NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: 08-002439asOpenMr. James D. Carroll 4608 Oakwood Circle Gastonia, NC 28056 Dear Mr. Carroll: This responds to your letter regarding the permissibility of an owner removing a label required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, from a certified motorcycle helmet. Specifically, you ask us to confirm whether certain statements made by the agency in a 1988 letter are still current. Our answer is yes. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide 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. In your letter, you quote a statement we made in a December 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Wayne Ivie regarding the removal of the helmet label, and ask if that statement still reflected NHTSAs view. The statement is as follows: Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmets owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label. The relevant Federal prohibition on the modification of vehicles or items of equipment is 49 U.S.C. 30112, Making safety devices and elements inoperative.[1] This section reads, in part: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative. Because the certification label is an element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with FMVSS No. 218 (specifically, paragraph S5.6 of FMVSS No. 218), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 from removing the label. However, this prohibition does not apply to an individual owner modifying his or her own equipment. Nonetheless, NHTSA discourages owners from reducing the safety effectiveness of their vehicles or items of equipment by, for example, removing required labeling. The labeling is an indication to consumers, including secondhand purchasers, that the helmet provides a minimum level of safety protection. Generally, uncertified helmets provide a lesser level of head protection for riders involved in crashes. Furthermore, as stated in the Ivie letter, individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and are free to prohibit an owner from removing the label from his or her own helmet. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:218 d.11/20/08 [1] The provision discussed in the Ivie letter was set forth at 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) was recodified in July 1994 and 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) became 49 U.S.C. 30112. No substantive change was made to the provision. |
2008 |
ID: EAtonfinalOpenMr. Daniel I. Hanrahan Dear Mr. Hanrahan: This responds to your e-mail and phone conversations with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff in which you ask about the certification responsibilities associated with a vehicle fitted with new technology for test purposes. As we understand it, your client has been developing a hydraulic launch assist system (HLA) and has been working with vehicle manufacturers and the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate its benefits. Your client has retrofitted three Ford F350 trucks with the HLA. Your client owns one of the trucks. Ford owns the other two. You intend to display these vehicles at an exhibit in Alaska hosted by the Department of Defense. The trucks will operate only on test track/open lot settings. They will not be driven on the public roads. You also ask about a Peterbilt Refuse Hauler that your client has fitted with the HLA system. Peterbilt owns the vehicle, but will drive it on the public roads from Michigan to Texas. As you know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that manufacturers certify their vehicles as compliant with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 U.S.C. § 30012 provides that: A person may not manufacturer for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title. A motor vehicle may be subject to this certification requirement prior to a first retail sale since a vehicle is considered to be introduced into interstate commerce if it is introduced into a means of interstate traffic – i.e., used on public roads. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations also specify, for vehicles that are built in multiple stages or which have been altered, the certification responsibilities of the various manufacturers that have built the vehicle. Alterers perform modifications on completed vehicles prior to an initial retail sale and carry certain certification responsibilities. Modifiers make changes to vehicles after their first retail sale. Section 30122 prohibits modifications that would impede the safe operation of a previously certified vehicle: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance and repair) when the device or element is inoperative. We understand that your client has been working with the Environmental Protection Agency to demonstrate advanced new technology. Your client will equip Ford F350 trucks with the HLA system and demonstrate the vehicles on test tracks. Ford has retained ownership of these vehicles and has consigned them to the EPA for purposes of this test program. The vehicles will not be driven on the public roads. These apparently are ordinary production vehicles manufactured to comply and certified as compliant with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Initially, it is not clear whether adding the HLA system to these trucks would affect their compliance with the FMVSS. Regardless, however, based on the facts as presented to us, there are no current plans to enter the vehicles into interstate commerce, and thus they are not required to comply with all applicable FMVSS. If the vehicles are subsequently sold to persons who would operate them on the public roads, they will need to comply with