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: 10419Open Mr. Roger W. Cole Dear Mr. Cole: This responds to your letter of October 18, 1994, received by facsimile transmission, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff. You asked whether passenger car tires that have the DOT symbol and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) ratings molded on the sidewalls may legally be sold in the United States. The short answer is yes, provided that the tires in fact comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. '30101, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as Safety Act), directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment prior to the first retail sale of such vehicles or equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act provides at 49 U.S.C. '30112(a) that no person may manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification to that effect issued in accordance with 49 U.S.C. '30115. The latter section provides in pertinent part that "Certification of equipment may be shown by a label or tag on the equipment . . . ." Thus, any new tire sold by Twin Tire must comply with all applicable FMVSS's, and be certified as doing so. FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, specifies the minimum standards applicable to new passenger car tires. This standard specifies labeling and performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance. If the tires in question fail to comply with Standard No. 109, the manufacturer (or importer of noncomplying tires) must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations. With regard to the situation you present, 49 U.S.C. 30112(b) provides two exceptions to the prohibition of 30112(a) against selling noncomplying equipment, such as tires. The first exception is that the prohibition does not apply to a person who had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that an item of equipment does not comply with applicable FMVSS's. The second exception is for a person who holds a certificate issued by the equipment manufacturer stating that the equipment complies with applicable FMVSS's, provided that the person does not know about the noncompliance. However, if Twin Tire were to sell the tires in question and those tires failed to comply with applicable FMVSS's, it is unlikely that Twin Tire could successfully argue that it qualifies for these exceptions, as a defense to an enforcement action for selling the noncomplying equipment. You state in your letter that the tire manufacturer "breached their contract to manufacture these tires under the premise of US regulations." If the breach concerned the ability of the tires to conform to the requirements of the applicable FMVSS's, Twin Tire would be on notice that there is a reasonable possibility that the tires in question, while labeled with a DOT mark certifying compliance, do not in fact comply. In a situation where a seller has reason to believe the equipment it is selling might not comply with applicable FMVSS's, the seller must ascertain if the certification is bona fide before selling the item. The following discussion relates to the "DOT" and other markings that you describe on the tires. Paragraph S4.3.1 of FMVSS No. 109 provides that: Each tire shall be labeled with the symbol DOT in the manner specified in Part 574 of this chapter, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (emphasis added). Similarly, the UTQGS, also applicable only to passenger car tires, found at 49 CFR 575.104 (copy enclosed), provides at 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A): Except for a tire of a new tire line . . . , each tire shall be graded with the words, letters, symbols, and figures specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall . . . . Finally, 49 CFR 574.5 requires each tire sold in the United States have a tire identification number (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewall by the manufacturer to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect. To summarize, the answer to your question is the tires in question can be sold only if they comply with all applicable FMVSSs (including Standard No. 109's labeling and performance requirements) and are so labeled in the prescribed locations with the DOT symbol, the UTQGS grades, and the TIN. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any additional questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:109#575.105 d: 12/7/94
|
|
