Skip to main content

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



Displaying 15641 - 15650 of 16514
Interpretations Date
 search results table

ID: 15403.ogm

Open

Ms. Shirley Thornber
Intereurope Regulations Ltd.
21-23 East Street
Fareham, Hampshire
PO16 OBZ
United Kingdom

Dear Ms. Thornber:

You have asked if Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Automobile Fuel Economy," and "Motor Vehicle and Driver Programs in Title 49, United States Code, Administered by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration," both issued in May 1995, have been amended. In the event that the documents were amended since May 1995, you request that new copies be provided. If the documents have not been amended, you ask that we provide you with any expected amendment date.

Chapter 329, "Automobile Fuel Economy," while provided to you in a separate document, is included within the document entitled "Motor Vehicle and Driver Programs in Title 49, United States Code, Administered by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."

Both documents contain statutes administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. These statutes, which as federal laws, were created and are subject to amendment by the United States Congress conditioned upon approval by the President, have not been amended since May 1995. As any amendments to these statutes are acts of Congress rather than this agency, we cannot predict when future amendments will occur.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.9/30/97

1997

ID: 15444.ztv

Open

Ms. Jo Ann Hankin
Vice President
for Finance & Administration
Whittier College
P.O. Box 1634
Whitter, CA 90608

Dear Ms. Hankin:

This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have informed us that six manufacturers of electric bicycles are offering their products to Whittier College, five of which say they are exempt from DOT requirements. As you "want to comply with" our rules, you have asked us to clarify our requirements.

We are pleased to do so. First, let me assure you that we have no rules that apply to Whittier College as the purchaser of electric bicycles. Our rules do apply to the manufacturers of "motor vehicles," and the question is whether the manufacturers of bicycles equipped with electric motors are subject to them.

Under the laws we administer, a "motor vehicle" is one that is driven by mechanical power. Thus, an ordinary bicycle is not a "motor vehicle" because it is driven solely by muscular power. We have also concluded that a bicycle with an engine that supplements muscular power rather than superseding it to become the primary propulsion source is also not a "motor vehicle." Vehicles that are not "motor vehicles" are subject to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

By way of explanation, the addition of a motor to a bicycle transforms it into a "motor vehicle" if the motor operates primarily as a substitute for muscular power. We use the informal term "electric bicycle" to identify a bicycle with a full-time electric motor that provides the main propulsion force of the vehicle. Electric bicycles are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to a class of vehicle called "motor driven cycle." One example of an electric bicycle is the EV Warrior, which is certified by its manufacturer, the Electric Bicycle Company, as meeting applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Some manufacturers offer a "power assist" which supplements rather than replaces muscular power as the prime mover of the bicycle. This feature is intended to help bicyclists in faster get-aways from stop lights and in climbing hills. We have advised that, if the bicycle cannot be operated by the power assist alone, the bicycle will not be a "motor vehicle" subject to our regulations. For example, last year one of your correspondents, AeroVironment, informed us that its "bicycle with power amplification system" was designed so that "the bicycle must be pedaled. If the rider stops pedaling, the power assist is also stopped." We advised it on June 14, 1996, that its product would not be a "motor vehicle" since the power assist system does not operate in the absence of muscular effort, even though the power assist system operates full time as a supplement to muscular power. In addition to AeroVironment, these inquirers, which appear to be offering bicycles with "power assists," included Yamaha, Sanyo, Matsushita, and Zimmark.

