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: nht75-6.18OpenDATE: 11/01/75 EST FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS TO: RONALD W. COOKE -- E. EDELMANN AND CO TITLE: N41-42 ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/26/76 FROM RONALD W. COOKE TO JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA TEXT: Dear Mr. Cooke: Thank you for your letter of August 19, 1976, to Dr. James B. Gregory, requesting information on aftermarket gas caps as they relate to compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), No. 301. Your inquiry has been forwarded to this office for reply. Apparently your letter of May 26, 1970, was either lost or misdirected, as we can find no record of it in our files, and we sincerely apologize for this delay in responding to your inquiry. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate vehicle fuel tank caps as such; however, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, specifies performance requirements to assure the integrity of the entire vehicle fuel system (which includes the fuel tank cap) in various crash modes. Thus, if installation of your replacement cap is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the cap or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of S106(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 09-503). That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. Recent amendments to the Traffic Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-292) prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering 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 motor vehicle safety standard (S109(a) (2) (A)). Thus, it is illegal for any of the above named persons to install a fuel tank cap that he knows will cause the vehicle to be in non-compliance with the fuel system integrity standards. Federal Law does not, however, prohibit the owner of a vehicle from purchasing and installing a fuel tank cap of his choice on his own vehicle, even though he may compromise the Fuel System Integrity Standard. We are interested in any information regarding safety problems associated with replacement gas caps as a basis for further action. If you could provide any such information, we would be most grateful. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Sincerely, |
|
ID: 22513.ztvOpen Mr. Tobin Tracy Dear Mr. Tobin: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 2000, to the agency asking for a special exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30114 from 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). You wish "to import clear taillight assemblies deemed for show and competition use as similarly outlined in [Section 30114]." You state that "Our product will be labeled 'OFF ROAD AND COMPETITION USE ONLY.'" We appreciate your writing for an interpretation of this matter, but must inform you that we cannot grant you an exemption of this nature, for the reasons explained below. Section 30112(a) requires that motor vehicle equipment imported into the United States comply, and be certified as complying, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, as an exception to Section 30112(a), noncomplying products may be imported pursuant to Section 30114 which allows the importation of noncomplying motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment on such terms as the agency decides are necessary "for research, investigations, demonstrations, training, show or display, or competitive racing events." You wish to import taillamp assemblies with clear lenses for use on motorcycles among other types of vehicles. These assemblies would not comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that the light from taillamps be red. Although your letter does not address the subject, it is likely that at least some of the motorcycles could be driven on the public roads of the United States. Over the past few years we have received numerous complaints from motor vehicle law enforcement personnel around the country who have cited drivers of vehicles licensed for on-road use whose original taillamps have been replaced with taillamps with clear lenses. We have investigated a number of manufacturers and importers of these taillamps and find that most of them have advertised or labeled the lamps for off-road or competition use purposes. Notwithstanding such labels, this is not the purpose for which many of these lamps are being bought and used. The use of terms such as "off-road," "show use only," and "competition use only" have no exclusionary meaning under Federal law, and do not excuse a person using them from any responsibilities that may apply. Any item of motor vehicle lighting equipment manufactured to replace lighting equipment that is required on a new vehicle by Standard No. 108 must itself comply with Standard No. 108. To date, we know of no motorcycles being manufactured that are equipped with taillamps having clear lenses. I enclose a copy of a related interpretation that we furnished Mitch L. Williams of Hella, Inc., on July 17, 1998. In short, motor vehicle replacement lighting equipment must conform to the same requirements as original equipment, and be certified to those requirements, in order to be imported into the United States for sale in the aftermarket. We will not grant an exception to this requirement. Sincerely, John Womack Enclosure |
2001 |
ID: 11381MLSOpen Sergeant Stephan C. Turner Dear Sergeant Turner: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems applies to school buses. You stated that during a recent inspection, you observed that a fan clutch had twisted off the air line, thereby depleting the secondary air system supply that provides air for the front brakes. You asked about the effect of adding an accessory to the split braking system required by Standard No. 121. Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (Formerly, the authorizing law was the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has now been codified at 49 U.S.C. 30303.) NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that, under Standard No. 121, school buses equipped with air braked systems are effectively required to have a dual braking system that is commonly called a Asplit braking system@ as the result of the requirements in S5.7.1 and S5.7.2. Section S5.7.1, which is referred to as AEmergency brake system performance,@ requires such school buses to comply with a performance requirement that sets forth the distances in which they must stop if there is a leakage failure in the brake system. Section S5.7.2, AEmergency brake system operation,@ requires the emergency brake system to be operated by a service brake control. You first ask whether Federal requirements address the installation of accessories, such as a fan clutch, to an existing air brake system. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations addressing the installation of a fan clutch that is connected to an air tank. However, since this device is tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121. If an auxiliary device such as a fan clutch is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Please note that an auxiliary device would not be considered part of the braking system if it were separated from the vehicle's main braking system by a pressure protection valve (i.e., check valve) in such way that the main braking system would not be affected by a leakage failure in the device. You then ask to which system or side should an accessory be connected for best overall protection. The agency does not typically offer specific guidance with respect to vehicle or equipment design. Nevertheless, we do note that the location of the accessory generally does not matter, provided such an installation does not make the air brake system inoperative. One way to protect the air brake system is to install a check valve between the air source and the accessory. In response to your next question about why experts differ on whether a check valve should be installed, our technical staff advises that it is a judgment call as to whether such a redundant feature is necessary or worthwhile for a particular air brake system. Since such a failure is already addressed by using a split braking system, some manufacturers apparently believe that it is not cost effective to add such an additional valve. As for cost, the addition of a check valve would increase costs by about $12 to $15 per vehicle. You also ask whether there is a safety concern that the front brakes of a school bus weighing over 17,000 pounds fail due to a malfunction in an accessory connected to the system. Such a failure is a highly unusual event. Nevertheless, the agency has decided to address the possibility of such a failure in section S.5.7.1 of Standard No. 121. Under this provision, all air braked vehicles are required to meet stopping distance requirements with a leakage failure in their air brake systems. In response to your final question, NHTSA has never had a requirement prohibiting accessories from being connected to the air brake system or requiring a separate air tank or source of air to power accessories. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:121 d:3/19/96
|
1996 |
ID: nht73-5.17OpenDATE: 04/04/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1973, asking whether a towbar dolly must be included in determining the overall length of semitrailers for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The answer is no. Standard No. 108 is a manufacturing standard, and semitrailers are not manufactured with dollies attached. 49 CFR @ 390.7, to which you refer, is a definition of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety which regulates the operation of certain motor vehicles, and since trailers often use converter dollies, it is understandable that that agency would deem a trailer with a dolly a "full trailer." TRIAD SERVICES INC. March 10, 1981 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Attn: Chief Counsel This letter is to formally request your review and interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 as it relates to the placement of a clear lens cover in front of a motorcycle headlamp. The attached drawings demonstrate the specific concept in question. Information contained in SAE standards referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 indicates that a specific prohibition exists regarding a headlamp lens cover for passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, trucks and busses. The SAE Motorcycle Headlamp Standard (SAE J584) contains no such prohibition. It is our understanding that a component configuration such as the one illustrated would not conflict with SAE referenced requirements. Another section of FMVSS 108 which could relate to this issue is Paragraph S4.1.3 which states that "No . . . . automotive equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." If, when the secondary lens in question is in place, the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 can be met or exceeded, the lens cover would then be compatible with the standard. 2 Detailed review of FMVSS 108 and the other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have revealed no other requirements germane to this issue. Your review of our analysis will be most appreciated. We feel that the proposed concept is in keeping with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Hopefully your review will confirm our opinion. Should you have any questions on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. Stephen W. Matson [Enclosure Omitted.] |
|
ID: nht73-1.44OpenDATE: 07/16/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Philips Industries Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 4 and June 22, 1973, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials". Your letter of June 4 asks which glazing materials may properly be used in motor homes under the Federal standard, and whether State laws which provide otherwise are invalid under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Your letter of June 22 asks what requirements apply for glazing materials used in travel trailers. Our records indicate that we wrote on July 5, 1972, to Mr. Robert T. Sanders of Philips Industries, in response to a letter from him concerning glazing requirements for chassis-mount and slide-in campers, trailer, and motor homes. Standard No. 205 has been amended since that date (on November 11, 1972; 37 FR 24035) and this letter reflects some of the changes in the standard made by that amendment. The requirements for glazing for use in motor homes, which under NHTSA definitions now includes chassis-mount campers as well as traditional motor homes, are essentially those specified in ANS Z26 for trucks, with certain exceptions. Thus, for