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: aiam2213OpenDavid E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to General Motors' October 28, 1975, petition t amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. You requested an amendment that would permit the removal of trailer hitches before testing a vehicle for compliance with the rear moving barrier crash requirements. For the reasons set out below, the petition is denied.; As far as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) i concerned, the primary issue presented by the petition is whether the presence of a trailer hitch will compromise the crashworthiness of a vehicle or, in particular, whether it will diminish the integrity of the vehicle's fuel system. We believe that a new vehicle that is delivered to a purchaser with a trailer hitch, be it removable or permanently attached, should be in compliance with all standards without further modification.; You have suggested that requiring original equipment hitches to b attached during barrier crash testing would not have a significant effect on motor vehicle safety because such hitches make up only 5 percent of the trailer hitch market and there is no standard applicable to hitches that are sold in the aftermarket. However, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, specifies that:; >>>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...<<<; Therefore, aftermarket trailer hitches must also be installed in such way that compliance with Standard No. 301-75 is preserved.; You have also suggested that the rear moving barrier crash test i inappropriate as applied to vehicles that have trailer hitches attached, because the rigid, flat-faced moving barrier would but an unrealistically concentrated load on a trailer hitch. The NHTSA disagrees with this argument. Because the effect of Standard No. 215 has been to control the height and contour of bumpers and increase their rigidity, a vehicle's performance in the test prescribed in the standard does in fact tend to reflect its performance on the road.; For these reasons, the NHTSA has concluded that the amendment you hav suggested would diminish the level of motor vehicle safety and, therefore, that your petition should be denied. Indeed, for this agency to do otherwise would violate Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392 note), concerning amendment or repeal of the fuel system integrity standard.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3052OpenMr. R. Hiribarren, Director, Mini-Comtesse, Z.I. de Saint Barthelemy d'Anjou, BP 815, 49008 Angers Cedex, France; Mr. R. Hiribarren Director Mini-Comtesse Z.I. de Saint Barthelemy d'Anjou BP 815 49008 Angers Cedex France; Dear Mr. Hiribarren: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter asking whether the tw vehicles that you manufacture, the Comtesse and the Super-Comtesse, would be considered as mopeds for the purpose of applying Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) define motor-driven cycle (moped) as 'a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less.' A motorcycle is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' Further, the application of some standards to mopeds depends upon their having a maximum speed obtainable in 1 mile of 30 mph or less.; The Super-Comtesse that you manufacture, since it has 4 wheels, woul not qualify as a motorcycle or as a moped. Since this vehicle has many of the aspects of a passenger car, it would be required to comply with the passenger car safety standards. The Comtesse, since it operates on three wheels, would be considered a motorcycle. If the Comtesse meets the other definitional requirements applicable to mopeds, it would be required to comply with the standards applicable to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles.; All Federal motor vehicle safety standards are located in Volume 49 o the Code of Federal Regulations in Part 571. Many of the standards are applicable to passenger cars. Only a few standards apply to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles. I am enclosing a package of information pertaining to the applicability of safety standards to mopeds.; The NHTSA has studied three-wheeled vehicles in the past and has ha serious reservations about the safety of these vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of an agency notice issued on this subject. We hope that your vehicle does not have similar safety problems.; 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: aiam1595OpenMr. John H. Mueller, Manager,Engineering Standards,The Weatherhead Company,300 East 131st Street,Cleveland, Ohio 44108; Mr. John H. Mueller Manager Engineering Standards The Weatherhead Company 300 East 131st Street Cleveland Ohio 44108; Dear Mr. Mueller:#Thank you for letter of August 14, 1974, pointing ou a discrepancy in the constriction test requirements for hydraulic brake hose found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74.#We are considering a change in out nest notice concerning Standard 106-74, so that S6.7.2(c) will conform with S5.3.1 as that paragraph was amended by Notice 11 (39 F.R. 24012).#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3402OpenMr. William G. Finn, Merchandizing Manager, Continental Products Corporation, 1200 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. William G. Finn Merchandizing Manager Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Finn: This is in response to your letter of April 22, 1981, regardin marketing of Continental's ContiContact steel belted mud and snow tire as an all-season tire. You ask whether there are any governing criteria for what constitutes an all- season tire, and, if a tire is advertised as an all-season tire, whether it must be graded under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards. You also ask whether it would be legal to market this tire as an all-season tire.; As you know, deep tread, winter-type snow tires are not within th coverage of the UTQG regulation (49 CFR S575.104(c)(1)). On May 24, 1979, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published in the Federal Register its interpretation that all-season tires are not considered deep-tread, winter-type snow tires within the meaning of the regulation (44 F.R. 30139). All-season tires were described in that notice as those with a tread depth which permits safe operation throughout the year. The notice indicated the agency's intention to exempt from the coverage of the standard 'a strictly limited class of tires, the deep tread rubber and tread design of which makes year round use on passenger cars inadvisable.' Thus, a tire offered for sale by its manufacturer or brand name owner as suitable for all-season use could not be considered a deep tread, winter-type snow tire for UTQG purposes.; With regard to the legality of marketing the ContiContact tire as a all-season tire, mud and snow tires must meet Federal safety standards in the same manner as other passenger car tires. Also, a tire not suitable for its intended use could be considered to contain a safety-related defect in performance, construction, or materials, for purposes of the recall authority of Title I, Part B of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411, *et seq*.). Beyond these limitations, statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA do not restrict the sale of all-season tires.