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: nht71-1.44OpenDATE: 03/04/71 FROM: D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAM TO: EISUKE NIGUMA -- TOYO KOGYO COMPANY LIMITED TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/23/77 (EST) FROM ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS TO ROBERT K. DORNAN -- MEMBER U.S. CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 7/29/77 FROM WILLIAM B. STOVER TO BRIAN YOUNG OF CONGRESSMAN DORNAN'S OFFICE TEXT: Dear Mr. Niguma: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1971, to Mr. Rodolfo A. Diaz, regarding attachment bolts used to secure seat belt assemblies to a motor vehicle. The intent of the requirement in paragraph S4.3(c)(l) of Standard 209 is to assure that inadequate attachment bolts will not be used to attach seat belt assemblies to the vehicle. This paragraph does not require that the specific models of vehicles be listed on the label. It provides that if a seat belt assembly is designed for use in specific vehicles in which only one end of a belt assembly can be attached by a single belt, then the bolt need only have a breaking strength of 5,000 pounds. It should be noted, however, that paragraph S4.1(l) of the Standard requires the(Illlegible Words) assemblies for aftermarket use to furnish an instruction(Illegible Word) stating whether the assembly is for universal installation or for installation only in specifically stated meter vehicles. (Illegible word) as you state, the seat belt assemblies used in MAZDA vehicles are designed exclusively for specific models, such models must be listed on the installation instruction sheet. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, |
|
ID: aiam2315OpenHonorable John M. Murphy, Chairman, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable John M. Murphy Chairman Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Murphy: I am writing in response to former Chairman Lionel Van Deerlin's Apri 21, 1976, letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, as applied to motor homes. His letter is particularly concerned with the request of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) for a delay in the standard's effective date of September 1, 1976, for the first phase of the requirements that apply to motor homes.; This effective date requires clarification in the case of multi-stag vehicles. RVIA members typically manufacture motor homes by installing bodies on chassis that have been supplied to them by other manufacturers. In such situations, the meaning of the September 1, 1976, effective date is not that all motor homes completed after that date must comply with the standard. Section 567.5(a)(7) of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, permits the final stage manufacturer of a multi-stage vehicle to consider as the vehicle's date of manufacture any date that is neither earlier than the completion date of the chassis nor later than the completion date of the entire vehicle. The practical result of this provision is that the standard requires compliance only of those motor homes whose *chassis* are completed on or after September 1, 1976.; Because the ability of a motor home to comply with Standard No. 301-7 is substantially affected by both the design of the chassis and the manner in which the vehicle is completed, it is not meaningful to apply the standard directly to incomplete vehicles. All that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires of incomplete vehicles is the following: those that are manufactured after September 1, 1976, must be capable of being completed into complying motor homes and must be accompanied by the incomplete vehicle document described in 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*. That document will include, with respect to Standard No. 301-75, either (i) a statement that the motor home as completed will comply with the standard provided no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, or (ii) a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed motor home will comply with the standard. While Part 568 generally offers the incomplete vehicle manufacturer a third option--to make no representation whatever of the compliance status of his product--that option is unavailable in this context because his work substantially affects compliance.; The RVIA has argued that a delay in the standard's effective date fo completed motor homes is necessary for its members to gain experience with chassis that have been designed for completion into complying motor homes. The NHTSA recognizes the need for such experience or its equivalent through the provision of technical information by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. However, the agency expects motor home manufacturers to obtain this experience or information, through cooperation with the chassis manufacturers, in advance of the September 1, 1976, effective date. While such advance manufacturing or provision of information on the part of chassis manufacturers is not required by any regulations of this agency, it is required by the commercial realities of their relationships with the motor home manufacturers. A simple delay in the standard's effective date would merely delay the date by which incomplete vehicle manufacturers would be required *by the NHTSA* to supply chassis that have been designed for completion into complying motor homes. Such a delay would thus not provide the relief that the RVIA has requested.; The RVIA has, in effect, requested the agency to establish a 'experience interval' by retaining September 1, 1976, as the time by which chassis must be designed for ultimate compliance and setting a new and later 'secondary' effective date for the activities of the RVIA members. With this approach, a completed motor home would be required to comply with Standard No. 301-75 only if it were based on a chassis manufactured after the secondary effective date. While the establishment of