Six manufacturers replied to your "The Whittier Experiment Electric Bicycle Questionnaire." Question 11 asks in part "What is the maximum time or distance a rider may go on electric power only?" The answers were "8-20 miles" (ZAP Power Systems), "If the rider does not pedal at all, an average charge will last approximately fifty minutes" (ETC Electric Transportation Company), and "20 miles sans pedaling" (B.A.T. Electrobike). The answers of the fourth and fifth manufacturers, Currie Technologies and the Electric Bicycle Company, were not responsive to the question, but their product literature states, respectively, that the distance between battery charges is "20 miles at 10 mph without pedaling" and "Up to 15 miles on a single charge." These responses and the manufacturers' product literature which you enclosed suggest that the electric engines of these vehicles are intended to serve as the primary propulsion source, and can do so for distances up to 20 miles. Our Office of Safety Assurance intends to contact these manufacturers to ascertain whether their products are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

We thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and affording us an opportunity to advise you. If you have further questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.8/4/97

1997

ID: 15454.ztv

Open

Mr. David Hutton
Intereurope Regulations Ltd.
21-23 East Street
Fareham
Hampshire PO16 08Z
England

Dear Mr. Hutton:

Thank you for your FAX of June 24, 1997, informing us of an error in the Code of Federal Regulations. I note that your original FAX that was not answered was dated April 22 and addressed to Richard Carter. Mr. Carter has retired from NHTSA and questions regarding the language of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or interpretations of them should be addressed to the Chief Counsel. The FAX number of this office is 202-366-3820.

Parargraph S7.1 of 49 CFR 571.105 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, as printed in the October 1, 1996 revision of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations reads: "Each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus shall be equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3, S7.4, S7.5, or S7.6." This is incorrect and should be stricken. At one time, the paragraph was correctly S7.1 of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. However, paragraph S7.1 of Standard No. 108 as it appears in the October 1, 1996 revision of Title 49 is correct as written.

The correct language for S7.1 of Standard No. 105 is that appearing in the October 1, 1991 revision of Title 49. This reads: "S7.1 Brake warming. If the initial brake temperature for the first stop in a test procedure (other than S7.7 and S7.16) has not been reached, heat the brakes to the initial brake temperature by making not more than 10 snubs from not more than 40 to 10 mph, at a deceleration not greater than 10 fpsps." I enclose a copy as you requested.

When we looked into this matter, we were surprised to find that the incorrect S7.1 appeared in the 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 CFR revisions as well as the 1996 one. We have informed the CFR of this error and the correct language is promised for the 1997 revision.

This is the second time within a month that you have spotted errors in the CFR that have otherwise escaped detection, and we are very grateful for it.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:105
d:7/10/97

1997

ID: 15455.ztv

Open

Mr. Tom L. Ricca
Tom L. Ricca Associates
1413 Wyandotte Road
Columbus Ohio 43212

Dear Mr. Ricca:

On March 19, 1997, we replied to your letter of January 20, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal law and regulations as they may apply to your invention, the "LightGenie." We informed you that three of four features of the invention were acceptable under the laws and regulations that we administer. These features were the "40-Second Delay Turnoff", the "4-Minute Delay Turnoff," and the "4-Hour Blinking Delay Turnoff."

The fourth feature was "Daytime Running Lights", or DRLs as we call them. We informed you that we interpret S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108 as requiring headlamps used as DRLs to be operated in either the upper beam or lower beam mode, but not permitting switching between upper and lower beam modes. Because your system switches between modes, your system would not comply with the specifications for OEM DRLs.

We also informed you that there was another reason as well. S5.5.11(a) requires automatic deactivation of DRLs "when the headlamp control is in any 'on' position . . . ." Your system requires the headlamp control to be in the "on" position in order to operate. You asked that we read S5.5.11(a)to require deactivation of DRLs "when any upper beams or lower beams of the headlamps which are not intended to be operated as DRL are turned on continuously . . . ." As a practical matter, we did not see how the vehicle's headlamp system could be operated as a headlamp system if the control must be in the "on" position for the LightGenie to operate, and wrote that, as a legal matter, you were requesting in effect an amendment of S5.5.11(a) beyond the limits of an interpretation.

As an aftermarket device, we informed you that the LightGenie might be usable on vehicles that were not originally equipped with DRLs as long as it allows the headlamp control to perform its original design function. However, the LightGenie would still have to comply with local laws in order to be operated within any State.

