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: nht90-2.95OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/26/90 FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO: MANUEL R. GARCIA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/02/90 FROM MANUEL R. GARCIA; OCC 4654 TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1990, to Ms. DeMeter of this Office, with respect to importation requirements for motor vehicles. You have recently bought a 1974 BMW 1602 made "overseas", and would like information on Federal safety (and EPA ) requirements the car must conform to before it is shipped, or, alternatively, whether it is permissible to make the necessary repairs after the car arrives in the United States. Changes in the law affecting importation of cars subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which were effective Janaury 31, 1990, have made the process of importing nonconforming vehicles much more difficult than before. In brief, your car can be imported only if this agency has made a determination that it is capable of conversion to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an affirmative determination has been made, you may import the vehicle only if you have a contract with an importer who has registered with this agency to undertake to conform the vehicle to meet Federal requirements. If the conversion work has been performed abroad, the registered importer is nevertheless responsible for submitting verification that the w ork has been done. At this early date in implementing the law, the agency has made no determinations of vehicle eligibility, and has appointed only a handful of registered importers. I believe that the regulations of the EPA are similar; importation is accomplished through an "independent commercial importer" (ICI). We are forwarding a copy of your letter to that agency for its response. You haven't indicated when you anticipate importing the BMW. I suggest, as the time approaches, you write our Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. He can then provide you with the latest list of registered importers, and vehicles for which affirmative importation determinations 2 have been made. If your car is not among them, you may persuade a registered importer to petition the agency on your behalf. However, there is a fee imposed for consideration of petitions (either $ 1,560 or $ 2,150, depending on the car). This is paya ble in advance, and is non-refundable if a petition is denied. Further, a vehicle owner is not eligible to submit such a petition. You didn't say how "recently" you bought your car. However, if it was before October 31, 1988, and you were stationed outside the U.S. at that time and have never before imported a nonconforming vehicle, the law allows you, until October 31, 1992, to im port the car personally, without a registered importer and without an importation determination, and to have conversion work done by anyone you choose. You also asked for "the publication that covers the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register." I am not sure what you mean, but I am enclosing our new vehicle importation form, Form HS-7, which all importers of motor vehicles must execute upo n arrival of their vehicles. It is, in essence, a concise form of the new importation regulation. I am also enclosing copies of that regulation, and the ones on registered importers, vehicle eligibility determinations, and fees. ENCLOSURES |
|
ID: 2524yOpen Mr. Manuel R. Garcia Dear Mr. Garcia: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1990, to Ms. DeMeter of this Office, with respect to importation requirements for motor vehicles. You have recently bought a l974 BMW l602 made "overseas", and would like information on Federal safety (and EPA) requirements the car must conform to before it is shipped, or, alternatively, whether it is permissible to make the necessary repairs after the car arrives in the United States. Changes in the law affecting importation of cars subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which were effective January 31, l990, have made the process of importing nonconforming vehicles much more difficult than before. In brief, your car can be imported only if this agency has made a determination that it is capable of conversion to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an affirmative determination has been made, you may import the vehicle only if you have a contract with an importer who has registered with this agency to undertake to conform the vehicle to meet Federal requirements. If the conversion work has been performed abroad, the registered importer is nevertheless responsible for submitting verification that the work has been done. At this early date in implementing the law, the agency has made no determinations of vehicle eligibility, and has appointed only a handful of registered importers. I believe that the regulations of the EPA are similar; importation is accomplished through an "independent commercial importer" (ICI). We are forwarding a copy of your letter to that agency for its response. You haven't indicated when you anticipate importing the BMW. I suggest, as the time approaches, you write our Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. He can then provide you with the latest list of registered importers, and vehicles for which affirmative importation determinations have been made. If your car is not among them, you may persuade a registered importer to