NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: nht92-4.40OpenDATE: 08/12/92 FROM: DENNIS T. JOHNSTON -- ENGINEERING PLANNING AND LIAISON MANAGER, ROVER GROUP NORTH AMERICAN ENGINEERING OFFICE TO: ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA COPYEE: GREG DANA -- AIAM TITLE: SUBJECT: PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - FMVSS 214 - SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION; LIGHT TRUCKS, BUSES AND MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES; FINAL RULE REFERENCE: DOCKET NO. 88-06, NOTICE 19, FMVSS 214 - FINAL RULE: RESPONSE TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED JULY 13, 1992 FR VOL. 57, NO. 134 PP 30917-23 ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-10-92 FROM BARRY FELRICE TO DENNIS T. JOHNSTON (A40; STD. 214) TEXT: Rover Group Ltd., the British manufacturer of the Range Rover Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (MPV), submits the following in response to the referenced Final Rule amending FMVSS No. 214, 'Side Impact Protection; Light Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles'. The July 13, 1992 Final Rule introduces a concept that had not been previously addressed in the June 14, 1991 Final Rule or the NPRM dated January 15, 1992. That is the classification of contoured doors by the ratio of the width of the lowest portion of the door to the width of the door at its widest point ("ratio"). This classification is not specifically mentioned in the preamble (except obliquely as ". . . certain contoured doors . . ."), but rather, appears directly in the rule in Section 3(e)(7). Specifically, the July 13, 1992 Final Rule treats contoured doors with a ratio of greater than 0.5 differently than those whose ratio is 0.5 or less. It is Rover Group's understanding following the final rule that a contoured door on a multipurpose passenger vehicle whose width of the lowest portion of the door, for example, measured 41 centimeters and whose widest portion measured 80 centimeters would be required to meet the current quasi-static door strength procedures contained in FMVSS 214 for passenger cars beginning with vehicles produced after September 1, 1993. Multipurpose passenger vehicles (trucks and buses, as well) with contoured doors whose ratio was 0.5 or less (whose lower most width was 40 centimeters or less in the above example) would not be required to have these contoured doors meet quasi-static requirements until September 1, 1994, with the inference that a newly proscribed test procedure would be promulgated for these doors far enough in advance to allow manufacturers to meet this requirement. However, in conversation with NHTSA staff since the release of the July 13, 1992 Final Rule it appears that NHTSA is considering another discriminator other than the 0.5 ratio to determine which contoured doors for multipurpose vehicles will need to conform to the current quasi-static test or to the not as yet promulgated test. The current Range Rover has contoured read doors. These doors have a ratio greater than 0.5 (though not significantly greater), and under our interpretation of the July 13, 1992 Final Rule would be required to meet current FMVSS 214 quasi static door strength requirements beginning September 1, 1993. We have developed a design that will meet the current requirements, and have begun to purchase tooling to ensure that production after September 1, 1993 will comply. Any significant change in the test procedure for these doors (along the lines of that proposed in the January 15, 1992 NPRM, for example) would render this tooling obsolete. Thus Rover Group would be required to scrap this tooling at significant cost, and embark on an additional development program. (For details on the design changes necessitated by the test procedure quoted in the January 15, 1992 NPRM please see Rover Group's response dated March 16, 1992.) Futhermore, based on our side impact test data, we believe that the positioning of door strengtheners that result using the currently specified test procedure in FMVSS 214 is more appropriate than the test procedure in the January 15, 1992 NPRM to offer the passengers of Range Rover vehicles with enhanced side impact protection. If the Final Rule is to be interpreted as Rover Group has related above (in the third paragraph), please consider this document as a request for interpretation. If, however, NHTSA believes another interpretation is appropriate, please consider this as a petition for reconsideration to align the rule with that contained in this document. If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to contact me on (301) 731-8709 at your earliest convenience.
