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: 07-001810LizGOpenMr. Tommy Nordkil Volvo Technology Corporation Corporate Standards M1.6, Dept. 6857 405 08 Gteborg, Sweden Dear Mr. Nordkil: This responds to your email requesting information about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued any regulations addressing the retention of records regarding certification test data. Your question arises in the context of testing procedures set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). As explained below, the answer is no, but a manufacturer would be well-advised to retain such records in case its motor vehicle or item of equipment does not comply with an applicable safety standard. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). 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. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA follows the test procedures and conditions established in the safety standards when conducting its own compliance testing, and the results of NHTSA's compliance tests are always recorded and made available to the public through the agency's Technical Information Services division. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test its products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of certifying that its products comply with the requirements of the safety standards. If the manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, there is no requirement that the manufacturer retain those results. However, where a manufacturer submits a noncompliance report, it must submit to NHTSA the test results and other information on which it based its determination of noncompliance. (49 CFR 573.6(c)(7).) Moreover, if NHTSA testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If, in fact, there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to recall provisions, and is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised reasonable care" in certifying the product and had no reason to know that its motor vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with the safety standards. (49 U.S.C. 30112). Given the potential for civil penalties, it is in a manufacturer's best interests to retain its testing records in case it must establish reasonable care. NHTSA has issued a regulation addressing recordkeeping, 49 CFR Part 576, Record Retention, which establishes requirements for the retention by motor vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records concerning motor vehicle defects and malfunctions that may relate to motor vehicle safety. However, nothing in this provision requires retention of information generated during compliance testing. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel NCC-112:EGross:5/18/07:62992:OCC 07-001810 Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Docket Std. 302 S:\INTERP\302\07-001810 Nordkil--draft (18 May 07).doc |
|
ID: nht90-2.100Open TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/25/90 FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO: LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/90 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR - WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson, with respect to litigation recently brought by the United States against several firms that install plastic film, or "tint," on automobile windows. You have asked about the statutory authority under which these suits were brought. Pursuant to section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act"), 15 U.S.C. @ 1392, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Section 108(a)(i)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1), this paragraph does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2), provides that "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. . . ." Thus, by installing tint firm on automobiles that reduces the light transmittance of their glass below 70 percent, the firms in question have been rendering those vehicles "inoperative," in violation of the Safety Act. The same principle would apply to a service station that removed an airbag or a safety belt from a vehicle, since such an action would create a noncompliance with the occupant protection requirements of NHTSA's standards. You also asked for our comments on whether Florida's statutes are preempted by these suits. We assume that you are referring to the provision of Florida law that prohibits the operation of any vehicle in the State of Florida that has glazing with less than 35 percent light transmittance. This statute, and similar statutes adopted by other states, do not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by tint installation firms -- that is illegal under the Safety Act. Thus, there is no conflict with Federal law, and Florida may continue to enforce its operating rules. I hope that this responds to your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know. |
|
ID: 15732.ztvOpenMr. Dan Lessnau Dear Mr. Lessnau: This is in reply to your letter of August 4 to the Administrator, asking for an interpretation regarding the legality of obscuring a portion of retroreflective sheeting. Your company manufactures decals (3" x 18") which state "How's my driving" in white letters on red, and "Call 1-800-2 Advise" in red letters on white, with a 5 character identification code in black letters on white. Some of your customers have asked as to "the legality of placing our decals over the striping on the back of flatbeds." Manufacturers must apply retroreflective sheeting to large trailers, and truck tractors, pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The standard requires treatment "across the full width of the trailer, as close to the extreme edges as practicable." An exception is made for discontinuous surfaces such as hinges, which are not generally found on the rear of a flatbed. In our opinion, a decal applied over a portion of the conspicuity treatment on the rear of flat bed trailers would interrupt its extension "across the full width" and prevent the treatment from completely fulfilling its safety purpose. In short, a vehicle which had the decal applied over a portion of the conspicuity treatment would not comply with Standard No. 108. Our laws prohibit a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer from applying the decal before the sale of the flatbed to its first owner, since the vehicle would not be in compliance with Standard No. 108. Our laws also prohibit these persons, and motor vehicle repair businesses as well, from applying the decal after the flatbed has been sold. You have also asked, in effect, whether there would still be a violation if the decal were retroreflective. The answer is yes, for reasons in addition to the ones discussed above. Although a retroreflective decal identical to the one you sent us would continue to use the required colors of red and white, the standard sets forth a pattern of alternating single color segments, and your dual color two-level message would not comply with this specification. It seems likely to us that the decal is intended for aftermarket sale to the commercial