petition the agency on your behalf. However, there is a fee imposed for consideration of petitions (either $1,560 or $2,150, depending on the car). This is payable in advance, and is non-refundable if a petition is denied. Further, a vehicle owner is not eligible to submit such a petition. You didn't say how "recently" you bought your car. However, if it was before October 31, l988, and you were stationed outside the U.S. at that time and have never before imported a nonconforming vehicle, the law allows you, until October 31, l992, to import the car personally, without a registered importer and without an importation determination, and to have conversion work done by anyone you choose. You also asked for "the publication that covers the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register." I am not sure what you mean, but I am enclosing our new vehicle importation form, Form HS-7, which all importers of motor vehicles must execute upon arrival of their vehicles. It is, in essence, a concise form of the new importation regulation. I am also enclosing copies of that regulation, and the ones on registered importers, vehicle eligibility determinations, and fees. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:59l#592#593#594 d:6/26/90 |
1990 |
ID: nht94-3.85OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 2, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Herr P. Binder -- ITT Automotive Europe GmbH TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/19/94 from P. Binder to John Womack TEXT: Dear Herr Binder: This responds to your FAX of July 19, 1994, requesting a reinterpretation of our letter to you of June 21, 1994. You had intended to ask us about taillamps rather than the turn signal lamps which were the subject of our letter. Your latest letter shows a rear motor vehicle lighting array of four lamps, two on the body and two on the tailgate. The lamps on the body contain turn signals, stop lamps, and taillamps. The lamps mounted on the tailgate contain backup lamps, rear fog lamps, and taillamps. Your letter asks for confirmation of your interpretation that: "This lighting system is a multiple lamp arrangement, therefore the combination of taillamp 1 and taillamp 2 has to be used to meet the photometric requirements for 2 lighted sections (SAE J585e, 3.1 and Table 1)." This is correct. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J585e states that "multiple lamps may be used to meet the photometric requirements of a tail lamp." Note 3 of Table 1 states that "separately lighted sections . . . may be separate lamps", and that the photometric v alues are to apply when all sections that provide the tail signal are considered as a unit. "Visibility will be judged with tailgate closed." As we advised you in our earlier letter, this is also correct. "Only taillamp 2 mounted on the tailgate will meet the requirements for an unobstructed projected illuminated area of 12.5 cm2 measured at 45 deg. inboard. This is in accordance with SAE J 585e; Par. 4." 2 Taillamp 1 and taillamp 2 together comprise the taillamp system. Thus it is not required that taillamp 1 meet the inboard visibility requirements when they are met by taillamp 2. You have also asked some general questions: "Are there regulations which lamps has to be mounted on the body and which lamps are allowed on the tailgate?" No. Table IV's requirement for the location of rear stop, tail, and turn signal lamps is that they be "as far apart as practicable." However, Standard No. 108 does not specify which lamps must be mounted on the body and which are permissible on the tail gate. We encourage manufacturers to mount signal lamps on the body, such as is shown in your drawing. "Is there a regulation to take an approval test in an authorized test laboratory (e.g. ETL)?" No. NHTSA has no authority to require a manufacturer to take approval tests or to designate test laboratories of which it approves. "Which US-Authority has to be informed about this test?" A manufacturer is not required to inform NHTSA or any other governmental agency about its tests. However, NHTSA has the authority to ask a manufacturer to provide it with copies of test results, and generally does so if it finds failures to meet Standar d No. 108 in its own tests. "How long is this test valid?" "After which period has this test to be repeated?" Under our laws, a lamp manufacturer is required to certify compliance of replacement equipment with Standard No. 108, and it is the manufacturer's determination when it should retest a lamp to verify that its certification of compliance remains correct. In our experience, manufacturers will retest when there are design changes to its products. Manufacturers also 3 engage in surveillance testing of products after they have entered production to ensure that design tolerances continue to be met and that the lamp remains in compliance with the specifications of Standard No. 108. |
|
