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: nht93-9.8OpenDATE: December 9, 1993 FROM: Harris W. Fawell -- U.S. House of Representatives TO: Howard Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA TITLE: Re: Matthew Gerrity; 7624 Rohrer Drive, Downers Grove, IL 60516 ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/93 from John Womack (signed by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Matt Gerrity (A42; Redbook (2); Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)) TEXT: During April of this year, a member of my district office staff spoke with John Wolmack in your office regarding Mr. Gerrity's problem with a new Cadillac he had purchased. Because of a physical handicap, the steering wheel of Mr. Gerrity's car must be modified with a device which permits him to operate it. As he explains it, the device would prohibit the normal function of the air bag and would cause him injury in the event of an accident. Mr. Wolmack said that requests to authorize the waiver of federal air bag regulations are considered on a case-by-case basis, and suggested that Mr. Gerrity should write to you, explaining the circumstances, and the need for such a waiver. We are writing to you now because Mr. had advised us that he had written a letter to you, and had not received a response. When we called Mr. Wolmack about this, he told us that your records showed that no letter had been received. We then asked Mr. Gerrity for a copy of his letter, which we now present to you. We note that the letter is undated and that your address is not complete, which may explain why you cannot locate the original. I would appreciate your responding to Mr. Gerrity on the basis of this copy. If this is not possible, please advise us on what we need to do in order for you to consider his request that he be authorized to disconnect the air bag. All of this is a little convoluted, I know. Thanks for your patience and whatever help you can give us to help Mr. Gerrity with his problem. - - - The following is the letter from Matt Gerrity to Howard Smolkin: Matt Gerrity 7624 Rohrer Drive Downers Grove, IL 60516 (708) 964-7201 Howard Smolkin National Highway Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20598 Dear Mr. Smoklin, I am a handicapped motorist. In order to steer my car, I have a metal bar that goes across the steering-wheel with a type of spinner-know at the end. I recently purchased a 1990 Coup De Vile with a drivers side air-bag. In the event, the air-bag should go off, the steering device would probably pop off causing serious injury. I have gone to dealers and other mechanics who see the obvious problem but are reluctant to disconnect the air-bag because of Federal Law. I would have the air-bag connected again upon sale of this car. Please tell me what measures I should take. Sincerely, Matt Gerrity |
|
ID: nht93-6.24OpenDATE: August 31, 1993 FROM: Joey Ferrari -- Director Technical Sales, Grant Products TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/6/93 from John Womack to Joey Ferrari (A41; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)) TEXT: I am writing this to you at the advice of Mr. Jettner. Grant Products is an automotive parts manufacturer and our main product line is aftermarket steering wheels. With the arrival of the air bag, we have been careful to specifically state that our products are not applicable to any air bag equipped vehicle since we do not manufacture an air bag. We receive many inquiries from both repair shops and private individuals asking if our products will fit their vehicles originally air bag equipped. Some say they don't want or like the air bag, but most calls are after an accident where the bag has deployed. Upon finding out how expensive it is to replace the air bag system (especially if they don't have insurance) people call us. My questions are asked relating to our possible liability exposure if someone uses our products (without an air bag) in place of the factory wheel that was originally equipped with an air bag system. 1. If a vehicle is originally equipped with an air bag, must it have an operable air bag system for its entire useful life? 2. If a repair shop removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable? 3. If a private individual removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable? 4. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, must a repair shop or individual replace the air bag and/or system so that it is again operable as originally equipped? 5. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, can a repair shop or individual replace the air bag with a Grant product not having an air bag? 6. Upon resale of a vehicle from the first owner (individual) to a second or subsequent owner, must the vehicle have an operable air bag system as originally equipped? 7. If we have a potential liability exposure for someone suing our products to replace an original air bag, what do we need to do to limit this exposure?
