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: aiam0957OpenMr. A. P. Hoynck Van Papendrecht, Technical External Relations, Van Doorne's Automobielfabrieken N. V., Endhoven, Holland; Mr. A. P. Hoynck Van Papendrecht Technical External Relations Van Doorne's Automobielfabrieken N. V. Endhoven Holland; Dear Mr. Van Papendrecht:#This is in reply to your letter of Novembe 12, 1972, about compliance of DAF cars with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102.#Your question concerns the interpretation of paragraph S3.1.2. From your description in the letter and the description in the owner's manual, only one forward drive position is provided and engine braking can be achieved by actuating the transmission low ratio control switch. Under the conditions described above, the Variomatic transmission in DAF cars is not in violation with paragraph S3.1.2 of Standard No. 102. However, it appears that you do not comply with certain other paragraphs of the standard. For example, paragraph S3.1.1 requires that 'A neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse positions ....' and paragraph S3.1.3 requires that 'The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.'#The DAF 66 owners manual dated September 1972, also indicates non-compliance with other standards, for example, 101, *Control Location, Identification and Illumination*, 114, *Theft Protection*, 115, *Vehicle Identification Number*, etc. It is recommended that all standards and regulations be checked for compliance.#A copy of 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' is enclosed for your review and information.#Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2984OpenMs. Barbara A. Loureiro, International Salt Co., Clarks Summit, PA 18411; Ms. Barbara A. Loureiro International Salt Co. Clarks Summit PA 18411; Dear Ms. Loureiro: This responds to your letter of January 29, 1979, asking whethe folding front seats on a two-door, 1978 Chevrolet Malibu are required to have locking devices.; The answer to your question is yes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, (49 CFR 571.207) specifies in paragraph S4.3 that 'a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat or seat back and a control for releasing that restraining device.'; You stated in a telephone conversation with Hugh Oates of my offic that your 1978 Malibu does not have such a restraining device, either manual or inertia-activated. Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has found, however, that the front seating system of the 1978 Chevrolet Malibu two door sedan does in fact have a seat back locking device that is actuated by an inertia system. This system has been certified by General Motors Corporation as meeting the performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207. A description of this system is found on page four of section one in the owner's manual. If the inertia restraint system in your vehicle does not perform as described, you should contact your Chevrolet dealer.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 1982-1.36OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/30/82 FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO: ARMOND CARDARELLI -- DIRECTOR, SAFETY EQUIPMENT SERVICE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS TITLE: NOA-30 TEXT: Dear Mr. Cardarelli: The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to a practice of the AAMVA which we believe should be reviewed. Recently we received copies of Certificate of Equipment Approval Nos. 800643, 800641, 800642, and 800193, rendered "Candle Power Inc." of Rockville, Maryland. In each instance, the Certificate describes the item as a "Motorcycle Headlamp Unit," specifies its use "on Motorcycles" and states that the unit is "in compliance with the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108." It is the implications of AAMVA's certification of compliance that we question. First of all, we believe that a legal certification of conformance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards can be made only by the manufacturer of the unit. We believe that the role of the independent test laboratories is to provide data indicating compliance upon which a manufacturer can base its certification, but that a single test report cannot alone establish certification. It has been the policy of this agency never to judge conformance on the basis of test results of a single lamp because of the multitude of test points to be met and variables in the manufacturing process and the quality control procedures of the individual manufacturers. Indeed, the agency has said that test failures will not lead to a noncompliance determination if they are "random" or "occasional." We therefore believe it is inappropriate for the AAMVA Certificate to state that a lamp conforms to Standard No. 108 when that statement is made on the basis of a single test report submitted by the manufacturer and when it is intended to cover production for five years after the issuance of the Certificate. On the other hand, it would not be inappropriate for the Certificate to state that the test report showed the unit in compliance with appropriate SAE requirements. P2 With respect to Candlepower's headlamps, they are unsealed units which we believe to be intended primarily for use on passenger cars but which may also meet the requirements of J584 for motorcycle use. In our litigation presently pending against importers of these headlamps, we are taking the position that the manufacturer, with knowledge of the capacity for dual use of these headlamps, must certify conformance (in the words of 15 U.S.C. 1413) "with all applicable safety standards" which means standards applicable to both passenger car and motorcycle headlamps. We do not approve of a split certification whereby a headlamp capable of two end uses is certified only for one. We therefore view the AAMVA statement of compliance with Standard No. 108 inappropriate from this standpoint as well. On the other hand, it would not be inappropriate for the Certificate to state that the unit complies with SAE J584. We request that AAMVA review its practice with regard to statements of Federal conformity on its approval certificates and that you provide us with its view. Sincerely, |
|
