpretations	Date

ID: 10629 Open Courtney M. Price, Esq. Reid & Priest 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Dear Ms. Price: This responds to your questions about how this agency's regulations apply to a product known as a Brake Locker that is manufactured by your client, Maatzorit. You requested this agency to confirm your understanding that installation of the Brake Locker is not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, or Section 108(a)(2)(A) of what you refer to as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act."). According to your letter, the Brake Locker prevents the theft of a parked vehicle by locking its brakes, without affecting brake usage while the vehicle is driven by an authorized driver. You stated that the Brake Locker is installed in the engine compartment on the brake fluid line between the brakes and the brake pump. An electronic coded transmitter is used to activate a motor which in turn activates a check valve, thereby preventing the release of the brakes by restricting the flow of brake fluid. When the check valve is activated, you state that "every press on the brake pedal causes the brakes to be locked." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the United States Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. Nothing in FMVSS No. 105 nor FMVSS No. 106 precludes the inclusion of a hydraulic brake lock, nor does NHTSA have any other regulations specifically covering such a product. Therefore, Maatzorit, as the device's manufacturer, would not have any certification responsibilities. Nevertheless, the requirements of FMVSS No. 105 are relevant to a hydraulic brake lock. That standard specifies a number of brake performance requirements to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify compliance. Since the installation of a hydraulic brake lock requires the installation of a check valve on the brake fluid line between the foundation brakes and the brake pump, it is possible that the installation of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105. If the Brake Locker is installed as original equipment on new vehicles prior to the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, then the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that with the Brake Locker installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 105 and FMVSS No. 106. A vehicle manufacturer's specific certification responsibilities depend on when the brake locker is installed and are set forth in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. For instance, if a vehicle has already been certified by the vehicle manufacturer but has not yet been sold to the consumer, then the person doing the installation after that time would be considered to be an "alterer" who would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the Brake Locker is installed after the first consumer purchase, then 49 U.S.C. 30122 is relevant to your client's product. That section provides that A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Brake Locker, if such installation makes inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, such as FMVSS No. 105. For example, if the Brake Locker, caused the vehicle to no longer comply with the parking brake or service brake requirements in FMVSS No. 105, then installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:567#105 d:3/8/95 In 1994, Congress codified the Safety Act. The new citation for 108(a)(2)(A) is 49 U.S.C. 30122. In addition, please be aware that on February 3, 1994, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 135 Passenger Car Brake Systems that will eventually supersede FMVSS No. 105 with respect to passenger cars. Please note that your client's product will be subject to the same responsibilities, regardless of which FMVSS applies.	1995
ID: nht95-1.91 Open TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: March 8, 1995 FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Courtney M. Price -- Esq., Reid & Priest TITLE: None ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/4/95 LETTER FROM COURTNEY M. PRICE TO PHILIP R. RECHT TEXT: This responds to your questions about how this agency's regulations apply to a product known as a Brake Locker that is manufactured by your client, Maatzorit. You requested this agency to confirm your understanding that installation of the Brake Locker i s not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, or Section 108(a)(2)(A) of what you refer to as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act."). n1 n1 In 1994, Congress codified the Safety Act. The new citation for 108(a)(2)(A) is 49 U.S.C. 30122. In addition, please be aware that on February 3, 1994, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 135 Passenger Car Brake Systems that will eventually supersede FMVSS No . 105 with respect to passenger cars. Please note that your client's product will be subject to the same responsibilities, regardless of which FMVSS applies. According to your letter, the Brake Locker prevents the theft of a parked vehicle by locking its brakes, without affecting brake usage while the vehicle is driven by an authorized driver. You stated that the Brake Locker is installed in the engine compa rtment on the brake fluid line between the brakes and the brake pump. An electronic coded transmitter is used to activate a motor which in turn activates a check valve, thereby preventing the release of the brakes by restricting the flow of brake fluid. When the check valve is activated, you state that "every press on the brake pedal causes the brakes to be locked." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the United States Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency pe riodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. Nothing in FMVSS No. 105 nor FMVSS No. 106 precludes the inclusion of a hydraulic brake lock, nor does NHTSA have any other regulations specifically covering such a product. Therefore, Maatzorit, as the device's manufacturer, would not have any certific ation responsibilities. Nevertheless, the requirements of FMVSS No. 105 are relevant to a hydraulic brake lock. That standard specifies a number of brake performance requirements to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify compliance. Since the ins tallation of a hydraulic brake lock requires the installation of a check valve on the brake fluid line between the foundation brakes and the brake pump, it is possible that the installation of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105. If the Brake Locker is installed as original equipment on new vehicles prior to the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, then the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that with the Brake Locker installed, the vehicle complies with all applicab le FMVSSs, including FMVSS No 105 and FMVSS No. 106. A vehicle manufacturer's specific certification responsibilities depend on when the brake locker is installed and are set forth in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. For instance, if a vehicle has already bee n certified by the vehicle manufacturer but has not yet been sold to the consumer, then the person doing the installation after that time would be considered to be an "alterer" who would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply w ith all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the Brake Locker is installed after the first consumer purchase, then 49 U.S.C. 30122 is relevant to your client's product. That section provides that A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicl e safety standard. This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Brake Locker, if such installation makes inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, such as FMVSS No. 105. For example, if the Brake Locker, caused the vehicle to no longer comply with the parking brake or service brake requirements in FMVSS No. 105, then installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safet y standards. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.
