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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: 07-007038 Schonberger magnets and strap holdersOpenMs. Amy Schonberger 3833 Princeton Oaks Kennesaw, GA 30144 Dear Ms. Schonberger: This responds to your letter asking how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, and FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials, apply to your aftermarket product. You have invented a type of strap holder for use with child restraint systems. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (Vehicle Safety Act)). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. In your letter, you described your product with a detailed narrative that focused on specific aspects of design, such as where magnetized strap pads and stand-alone magnets are placed, but which provided a narrow overall description of the product. This letter is based on our understanding of the information you presented. Your product is intended to keep the shoulder and buckle harness straps of a 5-point child restraint system clear of the seating area of the child restraint so that when the child is placed in the child restraint, he or she will not sit on the harness and crotch straps. You state that your product moves and temporarily fastens the shoulder harness straps and buckle harness strap to the shell of the car seat, away from where the child sits. It appears that your invention consists of three main components: a strap holder for the left shoulder harness strap, a strap holder for the right harness strap, and a holder for the crotch strap. Each strap holder is attached to the respective strap, and each contains a magnet that is designed to connect to magnets that are attached to the left, right and lower sides of the shell of the child restraint. When the child is removed from the child restraint, it is intended that the harness and crotch straps will attach to the respective magnets and thus be kept clear of the seating surface area. Discussion There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to your product. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS No. 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less." (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds.) The standard does not apply to aftermarket accessory items, such as a strap holder device that is used with a child restraint system. While no FMVSS applies to the invention, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would be subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, while it is unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. There are some aspects of performance required by FMVSS No. 213 that could be affected by your product. The standard requires specific levels of performance for child restraints seats as a system and also for seat webbing and buckles as components of the child restraint system, whose performance could be affected by an aftermarket strap holders that attaches to each strap. An aftermarket strap holder attached to the webbing could affect the performance of the webbing in a crash. In addition, FMVSS No. 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for child restraints. Any person listed in 30122 who installs your product must not make inoperative the flammability resistance of the child restraint system. 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 or motor vehicle equipment. State or local jurisdictions might have their own requirements for products such as yours. For information about those requirements, you should contact the State Departments of Motor Vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:213 d.11/20/08 |
2008 |
ID: 07-007338drn Sept 16 cleanOpenHugo De Roo, Area Export Manager B & C Export USA Van Hool NV Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58 B-2500 Lier Koningshooikt BELGIUM Dear Mr. De Roo: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, in connection with a double decker bus, the TD925 Series, that Van Hool intends to sell in the United States. From the information you provided, we understand that the upper deck of the TD925 bus is fully enclosed. You provided blueprints and photographs of the bus, and a technical note discussing how you plan to meet the emergency exit requirements in FMVSS 217 and the counterpart European regulations. You did not ask any particular question about those plans. Accordingly, as your bus exceeds 10,000 lb., gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), we focused on paragraph S5.2.2 of the standard, which sets for the requirements for the amount of unobstructed emergency opening in those buses. As explained below, the standard does not contemplate your particular kind of bus and, therefore, does not presently specify any requirements concerning a means by which lower deck occupants can gain access to a roof exit in the upper deck of such a bus. I wish to emphasize that under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is your responsibility as a manufacturer of motor vehicles to ensure compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provides interpretations of the Safety Act and the requirements of the safety standards issued under the Safety Act, but our interpretations are based on the information provided in interpretation requests. The standard at S5.2.1 provides manufacturers with some options as to how they provide emergency exits. It appears that you intend to provide the exits by way of meeting S5.2.2. As noted above, S5.2.2 specifies requirements for the amount of unobstructed opening for buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. Since the materials you provided state that the GVWR of the TD925 is 56,500 lbs, S5.2.2.2 would apply. S5.2.2.2 states: S5.2.2.2 Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. Buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds shall meet the unobstructed openings requirements in S5.2.2.1 by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 through S5.5. The rear exit shall meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is upright and when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit. When the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that meets the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear half of the bus. You state that the lower deck has two emergency exit windows on the left side, two emergency exits on the right side, and two emergency doors on the right side. On the upper deck, there are four emergency exit windows on the left side, four emergency exit windows on the right side, and two roof emergency exits. Judging from photographs of the rear of the TD925 and the schematic, there is no rear exit (door or window) on the bus. Accordingly, a roof exit must be provided. The question is whether two exits in the roof satisfy that requirement, given that access to the upper deck is provided by two stairways on the right side of the bus. We note that these staircases might be difficult for lower deck occupants to use in order to reach the roof exits if the bus overturned on its left side. After careful consideration of the standard and its history, our conclusion is that S5.2.2.2 does not contemplate this particular kind of bus (a double decker bus whose upper deck is enclosed) and, therefore, does not presently specify any requirements concerning a means by which lower deck occupants can gain access to the roof exit of such a bus if it falls on either side. However, we note that the overall purpose of FMVSS 217 is to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress. To the extent that manufacturers design their buses to ensure that lower deck occupants have adequate access in all situations, there is no need for changed regulatory language to implement the expressed purpose of the standard. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:217 d.9/18/08 |
2008 |
ID: 07-007541asOpenMr. Darby Crow CEO Crow Cycle Co. 863 Opal Street San Diego, CA 92109 Dear Mr. Crow: This responds to your letter concerning whether the Crow Cycle Companys motorized bicycle design (the Crow beach cruiser) is considered a motorcycle, subject to the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As discussed below, it is our opinion that the Crow beach cruiser is a motor vehicle. Moreover, based on the specifications of the vehicle that you provided, it is our opinion that the Crow beach cruiser should be considered a motorcycle, or more specifically a motor-driven cycle, and therefore is subject to Federal laws governing those vehicles. By way of background, NHTSA regulates the manufacture, importation, and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The definition of motor vehicle is given is 49 USC 30102, and reads: [M]otor vehicle means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. Furthermore, the NHTSA has included definitions of various vehicle types in its regulations. In 49 CFR 571.3, we defined a motorcycle as a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. A motor-driven cycle is defined as a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less. You have provided detailed specifications regarding the Crow beach cruiser. Most relevantly, you stated that it comes equipped with a 36cc, 1.6 HP engine. The Crow beach cruiser has a bicycle frame, seat, transmission, and mountain bike wheels. The speed control is a twist throttle, similar to motorcycle designs, and most other components are standard bicycle components. Furthermore, you stated that the Crow beach cruiser can be operated in three different modes. The first is Human Power, in which the vehicle is operated like a non-powered bicycle. The second is Human Power plus gasoline engine, in which the vehicle operates like a power-assisted bicycle. The third is Gasoline engine only, in which the engine provides the sole power for the vehicle. In this mode, the vehicle has a top speed of 28 mph when placed in the smallest gear. Additionally, we note that the beach cruiser style of bicycles, whether motorized or not, are marketed in part for and commonly used on public roads. You provided several arguments as to why you believe NHTSA should not consider your product a motor vehicle. You state that the engine output and top speed of the vehicle, 1.6 HP and 28 mph, respectively, are similar to what a world-class cyclist can sustain through human power alone, and what an average cyclist can produce in brief bursts. Therefore, you state, the performance of the vehicle is similar to that of an ordinary bicycle powered by a cyclist. You also state that the Crow beach cruiser cannot keep up with normal road traffic, is not capable of quick acceleration, and cannot climb hills at a speed comparable to a motorized vehicle. You made several additional arguments. First, you argued that the Crow beach cruiser is very similar to a mountain or road bicycle. You state that the controls are similar and the components are largely bicycle components. Furthermore, you presented information on various State laws regarding the classification of motorized bicycles and motorcycles. You stated that a majority of States classify a vehicle a top speed of 30 mph or less and an engine capable of producing 2 HP or less as a motorized bicycle. Based on the description of the vehicle you provided, we believe that the Crow vehicle is a motor vehicle, subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). We believe that it should be classified as a motor-driven cycle. Below, we will state our rationale, as well as address the arguments you put forth in your letter. NHTSAs position on whether motorized bicycles should be classified as motor vehicles under the definition in 49 U.S.C. 30102 has been discussed in several previous interpretations. In a 1999 interpretation, we stated that attaching a motor to a bicycle rendered the bicycle a motor vehicle, because the motor was capable of propelling the vehicle on its own.