all applicable safety standards at the time of their first retail sale and be so certified. Because Ford has retained ownership over these vehicles and would, presumably, be the seller, your client would not be responsible for the certification. We understand that the Peterbilt Refuse Hauler is to be driven on the public roads from Michigan to Texas, and therefore that it will enter interstate commerce. Accordingly, the vehicle must comply with all applicable FMVSS when fitted with the HLA system. Based on the facts as presented to us, it appears that your client would be considered an “alterer” under NHTSA’s regulations and should certify that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS as altered. We commend your client for its efforts in working with the EPA to develop and demonstrate advanced vehicle technologies. If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at 202 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Chief Counsel ref:567 d.11/12/04 |
2004 |
ID: nht95-3.14OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: June 14, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: K. Olsen TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/4/92 LETTER FROM PAUL RICE TO BOB BULLARD; ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/12/95 LETTER FROM K. OLSEN TO JOHN WOMACK TEXT: Dear Ms. Olsen: This responds to your letter of March 12, 1995, requesting an opinion as to the liability of the manufacturer, dealer, or customer in an accident involving a trailer originally sold with used tires. I apologize for the delay in our response. By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30112 of Title 49 pro vides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, or import a new motor vehicle or a new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification of such compliance. Genera lly speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state regulation. This office cannot give you an opinion as to who may be liable in the accident you described. The question of liability would be a matter of state law. You may wish to consult with a local attorney on the question of liability. I can advise you that FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, generally requires tires installed on new trailers to be new, but includes certain specified exceptions which do not appear to be relevant here. I n that connection, please find enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to a gentleman in Odessa, Texas, dated September 4, 1992, which discusses in some detail our requirements for tires installed on new trailers. This agency does not have any standards for trailer brakes other than air brakes. Also, as indicated above, matters relating to the use of a vehicle, such as connection of the electric brake control to the towing vehicle and loading of the trailer, are not under the jurisdiction of this agency. I hope this information is helpful to you. Based on your March 12, 1995 letter and your telephone and facsimile communications with the staff of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, that office has initiated an inquiry to the trailer manuf acturer to determine if a noncompliance exists with FMVSS No. 120. If you have further information or data to offer in this regard, please contact Mr. Luke Loy at this address or at (202) 366-5288 or by FAX at (202) 366-3081. |
|
ID: nht72-3.9OpenDATE: 09/01/72 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA TO: Rolls-Royce, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 19, 1971, concerning the placement of vanity mirrors in sun visors. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letter. The issues it raised, however, are of consequence to manufacturers other than Rolls-Royce, and concerned basic matters of interpretation of Standard No. 201 which have only recently been resolved. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that paragraph S3.4.1 of Standard No. 201 does not prohibit the installation by manufacturers of vanity mirrors on sun visors. Consequently, manufacturers are free to incorporate such mirrors into or onto sun visors, including mirrors that are recessed into the surface of the visor as in the sample you enclosed. SINCERELY, ROLLS-ROYCE, INC. May 19, 1971 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation attention: Ref. FMVSS 201 Mr. Risteen Gentlemen: F.M.V.S.S. 201 OCCUPANT PROTECTION, INTERIOR IMPACT -- SUNVISOR, VANITY MIRRORS The mirror was deleted from visors at the introduction of the Safety Standard. Customer criticism of the deletion of the mirror, however, has prompted us to seek the following interpretation, if in fact they would be regarded as acceptable: We are aware that a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to Amend F.M.V.S.S. 205 - Docket 71-1; Notice 1 - glazing materials exist, where mirrors should meet the requirements of items 1 to 13 of ANS-Z26. With (Illegible Word) proposed effective date of January, 1972, however, it is hoped we will have material for the mirrors, but we are still not certain that it would qualify as energy absorbing. The method of fitting mirrors to sunvisors to markets other than North America is: 1. 4-DOOR VEHICLES A plain glass mirror, backed with adhesive tape, so that should it fracture fragments adhere to the tape. The glass plus the tape is in a recess in the foam which makes up the body of the visor. A thin gauge soft aluminum frame is used to tidy up the leather cover around the aperature. 2. 2-DOOR VEHICLES A semi-rigid plastic mirror is used in a shallow recess in the foam. Again a frame is used to tidy up the trim around the aperature. In other respects the construction is the same. In order to help in your interpretation, a sunvisor with the glass mirror and a sample of the plastic mirror is enclosed. If necessary, you may strip them down and break them if it will assist in arriving at a decision. May we request an early response. Trevor Williams Service Manager |