ID: 07-004114as Open Paul S. Rosenlund, Esq. Duane Morris LLP One Market, Spear Tower Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105-1104 Dear Mr. Rosenlund: This responds to your letter regarding your clients manufacture of bicycle racks for use on transit buses. You ask a number of questions about ensuring compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, with regard to a bicycle rack installed on the vehicles. We are happy to provide answers to your questions below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Question 1. We understand that vehicle manufacturers bear the sole legal obligation to certify vehicles as compliant with FMVSS 108 and other applicable safety standards, and that [F]ederal law does not require or make provisions for bicycle rack suppliers such as [our client] Sportworks to certify a bicycle rack or its component parts as being in compliance with [F]ederal standards. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: While you are correct that manufacturers of new vehicles are responsible for certifying the compliance of the vehicle with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 108,[1] there are certain obligations of which your client should be aware.[2] The first is S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108, which reads: No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. S5.1.3 has implications for a vehicle manufacturer or alterer installing the bicycle rack onto a new vehicle.[3] That party would need to certify the vehicle as complying with FMVSS No. 108 with the bicycle rack installed, ensuring that the bicycle rack does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. The second is 49 U.S.C. 30122 which we will discuss below, particularly in answering question 5. 2. We understand that 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits making federally mandated safety devices and elements inoperative, applies only to a vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business; this make inoperative prohibition does not pertain to the activities of vehicle owners, such as transit agencies which own and operate transit buses, who may make changes to their buses in their own repair and maintenance facilities, even if they cause a vehicle to no longer comply with NHTSA safety standards such modifications would be governed by applicable [S]tate laws. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: As you point out in your letter, 30122 of the Safety Act has implications for your client. Section 30122 states, in pertinent part: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter . Your understanding is correct that the make inoperative provision of 30122 would not apply to a vehicle owner, such as a transit agency, that installs the bicycle rack in its own buses in its own repair and maintenance facility. However, please see our answer to question 5 for a more expansive discussion of 30122. In addition, there may be applicable Federal or State operational requirements relating to transit buses. 3. We understand that paragraph S7.8.5 of FMVSS 108 prohibits any styling ornament or other feature in front of the lens of a headlamp. In regard to all required lighting, we understand that paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS 108 prohibits motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. Please confirm that these requirements pertain only to equipment such as a rack, and not to a bicycle or other item which may be placed in a rack. In this regard, we do understand that [S]tate laws may have other requirements that relate to bicycles or other temporary baggage wholly or partially obscuring any required lighting. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: I would like to clarify several aspects of your statement. To begin, paragraph S7.8.5 only applies to the design of vehicle headlamps. The ornament or other feature described in that paragraph related to parts of the headlamp (e.g., wiper blades or translucent covers), not to additional vehicle equipment, such as a bicycle rack. Therefore, S7.8.5 would not be relevant to this discussion. With regard to paragraph S5.1.3, as discussed in our answer to question 1, you are correct that a bicycle rack must not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. In testing whether the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 108, we would test the vehicle without a bicycle loaded on the rack, nor with any other cargo loaded into the vehicle. However, see our answer to question 5 regarding the make inoperative provision. In addition, if the rack were installed such that a bicycle loaded onto the rack interfered with the functioning of a required lighting device, it is possible that such a situation could pose an unreasonable safety hazard. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are responsible for ensuring their vehicles and equipment are free of safety-related defects. If the design of the bicycle rack posed an unreasonable safety risk, we could investigate the problem as part of our defect authority. Finally, you are correct in your understanding that the vehicle would be subject to State law requirements relating to items wholly or partially obscuring any required lighting. In addition, you should consider whether there are applicable Federal or State operational requirements relating to transit buses. 4. Sportworks on occasion supplies only the pivot plate assembly and/or bumper mounting brackets for its racks to OEM bus manufacturers for installation on new vehicles, with the understanding that the ultimate purchasers of these buses transit agencies will install racks in the configurations they select. In such circumstances, we understand that the OEM bus manufacturer may certify the bus as compliant with all applicable [F]ederal standards and that the owners selection, installation and use of the rack will be subject to [S]tate laws rather than to the FMVSS. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: Your understanding is correct that the bus manufacturer must certify that the buses, with the installed private plate assemblies or mounting brackets installed, are compliant with FMVSS No. 108. However, please see our answer to question 5 for a more expansive discussion of issues raised by this question. 5. Finally, we understand from prior interpretive rulings that NHTSA considers a bicycle rack to be equipment such that if it is installed by a vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business, the complete vehicle, including the rack, must comply with the FMVSS, and if part of the rack installed by a vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business makes inoperative any required lamps or reflectors on the body of the vehicle, it would be necessary for the vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business to install auxiliary lamps or reflectors to replace the function of those made inoperative. Likewise, we understand from prior interpretive rulings that if a vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business sells a vehicle that complies with FMVSS 108 when delivered to the owner, but with hardware installed that the seller knows will be used to create a noncompliance, you would consider the vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business to have created the noncompliance. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: It is correct that the new vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSSs with the bicycle rack installed. The vehicle must be certified with any system, part or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured. (See definition of motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(A)). With regard to your questions about the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122, you are correct that NHTSA has addressed the scenario you describe (see March 26, 1996 letter to Chris Jorheim of New Flyer Industries, copy enclosed).[4] Mr. Jorheim asked about a manufacturer delivering a new bus to the end user with an advertising frame on the bus side. A required left side reflector would be unobstructed when the bus was delivered but once the owner placed an advertisement in the frame the reflector would have been covered. NHTSA determined that in this situation, the manufacturer produced a bus with the knowledge that the owner intended to create a noncompliance, and provided the hardware installed to enable the owner to do so. The agency determined that in this situation, both the bus manufacturer and the owner were creators of a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108. However, since the owner is not subject to the provisions of 30122, the agency determined that the liability would be the manufacturers alone. This analysis extends to the situation you describe as well. If the bus manufacturer installing Sportworks bicycle rack knew that the rack could not be used without creating a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 through, e.g., obstruction of the vehicles headlamps by the bicycles carried on the rack, both the bus manufacturer and the end user will be held to have created the noncompliance. Since the end user may not be subject to 30122, the bus manufacturer could alone be liable for making inoperative the vehicle safety system. Finally, you are correct that one option to rectify a potential noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 is to install auxiliary lamps or reflectors to replace the function of those made inoperative. This provision is contained in paragraph S5.3.2.2 of FMVSS No. 108, which states: If any required lamp or reflective device is obstructed by motor vehicle equipment (e.g., mirrors, snow plows, wrecker booms, backhoes, winches, etc.), and cannot meet requirements of S5.3.2, the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp or device of the same type which meet all applicable requirements of this standard, including S5.3.2. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d.2/21/08 [1] Please note that because FMVSS No. 108 applies to original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, manufacturers of replacement equipment also have responsibilities to certify compliance with the standard. [2] It is also correct that NHTSA has not issued an FMVSS specifically applying to bicycle racks. Therefore, Sportworks would not certify its bicycle racks as meeting any specific standard. [3] A bicycle rack installed on a new vehicle is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. See also May 25, 1990 letter to Susan Birenbaum, Esq., available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [4] Available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov.	2008