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0107OpenOfficine Alfieri Maserati S.P.A., L'Administratore Delegato, Viale Ciro Menotti, 322, 41100 Modena (Italia); Officine Alfieri Maserati S.P.A. L'Administratore Delegato Viale Ciro Menotti 322 41100 Modena (Italia); >>>Your Ref: Direz. O.O. gb<<< Gentlemen: This is in response to your letter of August 8 with reference t compliance of the Maserati automobile with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; You have asked first of all whether, as a manufacturer of 620 vehicle in 1967, Maserati may be excused from compliance with some of the Federal standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, under which Federal standards are issued, was recently amended to authorize a procedure whereby manufacturers of limited production vehicles might petition for exemption from the Federal standards. But this procedure is not available to a manufacturer of more than 500 vehicles a year, no matter how few vehicles of that manufacturer are exported to the United States. Consequently Maserati cannot be exempted from any of the Federal standards.; You have also mentioned the difficulties that a small manufacturer fac in crash-testing vehicles, and have asked whether the photographs you submitted showing several Maserati automobiles which have been involved in front end collisions are acceptable as proof of compliance with Federal standard No. 204 (Steering Control Rear-ward Displacement - Passenger Cars). I hope the following explanation will be of assistance to you. The Federal standards do not require crash-testing of vehicles, nor the submission of any data to the Federal Highway Administration for 'approval'. What is required is that a manufacturer attach a certification plate to his vehicle stating that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal standards on the date of the vehicle's manufacture. How the manufacturer satisfies himself that the vehicle conforms in his own affair, he may have non-crash data or other information which indicates conformance. The Federal Highway Administration, however, may request this data if through its own investigation it appears that a certification is false or misleading, and that a vehicle does not actually conform to a standard.; I enclose a copy of the latest Federal standards for your guidance. Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations |
|
ID: aiam5305OpenMr. Steven R. Taylor S. R. Taylor Toys 1065 North Maston Porterville, CA 93257; Mr. Steven R. Taylor S. R. Taylor Toys 1065 North Maston Porterville CA 93257; "Dear Mr. Taylor: This responds to your FAX to Mary Versailles of thi office asking whether your Original Designer Seatbelt Strap (ODSS) would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) issued by this agency. Also referenced are your telephone conversations with Mary Versailles and Walter Myers. I apologize for the delay in this response. You described the ODSS as a strip of 'D.O.T. standard nylon seat belt webbing' with double-sided adhesive tape on the under side and silk-screened designs on the front side. The tape has a backing that peels off, exposing the adhesive, and the ODSS is then applied to the existing seat belt. The ODSS comes in both child and adult models. The child's model, which is intended to be applied to the belt portion of a child restraint system, is 15 inches long and 1 1/2 inches wide with cartoon characters silk-screened on its face to entertain the child. The adult model, which is intended to be applied to a vehicle safety belt, is 30 inches long and 2 inches wide with silk-screened designs on its face to serve as a reminder to buckle up. The promotional material you sent with your inquiry indicated that the ODSS is an aftermarket product that 'serves only as an entertainment piece and not as a safety device.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Neither the Department of Transportation (DOT) nor NHTSA approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. I note that you do not explain what you mean by the term 'D.O.T. standard nylon seat belt webbing.' This agency does not use that term. We assume you mean that the webbing is the same as that used by vehicle manufacturers for the safety belts used to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misunderstood as an approval by DOT of the webbing, we ask that you refrain from using the term in your promotional materials. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: A ny system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ... (emphasis added). In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to the ODSS, this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, the entire portion of the expected use of the ODSS relates to motor vehicle operation. Also, the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. While the ODSS is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. We urge you to evaluate carefully whether your product would in any way degrade the performance of vehicle safety belts or child restraint systems. For example, you should ensure that your product does not interfere with safety belt retraction, that the adhesive on the back of the ODSS does not cause deterioration of the safety belt webbing, and that the ODSS does not obscure the information required by FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to be labeled on the webbing. I also note that safety belt webbing is designed to have some 'give' to help absorb crash forces. If the ODSS was to make the webbing too stiff, it could raise safety concerns. Finally, you should be aware that originally-installed safety belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Again, we encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of this standard to ascertain whether the ODSS would degrade the flammability performance of seat belts. A commercial business that installs the ODSS system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles/motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: 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 item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the ODSS renders inoperative the vehicle's or child restraint system's compliance with the FMVSS's. The render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that owners make to their own vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA encourages owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles or equipment. In addition, individual states have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles or equipment, so you might wish to consult state regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0557OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in response to your letter of December 24, 1971, in which yo asked several questions concerning the weight rating requirements in the certification Regulations that go into effect January 1, 1972.; Your first three questions are summarized in your third question, a follows:; >>>'We are under the impression that the only way in which the GVW an GAW Ratings assigned to an Incomplete Vehicle by the Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer can be increased would be (a) if a third axle is added, or (b) if the component parts of the existing axles are increased. Is this correct?