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: aiam4067OpenMr. Benjamin R. Jackson, Executive Director, Automobile Importers Compliance Association, 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20009; Mr. Benjamin R. Jackson Executive Director Automobile Importers Compliance Association 1607 New Hampshire Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20009; Dear Mr. Jackson: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of 49 CF Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. Specifically, you noted that section 541.5(d)(2)(iii) requires the original equipment parts on vehicles subject to the theft prevention standard to have the required markings entirely within the target area specified for the part by the original manufacturer of the vehicle. You stated that it was possible that target areas specified by the original manufacturer might be suitable for marking by means of labels, but not suitable for marking by means of inscription. If this situation were to occur, you asked if Part 541 could be interpreted to permit manufacturers that must mark by means of inscription to place those markings outside the target area designated by the original manufacturer. Part 541 cannot be so interpreted.; In the case of inscribed markings, S541.5(d)(2)(iii) specifies that th required markings shall be 'placed entirely within the target area specified by the original manufacturer for that part.' This requirement applies to *all* markings inscribed for the purposes of Part 541, whether done by an original manufacturer or a direct importer.; The policy bases underlying this requirement were explained at lengt in the preamble to the final rule establishing Part 541. *See* 50 FR 43166, at 43172, October 24, 1985. First, it is important that all parts be marked in the same target area so that investigators will know exactly where to look on a part for the required marking. The investigator would be alerted to possible suspicious activity if the marking were outside the target area. Second, the different target areas for original equipment and replacement parts marking are intended to ensure that there will be an adequate separation between the areas where the different types of parts will be marked. This will ensure that a thief cannot obliterate an original equipment part marking and affix a counterfeit replacement part marking directly over the area where the original equipment part marking was located.; Both of these purposes would be undercut if original manufacturers an direct importers were allowed to designate different target areas for marking vehicles in the same line. Accordingly, Part 541 explicitly requires only one target area for the required marking on each part of a covered line.; We do not believe that your concern about inscribing markings on curve surfaces is well- founded. The agency knows of a number of means of inscribing numbers on curved surfaces that would permit direct importers to mark those surfaces within the $15 cost limit set forth in section 604(a)(2) of the Cost Savings Act.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4572OpenThe Honorable Howard Wolpe U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable Howard Wolpe U.S. House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; "Dear Mr. Wolpe: Thank you for your letter to former Secretary Burnle on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr of Lansing, Michigan. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. Mr. Furr is concerned about the potential safety problems that may result if school bus seats are being overloaded. In particular, Mr. Furr asks whether NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guideline (HSPG) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR /1204.4), is consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222), with regard to seating specifications. Mr. Furr is particularly interested in how manufacturers are calculating the number of seating positions on a bench seat. I am pleased to address your constituent's concerns. Before I begin, I want to note that we have answered a number of similar inquiries from Mr. Furr in past years. We have two sets of 'regulations' for school buses. The first, issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Compliance with these standards is mandatory for new vehicle manufacturers, and is enforced by this agency with civil penalties. FMVSS No. 222, with which your constituent is concerned, is one such safety standard. The second set of 'regulations,' or guidelines, for school buses was issued under the Highway Safety Act. Guidelines issued under this Act are not mandatory for the states, rather, they are recommended practices. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, to which Mr. Furr frequently refers in his letter, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and pertains to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Both FMVSS No. 222 and Guideline No. 17 contain specifications for school bus seating. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 states: 'The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.' The guideline for seating accommodations in HSPG 17 states: Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufacturers to provide seating accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Mr. Furr appears to see a conflict between the formula used in calculating the forces to be applied to the seats of large school buses under FMVSS No. 222, on the one hand, and the use by States and manufacturers of 13-inch seating positions for rating the capacity of a 39-inch seat, on the other hand. I believe that Mr. Furr's belief in the existence of a conflict rests on a misunderstanding. We view Standard No. 222 and HSPG 17 as complementary, not inconsistent. HSPG 17 reflects NHTSA's belief that all school bus passengers should be seated in the interest of safety. To that end, the guideline provides that there should be a seating position for each passenger and that the position should be at least large enough to accommodate a 5th percentile adult female. The hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female is 12.8 inches. The figure '15' in FMVSS No. 222's compliance formula is not a minimum requirement for the width of a seating position. It is the number which is used to establish the number of designated seating positions and ensures that the forces applied to the seat during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash. It is also the number which ensures that the width of the smallest seat is approximately equal to the hip width of the 5th percentile female. That is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female. Use of the figure '15' in the FMVSS No. 