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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam2652OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your June 29, 1977, letter asking whether states ar preempted from regulating minimum seat spacing in school buses by Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, which regulates maximum seat spacing.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides in Sectio 103(d):; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under thi subchapter 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 to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Section 103(d) has the effect of preempting safety standards of th states and their political subdivisions unless they are identical to applicable Federal safety standards that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance. The second sentence of the section clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards.; The state regulations to which you refer in your letter would mandat minimum seat spacing in school buses. Although the requirement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates maximum seat spacing and the state requirements regulate minimum spacing, the regulated aspect of performance is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that state standards applicable to all school buses concerning minimum seat spacing regulate the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard and would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Section 103(d) would not prevent a state from requiring minimum seat spacing in buses procured for its own use as long as the maximum seat spacing of 20 inches is not violated.; The agency will try to disseminate this opinion to the states a broadly as possible. If you receive further state inquiries on this subject, you should refer them to this office.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3890OpenConfidential; Confidential; Dear Mr. Confidential: This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1984, (not received unti October 17, 1984) with respect to questions of compliance of lighting and bumper requirements on a vehicle equipped with a variable height control system.; Standard No. 108 requires that the center of a headlamp lens be no less than 22 inches from the road surface. You stated that this minimum might not be met with respect to certain headlamp configurations when the ignition is off, and the hydraulic pressure in the height control system relaxes, a period of approximately three hours. You believe that compliance with the mounting height requirement should be judged 'with the ignition switch in only the 'on' position,' the apparent point at which the height control system begins to operate.; We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for an lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height.; We also call to your attention paragraph S4.1.3 which forbids th installation of motor vehicle equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and ask that you consider whether a height control system would change vehicle height, pitch, roll, etc., in response to some external or internal condition, in a manner which would affect the performance of headlamps and other lighting equipment.; You have also asked, in essence, which conditions of operation of th system are appropriate for the pendulum and barrier impact tests of the bumper standard, 49 CFR Part 581. Under Sec. 581.5(c), the suspension system is to remain in adjustment and operate in the normal manner, under Sec. 581.6(c) the engine is operating at idling speed. In our opinion, the vehicle is required to meet the pendulum test of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates, and the barrier test of Part 581 when the engine is idling.; Finally, you requested confidentiality for all information submitte which pertains to the variable height control system. After carefully reviewing the documents, I have determined that your request should be granted. The release of these documents could cause substantial injury to the competitive position of your company. Therefore, I am withholding from the public your letter which contains a detailed description of the variable height control system currently under consideration. I am also deleting all references to the company name. I will instruct all agency personnel having access to this information to accord it confidential treatment.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4797OpenMr. S. Kadoya Manager Safety and Technology Mazda Research and Development of North America, Inc. 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Mr. S. Kadoya Manager Safety and Technology Mazda Research and Development of North America Inc. 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor MI 48105; Dear Mr. Kadoya: This responds to your request for interpretations o several safety standards and the Bumper Standard, in connection with a planned 'active' suspension system. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. Your questions are responded to below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by this agency, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. According to your letter, Mazda is concerned about the protocol of compliance testing of vehicles equipped with an active suspension system. This concern arises because many standards do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance testing. As you noted, this has not been a concern for conventional suspension systems, since they do not provide for variable height. Mazda's planned active suspension system would be actuated by hydraulic fluid or compressed air, with control pressure being developed by a hydraulic pump or air compressor driven off the engine. Consequently the active suspension system would be operational only when the vehicle's engine is operating. At vehicle speeds in excess of 'z' mph, where z is greater than 35 mph, the suspension height would be lowered by 'x' mm from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation. If the engine/vehicle were not used for several consecutive days, pressure in the control system would fall such that the suspension height may be lowered from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation by 'y' mm, where y is greater than x. The suspension height would return