|
|
ID: nht78-3.15OpenDATE: 07/17/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Automobile Importers of America TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether passive safety belts are exempt from the requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The answer to your question is yes, with one exception. Paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies that passive safety belts that are not required for the vehicle to meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of the standard must meet the requirements of Standard No. 209. Therefore, only passive belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 209. Sincerely, June 8, 1978 Joseph Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Levin: Subject: Request for an Interpretation FMVSS 208/209 In reviewing the requirements presented in FMVSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies in connection with the design of passive belt systems, there appears to be no distinction between the applicability of the standard as to active and passive belt systems. In reviewing FMVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection however, paragraph 4.5.3.4 appears to exempt passive belt systems from compliance in any manner with the requirements of FMVSS 208. Since such an exemption would provide the design latitude necessary in the development of an optimum passive belt system, I would appreciate your confirmation that this exemption is intended. In view of the extensive development efforts now underway in the engineering departments of many manufacturers, an expeditious response to this request would be appreciated. George C. Nield President |
|
ID: nht90-1.75OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/19/90 FROM: CLARKS GORTE -- FORD HEAVY TRUCK VEHICLE ENGINEERING TO: NHTSA TITLE: [FORD RATIONALE FOR FMVSS 108 COMPLIANCE] ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION; REDBOOK A 35; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 03/27/90 FROM LARRY F. WORT -- ILLINOIS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TO TAYLOR VINSON -- DOT ; OCC 4613 TEXT: Mr. Van Alstin, listed below are the FMVSS requirements and the rationale used by Ford Heavy Truck Engineering to signoff for compliance to FMVSS 108, specifically side marker lamps. FMVSS 108 required motor vehicle lighting equipment is covered on page 226, S4.1.1 and S4.1.1.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations for 571.108, the location is covered on page 237, S4.3, S4.3.1, & S4.3.1.1, combinations are covered on page 238, S4.4. 1990 and prior year Ford C-Series and CL-Series vehicles use the roof mounts corner marker lamps to satisfy the side marker lamp requirements of FMVSS 10 The corner marker lamps are forward of the vartical C/L of the vehicle, are prominantly displayed, s ecurely attached, and satisfy the photomarty, vibrat corrosion, moisture, dust and color requirements. For your information, all Ford C and CL-Series are believed to be in compli. with FHWA DOT requirements, Part 393-Parts and Accessories Necessary For Sa Operation. Subpart B. Should you require additional information or require further clarification please contact this office. Clarke Gorte Ford Heavy Truck Vehicle Engineering C-CT SERIES DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS [Illustration Omitted] |
|
ID: 11393JEGOpen Dr. Aled Williams Dear Dr. Williams: This responds to your letter concerning shoes for the Hybrid III dummy. I apologize for the delay in our response. You noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 references certain drawing numbers for the shoe specification, and asked whether there are shoes available in the U.S. which conform to these specifications. You also asked us two additional questions in the event that such shoes are not available: What shoes does NHTSA use for compliance testing, and what are the essential characteristics that should be identified for the shoes used for the Hybrid III dummy. Your questions are addressed below. By way of background, section S8.1.9.2 of FMVSS 208 specifies, for the Hybrid III dummy, that "(a) size 11EE shoe specified in drawings 78051-294 (left) and 78051-295 (right) or their equivalents is placed on each foot of the test dummy." These drawings specify gray suede leather safety shoes, size 11EE, made by Lehigh Safety Shoe Co, "or equivalent." Lehigh Safety Shoe Co. no longer makes this particular shoe. Question 1: Are there shoes available in the U.S. which conform to Standard 208's specifications? S8.1.9.2 specifies the use of the Lehigh shoe Aor equivalent.@ Although the Lehigh shoe is not available, we use an "equivalent" shoe, as further explained in answer to Question 2, below. Question 2: What shoes does NHTSA use for compliance testing? NHTSA=s Laboratory Test Procedure manual for FMVSS 208 addresses your question. Section 12.9 of the manual specifies, for both Hybrid II and Hybrid III dummies, that "(e)ach foot of the dummy shall be equipped with a size 11EE shoe which meets the configuration, size, sole, and heel thickness specifications of MIL-S-13192 and weighs 1.05 pounds to 1.45 pounds." Question 3: What are the essential characteristics that should be identified for the shoes used for the Hybrid III dummy. The dictionary defines "equivalent" as "equal in value, measure, force, effect, significance, etc." In determining whether a particular shoe is equivalent to the one specified in FMVSS 208, we consider whether use of the shoe would have any effect on the dummy readings that are used to calculate the standard's injury criteria. We have found the MIL-S-13192 shoe to be satisfactory in testing for the current injury criteria of FMVSS 208. I also note that the Society of Automotive Engineers is in the process of developing a new shoe specification for the Hybrid III dummy. After that organization completes its work, NHTSA may decide whether to incorporate that specification in FMVSS 208. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:208#572 d:3/29/96