ID: Magrin.jegOpen Mr. Bob Magrin Dear Mr. Magrin: This responds to your request by telephone to have the passenger air bag of your car deactivated. You explained that you have a baby who was born very premature and who just came home from the hospital. The baby is on a respirator and heart monitor and requires special monitoring. As discussed below, we would consider the special needs of your child as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that either temporarily deactivates the passenger-side air bag to accommodate your child, or places a cutoff switch in the vehicle for the same purpose. Federal law now requires that new cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as a means of complying with that requirement. The law also prohibits dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices, such as air bags, installed to comply with a safety standard. However, in very limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate a person's special physical needs, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has in the past stated that we would consider violations of the "make inoperative" provision as technical, justified by public need, and that we would not institute enforcement proceedings. We would regard a temporary deactivation of the passenger-side air bag in your car, or the addition of a cutoff switch, in the same way. Infants riding in rear-facing child safety seats should never be placed in the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger-side air bag. Since your baby is on a respirator and heart monitor and requires special monitoring, we would consider your situation as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that temporarily deactivates the passenger-side air bag, or installs a cutoff switch, to accommodate your child. I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, that current and subsequent owners of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you have the air bag deactivated, we strongly encourage you to have the air bag reactivated by the dealer when your child can ride in the rear seat. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that passengers in your vehicle use their safety belts. I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack |
1996 |
ID: PonzianiOpenMr. Richard L. Ponziani President RLP Engineering 1958 Home Path Court Centerville, OH 45459 Dear Mr. Ponziani: This responds to your letter requesting clarification regarding how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, applies to your product, which is referred to as an Electronic Intelligent Turn Signal System in the technical paper accompanying your letter. You described your product as a turn signal system that uses existing vehicle computers and wheel speed sensors to determine a situation appropriate shut off point, which you believe offers a safety improvement over current, mechanical turn signal operating units on passenger vehicles. Your letter stated that by combining steering wheel angle and steering wheel rotation data with other measures such as vehicle yaw and travel distance, your system may prevent instances of turn signal miscommunication, thereby increasing safety. Specifically, you cited examples in which the driver jars the steering wheel and the turn signal shuts off prematurely or lane change maneuvers where the steering wheel rotation is not sufficient to trigger turn signal cancellation. Although we have not examined your product, based on the information you have provided to the agency and the analysis below, we have concluded that your product would comply with the standard, provided that all of the other requirements of FMVSS No. 108 related to turn signals continue to also be met. 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. 30111 and 49 CFR Part 571). 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, before they can be offered for sale (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567). FMVSS No. 108 sets forth the requirements for both new and replacement motor vehicle lighting equipment. 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. Our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) prohibits any person from selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal safety standards (see 49 U.S.C. 30112). After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the make inoperative prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with applicable standards. The make inoperative provision does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles, but we urge owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Turning to the specific issues raised by your letter, FMVSS No. 108 sets forth requirements for turn signal lamps in light vehicles. First, Table 3, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that each passenger car, motorcycle, multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), truck, bus, and trailer of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in overall width must be equipped with two amber turn signals at or near the front of the vehicle and two red or amber turn signals at or near the rear of the vehicle (note that trailers only require two red or amber turn signals to the rear); Table 3 also requires those vehicles (other than trailers) to be equipped with a turn signal operating unit[1] and a turn signal flasher. Standard No. 108 also specifies other turn signal lamp requirements, including ones pertaining to location, dimensions, and photometric output. However, we will not discuss those provisions in detail, because your submissions do not suggest that your product would impact these characteristics of the turn signals, but would instead be limited to their operation (i.e., the point at which the turn signal would be switched off in the course of a turning maneuver). The provision of particular relevance here is paragraph S5.1.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108, which provides: The turn signal operating unit on each passenger car, and multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus less than 80 inches in overall width shall be self-canceling by steering wheel rotation and capable of cancellation by a manually operated control. As we pointed out in an April 2, 1986 letter of interpretation to Mr. Jacques Delphin, there are no performance requirements for the self-cancelling feature, so the agency concluded that the aftermarket device in question which cancels turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn would not impair the effectiveness of the turn signal operating unit or create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. However, in a May 30, 1997 letter of interpretation to Mr. Reggie Lawrence, we concluded that an aftermarket Blinker Delay System that would prevent the automatic cancellation of the turn signal system for three to four seconds after the front wheels of a towing vehicle have been straightened (to indicate that a turn has not been completed) would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, by defeating the vehicles attempt to self-cancel