to the nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine. Before discussing your specific questions, I would like to discuss more generally the issue of how compliance is determined in situations where a standard down not specify a particular test condition. In issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA attempts to specify all relevant test conditions. The agency does this as part of ensuring that its standards are objective and practicable. As a practical matter, however, it is not possible to specify every conceivable test condition. This is particularly true for ones which may only be relevant to as-yet-undeveloped technologies. In cases where a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we believe there are several relevant factors to consider in interpreting the standard. First, in the absence of specification of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. For example, where a standard does not specify suspension height, its requirements may need to be met at all heights to which the suspension can be adjusted. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. Even if a standard is silent as to a particular test condition, the language of the standard or its purposes may indicate limitations on such test condition. Finally, in situations where a limitation on a particular test condition may appear to be appropriate, we also must consider whether the limitation is sufficiently clear, both with respect to justification and specificity, to be appropriate for interpretation. For example, in a situation where it may appear to be reasonable to limit a particular test condition but it is not obvious what particular limitation should be adopted, it would be inappropriate to select a particular limitation by interpretation. Instead, such a decision should be reached in rulemaking. I will now address the specific questions asked in your letter. Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment In asking about Standard No. 108, you stated the following: NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February 12, 1985, with respect to active suspension equipped vehicles. This interpretation stated that the requirements of FMVSS 108 must be meet (sic), ...at any time in which...' lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be, '...operated for its intended purpose.' Consequently, headlamps, tailamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lamps, must comply with the location requirements of FMVSS No. 108 whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the 'on' position. Conversely, reflex reflectors, and turn signal lamps that also function as hazard warning signal flashers must comply with the location requirements when the vehicle's ignition is in either the 'on' or 'off' position. However, it is Mazda's interpretation that hazard warning flashers are not intended to be operational for a period of days, but rather for a period of hours, at maximum, only. You then asked two questions, (1) whether Mazda's understanding of the subject NHTSA interpretation is accurate, and (2) whether Mazda's interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers is correct. I note that the February 1985 interpretation was written in the context of a vehicle with a variable height system actuated by hydraulic fluid. In that particular system, the hydraulic pressure relaxed over a period of about three hours after the ignition was turned off, with the result that the vehicle assumed a lower height than it would have during driving. NHTSA stated the following: We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height requirement would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height. With respect to your question of whether Mazda's understanding of the interpretation is correct, I would like to note two points. First, while you state that 'the requirements of FMVSS 108' must be met at any time in which lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be operated for their intended purpose, out interpretation was limited to standard's minimum height requirement. While we are prepared, if asked, to address other requirements, out interpretations should be understood to be limited to their specific facts and conclusions. Second, while our interpretation only addressed headlamps and hazard warning signal lamps, you applied the interpretation for headlamps to tailamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lamps, and the interpretation for hazard warning signal lamps to reflex reflectors. We concur with this application, with respect to Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement. We do not agree with Mazda's suggested interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers. You would apparently like us to conclude that Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal flashers does not apply after a vehicle's ignition has been turned off for a matter of days. In addressing how Standard No. 108 applies in the absence of a specification for vehicle height, our February 1985 interpretation differentiates between situations where the vehicle is operating and where it is not. Looking at the purposes of the requirements in question, we believe it is obvious that the minimum height requirement for headlamps is only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating, while the minimum height for hazard warning signal lamps is also relevant to situations where the vehicle is stopped and the ignition turned off. However, we believe that any determination that Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal flashers should not apply after a specified number of hours after the ignition has been turned off is one that would need to be addressed in rulemaking. It is therefore my opinion that the minimum mounting height of hazard warning signal lamps must be met at all heights with the ignition off, even if the system requires days to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height. If you believe that a time limitation should be placed on this requirement, I note that you can submit a petition for rulemaking requesting such a change. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors You requested an interpretation of section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 111, which generally requires a passenger car's rearview mirror to 'provide a field of view with an included horizontal angle measured from the projected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and sufficient angle to provide a view of level road surface extending to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle...' You noted that since the specified procedures for determining the location of the driver's eye reference points are made referenced to point with the vehicle's cabin, your active suspension system would not affect these measurements. However, different vehicle heights would be relevant to whether there is a view of level road surface extending to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle. You stated that, based on 'intended purpose,' Mazda's interpretation of Standard No. 111 is that the requirements of this standard are to be met when the vehicle's ignition is in the 'on' position as rearview mirrors are not intended to be used when the vehicle's engine is not operating. You then asked two questions, (1) whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 with respect to the state of the vehicle's switch is correct, and (2) for the purpose of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA. We agree that the field of view requirement specified in S5.1.1 for rearview mirrors need not be met for vehicle heights that only occur when the engine is not on, since the requirement is only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating. However, the requirement would need to be at all vehicle heights that occur during vehicle operation, under the loading conditions specified in S5.1.1. With respect to the issue of how suspension height should be maintained for purposes of compliance testing, you note early in your letter that, for reasons of practicality and safety, a vehicle's engine is not actually operational during compliance testing. However, since the active suspension system derives its power from the vehicle's engine, the system's ability to maintain and regulate suspension height is only possible during engine operation. You therefore indicated that Mazda is seeking guidelines (for several standards) by which Mazda may be able to establish a means to maintain the intended suspension height for compliance testing purposes in the absence of engine operation. We are not able, in an interpretation, to specify a particular means for maintaining suspension height for compliance testing in the absence of engine operation. However, the basic principle that should be followed in selecting a means for maintaining suspension height is that is should not result in different test results than would occur if testing could be conducted with suspension height being maintained by engine operation, i.e., what would happen in the real world. This should be relatively straightforward for section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 111, since the test is static, For a crash test, it is important that a vehicle not be altered in any way that would change the vehicles's crash performance relevant to the aspect of performance being tested. Standard No.204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement In asking about Standard No. 204, you stated the following: Section S4 of this standard specifies the compliance parameter for this standard. Section S5 specifies the testing conditions to determine compliance with this standard. Section S5.1 specifies that the vehicle be loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight. Section S5.5 specifies that the vehicles fuel tank be filled with Stoddard solvent to any capacity between 90 and 95 percent of the total capacity of the tank. Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of this standard is that they are to be met when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the 'on' position only. Furthermore, Mazda interprets the vehicles suspension height pursuant to S5.1 and S5.5 to be the intended suspension height for the vehicle given the conditions of S4, i.e., 30 mph vehicle speed and steered wheels are positioned straight ahead. You then asked whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 are correct. As discussed below, we agree that Standard No. 204's requirements need to be met only at the suspension height that occurs at a 30 mph vehicle speed and with steered wheels positioned straight ahead. Standard No. 204 specifies requirements limiting the rearward displacement of the steering control into the passenger compartment to reduce the likelihood of chest, neck, or head injury. These requirements must be met in a 30 mile per hour perpendicular impact into a fixed collision barrier. While the standard specifies a number of test conditions, it does not specify suspension height. Looking at the Standard No. 204 as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA explicitly decided to limit the standard's evaluation of steering control rearward displacement to how vehicles perform in a 30 mph perpendicular impacts, even though the requirements have relevance at lower and higher speeds. Therefore, we agree that the standard's requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that occur at a 30 mph vehicle speed and with steered wheels positioned straight ahead. With respect to Mazda's question concerning means of maintaining intended suspension height for compliance testing, please see our discussion provided with respect to Standard No. 111. THIS DATABASE WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE COMPLETE LETTER - DUE TO ITS LENGTH. THIS IS PART I. PART II IS ALSO DATED OCTOBER 2, 1990 AND COVERS QUESTIONS ON STANDARDS 208, 301 AND THE BUMPER STANDARD, PART 581. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5092OpenMr. Mike Love Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc. P. O. Box 30911 Reno, Nevada 89520-3911; Mr. Mike Love Manager Compliance Porsche Cars North America Inc. P. O. Box 30911 Reno Nevada 89520-3911; "Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your request that NHTSA determine tha a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the Porsche 911 car line constitutes a de minimis change to the device. The change is proposed to be made on only one model in the 911 line and to be effective beginning with the 1994 model year (MY). As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device is not a de minimis change. As you are aware, in a Federal Register notice of June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23727), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device, to be placed as standard equipment on the MY 1990 Porsche 911 car line, was likely to be as effective as parts marking. Subsequently, by letter dated May 31, 1990, the agency concluded that proposed changes to the antitheft device in the MY 1991 Porsche 911 car line were de minimis changes. The primary change for the 1991 model year was that the interior light control units were to be integrated with the alarm control unit and central locking system. The latter two components were already integrated. For the following reasons, NHTSA concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device for the 1994 model year is not de minimis. In reaching this conclusion, we looked primarily at the anti-theft system on which the exemption was originally based. Under the original system, locking one door would automatically lock all doors, as well as arm the alarm system. Under the proposed change, locking one door with the key would no longer automatically lock all doors, but would still arm the alarm system. This is not an insignificant change like the substitution of new components for old components, each serving the same function. Nor does the change involve adding a feature making an exempted antitheft device even more effective. The change in question lessens the likelihood that all doors of a car will be locked, thus easing a thief's access to the passenger compartment. A thief may easily open the unlocked door, providing an opportunity to attempt to shut off the alarm system (since both the alarm control unit and the power lines from the battery to the alarm system are inside the vehicle) and to circumvent the engine disabling system. If the thief successfully overcomes these systems, theft of the entire vehicle or its parts is facilitated. Once inside the vehicle, a thief may open the hood by a release in the vehicle interior, thereby gaining access to the storage space under the hood. Since the battery for the Porsche 911 is also located in the front hood compartment of the vehicle, access to the battery also makes it easier for a thief to attempt to shut off the alarm system and engine disabling system, again facilitating theft of the entire vehicle or its parts. Because the same aspects of performance (i.e., the central door locking system that automatically locked all doors, making access to the vehicle interior and hood release more difficult), are not provided in the proposed device, resulting in the possibility of the vehicle's increased vulnerability to being stolen in whole, or to have its parts stolen, this agency concludes that Porsche's proposed modification to the antitheft device in one model in the MY 1994 911 car line is not a de minimis change. If Porsche wishes to place its proposed antitheft device on the 911 car line, it must formally file a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for a modification must provide the same information for the modified device as is required under 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all cars in the line for which an exemption is sought. Since the modification planned by Porsche would result in one model within the car line lacking a feature found on the anti-theft systems of other models, the agency would determine in the following manner whether the car line continued to merit exemption. It would regard the system of the one model as the system of the car line as a whole and assess whether that system would be as effective in preventing theft as parts marking. The additional feature on the other models within the car line, i.e., the central locking system, would be regarded as an addition to the standard equipment system and would not have any bearing upon the exemptability of the car line. NHTSA notes that this same approach would not be taken if the system to be installed on a single model within a car line could not be regarded as a stripped down version of the system on the other models. In that case, there would be no standard equipment version of the system and the car line would not be eligible for an exemption. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Barbara A. Gray, Chief, Motor Vehicle Theft Division, Office of Market Incentives, Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA, at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-1740. Sincerely, Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking"; |
|
ID: aiam0711OpenMr. Clifford C. Oliver, Vice President, GO Industries, 4805 Bruce Crescent, Newport Beach, CA 92660; Mr. Clifford C. Oliver Vice President GO Industries 4805 Bruce Crescent Newport Beach CA 92660; Dear Mr. Oliver: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1972, requesting a opinion as to whether 'Abcite,' a product of the Dupont Company, may be used in campers and 'mini-mobile homes.'; Whether a particular glazing material may be used in motor vehicles o campers depends upon whether the material meets the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials' (49 CFR 571.205), which incorporates, as you indicate, the American National Standards Institute Standard Z26.1-1966. That standard also specifies the locations in motor vehicles where specific materials may be used.; Standard No. 205 does not apply to trailers. While we are not familia with the phrase 'mini-mobile home,' we consider mobile homes to be trailers, and the standard does not apply to them. With respect to campers, Standard No. 205 allows the use of any material meeting the requirements of Z26 in any location except for forward-facing windows. Forward-facing camper windows may not be manufactured of item 6 and item 7 material (AS6, AS7), but may be manufactured of any of the other materials (AS1-AS5, AS8-AS11) that meets the requirements of Z26.; Whether Abcite conforms to the requirements for glazing allowed to b used in campers is a determination that should be made in the first instance by its manufacturer, Dupont. If the manufacturer determines that such use is within the requirements of Standard No. 205, he is required by section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify that the material conforms to the requirements of the standard. He is also required by the marking requirements in Section 6 of Z26.1-1966 to indicate on the material its AS designation. Any material that is so certified can be used in the camper locations listed on the standard as appropriate for that designated type.