Finally, we called your attention to paragraph S5.5.11(a)(ii) which allows an upper beam headlamp to be used as a DRL only if two conditions are met: that the headlamp's luminous intensity at test point H-V is not more than 7,000 candela, and that the headlamp be mounted not higher than 864 mm above the road surface. This would appear to rule out use of the LightGenie using the upper beam of headlamp of some larger sport utility vehicles and trucks.

You FAXed us on April 28, 1997, asking for a further interpretation, and before we had a chance to answer, wrote additional letters dated June 6, 1997, and June 23, 1997. This letter responds only to your letter of June 23, 1997, which we understand to be the latest description of your invention.

The LightGenie system is still unacceptable under Standard No. 108. We note that you now describe the "4-Hour Blinking Delay Turnoff" as causing "the parking lamps, tail lamps, license plate lamps, side marker lamps and the headlamps if desired . . . to blink . . . ." This is a noncompliance with S5.5.10(d). Paragraph S5.5.10(b) permits only the headlamps and side marker lamps to flash for signaling purposes. Paragraph S5.5.10(d)requires other lamps (e.g.,parking lamps, taillamps, and license plate lamps) to be wired to be steady burning.

We also call your attention to S5.5.7(b). You write ("(b)") that the LightGenie OEM DRL system "may turn off the tail lamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps and side marker lamps as specified by S5.5.3." This is an incorrect reading of S5.5.3 and overlooks the requirements of S5.5.7(b). Paragraph S5.5.7(b) requires activation of the taillamps parking lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps whenever the headlamps are activated in a steady burning state. The only relief afforded by S5.5.3 is to allow a vehicle manufacturer the option of not activating the taillamps when the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity as permitted by the specifications of S5.5.11(a) for DRLs.

As we advised previously, aftermarket modifications, such as adding the LightGenie system, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, are forbidden if they create a noncompliance in a vehicle certified as complying when it was manufactured.

You also write ("(c)") in detail about the operation of the LightGenie control. This is so complicated that it requires 48 lines of text for you to describe it. We understand you to say that the LightGenie/DRL headlamp control system is meant to substitute for the headlamp control that would otherwise be provided. The LightGenie headlamp control contains three automatic "on" positions, and four manual "on" positions. We contrast this with the usual headlamp control which contains two manual "on" positions, though some cars add one optional automatic "on" position. This multi-choice headlamp control seems unnecessarily confusing and without an evident safety rationale. However, there are no Federal specifications for operation of headlamp controls, nor can we say that this multi-function control creates an impairment withing the meaning of S5.1.3 as long as there is no confusion about how it activates the headlamps in the headlamp mode.

We understand from "(a)" that the system operates on either the upper beam or the lower beam. This appears to meet our previous objection to a system that operates between beam modes.

Finally, you conclude ("(d)") that the LightGenie OEM DRL system, will not "impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, as specified by S5.1.3". The determination of impairment is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer at the time it certifies compliance with all applicable standards including Standard No. 108, and by any alterer at the time of its certification. Unlike your previous letter mentioning the aftermarket, your letter of June 23 speaks of the LightGenie only as "OEM". We regard as original equipment any motor vehicle equipment that is present on a vehicle at the time of its first sale for purposes other than resale. This includes equipment added by a dealer after the vehicle has been certified by its manufacturer. Any person who alters a certified vehicle before its first sale, by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, must affix a label stating that the vehicle has been altered and certifying that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We believe that a person installing the LightGenie before a vehicle's first sale would be an "alterer" and required to recertify the vehicle.