I look forward to hearing your responses to my questions. Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me. |
|
ID: 06-002774drnOpenMs. Amanda Reyes Daniel Boone & Company 1180 N. Fountain Way #B Anaheim, CA 92806 Dear Ms. Reyes: This responds to your letter concerning whether your motorcycle parts must meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to motorcycles or any other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements. Our answer is provided below. As explained below, since your products are motor vehicle equipment, your company, Daniel Boone & Company, is subject to certain NHTSA requirements as the manufacturer of the equipment. NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Billet Wheels Must Meet FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More than 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) You write that your company manufactures billet wheels. FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) applies to: motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds and motorcycles, to rims used on those vehicles, and to non-pneumatic tire spare tire assemblies for use on those vehicles. (See S3. Application.) Your billet wheels would be considered rims used on those vehicles (i.e., motorcycles). Thus, FMVSS No. 120 would apply to your billet wheels. Therefore, the billet wheel must be marked with the DOT symbol, as well as with other required information specified in S5.2. S5.2(c) of FMVSS No. 120 requires that the symbol DOT be stamped on the rim, which constitutes a certification by the manufacturer of the rim that the rim complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA does not assign a DOT number or identification mark for rim manufacturers. Since FMVSS No. 120 applies to billet wheels that your company manufactures, your company must also meet 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Part 566 requires that a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies, submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture. This information must be mailed to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C. A sample Manufacturer Identification Submission is attached. Forward Controls, Calipers and Rotors for Motorcycles are Motor Vehicle Equipment You also wish to know whether any FMVSSs apply to forward controls, calipers and rotors for motorcycles. The answer is no. NHTSA has FMVSSs applicable to motorcycles (i.e., FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems, and FMVSS No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays), but not to forward controls, calipers and rotors. However, since the parts your company manufactures are motor vehicle equipment, they are subject to various provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety. Motor vehicle equipment is defined at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(7) as: (A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or (C) any device or an article or apparel (except medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner) that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury or death. Clearly, since the billet wheels, forward controls, calipers and rotors are parts of motorcycles as originally manufactured, or are sold as replacement parts of motorcycles, these parts are motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If the manufacturer or NHTSA should determine that a product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying NHTSA and purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (See Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 573, Defect and Non-Compliance Responsibility and Reports.) In addition, the States regulate the use of vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Each State in which you sell your products can provide information on whether there are any requirements in that State for the billet wheels, forward controls, calipers or rotors that are to be used with motorcycles. I am enclosing a copy of our July 2006 publication, Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA102(4) d.3/28/06 |
2006 |
ID: nht88-3.38OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/09/88 FROM: MERRILL J. ALLEN TO: PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE TITLE: AFFIDAVIT OF MERRILL J. ALLEN IN SUPPORT OF PATENT REAPPLICATION ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/30/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO SAMSON HELFGOTT, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 108, VSA SECTION 108(A) 2(A); LETTER DATED 01/12/89 FROM SAMSON HELFGOTT TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2989; REPORT DATED 06/02/87 FROM NATIONA L PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A REAR WARNING LIGHT ON THE FOLLOWING DISTANCE AND/OR BRAKING RESPONSE TIME (BRT) OF VEHICLES BEHIND; SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS H-85-30 ISSUED 11/05/85 BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BO ARD TEXT: IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Application of: HAROLD A. CAINE Serial No.: 113,544 Filed October 26, 1987 For: AUTOMOTIVE WARNING AND BRAKE LIGHT ARRANGEMENTGroup Art Unit: 268 Examiner: Joseph A. Orsino September 6, 1988 AFFIDAVIT UNDER RULE 132 Hon. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 SIR: I, MERRILL J. ALLEN, hereby declare that: 1. I have been a Full Professor of Optometry, at the School of Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, since 1959 and taught many of the optometry courses offered by the School. 2. That I have had extensive experience in connection with highway safety, and particularly, in connection with the use of lights in connection with highway safety, and have been involved in projects relating to running lights, glare and driver visio n, the relative visibility of highway distress signals, the study of visibility of highway targets through clear and tinted automobile windshields, etc. 3. That attached herewith as Exhibit A is a copy of my biographical background, including my education, employment, research projects, practical experience, talks 2 and research papers, membership on committees, consultantships, and licenses. 