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: aiam3080OpenMr. William Lynch, 313 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11226; Mr. William Lynch 313 Clarkson Avenue Brooklyn NY 11226; Dear Mr. Lynch: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of m office when you telephoned on June 19 with regard to your intention to establish a business for the manufacture of 53.6 gallon replacement gasoline tanks and for the installation of these tanks in used Cadillac limousines. You specifically asked what Federal law is applicable to your proposed activities and whether any Federal law establishes a maximum allowable capacity for gasoline tanks.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amende (the Act) authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, (see enclosed copy) is a vehicle standard applicable to passenger cars and other vehicles which requires that fuel spillage occurring during and after any crash of the vehicle into a fixed or moving barrier not exceed established limits. As explained below, this standard indirectly affects both the installation and manufacture of replacement gasoline tanks.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits certain entities and person from knowingly removing, disconnecting, or reducing the performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).; If a person or entity listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) removes th original gasoline tank from a used vehicle and installs a replacement tank, the section is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicles structure. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be more readily pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.; Consequently, as a manufacturer of replacement gasoline tanks, yo could be liable for a penalty under section 108(a)(2)(A) if you replace the gasoline tank in a used Cadillac limousine with one or your tanks, knowing that the performance of the replacement tank as installed would be inferior to that of the original tank.; Please note that should you decide to install your tanks in ne vehicles prior the their first sale for purposes other than resale, you would also be required to certify that the vehicle as altered still complied with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Should these provisions become relevant to your business, I would be happy to provide further information.; Sections 151-155 of the Act, which are enclosed, would also apply t your activities as a manufacturer of gasoline tanks. These sections provide that if the agency or you find that your tanks contain a safety-related defect, you would be required to notify purchasers of the hazard and to remedy the defect. Under sections 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.; I would like to point out that, in addition to the Federal la discussed above, there may be state products liability law applicable to your proposed activities. As a manufacturer of gasoline tanks you could be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. As an installer of gasoline tanks you could be liable for the manner and location in which the tanks are installed. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before starting your new business.; Finally, with respect to your inquiry about maximum allowable capacit for gasoline tanks, neither the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration nor the Department of Transportation as a whole has established such a limit.; I hope that you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4745OpenMr. Hiroshi Ozeki Executive Vice President Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc. 1203 Woodridge Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Mr. Hiroshi Ozeki Executive Vice President Mazda Research & Development of North America Inc. 1203 Woodridge Ave. Ann Arbor MI 48105; Dear Mr. Oseki: This is in reply to your letter of April 10, l990, wit respect to the use of the hazard warning system concurrently with the stop lamps to provide additional warning to vehicles to the rear. You enclosed two interpretations of the agency which appear to be conflicting, and you have asked for a clarification. In our letter of June 16, l983, we informed Safety Alert Company that its flashing deceleration warning system could operate through any rear lighting system that Standard No. 108 allows to be used for signalling purposes, such as the turn signal or hazard warning system, provided that the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed. However, in our letter of December 8, 1986, we informed Flxible Corporation that their flashing deceleration warning system was unacceptable under Standard No. 108 because 'simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus, and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S4.1.3.' We do not believe that there is a conflict. The system described in the Safety Alert letter would utilize a vehicle's original lighting equipment that is intended to flash, and that the motoring public is accustomed to seeing flash. The system described in the Flxible letter, on the other hand, would employ a series of new lamps, not required by the standard but supplemental to the required lighting equipment, and whose presence and function would be unfamiliar to motorists following. Thus, that unfamiliar system, if flashing, could have a confusing effect, as we stated in our l986 letter. I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1793OpenMr. Tatsuo Kato, Staff, Safety, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., P.O. Box 1606, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Tatsuo Kato Staff Safety Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kato: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1975, asking whether th name of your distributor may be inserted as the alterer for purposes of the alterer label required pursuant to 49 CFR S 567.7. You indicate that the alteration will be performed on a Datsun Pickup by a