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (for a 38-inch wide seat.) That is only slightly smaller than the 12.8 inch hip width of the 5th percentile female. For a 39-inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger than the hip width of a 5th percentile female. It should be remembered, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the FMVSS No. 222 formula is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all size occupants. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of widely varying ages and sizes, reasonable accommodations may vary between those values. The decision on how many passengers may be comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved. NHTSA does not have the authority under either the Highway Safety Act or Vehicle Safety Act to regulate how States use school buses. Therefore, NHTSA could not preclude a State from carrying more passengers on a bench seat than there are designated seating positions. However, this agency agrees with Mr. Furr that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalization. We believe that Mr. Furr's concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by his working with the local school board and state officials. Mr. Furr is also concerned about a reference in our occupant crash protection standard (No. 208) to a 95th-percentile adult male occupant size. He asks why FMVSS No. 222 uses a 15-inch seat dimension, when FMVSS No. 208 references the 95th-percentile adult male occupant size in specifying occupant sizes which safety belts must adjust to fit. Both FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 222 are directed at providing occupant crash protection. Both of these standards set forth comprehensive requirements that are directed at protecting occupants likely to be inside a vehicle in a crash. With regard to school buses, the agency determined that the crash protection requirements should be developed taking into account the full size range of passengers typically riding on school buses. If we designed the force and deflection (energy-absorbing) characteristics of the seats for the 95th percentile males, the seats may be too stiff for a small child. Finally, Mr. Furr asks whether, when voluntarily installing safety belts on large school buses, States are violating Federal law by using S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 in determining how many positions (and belts) there are on a bench seat. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 222 requires safety belts only for the passenger positions of small (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) school buses. Under S5 of the standard, belts on a small school bus bench seat are installed at 'W' seating positions, as determined under S4.1. If a State wishes to order belts on its new large school bus and to use the same method for determining the number of belts to be installed, the State may do so. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed"; |
|
ID: aiam4075OpenMr. R. O. Sornson, Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis, Chrysler Corporation, P.O. Box 1919, Detroit, MI 48288; Mr. R. O. Sornson Director Regulatory Research and Analysis Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit MI 48288; Dear Mr. Sornson: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking this agenc to 'delay' its final selection of the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and Dodge Lancer car lines as 'high theft lines' for the purposes of 49 CFR Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. Section 603(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3)) requires that all selections of lines initially introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541 (April 24, 1986) as high theft lines must be made final within one year after enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act. Neither that statutory requirement nor the implementing regulations adopted by this agency contain any provision that would allow this agency to 'delay' its final selection. Accordingly, your request is denied.; In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3) and 49 CFR Part 542, th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) informed Chrysler of its final selection of the LeBaron and Lancer lines as high theft lines by letter dated October 25, 1985. That letter was a final agency action on this question, again in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3). There is no provision in the law allowing us to 'delay' final selections, so there is no basis for entertaining your request.; You stated in your letter that the best test of whether a car lin should be treated as a high theft line is its actual theft rate. We agree with that statement. However, it does not address the issue of how to treat car lines, such as your LeBaron GTS and Lancer, for which sufficient theft data are not available.; This agency has been told repeatedly by law enforcement groups that th theft rate for a car in its initial year of introduction is almost always lower than its theft rate in subsequent model years. This is because the vehicle population is relatively small, and experiences a lesser exposure to accidents and other damage than do lines which have been available for more than one model year. Accordingly, lines are less desirable targets for chop shops in their first year of introduction than they become in subsequent model years. Because of this phenomenon, NHTSA did not believe it appropriate to make selections of