To sum up, the LightGenie system as described in your letter of June 23, 1997, will be acceptable under Standard No. 108 if it is redesigned so that it does not create noncompliances with S5.5.10(d) and S5.5.7(b), providing those corrections do not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, e.g., reducing the intensity of other lamps on the vehicle that are on the same circuit as the reduced intensity headlamps used as DRLs. With this statement, we do not believe that there is a need for a further interpretation regarding the Light/Genie.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.9/29/97
ref:108

1997

ID: 15484.ztv

Open

Mr. Alan Robinson
9 Romney Wynd
Clifton Park
Ramsey
Isle of Man IM8 3NJ
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Robinson:

This is in reply to your FAX of June 23, 1997, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. Mr. Van Iderstine had furnished you previously with copies of interpretations regarding the use of electronic message boards "fixed to the rear of vehicles." You now present five certain conditions which you believe "must apply to permit legal use of such a message display."

The agency interpretations indicate that, in general, an electronic message board cannot be used as original equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Nor can an electronic message board be installed in the aftermarket by certain persons (i.e., a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) if this "makes inoperative" any lighting equipment originally installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. With respect to lighting devices, the agency deems impairment of effectiveness and a making inoperative as equivalent. Even if permissible under Federal law, electronic message boards may be prohibited by the various states of the United States.

Your letter has given us a chance to review the subject of electronic message boards. The recurring concern with any supplementary lighting device is its potential to distract other drivers sharing the roadway from understanding and responding to the lighting devices required by Standard No. 108. This is particularly true if the supplementary device is one emitting verbal messages which must be read and its information processed, as compared with, for example, a flashing signal indicating a turn. This is a "message" which is instantly understood upon perceiving it.

As a consequence of our review, we have concluded that electronic message boards have the potential to impair any rear lighting devices (or make them "inoperative"), including the hazard warning system. This is a warning signal readily recognized by other motorists. We have concluded that an electronic message board has the potential to impair the effectiveness of the hazard warning system.

Thus, in our opinion, electronic message boards are not permitted on motor vehicles that have been manufactured to conform to Standard No. 108. However, if an electronic message board is simple enough that a vehicle owner may install it without seeking help from a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the owner is violating no Federal law if (s)he installs and uses it, and the legality of its use is determinable under state laws. We are not conversant with these laws.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.8/4/97

1997

ID: 15487.ztv

Open

Mr. Junichi Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Administration Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This replies to your letter of June 24, 1997, asking questions about four areas of the headlighting requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I shall discuss them in the order you presented them.

Optical Axis Mark

You have attached a sheet depicting three headlamps. You ask whether the optical axis mark specified by S7.8.5.3(f)(1) is required because, in your opinion, the construction of the headlamps enables one to identify the optical axis of the headlamp.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3(f)(1) reads as follows:

"There shall be a mark or markings identifying the optical axis of the headlamp visible from the front of the headlamp when installed on the vehicle, to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment of the aiming screen or optical aiming equipment with the headlamp being aimed. The manufacturer is free to choose the design of the mark or markings. The mark or markings may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of the headlamp."

Although the choice of the mark is left to the manufacturer, the mark should be of such a nature that it clearly indicates to the operator of headlamp aiming equipment the exact location of the optical axis and where the equipment is to be properly placed, to act as a geometric reference for measuring distances to the floor and between the headlamps and the vehicle's longitudinal axis.

Your question asks, in effect, whether the features shown are sufficient to be the mark required. A trademark is acceptable to indicate an optical axis, and we believe that the trademark in Figure 1 Sealed Beam Headlamp, an oval encircling the name "Koito," clearly indicates its center with the letter "i" thereby indicating the optical axis. The condenser lens in Figure 2 Projector Headlamp has an obvious center, as do all circles, that can be perceived by observers, and is also acceptable as indicating the optical axis. The inner shade in Figure 3 Headlamp with no-fluting lens should provide a clear indication to the operator of headlamp aiming equipment because the axes of the hexagon converge at a clearly designated center point. The last sentence of S7.8.5.3(f)(1) quoted above indicates that the mark may be indicated by a central structure on the interior of the headlamp.