|
1996 |
ID: 07-001834asOpenMr. Melissa Brooke Safety & Compliance ICI International Carriers (Tilbury) Inc. 42 Mill Street West Tilbury, Ontario N0P 2L0 Canada Dear Ms. Brooke: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You stated that you would like clarification on additional factory installed lamps that are in a horizontal line with the required cluster of three amber identification lamps. You stated that the lamps in question would not be spaced at a distance that is at least twice the distance that separates each lamp in the required cluster, and would be on a separate switch from the cluster. As discussed below, it is our opinion that such a design would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108. You also asked whether this would be a violation of 49 CFR 391.11(d) if the additional lamps remained off while a vehicle was in the United States. As that regulation was promulgated and is enforced by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), we are referring that question to that agency. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and 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. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. In your letter, you requested clarification on additional factory installed lamps that are in a horizontal line with the required cluster of three amber identification lamps. You added that the lamps in question are not spaced at a distance that is at least twice the distance that separates each lamp in the required cluster. Based on your description, this lamp design would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108. We have explained in past interpretation letters that additional lamps placed in the vicinity of and in a horizontal line with the required cluster of three identification lamps impair the functioning of the identification lamp cluster, and are therefore not permitted by FMVSS No. 108.[1] We have also explained that this problem is avoided if the additional lamps are spaced at a distance of at least twice the distance that separates each lamp in the identification cluster.[2] Because the lamps you describe are in the horizontal line with the identification lamps, and are not spaced far enough apart from the cluster, they are not permitted by FMVSS No. 108. The fact that the lamps would be on a separate switch from the required cluster would not change this result, as the lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps whenever they were turned on. You also asked a question about 49 CFR 393.11(d). Specifically, you asked if the additional lamps placed on a separate switch from the identification cluster remained off while the vehicle was in the United States, whether there would be a violation of section 393.11(d). Again, we are referring that question to FMCSA. If you have any further questions about NHTSAs regulations, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:108 d.9/18/07 [1] See 4/26/07 letter to Kim D. Mann (copy enclosed). In that letter, for example, we stated that a product would impair the effectiveness of the identification lamps by obscuring the three-lamp cluster pattern required by the Standard, rendering it unrecognizable by turning it into an eleven-lamp cluster. [2] See 7/28/05 letter to Robert M. Clarke (copy enclosed). |
2007 |
ID: 06-006094drnOpenColin Pewarchuk, Esq. Vice President, General Counsel New Flyer of America, Inc. 711 Kernaghan Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba R2C 3T4 CANADA Dear Mr. Pewarchuk: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls, telltales and indicators. You advise us that your company manufactures and sells transit buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kg). Based on the information you provided to the agency and the analysis below, I can confirm your understanding framed in your September 19, 2006 letter that as a result of the August 17, 2005 final rule amending FMVSS No. 101 (70 FR 48295), the standard does not regulate, restrict or otherwise affect the use of foot-operated controls. In your letter, you advise us that the majority of transit buses manufactured by your company for sale in the United States include foot-operated controls, including the turn signal control and the high beam control. You stated your belief that most other manufacturers in the transit bus industry, and perhaps manufacturers in the over-the-highway bus or coach industry also manufacture their products with similar foot-operated controls. FMVSS No. 101 specifies that each covered vehicle fitted with a control listed in the standard must meet the requirements of [the] standard for the location, identification, color, and illumination of that control . . . . See S5. In the final rule of August 17, 2005, control was defined at S4 as: the hand-operated part of a device that enables the driver to change the state or functioning of the vehicle or a vehicle subsystem.