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: GF006103OpenLarry C. Dickinson, Ph.D. Dear Mr. Dickinson: This responds to your phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff and subsequent e-mail asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (FMVSS No. 223), S5.2.2 allows for "elastic deformation" as opposed to plastic deformation. Specifically, you ask whether the requirement that the energy absorption be accomplished by plastic deformation would preclude a material that returns to its original shape (i.e., elastic material). By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. FMVSS No. 223 requires that underride guards fitted to new trailers and semitrailers provide a certain amount of energy absorption to lessen the crash forces on a passenger vehicle colliding from the rear. In creating FMVSS No. 223, the agency sought to balance concerns associated with rear impact guards being overly rigid and non-yielding in rear impact crashes against those associated with the guards being insufficiently rigid to prevent intrusion of a trailer into a vehicle occupant compartment. Accordingly, the standard requires that a certain minimum amount of force be absorbed through "permanent yielding" or plastic deformation of the guard. [1] S5.2.2 of the standard states:
The standards energy absorption requirement cannot be met by elastic deformation for two reasons. First, the language of the standard calls for plastic deformation. Second, the prescribed method of measuring the required energy absorption greatly restricts any elastic qualities of the rear impact guard. Specifically, any energy that the guard returns to the force application device when the load is removed (i.e., the elastic component of the deformation) is subtracted from the total energy absorption for purposes of meeting the requirement. The requirement that guards absorb energy by plastic deformation was to ensure that the guard did not subsequently return the absorbed energy to the colliding vehicle, because that energy return could increase the chance of death or injury to the occupants. Any immediate rebound occurring after the crash event could pose a threat to passenger vehicle occupants. In an August 4, 1998, letter to Mr. Toms of Power Brace (copy enclosed), NHTSA stated that the plastic deformation requirement of S5.2.2 does not preclude use of certain elastic materials that return to their original shape very slowly (approximately 24 hours). Based on your conversation with Mr. Feygin, it is our understanding that your question concerned materials that returned to their original shape immediately after impact. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure [1] See Preamble to the Final Rule, January 24, 1996 (61 FR 2004 at 2011). |
2003 |
ID: nht71-4.6OpenDATE: 08/27/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA TO: David N. Henderson; House of Representatives TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 1971 on behalf of the C.L.S. Car Truck Leasing Corporation of Goldsboro, North Carolina concerning the applicability of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574) to the C.L.S. Corp. If C.L.S. leases a motor vehicle with new tires to a leasee for more than 60 days, they have the same responsibilities a tire dealer has under section 574.9. Therefore, C.L.S. is required to record the name and address of the leasee along with the tire identification number and forward this information to the tire manufacturer. See section 574.8. The person leasing the vehicle for more than 60 days is considered to be the purchaser of the tires. See section 574.3(c)(3). If C.L.S. sells a used motor vehicle equipped with new tires to the ultimate user, they are considered a tire dealer and must meet the requirements of section 574.8. If, however, they sell a vehicle equipped with new tires to a vehicle dealer, the dealer is responsible for meeting the requirements of section 574.8 and C.L.S.'s responsibility is limited to assuring that the dealer has a means of recording the required information and forwarding it to the tire manufacturer. See section 574.8(c). Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation. Thank you for your interest in auto safety. ENC. |
|
ID: 04-009678drn-2OpenMr. Mark Swallen Dear Mr. Swallen: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). You asked about which set of measurements to use from Table 1 for the expansion test for hydraulic brake hoses when the inside diameter of the brake hose falls between the listings. The answer is provided below. In responding to your letter, I note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.
In Table 1, the descriptions of the hydraulic brake hose, inside diameter, are: "1/8 inch or 3 mm or less," "3/16 inch or 4 to 5 mm," and "1/4 inch or 6 mm or more". You indicated that the inside diameter of your hydraulic brake hose falls in between the first and second of these sets, and asked which set of measurements should be used. Reading this provision as a whole, it is our opinion that the second set of hydraulic brake hose (3/16 inch or 4 to 5 mm) covers all hydraulic brake hose with inside diameter greater than that specified for the first set and less than that specified for the third set. In other words, the set covers brake hose with inside diameter greater than "1/8 inch or 3 mm" and less than "1/4 inch or 6 mm". Thus, the inside diameter of your hydraulic brake hose falls into the category described in Table 1 as "3/16 inch or 4 to 5 mm". I note that on December 20, 2004 (69 FR 76298), NHTSA issued in the Federal Register, a final rule updating FMVSS No. 106, including the requirements for air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. The final rule takes effect on December 20, 2006. However manufacturers that wish to do so may begin complying with this new rule beginning on February 18, 2005. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:106 |
2005 |
ID: 1982-3.18OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/03/82 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Kastar Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Harry Epstein Kastar, Inc. Station Road at Sunrise Highway Bellport, New York 11713
Dear Mr. Epstein:
This responds to your letter of October 1, 1982 (and letter of August 31, 1982) requesting information concerning the Federal requirements applicable to auxiliary wind deflectors for passenger car doors. Your letter states that Mr. Kevin Cavey of this agency indicated that plastic wind deflectors do "not have to meet any government regulations."