Horizontal Aim

(1) Paragraphs S7.8.5.3(b) and (d) do not specify a horizontal aim adjustment mechanism for visually/optically aimable headlamps. Koito is considering changing some of its existing headlamps to visually aimable ones with "adding the mechanisms (see Figures 4 and 5 in the attached sheet) in which a special cap is put onto the horizontal aiming screw permanently in such a way that it cannot be removed without breakage, to prevent tools from accessing the screw." You ask whether these mechanisms "comply with the requirement of horizontal aim fixation."

The horizontal aiming screw caps are intended to be a permanent part of the lamp, and not intended to be removable with special tools or otherwise. We believe that this is a sufficient safeguard that the headlamps may be considered to comply with the requirement that there shall be no adjustment of horizontal aim of a visually aimable headlamp.

(2) Referring to our letter of June 11, 1997, to Ichikoh, a copy of which you enclosed, you ask whether the horizontal aim should be fixed by the headlamp manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer. You note that it may be necessary for a vehicle manufacturer to align properly the horizontal aim when the headlamp is installed on a motor vehicle before the horizontal aim is fixed. However, when the horizontal aim is fixed by the vehicle manufacturer, you believe that the vehicle manufacturer should be responsible for certifying compliance with photometric performance requirements.

Paragraph S7.8.5.3 requires a visually/optically aimable headlamp to be designed to conform to the specifications of that paragraph, including the specification of S7.8.5.3(b) that horizontal aim be fixed and nonadjustable. Thus, the design and production of the headlamp is the responsibility of its manufacturer. However, as the preamble to the final rule adopting this requirement stated, "Generally, the vehicle's manufacturer accepts the responsibility for assuring correct aim of new motor vehicles" (62 FR 10710 at 10712). When a headlamp is installed on a motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer's required certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards must include photometric compliance.

Aiming Deviation

You believe that S7.8.2.1(a) applies to a visually/optically aimable headlamp "whose construction has no adjustment of horizontal aim." This paragraph reads: "When installed on the vehicle, adjustment of one aim axis through its full on-vehicle range shall not cause the aim of the other axis to deviate more than +/- 0.76 degree." You wish to interpret it as reading: "Adjustment of vertical aim through its full on-vehicle range shall not cause the aim of the horizontal axis to deviate more than +/- 0.76 degree."

This is a correct rephrasing of S7.8.2.1(a) for a visually/optically aimable headlamp whose horizontal aim is fixed.

Visual/Optical Mark

You ask whether your interpretation is correct that the lens of a headlamp that is aimable horizontally by a VHAD, and vertically by visual/optical means, must have its lens marked in accordance with S7.8.5.3(f)(2).

This is correct. Even though the correct horizontal aim is achieved by mechanical means, the fact that the correct vertical aim is determined visually/optically means that the headlamp must have the markings required by S7.8.5.3(f)(2).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/15/98

1998

ID: 15504.drn

Open

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-2247

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

This responds to your association's request that this office review the most recent revisions of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association's (TTMA) Recommended Practice Number 56, "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number" and Recommended Practice Number 53, "U. S. Trailer Certification Label." We have reviewed both draft documents as time and resources would allow and offer the following comments. Please note, however, that these comments do not constitute any sort of NHTSA approval or endorsement of the TTMA's Recommended Practices. TTMA is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the documents.

In general, the TTMA Recommended Practice No. 56 appears to be correct about NHTSA's vehicle identification number requirements as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. In general, Recommended Practice No. 53 appears to be correct about NHTSA's labeling requirements in 49 CFR Part 567 Certification and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. (49 CFR 571.120).

However, in several instances, the Recommended Practices go beyond what is required by NHTSA's regulations to recommend one particular means be used to meet the Federal requirement, when NHTSA's regulations leave that matter to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. Examples of the TTMA recommendations going beyond the NHTSA regulations may be found in the directions provided in Recommended Practice No. 56's Part 13.0 on the Vehicle Descriptor (Second) Section Code, and Part 15.0 Vehicle Indicator (Fourth) Section Code. For Recommended Practice No. 53, an example is found in the combined certification and tire-rim information provided in Section 6.0 "Certification Label Requirements."