vehicle industry, and application by trucking companies. Under these circumstances, the use of the decal would be a violation of 49 CFR 393.11, a safety regulation of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Section 393.11 requires that commercial motor vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, and operated in interstate commerce, be equipped with all the lamps and reflective devices required by Standard No. 108 on the date on which the vehicle was manufactured. Therefore, the use of a decal that obscures a portion of the retroreflectrive sheeting is prohibited by the FHWA. Motor carriers must maintain the trailer conspicuity treatments on all trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, in order to comply with 49 CFR 393.11. Please note that on April 14, 1997, the FHWA proposed revising Section 393.11 to include explicit language concerning trailer conspicuity requirements (62 FR 18170). I am enclosing a copy of this proposal. Pages 18172-74 discuss the rationale for the proposed changes, and pages 18188-92 provide the regulatory language that is being considered. If you have any question concerning the FHWA's requirements, you may phone Larry Minor in the FHWA's Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards (202/366-4009). If you have any questions about Standard No. 108, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: nht81-1.7OpenDATE: 01/22/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Convenient Machines Inc. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 22, 1980, asking "acceptance" of the CUB three-wheeled vehicle "for import certification." We confirm the advice given you by Mr. Vinson of this office in your recent telephone conversation with him. The CUB is classified as a "motorcycle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If CUBs are manufactured to comply with all standards applicable to motorcycles (see Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571), and have a label permanently attached certifying that fact (49 CFR 567), this is all that is needed to fulfill the requirements of this agency for importation and sale in the United States, under the joint regulations issued by the Departments of Transportation and Treasury (19 CFR 12.80). If, in advance of regular production, you wish to import several noncomplying vehicles for purposes of test or experimentation, this is allowable, provided that at the time of entry a statement is attached to the declaration form that will be given the importer, stating the purpose for which the vehicle is being imported, the estimated time it will be on the public roads, and the disposition that will be made at the end of the period allowed (one year, renewable upon request). (19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii)). SINCERELY, December 22, 1980 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Council Following my recent telephone conversation with you, and at the suggestion of Mr. John Carson, we are enclosing photographs and preliminary specifications of our C.B. "CUB" 3 wheeled 2 passenger I.E.C. powered vehicle. These vehicles will be manufactured in Taiwan for Convenient Machines Inc. We intend to distribute and sell them in the United States following the gradual start of production in March 1981. We understand that at the present time this vehicle is classified as a 3 wheeled motorcycle. We intend to full comply with the standards and regulations for this classification of vehicle as outlined in the TITLE 49 CODE of REGULATIONS as necessary for a certificate of acceptance for U.S. Customs entry purposes. The attached photographs show the #1 prototype "CUB" on which certain further improvements are now in work. A more final version is shown in the 1/10th scale 4 view layout which indicates a larger hatchback door and better lite and vent locations. We expect to have 3 samples of these approximately February 15 and several will then be brought here at that time. We feel that this vehicle not only complies with the regulations but also offers a number of additional safety features which are highly desirable. These are fully described in the enclosed list of features and specifications. After your review of this material will you kindly send us a letter relative to the acceptance of this vehicle for import certification. If you find there are any requirements omitted please advise us so we can take immediate steps to include them. We will greatly appreciate your reply at the earliest possible date as we are now tooling up for production to commence pending your approval. If you have any further questions on any aspect of the "CUB" design and specifications please call me at 212 249 2424. I will be out of town from Dec 28 thru January 15 in which case you can contact Mr. Phil Prince at 212 594 6895. We look forward to your approval of our compliance program on this vehicle and thank you for your cooperation. Richard H. Arbib Vice President-Design |
|
ID: nht91-5.45OpenDATE: September 12, 1991 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Charles Lombard -- Lombard Industries TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-19-91 from Charles Lombard to Rick Iderstiene (OCC 6297); Also attached to letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR S571.211). Specifically, you enclosed some drawings and photographs of your "new wheel and/or hubcap design," the "Lombard Racer," and asked whether it can be marketed. As explained below, the answer is no. S3 of Standard No. 211 specifies that wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections. The issue before us is whether the "Lombard Racer" includes any wheel nut, hub cap, or wheel disc that incorporates winged projections. To answer this, we have reviewed the drawings and photographs you have provided. Figures 4, 5, and 9 of the drawings show that the design of the octagonal hub cap incorporates two curved appendages (that the drawings depict as extending beyond the rim of the wheel), both emanating from the hub cap, that are placed at opposite ends from each other. Based on this, it is our opinion that your hub cap design incorporates "winged projections." As such, this design does not appear to comply with Standard No. 211. I have, for your information, enclosed a copy of this agency's November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. That letter reaffirmed past interpretations stating that hub caps with winged projections do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211 and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1)(A)) makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211. We would consider each sale or offer for sale of hub caps with winged projections to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (16 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000. We have recently received a petition to amend Standard No. 211 to allow the manufacture and use of certain hub caps which may be prohibited under the existing language of Standard No. 211. The agency will be evaluating this petition over the next several months.
