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: nht80-3.10OpenDATE: 06/25/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 22, 1980, asking two questions about Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. your first question concerns whether a display incorporated in the tachometer instrument face that shows which gear position has been selected by the automatic transmission control lever is an "informational readout display." You explained that the display "consists of 5 stacked transparent screens on which are printed 'D', '2', 'N', 'P', 'R' to identify the transmission control lever positions. Each screen is illuminated by an incandescent bulb which is energized selectively through contacts at the control lever." The display which you have described is not an informational readout display. Section 4 of the standard defines "informational readout display" as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." As explained in the June 26, 1978, preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 101-80, the agency did not want to inhibit the development of electronic "readout" panels which present the driver with specific information concerning vehicle and environmental conditions affecting safety. The preamble further described these devices as displays "capable of exhibiting information and warning with word messages and not with symbols." The device you have described uses symbols instead of words and conventional incandescent bulb technology instead of electronic technology and thus is not an informational readout display. The display you have described is a guage. Section 4 of the standard defines "guage" as "a display that is listed in S5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale." Section 5.1 and Table 2 do not identify the automatic gear position as a telltale. Likewise, an automatic gear position display does not meet the definition of "telltale." Section 4 of the standard defines "telltale" as "a display that indicates, by means of a light-emitting signal, the actuation of a device, a correct or defective functioning or condition, or failure to function." In this case, the display does not indicate the activation of a device since a transmission is always activated. Likewise, the display does not indicate that the transmission is functioning correctly or improperly or has failed to function, Section 5.3.3 provides that the light intensity of each gauge shall be continuously variable. The display you have described does not comply with section 5.3.3, since it only has two light intensities. Your second question concerns "a display adjacent to the shift control lever which shows the transmission shift level sequence. The identifying characters 'P', 'R', 'N', '2', 'D', are shown on a transparent screen, the position selected is indicated by a colored panel which moves with the shift control level." You explained that the "colored panel only is illuminated when the headlights are switched on showing which position is selected, the other positions on the display are not illuminated." [Emphasis in the original] You asked whether the display is exempt from the illumination requirements of the standard because it is "a hand-operated control mounted upon a . . . floor console" or because it is a "telltale." Section 5.1 and Table 2 of the standard classify an automatic gear position indicator as a display. Thus, an automatic gear position indicator cannot be a "hand-operated vehicle control." Further, the display that you have described is not a "telltale." As explained above, an automatic gear position display is a gauge. According to your description, the display "Only is illuminated when the headlights are switched on." Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires the light intensity for gauges to be continuously variable. Since the illumination for the display you have described apparently is not variable, it would not comply with the standard. If you have any further questions, please let me know. SINCERELY, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. April 22, 1980 Chief Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Dear Sir: This is to request your official interpretation regarding the applicability of certain provisions of FMVSS 101-80 to items of equipment which are intended to be used in 1981 model year Honda automobiles equipped with automatic transmission. 1. Incorporated in the tachometer instrument face is a display to show which gear position has been selected by the automatic transmission control lever. This display consists of 5 stacked transparent screens on which are printed 'D' '2', 'N', 'P', 'R' to identify the transmission control lever positions. Each screen is illuminated by an incandescent bulb which is energized selectively through contacts at the control lever. There are two light intensities for these bulbs; high enough for daylight visibility and reduced when the headlights are switched on. The display is activated whenever the ignition switch is in the "on" position. The display is identified only in the owners manual, not adjacent to the display. We classify this as an "informational readout display" using an" "other electro illuminating device" and, as such, complying with the requirements of FMVSS 101-80. 2. There is a display adjacent to the shift control lever which shows the transmission shift lever sequence. The identifying characters 'P', 'R', 'N', '2', 'D' are shown on a transparent screen, the position selected is indicated by a colored panel which moves with the shift control lever. The colored panel only is illuminated when the headlights are switched on showing which position is selected, the other positions on the display are not illuminated. We believe that, either this display is exempted from the requirements of FMVSS 101-80 under section S5.3.1 as a "hand-operated control mounted upon a . . . . floor console", or that the display and colored panel constitute a "telltale". As such, they comply with the requirement of S5.3.3 in that the light intensity of the telltale is not variable and the telltale and display are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. We would appreciate your earliest attention and response in this matter. Please call me at (213) 327-8280 if you have any questions. Brian Gill Manager Certification Department |
|