|
ID: cox.ztvOpenMr. Bill Cox Dear Mr. Cox: On August 31, 1998, we received your faxed manufacturer identification information sheet sent in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, and your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions. You informed us that Monte Carlo Minis Limited, Inc., wants to build "Mk 1 and Mk II Minis." These vehicles "will have all new parts except for the chassis or subframes." You comment that "if we replace the chassis, we know we would have to meet all the DOT and EPA regs." You ask whether you can "retain the old VIN number if we use the pre 1969 donor cars and chassis." You also state that "if we only exported the Minis to Japan I assume we would have to use the new VIN numbers as described in CFR 49." The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and other agency regulations do not apply to vehicles manufactured for export, and which are so labeled between the completion of their manufacture and shipment from the United States. Therefore, the VIN on vehicles intended to export for Japan should conform with the requirements of that country, if any, for VINs, rather than those of 49 CFR Part 565 for vehicles intended for sale in the United States. You incorrectly assume that retention of the old chassis alone is sufficient to excuse a vehicle from compliance with the FMVSS. The agency's opinions over the years have been premised upon the fact situation of a vehicle in use being modified to incorporate a new body on its original chassis and one which retained its original title. We have said that the resulting vehicle would not be considered a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS . The agency did not intend the word chassis to be interpreted narrowly but meant the term to indicate an assemblage that retained the original frame and all vehicle components other than the body, including the power train, brake system, suspension, and tires and wheels. The vehicles you intend to build would have "all new parts except for the chassis or subframes, including "the new [body] shell," "new suspension," and "new engine and transmission," while "the old chassis, sub frame is retained after being sandblasted." In our view, vehicles assembled using equipment as you have described it to us would be new motor vehicles which must comply with all applicable FMVSS in effect as of the date of assembly, and be certified as complying if they are to be sold for use in the United States. Among other things, such vehicles must have a VIN meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: nht91-7.3OpenDATE: November 7, 1991 FROM: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emission & Safety, Isuzu TO: P. J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA COPYEE: Mr. Sakai; Mr. Watanabe TITLE: Test Conditions - Side Impact (FMVSS 214) ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takashi Odaira (A39; Std. 214) TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to seek your agency's interpretation about the test conditions specified in FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection. S3. (b), (c) and (d) of FMVSS 214 specify passenger cars whose rear seating areas are so small that the rear seat requirements do not apply. However, when such passenger cars are subjected to dynamic side impact test, is it necessary to place a test dummy on their rear seating positions? I would appreciate receiving your quick response to this question. |
|
ID: 07-000309drnOpen
James A. Brunet II, President Excelsior Transportation Consultants, Inc. 18 Moonglow Road Wilton, NY 12831
Dear Mr. Brunet:
This responds to your request for information about Federal laws that apply when a motor vehicle repair facility modifies a school bus (after first sale) in order to meet the needs of its customers. You represent a client that operates a maintenance and repair facility that primarily works on such school buses. Your client has received requests from customers that in some cases, require the removal, disconnection or modification of a component that was installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard for the type of vehicle as built by the original manufacturer.
As an example, you noted that your client wishes to remove or disconnect equipment on a used school bus that was installed by the manufacturer in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. The school bus seats would be removed and new non-school bus seats would be installed. In addition, a wheel chair lift and door would be installed. Upon completion, the bus would be returned to the owner, for use in non-school transportation.
Discussion
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. Section 30101 et seq.), establishes a self-certification process under which all manufacturers of new motor vehicles, including new school buses, are responsible for certifying that their new vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs. The certification label requirements are listed in 49 CFR Part 567 Certification. Section 567.4(g)(7) specifies that the certification label must indicate the type of the vehicle being certified (e.g., truck, bus, trailer).
You posed the following questions, which are answered below:
Question 1 As a vehicle modifier/alterer (after first sale) does my client fall under the CFR definition of manufacturer? If so, does he have to register with NHTSA as such and what procedures need to be followed to do so?
