NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: 08-005240drnOpenGeorge Carl Pezold, Esq. Pezold, Smith, Hirschmann & Selvaggio, LLC 120 Main Street Huntington, NY 11743-6936 Dear Mr. Pezold: This responds to your request for an interpretation asking whether the COBUS 2700 is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As explained below, our answer is yes. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. They must also ensure that their vehicles and equipment are free of safety-related defects. In your letter, you explained that your client, COBUS Industries, LP, would like to sell the COBUS 2700 Airport bus to the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) which intends to use it as a free shuttle bus for shoppers along the 16th Street Mall in downtown Denver. You state that the bus is virtually identical to the COBUS 3000 model, which this office had determined in 1999 was not subject to the FMVSSs as an airfield bus.[1] That is, the Cobus 3000 in that letter was built specifically for airfield use, to transport passengers between a remotely parked aircraft and the terminal or from terminal to terminal. Id. You believe that the substantial similarity in the use and application of the COBUS 2700 to the COBUS 3000 should justify a similar conclusion. In your letter, you describe the 16th Street Mall as follows: The Mall is a 1.3-mile-long portion of the 16th Street from Broadway to Wewatta Street. It has wide sidewalks with shops and restaurants lining both sides of the street. The center path was designed for the free mall shuttle bus fleet, which connects with the RTDs regional and express lines at either end of the Mall. You further write that the Mall is closed to all vehicular traffic except for the mall shuttle buses and authorized emergency and service vehicles. You note that the intersections with cross streets to the Mall are open to regular cross vehicular traffic and are controlled by traffic lights timed for the mall bus operating cycles.[2] You also state that from a stop at each intersection, the mall bus accelerates to about 15 miles per hour, then decelerates to a complete stop at the next intersection, opens all doors to discharge and board passengers, closes all doors and accelerates again to the next stop. The buses serve an average of over 50,000 commuters and tourists a day. You further state that each day, the vehicles will be driven on a regular city public street two miles to and from the RTDs bus storage and maintenance facility at a governed speed of 20 miles per hour. Agency Analysis We have considered the views you have expressed in your letter but disagree with the suggestion that the COBUS 2700 bus is not a motor vehicle. Motor vehicle is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) in pertinent part as: a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways. The question to answer is whether the vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. Our answer is yes, for several reasons. First, your letter states that the COBUS 2700 would run daily on a regular city public street to and from RTDs bus storage and maintenance facility. This is a regular and expected use of the public roads by the COBUS 2700. Second, we do not agree that the closure of 16th Street to most vehicular traffic between Broadway and Wewatta Street renders 16th Street no longer a public road. Between Broadway and Wewatta Street, there are signal lights and numerous public roads crossing 16th Street. There is also a significant pedestrian presence in the shopping area. This close interface with motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic leads us to conclude that the bus will be operating on a public road. On a final note, NHTSA has previously considered pedestrian mall buses to be motor vehicles.[3] The COBUS 2700 differs from the airport bus that was the subject of the agencys 1999 letter on the COBUS 3000. Airfields on which the COBUS 3000 was designed to be used differ significantly from shopping areas in downtown Denver. Airfields are closed, isolated areas where vehicular traffic is restricted and pedestrian traffic nonexistent. In contrast, the 16th Street Mall is open to substantial vehicular cross-street and pedestrian traffic. It is important for the bus to meet the FMVSSs for crashworthiness and crash avoidance protection. Because it is intended to travel on public roads, the COBUS 2700 is a motor vehicle, more specifically, a bus. Therefore, before it is sold for use in the United States, the COBUS 2700 must be certified as meeting all applicable FMVSSs. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:VSA102(4) d.2/3/09 [1] Letter to Ms. Debra Taylor from former Chief Counsel Frank Seales, Jr., September 9, 1999. [2] According to a web-based map, but not specifically mentioned in your letter, it appears that between Broadway and Wewatta, there are approximately 16 streets open to vehicular traffic, and a set of railroad tracks, crossing 16th St. [3] See letter to Mr. Keely Brunner, June 6, 1999. |
2009 |
