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: 09-007987 bolduc feb25 11OpenMr. Jacques Bolduc Technical Advisor National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) 3327 W. Bearss Avenue Tampa, FL 33618 Dear Mr. Bolduc: This letter responds to your letter dated June 17, 2009 regarding phase-in compliance periods for new or amended Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as related to the make inoperative provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). I sincerely apologize for the delay in this response. You note that, in the case of many new or amended standards, there is a 100 percent compliance date for vehicles produced in a single stage and a later compliance date (usually one year later) for vehicles produced by alterers and final-stage manufacturers.[1] By way of example, you refer to the upgraded rear impact crash requirements of S6.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. The 100 percent compliance date for manufacturers of vehicles produced in a single stage was September 1, 2008. The compliance date for alterers and final stage manufacturers was September 1, 2009 (S8.2, FMVSS No. 301). You ask about the example of a company that is both an alterer and a modifier of vehicles modified to accommodate disabled persons. You state that the company performs the same manufacturing process on vehicles. When the company performs the process before the first retail sale, the company is an alterer.[2] You note that, as an alterer, the company had until September 1, 2009 to meet the upgraded rear impact crash requirement of FMVSS No. 301. On the other hand, had the company performed the process after the first retail sale, the company would be a modifier. (Modifier is not defined in the regulations issued by the agency, but we would say in the context you present, the term generally refers to an entity adding, substituting, removing, repairing, or reworking components on a used vehicle.) There is no express provision in the upgraded FMVSS No. 301 that addresses modifiers. You ask about FMVSS No. 301s phase-in period between September 1, 2008 and September 1, 2009. You ask whether NHTSA considers a modifier of a vehicle equivalent to an alterer for purposes of S8.2.1 of FMVSS No. 301. Short Answer Our response to your question is no. A modifier of a vehicle is not the same as an alterer. A modifier that is performing processes between the compliance date applicable to original manufacturers and the compliance date applicable to alterers on a vehicle certified by its original manufacturer as meeting the upgraded rear impact requirements of S6.2(b)) must ensure that its modification does not make inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with S6.2(b). Background The make inoperative provision of the Safety Act (49 USC 30122(b)) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative, in whole or in part, any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. An alterer is responsible for continued compliance with the FMVSSs and is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix a label, similar to the certification label affixed by the original manufacturer, certifying that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs affected by the alteration. FMVSS No. 301 specifies requirements for the integrity of motor vehicle fuel systems and serves to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes. As provided by S6.2(a), vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2006 were required to meet the fuel spillage requirements when impacted from the rear by a barrier moving at 48 km/h (30 mph). As provided by S6.2(b), vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2006, are required to meet the fuel spillage requirements when impacted from the rear by a barrier moving at 80 km/h (50 mph). The upgraded requirements of S6.2(b) were phased in, such that specified percentages of each manufacturers fleet manufactured on or after September 1, 2006 were required to meet the new requirements, with full compliance, with some exceptions, being required for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2008. Special provision was made for vehicles produced by alterers and final-stage manufacturers (see S8.2 of FMVSS No. 301). Alterers and final-stage manufacturers had the option of a September 1, 2009 compliance date for their vehicles (S8.2). That is, vehicles produced by these manufacturers before September 1, 2009, were not required to comply with the upgraded requirements of S6.2(b). The vehicles they manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, must comply with the upgraded requirements. Discussion In your letter, you wish to equate alterers with modifiers. We cannot do so. S8.2 of FMVSS No. 301 provides special accommodation for alterers, a term defined in 49 CFR 567.3. S8.2 provides no special accommodation for modifiers. We believe that there are sound reasons for not equating alterers to modifiers for purposes of S8.2 and 49 CFR 571.8(b). There are legally significant differences between alterers and modifiers that justify the need to treat them differently. As discussed above, an alterer has an affirmative certification obligation. An alterer that performs a manufacturing process on a vehicle must certify the vehicles continued compliance with applicable FMVSSs. This certification must be placed near the original manufacturers certification label. In contrast, a modifier has no certification obligation. The modifiers sole obligation is to ensure that it does not violate the make inoperative provision of 49 USC 30122(b). Because of their certification responsibilities, alterers and final-stage manufacturers are provided additional time to meet a new or upgraded standard. Incomplete vehicle manufacturers often do not provide final-stage manufacturers with information necessary to certify their vehicles until shortly before, and in some cases, after the effective date of the standard in