[1] Since the standards revised definition of control is limited to hand-operated controls, foot-operated controls are not regulated by FMVSS No. 101. We note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration explained its intent not to continue to regulate foot-operated controls in FMVSS No. 101 in the preamble to the August 17, 2005 final rule. See 70 FR at page 48298. The standards requirements for foot-operated controls had been very limited. Specifically, FMVSS No. 101 had required that certain foot-operated controls (service brake, accelerator, clutch, high beam, windshield wiper, and windshield washer) must be operable by the driver when restrained by his or her seat belt. In the final rule preamble, we explained that we had proposed and, in the final rule were deciding, to limit the term control (and thus FMVSS No. 101 itself) to hand-operated controls because we were unaware of any current vehicles whose high beam, or windshield washer or wiper controls were foot-operated and because we saw no need, as a practical matter, to state as a regulation that service brakes, accelerators, and clutches be located so as to be operable by the driver. Your letter has made us aware of the continued use in transit buses of foot-operated controls, contrary to the assumption expressed in the recent rulemaking. We note, however, that our rationale for not seeing a need, as a practical matter, to include a requirement that service brakes, accelerators, and clutches be located so as to be operable by the driver also appears applicable to other foot-operated controls needed during driving. That is, we believe it is reasonable to assume that manufacturers that use foot-operated controls necessary for the driving task will locate them such that they are operable by the driver when wearing their seat belt. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:101 d.3/28/07 [1] This definition was unchanged by the May 15, 2006, response to petitions for reconsideration (71 FR 27964). |
2007 |
ID: wolf21888Open
Mr. Bret W. Wolf Dear Mr. Wolf: This responds to your July 10, 2000, letter regarding replacing rear glazing material on a passenger van with a polycarbonate material. You state in your letter that you are writing on behalf of a customer, Mr. Charlie Klerner, who is "seeking input to determine the feasibility of a project that entails replacing the right rear glazing material on a Chevrolet Passenger Van for the purpose of replacing it with a Polycarbonate material...so that electronic equipment including a consumer operated touch pad may be installed in the window opening." Mr. Klerner, in correspondence to this office dated July 13, 2000, specifies that the glazing material will be used between the C and D pillar adjacent to the seating of a passenger vehicle. As explained below, glazing made from a polycarbonate material must meet certain performance requirements and may only be used in certain locations on a vehicle. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither endorses, approves, nor conducts testing of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects. Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANSI Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. You company's product, as a "polycarbonate" material which would replace the existing glazing material in the right rear window opening of a passenger van, is considered to be item 4A glazing subject to the requirements of S5.1.2.11 of Standard No. 205. S5.1.2.11 specifies the locations in a vehicle where rigid plastic for use in side windows rearward of the "C" pillar are permitted. Item 4A glazing is permitted in the following specific vehicle locations (see S5.1.2.11(a)): NHTSA does not permit Item 4A glazing near rear-facing seats or side-facing seats in any motor vehicle because of the concern that occupants (particularly unbelted ones) riding in those seating locations may be able to contact their heads against Item 4A glazing in a crash. The breaking of rigid plastic windows in a crash could leave sharp, pointed shards in the window frame which could easily be contacted by an occupant's head. There is also concern about occupant injury resulting from large shards of rigid plastic glazing being propelled inward by vehicle impacts with trees, poles, or other vehicles. Accordingly, replacing the right rear glazing material on a Chevrolet passenger van with a polycarbonate material adjacent to a passenger seating is generally not permitted. In addition, S5.1.2.11(a) of Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for rigid plastic for use in side windows rearward of the "C" pillar. (See Test Procedures for Item 4A - Rigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows Rearward of the "C" Pillar.) These performance requirements would apply to the polycarbonate glazing material. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 (copy enclosed) (formerly 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any item of new motor vehicle equipment unless the equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and is so certified by its manufacturer. It would be a violation of this section of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any glazing material for use in motor vehicles (such as the glazing from the polycarbonate material) unless the products comply with applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Further, it would be a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell a motor vehicle whose glazing does not comply with the performance and location requirements of Standard No. 205. In addition, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. The polycarbonate glazing material could only be installed by the aforementioned entities if it meets the performance and location requirements of FMVSS No. 205. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as the glazing you describe, also have responsibilities under our statute for any defects related to motor vehicle safety that are determined to exist in their products. The statute requires such manufacturers to notify purchasers about any defects related to motor vehicle safety and to remedy such defects free of charge. In closing, I would like to draw your attention to FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, which applies to "....multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, with a GVWR or 4,536 kilograms or less." You should carefully review this standard to determine whether installation of the electronic equipment and touchpad in vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 201 would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standard. While NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to an electronic touchpad, the "make inoperative" provision of our statute (30122) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from installing the equipment if the installation would adversely affect the compliance of any FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 201. For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Frank Seales Jr. cc: Charles Klerner ref:205
1. Our statute, formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, was recodified in 1994 without substantive change. It is now codified at Title 49 of the U.S. Code in Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety.) |
2000 |
ID: 08-001297OpenWilliam E. Otto, Esq. Sebring & Associates 2735 Mosside Boulevard Monroeville, PA 15146 Dear Mr. Otto: This responds to your letter asking two questions about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, regarding outside rearview mirrors. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The agency 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. In your letter, you ask about an outside drivers side rearview mirror that would contain two parts. You state that on the right portion of the mirror, a section of the mirror would contain a FMVSS No. 111-compliant flat mirror, while the left portion of the mirror would contain a curved or aspheric component. You also suggested that this additional section may cause the mirror to extend farther than the widest part of the vehicle body. You ask two questions relating to this design, which are restated below. Q1. You ask whether a single drivers side mirror containing both a flat portion and curved or aspherical portion located to the left of said flat portion would be permitted by S5.2.1 of Standard No. 111, provided that the flat portion of the mirror otherwise complies with Section S5.2.1. Our answer is yes. FMVSS No. 111, S5.2.1, Field of view, states that [e]ach passenger car shall have an outside mirror of unit magnification, which requires a flat mirror. However, if this requirement is met, there is no specific prohibition on additional mirrored surfaces, which can be convex or aspheric. In a previous letter of interpretation from 1995, NHTSA answered a similar question in the affirmative. In that letter, we stated, [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine a portion of the mirror with a straight angle with a portion of the mirror that is at a slight variance, provided that the straight mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.[1] Similarly, in a 1998 letter, NHTSA stated that [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself meets FMVSS No. 111 requirements applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.[2] Therefore, assuming your drivers side flat mirror meets the field of view requirements, we can confirm that an additional aspheric portion would not be prohibited. Q2. You ask whether a drivers side mirror which protrudes farther than the widest part of the vehicle body is permitted under S5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 111, if the extent of the protrusion is limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate a mirror which exceeds the requirements of Section S5.2.1 by the following characteristics: (1) the flat portion of the mirror complies with the requirements of Section S5.2.1 and (b) a curved or aspheric portion of the mirror located to the left of the flat portion of the mirror results in an increase in the field of view. Assuming that the aspheric portion of your mirror produces a field of view that exceeds S5.2.1, our answer is yes. Paragraph S5.2.2 reads, in part, neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1. (Emphasis added.) S5.2.2 as originally adopted (then S3.2.1.2) specified that neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body, except to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the field view requirements (32 FR 2408, 2413). Shortly thereafter, the exception was expanded to include the words meeting or exceeding in an early amendment to the standard (32 FR 5498, April 4, 1967, copy enclosed). Since the exception was revised to accommodate mirrors and mountings that produce a field of view exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1, we believe a protrusion to accommodate that part of the mirror is permitted. However, this exception does not extend to protrusions beyond the widest part of the body to accommodate items such as decorations or lights near that part of the mirror. Moreover, the mirror and mounting must be free of sharp points or edges that could contribute to pedestrian injury, as specified elsewhere in S5.2.2. I hope this answers your questions. 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:111 d.1/16/09 |