ID: 07-004355asOpenMr. Guy Dorleans International & Regulatory Affairs Valeo Lighting Systems 34, rue Saint-Andr 93 012 Bobigny Cedex France Dear Mr. Dorleans: This responds to your letter, in which you ask about the activation of daytime running lamps (DRLs) under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you ask whether various LED (light-emitting diode) lamp designs, incorporating a parking lamp function in addition to other functions, can be used as DRLs under the standard. Our answer is that this would not be prohibited by FMVSS No. 108. 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. 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. The relevant language in FMVSS No. 108 regarding the regulation of DRLs is paragraph S5.5.11(a). This paragraph reads, in part: Any pair of lamps on the front of a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus, whether or not required by this standard, other than parking lamps or fog lamps, may be wired to be automatically activated, as determined by the manufacturer of the vehicle, in a steady burning state as daytime running lamps (DRLs) and to be automatically deactivated when the headlamp control is in any on position In your letter, you described two scenarios in which an array of four LEDs that could serve as both a parking lamp and as a DRL. In the first scenario, one LED in the array is activated alone in parking lamp mode, while all four are activated in DRL mode. In the second scenario, all four LEDs in the array are activated at a low intensity in parking lamp mode, and all four are activated at a higher intensity in DRL mode. You indicated that for both scenarios the lamp would meet the specified photometric requirements for whichever function was activated, i.e., parking lamp or DRL. We believe that both designs would be permitted by FMVSS No. 108. In a 1997 letter of interpretation which we have enclosed,[1] we explained the rationale of prohibiting parking lamps to be used as DRLs. In that letter, we stated: [A] manufacturer may use any pair of front lamps for the DRL feature, other than parking lamps (too small to be effective) or fog lamps (too bright). For the purpose of S5.5.11(a), the array of LEDs that you described in your letter, which can serve the function of parking lamps or other lamps depending on how they are activated, would not be considered parking lamps in either of the scenarios that you described. In DRL mode, the lamps would be substantially brighter than the parking lamps, and according to your letter, their photometric output would comply with the requirements of S5.5.11(a)(1), which sets minimum and maximum output for DRLs. This would result in effective DRLs, which is the intent of the requirement in FMVSS No. 108. We also note that the use of multifunction lamps, including lamps that function, in part, as parking lamps, were considered in the development of the DRL standards. In a 1988 letter of interpretation,[2] we stated that: [A] lamp that functions both as a parking lamp and a DRL and which is operated in daylight could act as either a DRL or a parking lamp, depending on the intensity of the light emitted, but it would have to meet the photometric requirements for the function being exercised. 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.4/29/08 [1] September 29, 1997 letter to Mr. Walter E. Ellis, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [2] February 19, 1988 letter to Mr. M. Arisaka, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. This statement was analyzing the proposed language in FMVSS No. 108, later adopted, requiring that a DRL would have to be a lamp other than a parking lamp. [emphasis added] |
2008 |
ID: 06-007683rlsOpenMr. Stuart McKenzie McKenzie Auto Consulting 254 Dereham Road, New Costessey, Norwich, NR5 0SN; Registered office: 6 Corunna Court, Corunna Road, Warwick, Warwickshire, CV34 5HQ Dear Mr. McKenzie: This responds to your emailed letter requesting an interpretation on a proposed VIN correction system to be employed in the event of the application of an incorrect VIN to a series production vehicle. Specifically, you describe a situation in which a small vehicle manufacturer mistakenly applies an incorrect vehicle identification number (VIN) to a vehicle, voids the original incorrect VIN, and applies the correct VIN immediately below that position. You ask whether this system would be acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) if the manufacturer later imported such vehicles into the U.S. through a Registered Importer. In a follow-up email to Rebecca Schade of my staff, you clarified that the mistake would be identified while the vehicle was still on the production line; and that you are only asking about correcting the stamping of an incorrect VIN on the chassis and are not asking about destroying or obliterating the VIN on the vehicles dash, certification plate, or parts required to be marked by the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. 511). Based on the information you provided, our answer is that you may correct a mistake made in the number stamped on the vehicles chassis in the manner you described. Discussion NHTSA requires vehicles to be marked with VINs to simplify vehicle identification information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns (49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements). Among other things, Part 565 specifies that the VIN must be marked on the vehicle dash.[1] In addition, NHTSA also requires the VIN to be on the vehicles certification label (49 CFR Part 567) and an identifying number (usually the VIN) to be marked on 18 major parts subject to the parts marking requirements of the theft protection standard (49 CFR Part 541). The purpose of Part 541 is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The chassis is not among the major parts that must be marked under the theft prevention standard (see 541.5). Since the chassis is not required to be marked by Part 541, NHTSA does not prohibit you from voiding (which you said involves destroying or obliterating) the incorrect marking on the chassis and applying the correct VIN immediately below that position.[2] The number you marked on the chassis is simply a number, and is not subject to prohibitions against altering VINs. Any alteration of an identification number on a vehicles chassis is not subject to regulation, and would need no correction system. Importing the Vehicle