question. See 70 FR 7418. If a vehicle manufacturer waits until the last possible moment to certify vehicles, alterers and final-stage manufacturers will not be able to conduct any engineering analysis to determine if the alterations and manufacturing processes affect compliance. See 70 FR 7425. The additional time provides more time for engineering analysis of the vehicles to be produced by alterers and final-stage manufacturers. Since a modifier has no certification obligation, the need for more time to meet a new or amended standard does not apply to modifiers. NHTSA views with disfavor vehicle modifications, performed after first retail sale, that take a vehicle out of compliance with the FMVSSs, except as permitted under 49 CFR Part 595. See 70 FR 7427. It does not seem reasonable to permit modifiers, during that one-year period between the full phase-in of a standard or a requirement and the compliance date for alterers, to make inoperative a device or element of design that has been installed to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 301 requirements. Doing so would permit anyone, as a modifier, to make inoperative a device or element of design installed to meet the new or upgraded standard until the compliance date for alterers and final-stage manufacturers is reached. This would, in effect, annul the compliance date of the standard as applied to vehicles manufactured in one stage for a year, which would be contrary to sound public policy.[3] Previous Interpretation You also refer to an April 7, 2006 interpretation letter to Mr. Dick Keller, Director of Business Development for Bruno Independent Living Aids. In that letter, we concluded that, if an FMVSS offers multiple compliance options for manufacturers, it would not violate the make inoperative provision for a modifier to substitute equipment in vehicles certified to one compliance option with equipment enabling vehicles to meet a different option. We do not believe that letter is applicable to the issue you raise. The standard at issue in the letter to Mr. Keller, FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints, offered manufacturers three options for compliance with head restraint requirements prior to September 1, 2008, the effective date of a new standard: (1) Complying with the existing NHTSA standard, (2) complying with the upgraded NHTSA standard, or (3) complying with the then current European regulations. Bruno wished to replace seats on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2008 that complied with the applicable European regulations with seats that met the existing NHTSA standard but not the European regulation. We concluded that the make inoperative provision did not prevent the substitution of seats. In the case of the upgraded rear impact crash requirements of FMVSS No. 301, the standard did not offer manufacturers multiple options for compliance for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2008. Because the manufacturer of the vehicles did not have multiple compliance options with FMVSS No. 301, a modifier that modifies a vehicle in a manner such that it would not comply with the upgraded standard would violate the make inoperative provision of 49 USC 30122(b). 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: FMVSS No.301 7/29/2011 [1] This approach of providing more time for alterers and manufacturers of vehicles produced in more than one stage (multi-stage manufacturers) is now an established practice as of September 1, 2006. As provided by 49 CFR 571.8(b), unless otherwise specified, the date for manufacturer certification of compliance with any standard or amendment to a standard, insofar as its application to intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers is concerned, is one year after the last applicable date for manufacturer certification of compliance (manufacturers of vehicle completed in one stage). See final rule amending 49 CFR part 571, 70 FR 7414, February 14, 2005. [2] Alterer is defined in 49 CFR 567.3 as: a person who alters by addition, substitution, or removal of components (other than readily attachable components) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle other than for resale. [3] We note that in the February 14, 2005 final rule, NHTSA addressed the concern you raise in your letter. In response to a concern expressed by NMEDA about vehicle modifiers, NHTSA stated that because vehicle modifiers bear no certification responsibility, a change to provide modifiers with an additional year to make modifications would not be made in the context of amending part 571. Further, businesses engaging in operations that may invalidate compliance certification should be held responsible for their actions. 70 FR 7418. This further supports our conclusion not to equate alterers with modifiers. |
|
ID: aiam0642OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1972, in which yo discussed some problems that you have encountered with the regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568), as applied to the school buses of which you are the final-stage manufacturer. Since the receipt of your letter, Mr. Rumph of your company and Mr. Sweet of the Truck Body and Equipment Association met with Mr. Dyson of this office to discuss the issues raised in your letter. Also, on March 8 you sent a sample letter that you proposed to send to your customers.; As we understand the problem from your letter and the subsequen discussion, it is essentially that you are receiving chassis-cowls from school bus buyers, for mounting of your bodies as a final-stage manufacturer, which are inadequate for the purpose according to the gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings now included with the incomplete vehicles under our multistage vehicle regulations, 49 CFR Part 568. The problem as you describe it appears to have arisen in the negotiation between the school bus buyers and the dealers from whom they bought the incomplete vehicles, in that the dealers sold chassis that were too lightly equipped with tires and axles for the loaded weight implicit in the buyer's specification, under both our certification regulations and accepted industry practice. You state that your company bears the immediate burden of the problem, because you have invested in the production of several dozen bodies whose installation is held up pending resolution of the problem.; From your discussion we assume that all parties are agreed that th bodies that the customers ordered (and you have built) are the ones that are to be used, and that the chassis that have been furnished to you can be economically modified to meet the requirements of our regulations and be safe for their intended use.; With these assumptions, we suggest the following course of action o your part:; 1. Complete each vehicle as planned. 