windshields, AS 1 or AS 10 materials may be used. For windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, AS 1, AS 2, AS 10, and AS 11 materials may be used, and AS 3 may be used in the unusual situation where any such window is not requisite for driving visibility. All other windows may be AS 1, AS 2, AS 10, AS 4, and AS 8 materials. Additionally, windows other than windshields and those to the immediate right and left of the driver may be: AS 3, AS 5, AS 9, and AS 12 where not requisite for driving visibility; AS 6 where not forward-facing; AS 7 and AS 12 where neither at levels requisite for driving visibility nor forward-facing. I would add that the term "forward-facing" is not limited to windshields or behind-the-cab windows, as your letter implies, but applies to any window that is mounted in a plane transverse to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. It includes as well, for example, windows placed above the windshield, and any transverse interior partition. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392(d)) does prohibit, as you indicate in your letter, any State or political subdivision of a State from establishing or continuing in effect with respect to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of the vehicle that is not identical to the Federal standard. The question raised by your letter is whether a State law which prohibits the use of glazing materials in locations of motor vehicles where they are specifically permitted to be used by the Federal standard is violative of section 103(d). It is our view that such a law is violative of section 103(d), and is invalid, as we believe that the use of a particular glazing material in specific vehicle locations is an aspect of performance that is covered by Standard No. 205. You are correct in adding, however, that under section 103(d) a State (or subdivision thereof) may require a higher standard of performance than that established by the Federal standard in vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use. You may, of course, refer to this letter in your discussions with any State authorities regarding these issues. The interpretation in your letter of June 22 that Standard No. 205 does not apply to glazing materials for use in travel trailers is correct. Yours truly, June 4, 1973 Richard Dyson -- U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson: This has reference to the telephone conversation I had with Mike Pescoe, relating to the use of safety glazing materials in motor homes. According to our interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, #205, with its recent amendment, any window except the forward facing windows (windshield) and behind-the-cab windows and side windows directly adjacent to the driver may be manufactured of any glazing materials AS-1 through AS-13 as specified in ANS Z26.1-1966. It is also our understanding that since the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for safety glazing has been already established, no State or political sub-division of a State shall have any authority either to establish or 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. It is also our understanding that the Federal or the government of any State or political sub-division can establish a safety glazing requirement applicable to motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such glazing imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal Standard. I would appreciate your comments on the above. Sincerely, Krish Kudva -- Manager, Product Engineering, PHILIPS INDUSTRIES, INC. June 22, 1973 Richard Dyson U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson: Further to my letter dated June 4, 1973, relating to the use of safety glazing materials, I would appreciate your comment on the following interpretation besides what has already been listed in that letter. What is the correct interpretation of glazing requirements for travel trailers? I understand that travel trailers do not require safety glazing. Thanking you, Sincerely, Krish Kudva -- Manager, Product Engineering, PHILIPS INDUSTRIES, INC. |
|
ID: X PrizeOpenKenneth N. Weinstein, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP Dear Mr. Weinstein: This responds to your request, on behalf of the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize (PIAXP) for a statement and/or interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the implications under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act) of vehicles participating in the PIAXP competitions operating on the public roads. You asked this question in light of the fact that the vehicles would not necessarily comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The issues raised by your request are addressed below. In short, given the specific facts related to the PIAXP competitions that you provided, including the limited nature of the operation of these vehicles on the public roads and the fact that the roads will be closed under local or State government supervision, it is our opinion that the Vehicle Safety Act would not have the effect of preventing these vehicles from participating in the competitions. Our opinion is based on the facts you provided and the analysis set forth below. The PIAXP is, as described in information available on the PIAXP website[1]: An international competition designed to inspire a new generation of viable, super fuel-efficient vehicles. The independent and technology-neutral competition is open to teams from around the world that can design, build and bring to market 100 MPGe (miles per gallon energy equivalent) vehicles that people want to buy, and that meet market needs for price, size, capability, safety and performance. The nature of the competition is described, in draft guidelines available on the PIAXP website, as follows: The competition will comprise two vehicle classes: Mainstream and Alternative. Mainstream vehicles will be required to carry four or more passengers, have four or more wheels, and allow for a 200-mile range. Alternative-class vehicles will be required to carry two or more passengers, have no constraints on the number of wheels, and allow for a 100-mile range. All vehicles will need to meet requirements for performance and features to make the cars attractive to consumers. The competition will culminate with two dramatic, long-distance stage races in 