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: 86-1.25OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/06/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
This responds to your request that we review the concerns expressed by one of your constituents, Mr. Joseph Loschiavo, about certain van seats. According to Mr. Loschiavo, the Monterey County Van Program for senior citizens uses vans with seats that are very low and close together, making it difficult for persons to get up out of the seats. He suggested that either the seats be raised about eight inches or that special seats be provided for persons who have problems with the present seats.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues motor vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, establishes requirements to minimize the possibility of seat failure during vehicle collisions. However, NHTSA does not have any standards concerning the height or spacing of van seats.
The Monterey County Van Program has several options in obtaining vans with appropriate seating. In purchasing new vans, the program may either select from among the variety of vans offered by the major vehicle manufacturers, or go to one of a number of companies that customize vans to purchasers' specifications. A number of companies also modify used vehicles.
We note that new vans, including vans which are modified prior to first sale, are required to be certified to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The specific certification requirements are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. If a used vehicle is modified by a business such as a garage, the business is not required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, if a business replaced a van's existing seats with higher seats, it would need to make sure that it was not rendering inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard. I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Erika Jones Chief Counsel
TO: Mr. Joseph A. LaSala Office of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 10506 Washington, D.C. 20590
ENCLOSURES FROM:
Mr. Joseph Loschiavo
RE: Would you please review the attached and provide me with a written report addressing the concerns this constituent has expressed?
Thank you for your assistance.
I would appreciate your attention to the attached correspondence. Please direct your reply to the address below.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Sincerely,
LEON E. PANETTA Member of Congress
Please respond to:
380 Alvarado Street Monterey, California 93940 (408)649-3555
Attention: Ken Christopher; (408) 429-1976 |
|
ID: 07-004114asOpenPaul S. Rosenlund, Esq. Duane Morris LLP One Market, Spear Tower Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105-1104 Dear Mr. Rosenlund: This responds to your letter regarding your clients manufacture of bicycle racks for use on transit buses. You ask a number of questions about ensuring compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, with regard to a bicycle rack installed on the vehicles. We are happy to provide answers to your questions below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new 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. Question 1. We understand that vehicle manufacturers bear the sole legal obligation to certify vehicles as compliant with FMVSS 108 and other applicable safety standards, and that [F]ederal law does not require or make provisions for bicycle rack suppliers such as [our client] Sportworks to certify a bicycle rack or its component parts as being in compliance with [F]ederal standards. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: While you are correct that manufacturers of new vehicles are responsible for certifying the compliance of the vehicle with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 108,[1] there are certain obligations of which your client should be aware.[2] The first is S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108, which reads: No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. S5.1.3 has implications for a vehicle manufacturer or alterer installing the bicycle rack onto a new vehicle.[3] That party would need to certify the vehicle as complying with FMVSS No. 108 with the bicycle rack installed, ensuring that the bicycle rack does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. The second is 49 U.S.C. 30122 which we will discuss below, particularly in answering question 5. 2. We understand that 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits making federally mandated safety devices and elements inoperative, applies only to a vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business; this make inoperative prohibition does not pertain to the activities of vehicle owners, such as transit agencies which own and operate transit buses, who may make changes to their buses in their own repair and maintenance facilities, even if they cause a vehicle to no longer comply with NHTSA safety standards such modifications would be governed by applicable [S]tate laws. Please confirm our understanding to be correct.