ID: nht94-3.97OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 12, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Doris Hull -- Owner, Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 5/16/94: Letter from Doris Hull to Robert Hellmuth (OCC - 10035) TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, addressed to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, whom you identified as Chief Counsel. For your future information, Mr. Hellmuth is Chief of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance of this agency. I am the Acting Chief Co unsel. Your letter referred to a May 13, 1994 telephone conversation that you and Mr. David McCormick had with Walter Myers of my staff concerning new and used tires on trailers. You asked for confirmation of your understanding of what was said during that con versation, as follows: (a) That as a trailer manufacturer you can sell to a dealer new trailers that are stacked one on top of the other, with new tires on the bottom trailer but no tires or wheels on the stacked trailers; (b) That you can sell used tires and rims but not installed on the new trailers; and (c) That you can separately sell used tires and rims to the purchaser of a trailer, then install them on the new trailer if the purchaser so requests. FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed) provides that vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements either of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Other Than Passenger Cars. Both those standards specify requirements for new tires. As an exception to those requirements, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120 provides that: [A] truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of the purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, . . . Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbo l (emphasis added). With that background in mind, your understanding (a) above is correct. You stated to Mr. Myers that it is common practice in the industry to stack completed trailers one on top of another for shipment, with the bottom trailer being equipped with new tir es. This office stated in a letter to Mr. Steve Thomas dated April 14, 1993 (copy enclosed), that new trailers may be sold without tires and wheels. Accordingly, it is permissible to ship trailers without tires and wheels, with new tires on the bottom trailer that is carrying the others. Your understanding (b) is also correct, but with a caveat. No provision of Federal law or regulation prohibits you from separately selling used tires and wheels that you own to anyone you want, including dealers. However, the practice you describe impl ies that the dealer will be installing the used tires you've provided on the new trailers, which would amount to a violation of Standard No. 120. The standard specifically provides that used or retreaded tires may be installed on new vehicles only at th e place of manufacture; the dealer is not permitted to install used tires on new trailers, whether or not owned and requested by the purchaser. Further, a manufacturer that includes used tires with new vehicles, even though not installed on the new vehi cle, could be considered to be contributing to a potential violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards by the dealer. With respect to understanding (c), S5.1.3, as noted above, requires that used or retreaded tires installed on a new vehicle be owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle. The standard, however, does not specify any length of time that the used or r etreaded tires must be owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser, nor does the standard specify the source(s) from which the purchaser must have acquired the used or retreaded tires. Therefore, there is no prohibition against the purchaser of a trailer p urchasing used or retreaded tires from a trailer manufacturer or from any other source, then requesting the manufacturer to install them on the new trailer. However, we have the following observations about the practice. The used/retreaded tire exception in S5.1.3 was included in the standard to accommodate bus and truck fleets who either purchase or lease tires on a mileage contract basis or who maintain t ire banks. A mileage contract purchaser or lessor is one who purchases or leases tires on a per-mile basis. A tire bank is composed of serviceable tires that have been removed from vehicles no longer in service. Mileage contract purchases and tire banks are standard practices in the transportation industry and the agency assumed that those purchasers would select on ly safe, serviceable tires from their inventories for installation on their new vehicles. The agency also assumed that those purchasers would have owned and used those tires for some length of time prior to their being selected for installation on new v ehicles. Thus, the practice of a new vehicle purchaser purchasing used tires from a trailer manufacturer and then asking the manufacturer to install them on the new vehicle was not envisioned by this agency when issuing Standard No. 120. None of the above would relieve trailer manufacturers from their responsibility to attach the required labels with the recommended tire and rim sizes and inflation pressures in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Enclosure |
|
ID: onlinetireregistrationOpen
Ms. Ann Wilson Dear Ms. Wilson: This responds to your request for an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSA) tire information regulation, 49 CFR 574.7. You asked whether the regulation permits tire manufacturers to offer electronic registration in addition to the required mail-in form. You state that no more than 10% of tire registration cards are currently returned to manufacturers and that the information provided on these cards is often inaccurate, incomplete, or illegible. RMA believes that offering registration via the Internet, by telephone, or by other electronic means would improve the registration return rate and aid manufacturers in fulfilling notification requirements. As explained below, we interpret the regulation to permit electronic registration as a supplement to the required mail-in form for independent distributors and dealers. By way of background, Part 574 establishes a registration program for new tires. NHTSA implemented this program to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer campaigns to recall tires that contain a safety-related defect or fail to conform with applicable safety standards. By identifying new tire purchasers, the program increases the manufacturers ability to inform owners of tires about defects or noncompliances in those tires.