We apologize, but the information given to you by Mr.Cavey was incorrect. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The wind deflectors you plan to manufacture are pieces of motor vehicle equipment, and they are subject to Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (copy enclosed).
Incorporating by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standard's Safety Code for Glazing Materials, Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. Under the requirements of this standard, an auxiliary wind deflector to be used on a passenger vehicle at levels requisite for driving ability may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials, depending upon its proposed location on the vehicle (the various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard). The acrylic plastic material you propose to use is probably an Item 4 glazing, which may be used as a wind deflector placed on the side window of a vehicle. An AS-4 glazing material must meet Test No. 2, "Luminous Transmittance," which requires that the material "show regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of not less than 70 percent irradiation." You will have to make the determination whether your material in fact qualifies as an Item 4 material, or any of the other Item numbers mentioned above.
Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements. The requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraphs S6.1-S6.3. While not explicitly stated in your letter, it appears that you do not manufacture the glazing to be used in your deflector, but instead purchase it from a prime glazing manufacturer and then cut it yourself. If this assumption is correct, then the certification and marking requirements applicable to you are set out in Paragraph S6.4 and S6.5. By reference to section 6 of ANS Z26, you are required under this paragraph to mark any section of glazing that you cut with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was taken. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to those found on the acrylic sheets you purchased. Each item must also be certified pursuant to Section 114 of the Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Safety Standard No. 205. Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle equipment such as wind deflectors must comply with applicable safety standards prior to its first purchase by someone for purposes other than resale. The manufacture or installation of a wind deflector that does not conform to the standard, or the installation in a new vehicle in a location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, would be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109, anyone who violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) is subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation.
Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under Section 151 et. seq., such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Again, Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.
We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact Hugh Oates of this office if you have any more questions. (202-426-2992).
Sincerely,
Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 08-007784drn-2OpenMs. Melissa Van Gorkom Washington State Patrol Government and Media Relations P.O. Box 42600 Olympia, WA 98504-2600 Dear Ms. Van Gorkom: This responds to your questions regarding how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) regulations apply to kit cars. You indicated that your questions specifically focus on a vehicle called the Tango T600, which is offered for sale by a company called Commuter Cars Corporation in Spokane, Washington. The companys website is: www.commutercars.com. Our answers are provided below. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue FMVSSs that apply to passenger cars. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards. At www.commutercars.com (as accessed on July 19, 2011) the following description of the Tango T600 is provided: In order to avoid the time and expense of certification, it is being sold as a mostly-assembled kit making completion by any customer, with or without mechanical skills, a quick and easy task. Based on the photographs provided, it appears the Tango T600 has four wheels, and is therefore considered a passenger car for purposes of NHTSAs regulations. Because the description does not state that the purchaser will provide a used chassis or other used parts, it appears that all new parts are used in the kit. The retail price listed is $108,000. In your e-mail message dated December 9, 2008, to Rebecca Yoon of my staff, you posed the following questions regarding NHTSA requirements for Commuter Cars Corporation (CCC) and its product. Your first question was whether the kit car manufacturer would be required to certify the compliance of the kit as meeting all applicable FMVSSs (pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 Certification) and would have to apply a vehicle identification number (VIN) as specified in 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. The manufacturer in the case of the Tango T600 is CCC. In a NHTSA interpretation letter of July 9, 1993 to Mr. Christopher Banner (copy enclosed) we stated the following: If you ship your kit cars with all parts needed to produce a complete motor vehicle, including the power source, the agency will treat the kit car as a motor vehicle, not an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of the state of completion of the kit. You would be required to certify that the kit car conformed to all applicable safety standards if it were treated as a new vehicle under the rules set forth in 1.[1] and 2.