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0368OpenDouglas H. West, Esquire, Messrs. Hill, Lewis, Adams, Goodrich & Tait, 3700 Penobscot Building, Detroit, MI 48226; Douglas H. West Esquire Messrs. Hill Lewis Adams Goodrich & Tait 3700 Penobscot Building Detroit MI 48226; Dear Mr. West: This is in reply to your letter of May 10 to Francis Armstrong Director of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of Vehicle Industries, Inc. Your client wishes to import dune buggy chasses (sic), either in kit or assembled form, for sale to a distributor-dealer organization and subsequent resale by them to retail customers who will complete the final manufacture of the incomplete vehicle as a dune buggy. You have asked questions concerning compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards ('safety standards') and other regulations.; Your letter indicates that you are familiar with our two Mini-Bik Interpretations and the criteria we use in determining whether a vehicle is a 'motor vehicle' as defined in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 'Act'). There have been no further additions to these Interpretations. We view a dune buggy as a 'motor vehicle' primarily because it is licensable for use on the public roads. Conversely all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and some categories of mini-bikes are not considered 'motor vehicles' because of State statutory prohibitions forbidding their registration for on-road use. Because a dune buggy is constructed with 'special features for occasional off-road use' it is a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' ('MPV') under the safety standards, and must, at the time of its manufacture, comply with all safety standards applicable to MPVs. Equipping a vehicle with speed restrictive components would not affect this opinion unless the equipment rendered the completed vehicle unlicensable for on-road use.; Until January 1, 1972, the product Vehicle Industries wishes to import either in kit form or as an assemblage, is considered 'motor vehicle equipment' under the Act. It is not a chassis- cab, as you suggested, because it has no cab. Since section 102(5) of the Act includes an importer in the definition of 'manufacturer,' Vehicle Industries is considered the manufacturer of the motor vehicle equipment it imports, and responsible for compliance of that equipment with applicable safety standards.; Regulated equipment items for MPVs and corresponding safety standard are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106), brake fluid (No. 116), glazing (No. 205), seat belt assemblies (No. 209), and wheel covers (No. 211). If the kit or assemblage contains any of these items, the item must comply upon importation, and Vehicle Industries must provide certification to the distributor-dealer that the equipment item meets the appropriate safety standard. The certification obligation is imposed by section 114 of the Act as amplified by a notice published on November 4, 1967, copy enclosed. There are no other labeling or informational obligations. The requirements of this paragraph remain in effect after January 1, 1972, to any dune buggy chassis imported in kit form.; If the chassis is imported in assembled form, on and after January 1 1972, Vehicle Industries as importer-manufacturer of an assemblage will be considered an 'incomplete vehicle manufacturer' and the assemblage an 'incomplete vehicle' as those terms are defined in 49 CFR Part 568, the regulations governing vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I enclose a copy of Part 568 for your guidance and call your attention to S 568.4, requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Section 568.4(a)(7) will require Vehicle Industries to provide with the incomplete vehicle a list of those standards applicable to MPVs together with one of three appropriate statements for each such standard. If Vehicle Industries has provided certification prior to January 1, 1972, covering an equipment item in the assemblage, for instance brake hoses, the appropriate statement on and after January 1, 1972 would appear to be set out in S 568.4(a)(7)(i), that the vehicle when completed will comply with Standard No. 106, *Brake Hose and Brake Hose Assemblies*, if the final assembler makes no change in the brake hoses or brake hose assemblies. You ask if these regulations may be followed as a 'guideline' before January 1, 1972, because the S 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement is a representation of compliance, it is a *de facto* certification of compliance and, in my opinion, Vehicle Industries may provide such a S568.4(a)(7)(i) statement in advance of January 1, 1972, that includes a regulated equipment item, to satisfy the existing equipment certification requirement.; You have also asked if it is possible to 'retail the unit in it present form with an item of equipment on it' that doesn't comply with the safety standards. The answer is no, if that item is directly regulated by a safety standard. However, if a safety standard applies to vehicle categories only - and most of them do - then an item encompassed in that safety standard need not comply until time of final assembly. For example, Standard No. 107, *Reflecting Surfaces*, applies to MPVs and passenger cars, and not to the equipment items specified therein. Consequently, the horn ring and steering wheel assembly hub of the assemblage need not have a finish in accordance with standard No. 107, but these items must comply with reflectance requirements when the assemblage is completed as a dune buggy.; In closing, I want to call your attention to Section 110(e) of the Ac and 49 CFR S 551.45, which require that manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment who offer their products for importation into the United States appoint a resident agent for service of process. I enclose a copy of S 551.45 with the informational requirements underlined and request that you ask the Spanish manufacturer of the dune buggy chassis to file a designation of agent with us.; If you have any further questions I shall be happy to answer them fo you.