such an 'experience interval' might at first appear to be a simple solution to an acknowledged problem, the NHTSA has concluded that it is not only unnecessary but inappropriate as well.; It is unnecessary because the ordinary private dealings between moto home manufacturers and their suppliers can ensure that sufficient technical information, experience with redesigned chassis, or some combination of the two will be available before the 'primary' effective date. The legal requirements of compliance by vehicles built with chassis that are manufactured after that date can be expected to trigger those market forces which will induce suppliers of incomplete vehicles to cooperate with RVIA members. Any 'experience interval' would represent an intrusion by the government into the satisfactory operation of those forces. This position was announced in the agency's response to an RVIA petition for reconsideration of effective dates (39 FR 40857, November 21, 1974) (copy enclosed).; The design of those motor homes that do not already comply wit Standard No. 301-75 can be modified in many ways to achieve compliance. Changes might be made in both chassis and bodies. Bodies might be redesigned in such a way that no change in chassis construction is necessary. Conversely, all of the necessary protection might be incorporated in an upgraded chassis design, assuming that the addition of a motor home body did not present protrusions that would degrade this protection. In fact, this latter approach is already being followed in the case of school buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of more than 10,000 pounds. I understand that the School Bus Manufacturers Institute and several of its major chassis suppliers have reached agreements that provide for substantially all the necessary impact protection in the chassis.; While RVIA members may not be as successful as the schoolbu manufacturers have been in inducing their chassis suppliers to redesign for compliance, the above example illustrates the importance of the government's avoiding involvement in such contractual relationships. This agency is concerned in the first instance with the performance of completed vehicles, rather than the allocation between incomplete vehicle manufacturers and final- stage manufacturers of the task of redesigning for such performance. The agency lacks both the information and the expertise to determine either the most appropriate form of such redesign or the time that each manufacturer might consider desirable to effect the transition. This determination is therefore best made through cooperation or negotiation between the private parties involved. Because this determination is inextricably connected with decisions concerning the advance supply of redesigned chassis, it is impossible for the NHTSA to become involved in negotiations over the latter without interference in the former. The creation of an 'experience interval' as requested by the RVIA would therefore be inappropriate. In any event, such a modification of the standard's effective dates is prohibited by Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492).; Finally ,the NHTSA has not found it necessary to take special steps t encourage incomplete vehicle manufacturers to furnish advance information to motor home manufacturers. We understand that such cooperation is already taking place.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: nht94-6.33OpenDATE: April 14, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Manufacturing Co. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from Ray Paradis to John Womack (OCC 9823) TEXT: We have received your letter of March 28, 1994, with respect to whether an intermediate side marker lamp is required on a 24-ton ramp trailer whose "overall length is 30'8" in transport position." We interpret the term "transport position" to mean the position that the ramp is in when the trailer is in operation, the configuration depicted by the upper drawing in the sheet you enclosed. Because the overall length of the trailer exceeds 30 feet, Table I of Standard No. 108 requires that it be equipped with an intermediate side marker lamp. We note your remarks that competing trailers are not equipped with this lamp, and have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. |
|
ID: 11-007173_R_Kesler_(Std111)_Rearview_MirrorsOpen
Mr. Ray Kesler Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD. 17234 Pearlblossom Hwy, Ste 303 Llano, CA 93544
Dear Mr. Kesler:
This responds to two letters the agency has received from you dated September 7, 2011 and May 10, 2012, concerning your product: the Lane Change Safe Alert Indicator. In both of your letters, you describe your product in detail and various situations where you believe the product would be helpful to a driver conducting a lane change maneuver. As you describe in those letters, your Lane Change Safe Alert Indicator product utilizes modified OEM convex mirrors that have the alert indicators permanently inscribed on the mirror for both driver and passenger sides. Further, the mirror contains the warning Vehicles Larger Than Alert Indicator Are Unsafe to Lane Change [sic]. You state that your product is able to assist drivers in determining whether or not a following vehicle in the adjacent lane is at a sufficient distance such that it is safe to make a lane change maneuver.
It is not apparent from your letters whether you seek an interpretation of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) (and how these standards apply to your product) or to petition for changes to an FMVSS (and what such changes would be). While you state in your letter (September 7, 2011) that it is time to convert this concept into a Federal, OEM, Industry or Supplement standard [sic], your letters were not properly filed as a petition for rulemaking pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 552.4. Thus, we will respond to your two letters as a request for interpretation.