2. Affix a certification label to each vehicle as you normally do stating on the label weight rating figures that will satisfy our regulations (Part 567) and the axle capacity requirements of the vehicle.; 3. Deliver the vehicle, but concurrently send a written statement b certified mail to the vehicle buyer to the effect that the vehicle *must be modified* in order to conform to the GVWR and GAWR figures on the certification label, both for purposes of safety and to conform to Federal regulations. The letter should advise the buyer to take the vehicle to a dealer of the chassis manufacturer for these modifications immediately upon receiving it. The sample letter you sent on March 8 will be satisfactory if you modify the second and third paragraphs to read as follows:; >>>'Federal Regulations 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, requires Blu Bird to certify the front and rear gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of completed vehicles, and specifies a minimum GVWR based on seating capacity.; 'Your vehicle may be shipped as it is, however, the values of GAWR an GVWR shown on the certification plate will be contingent on the chassis modifications indicated above. These changes *must*, in the interest of safety, be made before the vehicle is placed into service, and you should take the vehicle to your chassis dealer as soon as you receive it.'<<<; 4. Send copies of each such statement to (a) Office of Standard Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, (b) the manufacturer of the chassis that was delivered to you, and (c) the dealer from whom the buyer ordered the chassis, if any and where known to you.; This procedure is allowed only as to chassis that have already bee received by Blue Bird as of the receipt of this letter, and it should not be viewed as precedent for future action by any other persons. In the future, Blue Bird as the final-stage manufacturer must take responsibility for the vehicle as completed by it, to the extent of its knowledge of relevant facts.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0641OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1972, in which yo discussed some problems that you have encountered with the regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568), as applied to the school buses of which you are the final-stage manufacturer. Since the receipt of your letter, Mr. Rumph of your company and Mr. Sweet of the Truck Body and Equipment Association met with Mr. Dyson of this office to discuss the issues raised in your letter. Also, on March 8 you sent a sample letter that you proposed to send to your customers.; As we understand the problem from your letter and the subsequen discussion, it is essentially that you are receiving chassis-cowls from school bus buyers, for mounting of your bodies as a final-stage manufacturer, which are inadequate for the purpose according to the gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings now included with the incomplete vehicles under our multistage vehicle regulations, 49 CFR Part 568. The problem as you describe it appears to have arisen in the negotiation between the school bus buyers and the dealers from whom they bought the incomplete vehicles, in that the dealers sold chassis that were too lightly equipped with tires and axles for the loaded weight implicit in the buyer's specification, under both our certification regulations and accepted industry practice. You state that your company bears the immediate burden of the problem, because you have invested in the production of several dozen bodies whose installation is held up pending resolution of the problem.; From your discussion we assume that all parties are agreed that th bodies that the customers ordered (and you have built) are the ones that are to be used, and that the chassis that have been furnished to you can be economically modified to meet the requirements of our regulations and be safe for their intended use.; With these assumptions, we suggest the following course of action o your part:; 1. Complete each vehicle as planned. 2. Affix a certification label to each vehicle as you normally do stating on the label weight rating figures that will satisfy our regulations (Part 567) and the axle capacity requirements of the vehicle.; 3. Deliver the vehicle, but concurrently send a written statement b certified mail to the vehicle buyer to the effect that the vehicle *must be modified* in order to conform to the GVWR and GAWR figures on the certification label, both for purposes of safety and to conform to Federal regulations. The letter should advise the buyer to take the vehicle to a dealer of the chassis manufacturer for these modifications immediately upon receiving it. The sample letter you sent on March 8 will be satisfactory if you modify the second and third paragraphs to read as follows:; >>>'Federal Regulations 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, requires Blu Bird to certify the front and rear gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of completed vehicles, and specifies a minimum GVWR based on seating capacity.; 'Your vehicle may be shipped as it is, however, the values of GAWR an GVWR shown on the certification plate will be contingent on the chassis modifications indicated above. These changes *must*, in the interest of safety, be made before the vehicle is placed into service, and you should take the vehicle to your chassis dealer as soon as you receive it.'