dealer, at the request of a customer, but would be the responsibility of the distributor. The labels would be preprinted with the distributor's name, and the dealer would insert only the date on which the vehicle is altered.; We do not believe the alterer label requirements (49 CFR S 567.7 permit the insertion of the name of the distributor as the alterer in the situation you described. The requirements specify that the person making the alteration insert his name on the label, and provide no exceptions from this requirement. Of course, the dealer can rely on the authorization of the distributor to perform the alteration should that issue arise in a subsequent compliance action.; You have also asked why section 567.2 does not specifically apply t dealers. That section was not amended at the time the alterer requirements were issued. However, the NHTSA considers the alterer requirements to apply to any 'person', as stated in that section, and not only to manufacturers and distributors.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0881OpenMr. W. Dershko, Engineering Manager, Motor Coach Industries, Inc., Pembina, ND 58271; Mr. W. Dershko Engineering Manager Motor Coach Industries Inc. Pembina ND 58271; Dear Mr. Dershko: This is in response to your requests of July 12 and August 25, 1972 for interpretations of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I regret the delay in our response.; *S5.1.2* Minimum Surface Dimensions The installation of a metal bar across the rear corner windows so tha the minimum surface dimension between the bar and the edge of the glazing would be less than 8 inches would exclude the window from the window retention requirements of S5.1, as you suggest.; *S5.3.2* Emergency Exit Release The motion of the release mechanism, which you clarified in a telephon conversation on October 13 with Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Motor Vehicle Programs staff at NHTSA, meets the directional and clearance requirements of S5.3.2, since the initial motion is perpendicular to the exit surface and the required 2-inch clearance is afforded during the operation of the mechanism.; *S5.5.2* Emergency Exit Identification You are correct in your assumption that normal nighttime illuminatio may include reading lights and that it is not the intent of the standard to require self-illuminated exit identification.; *Figure 3* Access Regions for Exits Without Adjacent Seats You are correct in assuming that Figure 3B requires a 2-inch clearanc around the release mechanism and is not intended to specify the required outline for a rear shelf.; Sincerely yours, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1269OpenMr. Virgil V. Stanciu, Executive Vice President, Falcon Enterprises, Inc., 3960 South Marginal Road, Cleveland, OH 44114; Mr. Virgil V. Stanciu Executive Vice President Falcon Enterprises Inc. 3960 South Marginal Road Cleveland OH 44114; Dear Mr. Stanciu: This is in reply to your letter of September 6, 1973, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, 'Motorcycle Helmets.' You raise several questions in your letter which are restated below.; >>>1. 'It is our understanding that we are not required to seek o secure prior DOT approval to market helmets manufactured after March 1, 1974, but that we must satisfy ourselves that our product meets this specification. Is this correct?'; Yes. 2. 'It is also our understanding the DOT does not issue any approval o certification even if we present documents of compliance. Is this correct?'; Yes. 3. 'We are interested in your comments as far as the disposition o existing inventory of helmets manufactured prior to March 1, 1974, but available for retail sale following March 1, 1974.'; The standard will apply only to helmets manufactured on or after it effective date, it will not apply to helmets manufactured before its effective date but sold to the public after that date. Accordingly, you will be free to sell after the standard's effective date any helmets you have in stock which were manufactured before the standard's effective date.; 4. 'What mechanism do you foresee being set up to police our industr to assure the public of continued compliance?'; 5. 'In the event that a helmet is tested by DOT and found to b deficient with respect to the DOT requirements, we would like to know what action would be taken by DOT?'; Once any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard becomes effective violations of such regulations are federally enforced. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) purchases items covered by the standard in the open market, and tests them for compliance. Under section 109(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, whoever violates any regulation issued under the Act, including selling nonconforming equipment, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation to a maximum of not more than $400,000 for any related series of such violations.; 6. 'Presently our helmets are marketed as universal size with sizin bands included. Per section 5.6.1 (labeling), we are required to show the size of the helmet. We are somewhat at a loss as to which size we would show, since the helmet can be either small, medium, or large at the selection of the purchaser. Would you please comment?'; If the size of a helmet is adjustable, then the range of sizes withi which it can be adjusted must be given.; 7. 'Would you please furnish us with the method and the name of th person or persons whom we would communicate with for specific interpretation of the individual sections of this standard?'; Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safet Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; 8. 'Could you provide us with a list of DOT approved testing agencies?' Neither the DOT nor the NHTSA certify or approve testing agencies. Th basis upon which a manufacturer determines whether his product conforms to a standard is a matter within his own discretion.; 9. 