We note that you have previously requested interpretations from the agency regarding FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, and a similar product that you designed. In those instances, the agency responded to your requests for interpretation[1] by explaining the requirements of the FMVSSs that apply to that product, whether or not it could meet those requirements, and the responsibilities of a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. In those letters, we explained that the previous side view mirror product that you were inquiring about could not be installed on vehicles in order to fulfill the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 before the vehicles first sale. Further, we explained that they could not be installed as a replacement for mirrors installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 111 after the vehicles first sale. However, we stated that they are not prohibited by the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 from being installed as supplements to the required mirrors. As will be discussed below, the agencys position regarding your current side view mirror product is essentially the same as our position regarding your earlier side view mirror products given the similarities between the two products.
By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Motor Vehicle Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.[2] NHTSA does not provide approvals or endorsements of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 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.
(1) Requirements of FMVSS No. 111 and Responsibilities of a Manufacturer of Motor Vehicle Equipment
FMVSS No. 111 requires passenger cars to have a driver side mirror of unit magnification.[3] While a passenger side exterior mirror (in passenger cars) is only required under the circumstances set forth in S5.3, the standard specifies that any vehicle that uses a convex mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle to meet the requirements of S5.3 must meet various requirements regarding average radius curvature.[4] Further, these mirrors are required to be labeled with the text Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear.[5]
In our previous letters to you, we explained that your earlier products would not meet the requirements for convex mirrors in FMVSS No. 111 because they do not have the required text stating that Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear and have a radius of curvature that exceeds the allowable range in FMVSS No. 111.[6] While you have not offered additional information regarding the curvature radius of the mirrors described in your latest letters, you do specify that they are convex OEM mirrors that have been modified to include the alert indicator permanently inscribed onto the mirror. As your current product utilizes convex mirrors, it would not meet the requirements for the driver side exterior mirror in FMVSS No. 111 (because those mirrors are required to be of unit magnification). Further (if we assume the OEM mirrors that your current product uses meet curvature radius requirements), your mirrors could not be installed as a passenger side exterior mirror for the purposes of meeting the requirements in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 111 because they do not have the required text Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear.
Please note that these requirements apply to new, completed vehicles and do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. However, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard.[7] The rearview mirrors in a vehicle are considered a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Thus, if the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business performing the work will have violated the make inoperative prohibition of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act by making inoperative the mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111.
For the above reasons, the agencys position continues to be that your product is unable to meet the requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 111. Your product cannot be used by new vehicle manufacturers to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. Further, your product cannot be used to replace the mirrors installed by a new vehicle manufacturer to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. On the other hand, your product may be installed on motor vehicles as a supplement to the required mirrors under FMVSS No. 111 by a new vehicle manufacturer or as an aftermarket device.
In addition to the foregoing, please be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., vehicle mirrors) are also subject to the recall and remedy requirements in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.[8] If you were to sell your product as a supplemental mirror system and you or NHTSA determines that a safety defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. Further, any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of (or remedy for) a defect may be subject to a civil penalty.
(2) Petitioning for Rulemaking
The public can petition to alter or change an FMVSS. However, this petition must be filed pursuant to the requirements in 49 C.F.R. Part 552.4. If you wish to petition for rulemaking to amend an FMVSS, you should submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to the requirements specified in 49 C.F.R. Part 552.4. If you choose to file a petition for rulemaking pursuant to Part 552.4, you are encouraged to provide the necessary facts for the agency to consider the possibility of amending an FMVSS. This would include such things as estimates of the crashes avoided, potential lives saved and/or injuries prevented. Please note, including such information does not guarantee that the agency will be able to grant your petition.
Finally, we note that you have previously filed a petition to amend FMVSS No. 111 in 1991.[9] In that petition, you requested that agency amend FMVSS No. 111 to require various characteristics on the vehicle side view mirrors that appear to be similar to the product that you described in your two latest letters. As NHTSA considered your petition in 1991 and denied it, you should demonstrate in any subsequent petition how the new petition is different from the petition that you filed in 1991 and address the agencys reasoning for denying the 1991 petition.
(3) You May Not State in Your Advertising Material that Your Product is Registered with the NHTSA Chief Counsel.
We note that, along with your September 7, 2011 letter, you included promotional material that appears to be used for the purpose of advertising your product. This material states that your product is Registered with the N.H.T.S.A. Chief Council [sic]. This representation is incorrect. NHTSA has not registered this or any other rearview mirror design. NHTSA does not approve any motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Therefore, this language must be immediately removed from the advertisement and you must refrain from making such representations in any other format.
Please respond in writing describing the specific steps that you will take to discontinue these misrepresentations. I appreciate your immediate attention to this matter.