With your letter, you also enclosed promotional information from another company that offered hub caps with winged projections for sale. Thank you for alerting us to this situation. We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action. I hope this information is helpful. Per your request, I have returned the enclosures in your letter to me. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.
Attachment Letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney, Esq. (Text omitted) |
|
ID: nht79-4.54OpenDATE: 03/22/79 FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: STERLING TROXEL TITLE: NONE TEXT: This confirms your March 15, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked several questions about the applicability of the school bus safety standards. First, you asked what vehicles must comply with the standards. The school bus standards apply to new vehicles that transport school children to or from school or related events and that carry more than 10 persons including the driver. For example, any new vehicle that transports 10 passengers (Illegible Words) or from school or related events must comply with the safety standards. In your second question, you ask whether a school may purchase a used vehicle that does not comply with the school bus safety standards even if the vehicle was manufactured after the effective date of those standards (April 1, 1977). The answer to this question is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate the sale or use of used vehicles. Therefore, there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling such a used vehicle for school use. With respect to your second question, a school should always examine state licensing requirements, insurance problems, and potential private liability considerations before purchasing noncomplying school vehicles. Vehicles that transport more than 10 persons and that do not comply with the school bus safety standards are much less safe than similar vehicles that do comply with the standards. |
|
ID: nht91-1.19OpenDATE: January 14, 1991 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Chino O'Hara -- Minority Co-ordinator, Del Mar Manufacturing Company TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-11-90 from Chino O'Hara to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5539) TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 11, 1990 in which you ask whether your product "Husky Brake Anti-Squeek" needs approval of the Department of Transportation (DOT). An enclosure to your letter indicates that the product is intended for application on the pad surface of motor vehicle disc brakes to "stop brake squeeking" and to "produce a surface that gives better braking by acting as a "lubricant to the friction material." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (part of DOT) does not certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that every one of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the safety standards and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. However, there are other requirements that may affect this product. First, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4) defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as: any 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 . . . If the "Husky Brake Anti-Squeek" is manufactured and sold for the improvement of motor vehicle brake systems, it would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. If either the equipment manufacturer or this agency were to determine that your product contained such a defect, the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers.