2009-2010 a Qualifying Race and the Grand Prize Final Race. Race courses will reflect typical consumer driving patterns during numerous stages, in varied terrain, communities, and weather conditions. To win, vehicles must complete both races with the lowest overall time averaged over all scoring stages while still meeting the requirements for 100 MPGe fuel economy and low emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. The $10 million prize purse will be split 3:1 between the winners of the Mainstream and Alternative classes. You provided the following description of the manner in which the PIAXP races would be conducted: Competition vehicles will participate in stage races designed to test the vehicles under typical driving conditions. To ensure adequate safety, pre-race inspections will verify that vehicles have PIAXP-required safety equipment and features. And pre-race performance tests will verify that the vehicles meet PIAXP braking and stability requirements. These safety requirements were established by a Working Group that includes current and former NHTSA experts. Some race stages will be conducted on closed tracks, others on public roads. For the stages conducted on public roads, vehicles will start one-at-a-time and will be timed separately. No side-by-side driving will be permitted, with strict rules on giving way to a faster vehicle. Vehicles will have to obey all speed limits and other traffic regulations. The public roads will be closed to all non-race traffic during the race stages (these may be rolling closures that cover the full extent of the PIAXP vehicles on the course as is often done for running and cycling events). Road closures will be supervised by local city and state governments, and implemented by local police and other agencies. Vehicles will also participate in non-race demonstration events to showcase them to the public, to government officials, and to the media. These events will largely take place at closed public-private venues e.g., large parking lots. If any of these non-race demonstrations do take place on public roads, they will do so under the same conditions described above (closed roads supervised by local city and state governments). Most vehicles will be shipped from one event to the next, rather than driven. We may organize a PIAXP-sponsored [convoy] to drive in parade-format from one event to the next, but any such [convoy] will likewise occur over closed roads, as described above. Any team that wishes to drive a noncompliant vehicle independently between events (or under any other circumstances on public roads) is responsible for obtaining any necessary exemptions and/or permits that might be needed to meet all legal requirements. As indicated above, you asked us to address the implications under the Vehicle Safety Act of operation on the public roads of vehicles participating in the PIAXP competitions in light of the fact that the vehicles would not necessarily comply with applicable FMVSSs. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), with certain exceptions, a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless it complies with applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. The primary issue raised by your request is whether operation on the public roads of vehicles participating in the PIAXP competitions would constitute introducing the vehicles in interstate commerce. Since we are only addressing the implications of the Vehicle Safety Act with respect to the operation of these vehicles in the PIAXP competitions, the prohibitions on manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, and importing noncomplying vehicles are not relevant to the analysis. Given the limited nature of the operation of these vehicles on the public roads as part of participating in the PIAXP competitions, including the fact that the roads will be closed under local or State government supervision for the races, possible demonstrations, and convoys between events, it is our opinion that such operation on the public roads would not constitute an introduction into interstate commerce for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. We note that this opinion does not cover independent driving on the public roads by teams between events, or other activities not specifically addressed in this letter. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:VSA d.1/16/09 |
2009 |
ID: nht80-3.32OpenDATE: 08/06/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Self Cycle & Marine Distributors TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1980, to Taylor Vinson of this office with respect to a driving lamp that is being used by a number of your customers as a replacement motorcycle headlight. In your opinion the lamp has not been tested for compliance with Federal motorcycle headlamp requirements, and you have asked whether you may continue to sell the item as a driving lamp in spite of the fact "that some customers are utilizing it as a head lamp." By way of introduction, as you may know, this agency has been in litigation since 1978 over unsealed headlamps that meet European specifications for passenger cars but not the U.S. standards for such lamps. Although they are certified as meeting U.S. requirements for motorcycles only, they are in reality imported and sold as replacement headlamps for passenger cars. Our primary argument in these cases is that the manufacturers of these lamps are legally required to certify compliance with, in the words of the statute, "all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards" which means all standards applicable to any use of which the headlamp is physically capable. We, therefore, believe that if any lamp is physically capable of replacing a motorcycle headlamp, it should conform and be certified as conforming with SAE J584 incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. If sales of a noncomplying lamp were actively promoted by the seller to replace a motorcycle headlamp, we could view this as a willful violation of Federal requirements and we would probably engage in appropriate enforcement action. Your letter implies that the purchasers themselves install the headlamps. This is not a violation of any Federal requirement. But a "manufacturer," "distributor," "dealer," or "motor vehicle repair business" is prohibited by 15 U.S.C. 1597(a)(2)(A) from replacing conforming equipment