2009 |
ID: 08-000233asOpenU-Fill, LLC 175 Rock Rd. Glenn Rock, NJ 07452 Dear Mr. McAvey: This responds to your letter regarding the Fuel-Tool, an onboard gasoline refueling system you have developed. You ask us to evaluate your product with respect to our laws and regulations. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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). 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. We also investigate safety-related defects. In your letter, you describe the Fuel-Tool as an onboard gasoline refueling system. You state that the Fuel-Tool allows a user to refuel auxiliary equipment and vehicles directly from the host vehicles fuel tank. Your website (www.fueltool.com) shows the Fuel-Tool system consisting of a pump that is attached directly and permanently to the fuel line, and a hose and nozzle stored in the vehicle. Once the Fuel-Tool is activated, the fuel pump sends fuel through the fuel line at a rate of two gallons per minute through the nozzle and directly into the item the consumer wishes to refuel (for example, your website appears to show the refueling of an all terrain vehicle using the Fuel-Tool). You state that the Fuel-Tool will not be installed as original equipment on motor vehicles, but will be installed by a U-Fill certified technician or by the retail customer as an aftermarket item. We appreciate your effort to contact NHTSA about your product. However, as stated above, NHTSA is unable to evaluate individual products for compliance with the FMVSSs. We can provide some general information about our requirements. In addition, the Department of Transportations Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) administers regulations that relate to, among other things, the transportation and discharge of gasoline for fueling auxiliary equipment. For information on this subject, you may contact PHMSAs Office of Hazardous Materials Safety at (202) 366-0656. NHTSA Regulations There currently are no FMVSSs that directly apply to the Fuel-Tool as an aftermarket item of equipment. Our standard for Fuel System Integrity, FMVSS No. 301, applies to new complete motor vehicles, and not to aftermarket components that attach to the fuel system. While no FMVSS applies to the Fuel-Tool as an aftermarket item, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, a relevant statutory provision for determining the legality of modifications to motor vehicles is 49 U.S.C. 30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative. This section reads, in 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 . If the Fuel-Tool were installed in the aftermarket by a U-Fill technician or any other manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business, the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30122 would apply. Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, the commercial installer of the U-Fill would need to be sure that the installation of the U-Fill does not bring the vehicle out of compliance with the FMVSSs. As you correctly identified in your letter, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, would be the most likely standard impacted by the installation of the Fuel-Tool, since it limits fuel spillage and other failure modes in vehicle crashes. However, the commercial installer would also need to ensure that compliance with other FMVSSs is not adversely affected by installation of the Fuel-Tool. 49 U.S.C. 30122 does not apply to individual owners that are modifying their own vehicles. Thus, under NHTSAs regulations, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. You indicated that you intend to eventually partner with a vehicle manufacturer to include your product as an option on new vehicles. If the Fuel-Tool were added to a new vehicle, i.e., before the vehicle is sold for the first time to a consumer, then the vehicle must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 301 and all other FMVSSs with the Fuel-Tool installed. Also, as noted above, the vehicle manufacturer would have to ensure that the vehicle is free of safety-related defects. Other Considerations In addition to the requirements outlined above, individual States are free to establish requirements for vehicles used in the State, and may have laws that apply to the installation of a device such as the Fuel-Tool. For information about those requirements, you should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used. Further, for information on private tort liability, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier. 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:301 d.11/20/08 |
2008 |