Under the scenario you described, the vehicle manufacturer realizes the VIN is incorrect and corrects the VIN on the dash and on the certification label while the vehicle is still on the production line. Since the vehicle will not have destroyed or obliterated VINs on the dash plate, certification label or on the 18 major parts listed in the theft protection standard (541.5), NHTSA would have no problem with the vehicle being imported into the U.S. through a Registered Importer, as long as it complied with all other safety, bumper, and theft standards. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:565 d.4/10/07 [1] 565.4(f) states that The VIN for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks of 4536 kg or less GVWR shall be located inside the passenger compartment. It shall be readable, without moving any part of the vehicle, through the vehicle glazing under daylight lighting conditions by an observer having 20/20 vision (Snellen) whose eye-point is located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar. Each character in the VIN subject to this paragraph shall have a minimum height of 4 mm. [2] There are restrictions on altering or removing a VIN on a part that is required to be marked by the theft prevention standard. The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, as codified in relevant part at 18 U.S.C. 511, prohibits altering or removing vehicle identification numbers. The provision is administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ). For information about this provision, you may contact the DOJ at: Policy and Statutory Enforcement Unit, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530-0001. |
2007 |
ID: 17557.drnOpenMr. Harry C. Gough, P.E. Dear Mr. Gough: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217's retroreflective tape requirements for school bus rear emergency doors. You enclose a photograph of a school bus rear exit door which shows that the retroreflective tape above the door opening is interrupted by the words "Emergency Door." Your letter states that the gap caused by the words is 16 inches (40 centimeters) long. In the retroreflective tape outlining each of the two sides of the emergency door, there also are gaps in each of the four corners that would have been formed had the two horizontal tapes and two vertical tapes met. You ask three questions, restated below, about whether gaps are permitted in the tape.
Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, specifies emergency exit identification requirements at S5.5. School bus emergency exit identification requirements are at S5.5.3, and state:
In previous NHTSA compliance tests conducted on school buses manufactured by Thomas Built Buses and by Blue Bird Body Company, the agency found gaps in the retroreflective tape similar to what you describe in your letter. NHTSA's Safety Assurance office determined in those tests that the requirements of Standard 217 were not violated. The agency determined that there was not enough space at the top of the exit to place the words "Emergency Door" and the 2.5 centimeter tape without either: (a) taping part of the upper door trim and rivets; or (b) taping over the "School Bus" designation. Both of these alternatives were deemed undesirable. Taping over trim and rivets would likely reduce the wearability of the tape, and taping over the school bus designation would reduce the clarity of the sign. Thus, the gaps were permitted. Without knowing the exact measurements of your school bus, we cannot make a determination that placement of the tape, as you described, is acceptable. However, if the space is limited as it was on the buses that NHTSA evaluated, then interrupting the tape with the "Emergency Door" designation is an acceptable means for a manufacturer to try to meet both S5.5.3(a) and (c). You can send us the measurements of the vehicle if you wish, for us to further review the matter.
In July 7, 1993 and June 8, 1994 letters to Blue Bird and Van-Con, respectively, NHTSA permitted interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges, handles and tail lights. However, NHTSA said that the tape must be able to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Also, the tape must be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. In these letters, NHTSA did not establish a specified "percentage" of an exit perimeter or of a side of a perimeter that must be outlined to be deemed acceptable. In the school bus emergency door in your photograph, I note that there are gaps in the tape at the four corners where the two horizontal tapes and the two vertical tapes should meet. If there are no rivets or curved surfaces or other impediments to placement of the tape, as described in the July1993 letter to Blue Bird, tape must be applied so that the horizontal tapes and the vertical tapes meet, forming corners.