'Does this standard supersede and set aside the current Stat regulations pertaining to motorcycle helmets?'; The motorcycle helmet standard is a comprehensive regulation coverin all relevant aspects of safety performance. Any State or local requirements for the design or performance of motorcycle helmets must be identical to the requirements of the Federal standard when that standard becomes effective. Any differing requirements will be void.<<<; A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which includes the referenced sections you are concerned about, and a copy of the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.51 are enclosed in accordance with your request.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4591OpenMabel Y. Bullock, Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629; Mabel Y. Bullock Esq. Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh NC 27602-0629; "Dear Ms. Bullock: Thank you for your letter to Ms. Susan Schruth of m staff, regarding North Carolina General Statute 20-127, Windshields must be unobstructed. I regret the delay in responding. You enclosed a copy of the statute, the regulations implementing it, a copy of a December 18, l987 legal memorandum prepared by your department concluding that a State statute or regulation allowing 35% light transmittance through windows in motor vehicles would be preempted by current Federal safety laws and standards regulating this same subject matter, and a copy of a May 6, 1988 letter from the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) to Mr. William S. Hiatt, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for North Carolina, asserting that the North Carolina statute was not preempted by Federal laws and regulations. You asked for my opinion as to whether the North Carolina statute conflicts with any provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. /1381 et seq.) or with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.1 et seq.). Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' Because of this statutory requirement, any manufacturer, importer, or dealer that installs solar films or other sun screen devices on new glazing materials or the glazing installed in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205. The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. See section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)). Both before and after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including tinting, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation. Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles. The authority of States to regulate glazing is affected by section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. /1392(d)). This section provides that: w henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard. The effect of this provision of the Safety Act, with respect to the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205, is to expressly prohibit any State from specifying some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent specified in Standard No. 205 for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Each of the individual States has authority to enforce identical standards (i.e., a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new motor vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Additionally, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in that State. Having provided this background, we want to turn now to the results of our review of the North Carolina statute and regulations, along with your office's memorandum concluding that the statute is preempted by Federal law. 1. New vehicles and new glazing for use in vehicles. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted if it specifies any requirements other than the requirements of Standard No. 205 (minimum of 70 percent light transmittance) for new vehicles or for new glazing for use in motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act and Standard No. 205 require all new vehicles and new glazing for use in motor vehicles to be delivered to the first purchaser with a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Section 103(d) of the Safety Act expressly preempts any non-identical State standard on the subject of window tinting. Section 20-127(d) of the North Carolina statute appears to permit a single application of tinted film with a light transmittance of as little as 35 percent to be applied to vehicle glazing after factory delivery, but before sale to the public. This provision is preempted by Federal law, as is any other provision of North Carolina law which specifies that new glazing and glazing in new vehicles shall have some level of light transmittance other than the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205. 2. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. We concur with the conclusions in your memorandum that the North Carolina statute would be preempted by Federal law if it permits the commercial installation of sunscreen materials so that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement specified in Standard No. 205. This conclusion is based on the conflict between the North Carolina statute and the 'render inoperative' provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That provision prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative the compliance of a vehicle or an item of glazing with any of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. Apart from the issue of preemption, I want to note that the provisions of State law cannot alter the effect of the 'render inoperative' prohibition in Federal law. Regardless of how North Carolina law treats the combination of the glazing and the tinting, if it results in less than 70 percent light transmittance, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on a vehicle would be liable for the Federal civil penalty discussed above. 