ID: 10315Open Mr. Gary BlousJ Dear Mr. BlousJ: This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. In your letter, you described your product as a bag holder for the interior of vehicles, designed to attach to the head restraint and hang on the back side of the front seats. Based on the illustration you provided, the bag holder appears to be a 12 inch flexible strap that attaches to the head restraint, with a "rigid plastic" hook at the end from which plastic grocery bags are suspended. The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that apply directly to your product, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA's authority to issue these regulations is based on title 49, section 30102(7) of the U.S. Code (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), the relevant part of which defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as: (A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added). Although you appear to recognize the applicability of our regulations, based on your characterization of your product as "after market equipment," allow me to explain how NHTSA determines whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory under the U.S. Code. The agency applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus subject to the provisions of the U.S. Code. Your bag holder appears to be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. It appears to be designed specifically to fit in motor vehicles using the head restraints, meaning that a substantial portion of its expected use relates to motor vehicle operation. The bag holder would typically be purchased and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle). While your bag holder is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. However, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Although no standards apply directly to the bag holder, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that requires, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with that standard. If your bag holder were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the rigid plastic hook) were to be struck by the occupant's head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how big or how "rigid" the hook is, but it is something of which you should be aware. Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the bag holder installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the bag holder were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your bag holder in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA d:2/13/95
|
1995 |
ID: nht93-3.25OpenDATE: April 27, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA TO: Lawrence Hufstedler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD.; Raymond Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises, LTD. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-93 from Lawrence Hufstedler and Raymond Kesler to John Womack (OCC 8517) TEXT: This responds to your letter inquiring about the field-of-view requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, REARVIEW MIRRORS; (49 CFR S571.111; copy enclosed) applicable to what you refer to as "passenger vehicles" weighing under 10,000 pounds. You requested a written interpretation explaining the Standard's requirements in situations where such vehicles have a left side and an interior mirror that comply with the field-of-view requirement. In particular, you wanted confirmation that in such situations a manufacturer may equip a vehicle's passenger side with any supplemental mirror or no mirror at all. You also asked whether the vehicle owner may equip a vehicle in this manner. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Along with a copy of Standard No. 111, I am enclosing the final rule that states the agency's decision to permit the use of convex mirrors on the exterior passenger side of passenger cars. (47 FR 38698, September 2, 1982). This notice explains the agency's regulations applicable to such convex mirrors in various situations. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA issued Standard No. 111 to establish performance requirements for mirrors installed in each new vehicle. Section S5 of Standard No. 111 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on passenger cars. S5 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification and a driver's side outside rearview mirror of unit magnification that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. If the inside rearview mirror meets the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror on the passenger side is not required. Please be aware that in such a situation a manufacturer could voluntarily install any type of exterior passenger side mirror, which the agency would permit as a supplemental mirror. If the inside rearview mirror of a passenger car does not meet the field-of-view requirements of S5.1.1, then a mirror of unit magnification or a convex mirror must be installed on the passenger side. If a convex mirror is installed on the passenger side to meet the field-of-view requirements, then that convex mirror must meet certain additional requirements that are set forth in section S5.4. These additional requirements address the convex mirror's permissible radius of curvature and an informational message that must be marked onto the mirror. Section S6 specifies the requirements applicable to mirrors installed on multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's), trucks, and buses other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Such vehicles would comply with the standard if they are equipped with mirrors that conform to the requirements (expressed in the previous two paragraphs) that are applicable to passenger cars. Alternatively, MPV's, trucks and buses would comply with the standard if they are equipped with outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 apply to new, completed vehicles and do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on aftermarket installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering 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. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business performing the work would have rendered inoperative a device (i.e., the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111, in violation of 108(a)(2)(A). In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as vehicle mirrors, are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the mirror is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR, Part 571, re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rearview Mirror Systems, Final Rule, dated September 2, 1982. (Text omitted.) |
|