the turn signals operation by steering wheel rotation. These letters are consistent in light of the provision in paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard, which provides, No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. Thus, an aftermarket device which accelerates self-cancellation of turn signal operation immediately after a turn is consistent with the standard, but one which delays self-cancellation is not. However, if your product is an original equipment (OE) turn signal system, which provides a control unit with a complete logic for self-cancelling turn signal operation (as compared to a supplemental system which changes the operation of an existing system), we conclude that it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. As described, your system evaluates driver steering inputs, as well as a variety of other information provided by vehicle wheel speed sensors, to determine the appropriate point for turning off the turn signal. (We note that your technical paper also states that your system would include a button allowing the driver to cancel the turn signal event at any time, thereby meeting the second requirement of paragraph S5.1.1.5.) Therefore, because the standard does not specify precisely when cancellation must occur (and based on our understanding that steering wheel rotation would be a triggering element each time the system does cancel the turn signal), we conclude that an OE Electronic Intelligent Turn Signal System as you have described would meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, provided that all of the standards other relevant requirements for turns signal are met. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.3/22/07 [1] A turn signal operating unit is defined as that part of a turn signal system by which the operator of a vehicle causes the signal units to function (see Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard SAE J589, Turn Signal Operating Units (rev. April 1964). Table 3 of FMVSS No. 108 incorporates SAE J589 (rev. April 1964) by reference, which includes a durability test for the turn signal system. |
2007 |
ID: 16958.drnOpenMr. Richard L. England Dear Mr. England: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a Ford dealership can remove two seats from a new passenger van, before first sale to the customer, so that the van would no longer be classified as a bus. The response is yes, but if the Ford dealership does so, it is responsible for certifying that the altered vehicle meets the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles. Some background information may be helpful in understanding our regulations. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress amended this statute (then called the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) to direct NHTSA to issue FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold to transport children to or from school or school-related events. The Act requires that when a dealer sells or leases a new "bus" (a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a school, that bus must be a certified school bus. If a dealer permanently reduces the seating capacity of a bus to fewer than 11, the modified vehicle would no longer be a "bus." Because the dealer would not be selling a bus, the requirement to sell a school bus would not apply. However, a dealer modifying a vehicle in this manner would have other responsibilities as an "alterer" under our regulations (49 CFR 567.7). The dealer would be changing the vehicle's classification from "bus" to "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) and would have to certify that the vehicle meets NHTSA's safety standards for MPVs. I am, for your information, enclosing a copy of an April 2, 1996 interpretation letter to Sgt. Stephan C. Turner of the Michigan State Police, that addresses two hypothetical situations where a dealer changes the number of seats in a passenger van. While NHTSA regulates the manufacture, sale and lease of new vehicles (including MPVs and school buses), this agency does not regulate used vehicles, or the use of vehicles. Therefore, how students are to be transported to and from school or school-related activities is determined by State law. This is because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of motor vehicles. However, use of vehicles other than school buses could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might wish to consult with your school's attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus standards is the safest way to transport students. I encourage your school to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with the school bus standards. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 00070cmcOpenMr. John A. Meyer Dear Mr. Meyer: This responds to your October 3, 2002, letter requesting clarification of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR 571.213). In your letter, you ask if a child restraint with a detachable base is required to have the manufacturer and model information labeled on the base as well as the seating portion of the restraint. The answer to your question is no. By way of background, each new child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in the United States must comply with FMVSS No. 213. S5.5 of FMVSS requires that each add-on child restraint system shall be permanently labeled with specified information including, among others: (1) the model name or number of the system; (2) the manufacturers name; and (3) the month, year, and place of manufacture. S4 of FMVSS No. 213 defines "add-on child restraint system" as "any portable child restraint system;" and "child restraint system" as "any device. . .designed for use in a motor vehicle. . .to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less. [1]" A detachable base is part of a child restraint system. As long as the labeling requirements are met by the system as a whole, the base is not required to be labeled. The Agency recently amended the labeling requirements under FMVSS No. 213 to clarify and simplify child restraint labels and instructions. (67 Federal Register 61523; October 1, 2002.) In the preamble to that amendment, the agency stated that several labeling issues may need to be addressed through future rulemaking. We will consider the issues raised in your letter prior to the next rulemaking. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of this office at (202) 366-0536. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:213 [1] The agency is considering extending the standard to apply to child restraints recommended for use by children up to 65 pounds. 67 Federal Register 21806; May 1, 2002.