ID: nht92-1.43OpenDATE: 12/04/92 FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR RULEMAKING, NHTSA TO: JORDAN J. POKRINCHAK -- PRESIDENT, JORDAN RESEARCH CORP. ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-7-92 FROM JORDAN J. POKRINCHAK TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7987); ALSO ATTACHED TO NHTSA LETTER OF 3-26-92 TO CHARLES W. O'CONNOR TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 7, 1992, with respect to the Tekonsha electronic brake control. You apparently wrote in reference to my letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin, Inc., the manufacturer of the Tekonsha brake control, in which I discussed that section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) that prohibits certain named commercial entities from "rendering inoperative" safety equipment on motor vehicles. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). You believe that this agency has "approved" this brake control. Based on your belief that the Tekonsha brake control poses a safety hazard on the public roads, you asked us to reconsider our decision to "approve" this brake control. Let me begin by emphasizing that this agency has no authority to "approve," endorse or offer assurances of compliance to any items of motor vehicle equipment. All that our letters of interpretation purport to do is to answer questions from manufacturers and other members of the public as to whether the manufacture, sale, and/or installation of equipment is permissible under applicable Federal laws and regulations. Our letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin, was a letter of interpretation, which concluded that "it now appears that the sale of the [Tekonsha] Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act." This letter and conclusion can in no way be read as "approving," endorsing, or recommending the use of the Tekonsha system. You believe that 49 CFR 393.25(f) "is quite specific when dealing with the actuation of the trailer stop lamps, either manually or automatically," and has nothing to do with the "render inoperative" prohibition of section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. The regulation you have identified (49 CFR 393.25(f)) is administered by another Federal agency, the Federal Highway Administration, acting under statutory authority other than the Safety Act. Obviously, only that agency can give an official interpretation of its regulations. However, based on my understanding of the Tekonsha system, it does not appear that the use of the Tekonsha system would be affected by the regulations in Part 393. Part 393, including 393.25, applies only to commercial motor vehicles. I understand that the Tekonsha control is used on smaller, personal vehicles, like pickups and vans, to tow trailers such as campers, travel trailers, and so forth. If my understanding is correct, the Federal Highway Administration's regulations would not apply. If you wish to receive an official interpretation of this matter, you may contact: Mr. James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. With respect to your request that we reconsider our previous conclusion that the sale of the Tekonsha control would not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act, we do not now have, nor are we aware of, any data indicating that there is a real-world safety problem created by use of the Tekonsha brake control. Hence, we have no reason to change the conclusion announced in the April 3 letter to Echlin about the legality of the Tekonsha control. We would be willing to review this matter again if data become available indicating a potential problem. Thus, if you learn of any specific safety problems that have arisen for vehicles equipped with the Tekonsha control, please let us know. Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns. I hope that this further explanation of our April 3 letter is helpful. |
|
ID: nht89-2.26OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/05/89 FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR TO: FRED GRANDY -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/09/89 FROM FRED GRANDY -- CONGRESS TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 05/05/89 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO ROBERT A. DETERMAN, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH; LETTER DATED 09/23/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RUTH SKLUZACEEK, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA; LETTER DATED 10/10/88 FROM JODY JOHNSON -- IOWA DOT TO DANIEL F. WIECHMANN, REF NO 911.2; LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA TEXT: Dear Mr. Grandy: This is in reply to your recent letter to the Administrator Designate, Jerry Curry, on behalf of your constituent Daniel Weichmann, Jr., of Hampton. You enclosed a copy of Mr. Weichmann's letter to this agency with respect to headlamp covers which, regr ettably, we have been remiss in answering. You asked that we review this matter and that you be provided a copy of our response. We are pleased to reply directly to you, with a copy to Mr. Weichmann so that he may be apprised immediately of our views. Mr. Weichmann was advised by the Iowa Department of Transportation on October 10, 1988, that "The department specifically does not approve head lamp covers", because Iowa has adopted "Federal standards on equipment approval". Consequently, "If the headla mp covers in question meet the Federal Standards they would qualify under Iowa law." Thus, Mr. Weichmann asked us whether headlamp covers are approved by this agency. Headlamp covers are not permissible as items of original motor vehicle equipment. Paragraph S7.7.