ID: nht76-3.35OpenDATE: 03/08/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Henke Manufacturing Corp. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, letter concerning the relationship between snow plows that you manufacture and the front-axle GAWR's of the vehicles on which they are mounted. Your questions and our answers are as follows: Questions 1. "Somewhere I read where fire trucks are not governed by FMVSS121 or axle weight restrictions as an emergency vehicle. Is this true?" Standard No. 121 does not apply to fire fighting vehicles manufactured before June 1, 1976. In addition, it does not apply to such a vehicle manufactured from June 1, 1976, to August 31, 1977, that either has a GAWR for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more, or has two or more front, steerable axles with a GAWR of 16,000 pounds or more for each axle. Further, the standard does not apply to any vehicle meeting any one of criteria (a) through (d), as follows: (a) An overall vehicle width of 108 inches or more; (b) An axle that has a GAWR of 29,000 pounds or more; (c) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 33 mph; or (d) (1) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 45 mph, and (2) An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR, and (3) No passenger-carrying capacity. Question 2. "Do you consider a snow plow an emergency piece of equipment?" There are no exemptions in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations for "emergency vehicles" or "emergency equipment". Question 3. "Would a D.O.T. compliance officer require a plow to be raised for weighing to check the GAWR?" In determining whether a vehicle equipped with a snow plow has been assigned an improper GAWR, the NHTSA will consider the load imposed on the axle system when the plow is in the raised position. Question 4. "The box or fold down flap I mention in letter - would this be considered a legal method of meeting GAWR, assuming it was part of a snow plow procedure program?" Our letter of May 9, 1974, explained that proper weight ratings depend on what you, as a vehicle alterer, know, or can reasonably be expected to know, about how the plow-equipped trucks are likely to be loaded. It stated further: A warning to the buyer not to exceed the rated cargo load or the weight ratings. . .would not be sufficient if it were reasonable to expect that the vehicles would, in practice, exceed these ratings at normal full load despite the warning. Similarly, if the volume-reducing purpose of the box or fold down flap described in your letter to county engineers is likely to be defeated (whether intentionally of accidentally), then neither would be sufficient to validate a GAWR that would otherwise be exceeded by a fully loaded axle. If, on the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that your recommended loading procedure will be followed, then it is permissible to base the GAWR on the correspondingly reduced "full" load. Question 5. "When weighing a truck for compliance would a full load of ballast be required even though the snow plowing procedure of governmental bodies call out a less than full load of ballast?" The considerations discussed in #4 above apply here as well. Question 6. "When we bid to a State where drawings and or detailed specifications of snow removal equipment are called out and no axle sizes or dump box sizes are called out are we responsible for this plow overweighing a front axle? We do not mount any equipment, we furnish equipment as specified." The primary responsibility for weight ratings is with the party who, by mounting the snow plow, is the vehicle alterer. If, however, your advertising or bids promote the use of the snow plow in situations where front axles are likely to be overloaded, then the plow may be considered to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, which would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. YOURS TRULY, Henke MANUFACTURING CORPORATION January 26, 1976 Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration I am sorry this letter is so late but I want to thank you for answering our questions of May 9, 1974, your reference number N40-30(MPP). As a manufacturer that mounts some show plows and auxiliary equipment for Iowa governmental bodies, we have established definite procedures that we follow as to mounting and recommending equipment that does not overload axles. I have enclosed a letter sent to County Engineers in Iowa regarding the purchase of trucks to comply with laws for their intended useage. I have also enclosed snow plow literature showing weights imposed on front axles, also a copy of a recent D/A bulletin from Cincinnati. Question 1. Somewhere I read where fire trucks are not governed by FMVSS121 or axle weight restrictions as an emergency vehicle. Is this true? Question 2. Do you consider a snow plow an emergency piece of equipment? Question 3. Would a D.O.T. compliance officer require a plow to be raised for weighing to check the GAWR? Question 4. The box or fold down flap I mention in letter - would this be considered a legal method of meeting GAWR, assuming it was part of a snow plow procedure program? Question 5. When weighing a truck for compliance would a full load of ballast be required even though the snow plowing procedure of governmental bodies call out a less than full load of ballast? Question 6. When we bid to a State where drawings and or detailed specifications of snow removal equipment are called cut and no axle sizes or dump box sizes are called out are we responsible for this plow overweighing a front axle? We do not mount any equipment, we furnish equipment as specified. We would appreciate any suggestions you may have and any comments as to our statements or procedures. Thank you for your consideration. HENKE MFG. CORP. Edward A. Green President [Attachments Omitted] |
|