3. Modifications to vehicles and glazing by individual owners themselves after the first purchase of the vehicle or glazing in good faith for purposes other than resale. As noted above, Federal law does not regulate modifications that individual owners themselves make to their vehicles or glazing after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, even if those modifications result in the vehicles or glazing no longer complying with the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance. The State of North Carolina is free to establish whatever restrictions, if any, it deems appropriate on individual owner modifications, without regard to the requirements of Standard No. 205. To the extent that the North Carolina statute seeks to address these individual owner modifications, it would not be preempted by Federal law. 4. Requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State of North Carolina. An individual State is free to establish whatever requirements it deems appropriate for vehicles to be registered in the State, provided that those State requirements would not prohibit the registration of vehicles that complied with the requirements of the Federal safety standards. Thus, the State of North Carolina is free to permit vehicles that do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 to be registered in North Carolina. To the extent that the North Carolina window tinting statute seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, it would not be preempted by Federal law. We have also reviewed the May 6, 1988 letter from MEMA to Mr. Hiatt, in which MEMA discusses why it believes North Carolina's statute would not be preempted by Federal law. The MEMA discussion does not address the 'render inoperative' provision in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits commercial businesses from adversely affecting the compliance of elements of design installed in a vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with a safety standard, regardless of whether the vehicle is new or used. As was previously stated, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from ever installing window tinting material for the owner of a car if the combination of the original glazing and the tinting material results in less than 70 percent light transmittance through any window of the car. To summarize, the North Carolina statute would be preempted to the extent that it seeks to permit some level of light transmittance other than that specified in Standard No. 205 for glazing in vehicles prior to the first purchase of the vehicles in good faith for purposes other than resale. Similarly, the statute would be preempted to the extent it seeks to permit the commercial installation of sunscreen materials with the result that the combination of the sunscreen material and the existing glazing no longer complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. However, the North Carolina statute would not be preempted to the extent that it seeks to regulate the modifications that owners themselves can make to their vehicles or to the extent that it seeks to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered in the State, even if those requirements differ from those specified in Standard No. 205. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3254OpenMr. Adam Victor, Chairman and CEO, Gas Alternative Systems, 65 Rugby Road, Brooklyn, NY 11226; Mr. Adam Victor Chairman and CEO Gas Alternative Systems 65 Rugby Road Brooklyn NY 11226; Dear Mr. Victor: This responds to your March 1, 1980, letter asking what you must do t certify devices that you plan to import for sale in the United States. The devices to which you refer would convert an automobile's fuel system from gas to compressed natural gas or propane.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safet standards and requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. To certify compliance to the standards, manufacturers must test or conduct some form of analysis of their vehicles or equipment. The Federal government does not get involved in the actual certification process. Once a manufacturer determines that its equipment or vehicles comply with the standards, it can then certify the vehicles or equipment without getting government approval.; With respect to the device that you propose to import, the agency ha no safety standards applicable to this type of a device. Accordingly, as an importer of this equipment, you would have no certification responsibilities. However, the agency has a vehicle safety standard regulating fuel systems. If your device were designed to be installed in new motor vehicles, the manufacturer of those vehicles would be required to insure that your device would comply with the standard applicable to fuel systems. If your device would be installed on used vehicles, no manufacturer, dealer or repair business would be permitted to install it if such installation would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards.; To help clarify these general guidelines further, I am enclosing a cop of Part 567, *Certification*, which describes how to certify a vehicle in compliance with the safety standards. Further, I am enclosing a copy of our Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*, which details the fuel system requirements for motor vehicles. Finally, we have prepared a short letter that gives information on the installation of alternate fuel systems in motor vehicles and that is enclosed for your information.; If we can be of further assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4986OpenMr. Kevin J. Stoll Technical Advisor Russell Products, Inc. 21419 Protecta Drive Elkhart, IN 46516-9704; Mr. Kevin J. Stoll Technical Advisor Russell Products Inc. 21419 Protecta Drive Elkhart IN 46516-9704; "Dear Mr. Stoll: This responds to your letter of February 27, 1992, t Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions relating to center high-mounted stop lamps. Your questions are: '1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal? If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?' A center high-mounted stop lamp whose