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, in pertinent part, states that when headlamps are o perated they "shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in front of the lens." Although Standard No. 108 was only recently amended to state this prohibition expressly (I enclose a copy of the amended stan dard), the prohibition has existed since January 1968 through the incorporation by reference in Standard No. 108 of an SAE headlamp Standard, J580b, which contained the identical language. The safety reason for the prohibition is the reduced effectivene ss of a headlamp beam when it must pass through an extra layer of glazing, particularly if that glazing is tinted, yellowed, or cracked, or if moisture has condensed on the inside of the cover. Thus, headlamp covers are also implicitly prohibited by par agraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 which forbids the installation of optional equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment, such as headlamps, that are required by Standard No. 108. The Iowa DOT's views are consistent with the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which permit States to enact State motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new vehicles provided that they are identical to Federal ones covering the same aspect of performance. Although the Federal standards do not regulate operation of a vehicle after it is sold, and hence cou ld not prohibit a vehicle owner in Iowa from installing headlamp covers and operating his vehicle with them, Iowa's enforcement of a headlamp cover prohibition for vehicles in use would be consistent with its prohibition of them as original vehicle equip ment. However, we cannot interpret Iowa law, and reach no conclusion as to whether its statutes or regulations have that effect. Should either you or Mr. Weichmann have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, ENCLOSURE |
|
ID: nht94-4.8OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 23, 1994 FROM: Earl L. Hartley, Jr. -- Ryan Freight Services, Inc. TO: John Womack -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Ed Glancy TITLE: Reference: Briggs & Stratton Corporation Compliance with 49 CFR Part 583 ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Earl L. Hartley, Jr. (A43; Part 583) TEXT: Gentlemen: Pursuant to my recent conversation with Mr. Glancy, I am sending this letter to list some questions we have concerning the requirements of Part 583 and the proper way comply with these regulations. We are in the process of supplying country of origin information to the auto manufacturers we sell to and would like to have confirmation that we are properly interpreting the regulations. Therefore, we request that you respond to our questions at your earliest convenience. 583.6(c) - We interpret this to mean that if the U.S./Canada value added is 70% or more we are to report the U.S./Canada percentage to be 100%. If the U.S./Canada value added is less than 70% we are to report the U.S./Canada percentage to be -0-%. Is t his correct? 583.7(a)/583.7(e)/583.7(f) - If the U.S./Canadian percentage of the value is -0-% then we should report the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" which are over 15% each. Is this correct? 583.7(c)(1) - This requirement is completely independent from the determination of the percentage of the value determination. Therefore it is possible for a part to be of U.S.A. origin and have -0-% U.S./Canadian Percentage of Value. Are we correct in t his assumption? 583.10(a)-(c) - from these parts we assume the following requirements: Our certificate must show: 1. The name and address of the supplier, 2. The part number and description of the part or assembly, 3. The selling price to our customer, 4. Whether the part has or does not have 70% percent of its value from the United States/Canada as determined under 583.6(c), 5. If the United States/Canada percentage is less than 70% the country of origin determined under 583.7(c), 6. For equipment that may be used in an engine or transmission, the country of origin of the equipment, determined under 583.8(c), 7. A certification for the information, pursuant to 583.13 and the date of the certification, and, 8. One certificate can cover multiple parts and assemblies. If the United States/Canada percentage of the value added is -0- percent, should we show the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" which are over 15% on our certificate? This information does not seem to be required by 583.10(a). 583.13 - This section requires us to certify the information provided on our certificate to be in accordance with DOT regulations. Please provide us with a copy of these DOT regulations or advise where we can secure a copy of these regulations so we can know the regulations to which we are subscribing. 583.10 (c) (1) - (2) - We can issue our certificate for the calendar year from January 1, through December 31 of each year. We ask that you review the assumptions we are making based on our interpretations of these regulations and advise us if you feel we are correct or what we need to do to correct any errors we have made. We look forward to hearing from you in the near fut ure. Thank you for you assistance and cooperation in handling this matter. Sincerely: Earl L. Hartley Jr. Atty-in-fact |
|
ID: 571.226--modified roof--RVIA--15-006086OpenMr. Richard Coon Recreation Vehicle Industry Association P.O. Box 2999 Reston, VA 20195-0999