While TTMA is free to make these recommendations, it may be helpful for your members to recognize the distinction between information or labeling required by NHTSA, and which therefore must follow an exact format according to Federal law, as opposed to matters that are within the discretion of the manufacturer and for which the TTMA provides one suggested means by which the requirement(s) may be fulfilled.

I also note that in Section 12.5 (pages 12-13) in No. 56, TTMA provides recommendations for handling certification and VIN assignment responsibilities for trailers sold in a bankruptcy sale. You correctly note that NHTSA has not yet issued an interpretation on this issue, and in the absence of a specific fact situation to be addressed, we will not comment. However, your members should be advised that if they decide to follow TTMA's advice on the bankruptcy issue, they will be doing so at their own risk, as NHTSA may not agree with TTMA's recommendation. The safest course if this situation should arise, is to write to the Chief Counsel and ask for an interpretation.

We offer the following comments on particular sections of each recommended practice:

COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDED PRACTICE NUMBER 56 "TRAILER VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER"

2.0 Purpose:

An extra sentence should be added to Section 2.1 as follows: "This Recommended Practice references relevant provisions of NHTSA's VIN regulation in parentheses; e.g. (565.3(h)) for the definition of `manufacturer'".

4.4 Trailer Kits:

The citation should be changed from "49 CFR 571.115, S2 and S3" to " 49 CFR 565.2".

9.5 Format

Section 9.5 addresses situations where there are spaces in a VIN, and comments: "The space can, however, be filled with any approved letter or number listed in Section 9.3." This sentence is not necessarily true. In the twelfth through seventeenth positions of the VIN (production sequence), other than characters designated for use by the SAE in the twelfth through fourteenth positions (because the manufacturer makes fewer than 500 vehicles per year), numbers must be used. Section 565.6(d)(3) states that the twelfth through seventeenth positions "shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process if the manufacturer produces 500 or more vehicles of its type annually." (Emphasis added.)

17.0 Interpretations and Questions:

If there are any questions about VINs, the first person TTMA members should contact is the VIN Coordinator at (202) 366-6018.

Requests for legal interpretations may be obtained by writing to:

Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590

Information on legal interpretations may be obtained from:

DOROTHY NAKAMA (202) 366-2992.

Please note that NHTSA attorneys do not provide oral interpretations or other "informal answers to questions."

Excerpts from Legal Interpretations Issued by NHTSA Pertaining to VINs

I suggest the following cautionary language precede the section with excerpts from interpretations:

The following excerpts from NHTSA's Chief Counsel's interpretation letters are provided for the reader's convenience only. NHTSA strongly advises that before deciding to rely on an excerpt, the reader review the entire letter from which the excerpt was taken.

Further, in attempting to use these interpretations to resolve a question, please be aware that they represent the views of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases. If you are aware of a previous interpretation that appears to address your question, please cite that interpretation and present your question to the Chief Counsel. Do not act on the assumption that the interpretation is necessarily applicable to your situation. There may be critical factual differences between your situation and those addressed in previous interpretations. Further, the agency's standards and regulations change from year to year, and past interpretations may no longer be applicable.

Interpretation letters are available from: NHTSA Technical Reference, Room 5108, 400 Seventh St., S. W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Phone number (202) 366-4941. Please be sure to reference 49 CFR part or NHTSA regulation being interpreted.

NHTSA's interpretation letters are available for viewing on the Internet at: "http:\\www.nhtsa.dot.gov". On the home page, click on "Table of Contents", then on "Regulations and Standards" under "NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search". Letters may be searched by "key words" such as date, name of addressee, or subject matter.

Finally, I note that in a June 29, 1993 letter to TTMA, I advised you that the "Anti Car Theft Act of 1992" resulted in adding Section 511, Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers, to Title 18 of the United States Code. Section 511 provides that whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, for purposes other than repair, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. It may be helpful to your members if Section 511 was mentioned somewhere in the recommended practice, perhaps in the section containing excerpts from NHTSA's legal interpretations.

COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDED PRACTICE NUMBER 53 "U. S. TRAILER CERTIFICATION LABEL"

3.1 References:

The correct title for Standard No. 120 is Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars and the correct title for Part 568 is Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

4.2 Certification Label ... Specifications:

4.2 should read as follows:

"The label must be affixed to a location on the forward half of the left side of the trailer such that it is easily readable from outside the trailer without moving any part of the trailer."

6.0 Certification Label Examples:

6.2 The example shown in S6.2 (certification label not combined with Std. 120 labeling requirements) provides the correct information in the correct order specified in Part 567. However, in the S6.2 example, the "Date of Manufacture" should read "Month and Year of Manufacturer", as specified at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(2). The information "All Axles 19,000 with 10.00-20(F) Tires" should be preceded by "Gross Axle Weight Rating [GAWR]".

6.8 In the example shown in S6.8, "Date of Manufacture" should read "Month and Year of Manufacture."

Excerpts from Rulemaking and Interpretations

On excerpts from interpretation letters, my earlier comments provided for Recommended Practice Number 56 also apply to this discussion.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:565#567#120

d.9/11/97

1997

ID: 15521.drn

Open

Mr. Gerald Plante
Manager, Compliance & Technical Liaison
Saab Cars USA, Inc.
4405 - A International Blvd.
Norcross, GA 30093

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, in a vehicle identification number (VIN), the third position in the fourth section (the twelfth position overall) can be designated with an alphabetical letter, rather than a number. As provided below, the answer is yes.

NHTSA's VIN regulations are at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. Section 565.6, Content requirements, states that the VIN consists of four sections of characters and describes each section. Section 565.6(d)(3) states that: "The third through the eighth characters of the fourth section [i.e., the twelfth through the seventeenth positions of the VIN] shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process if the manufacturer produces 500 or more vehicles of its type annually." (Emphasis added.)

You state that Saab wishes to use an alphabetical letter in the twelfth position of the VIN to "denote the introduction of significant running changes" during a model year. As an example, if a significant running change is made in production beginning with the 25,001 produced vehicle, VIN positions twelve through seventeen would go from A25000 to B25001. Your letter states that positions thirteen through seventeen would remain as sequential serial numbers.

In a telephone conversation with George Entwistle and Dorothy Nakama of this agency, you explained that Saab manufactures fewer than 100,000 worldwide of any Saab model in any model year, and does not use the twelfth position for numbering its vehicles. You also stated that Saab does not wish to use a number in the twelfth position because those unfamiliar with the Saab VIN numbering system may look at the twelfth position and get the mistaken impression that 100,000 or 200,000 of a particular model have been manufactured.

For the following reasons, Saab may use the twelfth VIN position to designate significant running changes made in vehicle production during a model year. The views offered in this interpretation letter are limited to the twelfth VIN position. This letter is also limited to situations where fewer than 100,000 vehicles are manufactured for the U.S. market in a model year.

In a VIN, the twelfth through seventeenth positions (a total of six positions) are available so that manufacturers can number the production sequence of a particular vehicle model in the hundreds of thousands. Because Saab produces fewer than 100,000 of each of its models, the twelfth position presumably has an "0" occupying it. We do not believe there would be ambiguity about or misunderstanding of the meaning of the twelfth position if we permitted use of an alphabetical letter, instead of the 0. The twelfth through the seventeenth positions would "represent" the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process, as required by 565.6(d)(3).

In allowing your use of a letter in the twelfth position for production of fewer than 100,000 vehicles, we considered that the purpose of the VIN is "to simplify vehicle identification information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns." (49 CFR 565.1) Identifying significant running changes during the course of a model year could increase the accuracy and efficiency of recall campaigns by limiting the affected vehicles to those manufactured during a specified running change, rather than affecting the entire production run of a model during a model year.