As noted in our answer to Question 1, it is possible that the gap is permitted, depending on the measurements of your bus. Concerning your specific question about possibly relocating the emergency door identification, NHTSA has a longstanding interpretation that the emergency door identification can be on the top half of the emergency exit door. (See, September 22, 1978, letter to Mr. Tydings, Thomas Built Buses.) I note that in a March 16, 1995, letter to you, then-Chief Counsel Philip Recht enclosed copies of our June 8, 1994, letter to Van-Con, Inc., and March 28, 1994, and July 7, 1993, letters to Blue Bird Body Company. For your convenience, I am again enclosing copies of those letters. I hope this information is helpful. In the future, it would help us in responding to you if you would provide a telephone number at which you can be reached. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 11879B.jegOpen Joseph W. Phebus, Esq. Dear Mr. Phebus: This responds to your letter of May 7, asking about warning requirements for the lap belts provided with "motorized passive seat belts, such as utilized by Ford Motor Company." We assume that you are referring to a seating position equipped with both a motorized automatic shoulder belt certified to the automatic protection requirements of Standard No. 208, and with a separate manual lap belt. You ask whether certain warnings about fastening the lap belt were (a) required, (b) permitted, or (c) prohibited. The lap belt for such a seating position was not required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards but was instead voluntarily provided by the vehicle manufacturer to provide additional occupant protection. While automatic belts are required to have a special warning system (see S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208), no warning requirement applied to the voluntarily provided lap belt. While none of the warnings you ask about were required, there is an issue, discussed further below, of whether they were permitted. Manufacturers may provide features in addition to those required by a standard, as long as the standard's requirements are met. The specific warnings you ask about are as follows: 1. "That the chime that sounds when the lap belt is not buckled should be repeated at least twice at intervals of approximately one minute if the belt is not buckled." Such a warning would not be permitted. S4.5.3.3 requires a warning system for automatic belts that, among other things, "activates a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds and that activates a continuous or flashing warning light visible to the driver for not less than 60 seconds," to warn that the belt is not in use. Since the purpose of the audible signal is to remind the driver to buckle up, it would be permissible to use the same signal to warn that the voluntarily provided lap belt is not in use. However, since the audible signal could not be activated for a period of more than 8 seconds, the system you describe would not be permitted. I also note that NHTSA is limited by its authorizing statute as to what types of audible signals it may require, or permit as a means of compliance, to indicate that a safety belt is not in use. Under 49 U.S.C. 30124, a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by using ... a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the "start" or "on" position." (Emphasis added.) 2. "The seat belt symbol light should remain on for at least one minute after the ignition is turned on and then flash off and on at 0.5 CPS for about 30 seconds and then remain lighted if the lap belt is not buckled. Further, the brightness of the signal should be increased when the dashboard lights are not on." Assuming that the seat belt symbol light is only activated if the seat belts are not in use, such a system would be permissible. Since the purpose of the warning light for automatic belts is to remind the driver to buckle up, it would be permissible to use the same warning light to indicate that the voluntarily provided lap belt is not in use. Unlike the time period specified for audible signals, S4.5.3.3 specifies a minimum but not a maximum time for activation of the warning light. Therefore, the warning light could remain activated to indicate that a lap belt is not buckled. 3. "There should be an express instruction "fasten lap belt" which is located so as to be easily observed by both the driver and the occupant of the right front seat." The Federal motor vehicle safety standards would not prohibit such a message. 4. "That sun visor warnings other than those used by Ford may be used which would employ colors and signal words and would communicate the nature of the hazards and potential consequences associated with not wearing the lap belts." The sun visor warnings provided by Ford were provided voluntarily, and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would not prohibit different messages. We have assumed that the vehicle does not have air bags. Standard No. 208 requires specific sun visor warnings for vehicles equipped with air bags and restricts any additional information on the visor. See S4.5.1(b). 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 ref:208 d:8/7/96 |
1996 |
ID: 11155bOpen Hugh J. Bode, Esq. Dear Mr. Bode: This responds to your letter concerning whether 49 U.S.C. ''30101 et seq. (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) requires a motor vehicle manufacturer to ensure that its vehicle continues to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) after the first retail purchase of the vehicle. You specifically ask about FMVSS No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems," and its application to a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck. It appears from the questions you ask that corrosion developed inside the carburetor of the pickup truck at some point during the life of the vehicle, such that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 124. You asked us to "confirm the accuracy" of a number of statements. Your first statement, concerning the application of the FMVSSs generally, is as follows: As we understand it, former '108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. '30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. Safety Act former '108(b)(1), 49 