<<<; The answer is no. The information supplied to the final-stag manufacturer by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer under Part 568 is to assist the final-stage manufacturer in completing the vehicle in conformity with the standards, and certifying in conformity with Part 567. There are no requirements, however, as to how the final-stage manufacturer uses this information. If he wishes to take it on himself to change the ratings in either direction, or to disregard the conformity information, that is his right. Of course, he will be assuming legal responsibility for whatever changes he makes, as indicated by the facts of the particular situation.; Similarly, he has the right to make whatever physical changes he wishe to the chassis, and assumes the normal responsibilities of a manufacturer in doing so. The Part 568 document offers him protection to the extent that he chooses to stay within its limits, but it is his choice to make.; You asked for a definition of 'rated cargo load' as used in the Par 567 requirement that GVWR 'shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' We have not provided a definition for this term in the regulations. By it is meant simply any figure provided to the vehicle user as to the cargo- carrying capacity, by weight, of the vehicle. There is no requirement that such a figure be provided, but if it is, it must be consistent with the gross vehicle weight rating.; Finally, you asked whether it would be 'illegal' to supply a body wit a volumetric 'capacity for holding eight tons of feed,' on a vehicle whose GVWR only allowed for a cargo load of five tons. If no rating by weight is supplied, the labeling requirement would not be violated by the volumetric capacity of the body. As we stated in a recent letter on the same question, however, such action might have adverse consequences beyond the certification regulation:; >>>[C]ompleting the vehicle so that its apparent carrying capacit exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the effect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (section 113, 15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common-law product liability doctrines. In such a case, the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle might avoid liability, leaving it all on the final-stage manufacturer, by pointing out that the design of the vehicle as completed led the user to exceed the GVWR and GAWR furnished with the incomplete vehicle.' (Letter from L.R. Schneider to E. W. Mentzer, October 26, 1971, filed in Interpretations Redbook, Part 567, 568.); << |
|
ID: aiam4847OpenMr. Chris Lawrence Chang & Lawrence P.O. Box 105-55 Taipei Taiwan R.O.C.; Mr. Chris Lawrence Chang & Lawrence P.O. Box 105-55 Taipei Taiwan R.O.C.; Dear Mr. Lawrence: This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett o this agency. Though dated January 5, 1991, we did not receive it until March 7. With respect to your wish to produce an electronic sign board for installation in the rear window area, or on the rear, of a passenger car, I enclose a copy of an interpretation of this Office dated August 17, l989, regarding such a device. Although the interpretation is restricted to an interior-mounted electronic sign board, our conclusion would not be changed were the device to be mounted on the outside of the rear of the vehicle. In that location, and as an item of original equipment, we believe that it would impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting equipment by its potential to distract following drivers from the signals sent by the rear lamps when they and the sign board are operated simultaneously. Although the considerations for aftermarket devices are expressed differently, as explained in the August l989 letter, the potential for distraction would appear to create a partial inoperability of the rear lamps within the meaning of the prohibition. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam2090OpenMr. Tokio Iinuma, Staff Safety, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., P.O. Box 1606, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Tokio Iinuma Staff Safety Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma: This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1975, to Mr. Bernd requesting an interpretation of the visibility requirements specified in paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Specifically, you ask whether a front turn signal lamp which i partially obscured by the radiator grille as shown on a drawing that you enclosed would meet the specified visibility requirements, if . . .; >>>'1. The lamp met the photometric requirements under the state o being equipped on the vehicle.; 2. We could easily observe through all the photometric test angles tha the lamp was activated.'<<<; If condition 1 above is met, the lamp would appear to comply with th visibility requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1.; For condition 2 above, SAE Standard J588d, incorporated by reference i Standard No. 108, specifies in part that signals from lamps mounted on the left and right sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 degrees to the left and right respectively. To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding that portion of the lens that may serve as a reflex reflector, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. If your design meets the specified requirements, the lamp would also be in compliance with the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1.; As you were informed in a meeting with Messrs. Leysath and Vinson o this agency on September 8, 1975, it is not necessary that the entire lamp as partially obscured comply with Standard No. 108. If either the upper or lower portion of the lamp meets the photometric and visibility requirements, that is sufficient for conformance. If certification is based upon the lower portion alone, however, the center of the lower portion must be mounted not less than 15 inches above the pavement.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.