ID: nht95-1.60OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: February 13, 1995 FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Gary Blouse -- V. P. Engineering, Fitting Image TITLE: None ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/26/94 LETTER FROM GARY BLOUSE TO OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CONSOLE, NHTSA (OCC 10315) TEXT: Dear Mr. Blouse: This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. In your letter, you described your product as a bag holder for the interior of vehicles, designed to attach to the head restraint and hang on the back side of the front seats. Based on the illustration you provided, the bag holder appears to be a 12 inch flexible strap that attaches to the head restraint, with a "rigid plastic" hook at the end from whi ch plastic grocery bags are suspended. The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that apply directly to your product, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Man ufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA's authority to issue these regulations is based on title 49, section 3 0102(7) of the U.S. Code (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), the relevant part of which defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as: (A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added). Although you appear to recognize the applicability of our regulations, based on your characterization of your product as "after market equipment," allow me to explain how NHTSA determines whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory under the U.S. Code. The agency applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertisi ng, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus subject to the provisions of the U.S. Code. Your bag holder appears to be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. It appears to be designed specifically to fit in motor vehicles using the head restraints, meaning that a substantial portion of its expected u se relates to motor vehicle operation. The bag holder would typically be purchased and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle). While your bag holder is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. However, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. C ode concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Although no standards apply directly to the bag holder, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that require s, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance w ith that standard. If your bag holder were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the rigid plastic hook) were to be struck by the occupant's head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how big or how "rigid" the hook is, but it is something of which you should be aware. Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the bag holder installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b) of title 49 pro hibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." For instance, complia nce with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the bag holder were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation . The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your bag holder in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authorit y to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 04-002108drn-3OpenMr. Tom Hoholik Dear Mr. Hoholik: This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements which your product, the "Line Guide," must meet. Your product is designed to help drivers of motor homes, fifth wheel trucks, buses, and those who tow trailers stay in their highway lanes, without "constantly checking their mirrors." Your website, www.gadgetinc.com, provides information about the Line Guide. A photograph of a Line Guide shows a horizontal black rod attached to a bar with two rubber suction cups. Three vertical prongs (which you call stems), at equal distances from each other, project from the horizontal rod. The Line Guide mounts directly on the dashboard using Velcro or windshield with suction cups, with power supplied through the vehicles cigarette lighter. Your website states:
The Line Guide is sold both with and without light emitting diodes (LEDs). If the unit is mounted facing the road, the lights will shine on the windshield. If the unit is mounted facing the driver, the LEDs can be viewed directly. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs that are directly applicable to your product. We note that if your product was installed in a vehicle by a manufacturer or other business, they would have responsibilities relating to ensuring that the vehicle met, or continued to meet, all FMVSSs with the product installed. However, given that your product is mounted to the vehicle by Velcro or suction cups and is powered by the cigarette lighter, we assume that it would be installed by vehicle owners. In this situation, our safety standards would not affect the sale or installation of your product. Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the Departments Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over commercial vehicles and interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You may wish to contact FMCSA for further information about any FMCSA regulations that may apply to your system. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2004 |
