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: gasketsOpen
Mr. Kim Jensen Dear Mr. Jensen: This is in response to your October 19, 2000, fax requesting information on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations governing asbestos-containing gaskets in renovated engines for classic European cars. Specifically, you ask this office to confirm that the gaskets may contain asbestos. Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, NHTSA has the authority to regulate motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7) defines "motor vehicle equipment" as: Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the U.S., any motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with NHTSA standards. In addition, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Gaskets in renovated engines meet the definition of "motor vehicle equipment," and thus are under NHTSA's jurisdiction. To date, however, NHTSA has not promulgated any Federal motor vehicle safety standards on gaskets. Nevertheless, other federal agencies do regulate asbestos and may maintain regulations governing the use of asbestos in gaskets. For example, the Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs Administration classifies asbestos as a hazardous material and maintains regulations governing the shipment of asbestos-containing material (49 C.F.R. 172.101). Also, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulates asbestos as a hazardous substance and maintains rules governing occupational exposures to asbestos (29 C.F.R. 1910.1001 and 29 C.F.R. 1926.1101(g)(8)(iv), which governs the removal of gaskets containing asbestos). Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency maintains effluent standards for asbestos (40 C.F.R. 427.10, et seq.). You should contact these agencies to determine the regulations an importer must follow before importing engines with asbestos-containing gaskets. Because you ask about importing motor vehicle equipment, I direct your attention to 49 CFR Part 551, "Procedural Rules" (copy enclosed). Section 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured motor vehicle equipment to designate a permanent resident of the U.S. as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under S551.45:
In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Frank Seales, Jr. Enclosure ref:VSA |
2000 |
ID: gehmanOpenMr. Roland P. Gehman, P.E. Dear Mr. Gehman: This responds to your letter and telephone call requesting an interpretation of whether two flatbed trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. I regret the delay in responding. Specifically, you ask whether the TM500 and TM600 trailer designs, which each have full width cross-members above the chassis frame rails at a height of 26 inches above the ground, would be excluded from the standard. Our answer is yes, for reasons relating to the gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of the trailers. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, applies to trailers and semitrailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms or more (10,000 pounds (lb) or more). The literature you enclosed with your letter states that "[t]he MGS TM 600 can carry loads up to 10,000 lbs., and the MGS TM500 up to 7,000 lbs." Standard No. 224 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR of less than 10,000 lb. I understand that in a June 17, 1999, telephone conversation with my staff, you had asked about the application of the standard to your trailers and also clarified drawings you had enclosed. (Mr. Atelsek, with whom you had spoken, has since left our office.) We assume that you ask about MGS trailers with GVWRs of 10,000 lb or more. You explained that the TM500 and TM600 trailers have identical configurations at the rear. The drawing shows frame rails, constructed of longitudinal I-beams, whose lower surface is 18 inches above the ground. There is nothing between the frame rails. Above the frame rail at the rear is a full-width cross member at the back of the rear deck whose bottom is 26 inches above the ground. You asked Mr. Atelsek if these trailers are considered "low chassis vehicles" under Standard No. 224. The answer is no. A "low chassis vehicle" is defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." S5.1.2 states that "[t]he vertical distance between the bottom edge of the horizontal member of the guard and the ground shall not exceed 560 mm at any point across the full width of the member." In its current configuration, neither of your trailers meet the definition of a low chassis vehicle. The trailers have no horizontal cross member at the rear lower than 26 inches. Thus, they do not meet the 22 inch maximum height configuration requirement in S5.1.2. In the event that your trailers are not low chassis vehicles, you asked Mr. Atelsek whether a horizontal cross member attached to the rear of the frame rails would produce a vehicle configuration that meets the definition of a low chassis vehicle. An 18-inch high horizontal member would meet the 22-inch maximum height configuration requirement in S5.1.2. However, the definition also specifies that the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. So the question becomes whether the cross member would be considered to be part of the chassis of the vehicle. "Chassis" is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure." To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit. To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. The agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load. Applying these principles to your contemplated cross member, we conclude that it would be part of the chassis. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the extension of the cross member to the bottom of the frame rails would be of the same material, thickness, etc., of the existing cross member. If this assumption is correct, we would consider such a cross member to be an integral part of the frame structure that contributes to supporting load. Therefore, the modified cross member, with its lower edge located 18 inches above the ground, would be considered part of the chassis. Since a part of the chassis would meet all the configurational requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.3, the trailer would then meet the definition of a low chassis vehicle, and would be excluded from Standard No. 224. If you have any further questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: GF000167Open