Answer: As you point out in your letter, 30122 of the Safety Act has implications for your client. Section 30122 states, in pertinent 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 . Your understanding is correct that the make inoperative provision of 30122 would not apply to a vehicle owner, such as a transit agency, that installs the bicycle rack in its own buses in its own repair and maintenance facility. However, please see our answer to question 5 for a more expansive discussion of 30122. In addition, there may be applicable Federal or State operational requirements relating to transit buses. 3. We understand that paragraph S7.8.5 of FMVSS 108 prohibits any styling ornament or other feature in front of the lens of a headlamp. In regard to all required lighting, we understand that paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS 108 prohibits motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. Please confirm that these requirements pertain only to equipment such as a rack, and not to a bicycle or other item which may be placed in a rack. In this regard, we do understand that [S]tate laws may have other requirements that relate to bicycles or other temporary baggage wholly or partially obscuring any required lighting. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: I would like to clarify several aspects of your statement. To begin, paragraph S7.8.5 only applies to the design of vehicle headlamps. The ornament or other feature described in that paragraph related to parts of the headlamp (e.g., wiper blades or translucent covers), not to additional vehicle equipment, such as a bicycle rack. Therefore, S7.8.5 would not be relevant to this discussion. With regard to paragraph S5.1.3, as discussed in our answer to question 1, you are correct that a bicycle rack must not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. In testing whether the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 108, we would test the vehicle without a bicycle loaded on the rack, nor with any other cargo loaded into the vehicle. However, see our answer to question 5 regarding the make inoperative provision. In addition, if the rack were installed such that a bicycle loaded onto the rack interfered with the functioning of a required lighting device, it is possible that such a situation could pose an unreasonable safety hazard. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are responsible for ensuring their vehicles and equipment are free of safety-related defects. If the design of the bicycle rack posed an unreasonable safety risk, we could investigate the problem as part of our defect authority. Finally, you are correct in your understanding that the vehicle would be subject to State law requirements relating to items wholly or partially obscuring any required lighting. In addition, you should consider whether there are applicable Federal or State operational requirements relating to transit buses. 4. Sportworks on occasion supplies only the pivot plate assembly and/or bumper mounting brackets for its racks to OEM bus manufacturers for installation on new vehicles, with the understanding that the ultimate purchasers of these buses transit agencies will install racks in the configurations they select. In such circumstances, we understand that the OEM bus manufacturer may certify the bus as compliant with all applicable [F]ederal standards and that the owners selection, installation and use of the rack will be subject to [S]tate laws rather than to the FMVSS. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: Your understanding is correct that the bus manufacturer must certify that the buses, with the installed private plate assemblies or mounting brackets installed, are compliant with FMVSS No. 108. However, please see our answer to question 5 for a more expansive discussion of issues raised by this question. 5. Finally, we understand from prior interpretive rulings that NHTSA considers a bicycle rack to be equipment such that if it is installed by a vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business, the complete vehicle, including the rack, must comply with the FMVSS, and if part of the rack installed by a vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business makes inoperative any required lamps or reflectors on the body of the vehicle, it would be necessary for the vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business to install auxiliary lamps or reflectors to replace the function of those made inoperative. Likewise, we understand from prior interpretive rulings that if a vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business sells a vehicle that complies with FMVSS 108 when delivered to the owner, but with hardware installed that the seller knows will be used to create a noncompliance, you would consider the vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business to have created the noncompliance. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: It is correct that the new vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSSs with the bicycle rack installed. The vehicle must be certified with any system, part or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured. (See definition of motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(A)). With regard to your questions about the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122, you are correct that NHTSA has addressed the scenario you describe (see March 26, 1996 letter to Chris Jorheim of New Flyer Industries, copy enclosed).[4] Mr. Jorheim asked about a manufacturer delivering a new bus to the end user with an advertising frame on the bus side. A required left side reflector would be unobstructed when the bus was delivered but once the owner placed an advertisement in the frame the reflector would have been covered. NHTSA determined that in this situation, the manufacturer produced a bus with the knowledge that the owner intended to create a noncompliance, and provided the hardware installed to enable the owner to do so. The agency determined that in this situation, both the bus manufacturer and the owner were creators of a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108. However, since the owner is not subject to the provisions of 30122, the agency determined that the liability would be the manufacturers alone. This analysis extends to the situation you describe as well. If the bus manufacturer installing Sportworks bicycle rack knew that the rack could not be used without creating a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 through, e.g., obstruction of the vehicles headlamps by the bicycles carried on the rack, both the bus manufacturer and the end user will be held to have created the noncompliance. Since the end user may not be subject to 30122, the bus manufacturer could alone be liable for making inoperative the vehicle safety system. Finally, you are correct that one option to rectify a potential noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 is to install auxiliary lamps or reflectors to replace the function of those made inoperative. This provision is contained in paragraph S5.3.2.2 of FMVSS No. 108, which states: If any required lamp or reflective device is obstructed by motor vehicle equipment (e.g., mirrors, snow plows, wrecker booms, backhoes, winches, etc.), and cannot meet requirements of S5.3.2, the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp or device of the same type which meet all applicable requirements of this standard, including S5.3.2. 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.2/21/08 [1] Please note that because FMVSS No. 108 applies to original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, manufacturers of replacement equipment also have responsibilities to certify compliance with the standard. [2] It is also correct that NHTSA has not issued an FMVSS specifically applying to bicycle racks. Therefore, Sportworks would not certify its bicycle racks as meeting any specific standard. [3] A bicycle rack installed on a new vehicle is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. See also May 25, 1990 letter to Susan Birenbaum, Esq., available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [4] Available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. |