U.S.C. '30112(b)(1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former '108(a)(2)(A), 49 U.S.C. '30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Your general understanding is correct. However, a manufacturer has responsibilities in addition to those in '30112, that may bear upon on "continuing compliance" of its vehicle. Under ''30118-30122 of our statute, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge. This is not to say that the development of the corrosion in the carburetor necessarily constitutes a safety-related defect. Rather, we acknowledge the possibility of such a finding in certain circumstances, such as where the corrosion developed unreasonably quickly in the vehicle and the problem was such that it could lead to crashes involving injuries or fatalities. State law could also be relevant to this issue. For example, as part of its vehicle inspection requirements, a State could require that the accelerator control systems on vehicles "continue to comply" with the requirements of Standard No. 124. With the above discussion in mind, I will now address your other four questions on Standard No. 124. Question 1. We ask that NHTSA confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle. As explained in our answer above, your understanding is correct with regard to our requirements (49 U.S.C. '30112). There may be State requirements that apply. Question 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in- service conditions, corrosion developed inside the carburetor so the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124. Your understanding is essentially correct. As permitted by Federal law, Chrysler sold the truck based upon its own certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 124. That corrosion developed in the system may or may not be relevant with respect to the existence of a safety-related defect. Question 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5. While your understanding is essentially correct, note that Standard No. 124 and other motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards. Question 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance. Standard No. 124 does not specify a test for corrosion resistance. It is unclear what you mean by "durability." The requirements of the standard must be met when the engine "is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40N F. and +125N F. ...." (S5) In addition to the performance regulated by Standard No. 124, each manufacturer must ensure that its motor vehicle does not have a safety-related defect. If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:VSA#124 d:10/26/95
|
1995 |
ID: 11247Open Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D. Dear Dr. Arnold: This responds to your letter asking whether the air bags in your car can be disconnected. You explained that you are physically impaired by the effects of osteomyelitis, a disease of the bones; cannot use a seatbelt with comfort; and were Agranted dispensation from such usage several years ago.@ In a telephone conversation with Richard Reed of this agency, you indicated that you are 74 years old, 5 feet, three inches tall, and must sit close to the steering wheel because of your medical condition. As explained below, our answer is that NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. '30122. The 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. However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. I would like to caution you that both safety belts and air bags are very important items of safety equipment. Safety belts are the primary means of occupant restraint, and work in all types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of crashes. Also, air bags are designed to offer some protection even when safety belts are not used. Since 1987, air bags are estimated to have saved 911 lives. NHTSA strongly encourages vehicle occupants to wear their safety belts, since we are concerned about the much higher safety risk faced by unbelted occupants. We understand, however, that you cannot wear your safety belt for medical reasons, and that you are concerned about a possible safety risk from the air bag in such a situation. While air bags have an impressive overall performance record and are designed to provide some protection even for unbelted occupants, NHTSA has become aware of situations in which current air bags have undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to vehicle occupants, in minor-to-moderate severity crashes. Information indicates that an air bag might pose a risk of serious injury to unrestrained small statured and/or older people, in particular. I note that NHTSA has recently issued a request for comments (copy enclosed) concerning the agency=s actions to minimize the adverse side effects of air bags and to invite the public to share information and views with the agency. Since your disability prevents you from wearing your safety belt, and given your age and size, the disability places you in a situation where there may be a risk of serious injury from the air bag. While this particular risk can be addressed by disconnecting the air bag, there are trade-offs: Disconnecting the air bag subjects you to a higher risk in crashes, especially higher-speed crashes, where the air bag would provide protection. We urge you to carefully weigh the trade-offs in making your decision. If you decide that the risk to you from the air bag offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of the air bag, and you wish to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against any person listed in section 30122 who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag. I also note that the air bag should only be disconnected from a position where you would be seated. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle who can use his or her safety belt does so. I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you were to sell your vehicle later, we urge that the air bag be reactivated for the subsequent driver. I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref:208 d:12/ll/95
|
1970 |