If you have any further questions, please contact Jesse Chang (202-366-2992) of this office.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent, Chief Counsel
Ref: Standard No. 111 Dated: 9/25/12 [1] See Letter from Paul Jackson Rice, Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Raymond B. Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (May. 14, 1992) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/7175.html); Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Lawrence Hufstedler and Raymond Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (Apr. 27, 1993) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/8517a.html), Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Ray Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (Jul. 2, 1993) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/8660.html), Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Ray Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (Jan. 9, 2001) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/kesler23584.html). [2] See generally 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. [3] See 49 C.F.R. Part 571.111 S5.2.1. [4] See 49 C.F.R. Part 571.111 S5.4. [5] See id. [6] See Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA to Ray Kesler, Kesler Research Enterprises, (Jan. 9, 2001) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/kesler23584.html). [7] See 49 U.S.C. 30122. [8] See 49 U.S.C. 30118-20. [9] See 56 Fed. Reg. 42715 |
2012 |
ID: nht80-4.15OpenDATE: 10/28/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Guenther Auto Works TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 26, 1980 providing further information on your proposed manufacturing operation. I am pleased you found our earlier response "most workable and least bureaucratic" and hope that you will find this letter equally so. A vehicle consisting of a new body on a used chassis, and retaining the same title, is a "used" vehicle, which does not have to meet the Federal safety standards that apply to new vehicles. If you were using the chassis of vehicles built on or after January 1, 1968, the resulting vehicle would have to meet the standards that applied when the original vehicle was built. However, there were no vehicle safety standards that applied before January 1, 1968 so your contemplated use of a 1964 chassis (or 1965-67 for that matter) frees you totally of responsibility for vehicle safety standards compliance, no matter whether you are a kit supplier or end assembler, or are using new or reconditioned components. A few of our safety standards, however, apply to equipment items, specifically brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheelcovers/hub caps. If you buy any of these items from an outside supplier, and the item is manufactured in the U.S.A., it is virtually certain that it will be certified by its manufacturers as meeting federal equipment standards. From your letter, it would appear that only the glazing standard (Standard No. 205) might be of concern to your operations since you write that you "will have constructed . . . glass panes . . . ." Glazing bearing the designation "AS-1" must be installed in the windshield of the new body. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 for your information. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act you are a "manufacturer" with respect to any vehicle equipment you fabricate or vehicle you assemble. This means that in the event a "safety related defect" developed in your product, you would be obligated to notify the owners and remedy the defect. I enclose our "Part 573" which tells you how to file a defect report with us and "Part 577" which details how you notify purchasers and the optional remedies you may provide (See 577.5 (g)(i)(g)(v) and (g)(vi)). Finally, if you intend to assemble the vehicles yourself, or if you are fabricating glazing (or any other item covered by a Federal standard, you should submit the information required by our "Part 566" which I also enclose. If you have any further questions we will, of course, be happy to answer them and we appreciate your wish to be informed of your obligations under Federal law. Sincerely, ATTACH. SEPTEMBER 12, 1980 James A. Guenther -- Guenther Auto Works Dear Mr. Guenther: In reply to your letter of August 5, 1980, asking for copies of regulations that would apply to your proposed manufacturing operation, we must have more information if we are to help you. The answers to these questions are needed. (A) Do you envision a "Kit car" type of operation in which an existing chassis is retained and a new body supplied. (B) What are the reconditioned components that you plan to use. (C) Will the vehicle carry a new car title or that of a vehicle previoully in use. (D) What parts will be new? What parts will be of your own manufacture? We know of no other Federal agencies other than the Environmental Protection Agency and our own that regulate the production of passenger cars. Sincerely, Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA 9/26/80 Frank Berndt -- department of Transportation, NHTSA Dear Mr. Berndt: This letter is in Reference to NOA-30; copy of your correspondence is attached. Thank you for your efforts thus far. Your response was the most workable and least bureaucratic of any received. In response to your specific questions in paragraph #2: (A) At this time I intend to use a 1964 Chassis, the Balance of Equipment (body, etc.) To be newly constructed. If I follow this procedure, what effect will your agency have on my efforts? If I progress into kit car operations, how will this change the effect your Agency will have on my efforts? (B) In regard to reconditioned components, I will offer the 1964 chassis mentioned above along with a mid-to-late '60's engine, rebuilt and modified (possibly) for slightly more power. Most else will be new (body, etc.) (C) Titles in the state of Illinois, I believe, would be carried forward on such a vehicle. (I am currently writing to state capital as follow-up to your question.) (D) As noted above, when I install new wiring, body, interior, etc., the finished products will have much of my own work included. I will design; constructed body seat mounts, seats, Dashboard, ETC. I will have constructed (probably) Handles, Glass Panes, Wire itself (although I will probably fashion wires into proper harnesses and circuits) will probably come from outside suppliers. Hope you can help, based upon this information, If more specifics are necessary, please let me know. Sincerely, Mr. James A. Guenther, Guenther Auto Works, 3908 West Main - 8B, Belleville, Illinois 62223 |