ID: 09-007991 139 Open Wesley R. Kliner, Jr. Coker Tire Company 1317 Chestnut St. Chattanooga, TN 37402 Dear Mr. Kliner: This responds to your letter concerning labeling requirements for newly-manufactured and retreaded tires. You ask several variations on the question of whether it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139, and 49 CFR Parts 574 and 575 to buff or polish off identifying information on the exterior wall of a tire to achieve a smooth, polished look. Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, the answer to your question is that it would be a violation of the Safety Act to take a tire out of compliance with either FMVSS No. 109 or No. 139 by removing required information from the exterior sidewall. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Your letter states that your company distributes new, period correct tires for vintage automobile collectors, and that you understand that some tire manufacturers, distributors, and retreaders engaged in that business might buff off all labeling and identification on the exterior side of a radial tire in order to achieve a glassy smooth appearance, or a smoothie. You state that you understand that modifying tires that complied with the design requirements of FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139 would be a violation of the Safety Act, but ask whether NHTSA would consider light buffing or polishing to be a cosmetic design change that would be permitted. You further ask whether it would be permissible to buff off some or all of the labeling and identification on a tire and also add a white or colored vulcanized rubber sidewall inlay over the buffed area, and whether it would be permissible for a tire retreader to do either of these things. We will consider the requirements of both FMVSS No. 139 and FMVSS No. 109, for purposes of completeness, and the tire labeling and grading requirements of 49 CFR parts 574 and 575. FMVSS No. 139 FMVSS No. 139 applies to new radial tires, and requires certain tire markings on the exterior sidewall of the tire. First, both sidewalls of the tire must be marked with (1) the symbol DOT; (2) the tire size designation; (3), the maximum permissible inflation pressure; and (4) the maximum load rating (and for LT tires, the letter designating the tire load range).[1] These markings must be placed in a specific location on the tire, and cannot be less than 0.078 inches high and must be raised above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches.[2] Tires must also be labeled with a tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR Part 574.[3] 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. You state that to create a smoothie tire, the manufacturer or distributor would buff off all labeling and markings on the exterior side of a radial tire in order to achieve a glassy smooth appearance, or alternatively, buff off some or all of the labeling and markings on the exterior side of a radial tire and then applying a white or colored rubber sidewall inlay. Based on your description, it appears that both of these scenarios would presumably include removal of the markings and information required by FMVSS No. 139. If those were removed, that would take the tire out of compliance with FMVSS No. 139, and would be a violation of 30122(b). That said, we note that the new radial tires subject to FMVSS No. 139 are those for use on vehicles manufactured after 1975.[4] To the extent that the vintage automobiles you mention in your letter are pre-1975, FMVSS No. 109 might be applicable instead. FMVSS No. 109 FMVSS No. 109 applies to new radial tires for use on passenger cars manufactured before 1975, and also to new bias-ply tires, T-type spare tires, ST, FI, and 8-12 rim diameter and below tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. FMVSS No. 109 requires certain information on both sidewalls, roughly described as follows: (1) one size designation; (2) maximum permissible inflation pressure; (3) maximum load rating; (4) generic name of each cord material used in the tire plies; (5) actual number of plies in the sidewall/tread area; (6) the words tubeless or tube type, as applicable; and (7) the word radial if applicable.[5] One sidewall of the tire must also be marked with the DOT symbol and the TIN as required by 49 CFR Part 574.[6] Given that FMVSS No. 109 requires those markings described above on both sidewalls of the tires described above, buffing or otherwise removing those markings from those tires would take them out of compliance with FMVSS No. 109, and, as for FMVSS No. 139, would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). Tire Identification Number Requirements 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners to label conspicuously one sidewall of each tire a tire identification number (TIN) by permanently molding or laser-etching it into or onto one sidewall. The required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers. A tire distributor or dealer cannot legally remove any of the required information from new tire sidewalls. The TIN is required to facilitate a recall or other action in the event of a defect.[7] Even when a tire is retreaded, while the original TIN does not need to be maintained, the retreader must replace the original TIN with its own TIN.[8] Because both FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139 include the TIN as part of their labeling requirements, removing the TIN would take the tire out of compliance with either of those standards (as applicable), and would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards 49 CFR 575.104 requires motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to provide information indicating the relative performance in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance of new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars. The quality grade information required by 574.105 must be permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall between the tires shoulder and its maximum width.[9] If that labeling is obliterated, as seems likely based on your description, then the tire would no longer be compliant with the UTQGS. 49 U.S.C. 30163 gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Chapter 301, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS. Becoming a Tire Retreader Finally, you asked whether these buffing processes could be performed on a new tire without violating any safety standards if your company became certified as a tire retreader. A person who retreads tires is still considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act.[10] Thus, a retreader, like any manufacturer, would still be subject to any applicable FMVSS. If you were not actually retreading the tire, and were simply buffing the information off the sidewall of a new tire, then FMVSS No. 109 or No. 139 would still apply, and it would still be a violation of 30122(b) to take the tire out of compliance with those standards. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure Dated: 7/15/2010 [1] See FMVSS No. 139, Paragraph S5.5(a)-(d). [2] See Paragraph S5.5. [3] See Paragraph S5.5.1. [4] See Paragraph S2.1. [5] See FMVSS No. 109, Paragraph S4.3. [6] See Paragraphs S4.3.1 and S4.3.2. [7] See 49 CFR 574.2. [8] See 49 CFR 574.5. [9] See 49 CFR 575.105(d)(1)(A). We note that 575.104(c) states that the UTQGS do not apply to deep tread, winter type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rims diameters of 10 to 12 inches, or limited production tires. However, in order to qualify as a limited production tire, section 575.104(c)(2) establishes four criteria, all of which the tires must meet: (i) The manufacturer's annual domestic production or importation into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000; (ii) The annual domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires; (iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture; and (iv) The total annual production or importation into the U.S. by the manufacturer or, if the tire is marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase or purchase for importation into the U.S. by the tire's brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of (i), (ii), and (iii) above, does not exceed 35,000 tires. Additionally, 575.104(d)(1)(A) states that tires do not need to be graded if they are tires of a new line manufactured within the first six months of production of that tire line. Based on the information you have provided, we do not know whether the tires you plan to modify would meet these criteria. [10] See Letter to Frank S. Perkin, January 22, 1988, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/2635o.html (last accessed June 9, 2010). Copy enclosed.	2010