illumination is provided by LEDs is legal, provided that the light meets the photometric specifications for such lamp specified in Figure 10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and all other requirements. '2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake light on pickup trucks? b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer? c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?' With respect to (a), the center lamp may be installed at any point on the rear vertical centerline of pickup trucks. Because this requirement is not effective until September 1, 1993, we have no specific knowledge as to where the manufacturers of pickup trucks will locate the lamps. With respect to (b), NHTSA discussed the relationship of center high-mounted stoplamps to aftermarket slide-in campers or caps in the preamble to the final rule adopting the requirement. I enclose a copy of the rule (56 FR 16015) with our discussion highlighted on pages l6017 and 16018. After reading this material, if you have further questions regarding the effect on truck cap manufacturers and dealers, we shall be pleased to answer them. With respect to (c), we assume that the situation you envision is that a truck cap has been manufactured with a center stop lamp and the dealer is installing the cap on a pickup truck. If the cap is being permanently installed, the dealer may wire the cap's lamp directly to the existing center lamp light harness, as the cap lamp is intended as a surrogate for the original lamp. If the cap is removable, the dealer may also wire in the manner you discuss, provided that when the cap is removed (and the cap lamp disconnected) the original lamp will perform in conformance with Standard No. 108. The specific connections to be made should be done in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations. '3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck. b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationery. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear. Would this application be approved?' The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs. We can advise you as to whether designs appear to conform or not to conform with the applicable laws of our agency. Conformance with Standard No. 108 is determined with respect to the vehicle in its normal operating state. With respect to your question, this would be with the pickup cap window in its closed position. Thus, your design does not raise a question of conformance with Standard No. 108. '4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated rulings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings?' We do not maintain a mailing list of any sort. However, 'rulings' are not 'passed' at 'committee meetings' but are published in the Federal Register, initially as proposed rules affording a minimum of 45 days in which to comment. After evaluation of comments, a final rule may be published, with an effective date no earlier than 30 days after issuance. We believe it likely that any future proposals and amendments would be publicized, and that you would be likely to hear of them. There are no current plans to amend these requirements. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0496OpenMr. Ed Baringer, Manager, Penn-Ohio Chapter, 25 East Boardman Street, Youngstown, OH 44503; Mr. Ed Baringer Manager Penn-Ohio Chapter 25 East Boardman Street Youngstown OH 44503; Dear Mr. Baringer: In your letter of November 23, 1971, you asked how your members coul make sure that the seat belts they install in their trucks conform to the applicable motor vehicle safety standards. As far as the belts themselves are concerned, each belt made after the seat belt standard (No. 209) became effective in 1967 is required to (sic) marked with the year of manufacture. So long as the belt bears a date after 1967, it will have had to conform to the seat belt standard and your members should use the date as a guide in purchasing belts.; The provision of anchorages for the belts is a somewhat more comple problem. A new truck - manufactured after July 1, 1971 - is required to have anchorages for lap belts at all seating positions (and, in some cases, anchorages for shoulder belts). Although older trucks were sometimes provided with anchorages, many were not, and for these you will have to follow the location and instructions of Standard No. 210 in order to comply with the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Although the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations do not establish strength requirements for anchorages, their strength should be of concern to you and in this area you may have to rely on the manufacturer, rather than the dealer, for advice on reinforcement of the vehicle structure.; Our legal staff is centralized in Washington and there are no fiel representatives of the agency who could assist you in matters relating to the standards. As much as we would like to send someone to address your group, the workload of the upcoming months prevents such a trip. However, we have found that many questions can be satisfactorily answered by letter. If your group could assemble a detailed list of questions, we will try to answer them as fully as possible.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3310OpenMr. William Tierney, 147 Conrad Morgan Way, Lothian, MD 20820; Mr. William Tierney 147 Conrad Morgan Way Lothian MD 20820; Dear Mr. Tierney: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation of June 10, 1980, wit Stephen Oesch of this office concerning the Federal requirements applicable to the installation of auxiliary fuel tanks in passenger cars.; I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency issue last August which discusses the general implication of such installations under Federal law. If after reviewing this material you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Oesch.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
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.