ID: 11-001987 nelson.may18OpenMr. Brian Nelson Michigan Association of Timbermen 7350 M 123 Newberry, MI 49868 Dear Mr. Nelson: This letter responds to your letter asking whether a product commonly known in the logging industry as a slasher saw table would be considered a motor vehicle within the laws and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, our answer is no. You explain that a slasher saw table is a large saw permanently mounted to a bundling carriage that has two wheels and is pulled behind another trailer or truck. It is used for cutting logs to a uniform length for loading onto a logging truck. Although a slasher saw table is equipped with wheels, you state that it is intended to remain in extreme off-road conditions for months at a time, as a logging site is harvested. You also state that, when transferred between sites, a slasher saw table is pulled behind a mobile log loader, which is equipped with brakes. By way of background, NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The FMVSSs are applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. That is, NHTSA regulates the manufacture of new motor vehicles. You state that an issue has arisen whether the slasher saw table is subject to regulations administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). We note that questions about the applicability of FMCSAs regulations should be directed to that agency. We do not consider the slasher saw table to be a motor vehicle. The term motor vehicle is defined in section 30102(a)(6) of the Safety Act as a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles. For example, vehicles that frequently travel between job sites using highways are considered motor vehicles because the on-highway use is more than incidental. In a November 5, 2004 letter to Ms. Robin C. DesCamp of Blount International, Inc., we opined on whether certain types of logging equipment would be considered a motor vehicle. Among the logging equipment discussed in that letter were logging cranes. We stated that, because logging cranes were intended to remain at a single location for long periods of time and are moved only infrequently between logging sites, we concluded that the logging cranes are not motor vehicles. A slasher saw table, as you have described it, appears to be akin to items of mobile construction equipment and logging cranes that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the slasher saw table described in your letter is not a motor vehicle. Because a slasher saw table is not a motor vehicle, it is not subject to the FMVSSs. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: VSA 571.3 7/25/11 |
|
ID: 11422WKMOpen Clifford C. Sharpe, Esq. Dear Mr. Sharpe: This responds to your letter to the Department of Transportation, Legal Division, which was forwarded to this agency for reply. You asked whether there are regulations addressing the sale as new of a tire that was manufactured five years previously, and whether we are aware of any studies or information regarding the effects of aging on an unused tire. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, including tires. This statute requires each person selling a new vehicle, or item of equipment covered by an FMVSS, to ensure that the new vehicle or equipment item is certified as meeting all applicable FMVSSs. Once a vehicle or item of equipment has been sold to its first retail customer, the seller's responsibility to sell a certified product terminates. See 49 U.S.C. '30112. Regulation of the sale and use of a used product becomes a matter of state jurisdiction. We understand your first question to ask whether NHTSA regulations were violated when a tire manufactured in 1986 was purchased as "new" in 1991. The answer is no. NHTSA has no regulation requiring a tire to be sold within a certain amount of time from its date of manufacture. You might wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for information on the appropriateness of such a sale under consumer protection regulations. The telephone number for the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection is (202) 326-2476. With regard to your second question, NHTSA does not have or know of any studies specifically addressing the effects of aging on a new tire. It is known, however, that heat, ultra-violet and ozone in particular can, over time, degrade rubber. Thus, although tire manufacturers blend antioxidants, antiozonants, waxes and carbon blacks with their natural rubber compounds to resist tire degradation, what is most important are the conditions under which the new tires are stored. For example, if tires are stored in direct sunlight, in extreme heat or cold, or in close proximity to air filters, the rubber in the tires will degrade faster than if they are wrapped and kept in a temperature and humidity-controlled environment. For additional reference sources, you may be interested in a comprehensive manual published under the auspices of NHTSA entitled, Mechanics of Pneumatic Tires, DOT HS 805 952, August 1981, available from Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 (202) 783-3238 This volume is a highly detailed compilation of sources discussing every aspect of tire production. It does not specifically discuss the aging of tires once they have been manufactured, but it does discuss the various factors that contribute to the degradation of the rubber compounds in tires. In addition, you may call or write Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) 1400 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 682-4800 The RMA is an association of various tire manufacturers and may have available some industry data on this issue. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Ref:109 d:2/2/96
|
1996 |