<<<; 4. Send copies of each such statement to (a) Office of Standard Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, (b) the manufacturer of the chassis that was delivered to you, and (c) the dealer from whom the buyer ordered the chassis, if any and where known to you.; This procedure is allowed only as to chassis that have already bee received by Blue Bird as of the receipt of this letter, and it should not be viewed as precedent for future action by any other persons. In the future, Blue Bird as the final-stage manufacturer must take responsibility for the vehicle as completed by it, to the extent of its knowledge of relevant facts.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0696OpenMr. Frank D. Pepe, Manager, United States Testing Company, Inc, Main Laboratories 1415 Park Avenue, Hoboken, NJ 07030; Mr. Frank D. Pepe Manager United States Testing Company Inc Main Laboratories 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken NJ 07030; Dear Mr. Pepe: This is in reply to your letter of April 5, 1972, in which yo suggested that S4.3(d)(3) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 is not appropriate for buckles located between the front seats.; Although you are correct in saying that the requirement was originall developed to guard against the buckle's being opened by the pressure of the steering wheel, there is a chance that compressive forces will also affect buckles located between the seats. Even though the tests may be more difficult to administer, these buckles are not exempt under the present version of the standard, and it is not correct to say that the requirement is not applicable to them.; We do not suggest by this that the requirement could not be changed i response to an adequately supported petition. However, the requirement as it now stands applies to all buckles, wherever located.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht88-3.100Open TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/13/88 EST FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO: BYUNG M. SOH -- MARKETING DIRECTOR TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 6-20-88 TO NHTSA FROM BYUNG M. SOH, TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC. OCC-2196 TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1988, with respect to two motor vehicle lighting products which you intend to import into the United States. You have asked "whether these devices require approvals from D.O.T." First let me explain that the Department of Transportation does not "approve" or "disapprove" specific products. It does advise whether a product appears allowable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Your letter does not indicate whether you wish to market these devices as original equipment to be installed before initial sale of a motor vehicle, by either its manufacturer or dealer, or whether you intend to market them solely through the aftermarket. I shall address each situation. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to original equipment is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 allows additional motor vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lamps and reflectors required as original equipment. Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard. In addition, a motor vehicle must remain in conformance with Standard No. 108 (and all other safety standards) until its first purchase for purposes other than resale. There is no Federal standard that applies to your devices as aftermarket equipment, but the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, original lighting equipment. Your first device is called a "foglight converter." The advertising literature attached states that its function is to turn "the existing headlights...into foglights...." In our opinion, such a device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 by rendering the headlamp function unavailable when the fog lamp converter is in use. We shall assume that the headlamp would be converted into a fog lamp meeting the specifications of SAE Standard J583 MAY81 Front Fog Lamps. None of the photometric test points of SAE J583 coincide with those specified for headlamps. Our further concern with this device is that a driver might fail to return to the headlamp mode from the fog lamp mode, and operate the vehicle with reduced frontal lighting. The situation differs with respect to the aftermarket. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment such as headlamps added pursuant to a Federal safety standard. We believe that the installation of the converter could affect the operability of the headlamp within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. However, we note that the foglight converter is advertised as "easy for any driver to attach to any vehicle." As an owner is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the owner is not restricted under Federal law from modifications to his vehicle. He is, however, subject to the laws of the States in which his vehicle is registered and operated. We are not conversant with how State lighting laws might affect use of the foglight converter, and you may wish to obtain an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. We have several other comments as well. The literature you enclosed depicts the foglight converter attached to what appears to be the European-designed H-4 bulb. Standard No. 108 does not permit headlamps with H-4 light sources to be sold for use on 4-wheeled motor vehicles. In addition, the application of the device where motion is translated from the lamp's exterior to the interior by a linkage