[ ] Dear [ ]: This responds to your letter dated December 29, 2004, asking whether an LED lighting design concept for school buses being contemplated by your company could be used to comply with applicable Federal regulations. Before I address your questions, I note that you requested confidential treatment of your letter. During a February 15, 2005, telephone call, George Feygin of my staff explained to you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not respond to confidential requests for an interpretation because our interpretations are made publicly available. However, NHTSA is able to keep your identity and that of your company confidential. You agreed to this approach. Thus, I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [ ] will be kept confidential from the public. Your incoming interpretation request will be redacted before being made publicly available. By way of background, 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 your letter, you describe a dual function school bus signal lamp that flashes amber when the bus is slowing down and red when it has stopped. You indicate that the lamp meets all "SAE light output requirements". You ask whether using one lighting device for both functions is permitted by our standards. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to school bus signal lamps is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires each school bus to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, or four red and four amber signal lamps designed to conform to the same SAE standard (with certain exceptions for the amber lamps). Additionally, S5.1.4(b) requires, in pertinent part, that if the bus is equipped with four amber lamps, their candlepower must be at least 2 1/2 times that specified for red signal lamps. Further, the amber signal lamps can be activated only by manual or foot operation, and must automatically deactivate when the red signal lamps automatically activate because the bus entrance door is opened. While the language of FMVSS No. 108 contemplates separate sets of red and amber signal lamps, it is our opinion that dual function school bus signal lamps that flash both red and amber could be used to meet the standards requirements. We note that S5.4 of FMVSS No. 108 permits combining two or more lamps if the requirements for each lamp are met. In this case, the following requirements of S5.1.4(b) would need to be satisfied: We also note that under SAE J887, the portion of the lamp that emits red light and the portion of the lamp that emits amber light must each provide an effective projected illuminated area of not less than 19 sq. inches. I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, /s Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2005 |
ID: GF0002060OpenDon Brown, Director of Engineering Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your February 23, 2005, letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, permits relocating front trailer clearance lamps in order to limit their exposure to damage. Your letter indicates that you intend to relocate the clearance lamp so that it is recessed into the "top rail". Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that for a trailer with an overall width of 80 inches or more, two amber clearance lamps must be located at the front edges of the trailer as near the top as practicable. S5.3.2.1 (formerly S5.3.1.1.1) of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that clearance lamps may be located elsewhere, if necessary for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle. Accordingly, our regulations do not prohibit relocation of clearance lamps in order to limit their exposure to damage. Please note that S5.3.2.1 also specifies that a relocated clearance lamp need not meet the applicable photometric output requirements at any test point that is 45 degrees inboard. Other applicable photometric output requirements remain (see SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps", July 1972). I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2005 |
ID: GF000333OpenMr. Joe Isaac Dear Mr. Isaac: This responds to your January 10, 2005, e-mail regarding certification issues pertaining to certain trailers. In your e-mail to Jeff Woods, you explained that your company purchases trailers that are already equipped with lights, brakes, tires, and rims. You indicated to us that the trailers are not certified, but come equipped with "incomplete vehicle documents" or "IVDs" that usually specify, among other things, the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), the gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), and tire information. Your company installs engines, transmissions, pumps, and driveshaft components in order for these trailers to perform oilfield services. You ask whether the trailers being purchased by your company are considered "completed vehicles" pursuant to 49 CFR 568.3, and whether the modifications performed by your company constitute "addition of readily detachable components". Briefly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations vehicle certification regulations state that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle need not re-certify the vehicle, if the alterations are limited to addition, substitution, or removal or readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting (see 49 CFR 567.6). Because the trailers purchased by your company are not certified when you receive them for the purpose of performing further modifications, the provisions of 567.6 would not apply to you. Instead, under Part 568.3, you are considered the final stage manufacturer of these trailers, and you are required to certify that these vehicles meet the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our answers to your specific question follow. The trailer modifications performed by your company do not constitute the addition of "readily attachable components". As specified in 567. 6, components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies are considered "readily attachable components". Other similar changes, including minor finishing operations or painting, that do not affect the vehicles stated weight rating would not require re-certification of the vehicle. In the present case, however, you permanently attach onto each trailer a sizeable quantity of work-performing equipment. Based on the information provided in your e-mails and the attached photograph, the trailers stated weight rating is affected by these modifications. Thus, the modifications performed by your company do not constitute the addition of "readily detachable components", even if the trailers purchased by your company were certified when you received them. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, /s Jacqueline Glassman ref:568 |
2005 |