If Saab uses the twelfth VIN position to designate running changes with alphabetical letters, it must comply with the following. Section 565.7(c) requires that manufacturers shall submit to NHTSA the information necessary to decipher the characters contained in its VINs. Amendments to the information shall be submitted to the agency for VINs containing an amended coding. Section 565.7(d) specifies that the information required under paragraph (c) shall be submitted at least 60 days prior to offering for sale the first vehicle identified by a VIN containing that information. Thus, you must inform NHTSA at least 60 days before the offer for sale of the first vehicle with a VIN containing a letter in the twelfth position. Also, Saab must ensure that the letters assigned in the twelfth position are sequentially assigned and are the letters specified in Section 565.4(g). Saab need not notify this agency every time a letter in the twelfth position is changed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565
d.8/4/97

1997

ID: 15541.pad

Open

Ms. Ginny Schafer
1790 Highgrove Dr.
Alpharetta, GA 30201

Dear Ms. Schafer:

This responds to your June 26, 1997, letter asking whether the "slipcover type product" you wish to make must meet Federal flammability standards. Your letter does not describe the product in detail, but presumably it would be used to protect the vehicle seat against wear and tear. You state that the slipcover "will be slipped on over the seat, and it will not interfere with seat belts or children's car seats. (There will be an opening in the fabric to accommodate seat belts.)" The product would be sold to consumers in the aftermarket for installation in their own vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

There currently is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to your product. Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, applies to new, completed vehicles and not to aftermarket items of equipment sold separately from a vehicle, such as a slipcover sold in the aftermarket. Thus, your aftermarket product need not meet Federal flammability requirements.

While no safety standard applies to your product, you should be aware that under 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121, each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment (such as aftermarket vehicle seat slipcovers) is responsible for ensuring that its product is free of safety-related defects. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, 30122 of our statute prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of

design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal safety standards. While it is unlikely that your product would be installed by persons listed in 30122, if a commercial entity does install it, it must ensure that the product does not undermine the vehicle's compliance with the flammability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Because the slipcover is used with child seats and vehicle belts, you should ensure that the product not interfere with the performance of those safety systems. The opening on the slipcover for the belts must not restrict the belt's ability to remain taut or to tighten up in a crash. The slipcover should not have padding that can compress in a crash and introduce slack into the vehicle belt system. Excessive slack can cause the child seat to move too far out of the seating position in a crash, which can result in a greater likelihood the child's head would contact hard surfaces.

State or local jurisdictions might have their own requirements for the slipcover you wish to produce. For information about those requirements, you should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

You identified two types of fabric by name and manufacturer and ask if they meet Federal flammability requirements. NHTSA does not test products before their sale, nor can we assure manufacturers that a particular supplier meets the Federal requirements. If you intend that your slipcovers meet flammability resistance requirements, which would be a decision we would encourage, you should contact the manufacturer of the fabric for information on conformance of the product.

If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:213#302
d.8/21/97

1997

ID: 15542.drn

Open

Mr. Neil Henderson
General Manager
Concept Works, Inc.
55 Oscaleta Road
South Salem, NY 10590

Dear Mr. Henderson:

This responds to your July 1, 1997, request for an interpretation whether an emergency reflective triangle your company plans to distribute must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 Warning devices. The answer is no.

Your letter states that the emergency reflective triangle will be distributed as part of a promotional road kit. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your company intends to distribute the kit to regular motorists, and not to commercial drivers.

Since October 31, 1994, Standard No. 125 has applied only to warning devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds. Since your reflective triangle is intended for use with vehicles other than buses and trucks, Standard No. 125 does not apply to your triangle.

Please note that if your triangle does not meet all of Standard No. 125's specifications, you must ensure that the triangle is not marked with the symbol "DOT" and does not include the statement that the warning device complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:125
d:7/25/97

1997

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.