Section 574.7 prescribes the content and format of the registration forms provided by tire manufacturers to all distributors and dealers. Paragraph (a)(2) of this section states that the registration form provided to independent distributors and dealers must conform to the examples provided in that section. Paragraph (a)(4) of this section provides that the registration form must contain space for recording the following information: 1) name and address of the tire purchaser, 2) tire identification number, and 3) name and address of the tire seller or other means by which the tire manufacturer can identify the tire seller. Under section 574.7, no other information than that prescribed in the section is permitted to appear on the form. RMA asks that we interpret the regulation to permit manufacturers to provide independent dealers and distributors with a supplemental form, in addition to the form required under section 574.7(a)(2), that notifies consumers that they may also register their tires by electronic means; e.g., by directing the consumer to a website or a toll-free telephone registration line. RMA cites to two recent interpretation letters issued by our office with respect to the electronic registration of child restraint systems under FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (letter to John K. Stipancich, January 3, 2003; letter to Mark A. Rosenbaum, Esq., April 12, 2001). These letters conclude that child restraint manufacturers "may include a supplemental form that encourages electronic registration" if the following two conditions are met: Subsequent to RMAs interpretation request, Computerized Information Management Services, Inc. ("CIMS"), a tire registration agent for tire manufacturers and/or brand name owners, submitted a letter dated April 23, 2003, urging that "web-based tire registration is a bad idea" and that the interpretation that RMA is requesting should be denied. More specifically, CIMS argues that a web-based system would create significant confusion for the tire dealer and the consumer, would place an additional paperwork burden on the tire dealer, and would place an additional burden on the consumer to correctly enter all of the required tire registration information. After considering the issues raised by your letter and also by CIMS, we agree that the rationales of the aforementioned FMVSS No. 213 interpretation letters are also applicable to interpreting Part 574. We therefore interpret Part 574 to permit electronic registration as a supplement to the required mail-in form, subject to the two considerations noted above for FMVSS No. 213. We do not agree with CIMS that supplemental electronic registration would create confusion, given these considerations. Moreover, since electronic registration would be supplemental and voluntary, it would not result in additional burdens. This interpretation does not relieve non-independent distributors and dealers from the requirements of section 574.8(b) that they themselves record the purchaser's name and address, the tire identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold, and a suitable identification of themselves as the selling dealer on a tire registration form and return the completed forms to the tire manufacturers or their designees. While we would interpret Part 574 to permit non-independent distributors and dealers to accomplish these tasks by electronic means, they may not transfer this responsibility to consumers. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman cc: CIMS |
2003 |
ID: 07-005877 sheathOpenMs. Lori J. Fuller Ms. Sara L. Dill 608 N. Main St. Washington, IL 61571 Dear Ms. Fuller and Ms. Dill: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for a device you call the seatbelt buckle safety sheath, an aftermarket product you have developed that would prevent children in booster seats from unbuckling a seat belt. Based upon the information you provided this agency and as is explained more fully below, we have determined that no Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifically applies to your product. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you would have certain responsibilities under our laws. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301; the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information set forth in your letter. You explain that your device is designed to be used with existing seat belt assembly systems in motor vehicles. According to your letter, the sheath is a tubular rectangle made from resilient material, designed to slip over the the female portion of the seatbelt buckle. You state that the area of the sheath that is over the release button provides a stiffened resilience to the normal operation of the release button, so that a greater force than normal, not capable of being applied by a young child, is required to unfasten the seatbelt. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that applies to your product. FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. Your product does not meet the definition of a seat belt assembly, so the standard would not apply. Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, you should be aware of 30122 of the Safety Act, Making safety devices and elements inoperative. That section prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a motor vehicle or on an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a vehicle seat belt assembly, in compliance with the FMVSSs. There are several seat belt elements of design that could be affected by your product. Subparagraph (d) Buckle release of S4.3 Requirements for hardware, of FMVSS No. 209 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a seat belt to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Subparagraph (d) also requires the buckle to release when a specified maximum force is applied. By design, your product would cover the button and not allow the buckle to release under the amount of force required by the standard. Subparagraph (e) of FMVSS No. 209 specifies that a belt assembly must be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant to permit his easy and rapid removal from the assembly, and that the buckle release mechanism must be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release. If your device would interfere with the vehicles compliance with these requirements, under 30122 the commercial establishments listed in that section could not install your device on customers seat belt assemblies. Section 30122 does not apply to individual owners installing aftermarket equipment on their own vehicles. However, it is our policy to encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with or otherwise degrade the safety of safety systems. We recommend that you evaluate carefully whether your product would in any way degrade the performance of vehicle seat belts. For example, you should ensure that your product would not interfere with seat belt retraction or release in an emergency, that any sharp edges used with your product would not cause deterioration of the belt webbing, and that the device does not result in excessive loading of the abdomen of a child. The device should not degrade the flammability-resistance of the seat belts. In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for ensuring that your product is free of safety-related defects (see 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment except in the context of a defect proceeding. Please note also that the States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, and may have restrictions on the use of devices that restrict the release of seat belt buckles. We suggest that you check with your attorney or insurance company about State law considerations, including your responsibilities under State tort law. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at 202-366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel
ref:208 d.11/21/07 |
2007 |
ID: 1985-03.14OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/10/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Mr. Lee Comeau, Associate TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Lee Comeau, Associate Bureau of Educational Management Services New York State Education Department Cultural Education Center Room 3059 Albany, New York 12230
Dear Mr. Comeau:
This responds to your April 12, 1985 letter concerning the January 1985 school bus safety study prepared for the Canadian government (Transport Canada). You were particularly interested in the results of the study relating to safety belts in school buses. The Transport Canada study found that "The use of a type I seat belt system in any current design of school bus may result in more severe head and neck injuries for a belted occupant than an unbelted one, in a severe frontal collision." You asked for our opinion as to the reliability of the findings, and whether they would be admissible in a court of law. You also asked whether a school district or bus manufacturer can be liable for negligence if a seat belt causes injury to a belted occupant.
I must explain that we are unable to issue an opinion regarding either the admissibility or effect of the Canadian study's findings in a court of law. This agency is responsible for establishing Federal motor vehicle safety standards and investigating alleged safety-related defects. We are not authorized to participate in or render advisory opinions on private litigation. The issues you raised would depend on the type of legal proceeding and the evidentiary rules of the particular court system, as well as other evidence that might be introduced in a lawsuit. questions concerning negligence and private liability would also have to be answered according to the law of the particular jurisdiction. Since these matters are usually governed by state law, I suggest that you consult with your attorney to discuss how New York law would apply. As to whether the Canadian study is reliable, this agency is in the process of reviewing the study's findings. Thus far, we have no reason to dispute its conclusions, given the nature of the test conducted. The results of the study appear to be in agreement with some laboratory tests conducted within the United States, including sled tests conducted by the agency in 1978. Although the Canadian test results appear to be accurate, we would like to emphasize that the study involved only a severe (48 km/h) frontal barrier crash test. Questions concerning how safety belts would provide benefits in other types of crashes, such as side impacts or rollovers, were not addressed. In addition, it must be noted that the study was based on a test, not on real-world statistics. We believe that these factors should be taken into consideration when evaluating the results of the Canadian study and its implications for safety belts on school buses.