ID: Anuvu_002304 Open Mr. Ed Ring Director Strategic Planning Anuvu Incorporated 3980 Research Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 Dear Mr. Ring: This responds to your e-mail inquiry and telephone discussion with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, regarding Federal requirements that could affect the plans of your company (Anuvu) to install fuel cell/electric hybrid systems (fuel cell systems) in new, fully-certified motor vehicles, and then to sell those altered vehicles to consumers. You stated that installation of the fuel cell system would necessitate the removal of the vehicles engine, transmission, and fuel tank. You explained that your company would then install a fuel cell stack, electric motor, hydrogen storage tank, and battery pack. You further explained that the alteration would include installing a regenerative braking system, which would be attached to the drive train, and an electric motor that would be used to power the hydraulic brake system. You noted that no other alterations would be made to the brake system. Motor Vehicle Certification A manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) (49 U.S.C. 30115, Certification of compliance). If any person alters a certified motor vehicle, prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale, then that person is deemed an "alterer," a type of manufacturer. As an alterer, that person must certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (enclosed). Since Anuvu plans to install the fuel cell systems in new vehicles, i.e., ones that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale, Anuvu would be an alterer. As such, Avunu would be required to certify that the altered vehicles continue to comply with the Federal safety standards affected by the addition of the fuel cell system. The certification requirements for alterers can be found in 567.7. Additionally, at the point of first retail sale, the vehicle must comply with all standards applicable to the vehicle as altered (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)) and be certified as such. Further, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Although Anuvu intends to remove fuel systems certified as complying with FMVSS No. 301, it is likely that this "make inoperative" provision would not be violated with respect to that standard. This is because FMVSS No. 301 applies to vehicles that are equipped with fuel systems that use a fuel with a boiling point above zero degrees Celsius. The standard does not require vehicles to be equipped with such a fuel system. The vehicles as altered by Anuvu would be equipped with fuel systems that rely on hydrogen, a fuel with a boiling point below zero degrees Celsius. Since FMVSS No. 301 would not apply to the vehicles as altered, the make inoperative provision would not be violated by the removal of the FMVSS No. 301 fuel system. However, the make inoperative provision would prohibit Anuvu from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with any FMVSS that applied to the vehicle as altered, and subsequent to alteration (i.e., technology upgrades, retrofits). Applicable FMVSSs In order to determine how the installation of your fuel cell system would affect vehicle compliance with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard in 49 CFR Part 571. However, there are certain standards (discussed below) of which you should be particularly aware. First, I would draw your attention to FMVSS No. 305, Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electric shock protection. This standard would apply to your vehicle if it used more than 48 nominal volts of electricity as propulsion power, had an attainable speed in 1.6 km on a paved level surface of more than 40 km/h, and had a gross vehicle weight rating of 4536 kilograms or less. FMVSS No. 305 specifies the requirements for limitation of electrolyte spillage, retention of propulsion batteries during a crash, and electrical isolation of the chassis from the high-voltage system. Section 3 of FMVSS No. 135, Passenger car brake system, defines "electric vehicle" as a motor vehicle that is powered by an electric motor drawing current from rechargeable batteries or a fuel cell. Therefore, the addition of the fuel cell system would also change your vehicles classification to an electric vehicle for the purposes of FMVSS No. 135. Accordingly, if FMVSS No. 135 continued to apply to your vehicle, the vehicle would be required to comply with the brake performance requirements applicable to electric vehicles. Although there is not currently any FMVSS applicable to hydrogen fuel systems or hydrogen fuel tanks, any application of fuel cell technologies to motor vehicles should include reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of the motoring public. In the absence of Federal regulations, Anuvu should consult voluntary standards and recommended practices developed by groups such as the Society of Automotive Engineers, American National Standards Institute, and International Standards Organization. I note that in your correspondence with Mr. Calamita, you discussed ways in which you have considered the safety of the converted vehicles. I strongly encourage you to ensure that your company takes appropriate and sufficient precautions concerning your companys current and projected applications of fuel cell technologies, and that your company will follow, and where necessary establish, appropriate internal evaluation and design protocols to address every potential safety concern. Additionally as an alterer, your company would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 301 concerning the recall and remedy of safety related defects. If our agency or Anuvu were to determine that an altered vehicle contained a safety-related defect, Anuvu would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defect and remedying the problem free of charge (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). Exemption from an FMVSS In your telephone conversation with Mr. Calamita, you inquired into the possibility of applying for an exemption from the FMVSSs impacted by the alteration. 49 CFR Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, establishes requirements for the temporary exemption of certain motor vehicles from compliance with one or more FMVSS in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113. Under 555.6(c), a manufacturer may ask for an exemption of up to two years, for a maximum of 2,500 vehicles per year, on the basis that an exemption would make the development of a low-emission vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety of the vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 555 (enclosed) for the information required to demonstrate that safety would not be unreasonably degraded and the specifications regarding application for an exemption. Please note that Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:567 d.5/20/04	2004
ID: 11-007173_R_Kesler_(Std111)_Rearview_Mirrors Open Mr. Ray Kesler Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD. 17234 Pearlblossom Hwy, Ste 303 Llano, CA 93544 Dear Mr. Kesler: This responds to two letters the agency has received from you dated September 7, 2011 and May 10, 2012, concerning your product: the Lane Change Safe Alert Indicator. In both of your letters, you describe your product in detail and various situations where you believe the product would be helpful to a driver conducting a lane change maneuver. As you describe in those letters, your Lane Change Safe Alert Indicator product utilizes modified OEM convex mirrors that have the alert indicators permanently inscribed on the mirror for both driver and passenger sides. Further, the mirror contains the warning Vehicles Larger Than Alert Indicator Are Unsafe to Lane Change [sic]. You state that your product is able to assist drivers in determining whether or not a following vehicle in the adjacent lane is at a sufficient distance such that it is safe to make a lane change maneuver. It is not apparent from your letters whether you seek an interpretation of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) (and how these standards apply to your product) or to petition for changes to an FMVSS (and what such changes would be). While you state in your letter (September 7, 2011) that it is time to convert this concept into a Federal, OEM, Industry or Supplement standard [sic], your letters were not properly filed as a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 552.4. Thus, we will respond to your two letters as a request for interpretation. We note that you have previously requested interpretations from the agency regarding FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, and a similar product that you designed. In those instances, the agency responded to your requests for interpretation[1] by explaining the requirements of the FMVSSs that apply to that product, whether or not it could meet those requirements, and the responsibilities of a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. In those letters, we explained that the previous side view mirror product that you were inquiring about could not be installed on vehicles in order to fulfill the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 before the vehicles first sale. Further, we explained that they could not be installed as a replacement for mirrors installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 111 after the vehicles first sale. However, we stated that they are not prohibited by the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 from being installed as supplements to the required mirrors. As will be discussed below, the agencys position regarding your current side view mirror product is essentially the same as our position regarding your earlier side view mirror products given the similarities between the two products. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Motor Vehicle Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.[2] NHTSA does not provide approvals or endorsements of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. (1) Requirements of FMVSS No. 111 and Responsibilities of a Manufacturer of Motor Vehicle Equipment FMVSS No. 111 requires passenger cars to have a driver side mirror of unit magnification.[3] While a passenger side exterior mirror (in passenger cars) is only required under the circumstances set forth in S5.3, the standard specifies that any vehicle that uses a convex mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of S5.3 must meet various requirements regarding average radius curvature.[4] Further, these mirrors are required to be labeled with the text Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear.[5] In our previous letters to you, we explained that your earlier products would not meet the requirements for convex mirrors in FMVSS No. 111 because they do not have the required text stating that Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear and have a radius of curvature that exceeds the allowable range in FMVSS No. 111.[6] While you have not offered additional information regarding the curvature radius of the mirrors described in your latest letters, you do specify that they are convex OEM mirrors that have been modified to include the alert indicator permanently inscribed onto the mirror. As your current product utilizes convex mirrors, it would not meet the requirements for the driver side exterior mirror in FMVSS No. 111 (because those mirrors are required to be of unit magnification). Further (if we assume the OEM mirrors that your current product uses meet curvature radius requirements), your mirrors could not be installed as a passenger side exterior mirror for the purposes of meeting the requirements in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 111 because they do not have the required text Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear. Please note that these requirements apply to new, completed vehicles and do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. However, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard.[7] The rearview mirrors in a vehicle are considered a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Thus, if the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business performing the work will have violated the make inoperative prohibition of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act by making inoperative the mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111. For the above reasons, the agencys position continues to be that your product is unable to meet the requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 111. Your product cannot be used by new vehicle manufacturers to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. Further, your product cannot be used to replace the mirrors installed by a new vehicle manufacturer to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. On the other hand, your product may be installed on motor vehicles as a supplement to the required mirrors under FMVSS No. 111 by a new vehicle manufacturer or as an aftermarket device. In addition to the foregoing, please be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., vehicle mirrors) are also subject to the recall and remedy requirements in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.[8] If you were to sell your product as a supplemental mirror system and you or NHTSA determines that a safety defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. Further, any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of (or remedy for) a defect may be subject to a civil penalty. (2) Petitioning for Rulemaking The public can petition to alter or change an FMVSS. However, this petition must be filed pursuant to the requirements in 49 C.F.R. Part 552.4. If you wish to petition for rulemaking to amend an FMVSS, you should submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to the requirements specified in 49 C.F.R. Part 552.4. If you choose to file a petition for rulemaking pursuant to Part 552.4, you are encouraged to provide the necessary facts for the agency to consider the possibility of amending an FMVSS. This would include such things as estimates of the crashes avoided, potential lives saved and/or injuries prevented. Please note, including such information does not guarantee that the agency will be able to grant your petition. Finally, we note that you have previously filed a petition to amend FMVSS No. 111 in 1991.[9] In that petition, you requested that agency amend FMVSS No. 111 to require various characteristics on the vehicle side view mirrors that appear to be similar to the product that you described in your two latest letters. As NHTSA considered your petition in 1991 and denied it, you should demonstrate in any subsequent petition how the new petition is different from the petition that you filed in 1991 and address the agencys reasoning for denying the 1991 petition. (3) You May Not State in Your Advertising Material that Your Product is Registered with the NHTSA Chief Counsel. We note that, along with your September 7, 2011 letter, you included promotional material that appears to be used for the purpose of advertising your product. This material states that your product is Registered with the N.H.T.S.A. Chief Council [sic]. This representation is incorrect. NHTSA has not registered this or any other rearview mirror design. NHTSA does not approve any motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Therefore, this language must be immediately removed from the advertisement and you must refrain from making such representations in any other format. Please respond in writing describing the specific steps that you will take to discontinue these misrepresentations. I appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Jesse Chang (202-366-2992) of this office. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent, Chief Counsel Ref: Standard No. 111 Dated: 9/25/12 [1] See Letter from Paul Jackson Rice, Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Raymond B. Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (May. 14, 1992) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/7175.html); Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Lawrence Hufstedler and Raymond Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (Apr. 27, 1993) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/8517a.html), Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Ray Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (Jul. 2, 1993) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/8660.html), Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Ray Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (Jan. 9, 2001) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/kesler23584.html). [2] See generally 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. [3] See 49 C.F.R. Part 571.111 S5.2.1. [4] See 49 C.F.R. Part 571.111 S5.4. [5] See id. [6] See Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Ray Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (Jan. 9, 2001) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/kesler23584.html). [7] See 49 U.S.C. 30122. [8] See 49 U.S.C. 30118-20. [9] See 56 Fed. Reg. 42715	2012
ID: 1982-1.21 Open TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/05/82 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: BMW of North America, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your letter asking several questions about the use of informational readout displays in relation to FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays; 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems; and 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Each of your questions assumes the use of informational readout displays as telltales. The light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101-80 currently prevent informational readout displays from being used as telltales. Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires that informational readout displays must have at least two light intensity values, a relatively high one for daytime use and a relatively low one for nighttime use. The same section requires that the light intensity of telltales shall not be variable. Since it is not possible for an informational readout display to simultaneously meet both requirements, such a display cannot be used as a telltale. The agency has recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would permit informational readout displays to be used as telltales. We have enclosed a copy of that notice. I would like to point out the following statement in the NPRM: Various amendments may be necessary to Standard No. 101-80, as well as to several other safety standards which include requirements for warning indicators, to permit fuller use of informational readout displays. The amendments proposed by this notice are a first step in that direction. We would welcome any comments that you might have on this matter to assist us in future rulemaking. You may also wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking on any changes that you believe should be made. The following discussion explains the effect that the proposal would have on your questions. Question 1 Your first question asks whether the words "Fasten Seat Belts" may be used in an informational readout display instead of the seat belt warning symbol under FMVSS 101-80 and 208. The answer would be yes under the proposal. The NPRM states: Sections S4.5.3.3(b) and S7.3 of @ 571.208 would be amended to permit