ID: GF000492OpenMr. Guy S. Edington Dear Mr. Edington: This is in response to your January 16, 2006, letter and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding certain requirements in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, "New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars."As Mr. Feygin explained to you, this letter is limited to the discussion of the current regulations and does not address suggestions you made concerning how you believe certain tires should be tested. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues FMVSSs applicable to new vehicles and equipment, including tires. 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. Thus, the tire manufacturer is responsible for self-certifying its product. S6.2 of FMVSS No. 119 specifies certain tire strength requirements that tires must meet when tested according to the procedure specified in S7.3. As a part of this procedure, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into a raised tread element as near as possible to the centerline of the tread, at a rate of 2 inches per minute, until the tire breaks or the plunger is stopped by the rim. The diameter of the plunger depends on the diameter of the rim and is specified in Table I. You ask what diameter plunger is used to test tubeless 17.5 diameter code "medium duty truck" tires. Table I of FMVSS No. 119 specifies that for tubeless tires with a diameter code of 17.5 or smaller, a plunger with a diameter of inches (19.05 mm) is used. Table I does not differentiate between different categories of 17.5 diameter code tires and does not provide for use of different plunger diameters for any 17.5 diameter code tires. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:119 |
2006 |
ID: GF000494OpenMs. Erika Z. Jones Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your January 16, 2004, letter regarding applicability of 49 CFR 571.201, S6.3(b) to targets located near third row folding bench seats. Specifically, you ask whether targets located within 600 mm of a third row folding bench seat, which is not a split row bench seat, are excluded from the requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, when the third row bench seat is in a stowed position. NHTSA will not test these target points for compliance if the seat, when stowed, is not likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. S6.3(b) excludes targets located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind the seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating from the requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201. In your letter, you describe a vehicle featuring three rows of seats. The third row bench seat stows to in order to create an expanded cargo area. The third row seat has a latch system attached to the D-pillar that secures the seat back in its upright position. When the third row bench seat is stowed, the latch remains exposed. The latch is located within 600 mm of the seating reference point of the third row bench seat, but beyond 600 mm from the seating reference point of the second row seat. You ask if the second row seating position would be considered the rearmost designated seating position when the third row seat is stowed. The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as "any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats." The third row folding bench seat described in your letter is not an auxiliary seating accommodation because it is not a temporary or a jump seat but a permanent seat available for use by occupants. When in the upright position, the third row seat described in your letter constitutes the rearmost designated seating position for the purpose of S6.1 and S6.2. In a 1993 interpretation letter to Michael Love of Porsche, the agency stated that a folding rear seat described in that letter would be considered a designated seating position at all times. We noted that the examples provided by Porsche were not precise enough for us to make a more specific determination as to whether the vehicle in question must comply with all requirements related to a specific designated seating position. In the present case, the third row seat, when in its stowed position, is unlikely to be used for anything other than cargo carrying, since it appears that all available leg room would be occupied by the folded seat back. Accordingly, NHTSA would not test for compliance with S6.1 and S6.2 at the target point in question when the third row seat is in its stowed position. However, compliance with the requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 would be verified when the third row bench seat is in its upright position intended for occupant use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:201 |
2004 |
ID: GF000573OpenMs. Laurie T. Baulig Dear Ms. Baulig: This is in response to your letter of January 14, 2005, in which you requested a clarification regarding a recent technical amendment to paragraph S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119. On January 4, 2005, we published a technical amendment which, in part, revised paragraph S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 (see 70 FR 299). Specifically, the amendment changed the metric value of tire speed restriction threshold from 88 km/h (55 mph) to 90 km/h (55 mph). Prior to the amendment, S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 required that each tire be marked with speed restriction information, if the maximum speed of the tire was 88 km/h (55 mph) or less. Now, S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire be marked with speed restriction information, if the maximum speed of the tire is 90 km/h (55 mph) or less. In both instances, S6.5(e) requires that the actual speed restriction be shown as follows:
The amendment was intended to make FMVSS No. 119 more consistent with established tire industry protocol and labeling technology, and did not substantively change the standard. You ask whether amendment to S6.5(e) requires that each tire manufactured after February 3, 2005 (the effective date of the amendment) be marked with the revised maximum speed restriction of "Max speed 90 km/h (55 mph)," if previously marked "Max speed 88 km/h (55 mph)," Our answer is no. The January 4, 2005 amendment to S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 revised only the threshold below which all tires must be marked with their actual speed restriction (emphasis added). That is, the tire manufacturer could continue marking tires with the speed restriction of "Max speed 88 km/h (55 mph)", if that is the correct speed restriction, or other lower values, when appropriate. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman cc Motomu Shinohara ref:119 |
2005 |
ID: GF000843.2Open