[1] Similarly, a 1997 interpretation to an electric bicycle manufacturer stated that NHTSA considered self-propelled bicycles to be motor vehicles, subject to the Federal requirements.[2] We are enclosing copies of both previous interpretations. Because the Crow beach cycle is capable of operating solely under mechanized power, we would consider it to be a motor vehicle, and thus subject to Federal requirements. We note that we do not consider power-assisted bicycles to be motor vehicles. In a recent letter of interpretation, we stated that a bicycle with an engine that was not powerful enough to power the bicycle alone would not be considered a motor vehicle.[3] The Crow beach cruiser, on the other hand, is capable of performing purely on engine power. You argued that the Crow beach cruiser is no more capable of keeping up with traffic than human-powered cyclists, and therefore should not be considered a motor vehicle. We disagree with this argument. The Crow beach cruiser, using only the motor, is capable of sustained speeds of up to 28 mph. We believe that vehicles with speeds of over 20 mph are capable of on-road operation. We note that one class of four-wheeled motor vehicles, low speed vehicles (LSVs), have a top speed of more than 20 mph but not more than 25 mph. You also argued that because the Crow beach cruiser uses similar controls to a road or mountain bicycle, it should be considered a motorized bicycle, and that many States do not consider low-powered motorized bicycles to be motorcycles. While we are not familiar with the various State laws you mentioned, we note that Congress has enacted laws regarding motorized bicycles. Specifically, in the Consumer Product Safety Act, Congress distinguished certain types of motorized bicycles, namely, low-speed electric bicycles, which have a top speed of less than 20 mph. In that Act, Congress stated that because low-speed electric bicycles are designed not to exceed the maximum speed of a human-powered bicycle, and they are typically used in the same manner as human-powered bicycles, electric bicycles should be regulated in the same manner and under the same agency (the [Consumer Product Safety Commission] CPSC) as human-powered bicycles. While we note that this law applies only to electric bicycles, and not gasoline-powered bicycles like the Crow beach cruiser, we take note that Congress used a cutoff speed of 20 mph. We also note that the 20 mph cutoff point was the speed that NHTSA used to determine the minimum top speed for LSVs. Therefore, we are not persuaded by your argument that the speed and design of the Crow beach cruiser should cause NHTSA to not consider it a motor vehicle. Based on the above analysis, we have concluded that the Crow beach cruiser is a motorcycle, or more specifically, a motor-driven cycle. As such, it is subject to the FMVSSs applicable to motorcycles. If you have any further questions relating to NHTSA, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:108 d.4/17/08 |
2008 |
ID: 07-007542--29 Feb 08--sa--2OpenDr. Klaus Bs Lear Corporation Technology Center Allershausen Am Ziegelwerk 1 D-85391 Allershausen-Leonhardsbuch Germany Dear Dr. Bs: This is in response to your December 12, 2007 facsimile, in which you asked about the head restraint position specification for the dynamic compliance option in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a, Head Restraints. Specifically, you refer to a 2007 final rules elimination of the backset adjustment specification (while maintaining the up/down adjustment specification) in the dynamic compliance option for head restraints (72 FR 25484, May 4, 2007). You ask for clarification of how head restraints with adjustable backsets should be positioned for the dynamic compliance tests. As discussed below, the omission in the regulatory text of the language you referenced was an inadvertent error, and we plan to correct this error as a technical correction. This correction will clarify that head restraints with adjustable backsets can be tested in any position of adjustment during compliance tests for the dynamic option, i.e., the vehicle must comply in all such positions of adjustment. FMVSS No. 202a seeks to reduce whiplash injuries in rear collisions, and in 2004 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) upgraded this standard to provide better whiplash protection for a wider range of occupants (2004 Final Rule). On May 4, 2007, NHTSA published a new final rule (2007 Final Rule) amending FMVSS No. 202a, which responded to petitions for reconsideration of the 2004 Final Rule (69 FR 74848, Dec. 14, 2004). In your letter, you refer to the 2007 Final Rules elimination of the specification of backset adjustment in the dynamic compliance option for head restraints. Your letter asks for clarification of your assumption that the absence