2008 |
ID: 86-2.45OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 04/28/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Marshall D. Carter TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking two questions with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to electric vehicles, you have asked "is there a standard regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone?" There is no such standard. The vehicle must be equipped with a hazard warning signal operating unit designed to conform to SAE J910, January 1966, and a hazard warning signal flasher designed to conform to SAE J945, February 1966, but there is no requirement in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108, that the hazard warning signal flashers perform for a minimum specified period of time in service. You have also asked "Is there a requirement that the vehicle be equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection?" We are unable to confirm your conclusion that there is no such requirement under Standard No. 101. Paragraph S3.2 of Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions or patterns be permanently displayed in front of the driver. Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 requires illumination of the "gauges" listed in Column 1 of Table 2 that are accompanied by the word "Yes" in Column 5. The last "gauge" listed is "Automatic gear position", and the word "Yes" appears in Column 5. The automatic gear position is a "gauge" as defined by paragraph S4 of Standard No. 101, "a display that is listed in . . . Table 2 and is not a telltale". Thus the Federal standards do require illumination of the gear positions of automatic transmissions, but not of manual ones. I hope that this responds to your questions. SINCERELY, Whisper Electric Car AS National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Att: Erika Jones, Office of the Chief Counsel Dear Ms. Jones, I am writing to obtain confirmation that the FMVSS do not regulate certain specifications and parameters of automobile performance and design. First, I should explain that our vehicle is exclusively battery powered, with 12 X 6-volt traction batteries, plus a service battery for the auxilliary functions (lights, windshield wipers, etc.). The service battery is charged at the same time as the traction batteries. In addition, the service battery is charged while driving through a converter between the 72-volt system (traction batteries) and the 12-volt system (service battery). Now comes an engineer with the following hypothetical: The vehicle is unable to drive because of mechanical breakdown, therefore the converter between the 72-volt and 12-volt systems cannot recharge the service battery. There is no supply of electricity nearby to recharge through the main charger. The hazard lights are engaged, running only on the service battery. The characteristics of the hazard light design and intensity aside, is there a standard regulating the minimum length of time that the hazard light must be able to function at a minimum intensity, on the service battery alone? In the absence of NHTSA direct regulation or past practice with respect to this situation, may we suggest that fulfilling the European standard is this regard also be sufficient to the U.S. market. A second question involves illumination within the passenger cabin. Is there a requirement that the vehicle be equipped with an illuminated display, indicating gear selection? I do not see that SN 101 requires either a display or illumination, but we request your comments. SINCERELY, Marshall D. Carter (Graphics omitted) (Graphics omitted) MARCH 18, 1986 Dear Ms Jones, I am also enclosing some guidelines which one of our people found by chance. I understand these to be requirements for the electric vehicles for which the Fed. Gov. has granted funding or subsidies and requirements for vehicles which the Fed. Gov. might purchase, but, while useful guide-lines, not requirements which apply generally to electrical vehicles. I would ask you to please confirm this interpretation. WHISPER ELECTRIC CAR A/S Marshall D. Carter encl.: FR Part 475 Whisper Electric Car AS |
|
ID: nht72-5.37OpenDATE: 06/21/72 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: A.B. Chance Company TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 31 to Mr. Schneider asking about the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applicable to the crewcabs that you manufacture and mount on truck chassis "with and without hydraulic digger/derric equipment. Based upon the data you submitted, your vehicle should be identified (Illegible Line) to Federal standards applicable to trucks. With respect to the crewcabs, these include standards No. 205 Glazing Materials, Standard No, 206 (Illegible Words) Retention (Illegible Word) Standard No. 207, (Illegible Line) No. 209. Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, (Illegible Word) Standard No. (Illegible Words) Flammability (Illegible Words) materials. (Illegible Words) manufacturer, you are governed by the regulations on certification (Part 567) and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (Part 568). There are no requirments for rollbar, ventiletion, or "impact stability." You can find those standards and regulations at Title 49. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571, or you may obtain a copy of all standards and regulations, updated regularly by writing the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Minting Office, Washington D.C. 20402, and enclosing a check for $ 6.00. The Truck Body and Equipment Association also has a good service in the area. |
|
ID: 10-004767 SleepyheadOpen
Joshua D. Levine, Esq. 0-99 Plaza Rd. Fair Lawn, NJ 07410
Dear Mr. Levine:
This responds to your letter dated July 8, 2010 asking about safety regulations for a device your client would like to manufacture, called the Sleepyhead. You state that the device is an accessory to a child car seat. The product is simply fitted over the car seat to prevent the childs head from slumping too far forward while a child is asleep. Photographs you enclose show the Sleepyhead used with a sleeping child in a child restraint. One end of the product appears to be fitted with elastic over the top of the restraints seat back, and the other end is fitted over the top of a childs head like a shower cap.