ID: nht88-3.63OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 10/05/88 FROM: J. W. LAWRENCE -- MANAGER COMPLIANCE VOLVO GM HEAVY TRUCK CORP TO: ERIKA L. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS-124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO J. W. LAWRENCE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 124; LETTER DATED 03/17/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LEON STEENBOCK TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones: Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation, manufacturer of "WHITEGMC" and importer of "VOLVO" trucks 26,000 lbs and greater GVWR, respectfully requests you reconsider and rescind the interpretation of FMVSS-124 issued by the Administration on March 17, 1988. Spe cifically, VolvoGM believes the March 17 statement "locking hand throttle controls are expressly prohibited by Standard 123" should either be rescinded or restated in such a way as to continue to allow installation of the devices described in this reques t. All VolvoGM trucks available in the United States are diesel powered and do not have automatic low speed limiting devices such as automatic chokes used on gasoline engines. Like most, if not all heavy truck manufacturers, we install a hand throttle to a llow the driver to increase the low speed idle at will for a multitude of reasons. The most common uses of these hand throttle are for engine warmup, extended idle periods (some times in cold weather diesel trucks will not be shutdown for days) and voca tional applications such as pumping, ready mix delivery, compacting, etc. The vocational applications usually occur when the vehicle is stationary, however, there is no lockout device restricting their use to the non "drive" transmission positions. All hand throttles we install are "locking hand throttle controls" in that once set they hold engine idle at a driver selected level until such time as the driver selects a new idle speed or disengaged the throttle. FMVSS-124 @ 4 Definitions addresses hand throttles. "Idle position" means the position of the throttle at which it first comes in contact with an engine idle speed control appropriate for existing conditions according to the manufacturers recommendations. These conditions include, but are not limited to, engine speed adjustments for cold engine, air conditioning, and emission control, and the use of throttle setting devices." (emphasis added) Source: 37FR pg. 20035 September 23, 1972
The throttle setting or hand throttle control provisions of the Standard are in direct response to a Mack Truck petition addressing hand throttles for heavy duty diesel truck. The FR37, No. 186 preamble discussion on page 20033 dated September 23, 19 72 expresses the Administration's intent at the time the Standard was promulgated. "Mack and Alfa Romeo petitioned that "hand throttles" and throttle positioners be specifically excluded from the definition of "idle position". Petitioners stated that in the event such a device is used a return to the preset throttle position occurs upon release of the driver-operated accelerator control system. This request is granted. If a driver choose to raise the lowest engine speed threshold by the use of a throttle positioning device, the throttle should return to that new position within t he same time requirements specified in section S5.3. Accordingly, the NHTSA is amending the definition of "idle position" to provide for the use of throttle positioners." The standard has been in effect for 15 years during which time hundreds of thousands of heavy duty diesel trucks have been equipped with these devices apparently with no safety problems. We trust this discussion clears the technical issues and if we may be of assistance are most willing. Sincerely, ENCLOSURE |
|
ID: 23642ogmOpen Albert G. Hayeck, Esq. Dear Mr. Hayeck: This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). Your letter correctly notes that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that motorcycle helmets be permanently labeled with a "DOT" mark as a certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. Your review of Standard No. 218 indicates that the Standard does not prohibit owners of helmets from removing or obscuring the "DOT" certification mark. You ask if removing or covering the "DOT" certification mark is lawful. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, including motorcycle helmets. This statute requires each person manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale any new vehicle, or item of equipment, covered by an FMVSS, to ensure that the new vehicle or equipment item is certified as meeting all applicable FMVSSs. The "DOT" certification mark and other required labels provide important information regarding the helmet, including the fact that the manufacturer has certified that the helmet meets Standard No. 218. Section S5.6.1 of the Standard requires that each helmet be permanently and legibly labeled with certain warnings, identifying information, size, and the DOT certification mark. Any helmet intended for highway use, must, at the time of sale, be permanently marked as directed by S5.6.1. Our agency requires permanent marking of these items because we believe this information is needed for the life of the helmet. After the first sale of the helmet to a consumer, Federal law does not impose any obligation on users of the helmet to maintain it in its original state of compliance. Thus, a consumer may remove or obscure the "DOT" marking without violating Federal law. However, removing or obscuring the certification mark or otherwise modifying the helmet to degrade its performance may have an impact on the user under state laws requiring the use of compliant helmets. Section 30122(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), provides that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in a vehicle or item of equipment under applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed that label, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. While individual owners of motorcycle helmets are not subject to the "make inoperative" requirement, we urge owners of helmets not to degrade the safety of the equipment. The individual States are free to establish requirements for the use of motorcycle helmets, including a requirement that helmets used on state highways comply with Standard No. 218. States can prohibit an owner from removing or covering the label or impose sanctions for the use of an unlabeled helmet. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:218 |
2002 |
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.