the words "Fasten Belts" or "Fasten Seat Belts" as an alternative to the seat belt warning symbol in informational readout displays. Question 2 Your second question concerns the possibility of allowing cancellation of telltales by voluntary action on the part of the driver. The question asks whether it is permissible to provide a push button that enables drivers to cancel telltales. The answer to this question, which is not dealt with in the NPRM, is no. While the question is asked separately for the seat belt telltale and telltales not required by any safety standard in the first place, the answer is not dependent on that distinction. Section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101-80 requires that the light intensity of each telltale shall not be variable and shall be such that, when activated, that telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. We interpret this section to mean that a telltale cannot be cancellable. If it were cancellable, the telltale would not meet the requirements that it not be variable and that it be visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. We note that the activation requirements for the seat belt telltale depend on whether it is for a manual belt or automatic belt. For a manual belt, section S7.3 of Standard No. 208 states that the seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position must be equipped with a warning system that activates for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds a continuous or flashing light. Thus, while a manufacturer has the discretion to provide an activation time of between 4 and 8 seconds, the telltale still may not be cancellable. Section S4.5.3.3 requires a different type of warning system for automatic belts. While the audible signal must be activated for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds, the visual warning light must be activated for as long as the belt is not fastened. Question 3 Your third question asks whether it is permissible to use an informational readout display to meet the visual brake warning system requirements of Standard No. 105. The answer would be yes under the proposal. Section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105 states: Each indicator lamp shall have a lens labeled in letters not less than 1/8-inch high, which shall be legible to the driver in daylight when lighted. The lens and letters shall have contrasting colors, one of which is red . . . . It is our interpretation that the illuminated pattern of letters and glazing of an informational readout display would constitute a "lens labeled in letters." This interpretation leaves unanswered other questions about whether a particular informational readout display would meet other requirements of Standard No. 105, such as the color requirement of section S5.3.5. Question 4 Your fourth question asks whether an informational readout display specifying specific brake problems constitutes separate indicator lamps under the language of Standard No. 105, if a brake warning lamp is present which separately fulfills the requirements of S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105. The answer is no. Section S3 of Standard No. 105 specifies various performance requirements for brake system indicator lamps. Under section S3.5, a manufacturer may meet the requirements either by a single common indicator or by separate indicator lamps. It is our interpretation that if a manufacturer separately meets the requirements of section S3 by a single common indicator lamp, additional indicator lamps that are added voluntarily by the manufacturer are not subject to Standard No. 105's requirements. Question 5 Your fifth question asks about the requirements for an informational readout display which is a telltale. The NPRM proposes the following language: S5.3.3.2 Telltales and gauges incorporated into informational readout displays -- (a) Shall have not less than two levels of light intensity, a higher one for day and a lower one for nighttime conditions. (b) In the case of telltales and gauges not equipped with a variable light intensity control, shall have a light intensity at the higher level provided under paragraph (a) of this section whenever the headlamps are not illuminated. (c) In the case of telltales and gauges equipped with a variable light intensity control, shall be visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions when the illumination level is set to its lowest level. The agency does find the system that you are considering developing very interesting. If you do submit a petition for rulemaking, there is one issue that we would appreciate your addressing. Our initial reaction to the idea of permitting drivers to cancel telltales is one of concern, since drivers might either cancel a telltale inadvertently or simply forget that they have done so. An informational readout display which flashed its warnings in sequence might answer those concerns. We would appreciate your addressing the safety consequences of those and any other alternatives that you might be considering. Sincerely, ATTACH. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. March 19, 1981 Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation RE: Request for Interpretation Informational Readout Displays Dear Mr. Berndt This letter seeks confirmation of interpretations we discussed with Mr. Carson in our meeting with him on December 18, 1980. The questions we have relate to the use of Informational Readout Displays under FMVSS 101, 208, 105. To better understand our questions, we are enclosing a description of the display system to which our questions apply. Question 1 This question relates to the use of the words "Fasten Seat Belts" in the case of an informational readout display. FMVSS 101-80, S5.2.3 permits informational readout displays to use the word or abbreviation shown in Table 2, Column 3 instead of the seat belt warning symbol. Column 3, however, provides no word or abbreviation, but instead refers to FMVSS 208. FMVSS 208, S7.3. only permits the use of words before September 1, 1980. We believe this was an oversight when identification requirements of FMVSS 101 and 208 were consolidated in 45FR47151. In 43FR27541, it is made clear that NHTSA intends to further the development of readout displays by permitting optional use of symbols or words. We request comment on our interpretation that the words FASTEN BELTS or FASTEN SEAT BELTS can be used in a readout display instead of a symbol to comply with the visual seat belt-warning requirements of FMVSS 101-80 and 208. Question 2 This question relates to the activation or deactivation of displays by a voluntary manual action by the driver (pressing a push button control). a. FMVSS 208, S7.3 requires a visual seat belt warning system that, triggered by the ignition, activates from 4 to 8 seconds. If a multi-message informational readout display is used as the visual seat belt warning (as described in Question 1), would it be permitted to provide a push button that cancels the seat belt warning by a voluntary manual action of the driver in favor of a readout for a malfunction or other warning. Would the above be permitted if a symbol in the readout went on for the duration of the 4 to 8 seconds? b. FMVSS 101 by itself does not require that the displays listed in Table 2 be provided. Basically the same question as 2a. applies to the other displays listed in Table 2, for which no requirement for activation in a reference standard exists. If a multi-message informational readout display is used for any of those displays, would it be permitted to provide a push button that cancels such displays by a voluntary manual action of the driver. Question 3 This question relates to the use of light emitting diodes or light emitting crystals to display the word "BRAKE" as required by FMVSS 105. FMVSS 105, S5.3.5 requires a visual brake warning system using an indicator lamp with a lens labeled in letters. Would it be permissible to use an informational readout display for this purpose, considering the illuminated pattern of letters and its glazing as a "lens labeled in letters?" Question 4 This question relates to the display of clarifying words in addition to the display "BRAKE." FMVSS 105, S5.3.5 permits the use of a single brake warning indicator lamp, but requires that if separate indicator lamps are used for the various functions of S5.3.1(a)-(d), then each indicator must be separately and appropriately labeled. However, FMVSS 101-80, S5.2.3 in addition to the required words of Table 2, Column 3, permits the use of clarifying words at the manufacturer's discretion. If a separate, single brake warning indicator lamp, which by itself fulfills the requirements of FMVSS 105, is supplemented by an informational readout specifying the particular brake problem, would the readout be considered clarifying words or separate indicator lamp? The importance of this question is that, in the event of function checking (S5.3.2) or multi-malfunction (S5.3.5), while the BRAKE warning light would illuminate, the readout display could only illuminate one message at a time relative to the S5.3.1(a)-(d) functions. We request comment on our interpretation that the readout constitutes clarifying words rather than separate indicator lamps because the brake warning lamp separately fulfills the requirements of S5.3.5. Question 5 This question relates to the light intensity of informational readout displays. FMVSS 101 S5.3.3.b requires: ". . . light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values . . ." and ". . . The light intensity of each telltale shall not be variable and shall be . . . . visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions." What are the requirements for an informational