in the bulb base would affect compliance with the requirement that the bulb base withstand a pressure differential of 10 psi. Additionally, creating a hole or passage for a linkage has the potential of rendering the headlamp noncompliant with Standard No. 108's requirements for certain environmental tests, such as resistance to dust, corrosion, and humidity. Your second device is a "headlamp intensity modulator," adjusting a headlamp beam "automatically from low to high beam through a middle beam." According to your literature, when a sensor notes the beams of an oncoming car 500 meters ahead the upper beam gradually passes through a middle beam and diminishes into a lower beam when the vehicles are 150 meters apart. This device is also advertised as capable of owner installation, and without the modification of any vehicle parts. The system appears to operate by a switch. This device directly conflicts with Standard No. 108, and its use would create a noncompliance with it. Headlamps are defined as producing upper and lower beams, and means must be provided for switching between these beams. Use of the device would alter upper and lower beam characteristics from those required by Standard No. 108, and in effect create an infinite number of beams while passing from a conforming upper beam at one extreme to a conforming lower beam at the other. This precludes its use as original equipment. We believe that its aftermarket legality would be limited. Although Federal law would not preclude an owner from installing it, the instructions are sufficiently complex that in our opinion many purchasers would seek to help from a "dealer" or "motor vehicle repair business," which could not be legally given. There would also remain the question of legality with State laws. These appear to be innovative devices and we regret that we cannot be more encouraging. |
|
ID: 1918oOpen Mr. Byung M. Soh Dear Mr. Soh: This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1988, with respect to two motor vehicle lighting products which you intend to import into the United States. You have asked "whether these devices require approvals from D.O.T." First let me explain that the Department of Transportation does not "approve" or "disapprove" specific products. It does advise whether a product appears allowable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Your letter does not indicate whether you wish to market these devices as original equipment to be installed before initial sale of a motor vehicle, by either its manufacturer or dealer, or whether you intend to market them solely through the aftermarket. I shall address each situation. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to original equipment is Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. l08 allows additional motor vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lamps and reflectors required as original equipment. Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or above the maxima permitted by the standard. In addition, a motor vehicle must remain in conformance with Standard No. l08 (and all other safety standards) until its first purchase for purposes other than resale. There is no Federal standard that applies to your devices as aftermarket equipment, but the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, original lighting equipment. Your first device is called a "foglight converter." The advertising literature attached states that its function is to turn "the existing headlights...into foglights...." In our opinion, such a device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. l08 by rendering the headlamp function unavailable when the fog lamp converter is in use. We shall assume that the headlamp would be converted into a fog lamp meeting the specifications of SAE Standard J583 MAY8l Front Fog Lamps. None of the photometric test points of SAE J583 coincide with those specified for headlamps. Our further concern with this device is that a driver might fail to return to the headlamp mode from the fog lamp mode, and operate the vehicle with reduced frontal lighting. The situation differs with respect to the aftermarket. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment such as headlamps added pursuant to a Federal safety standard. We believe that the installation of the converter could affect the operability of the headlamp within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. However, we note that the foglight converter is advertised as "easy for any driver to attach to any vehicle." As an owner is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the owner is not restricted under Federal law from modifications to his vehicle. He is, however, subject to the laws of the States in which his vehicle is registered and operated. We are not conversant with how State lighting laws might affect use of the foglight converter, and you may wish to obtain an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. We have several other comments as well. The literature you enclosed depicts the foglight converter attached to what appears to be the European-designed H-4 bulb. Standard No. l08 does not permit headlamps with H-4 light sources to be sold for use on 4-wheeled motor vehicles. In addition, the application of the device where motion is translated from the lamp's exterior to the interior by a linkage in the bulb base would affect compliance with the requirement that the bulb base withstand a pressure differential of l0 psi. Additionally, creating a hole or passage for a linkage has the potential of rendering the headlamp noncompliant with Standard No. l08's requirements for certain environmental tests, such as resistance to dust, corrosion, and humidity. Your second device is a "headlamp intensity modulator," adjusting a headlamp beam "automatically from low to high beam through a middle beam." According to your literature, when a sensor notes the beams of an oncoming car 500 meters ahead the upper beam