4. That I have published about 206 articles covering clinical optometry, theoretical optometry, physiological optics, highway vision and motor vehicle design, etc., and that a copy of my publications list is herewith attached as Exhibit B. 5. That I am familiar with the invention of Harold A. Caine as is claimed in the above identified patent application and, specifically, the use of his high, centermounted combination warning and brake light arrangement for automotive vehicles, using in conjunction with a red light, an amber/yellow light which is kept on as a running light, both during acceleration and coasting and switching to the red light only upon braking of the vehicle. 6. That I have also been familiar with the type of devices cited by the Examiner as constituting the prior art and, specifically, a system having a combination of three lights, including a green running light during acceleration, a yellow light durin g coasting and a red light during braking. 7. That I have been advised that the Examiner has rejected the invention of Harold A. Caine based upon the fact that the Examiner is of the opinion that whether two or three colors are used and the particular color used would all have been an obvious matter of design choice. 8. That I do not agree with the Examiner's conclusion in this matter, and that my opinion is that the use of the yellow/amber lights as a running light instead of a green light is not a matter of obvious design choice and clearly brings about improve d results, and that the use of only two colors, specifically, the yellow/amber and the red 3 is not an obvious modification of the three light system using green, yellow and red, and also clearly brings about improved results. 9. That, specifically, a far sighted driver will see a green light clearest while a near sighted driver will see a red light clearest. The yellow light will be less affected by the driver's refractive error than either red or green, therefore, yello w/amber is more suited for use as a running light than is green. The colors green and red are strong signal colors where as yellow is not. Thus, traditionally green has been used in signals as meaning "go". The purpose of a running light on the back of a vehicle is to signal "presence" and not "acceleration", ther efore, the use of yellow is importantly different than the use of green as a running light and should result in greater distance between motor vehicles. At night, the average illuminant color encountered, consisting of tungsten head lamps, quartz halogen head lamps, tungsten street lamps, low and high pressure sodium vapor street lamps and high pressure mercury street lamps, is on average in the yello w part of the visible spectrum. The perceived distance of a running light is determined under low visibility conditions by binocular vision using stereopsis. Chromeostereopsis is a perception of colors at different distances due to chromatic aberration and slight optical element misalignments in the eye and/or due to prism incorporated in spectacle lenses. in the population various degrees and direction of chromeostereopsis exist. Hence, for about half the population green will be seen closer than yel low while for the remainder of the population green will be seen farther 4 away. Since the average illumination at night is yellowish, it follows that a yellow running light will not be subject to chromeostereopsis errors in distance judgment by any part of the driving population, whereas green could be subject to a significan t error in judgment of its distance. Accordingly, the use of the yellow/amber as a running light rather than using the green of the prior art as the running light is not an obvious substitution and does bring about clearly beneficial results in that mor e appropriate stopping distances would be provided. Additionally, it is my opinion that yellow is recognized by the masses as providing an indication of warning. Green, on the other hand, has the effect of providing an indication of complete safety. A trailing driver seeing a green running light is p sychologically of the opinion that everything is safe and he may be lulled into a false sense of security. Should the forward vehicle suddenly change from an acceleration condition to a braking condition, the lights will switch quickly from green to red and the driver of the trailing vehicle may not psychologically react as fast as he could if he had not been viewing green. On the other hand, when he sees yellow/amber as a running light, psychologically he is already in a state of cautious awareness a nd will probably react more quickly to a sudden change to a red condition upon application of the brake in a forward vehicle. 10. That I additionally believe that using a two light system is less complex than a three light system. Using the green, yellow and red lights provides various combinations of lights that may become confusing during normal driving when the lights c ontinuously change from green to yellow upon application and removal of acceleration 5 pressure. This is especially the case if the yellow signal blinks as is provided in the prior art cited by the Examiner. By using a simplified system having only yellow/amber and red, the driver of the trailing vehicle can more easily respond to emerge ncy conditions and this should bring about an improved situation of safety. 11. That I further declare that all statements made of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made upon information and belief are believed to be true and further that willful, false statements and the likes, are punishable by fine or impr isonment or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that willful, false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent resulting therefrom. Dated: Sept 9, 1988 Merrill J. Allen, ODPhD Professor Emeritus DOCKET NO.: 8877 9/6/88 |