ID: 11540.JEGOpen Mr. Robert J. Bishop Dear Mr. Bishop: This responds to your letter asking about Standard No. 208's requirements for pressure vessels that are continuously pressurized. Section S9.1 of the standard incorporates certain provisions of the Hazardous Materials Regulations issued by DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA). You noted that you have recently received an exemption from RSPA concerning one of those provisions, 49 CFR 178.65- 11(a). Under RSPA's regulation, you must conduct a pressure test on each cylinder before it is shipped, including holding a specified pressure for 30 seconds. Under the exemption, the hold time for testing each cylinder may be limited to "that which is adequate to show compliance." You asked whether compliance with the provisions of the exemption "satisfies the intent of paragraph S9.1, FMVSS 208." The answer to your question is that an exemption from RSPA does not change your responsibility under Standard No. 208. However, as discussed below, Standard No. 208 does not incorporate all of the provisions of 49 CFR 178.65-11(a). In particular, Standard No. 208 does not require you to test each cylinder but instead requires you to assure that each cylinder, if tested in accordance with 49 CFR 178.65-11(a), including the 30 second hold time, would meet the specified performance requirements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. Section 9.1 of Standard No. 208 states: A pressure vessel that is continuously pressurized . . . shall not leak or evidence visible distortion when tested in accordance with ' 178.65-11(a) of this title and shall not fail in any of the ways enumerated in ' 178.65-11(b) of this title when hydrostatically tested to destruction. You noted in your letter that 49 CFR 178.65-11(a) specifies, among other things, that "each cylinder must be tested at an internal pressure of at least the test pressure and must be held at that pressure for at least 30 seconds." Under RSPA's regulation, you must conduct the pressure test on each cylinder before it is shipped, including holding a specified pressure for 30 seconds. However, paragraph 7b(1) of the exemption RSPA granted you (DOT-E 11494) provides that "the hold time at test pressure . . . may be limited to that which is adequate to ensure compliance." Your letter raises two issues. The first is whether NHTSA requires each cylinder to be tested. The second is whether a 30 second hold time is required to satisfy Standard 208. Testing. Unlike RSPA=s requirements, NHTSA does not require each cylinder to be tested. The RSPA requirement to test each cylinder before it is shipped is a quality control provision. When NHTSA added the requirements for pressure vessels to Standard No. 208 (see May 6, 1972 final rule (37 FR 9222), copy enclosed), the agency adopted some, but not all of RSPA's Specification 39 (49 CFR 178.65). Notably, the "quality control" requirements of RSPA were not adopted. NHTSA stated: A continuously pressurized vessel is required to conform to the requirements of Specification 39 concerning type, size, service pressure, and test pressure of vessels (paragraph 2 of the specification); seams (6(b)); wall thickness (7); openings and attachments (9 (a) and (b)); safety devices (10); pressure tests (11); and flattening tests (12). The reference to the latter two paragraphs are drafted to make it clear that the quality control aspects of those paragraphs are not included in the standard. The remaining portions of Specification 39 . . . are not incorporated. [Emphasis added.] Thus, while Standard No. 208 incorporated the pressure test performance requirements of that paragraph, it did not adopt the quality control provisions. There is no requirement in the standard that each cylinder must be pressure tested. However, as explained more below, you are responsible for assuring the compliance of each cylinder with the specified performance requirements. 30-Second Hold Time. Although the RSPA exemption permits you to test your cylinders for less than 30 seconds, an exemption from RSPA does not change your responsibility under Standard No. 208. Under Standard No. 208, you are responsible for assuring that each cylinder, if tested in accordance with 49 CFR 178.65-11(a), including the 30 second specification, would not leak or evidence visible distortion. However, nothing in Standard No. 208 requires you to test each cylinder or to test for a 30 second minimum. You may be able to provide such assurance by a variety of means, included, but not limited to, engineering analyses, computer simulations, testing each cylinder, sample testing, or a combination of these activities. While your exemption from RSPA does not change your responsibility under Standard No. 208, you may be able to use the testing you conduct to meet RSPA responsibilities to also meet your Standard No. 208 responsibility. That is, you may be able to base your certification of compliance with Standard No. 208 on the data you already have. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:208 d:5/9/96 |
1996 |
ID: 1984-4.4OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/13/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Sylvia A. Knouse -- Title Clerk, Truck World, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. According to your letter, you are in the business of remanufacturing trailers, stripping the original trailer down to the original frame and redoing the rest of the trailer, leaving the original braking system intact. You stated that a customer purchased two of these reconstructed trailers and then refused to pay for them unless you put maxi-brakes on them. According to your letter, the customer has argued that maxi-brakes are required by Standard No. 121, while you understand that the trailers meet Standard No. 121. In telephone conversations with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personnel, a member of your company's staff indicated that the term "maxi-brakes" was meant to refer to a spring brake, i.e., a mechanically applied parking brake. As discussed below, remanufactured trailers must meet all applicable current safety standards, unless they fall within an exception set forth at 49 CFR 571.7(f). Standard No. 121 is applicable to the vast majority of air-braked trailers and requires such trailers to have a parking brake. By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and in telephone conversations with NHTSA personnel. 