By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.
There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to an accessory item like the Sleepyhead. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as the Sleepyhead.
However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, the product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your client is subject to the requirements in the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that your client or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, your client would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.
In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 30122(b) of the Safety Act, which states, in pertinent 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...." It appears unlikely from the nature of the product that it would be installed in vehicles by commercial businesses. However, if the product were to be installed by persons listed in 30122(b), the entities should ensure that the installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system.
The make inoperative prohibition does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Nonetheless, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. Products should not constrain the childs head against the child restraint in a manner that would be harmful to a child while riding in the child restraint or in a crash.
States have the authority to regulate the manner in which vehicles or equipment are used. You should thus check with State law to see if there are restrictions on the use of equipment items such as the Sleepyhead.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure
5/31/2010 |
|
ID: 11676MLSOpen Ms. Cindy Morrow Dear Ms. Morrow: This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Safety Performance Standards, asking several questions about labeling requirements in Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, for Atube and hose assemblies@ used in air brake applications. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I apologize for the delay in the agency=s response. Some background information about Standard 106's labeling requirements would be helpful in answering your questions. Standard 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to new brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies manufactured for use in motor vehicles. Section S4 of the standard defines various terms that are relevant to your inquiry. Section S7.2 sets forth requirements related to the labeling of air brake hoses (S7.2.1), air brake hose end fittings (S7.2.2), and air brake hose assemblies (S7.2.3). New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties and recall responsibilities. Section S4 of Standard 106 defines Abrake hose@ as a Aflexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle=s brakes.@ (Emphasis added.) Please note that NHTSA=s longstanding position is that the term Aflexible@ in the definition of Abrake hose@ excludes steel tubing. (See NHTSA=s response to petitions for reconsideration, 39 FR 7425, February 26, 1974, copy enclosed.) Flexible plastic tubing is considered to be brake hose. Section S7.2.1 specifies that AEach air brake hose shall be labeled, or cut from bulk hose that is labeled, at intervals of not more than 6 inches, measured from the end of one legend to the beginning of the next@ with certain information, including a designation that identifies the manufacturer and the symbol DOT. The symbol DOT constitutes a certification by the brake hose manufacturer that the hose conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The requirement further states that AThe information need not be present on hose that is sold as part of a brake hose assembly or a motor vehicle.@ Section S4 defines Abrake hose end fittings@ as Aa coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose.@ Section S7.2.2 specifies that AExcept for an end fitting that is attached by deformation of the fitting about a hose by crimping or swaging, at least one component of each air brake hose fitting shall be etched, embossed, or stamped@ with information that includes the symbol DOT. Section S4 defines Abrake hose assembly@ as Aa brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system, but does not include an air or vacuum assembly prepared by the owner or operator of a used vehicle, by his employee, or by a repair facility, for installation in that used vehicle.@ Section S7.2.3 specifies that AEach air brake hose assembly made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled@ by either a band around the brake hose assembly marked with certain information, or at the manufacturer=s option, by etching, stamping or embossing at least one end fitting with the manufacturer=s designation. With this background in mind, I will now respond to your specific questions. (1) Do tube fittings need to be stamped ADOT@? The answer depends in part on whether the tubing to which the end fitting attaches is flexible. As noted above, NHTSA=s longstanding position is that the term Aflexible@ in the definition of Abrake hose@ excludes steel tubing or fittings for such tubing. Because there are no Federal requirements that regulate fittings for steel tubing, such fittings should not be certified with the DOT mark. Plastic tubing is brake hose, so fittings for such hose are subject to the labeling requirements set forth in S7.2.2. Under that section, end fittings (other than those that are attached by deformation of the fitting about the hose by crimping or swaging), have to be marked with specified information, including ADOT.