|
ID: 2854oOpen Mr. Robert A. Rogers Dear Mr. Rogers: This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209). Specifically, you stated that you believe that Standard No. 209 does not specifically address remotely actuated emergency-locking retractors. You explained that you were referring to retractors that are actuated by a deceleration sensor that is located some distance from the retractor itself. You stated that the existing uncertainty discourages vehicle manufacturers from considering the introduction of this technology. Additionally, your letter claims that it is not clear whether the test procedures in Standard No. 209 are compatible with remote sensors. NHTSA does not agree that there are existing uncertainties with respect to the applicability of Standard No. 209 to remotely actuated retractors. The agency first addressed this issue many years back. In a letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota, dated March 16, 1973 (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that Standard No. 209 does address the issue of remotely actuated retractors. In that letter, we explained that both the remotely located sensor(s) and the individual solenoids, or other actuating devices on the retractor mechanism itself, would be considered seat belt assembly hardware for the purposes of Standard No. 209. All assembly hardware must be certified as complying with the requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 209, including corrosion resistance and temperature resistance. This 1973 letter is still an accurate expression of the agency's opinion on this subject. Accordingly, there is no need to initiate rulemaking for Standard No. 209 to "ensure compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept." If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:209 d:3/21/88 |
1988 |
ID: 06-006676asOpenMr. Eike Krochmann Schefenacker Vision Systems Germany GmbH Alfred-Schefenacker-Str. 1 71409 Schwaikheim Germany Dear Mr. Krochmann: This responds to your letter regarding the placement of rear lamps and reflectors under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108). You asked several questions regarding the placement of the rear side reflex reflector and side marker lamp, as well as the necessity of using additional lamps when rear lamps are placed on a tailgate. We are pleased to provide responses to your questions. 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. Your first question asked whether it would be in compliance with FMVSS No. 108 to mount a rear red side marker lamp on a tailgate without installing an additional similar lamp on the body of the car. Our answer is that it would be acceptable. Paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 108, Location of required equipment, states that Table IV contains the location for lighting equipment for multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks. Table IV specifies that a red side marker lamp must be located as far to the rear as practicable. Thus, if the tailgate extends to the edge of the vehicle, a side marker lamp located on the tailgate would meet that requirement, and require no additional rear side marker lamp. Your question also brings up the issue of whether the tailgate constitutes a rigid part of the vehicle, as required by paragraph S5.3. It is our opinion that it does. We would consider the tailgate to be a rigid part of the vehicle, and note that this specification was adopted primarily to forestall installation of rear reflex reflectors on mud flaps.[1] In your other question, you note that for the same car design, the tailgate covers the complete rear and there is no possibility to mount the rear lamps on the car body. You indicate that the rear lamps meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 when the tailgate is closed, and ask if you are required to install another set of compliant rear lamps for use when the tailgate is open. The answer is that this is not necessary. With regard to tailgates, when we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The normal driving position of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. As long as your lamps are compliant while the tailgate is in the closed position, we would consider that compliant with Standard No. 108. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d.10/19/07 |
2007 |
ID: aiam4327OpenMr. Daniel Rosendahl, Vice-President, Target Import, Valkenburgerstraat 16, 1011LZ, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Mr. Daniel Rosendahl Vice-President Target Import Valkenburgerstraat 16 1011LZ Amsterdam Netherlands; Dear Mr. Rosendahl: On March 10 the agency received your petition of November 14, 1986, fo temporary exemption of the Target kit car from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As you have described your operation, 'these vehicles utilize remanufactured/reinforced, engines/chassis of 1960-1980 year, model Citroen 2CV, AMI, and DYANE, and then are equipped with brand new re-inforced bodies of Fiberglass and/or metal.'; The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to vehicles from time of manufacture up to their sale to first purchasers for purposes other than resale. Once a vehicle is in use, Federal standards no longer apply to it (other than a prohibition against rendering inoperative safety equipment originally installed). In our interpretations to kit car manufacturers, we have advised them that installation of a new body on a chassis of a vehicle previously in use does not create a 'new' vehicle subject to the Federal safety standards, and such vehicles are subject only to the laws of the individual States where they will be sold, licensed, and operated. This