with a nonconforming item, and liable for a penalty of up to $ 1,000 per item if it does so. SINCERELY, Self Cycle & Marine Distributors July 2, 1980 Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffice Safety Admin. Dear Mr. Vinson: Self Cycle & Marine Distributors currently carries within our product line a driving lamp. To our knowledge, this lamp has never been tested for compliance with SAE J584, however, since this light was intended to be used in addition to a OEM headlight it is exempt from this requirement. However, we have found out that a number of consumers are utilizing this light as a replacement headlight in order to give their motorcycle a "chopper" look. Can we continue to sell this item as a driving lamp to spite the fact that some consumers are utilizing it as a head lamp? Until we have an opinion from your office, we have temporary suspended sales on this item as well as frozen our reorder of this item from Japan. Since large sums of money are at stake, I would appreciate an opinion from your office within ten (10) working days. Paul D. Wharton Chairman of the Board (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: nht80-3.17OpenDATE: 07/10/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Systemteknik AB TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your letter of April 17, 1980, concerning a servo system that Systemteknik AB has developed to allow physically disabled persons to drive motor vehicles. You explained that the "electro-hydraulical system allows the driver to control the steering, throttle and brake mechanisms of the car by small movements on two (or in special cases only one) 'joystick' controllers". You asked "on what conditions may a vehicle with a servo system as described above be used by a physically disabled person in general traffic." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment sold in the United States. The agency has not issued any standards establishing requirements for controls for disabled drivers. Installation of such controls for disabled drivers in a new vehicle prior to vehicle's delivery to the first purchaser could be affected by section 108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(C), a copy of which is enclosed) and the agency's certification regulation (49 CFR 567, a copy of which is enclosed) if their installation affects the ability of a vehicle system, such as the brakes, to comply with applicable standards. If the controls are installed by the vehicle's manufacturer, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle with the controls installed conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the controls are to be installed as an add-on item of motor vehicle equipment by an automobile dealer prior to the vehicle's delivery to the first purchaser, then section 567.7 of the certification regulation would apply. That section provides that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms to all applicable standards. Although it is impossible to determine which standards might be affected by your system without actually seeing it in operation, your system might have an effect on the following standards: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, and Standard No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System. So that you may be aware of all the vehicle systems that are currently covered by Federal motor vehicle safety standards, I have enclosed a sheet explaining how to obtain additional information on the standards. The agency does have a procedure for granting temporary exemptions from Federal safety standards to facilitate the development of new motor vehicle safety features or to allow the sale of a motor vehicle whose overall level of safety is equivalent to or exceeding the overall safety of non-exempted vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of that regulation (49 CFR Part 555). Installation of such controls in used vehicles could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which in relevant part provides: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair 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 . . . Modification of a device or an element of design on a vehicle during the installation of the servo system so that the device or element of design no longer complies with all applicable safety standards would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). The agency is not aware of any states that have established regulations governing the uses of assistance devices by disabled drivers. We would suggest that you contact the Veterans Administration concerning the regulations it has established for driver assistance devices purchased with their fund. Information about those regulations can be obtained from: Anthony Staros Director Veterans Administration Prostetics Center 252 7th Avenue New York, New York 10001 I hope this information will be of assistance. |
|
ID: 10-001392 K.Harris (Stds. 108 and 218)OpenKerry Harris, Director Angel 7 Industries, LLC 8111 Mainland Dr., Ste 104-422 San Antonio, TX 78240 Dear Mr. Harris: This responds to your February 12, 2010 letter asking whether producing motorcycle helmets with built-in rear lighting in colors other than red (e.g., green, blue) violates DOT policy. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following is our interpretation of the Safety Act and relevant FMVSSs based on the description of your helmets and the built-in lighting system. You indicate that the motorcycle helmets you produce are currently equipped with built-in front and rear lighting to increase rider visibility. You state that the rear lighting is currently red, but you indicate that you would like to offer lighting in other colors, such as blue or green. Motorcycle helmets are regulated items of motor vehicle equipment and are required to comply with FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. Your motorcycle helmets must meet all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 218, including, but not limited to, the impact attenuation, penetration, and retention system requirements. Additionally, paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 218 prohibits rigid projections inside the motorcycle helmet shell and also prohibits rigid projections on the outside of the helmet shell, except for those required for operation of essential accessories. A helmet lighting system