Second, use of this product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative" devices or elements of design that were installed in a motor vehicle to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation, the above-named parties should review the application instructions for your product and determine if installing the product following those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The most relevant safety standard appears to be Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. That standard applies to new motor vehicles. I hope that this information has been helpful. For your information, I am enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and information on how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Attachment Information sheet from the NHTSA entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, dated September 1985. (Text omitted) |
|
ID: 2808yyOpen Mr. Chino O'Hara Dear Mr. O'Hara: This responds to your letter of December 11, 1990 in which you ask whether your product "Husky Brake Anti-Squeek" needs approval of the Department of Transportation (DOT). An enclosure to your letter indicates that the product is intended for application on the pad surface of motor vehicle disc brakes to "stop brake squeeking" and to "produce a surface that gives better braking" by acting as a "lubricant to the friction material." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (part of DOT) does not certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that every one of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the safety standards and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. However, there are other requirements that may affect this product. First, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4) defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as: any 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 . . . If the "Husky Brake Anti-Squeek" is manufactured and sold for the improvement of motor vehicle brake systems, it would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. If either the equipment manufacturer or this agency were to determine that your product contained such a defect, the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers. Second, use of this product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative" devices or elements of design that were installed in a motor vehicle to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation, the above-named parties should review the application instructions for your product and determine if installing the product following those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The most relevant safety standard appears to be Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. That standard applies to new motor vehicles. I hope that this information has been helpful. For your information, I am enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and information on how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA#l05#l2l d:l/l4/9l |
1970 |
ID: 14387.ztvOpen Mr. Tadashi Suzuki Dear Mr. Suzuki: This responds to your letter of March 14,1997, asking for an interpretation of paragraphs 7.5(d)(1) and (e)(1) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Pargraph S7.5(d)(1) applies to headlamps equipped with dual filament replaceable light sources and requires that "Headlamps designed to conform to the external aiming requirements of S7.8.5.1 shall have no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustments of each reflector." Paragraph S7.5(e)(1) applies to a headlamp system equipped with any combination of replaceable light sources except those specified in S7.5(d), and requires that "Headlamps designed to conform to the external aim requirements of S7.8.5.1 shall have no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two replaceable light sources, independent adjustments of each reflector." You have enclosed a sketch of two headlamp designs, called "Example 1" and "Example 2." You believe that "Example 1" can meet both requirements and that "Example 2" cannot due to the independent adjustment of the two reflectors. You ask whether or not your interpretation is correct. "Example 1" depicts a headlamp with two light sources (Type HB3 and Type HB4), and "Reflector" (Upper Beam & Lower Beam)" joined at the center, and a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) identified as "VHAD (Upper Beam & Lower Beam)". As noted above, S7.5(d)(1) applies to headlamps with dual filament replaceable light sources. Type HB3 and Type HB4 are single filament replaceable light sources. Therefore, S7.5(d)(1) does not apply to your "Example 1" headlamp design. Additionally, because "Example 1" has a VHAD, paragraph S7.5(d)(1) does not apply, being intended for externally-aimed headlamps. For the same reason, it does not need to comply with S7.5(e)(1). "Example 2" depicts a headlamp with two light sources (Type HB3 and Type HB4), and with two separate reflectors. One light source is identified as "Upper Beam" and the other as "Lower Beam." Each light source has its own VHAD. As with "Example 1", paragraph S7.5(d)(1) does not apply to this headlamp design because it incorporates single filament light sources. Also, as with "Example 1", paragraph S7.5(e)(1) does not apply. In summary, neither S7.5(d)(1) nor S7.5(e)(1) apply to the examples. Because both Examples appear to be equipped with "on-vehicle aiming" (see paragraph S7.8.5.2), either Example would appear to comply with the relevant provisions of S7.5(e). If you have further questions on this letter, you may FAX Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-3820). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/25/97 |
1997 |
ID: nht87-3.6OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/28/87 FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO: SIDNEY A. GARRETT -- PRESIDENT, BROWN CARGO VAN INC. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM SIDNEY A. GARRETT TO TAYLOR VINSON, OCC 16580 TEXT: Dear Mr. Garrett: This is in reply to your letter of June 29, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 108. You state that you are a manufacturer of truck van bodies. With respect to intermediate si de market lamps and reflectors, you state that you are currently "installing lights on our upper rail and reflectors just above the lower rail". You have asked whether you are installing lights and reflectors on the front of each side that are unnecessa ry under current Federal regulations. The requirements of Standard No. 108 come into effect only when a truck chassis is completed with the addition of the van body. Front side markets and reflectors on a truck must be located as far forward as practicable. This is generally in the front f ender area, and not on the front edge of the van body. Thus, we think you are correct in concluding that the front lights and reflectors you install are unnecessary. You have also asked "whether compliance with Federal regulations constitutes compliance with the various States' regulations. . . ." As a practical matter, the answer is yes. Under the Act, a State may have its own requirements for the number and locati on of side marker lamps and reflectors but they must be identical to Federal requirements. Once you comply with the Federal requirements for side market lamps and reflectors you cannot be in noncompliance with any State requirement that may differ, beca use the Act prohibits States from having requirements that differ from those of Standard No. 108. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely |
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.