|
2003 |
ID: nht93-8.34OpenDATE: November 30, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Richard L. Plath -- Selecto-Flash, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Richard L. Plath to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9327) TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office on trailer conspicuity. You ask for confirmation of several points. Initially, we would like to comment as follows on the 4-point procedure you have outlined: "1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer." This is correct. Because the chassis is designed for carrying property and for being towed by a motor vehicle, it is a "trailer" as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. "2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 percent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side. This is correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108, retroreflective tape "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered...." "3) In the case of a 48 foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules." This is partially correct. Under S.7.1.4.2(a), a minimum of 24 feet of reflective material must be applied to the side of a 48-foot trailer. However, S5.7.1.3(a) requires the colors to be red and white, not red and silver. Further, under S5.7.1.3(b) , the permissible lengths of the sheeting are expressed as "each white or red segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm." We note that 450 mm is slightly less than 18 inches. Standard No. 108 does not specify any maximum permissible "void... between modules." Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), the spaces are to be distributed "as evenly as practicable." "4) *** when the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis.***"
This is incorrect. Compliance by an unloaded container chassis with the conspicuity requirements is determined as if the container load were in place. S7.5.1.4.2(a) states that "at the location chosen (for conspicuity treatment), the strip shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo." Because the container obscures the gooseneck, the conspicuity treatment mandated by Standard No. 108 cannot identify the extreme front portion of the chassis. Its front termination point will be behind the gooseneck, at a point where it is not obscured by the Container. You have correctly stated this with respect to a loaded chassis but it applies to the unloaded chassis as manufactured: "... the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) (shall) be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further we understand that the 50 percent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck." You conclude that a gooseneck chassis traveling without its container would be in violation of Standard No. 108 if its gooseneck were not marked "creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four feet is allowable." You also ask "(i)s there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis?" As explained previously, Standard No. 108 does not require marking of the gooseneck of a container chassis, and there is ho requirement limiting the spacing between segments of retroreflective material. We believe that the desired conspicuity of the trailer will be maintained by requiring the additional 4 feet of sheeting on the chassis behind the gooseneck when the gooseneck itself will be obscured with the container in place. Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a manufacturer from applying conspicuity treatment to the 8-foot gooseneck of a 48 foot trailer if it wishes to do so; however, the manufacturer is still required to apply not less than 24 feet of material in the 40-foot section behind the gooseneck. We shall be pleased to answer the following four questions you have also raised: "1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a 48 foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?" You will have to apply 24 feet of stripping on the portion of a 48-foot chassis that lies behind the gooseneck, but you are not required to mark the gooseneck. "2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?" As explained previously, the 24 feet of material is to be applied behind the gooseneck. If you wish to apply evenly spaced conspicuity treatment that includes the gooseneck, you may do so, as long as at least 24 feet of it is behind the gooseneck.
"3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 percent coverage?" Yes, a tire is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of S5.7.1.4.2(a) forbidding the obscuring of conspicuity treatment. No, you may not deduct the length of the area obscured by the tire from the 50 per cent coverage. You must include it in the 50 per cent computation. Thus, if a tire would obscure 3 feet of conspicuity material on the side of a 48 foot gooseneck trailer, the manufacturer must apply 24 feet of material in the 37 feet that is behind the gooseneck which is not obscured. We note in passing that the prints submitted for our review by J.Z. Peepas of Selecto-Flash depict conspicuity treatment that is above the top of the tire and apparently not obscured by it. "4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?" You are not required to place conspicuity treatment on the extendable portion of the chassis provided that not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered when the conspicuity treatment is placed elsewhere. In the event that conspicuity treatment is placed on the extendable portion and is damaged when the trailer is in use, the operator will not be subject to any penalties of this agency. Federal regulations governing the use of commercial vehicles in interstate commerce are issued by another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA requires that vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle (49 CFR 393.11). Therefore, maintenance of the conspicuity treatment on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, is required by the FHWA. If you wish to write FHWA on this topic, you may address James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. The individual states may have regulations in this area as well. We are unable to advise you on State requirements, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203. |
|