gradually passes through a middle beam and diminishes into a lower beam when the vehicles are 150 meters apart. This device is also advertised as capable of owner installation, and without the modification of any vehicle parts. The system appears to operate by a switch. This device directly conflicts with Standard No. l08, and its use would create a noncompliance with it. Headlamps are defined as producing upper and lower beams, and means must be provided for switching between these beams. Use of the device would alter upper and lower beam characteristics from those required by Standard No. l08, and in effect create an infinite number of beams while passing from a conforming upper beam at one extreme to a conforming lower beam at the other. This precludes its use as original equipment. We believe that its aftermarket legality would be limited. Although Federal law would not preclude an owner from installing it, the instructions are sufficiently complex that in our opinion many purchasers would seek help from a "dealer" or "motor vehicle repair business," which could not be legally given. There would also remain the question of legality with State laws. These appear to be innovative devices and we regret that we cannot be more encouraging. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:108 d:9/l3/88 |
1970 |
ID: nht92-4.22OpenDATE: 09/01/92 EST FROM: PAUL GOULD -- SENIOR ENGINEER, FRICTION MATERIALS, LUCAS HEAVY DUTY BRAKING SYSTEM TO: PAUL RICE -- NHTSA ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-19-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO PAUL GOULD (A40; STD. 121) TEXT: I have recently been conducting dynamometer tests to FMVSS 121, here at Cwmbran, and I have some questions which I would like to pose to you as a matter of clarification on the actual meaning of "Average deceleration Rate" and its tolerance. Taking the Brake Power Test, as an example, the FMVSS states: S5.4.2 "shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average of 9fpsps". When conducting such tests on our dynamometers, we would carry these out in Constant Torque Mode. The dynamometer is given a deceleration to achieve, and the pressure is modulated around that figure depending on the frictional variations during the stop. For the Brake Power Test, the dynamometer would attempt to achieve 2.7 m/s2 (in SI units) or 26.49%g. A typical result obtained from out tests is: Stop 1 26.55%g Stop 2 26.17%g Stop 3 25.93%g Stop 4 26.10%g Stop 5 26.13%g Stop 6 26.05%g Stop 7 25.85%g Stop 8 25.96%g Stop 9 25.94%g Stop 10 25.63%g This represents a control capability to within 5% (although on the low side). The FMVSS does not however state this either as a minimum or maximum deceleration. The points on which I require clarification are: 1) Results presented in this way appear to be lower than required for FMVSS, however, given that only a 5% shift exists are these acceptable, bearing in mind that the more crucial requirements are the pressure limitations and the Hot Stop deceleration rate. 2) It is my interpretation that the deceleration rate is only a Target in order to fade the Linings, and to within an error of 5%, our method is acceptable, rather than aim for a higher deceleration rate, which may mean much higher average deceleration than that stated in the FMVSS. This is also not strictly correct. I also wish to add that during the testing, the pressure utilised was well within the FMVSS demands. I am sure that it is just a matter of interpretation, but it is vital to clear this up for future testing commitments. |
|
ID: 1984-1.15OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/29/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Goldstein; Serlin; Grass & Eserow; P.C. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: Stuart Goldstein, Esq. Goldstein, Serlin, Grass & Eserow, P.C. 3000 Town Center- Suite 505 Southfield, MI 48075 This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1984, alleging discrimination by the U. S. Customs Service in enforcing regulations governing importation of vehicles that do not meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked that this agency direct Customs "to allow importers to make the speedometer substitution or modification prior to release of the vehicle..." The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires that all vehicles imported into the United States be brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. The Act does not differentiate between individual and commercial importers. Pursuant to the Act this agency, the Customs Service, and the Department of the Treasury issued an implementing regulation, 19 C.F.R. 12.80. Under this joint regulation, vehicles that do not conform are to be entered under bond for production of a statement within 120 days (an additional 60 available upon request) that all necessary compliance work has been done. Thus, no directive of the nature you ask is needed because under the regulation importers must make all required modification before vehicles are released. However, in developing the regulation, the issuing agencies took into account the heavy traffic that exists at the Canadian and Mexican borders and the impracticability of requiring a written declaration (Form HS-7) from each person driving a car over the border into the United States. Each district director at Canadian and Mexican border districts was provided discretionary authority (19 C.F.R. 12.80 (f)) to waive the written declaration "for a United States, Canadian or Mexican registered vehicle arriving via land borders" for vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1968, for vehicles conforming to standards except for readily attachable equipment items to be installed before sale, and for vehicles imported by foreign tourists not intending to stay for over a year. No authority, however, was provided to waive the written declaration for vehicles permanently entering the United States that were not in compliance.