of specific instructions for backset adjustment must mean that head restraints with adjustable backsets should be adjusted midway between the most forward and rearward position of adjustment, analogous to the condition specified for the up/down adjustment of the head restraint (midway between the lowest and the highest position of adjustment). As explained below, your assumption is incorrect. The 2004 Final Rule altered the head restraint position specification for the dynamic compliance option from any position of adjustment to a mid-height position and any position of backset adjustment. This was indicated in both S4.3 and S5.3: S4.3 Dynamic performance and width. At each forward-facing outboard designated seating position equipped with a head restraint, the head restraint adjusted midway between the lowest and the highest position of adjustment, and at any position of backset adjustment, must conform to the following: * * * * * S5.3 Procedures for dynamic performance. Demonstrate compliance with S4.3 of this section in accordance with S5.3.1 through S5.3.9 of this section with a 50th percentile male Hybrid III test dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572 subpart E, with the head restraint midway between the lowest and the highest position of adjustment, and at any position of backset adjustment. The 2007 Final Rule preamble did not discuss, and we did not intend to make any changes to the provisions of head restraint adjustment for this test. The omission of this test condition was an inadvertent error, and the agency plans on correcting this mistake in a forthcoming technical correction to the 2007 Final Rule. This will clarify that head restraints with adjustable backset can be tested in any position of adjustment during the dynamic compliance option. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:202 d.4/29/08 |
2008 |
ID: 07-26-01_Rubel_ltr_spwOpen Eric A. Rubel, Esq. Dear Mr. Rubel: This is in reply to your letter, written on behalf of DEKA Research and Development Corporation (DEKA), asking whether certain products would be considered "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by this agency. You generally described the products. You stated that the products in question, which to date have not been marketed or sold, would have either two or four drive wheels, would operate on battery power, and would be intended primarily for use on sidewalks. You also stated that the products could be described as low-speed electric personal assistive mobility devices, which are self-balancing, can operate on two non-tandem wheels, have an electric propulsion system, and have a maximum speed on a paved level surface of less than 20 mph, when powered solely by such a propulsion system and ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds. As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined, in part, as one "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." 49 U.S.C. ' 30102(a)(6). Accordingly, only vehicles which are operated on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of their primary uses, are considered to be motor vehicles. In determining whether a particular product is operated on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of its primary uses, we consider a number of factors, including whether the vehicle can be licensed for use on public streets, roads and highways. If a vehicle cannot be so licensed, we consider whether the vehicle is, in fact, used on public streets, roads, and highways by a substantial number of people. Considering that the vehicles you describe are still in the planning stage (i.e., are not presently available for sale to the general public), no data are available concerning their actual use. In situations like this, where such data are unavailable, this agency has looked to the use patterns of vehicles similar to the ones in development. Given the general nature of the description, identifying like-vehicles is difficult. This problem is compounded by the fact that the vehicles DEKA is planning to manufacture appear to be unique. Nevertheless, we note that they have characteristics that, at least in some respects, are similar to those of motorized wheelchairs. This agency does not consider motorized wheelchairs to be "motor vehicles." They are not licensable and are not used on public streets, roads, and highways by a substantial number of people. Thus, they are not subject to this agency's safety regulations. Based on our understanding of the characteristics of the vehicles in question and on the assumptions that they would not be licensable and would be used in a fashion similar to motorized wheelchairs, we would not consider the vehicles to be "motor vehicles." If our assumptions about licensability and actual usage proved incorrect, we would reconsider this position. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:571 |
2001 |