Dear Mr. Coon: This responds to your letter asking about the meaning of the term modified roof in S3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, Ejection mitigation. The term is used in FMVSS No. 226 for purposes of determining the applicability of the standard, as modified roof vehicles are excluded from the standard (see S2, FMVSS No. 226). Your question relates to what you describe as light motorhomes weighing less than 10,000 pounds (approximately 2,000 manufactured each year, in the aggregate). You describe various ways the roofs of these vehicles are modified by final-stage manufacturers[1] and ask if the resulting vehicles are modified roof vehicles under FMVSS No. 226. FMVSS No. 226 sets forth the following definition[2] of modified roof. Modified roof means the replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose original roof has been removed, in part or in total, or a roof that has to be built over the driver's compartment in vehicles that did not have an original roof over the driver's compartment. Discussion We would like to begin our answer by stating that NHTSA evaluates possible violations of the FMVSSs according to the facts of each particular case. Thus, we are unable to agree with your view that there is a sweeping exclusion from FMVSS No. 226 for any motor vehicle roof where any part of the original structure has been removed by the final stage manufacturer (your emphasis). Such a pronouncement implies that merely cutting and plugging a tiny hole into the roof renders FMVSS No. 226 inapplicable, an implication with which we do not agree. NHTSA would assess whether modifications made to a vehicle roof are bona fide. That said, in your letter you describe specific types of roof modifications performed by final-stage manufacturers. You state: Small motorhome roof modifications ...range from a complete replacement of the original roof, to partial roof removals and replacement with reinforcing structure and/or additions such as vents with moveable covers, exhaust or air circulation fans, rigid or moveable skylights, satellite dish or television antennae assemblies and rooftop air conditioning units. Note that these a/c unitsthe most common source of partial roof removalsare not a part of the vehicular systems, are not tied into the vehicles climate control equipment and are intended to operate when the vehicle is stationary and functioning as temporary living quarters. In fact, all powered equipment installed during the roof modification process also requires the installation of wiring to connect the device to a power source, such as an electrical hookup at the camp site or a generator. This equipment, and the roof modifications required for their installation, is critical to the vehicles camping and outdoor recreation function. After considering the information you provide, we agree that vehicles with roofs modified in the manners you describe would be modified roof vehicles under FMVSS No. 226. It appears such modifications would be made in good faith and not merely to circumvent the application of the standard. Note, however, that the agency drafted FMVSS No. 226 to exclude modified roof vehicles because NHTSA was concerned about potential impacts of the standard on small entities, i.e., final-stage manufacturers and alterers, that may have to build out a roof or substantially affect the structure and design of the original ejection mitigation side air curtain system. We would like to urge small entities not to needlessly disconnect or otherwise make nonfunctional ejection mitigation systems that they encounter when producing their vehicles. If it is possible for them to modify the roof of vehicles that have an FMVSS No. 226 ejection mitigation system without negatively affecting the safety system, we encourage them to do so. In that way, the modified vehicles would continue to provide the ejection mitigation protection of FMVSS No. 226. Finally, NHTSA continues to evaluate the regulatory exception for modified roof vehicles to ensure that the highest possible levels of safety are achieved. It may be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the current exception through the rulemaking process if it appears that modifiers are needlessly making ejection mitigation systems nonfunctional. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel Dated: 3/22/16 Ref: Standard No. 226
[1] You state that RVIA represents manufacturers and component part suppliers of all recreation vehicles, including motorhomes (RVs). [2] Note that this definition differs slightly from the one you quoted in your letter. The definition you quoted was amended effective Oct. 9, 2013 (78 FR 55138, Sept. 9, 2013). |
2016 |
ID: 15-004254 WayRay Glazing_sb_3Open
Mr. Philippe D. Monnier WayRay SA Ch. Des Vignes 37 CH-1299 Crans-pres-Celigny Switzerland
Dear Mr. Monnier:
This responds to your August 12, 2015 letter asking whether your product complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) and FMVSS No. 205 in particular.
Your letter describes your product as a holographic car navigation system that projects navigation information on a transparent film in the windshields. Based on your description, we assume that your product might be installed on a new motor vehicle or as an aftermarket item.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue 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 and does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance test. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. Manufacturers are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects.
NHTSA enforces compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing and testing vehicles and regulated equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. For your information, I have enclosed a brief information sheet for new manufacturers.