readout display if it displays a message which, by definition of FMVSS 101, S4, qualifies as a telltale? We would appreciate your giving these questions your earliest possible attention. Very truly yours Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager -- Safety & Emission Control Engineering Enclosures DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM Display fields above speedometer, immediately in front of driver. (Graphics omitted) Display I This display uses light emitting diodes or light emitting crystals to display words. It displays the word "BRAKE" whenever required by FMVSS 105. Specific brake information will simultaneously appear on Display II. Display II This display uses light emitting diodes or light emitting crystals to display words. This information readout display (multi-message) informs the driver of malfunctions or provides warnings. Messages displayed are some of those listed in FMVSS 101-80, Table 2: - Fasten seat belts - Fuel level - Oil pressure - Coolant temperature - Electrical charge and in addition terms such as - Brake wear - Headlamp or taillamp - Fluid levels (engine oil, transmission oil, coolant, washer) In the event of a multi-malfunction, a computer chooses the message to be displayed on the basis of priority. The symbol to the right of the message field informs the driver of the existence of a multi-malfunction. Display III A warning light (lens and bulb) calls for the driver's attention and informs him of the importance of the message by either a blinking (high priority) or steady illumination (low priority). Selector Control With this push button control the driver can manually activate or deactivate the message on Display II (multi-message display). In the case of a double malfunction, the first malfunction is indicated; after pressing the push button, the display indicates the second malfunction. Example of the sequence of displays which are illuminated in case of a double malfunction: (Graphics omitted) DRIVER PRESSES THE SELECTOR CONTROL. (Graphics omitted)
ID: GF006627-2 Open Mr. Michael Kastner Director of Government Relations National Truck Equipment Association 1300 19^th Street, NW, 5^th Floor Washington, DC 20036-1609 Dear Mr. Kastner: This is in response to your letter of September 8, 2004, in which you requested interpretation of the new tire information placard requirements in S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, as amended June 3, 2004 (see 69 FR 31306). The standard currently applicable to the vehicles described in your letter (trucks and trailers) is FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that the tire information must appear on the vehicle certification label or on a separate tire information label affixed to the vehicle in the same manner and location as the certification label (see 49 CFR 567.4). Effective September 1, 2005, FMVSS No. 110 will apply to trucks and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.S4.3 of that standard will require that each vehicle contain either a single vehicle placard with a revised list of tire information, or a vehicle placard and a supplementary tire inflation pressure label, affixed to the drivers side B-pillar.Prior to September 1, 2005, compliance with the new requirements in S4.3 is voluntary.Thus, until September 1, 2005, the vehicles described in your letter with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less may comply with either S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 or S4.3 of the amended version of FMVSS No. 110. You ask whether a tire information placard, affixed to a previously certified vehicle that has been altered, may remain on that vehicle if it contains incorrect information because of the alteration.You also ask if it is permissible to remove or black out portions of the tire information placard that may contain incorrect information.Your letter does not specify whether the placard in question is one affixed pursuant to the current requirements of FMVSS No. 120 or the new requirements of FMVSS No. 110.Our answers follow. First, irrespective of which tire information placard is affixed to the vehicle, the information on that placard must be correct. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a dealer may not sell vehicles or equipment that do not comply with applicable safety standards.Also, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits dealers, manufacturers, and certain other entities from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, a dealer must replace the tire information placard if, after the dealer installs additional equipment, the required information is no longer accurate. We note that, with respect to altered vehicles, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid. In the event that a vehicle contains a tire information placard affixed pursuant to S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120, and a placard affixed pursuant to the requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, at least one placard must contain accurate information and must fully comply with applicable requirements.The other placard may remain if it is accurate, or must be removed or replaced, if it is not. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has consistently stated with respect to labeling requirements that additional information may be present (unless specifically prohibited), provided that the additional information "does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose."In the case at hand, a second, voluntarily affixed placard containing incorrect tire safety information would confuse the meaning of the required information on the required placard.Accordingly, the second placard would have to be replaced, or be removed. In sum, until September 1, 2005, the altered vehicles described in your letter must fully comply with current requirements in FMVSS No. 120 or the new requirements in FMVSS No. 110.In both instances, the tire information placard must contain accurate information.If both placards are affixed to the vehicle, neither placard may contain information that would confuse the meaning of the required contents. I hope you find this information helpful.If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Chief Counsel ref:110 d.12/22/04	2004
ID: 11361RWKM Open Ms. Linda Stroud Used Motor Vehicle and Parts Commission Louisiana Department of Economic Development 3132 Valley Creek Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Dear Ms. Stroud: This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff in which, referring to previous telephone conversations with Mr. Myers, you asked for written confirmation of several statements. I apologize for the delay in responding. You requested confirmation that a dealer can sell new trailers either with new tires or no tires, but not with used tires. You also sought confirmation that if a manufacturer ships trailers with used tires to dealers, the dealer would have to remove the used tires prior to retail sale and the purchaser would be responsible for installing his/her own tires. You also asked certain other questions which I will discuss below. Pursuant to your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on October 5, 1995, Mr. Myers sent you a copy of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, and copies of the interpretative letters previously issued by this office that are listed and synopsized in the Appendix to this letter. By way of background, in general, paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that tires installed on new vehicles other than passenger cars, which includes trailers, must meet the requirements of either FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. As an exception, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120 provides that instead of tires that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 119, new trucks, buses, and trailers may be equipped with used or retreaded tires owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser and installed at the place of manufacture of the vehicle. Paragraph S5.1.3 also requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2 and further requires that the tires were originally manufactured to comply with FMVSS No. 119 as evidenced by the DOT symbol. There is no requirement, however, that a vehicle subject to FMVSS No. 120 must be equipped with tires and wheels at the time of sale (see letter to Mr. Steve Thomas, dated April 14, 1993, listed in Appendix). Your letter stated that your main problem seems to be manufacturers who ship new trailers equipped with used tires. Assuming the conditions of S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120 are not met, that act is prohibited by 49 U.S. Code '30112 (copy enclosed), which provides in pertinent part: [With certain exceptions] a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title. Thus, manufacturers cannot ship and distributors and dealers cannot sell vehicles or equipment that do not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. As provided in paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120, used or retreaded tires can only be installed at the place of manufacture of the vehicle and only if owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser. With respect to used or retreaded tires, distributors and dealers cannot install such tires whether or not the tires are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser. If a distributor or dealer receives a trailer from the manufacturer equipped with used or retreaded tires that were installed not in accordance with paragraph S5.1.3, the distributor or dealer must either replace those tires with new tires or sell the trailer without tires, leaving tire installation to the vehicle purchaser. Turning now to your specific questions, I will answer them in turn: 1. What is the definition of a trailer manufacturer? A "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S. Code '30102(a)(5) as a person: (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. We define a "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as: [A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another vehicle. Under these definitions, a trailer manufacturer is one who manufactures or assembles trailers, as distinguished from a distributor who primarily sells and distributes motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment for resale (in other words, a wholesaler), or a dealer, who primarily sells and distributes motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment at retail. 