|
ID: 15484.ztvOpen Mr. Alan Robinson Dear Mr. Robinson: This is in reply to your FAX of June 23, 1997, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. Mr. Van Iderstine had furnished you previously with copies of interpretations regarding the use of electronic message boards "fixed to the rear of vehicles." You now present five certain conditions which you believe "must apply to permit legal use of such a message display." The agency interpretations indicate that, in general, an electronic message board cannot be used as original equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Nor can an electronic message board be installed in the aftermarket by certain persons (i.e., a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) if this "makes inoperative" any lighting equipment originally installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. With respect to lighting devices, the agency deems impairment of effectiveness and a making inoperative as equivalent. Even if permissible under Federal law, electronic message boards may be prohibited by the various states of the United States. Your letter has given us a chance to review the subject of electronic message boards. The recurring concern with any supplementary lighting device is its potential to distract other drivers sharing the roadway from understanding and responding to the lighting devices required by Standard No. 108. This is particularly true if the supplementary device is one emitting verbal messages which must be read and its information processed, as compared with, for example, a flashing signal indicating a turn. This is a "message" which is instantly understood upon perceiving it. As a consequence of our review, we have concluded that electronic message boards have the potential to impair any rear lighting devices (or make them "inoperative"), including the hazard warning system. This is a warning signal readily recognized by other motorists. We have concluded that an electronic message board has the potential to impair the effectiveness of the hazard warning system. Thus, in our opinion, electronic message boards are not permitted on motor vehicles that have been manufactured to conform to Standard No. 108. However, if an electronic message board is simple enough that a vehicle owner may install it without seeking help from a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the owner is violating no Federal law if (s)he installs and uses it, and the legality of its use is determinable under state laws. We are not conversant with these laws. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 04-002102drnOpenMr. A. Bret Miller Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems. You wish to know whether a prototype design of a three-wheeled motorcycle would meet FMVSS No. 122s requirement for "a parking brake of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement." As explained below, the answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs 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 certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. In your letter you describe your product, the "Sport Trike," as using "automotive (General Motors) disc brakes on all three wheels with a conventional hydraulic split service (master cylinder) brake system." You described the parking brake as follows:
Section S5.1.4, Parking brake, of FMVSS No. 122 states: "Each three-wheeled motorcycle shall be equipped with a parking brake of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement." We have reviewed the written description of your parking brake design, which describes the service brakes on each of the three wheels as "hydraulically applied." We have also reviewed the drawing. Based on the drawing, we note that although the parking brake is actuated by a mechanical lever, the parking brake in fact is retained by hydraulic means. S5.1.4 specifies that a three-wheeled motorcycle must have a parking brake of a friction type "with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement." (Emphasis added.) The requirement for a three-wheeled motorcycle to have a parking brake with "solely mechanical means to retain engagement" would preclude a parking brake design relying even in part on hydraulics for retention of engagement. Thus, a three-wheeled motorcycle with your proposed parking brake design would not meet FMVSS No. 122. The confidential drawing you provided has been returned under separate cover. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:122 |
2004 |
ID: deyoung.ztvOpenMr. Jack W. DeYoung Dear Mr. DeYoung: This responds to your letter dated November 15, 2002, and your letter of November 19, 2002, which responded to my letter to you dated November 14, 2002. I regret that your letters were misplaced and that you had to contact us several times. The subject matter of our correspondence is the flash rate of hazard warning signal flashers. Your letter of November 15 (written before you had received my November 14 reply to your letter of October 18) stated your understanding that the agencys interpretation to Robert A. Belcher in 1980 was applicable to your flasher as well. Mr. Belcher had developed a dual mode hazard flasher, which flashed at a constant rate in one mode. In the other, or "distress," mode, the flasher alternated between a short flash and a long flash to simulate the international distress signal "S.O.S."We understood that the flash rate of the emergency distress signal mode would be 71 flashes per minute, and we informed Mr. Belcher that if it maintained this flash rate and met other requirements of J945, "it should qualify" (our letter of October 30, 1980). We further informed Representative Norm Shumway on July 30, 1984, with respect to Mr. Belchers device, that "We find nothing in Standard No. 108 that precludes a dual mode flash for hazard flashers, provided that the flash rates chosen [comply], adding that "current flashers, of course, operate at a constant rate." We