Your letter broadly asks about laws and legislation that could prevent the sale of your product in the United States, yet provides little information about it. In this letter we discuss portions of the Safety Act and the FMVSSs that might apply to your product. However, we note that our answers to your question are limited by the breadth of your question and the minimal description of your product. Please note that our answer could change if information becomes available that indicates that the information upon which this letter is based is not as we had understood. Also, if we do not comment on an aspect of performance of your product, this does not mean we believe no requirement applies or that your product would meet all affected requirements.
To begin our discussion, keep in mind that what NHTSA laws apply depends on when your product is installed. If the device 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 FMVSSs. To determine how installation of your product could affect compliance with applicable FMVSSs, you should carefully review each FMVSS, available online at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ECFR?page=browse . Discussed below are two FMVSSs of which you should be particularly aware. FMVSS
First, FMVSS No. 205 Glazing Materials applies if your product is installed on a new motor vehicle or if it is part of replacement equipment, such as a replacement windshield. FMVSS No. 205 establishes the performance and location requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles, including glazing intended for aftermarket replacement.
FMVSS No. 205 incorporates an industry standard, the American National Standards Institute American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard (ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 include, among other things, specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance and require 70 percent light transmittance in areas of glazing that are requisite for driving visibility. Such areas of glazing include the windshields of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, and low speed vehicles.
Your product is a transparent film that would be applied to windshields. If your product will be applied to windshields on new motor vehicles or replacement glazing, it must meet all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 205, including the 70 percent light transmittance requirement. There are also other performance requirements glazing must meet, such as for abrasion resistance.
Second, a projection system integrated into the vehicle might be considered a control, telltale, or indicators as defined in FMVSS Nos. 101 and 123.
S5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, specifies operational requirements on sources of illumination within the passenger compartment in order to prevent illuminated controls from distracting a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions. Also, S5.2, Identification, specifies certain symbols, words, or abbreviations to identify each control, telltale and indicator listed in column 1 of Table 1 or Table 2. An example of one of the indicators listed in Table 1 is the speedometer. Although your letter provides little description of your device, any monitor or display must identify telltales and indicators appropriately.
S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 123, Control location and operation, specifies location and operational requirements for any equipment listed in column 1 of Table 1. S5.2.2, Display illumination and operation, specifies operational requirements on sources of illumination in column 1 of Table 2. Also, S5.2.3, Control and display identification, specifies certain symbols, words, or abbreviations to identify each control, telltale and indicator listed column 1 of Table 3.
Safety Acts Make Inoperative Provision
In addition, if your product is installed in a new or used motor vehicle, you need to take into consideration the make inoperative provision of the Safety Act, which states that:
A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter.[1]
The make inoperative prohibition requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard.
If one of the entities named in the make inoperative provision were to install this film as an aftermarket modification, it would need to ensure that its installation does not make inoperative any safety equipment with an applicable safety standard. For example, a manufacturer could not knowingly place a film on windshields that reduces the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the glazing material or reduces the ability of the glazing to meet any other applicable requirement of FMVSS No. 205.
State Laws
In the U.S., States have the authority to regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, and many limit how darkly tinted the glazing may be in vehicles or whether car navigation may be projected in the windshields of vehicles operating in their jurisdictions. Thus, we recommend that manufacturers check with the States to see if there are any requirements of which they should be aware.
Additional Information
I would like to draw your attention to a procedural regulation of which manufacturers should be aware. 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Section 551.45 requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturers agent for service of process in this country. The regulation specifies the items needed for a valid designation.
One final noteplease be aware that NHTSA has visual-manual distraction guidelines that could be relevant to products such as yours. The agencys Phase 1 distraction guidelines apply to original equipment, and the agency is working on its Phase 2 distraction guidelines, which would apply to portable and aftermarket devices. Phase 1 distraction guidelines and other information is available at: http://www.distraction.gov/dot-activities/regulations.html .