[2] above, but not if it were treated as a used vehicle under those rules. (See also, NHTSAs letter of September 27, 1993 to Mr. Joel Trim (copy enclosed).) Since it is offering for sale a kit car that includes all parts necessary for assembly, CCC is the manufacturer of the Tango T600 and must certify it as meeting all applicable FMVSSs for passenger cars. As the manufacturer of the Tango T600, it must also provide a VIN for each kit car. In your submission, you have included a sample copy of a CCC Certification of Origin signed by Rick Woodbury, President/CEO of CCC. As part of the Certification of Origin, the following number is provided as the VIN: CCCT6000711000002. The first three digits of the VIN are known as the World Manufacturer Identifier (WMI), which is assigned to the manufacturer by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in Warrendale, Pennsylvania. (See 49 CFR Section 565.7(a)). We have checked with the SAE to ascertain whether SAE has assigned CCC to Commuter Cars Corporation as the WMI. We were advised that SAE has made no assignment of any WMI to Commuter Cars Corporation. Your second question was whether, if the manufacturer of the motor vehicle cannot certify the vehicle as meeting all applicable FMVSSs, the manufacturer would be able to apply for an exemption from certain requirements (such as the requirement for air bag installation) through NHTSA. The answer is yes, but NHTSA may deny the exemption request, based on its analysis of the manufacturers application. Finally, I am enclosing a copy of a NHTSA interpretation letter of October 29, 2003, to Mr. John Lovstedt of the Hawaii State Department of Transportation, discussing the relationship between Federal and State laws relating to kit cars. In that letter, we stated in part: I will note that the issue of whether a kit car is considered to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle is a matter of Federal law, not State law. Thus, a person who manufactured a kit car that did not comply with the FMVSS and sold it, offered it for sale, or introduced it into interstate commerce would be in violation of Federal law, regardless of any State laws. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosures ref: Part 567 7/29/2011 |
|
ID: nht90-4.7OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: September 14, 1990 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: John Durant -- Commercial Rulings Division, U.S. Customs Service TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated June 26, 1989 from S.P. Wood to M. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 6-28-90 from J. Durant to P.J. Rice (OCC 4965); Also attached to letter dated 5-1-90 from J. Laderberg to J.H. Heinrich TEXT: Thank you for your letter requesting our views on whether a Customs Service requirement that "all imported automotive glass for the replacement market be permanently marked with the name of the country of origin" would in any way impact on the marking re quirements of our agency. As discussed below, we do not believe that such a requirement raises any concerns with respect to our marking requirements. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205), sets forth certain marking requirements. The primary purpose of these requirements is to help this agency identify the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for th e purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. I am enclosing for your information a copy of a letter dated June 26, 1989, sent to Diamond-Star Motors, which discusses Standard No. 205's marking requirements. According to your letter, the purpose of the Customs Service marking requirement would be to make an automobile owner aware of the country of origin of the imported glass. Thus, such a requirement would serve a different purpose than our requirements. It is our opinion that marking glass with the country of origin would not cause any confusion with respect to the markings required by Standard No. 205, nor raise any other concerns with respect to our marking requirements. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht89-2.60OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/08/89 FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL TO: LARRY P. EGLEY TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT D ATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EG LEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN TEXT: Dear Mr. Egley: This is in reply to your letters with respect to the Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF), your invention, now registered with the U.S. Patent Office. Your first letter is a "Request for Evaluation/Interpretation" of your invention; your second is "An Appeal for V ariant Interpretation." I regret the delay in responding. You have explained that the SSF operates as follows: when a vehicle reaches a certain high rate of deceleration, the SSF automatically flashes all three of the stop lamps on passenger cars at a rapid rate. If the vehicle has crashed, the SSF continues t o flash until the ignition switch is recycled. You recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires stop lamps to be steady burning. You nevertheless ask for a favorable interpr etation because the SSF will be actuated only rarely, and "the concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system." Because of the expense of developing the SSF, you state that you are n ot willing to undertake it "unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model." You are correct that Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady burning, and hazard warning signal lamps to flash (generally through the turn signal lamps). The primary reason for the distinction is that stop lamps are intended to be operated whi le the vehicle is in motion, while the hazard warning lamps are intended to indicate that the vehicle is stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a single, easily recognizable signal. If a lamp which is ordinarily steady burning begins to flash, the ag ency is concerned that the signal will prove confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its effectiveness. Even if we did not have this reservation about the SSF, we could not change the steady burning requirement through interpretation. A change could be made through rulemaking only. We do not currently have information indicating that a flashing signal would be be superior