@ There are no labeling requirements for end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging. (2) Does tubing need to be marked ADOT@? Assuming the tubing is flexible, the answer is yes, brake hose is required to be labeled with the symbol ADOT@ or cut from bulk hose that is labeled at intervals of not more than 6 inches with the symbol ADOT,@ under the requirements set forth in S7.2.1. (Note that under that section, the information need not be present on hose that is sold as part of an assembly or motor vehicle.) (3) Do reusable (field attachable) hose ends need to be stamped ADOT@? At least one component of a reusable (field attachable) hose end fitting is required to be stamped with the symbol DOT, and other information, under the provisions set forth in S7.2.2. (4) Do permanently attached (crimped) ends need to be stamped ADOT@? A crimped end fitting would not be required to be stamped with the symbol ADOT,@ under the exception set forth in S7.2.2. (5) Does hose need to be marked ADOT?@ Our answer to Question Two should answer this question. (6) Does an assembly of tubing with tube fittings for air brake systems need to be labeled if it is assembled by one party for resale/use by a second party? Assuming you are referring to a brake hose assembly made up of end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging, the assembly would have to be labeled under section S7.2.3. It can be labeled by either a band around the brake hose assembly or by etching, stamping or embossing at least one end fitting. An exception to this requirement is that a brake hose assembly sold as part of a new motor vehicle need not be so labeled. As explained in our answer to your next question, an assembly made with reusable end fittings is not required to be labeled. (7) Does a brake hose assembly with reusable (field attachable) ends need to be labeled if it is assembled by one party for resale/use by a second party? Under section S7.2.3, an air brake hose assembly with reusable ends is not required to be labeled, because only those brake hose assemblies made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging must be labeled. In an earlier interpretation letter to Stratoflex, Inc. dated January 15, 1987 (copy enclosed), the agency explained that Standard No. 106 requires only that the end fittings be labeled and does not set a labeling requirement for the assemblies. These provisions were made in the standard because NHTSA believed labeling requirements for assemblies having renewable or reusable end fittings were impractical. NHTSA concluded that with reusable end fittings, the assembler=s identity could be lost or misapplied by a person reassembling the set at a later date, and the chances for confusion concerning the identity of the assembler would be great. Even though the brake hose assembly is not required to be labeled, at least one component of each air brake hose fitting must be etched, embossed, or stamped with specified information, including the symbol DOT, under S7.2.2. (8) Does a brake hose assembly with permanently attached (crimped) ends need to be labeled if it is assembled by one party for resale/use by a second party? Our answer to Question Six should answer this question. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:106 d:4/29/96
|
1996 |
ID: aiam0242OpenMr. L.C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, Michigan 48090; Mr. L.C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Technical Center Warren Michigan 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of May 7, 1970, requesting approval o an equivalent test procedure for interior compartment doors, in place of those specified in S3.3.1(a) and (c) of Standard No. 201.; Since the phrase 'approved equivalent test procedure' appeared in th initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the Bureau's position on this subject has undergone some clarification. The manufacturer's primary responsibility is to produce vehicles or equipment that, when tested according to the applicable standards, meet the stated requirements. Although a manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that his products meet all the requirements of the standards, there is nothing in the Act that requires a manufacturer to perform any predetermined series of test. If a particular test is actually 'equivalent' to the procedure described in the standard, in the sense that the test results can be accurately correlated to the standard's requirements, there is no need to requires approval of the Bureau, and there would be no legal significance to the approval if given. Conversely, if the test is not equivalent, so that an item that 'passed' the test might still fail to conform to the standard, the request would be actually for a lowering of the standard, which could not be done without rulemaking procedures. For this reason, we will not grant the approval in the form in which it was requested.; The procedure that you describe does, however, appear to be a distinc improvement in the method of testing this aspect of performance. We intend to initiate rulemaking procedures directed at amending the standard to incorporate that test.