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Sara Bennett of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Dated: 1/19/17 Ref: FMVSS No. 101, FMVSS No. 205
[1] 49 U.S.C. 30122 |
2017 |
ID: 571-108--motorcycle rear lamp--Triumph DesignsOpen
Mr. Robert G. Mills Supervisor, Homologation Triumph Designs Limited Normandy Way, Hinckley Leicestershire LE10 3BZ United Kingdom
Dear Mr. Mills:
This responds to your letter, dated April 8, 2011, asking whether the motorcycle rear lamp system you describe is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, which governs lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment on vehicles. In a February 2012, meeting with agency staff you stated that the project for which you were requesting this interpretation was on hold. On October 5, 2015, you emailed Thomas Healy of my staff asking about the status of our response to your letter. I apologize for the delay in our response. As explained below, we believe that the system would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards 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 approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. 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 represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our regulations to your proposed lighting configuration based upon the facts set forth in the materials that you submitted.
In your letter and the attached diagrams, you describe the lamp system as consisting of two lamps, with one lamp located on either side of the rear vertical centerline of the motorcycle. The center axes of the lamps are separated by a distance of 315 mm (12.4 in). Each of the lamps functions as turn signal, stop lamp, and taillamp. The operational logic chart attached to your letter indicates that the system has four functional modes: 1) both lamps continuously illuminated as taillamps; 2) one lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a taillamp; 3) both lamps illuminated at a higher intensity as stop lamps when the brakes are applied; and 4) in a situation in which the brakes are applied at the same time as a turn is indicated, one lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated at a higher intensity as a stop lamp. You state that the effective projected luminous lens area of the two lamps in your configuration, when combined, is 50 cm2.
You ask whether it would be permissible to combine the two lamps on either side of the vertical centerline of the motorcycle in order to meet the effective projected luminous lens area requirements of FMVSS No. 108. You further inquire whether the required minimum 4 inch edge to edge separation of red turn signal lamps from the taillamp or stop lamp for motorcycles equipped with a single stop and taillamp applies to your lighting configuration.
You pose an additional question about the operating condition of the lamps when both the turn signal and stop lamps are activated. In your letter, you state that when one of the turn signal lamps is activated during braking, only the lamp on the opposite side of motorcycle from the turn signal that is flashing will be activated as a stop lamp. Since only one of the two lamps used to meet the effective projected luminous lens area requirement for the stop lamp is activated in this situation, the effective projected luminous lens area falls below that required for a motorcycle equipped with a single stop lamp. You inquire whether this situation would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108.
We agree that you may combine the lamps on either side of the vertical centerline of the motorcycle for the purpose of meeting the effective projected luminous lens area requirements for a motorcycle equipped with a single stop lamp in FMVSS No. 108. FMVSS No. 108 requires that the stop lamps and the rear turn signal lamps must meet the requirements of Table IV-a. FMVSS No. 108 permits the use of multiple compartment lamps or multiple lamps to meet the photometric requirements for stop lamps.[1] The compartments or lamps in such systems are tested together as a unit as long as all the compartments or lamps are within a certain distance of each other. For a two-lamp system, the center axis of the lamps must be within 560 mm of each other to be tested as a unit. The distance between the two lamps in your configuration is less than 560 mm, thus the lamps could be considered a combination lamp for the purpose of meeting the effective projected luminous lens area requirement for the stop lamp. In previous interpretation letters addressing rear motorcycle lamp configurations, we have applied the distance requirements in FMVSS No. 108 and referenced SAE standards to conclude that lamp systems consisting of lamps on either side of the rear vertical centerline of a motorcycle can be considered single lamps for the purposes of meeting the stop lamp photometric requirements (See enclosed November 20, 1998 letter to Tadashi Suzuki).
You correctly note in your letter that Table I-c of FMVSS No. 108 requires turn signal lamps on a motorcycle to be separated from the tail lamp or stop lamp by 4 inches when a single tail or stop lamp is mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle and the turn signal lamps are red. We do not believe that this requirement is applicable to the configuration described in your letter because the configuration you describe consists of two lamps mounted either side of the vertical centerline instead of a single stop or tail lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.
We believe that the situation in which the turn signal and stop lamp of your proposed lighting system are both activated would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. The Table I-c of FMVSS No. 108 states that when a stop lamp is optically combined with a turn signal lamp, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing. According to the definition of optically combined in FMVSS No. 108, optical combination results when 1) a lamp has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb), and 2) the lamps optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.