As you may know, our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) do not require the installation of safety belts on new large school buses, but any school district that wishes to have such belts installed is free to do so. We do require safety belts on smaller school buses, because we believe belts are particularly effective in protecting occupants in such vehicles. For larger school buses (those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds), we require "compartmentalization" -- i.e., high seat backs with extra padding -- to provide occupant protection, and we believe the concept works well.
In that regard, I note the Canadian study found that the requirements for compartmentalization required by Canadian safety standard 222 (CMVSS No. 222) "functions as intended during frontal impacts and provides excellent protection for occupants." FMVSS No. 222, our safety standard mandating compartmentalization in school buses, has requirements similar to CMVSS 222. We believe that the Canadian study further supports the effectiveness of the compartmentalization concept required by FMVSS No. 222. I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel
April 12, 1985
Mr. Jeffrey Miller, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590
Dear Mr. Miller:
The Canadian government has recently released findings from crash tests that were conducted to test, among other things, the worthiness of seat belts on school buses. The results have been published and are enclosed for your review.
My purpose for writing is twofold:
1. Will you review the Canadian test crash data and determine if the findings are reliable and admissible in a court of law? 2. If the findings are reliable, can a school district, bus manufacturer or seat belt company be held liable for negligence in the event a belted occupant suffers injuries in a school bus accident which are directly related to the wearing of the seat belt? Since New York has some districts who currently use seat belts and others who are considering the possibility, your timely reply to the inquiry will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Lee Comeau, Associate Bureau of Educational Management Services Room 3059 Cultural Education Center Albany, Hew York 12230 (518) 474-4738
ss |
|
ID: nht92-9.58OpenDATE: January 7, 1992 FROM: Stephen C. Bartch -- Applications Engineer, Quigley Motor Company, Inc. TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/18/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen C. Bartch (A39; Part 567; Std. 301) TEXT: We propose to convert the Ford E-series vans to our 4X4 drive system; however, the tank in the 1992 vans interferes with our transfer case placement. After much consideration and examining other Ford tank arrangements on 4X4 vehicles, we came to the conclusion that to keep certification costs down and still show due-care in reference to FMVSS 301, we should either: A. find a tank manufacturer that can build a tank with identical attachments as the OEM tank, or B. modify the OEM tank to eliminate the interference. We found a tank supplier who can manufacture the tank to our specifications, so we can pursue both options. The question that some of our customers are asking is about the legality of our fuel tank retrofit in regards to FMVSS 301. Could you summarize in writing our responsibilities regarding FMVSS 301 and state that we are not required by law to do crash testing on our vehicles? Thank you for your cooperation and willingness to accommodate us. |
|
ID: nht95-2.41OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: April 19, 1995 FROM: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Science Corporation TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Request for clarification of interpretation of FMVSS 210 ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LANCE TUNICK (A43; STD. 208) TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles: This is to request a clarification of the letter of Mr. Philip Recht to Vehicle Science Corporation dated April 3, 1995 regarding FMVSS 210 location requirements, and more specifically S 4.3. This section states that "Anchorages that meet the frontal cr ash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 . . . are exempt from the location requirements of this section." Although Mr. Recht's April 3 letter discusses the meaning of this provision, kindly confirm for our records that seat belt anchorages in the following scenario are exempt from the location requirements of Standard No. 210: A vehicle with 2 front seating positions that is fitted with an air bag and manual three-point seat belt at each position, and such restraint system meets the frontal and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested unde r FMVSS 208. Your immediate attention to this request would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. |
|