do not appear to have provided any other interpretations regarding flashers operating at a rate other than constant. On November 19, you replied to my letter of November 14, stating that your system was designed to produce 120 cycles per minute and that you did not agree with our calculations which indicated a rate of more than 120 cycles per minute. I would note here that, in contrast to the Belcher system which operated at a flash rate of only 71 per minute, the 120 flashes per minute that you ascribe to your system is the maximum that the standard permits. As I mentioned in my letter of November 14, SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966, is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 as the Federal requirement for flashers. Paragraph 3 of SAE J945 specifies that the "flashing rate . . . shall be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles." (our emphasis). You are correct in your remark that in our calculation we took "an arithmetic average of three flash rates without considering the amount of time each uses," and that this was an "unweighted average." We do not read the word "average" in SAE J945 as meaning anything other than an arithmetic average. Thus, in our opinion, compliance with Standard No. 108 requires that the flash rate be met over an arithmetic average of any number of three or more consecutive cycles that may be chosen after a minimum of five consecutive cycles have occurred since activation of the signal. Thus, your flash rate increases to 144.3 per minute if we measure the rate over 4 cycles, and to 148.7 per minute if we measure the rate over 5 cycles. Your letter of November 15 also asked for confirmation that it would be permissible for a truck or bus owner to install your flasher even if it did not meet Standard No. 108s flash rate requirements. Paragraph S5.8.1 of Standard No. 108 requires that lighting equipment manufactured to replace original equipment be designed to conform to the standard. We regard your device as a flasher intended to replace a flasher manufactured in accordance with SAE J945. Thus, its flash rate must be within the parameters specified in SAE J945. The flash rate exceeds the maximum rate specified. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or introduce in interstate commerce any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard and is not certified as meeting that standard. Under 49 U.S.C. 30165, a person who violates Section 30112(a) is liable for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation, up to $15,000,000 for a related series of violations. Thus, we do not anticipate that you will manufacture and sell your device, and the question of installation is moot. If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2003 |
ID: 22060.ztvOpenMr. Joel Martin Dear Mr. Martin: This is in reply to your undated fax to George Entwistle of this agency, received in August 2000, asking three questions about motorcycle importers. These questions are:
The foreign manufacturer determines the number of importers of its product. The manufacturer does not consult with NHTSA on this matter, and NHTSA has no preference.
We are unsure of the basis for your question. A motorcycle, like other motor vehicles, must be manufactured to comply and be certified by its manufacturer, through a plate affixed to the vehicle, as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported into the United States. If the motorcycle is certified by its manufacturer, no further testing by any importer is required. If the motorcycle is not certified, it can only be imported for resale by a registered importer pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 591-594, after we have determined that the motorcycle is capable of being modified to comply with the applicable FMVSS. We can interpret your question two ways. If the first importer conducts tests on behalf of the foreign manufacturer who then certifies its product on the basis of these tests before the vehicle is imported into the United States, a second importer does not have to test the product. Our alternative response to your question assumes that the foreign manufacturer of the motorcycle has not certified it as meeting the FMVSS, that both importers have registered as importers under 49 CFR Part 592, and that we have decided, on the basis of a petition submitted by the first importer, as provided in 49 CFR Part 593, that the motorcycle is capable of being modified to meet all applicable FMVSS. As importers of motor vehicles for resale, each registered importer of the motorcycles becomes a "manufacturer" under our laws, responsible for compliance, certification, and notification and remedy when safety recalls are required. In filing its capability petition, a registered importer must establish the technical feasibility of modifying a vehicle to conform, but need not disclose the exact methods it will use to conform the vehicle. The information accompanying the petition is available in a public docket, and only rarely does a petitioner ask that portions of it be withheld from disclosure as confidential business information. To the extent that the first importer has disclosed conformance methods in the publicly available materials, a second importer may use this information in its own conformance operations without further testing. In addition to affixing its certification label to a vehicle, a registered importer must also "certify" compliance to NHTSA, submitting information which may disclose the tests it conducted in conforming the vehicle. These submittals are not in a public docket and may be treated as confidential business information which is not available to other registered importers of the same vehicle. If the first importer chooses not to share test data and compliance methods with the second importer on a contractual or other basis, the second importer must independently develop its own conformance methods to assure the validity of its certification of the vehicle and to NHTSA.