2. Is a Utility Trailer included in this safety standard [FMVSS No. 120] or does it relate only to certain size trailers? Paragraph S3, Application, of FMVSS No. 120 provides that the standard applies to "multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles, . . ." (emphasis added). Neither the standard nor the trailer definition limits its application to trailers. Accordingly, all new trailers of any size, use, weight, or configuration, including new utility trailers, are subject to the requirements of the standard. 3. Could you indicate those trailers which are governed by this regulation? As indicated in the answer to question 2 above, all new trailers, including utility trailers, are included in the requirements of FMVSS No. 120. 4. Is there a specific length or width that falls under this safety standard? The answer is no. As indicated above, trailers are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 120 without limitation. I hope this information is helpful. Should you have further questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref:120 d:2/8/96	1996
ID: nht79-3.5 Open DATE: 08/17/79 FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY S. WOOD TO: Mr. Mike Champagne TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your telephone conversations of July 13, 1979, with Mr. Steve Wood of my office, in which you requested a general explanation of the Federal law concerning auxiliary gasoline tanks and the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles to propane-powered vehicles. The following discussion sets forth the implications of these activities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The discussion first looks at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to fuel systems and then at the defect responsibilities that might be involved. Next, a brief mention is made of the possibility of product liability suits. Before getting into the legalities of these installations and conversions, I want to stress my concern about the danger which these practices may pose to the occupants of vehicles which are altered and even to occupants of other vehicles. These practices may seriously increased the risk of fire if these altered vehicles are involved in accidents. Even where there are no legal liabilities, this threat to safety may be present. The Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSS's applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. The only standard relevant to this discussion, FMVSS 301-75, is a vehicle standard. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less or (3) schoolbuses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. If the need were found, a standard could also be issued for fuel systems designed for installation in new or used vehicles. Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a lable which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. In addition, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 CFR 567.7 and Preamble to 37 F.R. 22800, October 25, 1972). The only alterations that a person may make prior to the first sale of a vehicle without being considered a manufacturer subject to the recertification requirements are minor finishing operations or the addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors, tires, or rim assemblies. (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered in a recertified vehicle, as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act). The civil penalty imposed could be up to $ 1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act). With respect to FMVSS 301, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary or replacement tank added by an alterer must meet them also. If the alterer converts the gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system, the vehicle must still be recertified. However, FMVSS 301-75 would cease to be a factor since the standard would no longer apply to the vehicle. Propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles using fuel with a higher boiling point. Finally, if the alterer converts a gasoline-powered vehicle so that it is both gasoline-powered and propane-powered, he must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS 301-75. After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). That section in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act). If a tamperer adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974). Such reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system. If a tamperer removes the original gasoline tank and installs a replacement one, section 108(a)(2)(A) is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced. There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with FMVSS 301-75 if the tamperer converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane-powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another would not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems complied with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a 1978 gasoline-powered car to a propane-powered car, the converter would not be governed by FMVSS 301-75 since that standard did not apply to 1978 propane-powered cars. The case of a tamperer who modifies a used gasoline-powered vehicle so that it has a dual gasoline/propane system would be essentially the same as that of the person who adds an auxiliary gasoline tank. If the tamperer knowingly reduces the performance of the gasoline system in adding the propane system, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). As to safety defect responsibilities under sections 151 et seq. of the Act, persons who alter new vehicles by installing auxiliary or replacement gas tanks or by converting a gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system as well persons who produce the equipment being installed are fully subject to those responsibilities. Sections 151 et seq. provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. As explained earlier the term "manufacturer" includes persons who alter new vehicles by doing more than simply adding, substituting, or removing readily attachable components or performing minor finishing operations. Since alterations involving installation of auxiliary replacement gas tanks or conversion of gasoline systems to propane systems are more substantial, persons who make those alterations are manufacturers. Thus the alterer who installs auxiliary or replacement tanks or makes propane conversions is responsible for safety defects in the installation of the tanks and propane systems. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation. Under 49 CFR Part 579, the auxiliary and replacement tanks and the propane systems would all be treated as "replacement equipment." Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in the performance, construction components, or materials, of replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer who produces auxiliary or replacement tanks or propane systems, as distinct from the alterer who installs such equipment, would be subject to these responsibilities for production defects. A person who both produces such equipment and installs it in new vehicles prior to their delivery to the ultimate consumer would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both production and installation of the equipment. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a), any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 per violation. Tamperers have no safety defect responsibilities for their tampering. As noted above, only manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are subject to sections 151 et seq. Since the term "manufacturer" is interpreted to refer to those who produce, assemble or import new vehicles or equipment and since tamperers, by definition, deal with used vehicles only, tamperers are not manufacturers. Finally, there is the larger and more far reaching question of the liability of the alterers, tamperers, and manufacturers in tort. Whether or not these parties are liable under the Act for their actions, they may well be liable in tort. Both alterers and tamperers may be liable for the manner and location in which they install auxiliary or replacement gasoline tanks or propane systems in vehicles. Likewise, the manufacturers of these items of motor vehicle equipment may be liable for their design, materials, maufacture or performance. These persons may wish to consult a local lawyer on their liability in tort. I hope that you will find this discussion helpful. If you have any further questions I will be happy to answer them.

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.

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: 10629

ID: nht95-1.91

ID: 07-004114as

ID: 09-007991 139

ID: Anuvu_002304

ID: 11-007173_R_Kesler_(Std111)_Rearview_Mirrors

ID: 1982-1.21

ID: GF006627-2

ID: 11361RWKM

ID: nht79-3.5

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?