ID: 9327Open Mr. Richard L. Plath Dear Mr. Plath: This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office on trailer conspicuity. You ask for confirmation of several points. Initially, we would like to comment as follows on the 4-point procedure you have outlined: "1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer." This is correct. Because the chassis is designed for carrying property and for being towed by a motor vehicle, it is a "trailer" as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. "2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 percent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side." This is correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108, retroreflective tape "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered . . . ." "3) In the case of a 48 foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules." This is partially correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), a minimum of 24 feet of reflective material must be applied to the side of a 48-foot trailer. However, S5.7.1.3(a) requires the colors to be red and white, not red and silver. Further, under S5.7.1.3(b), the permissible lengths of the sheeting are expressed as "each white or red segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm." We note that 450 mm is slightly less than 18 inches. Finally, Standard No. 108 does not specify any maximum permissible "void . . . between modules." Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), the spaces are to be distributed "as evenly as practicable." "4) * * * When the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis. * * *" This is incorrect. Compliance by an unloaded container chassis with the conspicuity requirements is determined as if the container load were in place. S7.5.1.4.2(a) states that "at the location chosen [for conspicuity treatment], the strip shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo." Because the container obscures the gooseneck, the conspicuity treatment mandated by Standard No. 108 cannot identify the extreme front portion of the chassis. Its front termination point will be behind the gooseneck, at a point where it is not obscured by the container. You have correctly stated this with respect to a loaded chassis but it applies to the unloaded chassis as manufactured: ". . . the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) [shall] be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further we understand that the 50 percent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck." You conclude that a gooseneck chassis traveling without its container would be in violation of Standard No. 108 if its gooseneck were not marked "creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four feet is allowable." You also ask "[i]s there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis?" As explained previously, Standard No. 108 does not require marking of the gooseneck of a container chassis, and there is no requirement limiting the spacing between segments of retroreflective material. We believe that the desired conspicuity of the trailer will be maintained by requiring the additional 4 feet of sheeting on the chassis behind the gooseneck when the gooseneck itself will be obscured with the container in place. Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a manufacturer from applying conspicuity treatment to the 8-foot gooseneck of a 48 foot trailer if it wishes to do so; however, the manufacturer is still required to apply not less than 24 feet of material in the 40-foot section behind the gooseneck. We shall be pleased to answer the following four questions you have also raised: "1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a 48 foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?" You will have to apply 24 feet of stripping on the portion of a 48-foot chassis that lies behind the gooseneck, but you are not required to mark the gooseneck. "2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?" As explained previously, the 24 feet of material is to be applied behind the gooseneck. If you wish to apply evenly spaced conspicuity treatment that includes the gooseneck, you may do so, as long as at least 24 feet of it is behind the gooseneck. "3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 percent coverage?" Yes, a tire is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of S5.7.1.4.2(a) forbidding the obscuring of conspicuity treatment. No, you may not deduct the length of the area obscured by the tire from the 50 per cent coverage. You must include it in the 50 per cent computation. Thus, if a tire would obscure 3 feet of conspicuity material on the side of a 48 foot gooseneck trailer, the manufacturer must apply 24 feet of material in the 37 feet that is behind the gooseneck which is not obscured. We note in passing that the prints submitted for our review by J.Z. Peepas of Selecto-Flash depict conspicuity treatment that is above the top of the tire and apparently not obscured by it. "4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?" You are not required to place conspicuity treatment on the extendable portion of the chassis provided that not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered when the conspicuity treatment is placed elsewhere. In the event that conspicuity treatment is placed on the extendable portion and is damaged when the trailer is in use, the operator will not be subject to any penalties of this agency. Federal regulations governing the use of commercial vehicles in interstate commerce are issued by another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA requires that vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle (49 CFR 393.11). Therefore, maintenance of the conspicuity treatment on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, is required by the FHWA. If you wish to write FHWA on this topic, you may address James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. The individual states may have regulations in this area as well. We are unable to advise you on State requirements, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:11/30/93 |
1993 |
ID: 12450-1.pjaOpen Donna A. Oshiro, Esq. Via e-mail and mail Dear Ms. Oshiro: This responds to your e-mail enquiring about this agency's regulations concerning seat belts on city transit buses. Your understanding of our regulations is correct--seat belts are not required on large transit buses, except for the driver's seat. As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to develop motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses and transit buses. Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type of vehicle. For example, different requirements apply to buses than to passenger cars. For buses generally, our requirements only specify that a safety belt must be installed for the bus driver (note that NHTSA does not regulate belt use, as your e-mail implied; that is left to the States). They do not require safety belts for passengers on large buses (over 10,000 pounds GVWR) used for pupil transportation and other purposes. We have not required large buses to have safety belts for passengers because we have not found sufficient justification for such a requirement, given that buses have excellent safety records. This safety record arises in part from the fact that, in crashes with other vehicles, buses tend to be substantially heavier than the other vehicle. As a result, the crash forces experienced by bus occupants tend to be less than those experienced by car occupants. Also, because of the elevated seating positions in large buses, bus occupants sit above the area typically damaged in a collision with another vehicle. NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on large buses from doing so. Although large buses are not required by Federal law to have passenger safety belts, bus owners are free to purchase their buses with safety belts installed if they believe their particular circumstances warrant such installation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d.12/17/96 |
1996 |
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.