ID: 10785Open Mr. Terry M. Habshey Dear Mr. Habshey: This responds to your March 6, 1995 letter to Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff in which you requested a "new D.O.T. number." As discussed below, we are unable to provide you a tire manufacturer's identification mark since the operations you perform on tires are not sufficient to make you the manufacturer of the tires. You explained that your company is a global exporter of tires, particularly to third world countries, but that you intend to distribute tires domestically in the future. You stated that you obtain new tires from different manufacturers consisting of original equipment overruns, blems, etc., and that by a new process you intend to remove "most" of the information from the tire sidewalls. The new process includes removing a thin layer of rubber from the tire sidewall, then vulcanizing a layer of new rubber onto the sidewall. The new layer will contain a new "registered" trade name, logo, and "identifying marks along with the size, safety information, mounting instructions, maximum and minimum inflating instructions, etc." You emphasized that all tires will be new and meet "all minimum standards established by the Department of Transportation." Before addressing your request, let me first provide some background information. Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment sold in or imported into the United States. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs effective on the date of manufacture. In the case of tires, manufacturers reflect that certification by molding the letters "DOT" into or onto the sidewalls of all their tires manufactured for sale in the United States. The FMVSSs are not applicable to tires intended solely for export, labeled for export on the tires and on the outside of the container, and exported. See 49 U.S.C. '30112(b)(3); 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.7(d)). Accordingly, you are free to export any tires you want, whether or not they comply with the FMVSSs and after whatever modifications you make to them. That is not the case, however, with tires distributed for sale in the United States. FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires and FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims, specify performance standards and labeling requirements for new passenger car tires and rims. FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars and FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, specify performance standards and labeling requirements applicable to tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping, requires new tire manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto one tire sidewall a tire identification number (TIN) and specifies methods by which new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners shall maintain records of tire purchasers. 49 CFR Part 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS), requires new motor vehicle and new tire manufacturers and brand name owners to provide information to consumers concerning the relative performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The UTQGS grades are also required to be molded into or onto the tire sidewall. The labeling requirements specified in the regulations referred to above apply to the actual tire manufacturers and/or brand name owners, and 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 required information on new tires is intended for safety purposes, purchaser information, and to enable this agency to identify the manufacturer in the event of a noncompliance or defect in a tire line or lot. A "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. '30102(a)(5) as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles or equipment or one who imports motor vehicles or equipment for resale. The operations you describe would not be sufficient to make you the manufacturer of the tires in question. According to your letter, you would, for marketing reasons, remove a thin layer of the surface area of the sidewalls of the tires so that most of the existing information is removed. You would then apply a new thin layer of rubber containing new information. Your operations would thus not be changing the basic tire as such but simply changing the labeling. A change in labeling would not change who manufactured the tire. Thus, since you would not be a manufacturer of tires, you may not obtain a manufacturer's identification mark in accordance with 49 CFR '574.6. Only tire manufacturers or retreaders may obtain that mark. 49 U.S.C. '30122(b) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and/or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with applicable FMVSSs unless that individual reasonably believes that the vehicle or equipment will not be used when the device or element is inoperative. Thus, removal of the labeling information required to be marked on tire sidewalls in accordance with the standards and regulations discussed above could be a violation of '30122(b), which could subject the violator to civil penalties of up to $1000 per violation, or up to $800,000 for a series of related violations. In summary, the Safety Act does not apply to tires intended solely for export. Thus, those tires are not required to comply with any FMVSSs. However, all new or retreaded tires sold or imported into the United States for sale must comply with all applicable FMVSSs and regulations as discussed above. Distributors and dealers may not remove any of the labeling information required to be marked on new tires by the actual manufacturers and/or brand name owners of those tires. Removal of that information could make inoperative an element of design on those tires, which could constitute a violation of 49 U.S.C. '30122(b). I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you need additional information or have further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Ref:109#110#119#120#574#575 d:5/24/95
|
1995 |
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.