The term manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (49 U.S.C.30102(a)(5)) as: a person (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. The agency would not consider your client to be an original manufacturer of the vehicle. Since your client is not a manufacturer, our regulation requiring manufacturers to identify themselves to NHTSA (49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer identification) does not apply.[1] In addition, although you referred to your client as an alterer, we do not consider it to be an alterer. Alterer is defined in our regulations as: a person who alters by addition, substitution, or removal of components (other than readily attachable components) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle other than for resale. (49 CFR Section 567.3, Definitions.) Since your client modifies used vehicles, it does not meet this definition.
Question Two As with the school bus example above, the vehicle, after modification, would no longer comply with the CFR definition of school bus. Is my client required to re-tag the vehicle as a type of vehicle that meets the NHTSA definition of the vehicle type into which it falls, after modification? (I.e., per the example above, a vehicle is classified as a school bus by the original manufacturer, is modified and would now, possibly fall under the definition/classification of a bus.)
Our answer is your client would not re-tag the vehicle, unless the modifications were so extensive that it was engaged in the manufacture of a new vehicle. (We assume that re-tagging means certifying the vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSSs.)
The requirement to certify the compliance of vehicles with the FMVSSs only applies to new vehicles. However, there is a limit in Federal law on the modifications that commercial businesses may make to vehicles. (See May 21, 2003 letter to Ms. Teresa Stillwell, copy enclosed.) The limit is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) of the Safety Act as follows:
Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.
In general, this section prohibits the entities listed in Section 30122(b) from removing, disabling or otherwise making inoperative any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. We regard modifiers such as your client to be a form of repair business for the purposes of this prohibition. However, with regard to modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from school bus to bus[2]), NHTSA has interpreted the provision to hold that the modifications do not violate the make inoperative prohibition as long as the converted vehicle complies with the safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new vehicle type. This means in your case that the modification must not make inoperative the devices or elements of design installed with regard to bus standards.
You indicate that your client wishes to install platform lifts (wheel chair lift) on the buses. We have addressed the installation of lifts on used vehicles in a January 21, 2005 letter to Mr. Deny Bertrand of Prevost Car, Inc. (copy enclosed). As you can see from the letter, different requirements apply, depending on factors such as the date of manufacture of the vehicle and whether the underlying vehicle had a lift. If you have specific questions about a particular modification, such as the installation of a platform lift on a particular vehicle, please feel free to contact us.
Question Three In addition to complying with all applicable New York State requirements, other than those areas specifically addressed above, what other NHTSA/CFR requirements does my client need to comply with?
Because of the variety of fact situations involved, it is difficult to address all possible scenarios, so it is more appropriate for us to provide opinions on a case-by-case basis. Different FMVSSs may apply to the modification, depending on the equipment that is being installed on the vehicle, whether there is an FMVSS that applies to that equipment item (for example, a new seat belt assembly would have to meet FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, even when installed on a used vehicle), the date of manufacture of the underlying vehicle, etc. It is your clients responsibility to meet all applicable requirements. We also note that the Departments Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You may contact the FMCSA at (202) 366-4009 for further information about that agencys regulations.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Our new address is: Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Mail Code: W41-227, Washington, DC 20590.
Sincerely yours,
Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel
Enclosures ref:VSA d.6/18/07 [1] We note, however, that some modifications to a used vehicle could be so extensive so as to be considered a manufacture of a new vehicle. (For example, if a used bus body were placed on a new chassis, we would consider the resulting vehicle to be a new motor vehicle.) For information about this issue, see the enclosed copy of the March 16, 1988 letter to Morris East. [2] By NHTSAs definition, a bus is a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons. (See 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions.) |
2007 |
ID: 9929Open Mr. Neil Rowe Dear Mr. Rowe: This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to your product, the Glad Grip. You stated that this product serves as a handle to help connect and disconnect truck tractor air brake hoses at the glad hand. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your product. However, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSS for your product. Our standard for brake hoses (FMVSS 106) applies to air brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies installed as original equipment and to those sold in the aftermarket. Standard 106 defines "brake hose end fitting" as a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose. You describe the Glad Grip as a device which attaches to the end fitting of an air brake assembly and the glad hand. Since the brake hose that attaches to the Glad Grip is equipped with its own end fittings, the Glad Grip itself is not an end fitting. Therefore, Standard 106 is inapplicable. While it does not appear that you will market your device as original equipment on new vehicles, bear in mind that FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, applies to trucks and trailers. Any new truck or trailer that has your product as original equipment must meet the standard's requirements with your product installed. I note also that, while NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the Glad Grip contains a safety related defect, you as the manufacturer of the product would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Further, the Glad Grip is also subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 393.45 and 393.46 (copy enclosed), which are regulations administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for commercial vehicles. If you are interested in these FHWA requirements, you can write to that agency at the addressed provided in the enclosed information sheet. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:106 d:5/18/94