No. NHTSA has no "guidelines for multiple importers for the same product." In this instance, the manufacturer appears to have different agreements with each of the three importers of its products. If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Frank Seales, Jr. ref:592 |
2000 |
ID: nht95-1.74OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: February 17, 1995 FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive and Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Department of the Army TITLE: None ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/4/94 LETTER FROM LARRY W. OVERBAY TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10407) TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems, and NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02. You stated that your organization recently tested a vehicle's compliance to the emerg ency stopping distance requirements in FMVSS No. 121 by disconnecting the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. You further stated that this action "essentially eliminated rear braking during all stops" making the vehicle totally relian t on the front brakes for stopping. According to your letter, the vehicle manufacturer contends that the manner in which you conducted the test is invalid since it was not done in accordance with NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02, which specifies rapid blee ding of the vehicle's air reservoirs. In addition to general questions about FMVSS No. 121 and the NHTSA Test Procedure, you asked whether the removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is conside red by NHTSA to be a valid test of the emergency system requirements under the provisions in FMVSS No. 121. After providing background information that responds to your general questions about testing of motor vehicles, I will respond to your specific q uestion about test conditions applicable to the emergency stopping requirements. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (Formerly, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has been codified at 49 U.S.C. 30303) NHTSA, however, does not appro ve 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. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies performance requirements for the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA has provided instructions, known as "compliance test procedures," to the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests f or the agency. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance char acteristics of the product being tested, not differences between various testing facilities. The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, provide additional detail beyond what is s et forth in the relevant FMVSS. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written. The agency has generally stated that the test procedures are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s) and that in some cases the test procedu res do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. With this background in mind, let me respond to your specific questions. As for your first question, the requirements in FMVSS No. 121 take precedence over the TP 121-02. As noted above, TP 121-02 contains instructions issued by NHTSA to provide inform ation to agency contractors about how to conduct compliance tests. In contrast, the law requires manufacturers to certify their vehicles to Standard No. 121. As for your question about FMVSS No. 121's emergency stopping test requirements, those requirements are set forth in section S5.7.1. However, those requirements are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers, as the result of the U.S. Court of Appe als decision in PACCAR v. DOT, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978). (see S3 of 49 CFR 571.121). The agency retained the language in S5.7.1 so that those manufacturers that wish to construct their vehicles in accordance with the non-mandatory sections of the standard will have the necessary information to do so. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 10407Open Mr. Larry W. Overbay Dear Mr. Overbay: This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems, and NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02. You stated that your organization recently tested a vehicle's compliance to the emergency stopping distance requirements in FMVSS No. 121 by disconnecting the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. You further stated that this action "essentially eliminated rear braking during all stops" making the vehicle totally reliant on the front brakes for stopping. According to your letter, the vehicle manufacturer contends that the manner in which you conducted the test is invalid since it was not done in accordance with NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02, which specifies rapid bleeding of the vehicle's air reservoirs. In addition to general questions about FMVSS No. 121 and the NHTSA Test Procedure, you asked whether the removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test of the emergency system requirements under the provisions in FMVSS No. 121. After providing background information that responds to your general questions about testing of motor vehicles, I will respond to your specific question about test conditions applicable to the emergency stopping requirements. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (Formerly, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has 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. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies performance requirements for the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA has provided instructions, known as "compliance test procedures," to the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests for the agency. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between various testing facilities. The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, provide additional detail beyond what is set forth in the relevant FMVSS. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written. The agency has generally stated that the test procedures are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s) and that in some cases the test procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. With this background in mind, let me respond to your specific questions. As for your first question, the requirements in FMVSS No. 121 take precedence over the TP 121-02. As noted above, TP 121-02 contains instructions issued by NHTSA to provide information to agency contractors about how to conduct compliance tests. In contrast, the law requires manufacturers to certify their vehicles to Standard No. 121. As for your question about FMVSS No. 121's emergency stopping test requirements, those requirements are set forth in section S5.7.1. However, those requirements are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers, as the result of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in PACCAR v. DOT, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978). (see S3 of 49 CFR 571.121). The agency retained the language in S5.7.1 so that those manufacturers that wish to construct their vehicles in accordance with the non-mandatory sections of the standard will have the necessary information to do so.
I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:121 d:2/17/95
|
1995 |
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.