high theft lines based solely or primarily on preliminary theft data.; Under section 603(a)(3) of the Cost Savings Act, the agency wa required to select not later than October 25, 1985, (one year after the date of the enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act) the high theft lines from among all lines introduced between January 1, 1983, and the effective date of the theft prevention standard. To meet this statutory deadline, NHTSA published a proposal to establish a new Part 542, *Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard*, at 50 FR 25603, June 20, 1985. Section 542.1 set forth six proposed criteria to be used in selecting likely high theft lines from lines such as the LeBaron GTS and the Lancer, which were introduced after January 1, 1983, and before the effective date of the theft prevention standard. These criteria were:; >>>1. Retail price of the vehicle line. 2. Vehicle image or marketing strategy. 3. Vehicle lines with which the new line is intended to compete, an the theft rates of such lines.; 4. Vehicle line(s), if any, which the new line is intended to replace and the theft rate(s) of such line(s).; 5. Presence or absence of any new theft prevention devices or systems. 6. Preliminary theft rate for the line, if it can be determined on th basis of currently available data.<<<; Chrysler's comments on the proposal stated, 'We generally concur wit the proposed procedures. In our opinion the information which the NHTSA is requesting from manufacturers in order to establish anticipated theft rates for their various car lines appears reasonable.' General Motors commented that the agency should adopt some weighting of these criteria, so that the process of selecting a line as a high theft line would be more objectively defined. General Motors specifically commented, 'Probably the only criterion which could be used with any degree of certainty in selecting vehicles ... is theft data.' In the final rule establishing Part 542, NHTSA responded to this comment as follows:; >>>As noted in the NPRM, these judgments of likely high theft lines ar partially subjective judgments. NHTSA concurs with GM's statement that neither price nor vehicle image alone can be strictly correlated to vehicle theft rates. However, NHTSA believes that the six criteria set forth in Appendix C considered together do form an objective basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. 50 FR 34831, at 34834, August 28, 1985.<<<; NHTSA continues to believe that the six criteria form an objectiv basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. When these criteria were applied to the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines, we concluded that criterion 1 did not point to the cars being either high or low theft, criteria 2 and 3 indicated the lines would be high theft, criteria 4 and 5 were not applicable, and criterion 6 indicated the cars would be low theft. On balance, then, the criteria indicated the lines will be high theft lines.; Accordingly, even if there were some authority to allow us to delay th October 25 final selections, we would still conclude that the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines are likely high theft lines.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1627OpenMr. Edgar E. Lungren, Jr., General Attorney, Trailmobile, 200 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60604; Mr. Edgar E. Lungren Jr. General Attorney Trailmobile 200 South Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60604; Dear Mr. Lungren: This responds to Trailmobile's September 27, 1974 request for determination that the combination of a new trailer main body structure (underframe, floors, side walls, and nose structure) with the rear doors, lighting components, running gear, and landing gear of a used trailer, would not constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You request this determination because motor vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1975, must comply with Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*.; Re-use of components from an existing vehicle in the construction o another vehicle may or may not result in the manufacture of a new vehicle. The NHTSA has established that the addition of new components (such as a truck body) to the chassis of a used vehicle does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. Conversely, the addition of used components to a new chassis which has never been certified in a vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to the safety standards in effect for that vehicle class on the date of manufacture. This criterion has been relied on in the area of chassis-cab multistage manufacture.; Since Trailmobile plans to utilize a new underframe as well as a ne upper structure in the construction of these trailers, we consider that the operation you describe constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle for purposes of application of the safety standards, and Standard No. 121 applies to those trailers manufactured by this process on or after January 1, 1975. To conclude otherwise would mean that re- use of running gear assemblies and rear doors could indefinitely exempt a vehicle from upgraded and newly-issued safety standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2908OpenMr. Dick Palmer, Palmer Machine Works, Old Round House Road, Amory, Mississippi, 38821; Mr. Dick Palmer Palmer Machine Works Old Round House Road Amory Mississippi 38821; Dear Mr. Palmer: This is in response to your letter of November 10, 1978, concernin Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 115, *Vehicle identification number*, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.; Unfortunately, we do not have a simplified version of the standar which applies only to trailers. We have also modified the standard somewhat since the August 1978 version you referred to in your letter. I have attached a copy of the modification as well as a proposed further modification. I realize this is a complex standard, and, therefore, offer the following comments:; 1. Since you produce less than 500 vehicles per year, characters 1, 2 3, 11, 12 and 13 of the VIN will represent your manufacturer identifier. The date by which your manufacturer identifier must be submitted to the NHTSA has been changed to September 1, 1979. It is our understanding that the Society of Automotive Engineers will be willing to help you determine your manufacturer identifier. You should contact: Mr. Leo Ziegler, Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096, (412) 776-4841.; 2. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th characters of the VIN represen descriptive information about your vehicles. In the case of trailers, the type of trailer, series, body type, length and axle configuration must be represented. Since your model number can be associated with all these characteristics, you may want to incorporate it into the vehicle descriptor section.; 3. The 9th character of the VIN represents the model year of th vehicle, and should be determined from Table II which appears in the standard.; 4. The 10th character of the VIN represents the plant of manufacture Since your firm has only one plant, you may choose any character you desire except one specifically precluded by the standard.; 5. Since your firm manufacturers less than 500 vehicles each year, th last three characters of the VIN represent the number that is sequentially assigned to a vehicle in your production process.; 6. The check digit which immediately precedes the third character o the VIN is determined by the mathematical operation described in section S5 of the standard. Since most characters in your VIN will be standardized, the check digit should be fairly easy to determine.; Please contact me if you have any further questions. Any trad associations to which you belong should also be helpful in establishing your VIN procedures.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0935OpenMr. J. Patrick Roney, Hatch Imports, Inc., P. O. Box 413, Van Nuys, CA 91408; Mr. J. Patrick Roney Hatch Imports Inc. P. O. Box 413 Van Nuys CA 91408; Dear Mr. Roney: This is in reply to your letter of December 5, 1972, concernin approvals required by the Federal Government regarding the sale of safety glazing materials.; No approval by the Federal Government is required. Certification o conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 and Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; If you are not aware of State approvals, you may want to contact Mr Armand Cardarelli, of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Suite 500, 1828 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; |
|
ID: aiam4425OpenMr. John S. Crockenberg 156 Holland Road Ormond Beach, FL 32074; Mr. John S. Crockenberg 156 Holland Road Ormond Beach FL 32074; "Dear Mr. Crockenberg: This is in response to your letter of Februar 26, 1988, concerning antiglare plexiglass shields. I regret the delay in our response. You asked whether Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, or any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to your product, a 4' x 6' x 1/8' parallelogram with rounded corners made of transparent bronze plexiglass with an attached 1/2' diameter suction cup. You noted that this device, which adheres to the interior of automobile windows, deflects obstructive sunglare where conventional sun visors cannot be placed. You also asked what other agency's regulations you should be aware of before you begin to manufacture and market this device, if none of our standards apply. You are correct in assuming that Standard No. 103 and Standard No. 111 do not apply to your product. The only Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is relevant to your product is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. S2 states that one purpose of this standard is to 'ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility.' S1 and S3 note that Standard No. 205 applies to glazing materials in both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I am enclosing an agency 'fact sheet,' which concerns the tinting of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I also am enclosing two previous NHTSA interpretation letters, which concern products similar to your antiglare shield. These letters to Susan House on December 20, 1985 and to Jeffrey Richard on April 16, 1985 explain the effect of Standard No. 205 on a manufacturer of such a product. In response to your second question, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This identifies other agencies whose regulations might be applicable to a new manufacturer's products. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0466OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Chairman, Defect Report Committee, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Chairman Defect Report Committee Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of September 13, 1971, concerning th Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You request a ruling concerning S573.7, which requires manufacturers to submit a copy 'of all notices, bulletins, and other communications, other than those required to be submitted under S573.4(c)(8), sent to more than one dealer or purchaser of his vehicles regarding any defect, whether or not safety related, in such vehicles.'; You ask whether this requirement includes letters that your compan writes that are of a personal nature concerning possible defects, when the letters deal with more than one item, but have at least one item in common. If these letters are included in the requirement, you request that we specify a time span for which you would be responsible.; The intent of S573.7 is for manufacturers to provide the NHTSA wit certain information each time a defect other than a defect under S573.4(c)(8) is found to exist in more than one vehicle. Thus, assuming the defect is not one on which information has been submitted pursuant to S573.4(c)(8), you may satisfy the requirement of S573.7 by submitting a copy of any one letter that pertains to a defect found in more than one vehicle, as long as the letter is appropriately marked so that we can determine for which defect it is being submitted.; The regulation does not limit the time span for which manufacturers ar responsible, and manufacturers must be sufficiently familiar with their repair programs so that if a defect appears at two or more points in time, the necessary information can be submitted.