We are not aware that Customs officials have been abusing their discretionaly authority at the Canadian border by waiving the declaration requirement and by allowing permanent importation into the United States of vehicles of recent manufacture with speedometers graduated in kilometers rather than miles per hour. However, your client's car must be brought into compliance with this requirement. It should not, however, take six (6) months to resolve safety issues if the speedometer is the only item in question. If we can help you further, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Fank Berndt Chief Counsel
January 27, 1984
National Highway Transportation Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
ATTENTION: Chief Counsel RE: 15 U.S. Code 1403 (Pub.L. 89563, Title I, S 114, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 726.) (copy attached)
Dear Administrator:
Our office represents a foreign car importer. Because of an erroneous interpretation by my client of the above law, certain vehicles imported were seized by U.S. Customs at Detroit, Michigan. The seized vehicles complied with all E.P.A. Standards. The seized vehicles complied with all D.O.T. Standards with the sole exception that the speedometer registered speed in kilometers per hour, rather than miles per hour as required by D.O.T. Our client, because it desires to comply with the law, is unable to substitute a miles-per-hour speedometer for the kilometers-per-hour speedometer prior to importing the vehicles to the United States. Our client's only option, pursuant to the Customs' requirements as enunciated is to complete a form (HF7) stating that the vehicle does not conform to E.P.A. and D.O.T. Standards.
Since the date of enactment of the law in 1966, steps have been taken by all foreign automobile manufacturers to comply with U.S. E.P.A. and D.O.T. Standards for cars capable of being imported into the United States. The policy in effect at Customs if an individual purchased a vehicle with a speedometer registering speed in kilometers-per-hour, allows an individual to bring the vehicle into the United States without stating that the vehicle is non-conforming and without requiring substantial costs and time for conformity. This is discriminatory! At other Customs check points, the relaxed standard allowing importation of vehicles with kilometers-per-hour speedometers has been allowed for business importers as well. This too is discriminatory. In order to obtain the certificate cf conformity to comply with Customs, there is approximately a six month administrative delay. This delay is unreasonable and costly not only to my client, but to our Government as well.
A Directive from your office to E.P.A., D.O.T. and Customs regardinq the speedometer problem to allow importers to make the speedometer substitution or modification prior to release of the vehicle from Customs, would save substantial Federal time and money. This directive would not affect the manufacturer's certificate as to E.P.A. Standards as the odometer does not relate to the E.P.A. Standards. Since D.O.T. is concerned with safety, the directive as proposed by our office could satisfy all concerned saving both time and money.
If this recommendation is inappropriate, an alternate suggestion by you would be appreciated.
Should you have any questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
GOLDSTEIN, SERLIN, GRASS & ESEROW, P.C.