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2605OpenMr. T. V. Barlow, BSG International, Britax (Wingard ) Limited, Chichester West Sussex PO19 2UG, England; Mr. T. V. Barlow BSG International Britax (Wingard ) Limited Chichester West Sussex PO19 2UG England; Dear Mr.Barlow: This responds to your letter of May 5, 1977, requesting clarificatio of the relationship between paragraph S5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*. It is your understanding that Standard No. 216 becomes 'obsolete and ineffective' after August 15, 1977.; Your interpretation is incorrect. Standard No. 216 is a separate independent standard from Standard No. 208 and remains effective in its present form regardless of the amendment of Standard No. 208 according to any of the three alternative proposals issued by Secretary Adams (42 FR 15935, March 24, 1977). Standard No. 216 is applicable to all passenger cars except those that conform to the rollover test requirements of paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by totally passive means.; Under existing Standard No. 208, a manufacturer must meet the rollove requirements of paragraph S5.3 only if he chooses to use option S4.1.2.1 (total passive protection). If the manufacturer chooses this option he can meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 instead of the rollover requirements of S5.3 until August 15, 1977, but not after that date since the alternative then expires. A manufacturer choosing to use either option S4.1.2.2 or option S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208 does not have to meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3, at all. As a manufacturer of seat belts, you are undoubtedly aware that a majority of vehicle manufacturers choose to comply with Standard No. 208 by means of option S4.1.2.3.; If Secretary Adams' Alternative proposal I or Alternative proposal II becomes a final rule, Standard No. 208 will remain in the form just described above. The Secretary's Alternative II (mandatory passive restraints) proposes to make the lateral (S5.2) and rollover (S5.3) requirements of Standard No. 208 optional. A manufacturer would be permitted to use a totally passive system (meeting S54.1, S5.2, and S5.3) or to install lap belts and only meet the requirements of S5.1. If Alternative II were made final, most vehicle manufacturers would probably choose to install lap belts rather than to provide passive protection that would satisfy S5.3. As you noted, Alternative II also proposes to extend the option in paragraph S5.3 (complying with Standard No. 216 instead) from August 15, 1977, to August 31, 1980.; You are correct in your statement that the Secretary does not expect t reach a final decision on his alternative proposals until July.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2607OpenMr. T. V. Barlow, BSG International, Britax (Wingard) Limited, Chichester West Sussex PO19 2UG, England; Mr. T. V. Barlow BSG International Britax (Wingard) Limited Chichester West Sussex PO19 2UG England; Dear Mr. Barlow: This responds to your letter of May 5, 1977, requesting clarificatio of the relationship between paragraph S5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*. It is your understanding that Standard No. 216 becomes 'obsolete and ineffective' after August 15, 1977.; Your interpretation is incorrect. Standard No. 216 is a separate independent standard from Standard No. 208 and remains effective in its present form regardless of the amendment of Standard No. 208 according to any of the three alternative proposals issued by Secretary Adams (42 FR 15935, March 24, 1977). Standard No. 216 is applicable to all passenger cars except those that conform to the rollover test requirements of paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by totally passive means.; Under existing Standard No. 208, a manufacturer must meet the rollove requirements of paragraph S5.3 only if he chooses to use option S4.1.2.1 (total passive protection). If the manufacturer chooses this option he can meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 instead of the rollover requirements of S5.3 until August 15, 1977, but not after that date since the alternative then expires. A manufacturer choosing to use either option S4.1.2.2 or option S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208 does not have to meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3, at all. As a manufacturer of seat belts, you are undoubtedly aware that a majority of vehicle manufacturers choose to comply with Standard No. 208 by means of option S4.1.2.3.; If Secretary Adams' Alternative proposal I or Alternative proposal II becomes a final rule, Standard No. 208 will remain in the form just described above. The Secretary's Alternative II (mandatory passive restraints) proposes to make the lateral (S5.2) and rollover (S5.3) requirements of Standard No. 208 optional. A manufacturer would be permitted to use a totally passive system (meeting S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3) or to install lap belts and only meet the requirements of S5.1. If Alternative II were made final, most vehicle manufacturers would probably choose to install lap belts rather than to provide passive protection that would satisfy S5.3. As you noted, Alternative II also proposes to extend the option in paragraph S5.3 (Complying with Standard No. 216 instead) from August 15, 1977, to August 31, 1980.; You are correct in your statement that the Secretary does not expect t reach a final decision on his alternative proposals until July.