|
1994 |
ID: nht94-2.96OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: May 18, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Neil Rowe -- Rowe Manufacturing TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/1/94 (EST) from Rowe Manufacturing TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to your product, the Glad Grip. You stated that this product serves as a handle to help connect and disconnect truck tractor air brake hoses at the glad hand. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle e quipment, such as your product. However, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSS for your product. Our standard for brake hoses (FMVSS 106) applies to air brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies installed as original equipment and to those sold in the aftermarket. Standard 106 defines "brake hose end fitting" as a coupler, other than a clamp, designe d for attachment to the end of a brake hose. You describe the Glad Grip as a device which attaches to the end fitting of an air brake assembly and the glad hand. Since the brake hose that attaches to the Glad Grip is equipped with its own end fittings, t he Glad Grip itself is not an end fitting. Therefore, Standard 106 is inapplicable. While it does not appear that you will market your device as original equipment on new vehicles, bear in mind that FMVSS No. 121, AIR BRAKE SYSTEMS, applies to trucks and trailers. Any new truck or trailer that has your product as original equipment must meet the standard's requirements with your product installed. I note also that, while NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the Glad Grip contains a safety related defect, you as the manufacturer of the product would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Further, the Glad Grip is also subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 393.45 and 393.46 (copy enclosed), which are regulations administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for commercial vehicles. If you are interested in these FHWA requ irements, you can write to that agency at the addressed provided in the enclosed information sheet. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht93-4.34OpenDATE: June 15, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA TO: Edward F. Conway, Jr. -- Assistant General Counsel, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-19-93 from Edward F. Conway, Jr. to John Womack. TEXT: We have received your letter of May 19, 1993, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You are concerned with an opinion that the agency expressed when it published the rule requiring center highmounted stoplamps (CHMSLs) on trucks whose overall width is less than 80 inches and whose GVWR is 10,000 pounds or less that are manufactured on and after September 1, 1993 (56 FR 16015). NHTSA pointed out that installation of an aftermarket slide-in camper by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business might "render inoperative" the CHMSL within the meaning of the prohibition of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) if it obscured the original equipment CHMSL. You have apprised us that a number of your manufacturer members produce slide-in campers that are more than 80 inches wide that obscure CHMSLs. When these campers are installed on trucks that are 80 inches or less in overall width, you argue that "(a) CHMSL is NOT required on that pickup truck because its overall width is now MORE THAN 80 inches". You ask that we concur in your conclusions that these campers may lawfully be installed by a person other than a vehicle owner, and that these campers themselves are not required to be equipped with a CHMSL. We are pleased to inform you that we concur with your conclusions under the conditions to be discussed. Virtually all modifications of vehicles in use by persons other than the owner are subject to the "render inoperative" prohibition. Over the years, we have informed prospective modifiers that we do not interpret the prohibition to require continued compliance to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that originally applied to the vehicle to be modified if the modifications contemplated will result in a change in the applicability of the original FMVSS. For example, if a 1990 passenger car is changed from a closed car to an open one, it need no longer meet all FMVSS that applied to closed vehicles manufactured in 1990. However, at the end of the modification process, it must meet all FMVSS that applied to convertibles in that year. In our opinion, the same principle applies in the fact situation you have outlined. A pickup truck with an overall width of 80 inches or more is not required to have a CHMSL, but it is required to be equipped with clearance and identification lamps. The descriptive literature that you enclosed on "hardside" and "folding" campers shows that each camper is equipped with clearance and identification lamps, so that the lighting equipment requirements for wide trucks will be met when the campers are installed. Therefore, if a camper whose overall width is 80 inches or more is equipped with clearance and identification lamps, it is not required to be equipped with a CHMSL, and its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner will not be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) even if the CHMSL on the pickup carrying the camper is obscured. |
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.