In your proposed system, both lamps together constitute the required single stop lamp, and each individual lamp also acts as a turn signal. Under the definition stated above, the single stop lamp (consisting of both lamps) is considered to be optically combined with both turn signals. Such an interpretation could mean that a situation when one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a stop signal would not be permissible. Neither of the lamps could be illuminated as a stop signal if one of the turn signals is flashing. In other words, the vehicle would not display any signal indicating that the brakes were being applied in such a situation. If the taillamps could not indicate braking, we would consider this to constitute a safety risk and to be impermissible under FMVSS No. 108.
In the unique situation presented by the lamp system you describe, when one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously (and more strongly) illuminated as a stop signal, the lighted section that is flashing as a turn signal does cease to operate as a stop signal. The lamp system as a whole, however, would continue to signal when the brakes are applied because the other lighted section continues to operate as a stop signal. We conclude that the situation when one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously (and more strongly) illuminated as a stop signal is permissible under FMVSS No. 108. We caution that this interpretation is limited to the unique motorcycle rear lamp system described in your letter.
If you have further questions, you may refer them to Thomas Healy of this Office (202-366-2992).
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Acting Chief Counsel
Dated: 10/20/15 Ref: Standard No. 108 |
2015 |
ID: 86-3.48OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/12/86 EST FROM: JAGUAR CARS INC TO: GRAY MARKET JAGUAR VEHICLE OWNERS TITLE: RECALL LETTER TO GRAY MARKET VEHICLE OWNERS ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/15/86 TO JAMES J DABROWSKI FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29 (4); LETTER DATED 06/12/86, TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM J. DABROWSKI, OCC - 0838 TEXT: This is to advise you that your (year, model, VIN or vehicle identification - whatever information is available) is included in a range of vehicles which the manufacturer has determined contain a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. Specifically, there exists a potential for fuel leakage in the vehicle's engine compartment which, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in an engine compartment fire or the destruction of the vehicle's ignition distributor cap. This could, in turn, result in personal injury. This condition can be rectified by the installation of a new fuel rail assembly and a modified ignition system. Since you vehicle was not manufactured to meet United States safety and emission control standards, it may be necessary to make special arrangements in order to have this recall repair performed on your vehicle. Please contact the Zone Service Department (listed below) closest to you for further information. Very truly yours, R E L E A S E This Release containe herein is made with respect to the following facts: WHEREAS, , is the purchaser and registered owner of a 19 Jaguar 12 cylinder vehicle, VIN (the "Vehicle"); and WHEREAS, the Vehicle was not manufactured to comply with United States safety and environmental standards and was not imported into the United States by Jaguar Cars Inc. ("Jaguar"); and WHEREAS, Jaguar has arranged through to install, at no cost to me, a 12 cylinder fuel rail kit (the "fuel rail kit") in accordance with safety recall D291; and WHEREAS, neither Jaguar nor has attempted to repair or modify the Vehicle to comply with United States safety or environmental standards; and WHEREAS, neither Jaguar, , nor any representative or agent of either has made any representation(s) whatsoever that the Vehicle, as repaired, complies with the aforesaid safety or environmental standards; NOW, THEREFORE, I, , in consideration of certain repairs and other work performed on the Vehicle, including but not limited to installation of the fuel rail kit and other good and valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, release and discharge and by these presents to for myself, my heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, release, acquit and forever discharge RELEASEES, Jaguar Cars Inc. and , and all their past, present and future associated companies and any and all other persons, firms and corporations, of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims or demands for damages, costs, loss of use, loss of services, expenses, compensation, consequential damage or any other thing whatsoever on account of or in any way arising out of any and all known or unknown claims arising from the installation of the fuel rail kit or other repair, by or at the direction of Jaguar, of the Vehicle purchased by me from on or about the day of 198 No promise or inducement which is not herein expressly stated has been made to me, and, in executing this Release, I do not rely on any other statement or representation made by any person, firm or corporation hereby released, or any agent or any other person representing them or any of them. This document contains the ENTIRE AGREEMENT between the parties hereto and the terms of this agreement may not be changed orally. I further state that I have carefully read the foregoing Release and know the contents thereof, and I sign the same being of lawful age, as my own free act.
Sworn to before me this day of 198
Notary Public
|
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.