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 22642OpenMr. Davis Freeman Dear Mr. Freeman: This responds to your letter of January 21, 2001. In that letter, you inquired as to how the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to your company's invention, the Trailer Pneumatic Inflation System (TPIS). As described in your letter, the TPIS is an "inflation system, which is available to inflate reusable air bags to cushion freight during shipment from one location to another." TPIS utilizes air from a tractor-trailer's air storage reservoir, normally used to provide reserve air for a trailer's air brake and air suspension systems. You indicate that the TPIS includes an air control unit, which would be connected to the air storage reservoir. The air control unit in turn supplies air to a coupler device. An air hose can then be connected to the coupler device to inflate air bags used for protecting cargo inside a trailer. Air from the hose would also be available for inflating or otherwise providing pressurized air to a wide variety of auxiliary components associated with the trailer, such as inflatable bags, pneumatic tools, tires, etc. You further indicate that the TPIS is equipped with several devices that prevent it from interfering with the function of the trailer brakes. Specifically, TPIS comes with a control valve so a user can shut the system off, and a brake protection valve, which you indicate would isolate the inflation system from the air storage reservoir in the event that the air pressure of the reservoir drops below a predetermined value. With regard to TPIS, you ask three questions: 1) Will the TPIS comply with Federal Section 571.121, Air Brake Systems? 2) Are there any other federal standards, codes or regulations that will apply to the Trailer Pneumatic Inflation System TPIS? 3) Will TPIS comply with the other federal standards, codes, or regulations that apply? By way of background information, Chapter of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 30101 et.seq.) "Motor Vehicle Safety" authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR '571.121), which establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. In addition, since the TPIS would be installed into the existing pneumatic brake system of a vehicle, the provisions of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR '571.106), which establishes requirements for motor vehicle brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings, may also apply. If the TPIS is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121 (49 U.S.C. ''30112(a)). If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR '567.7. If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (49 U.S.C. '30122). In addition, under Chapter 301, the TPIS would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 301 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge (49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121). NHTSA does not have any specific regulations relating to auxiliary inflators or air bags intended to cushion commercial cargo. However, since the TPIS system relies on the air supply also used to power trailer brakes, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121. Based on our review of the materials provided with your letter, it appears that proper installation of the TPIS in an air brake system that otherwise meets the requirements of Standard No. 121, would not take the vehicle out of compliance with the standard. Your letter indicates that the TPIS incorporates a valve that would isolate the TPIS system from the pneumatic brake system in the event of a loss of air pressure. It has been NHTSA's long-standing position that accessory air lines and end fittings, such as those used in your product, are "brake hoses" and "brake hose end fittings" only if a failure of the line or fitting would result in a loss of pressure in the vehicle's brake system. Accordingly, if a failure of any of the accessory lines or fittings used with your product could result in a loss of pressure in the brake system, those hoses and fittings are subject to all the provisions of Standard No. 106. In this case, the Safety Act specifies that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any of those hoses or end fittings unless those hoses and end fittings comply with all of the applicable requirements in Standard No. 106. One method used by vehicle manufacturers to protect the air system is to connect air accessories to a pressure protection valve that stops air flowing from a reservoir if there is a failure in the accessory. It may be preferable to sense loss of pressure or excess flow in the accessory line to activate the shut-off feature rather than permitting the reservoir to become partially depleted prior to activating the shut-off feature. The design of such systems may affect whether the accessory air lines are considered brake hoses, depending on the effects of failures in those hoses on the braking system. Therefore, some analysis of how your system affects the air brake system of a vehicle may be necessary to determine whether the accessory air lines are, in fact, brake hoses and whether suitable design features are provided in the event of a failure of the accessory system. You also ask if there are other Federal standards or regulations that would apply to the TPIS. To the extent that your inquiry is confined to standards administered by this agency, there are no other NHTSA regulations or standards that would apply. Other federal standards, particularly those of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), may apply to the use of the TPIS on on-road vehicles. You may wish to contact the FMCSA Wisconsin Service Center at 567 D'Onofrio Drive, Suite 101, Madison, WI 53719-2814. The telephone number for this FMCSA office is (608) 829-7530. In regard to your third question, this office is not in a position to offer any opinions about the compliance of the TPIS with any other Federal regulations, nor do we offer any opinion as to whether use of the TIPS is permissible under state law. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:121 |
2001 |
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.