appears to be the exact situation represented by your fabricating operations. Because a 'used' vehicle is not legally required to comply with the safety standards, there is no obligation that its manufacturer must meet, and hence, petitions for temporary exemption from the safety standards are moot.; However, under the Act, there is na obligation upon any perso importing a 'used' vehicle into the United States to bring it into compliance with all safety standards that would have applied to it at the time of its manufacture had it been manufactured in the United States. It appears appropriate to establish the date of manufacture as that of the original chassis. Thus, the importer of a Target vehicle consisting of a body manufactured in 1987, and placed upon a chassis manufactured in 1980, would be required to bring it into compliance with all Federal safety standards in effect in 1980. On the other hand, if the chassis of the Target were manufactured before January 1, 1968, there would be no obligation to conform to Federal vehicles standards as none applied before that date (We view equipment standards somewhat differently, the tires, wheel covers, brake hoses, brake fluid, lamps, glazing, and seat belts if any, on otherwise uncovered vehicles must meet standards in effect at time of importation).; In summary, there is no legal requirement that the manufacturer of th Target comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is a requirement that the importer of such a vehicle bring the car into compliance with all such Federal safety standards that may have been in effect when the chassis was manufactured. But there are no provisions under which an importer of a Target can petition for exemptions from the safety standards. The exemption authority that exists relates to new motor vehicles, and is available only to the original manufacturer of such vehicles. It does not extend to vehicles that the agency considers 'used', nor to importers for resale who are not the original manufacturers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht94-2.43OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: April 14, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Manufacturing Co. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from Ray Paradis to John Womack (OCC 9823) TEXT: We have received your letter of March 28, 1994, with respect to whether an intermediate side marker lamp is required on a 24-ton ramp trailer whose "overall length is 30'8" in transport position." We interpret the term "transport position" to mean the position that the ramp is in when the trailer is in operation, the configuration depicted by the upper drawing in the sheet you enclosed. Because the overall length of the trailer exceeds 30 feet, T able I of Standard No. 108 requires that it be equipped with an intermediate side marker lamp. We note your remarks that competing trailers are not equipped with this lamp, and have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. |
|
ID: aiam3360OpenJohn Kelly, Iowa Department of Transporation (sic), Office of Motor Vehicle Enforcement, 5238 N.W. Second Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50313; John Kelly Iowa Department of Transporation (sic) Office of Motor Vehicle Enforcement 5238 N.W. Second Avenue Des Moines IA 50313; Dear Mr. Kelly: This is in response to your letter of August 29, 1980, in which yo requested our opinion on the odometer disclosure required to be made for reconstructed vehicles. The purpose of the odometer reading is to represent the mileage that a vehicle has travelled. If a vehicle is reconstructed with an older chassis and a new body, then it is the opinion of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the odometer should reflect the mileage travelled by the chassis. Purchasers rely on the odometer as an indication of the safety, reliability, and value of a vehicle. If the mileage which the chassis has been driven is not provided to the purchaser, he could be led into a false sense of security, neglecting needed repairs or inspections. The odometer should therefore be set to the mileage travelled by the chassis. If the odometer is incapable of being set to that mileage, it should be set at zero and a written notice should be placed in the left door frame of the vehicle, specifying the mileage the chassis has been driven and the date the new odometer was installed. If the person who asembles the vehicle does not know the mileage the chassis has been driven, he should state that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon.; Likewise, if a vehicle is constructed from the parts of severa vehicles, the odometer statement must still be completed at the time of sale. If the seller knows the mileage on the various components used to construct the vehicle, he should inform the purchaser of the highest mileage that he knows, or the mileage on the chassis if he knows it. If he does not know the mileage, he will be required to state that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. This applies to all major mechanical and structural portions of the vehicle and not to items that are replaced periodically such as tires.; You also asked if there are any specifications on three wheel vehicle and homemade mopeds. Section 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines 'motorcycle' as a 'motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or a saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' The vehicle described in the article which you attached to your letter and mopeds fall iwthin this category and the applicable motor vehicle safety standards would apply. Any homemade vehicle, whether a moped or other vehicle, which is driven on the public roads must comply with the applicable safety standards. For your information, I have enclosed a pamphlet which described the existing safety standards and specifies which vehicles must comply with those standards. The standards for motorcycles would apply the vehicles described above.; If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write. Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
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.