49 CFR 571.7(f) reads as follows: (f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer -- (1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and (2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle, Thus, each trailer that you have remanufactured is considered new unless each of the following statements is true with respect to the trailer: (1) the trailer running gear assembly was taken from an existing trailer, (2) the identity of that trailer is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number, and (3) you are selling or leasing the trailer to the same person who owned or leased it prior to remanufacture. Assuming that the trailers are considered newly manufactured, they must meet all current safety standards. Section S3 of Standard No. 121 provides that the standard is applicable to trailers equipped with air brake systems, with several very limited exceptions. (You can check that section to see if your trailers come within any of the exceptions. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your convenience.) Assuming that the standard is applicable, section S5.6 requires new air-braked trailers to have a parking brake. The requirement that air-braked trailers have a parking brake has been in effect since January 1, 1975. Manufacturers have met the requirement virtually exclusively by means of spring brakes. If your trailers are considered new under our regulations, they must have a parking brake regardless of whether they had a parking brake when they were originally manufactured. If the trailers are not considered newly manufactured under 49 CFR 571.7(f), they would not be required to meet current safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does require that businesses such as yours not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with any safety standard. ENC. TRUCK WORLD, INC. OCC-1061 August 15, 1984 Fred Berndt Office of Chief Council USDOT (NHTSA) NOA 30 Dear Mr. Berndt: We are requesting the legal opinion of your office concerning a current problem that has occured in the operation of our business. We sell new Marmon tractors, used tractors, and used trailers. In the course of this business we have remanufactured trailers, stripping the original trailer down to the original frame and redoing the rest of the trailer, leaving the original braking system in tact. These FRP's, as we call them, are then inspected by one of our licensed inspection mechanics and registered with the state of Pennsylvania as reconstructed trailers. Our problem arises in the fact that a customer purchased two of these FRP trailers and will not pay for them unless we put maxi-brakes on them. He states that under the 121 braking system maxi-brakes are required by Federal law. We have constructed the FRP's with the understanding that they meet FMVSS121. I have called and discussed this situation with Pat Quigley with the Federal Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety in Harrisburg, Pa., John Shaw with the same bureau in Washington, D.C., and Mr. James Clements with the National Highway Traffic System. These gentlemen are of the opinion that I need the assistance of your bureau to resolve this problem.
Any help that you can render in this situation will be greatly appreciated. Time is of the essence, and I would need a reply as soon as possible. Thank you. Sylvia A. Knouse Title Clerk |
|
ID: 15208.ogOpenMr. Brent Gruenig Dear Mr. Gruenig: This is in response to your letter regarding a seating system which Crow River Industries is developing for the purpose of adapting vehicles for use by less-abled individuals. As described in your letter, the seat rotates on a pivot, allowing the seat to face out of the car, and two sets of slide tracks. One set of slide tracks is used for adjustment in the vehicle. The second set of slide tracks is used for exiting the vehicle after rotation. You are concerned about the legal implications of this design. In particular, you state that you understand that Crow River Industries cannot "make the vehicle inoperable or 'out of specification' with the replacement of the OEM seat with our seat." You wish to know what exactly is "out of specification." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to your seat design. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars. The second is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Because Federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the seat occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios. Installation as Original Equipment Standards No. 207, No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the adaptive seat installed in the vehicle. Installation Prior to First Sale If an adaptive seat were added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Installation After First Sale After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section provides that:
In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation. In situations involving a potential violation of 30122, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have, where appropriate, been willing to consider certain unavoidable violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need. However, it is often possible to make modifications in a way that does not degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. If a company believes that certain modifications must be made to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, and that the modifications cannot be made without violating the "make inoperative" provision discussed above, it may write to us and request a letter stating that we will not enforce that provision. The letter should identify the specific facts at issue and why it is not possible to avoid violating that provision. It should also demonstrate that the proposed modifications minimize the safety consequences of the noncompliances. For your information, NHTSA is considering proposing a regulation establishing conditions under which a vehicle may be modified to accommodate a person's disability so that the modifier will not be subjected to the make inoperative requirements of 30122. Enclosed is a copy of page 22101 of the agency's April 25, 1997 regulatory agenda where this possible rulemaking is described (entry number 2266). I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at(202) 366-5253. Sincerely, John Womack Enclosure ref:208 |
1997 |
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.