Mr. Robert S. Livingston Dear Mr. Livingston: This responds to your January 27, 2005, e-mail regarding lamp, reflex reflector, and conspicuity system requirements for trailers. First, you ask whether the rear side marker lamp, the rear clearance lamp, and the reflex reflector can be combined into a single lighting device so long as it is "visible from both vehicle axes. " Second, you ask whether the retroreflective sheeting located at the rear of the trailer can be combined with the retroreflective sheeting located on the underride guard. You provided a photograph of the prototype vehicle and indicated that its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is over 10,000 pounds. Our answers follow. 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 Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment on trailers and other motor vehicles is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. S5.4 of FMVSS No. 108 permits combining certain items of lighting equipment if the requirements for each item are met. Based on the language of this section, you ask two questions regarding combining lamps, reflex reflectors, and retroreflective sheeting on trailers. Combining Lighting Devices Tables I & II specify that each trailer must be equipped with, among other things:
You ask if these requirements can be met by single lighting devices at each rear corner of the trailer. The photograph accompanying your e-mail shows a lamp and a reflex reflector tilted at a (approximately) 45-degree angle on each rear corner of the trailer. With respect to reflex reflectors, S5.7 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that your trailer be equipped with a conspicuity system. Further, S5.1.1.29 specifies that a trailer equipped with a conspicuity system in conformance with S5.7 need not be equipped with the reflex reflectors required by Table I, if the conspicuity material is placed at the locations required for the Table I reflectors. Thus, if your trailer is equipped with conspicuity material at the appropriate locations specified above, you may omit installing reflex reflectors on this trailer. With respect to side marker and clearance lamps, S5.4 discussed above allows these lamps to be combined, if the photometric requirements for each lamp are met, as installed on the vehicle. SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps," July 1972, specifies that both side marker and clearance lamps meet the minimum photometric requirements (expressed in candela) at test points located 45 degrees to the left and right of each lamp. We are familiar with combination lamps that emit a photometric output over 180-degrees wide in order to simultaneously satisfy the photometric requirements for side marker and rear clearance lamps. This is because the angle between the furthest forward test point of the side marker lamp and the furthest inboard test point of the rear clearance lamp is 180-degrees. We examined the photograph of the prototype trailer and question whether your lamp could simultaneously meet the applicable photometric requirements of J592e for both a clearance and side marker lamp because it does not appear to be a combination lamp capable of emitting light over a 180-degree angle. We suggest you contact the lamp manufacturer to determine whether the proposed combination lamp would be capable of complying with all the applicable requirements as installed on your trailer. Combining Retroreflective Sheeting Table I specifies that each trailer must be equipped with, among other things, a conspicuity system meeting the requirements of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 108. In particular, S5.7.1.4.1 requires 3 elements of retroreflective sheeting at the rear of each trailer. Element 1 must be located at the bottom, horizontally across the full width of the trailer. Element 2, consisting of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, must be located horizontally and vertically at the upper contours of the body. Element 3 must be located horizontally across the full width of the rear underride guard. You ask if Element 1 and Element 3 retroreflective sheeting could be combined into one retroreflective sheet located on the underride guard. Our answer is no. S5.4 does not apply to your second question because trailers equipped with underride guards must have separate retroreflective sheeting on the underride guard, and on the rear at the bottom of the trailer. Thus, the retroreflective sheet located on the underride guard cannot satisfy the location requirements for Element 1 retroreflective sheeting, which must be located on the trailer, above the underride guard. Accordingly, your trailer must have Elements 1 and 3 retroreflective sheeting to comply with the requirements of S5.7.1.4.1. We are enclosing Figures 30-1, and 30-2 to clarify this issue. We note that the picture of your prototype trailer appears to be missing Element 2 retroreflective sheeting. Your trailer must also, be equipped with Element 2 retroreflective sheeting. I hope you find this information 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 |
2005 |
ID: GF000906OpenMr. Jeff Maharg Dear Mr. Maharg: This responds to your February 5, 2004, e-mail and phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding certain trailer lighting requirements. Specifically, you ask whether a small (5ft. x 8ft.) trailer must be equipped with front side marker lamps. In short, our answer is yes. 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. With respect to your question, Table III of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 lists required lighting equipment for trailers with an overall width of less than 80 inches. [1] Table III requires that each such trailer be equipped with two red and two amber side marker lamps. Table IV specifies the location of the required lighting listed in Table III. With respect to side marker lamps on trailers, Table IV mandates that one red side marker be located as far to the rear as practicable, and one amber side marker be located as far to the front as practicable, on each side of the trailer. Accordingly, your trailer must be equipped with two amber side marker lamps located on each side of the trailer as far to the front as practicable. From the attached pictures of your trailer, it is unclear whether it is equipped with rear red side marker lamps. Further, the front amber side markers do not appear to be located "as far to the front as practicable." Finally, we note that your trailer must also be equipped with red and amber reflex reflectors that are either incorporated into side marker lamps or located adjacent to the side marker lamps. The amber reflex reflector that appears to be mounted on the wheel cover does not satisfy this requirement. In order to satisfy FMVSS No. 108, you must install all required lighting in the correct location. I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108
[1] Your e-mail and attached photos indicate that your trailer width is approximately 5 ft (60 inches).
|
2004 |
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.