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5520OpenMr. Mark Warlick Four Winds International Corporation 791 C.R. 15 P.O. Box 1486 Elkhart, IN 46515-1486; Mr. Mark Warlick Four Winds International Corporation 791 C.R. 15 P.O. Box 1486 Elkhart IN 46515-1486; "Dear Mr. Warlick: This responds to your fax asking about the meanin of 'designated seating position' for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You noted that the RVIA Handbook, dated April 23, 1991, states that 'it is the NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations.' You asked whether this statement is still in effect, and, if so, where you can find it in the Code of Federal Regulations. You also asked what defined area makes up one sleeping position. This will confirm that it continues to be NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations. This position is based on the definition of 'designated seating position,' which is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Under that definition, the question of whether a position in a vehicle constitutes a designated seating position is dependent in part on whether the position 'is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion.' If a manufacturer designs a vehicle to sleep a particular number of persons, e.g., six persons, it is logical to assume that those six persons will ride in the vehicle to their sleeping destination. Therefore, there must be at least six designated seating positions in the vehicle. A more complete discussion of this issue is presented on p. 23234 of the enclosed Federal Register notice (Final rule amending the definition of 'designated seating position,' April 19, 1979). We do not have a definition of what area makes up one sleeping position. NHTSA would consider all available information to determine the number of sleeping positions in a vehicle. This would include the size of the sleeping accommodations, e.g., whether an area is large enough to accommodate more than one person, and advertising by the manufacturer and dealers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0338OpenCharles O. Verrill, Jr. Patton, Blow, Verrill, Brand & Boggs, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Charles O. Verrill Jr. Patton Blow Verrill Brand & Boggs 1200 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Verrill: #This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1971 requesting an additional interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation. #If in fact, the vehicle manufactured is not considered a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Act and the mini-bike interpretation (34 F.R. 15416)(copy enclosed), then Part 574, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, and section 113 (15 U.S.C. 1402) will be inapplicable. #Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3847OpenMr. C. I. Nielsen III, Vice President - Marketing, Wesbar Corporation, Box 577, West Bend, WI 53095; Mr. C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend WI 53095; Dear Mr. Nielsen: This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of thi office seeking an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You wish to know whether the minimum effective projected luminous lens area for stop lamps and turn signal lamps on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater is 8 square inches or 12 square inches. You cite an apparent conflict between paragraph S4.1.1.6 and SAE Standard J586d, and paragraph S4.1.1.7 and SAE Standard J588f. You have asked for an interpretation so that Wesbar may properly design a 'combination tail lamp.'; First, we will confirm the advice provided by 'D.O.T. staff people that the latest SAE revisions, J586d and J588f, have not been adopted.; You do not state the intended use of your proposed lamp, so we wil assume that it will be sold to trailer manufacturers as original equipment, and to the aftermarket as replacement equipment. As original equipment, it must comply with the requirements specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, SAE J586c for stop lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 3.2 of each standard specifies a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 8 square inches.; Paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 become relevant, however, if Wesba intends the lamp as replacement equipment on trailers manufactured before September 1, 1978, and after January 1, 1972 (turn signal lamps) and January 1, 1973 (stop lamps). Under paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7, replacement stop and turn signal lamps for trailers manufactured within the 1972-1978 time frame may meet either J586b or J586c, and either J588d or J588e. We note that neither J586b nor paragraph S4.1.1.6 establish a minimum luminous lens area for stop lamps. However, a manufacturer who chooses to comply with paragraph S4.1.1.7 rather than J588e would have to provide the minimum specified luminous lens area of 12 square inches for turn signal lamps of trailers whose overall width was 80 inches or more, the requirement specified in J588d for Class A turn signal lamps. We view this interpretation as one of historical interest than (sic) current relevance.; In summary, if Wesbar designs its lamp to the 8-inch requirement, i would appear to meet specifications for application either as original or replacement equipment.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4022OpenMr. David Walsh, 16892 Centralia, Redford, MI 48240; Mr. David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford MI 48240; Dear Mr. Walsh: Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1985, inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a product you have developed. You described the product as a mini-venetian blind that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the blind is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your product.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles. You asked about State laws affecting your product. I suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which may be able to tell you about State laws or refer you to the appropriate officials in the States in which you wish to sell your product. The address for AAMVA is Suite 910, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036.; If you need further information, please lt me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.