ID: nht72-2.12OpenDATE: 08/30/72 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA TO: Albert Hammerstein TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Your Broadview, Illinois, Subsidiary recently forwarded to us a copy of your December 17, 1971, letter concerning aiming adjustment tests as specified in SAE Standard J580a. A search of our files does not reveal that your letter was previously received by this Office. Specifically, your concern is the interpretation of a requirement which is specified in SAE J580a as follows: "2. The mechanism, including the aiming adjustment, must be so designed as to prevent the unit from receding into the lamp body or housing when an inward pressure of 50 lb is exerted on the outer surface of the lens." Our interpretation of the above requirement is that no visible receding of the sealed beam unit is permitted when the inward pressure is applied on the outer lens surface. Testing for compliance to the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, which references SAE J580a, is conducted on the basis of this interpretation. In the upcoming Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on FMVSS No. 108 (Docket 69-19), we are considering the feasibility of specifying more objective type requirements on this aspect of aiming adjustment tests for headlamps. You will no doubt be interested in commenting on the proposed requirements after issuance of the NPRM. |
|
ID: 07-005005asOpenJames A. Haigh, Vice President Technical Specifications & Application Development Transpec Worldwide 7205 Sterling Ponds Court Sterling Hts., MI 48312 Dear Mr. Haigh: This responds to your letter regarding whether your product, the Transpec Merge Alert, is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, the Merge Alert is an LED (light emitting diode) device that mounts on the rear of a transit bus, and alternatively flashes in amber lights the word Merging, as well as a Yield sign or an arrow. As discussed below, we do not believe that such a device would be permitted under FMVSS No. 108 if installed as original equipment on a motor vehicle. Furthermore, we believe that it would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 if the Merge Alert were installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. 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. New motor vehicles are subject to the requirements in Standard No. 108 regarding flashing lamps. The question of which lamps are permitted to flash on a vehicle is addressed in paragraph S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108. The relevant provision states: The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are: (b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes; In general, flashing lamps are prohibited on vehicles under S5.5.10(d), unless they fall into one of the exceptions listed in S5.5.10(a)-(c). Because the Merge Alert does not fall into any of the lamp categories covered in sections (a)-(c),[1] it is subject to the general prohibition on flashing lamps of S5.5.10(d). Therefore, the Merge Alert could not be installed on transit buses as an item of original equipment or installed on a vehicle by its manufacturer or dealer prior to the initial sale of the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, as it would be a violation of Standard No. 108. Also, S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the addition of equipment on a vehicle if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. As we have explained to you in previous letters,[2] while there are limited exceptions, we interpret the standard as generally prohibiting electronic message boards because they have the potential of impairing the effectiveness of required lighting. The primary concern is that such devices can distract other drivers sharing the roadway from understanding and responding to the lighting devices required by Standard No. 108. For example, given that your product would be mounted on the rear of a transit bus, it could distract other drivers attention from the required turn signals. While we have recognized a limited exception for school buses, i.e., we defer to the States with respect to the narrow issue of prescribing or prohibiting electronic message boards (including flashing message boards) on school buses, we do not recognize such an exception for transit buses.[3] Also, non-standard signal lamps are generally prohibited by this provision due to the potential to cause confusion. If sold as aftermarket equipment, the Merge Alert would be treated differently. Paragraph S3, Application, of FMVSS No. 108, defines the type of equipment and vehicles that Standard No. 108 applies to. Part (c) of that paragraph applies to [l]amps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies. [emphasis added] Because the Merge Alert is an auxiliary lamp that does not replace a like item of motor vehicle equipment, Standard No. 108 is not applicable. Therefore, the requirements of Standard No. 108 would not prohibit the sale of the Merge Alert as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal restrictions would still exist with respect to the installation of the Merge Alert. Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, if an item of equipment is installed by a "manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business," that equipment as installed must not "make inoperative" any of the required safety equipment. As NHTSA has stated in previous interpretations, if an item of motor vehicle equipment impairs the effectiveness of lamps required by Standard No. 108, we consider that to have made the lighting system inoperative, and therefore the installation of that equipment would be a violation of 30122 if performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Therefore, it would be a violation of 30122 for any of these entities to install the Merge Alert on vehicles other than transit buses, even if it was purchased as aftermarket equipment. We note that 30122 applies only to manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses. Therefore, if an electronic message board, such as the Merge Alert, is installed by a vehicle owner, without assistance from a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the owner is not violating Federal law if (s)he installs it and uses it. Furthermore, States regulate auxiliary lighting equipment in various ways. We suggest that you contact State agencies to ascertain the legal status of the Merge Alert with regard to State regulation. 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.4/8/08 [1] See also our discussion below of flashing message boards on school buses. [2] These letters are available on NHTSAs website at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/. [3] We note that we do not interpret Standard No. 108 as prohibiting signs on the front of new transit buses showing the destination, although the standard does limit the color of the lamps for such signs. See our October 19, 2006 interpretation to New Flyer, also available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/. |
2008 |
ID: nht89-2.44OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/26/89 FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO: FREDERICK H. DAMBACH -- EXECULINE TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/10/89 FROM FREDERICK H. DAMBACH TO NHTSA TEXT: Dear Mr. Dambach: This is in response to your July 10, 1989 letter, and your July 12, 1989 telephone conversation with David Greenburg of my staff. Your letter requested an interpretation concerning transit bus (as distinguished from school bus) emergency exits. You ask ed whether emergency exits located on the roof of a transit bus could be considered side exits for purposes of complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. As is explained below, the answer is " no". Your concern has arisen because of difficulties you have encountered in obtaining approval from the New Jersey Department of Transportation to operate two used 1985 Van Hool buses. You indicated to Mr. Greenburg that the original importer had certified that the buses were in compliance with the applicable FMVSS. Nonetheless, NJDOT claims that the buses lack adequate side emergency exit space and are therefore not in compliance with Standard 217. Your letter indicated that if the roof mounted exists w ere counted as side exits, your buses would be in compliance with Standard 217. Manufacturers (including importers) of motor vehicles sold in the U.S. are required to certify that those vehicles comply with the applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA does not require states to adopt or enforce the FMVSS's; states are, however, free to do so. You have indicated that New Jersey has incorporated FMVSS 217 by reference as a matter of State law. Of course NHTSA may not interpret state law; the agency may only interpret federal requirements. The following discussion therefore represents only an int erpretation of Federal law, and specifically FMVSS 217. As is set out in S5.2 of Standard No. 217, transit buses must provide unobstructed emergency exit openings that total, in square inches, 67 times the number of seating positions on the bus. At least 40% of the total area required must be on the left sid e of the bus, and at least another 40% must be on the right side. To provide further assurance that there are multiple exits, no single exit may be credited with more than 336 square inches. A roof exit may not be counted toward the amount of unobstructed opening required to be on a side of the bus since such an exit is not located on the side. The term "side," as used in Standard 217, refers to that part of the bus which is approximately p erpendicular to the floor and the front and rear ends of the bus. It does not include the ends or the roof of the bus. The standard follows that definition in clearly drawing distinctions between the sides, the rear and the roof of a bus. See S5.2.1 a nd S5.3.3(a). Further, if a rear or roof exit could be considered as a side exit for purposes of Standard 217, it would be unnecessary for the standard to provide detailed requirements relating to rear and roof exits. I hope you have found this discussion informative. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, 3. IMPLICATIONS TO CANADIANS [PARAGRAPHS ILLEGIBLE] 3.1 MANUFACTURERD [PARAGRAPHS ILLEGIBLE] 3.2 EXPORTERS OF CANADIAN SPECIFICATION VEHICLES [PARAGRAPHS ILLEGIBLE] 3.3 TOURISTS AND COMMERCIAL TRUCKING [PARAGRAPHS ILLEGIBLE] |
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.