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4976OpenCharles W. O'Connor, Esq. Assistant Secretary Echlin Inc. 100 Double Beach Road Branford, CT 06405; Charles W. O'Connor Esq. Assistant Secretary Echlin Inc. 100 Double Beach Road Branford CT 06405; Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your letters of December 26, 1991 and February 25, 1992, with respect to various interpretive letters of this office on the Commander and Voyager Electronic Brake Control ('Control'). The Control is manufactured by your subsidiary, Tekonsha Engineering Company. For the reasons enunciated in your December letter, you have asked us to 'rule that all three of your letters i.e., the November 22 and May 23, 1991, letters to Mr. Lewandoski and your letter of September 10, 1990, to Mr. Henneberger are all void from the beginning.' We are replying on the basis of information presented by representatives of Tekonsha, Mr. Henneberger, and yourself in a meeting with representatives of NHTSA on March 18, 1992, rather than on the basis of your December letter. This meeting brought forth facts, previously unknown to us, and which did not, therefore, form a basis for the three previous letters on this subject mentioned above. We now understand that the Control is motor vehicle equipment which is added to the towing vehicle by the seller of the towed vehicle, at a time subsequent to the first purchase of the towed vehicle for purposes other than resale. The Control has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towing vehicle. The Control in ordinary operation has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towed vehicle. When hand-activated in an emergency mode, the Control applies a modulated pressure to the service brakes of the towed vehicle, without activating the stop lamps on the towed vehicle. It is theoretically possible that the Control will never be operated during the life of the towing vehicle. It is our opinion that the applicable Federal law in this situation is that which pertains to the operation of vehicles in use, rather than the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles before their first purchase for purpose other than resale. This means that we do not view this as a question of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or a matter concerning the preemption of State statues by Standard No. 108. Under the statues and regulations we administer, the applicable law is 15 U.S.C. Section 1397 (a) (2) (A). This Section states in pertinent part: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' The question therefore is whether the installation of the Control on the towing vehicle by the dealer of the towed vehicle renders the stop lamps (installed on the towed vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 108) inoperative in whole or in part within the meaning of Section 1397 (a) (2) (A). We note that the installation per se of the Control has no effect of any sort n the stop lamps of the vehicle on which it is installed, or on the vehicle that is towed. Therefore, the dealer has not rendered any stop lamps inoperative by the act of installing the Control. It is the use of the Control that may have an effect upon the stop lamps. In ordinary use, the Control has no effect upon the stop lamps of either the towing or the towed vehicle. However, when the hand control of the device is activated in the emergency mode on the towing vehicle, to slow the swaying of the towed vehicle through application of the only set of brakes on the towed vehicle (its service brakes), the stop lamps will not be activated. In the conscious act of activating the emergency feature, the operator has knowingly rendered the stop lamps on the towed vehicle inoperative for the duration of such activation (unless or until the operator applies the service brake of the towing vehicle). However, Section 1397 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to operators, thus the activation and use of the Control is not prohibited under our Statues and regulations. On the basis of the facts presented in the meeting on March 18, it now appears that the sale of the Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc:Larry Henneberger Bill Lewandoski California Highway Patrol; |
|
ID: aiam0036OpenMr. David A. Phelps, Jr., Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. David A. Phelps Jr. Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Phelps: This is in response to your letter of November 10, 1967, in which yo requested a clarification of the use of the term 'combined optically' as used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Sections S3.3(c) and S3.4.4.3.; S3.3(c)>>>*Lamp Combinations and Equipment Combinations*. Two or mor lamps, reflective devices, and items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are met, except that --; (c) No clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp o identification lamp.<<<; This means that no clearance lamp my be combined to use a lense (sic that is common to any other lamp such as a taillamp or identification lamp. The clearance lamp shall have a unique lense (sic).; S3.4.4.3>>>Stoplamps that are combined optically with turn signal lamp need not be operable when the combination is in use as a turn signal or as a vehicular hazard warning signal.<<<; This means that stoplamps that have a lense (sic) that is common wit the turn signal lamps do not have to be operable when the combined stoplamp and turn signal lamp is used primarily as a turn signal or as a hazard warning signal. Stoplamps need not be operable when the combined stoplamp and turn signal lamp unit is used as a hazard warning or turn signal indicator.; We trust these comments will be of assistance in clarifying you problems.; Sincerely, Andrew K. Ness, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis; |
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.