to a steady burning one. The SSF is based upon the concept that a flashing lamp increases vehicle conspicuity, and hence should shorten the reaction time of foll owing drivers. As you noted, "whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration." In research sponsored by this agency that led to the adoption of the center high-mounted stop lamp, a field study was conducted using 600 tax icabs in San Diego and Sacramento. The cabs were equipped with one of three kinds of center lamps, a steady-burning one, or one that flashed at 2.5 Hz, or one that flashed at either 1.5, 2.5, 4.5, or 7.0 Hz depending on the degree of deceleration. The test fleet accumulated 41 million miles. The study found that there was no statistically significant differences among the lamps (Mortimer, R.G., Field test evaluation of rear lighting deceleration signals: II - Field test. Final Report, DOT-HS-806-125 , 1981). The agency would be unlikely to issue grants or fund research for the SSF, a proprietary device. Most of its vehicle safety research is devoted to obtaining data to support the development of standards that are more performance-oriented. I am sorry that we cannot be more positive in our response, but we do appreciate your interest in reducing traffic accidents, and deaths and injuries associated with them. Sincerely, |
|
ID: 1985-04.40OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/29/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. M. Iwase TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
November 29, 1985 Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for a clarification of requirements for motorcycles equipped with two headlamps. You have informed us that your two-headlamp design complies with the photometric requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (i.e., the at focus and out of focus tests of SAE J584) when the photometric measurements are made with reference to the photometric reference to the photometric reference axis of the individual headlamp unit. However, if this measurement is made at the combined axis, the combined maximum value of the upper beam will exceed 75,000 candela. Photometric measurements are to be made with reference to the photometric reference axis of the individual headlamp unit. Under Standard No. 108, however, the maximum candlepower of each unit on the upper beam is not to exceed 75,000. The fact that the combined maximum value of your system exceeds 75,000 candlepower. However, if the motorcycle headlamp is one consisting of two bulbs in a single housing, then the measurement is made at the combined axis of the two bulbs and the combined candlepower of this two-bulb single headlamp cannot exceed 75,000 candlepower. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 17385.wkmOpenMr. William Daws Dear Mr. Daws: Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff asking whether the antilock brake system (ABS) requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121), would apply to your truck glider kits. The answer is yes. The agency's regulation with regard to the combination of new and used components is found at 49 CFR 571.7(e), Combining new and used components (copy enclosed), which provides in pertinent part:
By its terms, therefore, paragraph 571.7(e) applies to specific situations in which a new cab or body is combined with used chassis components. Stated another way, the resulting vehicle will constitute a new vehicle unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s)are used and any two of those component came from the same vehicle. If, on the other hand, either the engine, transmission, and/or drive axle(s) are new or no two of them are from the same vehicle, then the vehicle is new. If the vehicle is considered new, it must be certified to meet all applicable safety standards (including ones requiring ABS) in effect as of the date of its manufacture (not the date the vehicle was ordered or delivered). See 49 CFR Part 567. You also asked whether a truck is required to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards even if approximately 80 percent of its use will be off-road, in this case, farm use. The answer is yes. Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.)(hereinafter Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Act defines "motor vehicle" as:
49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. Nothing in your letter suggests that your trucks should be treated any differently from any other trucks, which are clearly motor vehicles. We note that a particular customer's planned use would not ordinarily affect whether a vehicle is considered to be a motor vehicle. Moreover, even if your particular customers' planned use were relevant, 20 percent would represent a substantial amount of time on-road. I am also enclosing for your information fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment; Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and Federal Requirements for Manufacturers of Trailers. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: nht81-2.2Open
DATE: 03/17/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Sutphen Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: NOA-30 Mr. Robert L. Poe General Manager Sutphen Corporation 7000 Columbus-Marysville Road P.O. Amlin, Ohio 43002 Dear Mr. Poe This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel November 19, 1980 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Subject: Submittal of Vehicle 407th Street, S.W. Identification Number (VIN) Washington, D.C. 20590 Application Breakdown
Attention: Vin Coordinator Gentlemen: Please find, enclosed, a copy of the Sutphen Corporation forms which will be utilized in assigning VIN numbers to apparatus manufactured after February 1, 1981. It is assumed that submittal of these tabulations are satisfactory to fulfill our requirements as applicable to FMVSS 115 (amended). If further information is needed, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, ROBERT L. POE General Manager rs enc. |
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.