STUART GOLDSTEIN ST:pls cc: The Vice President cf the United States George Bush |
|
ID: nht72-3.23OpenDATE: 07/28/72 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Resources Applications, Designs & Control, Incorporated TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 21, 1972 requesting a determination as to the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, to (Illegible Words) equipment manufactured for installation on truck tractors. An amendment to Standard No. 206 was issued in January 1972 (37 F.R. 284), which stated that the requirements of the Standard are applicable to any side door leading directly into a passenger compartment containing one or more seating accommodations. From the information and photographs you provided, it appears that although the (Illegible Words) equipment is a passenger compartment, it is designed as a completely separate unit not containing any seating accommodations, and would therefore be exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 206. It should be noted, however, that is not sleeper berth equipment is installed in such a way that it is (Illegible Word) to the truck cab and can be (Illegible Word) by the driver from within the cab, than any side doors on the sleeper berth equipment would be side door leading into a passenger compartment (the cab) containing seating accommodation and they would have to meet the requirements of the Standard. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of this (Illegible Words) to Standard No. 206. |
|
ID: 09-002367 111OpenWilliam E. Otto, Esq. Sebring & Associates 2735 Mosside Boulevard Monroeville, PA 15146 Dear Mr. Otto: This responds to your inquiry dated April 15, 2009 following up on a previous letter to you from this office, concerning the outside rearview mirror requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. In your first letter to this office, you asked about an outside drivers side rearview mirror for passenger cars. The mirror contained two parts. On the right portion of the mirror, a section of the mirror contained an FMVSS No. 111-compliant flat mirror, while the left portion of the mirror contained a curved or aspheric component. You asked whether S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111 permits a single drivers side mirror containing both a flat portion and a curved or aspheric portion located to the left of the flat portion. In our January 16, 2009 letter to you, we said the answer is yes. S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111 applies to the drivers side mirrors on passenger cars. It states: [e]ach passenger car shall have an outside mirror of unit magnification. That section does not prohibit an additional curved or aspheric portion to expand the field of view beyond the required viewable area. We also referred to two previous legal interpretations reiterating this point.[1] In your current letter, you ask if a single drivers side mirror containing both a flat and curved portion would be permitted for other vehicle types under paragraphs S6, S7, S8, and S10 of FMVSS No. 111, if the flat portion alone otherwise is compliant with the applicable requirements. Our answer is that such mirrors would be permitted under the standard. Paragraph S6 applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses, other than school buses, with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less. The section does not contain any language that would prohibit a supplementary curved mirror portion. S6.1(b) states that the vehicle shall have either mirrors that comply with S5, or outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 126 cm2 of reflective surface, located to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. If this requirement is met, there is no specific prohibition on additional mirrored surfaces, which can be convex or aspheric or flat.[2] S7 applies to MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg and less than 11,340 kg and buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg. S8 applies to MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of 11,340 kg or more. A similar analysis indicates that paragraphs S7 and S8 do not prohibit the types of mirrors at issue. These sections of FMVSS No. 111 require that the vehicles have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 323 cm2 of reflective surface, located to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. If this requirement is met, there is no specific prohibition on additional mirrored surfaces, which can be convex or aspheric or flat. Paragraph S10 applies to motorcycles. S10.1 specifies motorcycles to have either a mirror of unit magnification with not less than 8065 mm2 of reflective surface, or a convex mirror with not less than 6450 mm2 of reflective surface and an average radius of curvature not less than 508 mm and not greater than 1524 mm . The portion of the mirror required by FMVSS No. 111 must be contiguous. A convex or aspheric or flat mirror may supplement the mirror required by S10. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is the agency in the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible for safety regulations concerning motor carrier operations. Among other things, FMCSAs regulations include certain requirements for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) equipment necessary for safe operations, including rear-vision mirrors. For information on FMCSAs requirements for CMV equipment, please contact FMCSA at 1-800-832-5660. I hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 6/1/2010 [1] In a January 15, 1995 letter to Mr. Amin Ahmadi, we stated that [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine a portion of the mirror with a straight angle with a portion of the mirror that is at a slight variance, provided that the straight mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed. Similarly, in a June 22, 1998 letter to Mr. Bobby Kim, we stated that [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself meets FMVSS No. 111 requirements applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed. Both letters are available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [2] We note that although mixing of convex or aspheric and flat mirrors is not prohibited, mixing the mirrors could present visual confusion to the vehicle operator. |
2010 |
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.