is not an essential accessory within the meaning of this phrase. Accordingly, if a helmet lighting system creates a rigid projection as described above, the motorcycle helmet would not be in compliance with FMVSS No. 218. There are no FMVSSs that address a self-contained lighting system that is part of a motorcycle helmet. However, if the helmet lighting system is wirelessly or otherwise connected to the motorcycle, e.g., powered by the motorcycle electrical system or connected to its lighting circuits, it would be considered to be part of the overall motorcycle lighting and conspicuity package. It is unclear from your letter whether your helmet lighting system is designed to be connected in any way to the motorcycle. As explained below, we believe that the system, if it incorporated blue or green lamps, would impair the effectiveness of the required motorcycle lighting equipment, and, accordingly, commercial entities would be prohibited from connecting the device to a motor vehicle. Under FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the only permissible colors of light that may be emitted by original required lighting on new vehicles are red, amber, or white. Accessory lighting equipment (i.e., equipment not required under the standard) is permissible on new vehicles, provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108 (see S5.1.3). We interpret this as a general prohibition on lamps of colors other than red, amber, or white because of the possibility that non-standard colors could cause confusion in other drivers, thereby diverting their attention from lamps that signal driver intention, such as stop lamps or turn signal lamps. Regarding the alternative colors mentioned in your letter, the color green could cause confusion with the red or yellow lamps that seek to warn or caution. Blue is a color that some States reserve for use on emergency vehicles, so drivers unexpectedly encountering blue lamps on other types of vehicles could take potentially inappropriate actions. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30122, if equipment is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that equipment, as installed, must not make inoperative any of the required safety equipment. If an item of equipment impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, we consider the installation of such equipment to have rendered the required lighting systems partially inoperative. Accordingly, because a helmet equipped with a lighting system consisting of blue or green lights would impair the effectiveness of required motorcycle lighting systems, Section 30122 would prohibit a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from connecting the device to a new or used motor vehicle. Another potential impairment issue would be if the connection to the motorcycle adversely affected the performance of the lamps on the motorcycle, e.g., by reducing the candela of required lamps so that they did not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. If a helmet lighting system is not connected to the vehicle, the make inoperative prohibition in Section 30122 would not apply. However, the safety concerns about different colored lights would still be relevant. Moreover, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. In addition to the Federal provisions outlined above, individual States may regulate your product. We suggest that you contact State agencies to ascertain the legal status of your motorcycle helmets with regard to State regulation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact William Shakely of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Standard Nos. 108 and 218 Dated: 6/22/12 |
2012 |
ID: 7742-2Open Mr. Paul Gould Dear Mr. Gould: This responds to your letter asking about the dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You requested clarification of the term "average deceleration rate" and its tolerance, particularly with respect to the brake power test (S5.4.2). You stated that you view the specified deceleration rate as "only a target" in order to fade the linings, and believe that it is acceptable to conduct tests at five percent below the specified rate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Standard No. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force--relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. With respect to your question about the meaning of "average deceleration rate," that term is used in both S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Section S5.4.2 specifies, for example, that each brake shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s. from 50 mph to 15 mph, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. after the 10th deceleration. In S5.4, the meaning of average deceleration rate is explained as follows: For purposes of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an average deceleration rate is the change in velocity divided by the decleration time measured from the onset of deceleration. We do not agree with your suggestion that the deceleration rates specified in Standard No. 121 are "only a target" in order to fade the linings. As indicated above, manufacturers must certify that each vehicle complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Thus, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 121's test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the standard's requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates. We recognize, however, that it may be difficult to achieve any exact deceleration rate in conducting a brake test. For this reason, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies tolerances in its Laboratory Test Procedures developed for use by contractors in conducting compliance tests for the agency. For the brake power and brake recovery tests (S5.4.2 and S5.4.3), the agency's current Laboratory Test Procedure specifies the following tolerances on deceleration rates: +0 to -1 ft/s/s, except for 12 ft/s/s: +0.5 ft/s/s. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the agency's Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests. On the issue of tolerances, I call your attention to the following statement at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure: The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:121 d:11/19/92 |
1992 |
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.