ID: 0705rOpen Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Dear Mr. Shetler: This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green. You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted that the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators. You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. You also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acceptable. We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard specified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including turn signal pilot indicators and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator. We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light "with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle." Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with "a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders." Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to "inside" and "outside" the vehicle are inapposite. Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so. As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard No. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment "be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions." If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202- 366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/3/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0722Open Herr Tilman Spingler Dear Herr Spingler: We have received your FAX of February 15, 1995, asking whether a proposed design "for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108." The agency does not advise manufacturers whether particular designs are regarded as "conforming." That determination is to be made by the manufacturer in certifying that its product conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. However, we can provide you with an interpretive guideline. Section S4 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" as a headlamp "comprising a bonded lens reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources." The intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp. This means that, if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced. If your design is such that the lens cannot be removed from the reflector assembly for replacement, it would appear to meet the definition in S4. As you are well aware, NHTSA granted your company's petition for rulemaking, and, in November 1994, proposed an amendment of the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that would allow a replaceable lens if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2. Comments were due on this proposal February 21, 1995. In due course, after review of the comments, NHTSA will decide whether it will pursue further rulemaking or terminate the rulemaking action. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/8/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0761Open Mr. Chong D. Lee Dear Mr. Lee: This is in reply to your FAX of February 28, 1995, asking several questions about the importation and sale of an aftermarket airbag. The airbag "comes in assembly with a steering wheel" and is intended for installation in vehicles not originally equipped with a driver's airbag. You have asked the following questions: "a) Whether such a product as described is legal for U.S. sale." There is no Federal prohibition per se against the sale of aftermarket airbags. However, pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in airbag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208, even if they are aftermarket equipment. Therefore the manufacturer of these items (or the importer, who is defined as a "manufacturer" under our statute) must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. S9 prescribes performance requirements that are found in 49 CFR secs. 173 and 178, regulations of another Administration of the Department of Transportation. We suggest that you write the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, 400 7th Street, Washington, D.C. 20590 for an opinion as to whether other of its regulations apply to your product or its movement in interstate commerce. As to whether the laws of the individual States regulate the sale of aftermarket airbags, you should write, for an opinion, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. "b) Legal procedures, testing or submissions required to certify the product for U.S. sale." The requirements for compliance with S9 of Standard No. 208 are set forth in 49 CFR secs. 173 and 178. When the manufacturer who is responsible for certifying compliance is satisfied that the equipment, in fact, does conform, it certifies the product. At that point, pressure vessels and explosive devices that are part of an airbag assembly, if not manufactured in the United States, may be imported into this country. A state is not permitted to have performance requirements for pressure vessels and explosive devices that differ from those of S9, but it may have a standard requiring identical performance, and, if so, they may ask for documentary assurance of compliance. "c) Applicable Federal law (e.g. FMVSS 208)." See replies to your previous questions. You should also note that an aftermarket airbag is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. One Federal law does bear upon the installation of the airbag. It is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business replaces a piece of original equipment that was necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, if the replacement part creates a noncompliance with that standard. The design of the steering wheel may affect compliance with Federal Standards Nos. 203 Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system and 204 Steering control rearward displacement. We recommend that you satisfy yourself that installation of the airbag will not affect the previous ability to comply, of the vehicle in which it is installed, before marketing the product. "d) Actions or registrations required to reduce legal risks." We are not in a position to advise you on matters that do not relate to Federal laws that we administer. We recommend that you consult a private attorney on these matters. "e) Any other information of which we should be aware." You should encounter no difficulties in importing the airbag and steering wheel under our importation regulation, 49 CFR Part 591 as long as any components that are required to comply with S9 of Standard No. 208 are certified as meeting that standard. I am enclosing an information sheet that outlines the various laws and regulations that we administer pertaining to motor vehicles and equipment with the thought that you might find it helpful. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:208 d:4/10/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0784Open Mr. Marshall S. Reagle Dear Mr. Reagle: This is in reply to your recent FAX to Pat Boyd of this agency asking for a confirmation of an interpretation of certain reflex reflector requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically S5.7.2.1(b) and (c). For your future reference, requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel. You state that Mr. Boyd informed you that "any retro- reflector would have to be made in intervals of 4 inches" with the 0 degree at the two-inch mark, and that the reflective reading would have to comply with S5.7.2.1(b) or (c). He also informed you that, regardless of whether the segment was 4, 8, or 12 inches in length, the agency will test in 4-inch segments. This is correct. According to paragraph S5.7.2.2(a) and (b) of Standard No. 108, each reflector shall be installed "with the center of each reflector not more than 100 mm from the center of each adjacent reflector." As 100 mm is approximately 4 inches, this effectively limits the size of a reflector to a maximum length of 4 inches. However, this does not prohibit the mounting of two or three adjacent reflectors in "segments" of 8 or 12 inches, whether separately or in a housing. As Mr. Boyd informed you, each discrete 4- inch segment must comply with paragraph S5.7.2.1(b) or (c). Paragraphs S5.7.2.1(b) and (c) specify reflectivity values for red and white reflex reflectors respectively "at any light entrance angle between 30 degrees left and 30 degrees right, including an entrance angle of 0 degrees," as well as "any light entrance angle between 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right." Your drawing of a 4-inch reflector correctly depicts the 0 degree light entrance angle at the 2-inch mark, in the center of the reflector. However, SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, January 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires the measurement of the other light entrance angles also with respect to the center of the reflector, rather than with respect to the ends as pictured in your drawing. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/17/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0787Open Mr. Dirk du Plooy Dear Mr. du Plooy: We have received your letter of March 6, 1995, to Joe Pesci of this agency, asking his assistance "in acquiring information about U.S. laws on motorcycle trailers." You understand that "there could be a number of different U.S. states with different laws, but the most generally accepted standard" is what you are seeking in drafting legislation legalizing motorcycle trailers. Any trailer that is manufactured for sale in, or imported into, the United States must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards are issued by this agency. Several of them apply to trailers. As we have no separate category of "motorcycle trailer", these standards would apply to any trailer manufactured for the purpose of carrying one or more motorcycles. Here are the requirements that apply to trailers. A trailer with a hydraulic brake system must be equipped with brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings that meet Standard No. 106, and with brake fluid that complies with Standard No. 116. Lighting equipment and reflectors must be installed pursuant to Standard No. 108. Each trailer must have a Vehicle Identification Number attached, in accordance with Standard No. 115 to facilitate any recall campaigns for safety purposes. Standards Nos. 119 and 120 apply to tires and rims used on trailers. Finally, at the end of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer must affix a permanent label which certifies that the trailer complies with the safety standards. Because these Federal standards apply throughout the United States, I believe that they meet your request for information on "the most generally accepted standard." Under our laws, if any State has its own standard covering any aspect of performance that is covered by one of the Federal standards listed above, that State standard must be identical to the Federal one. So, to that extent, State regulation of motorcycle trailers should be identical to the Federal requirements. However, States may impose their own standards in areas that are not covered by the Federal standards. For example, this agency has no requirement covering strength of trailer hitches, or that trailers be equipped with mud flaps. Therefore, a State could adopt standards in these areas. We are not conversant with State laws for motorcycle trailers, and cannot advise you about them. If you wish further information on such laws, we recommend that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. I am enclosing for your information a pamphlet on our regulations that we provide to prospective trailer manufacturers. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. Given the distance between us, you may wish to communicate by FAX. Our number is 202-366-3820. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571 d:4/10/95
|
1995 |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.