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: aiam4702OpenMr. Satoshi Nishibori Nissan Research & Development, Inc. 750 17th Street N.W., Suite 902 Washington, D.C. 20006; Mr. Satoshi Nishibori Nissan Research & Development Inc. 750 17th Street N.W. Suite 902 Washington D.C. 20006; "Dear Mr. Nishibori: This responds to your January 16, 1990 letter t Mr. Robert Hellmuth, the Director of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120). Specifically, S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 provides that when a passenger car tire is used on vehicles other than passenger cars, the tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing it by 1.10 before calculating the sum of the load ratings of all of the original equipment tires on the vehicle. S5.3.2 through S5.3.5 establish requirements for certain information about the tires and rims to be labeled on the vehicle. S5.3.2 sets forth lettering size and format requirements for the labeling. S5.3.3 through S5.3.5 require the labeling to provide the following information: the 'size designation of tires....appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR' be given on the label, the size and type designation of rims 'appropriate for those tires', and the 'cold inflation pressure for those tires'. Your question was whether the cold inflation pressure set forth on the label in response to S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must reflect the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 for passenger car tires. You suggested in your letter, and in your January 18, 1990 meeting with agency staff, that S5.3.5 does not require the 1.1 reduction factor to be taken into account when determining the cold inflation pressure to be specified. Instead, you suggested that Standard No. 120 requires the vehicle manufacturer to specify an inflation pressure that is adequate to support the tire's share of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR), without regard to the 1.1 reduction factor. I cannot agree with your suggested interpretation. You asserted that S5.3.5 merely requires the label to include the 'cold inflation pressure for those tires,' without referring to S5.1.2 and its 1.1 reduction factor. You contrasted this requirement with that in S5.3.3, which expressly refers to S5.1.2 and the 1.1 reduction factor. You asserted that this difference in wording showed that the 1.1 reduction factor need not be considered when specifying the cold inflation pressure on the label in response to S5.3.5. This argument is not persuasive. The load-carrying capability of a tire generally varies with the inflation pressure of that tire, i.e., a tire can carry a greater load at a higher inflation pressure and a lesser load at a lower inflation pressure. Hence, a reference to inflation pressure alone, without any corresponding load-carrying capability to which that inflation pressure applies would be meaningless. If S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 were interpreted to require the manufacturer to specify some inflation pressure, without regard to any load that must be borne by the tire at that inflation pressure, the vehicle manufacturer could specify an extremely high or low inflation pressure. Such a specification would be useless or even dangerous for the consumer, and contrary to the purposes of the labeling requirements. You implicitly recognize that such an interpretation is unacceptable when you argue on page 1 of your January 16, 1990 that S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120 must be interpreted to require the manufacturer to recommend an inflation pressure 'that will permit the tires to safely carry Gross Axle Weight Rating loads and will provide good vehicle ride characteristics.' In other words, Nissan agrees that the inflation pressure specified in response to S5.3.5 cannot be an extreme value such as 1 psi, instead, it must be determined with reference to some load that the tires will carry. The question then becomes what loading must be considered to determine if the specified inflation pressure complies with S5.3.5. This question is answered by reading the labeling requirement of S5.3.5 in connection with the other labeling requirements in S5.3, instead of considering S5.3.5 in a vacuum. S5.3.2 sets forth the format and lettering size for the labels to be placed on all vehicles manufactured on or after December 1, 1984. The information that must appear on such labels is set forth in S5.3.3, S5.3.4, and S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120. S5.3.3 specifies that the label shall include information on 'the size designation of tires (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate (as specified in S5.1.2) for the GAWR.' (Emphasis added). On any reading of this emphasized language, it is beyond dispute that the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered when specifying the appropriate tire size designation pursuant to S5.3.3. Following this, S5.3.4 requires information on the size and type designation of rims 'appropriate for those tires' to appear on the label. The reference to 'those' tires in S5.3.4 indicates that the tires are the tires previously specified in S5.3.3. Similarly, when S5.3.5 requires the cold inflation pressure for those tires to appear on the information label, the language is referring back to the tires specified in S5.3.3. Since NHTSA agrees with your statements that S5.3.3 incorporates the 1.1 reduction factor of S5.1.2 to determine compliance with S5.3.3, and since S5.3.5 refers to the tires specified in S5.3.3, the 1.1 reduction factor set forth in S5.1.2 must be considered to determine ocmpliance with S5.3.5 of Standard No. 120. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5353OpenMr. Randolph Schwarz 141 North Madison Drive South Plainfield, NJ 07080; Mr. Randolph Schwarz 141 North Madison Drive South Plainfield NJ 07080; "Dear Mr. Schwarz: This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera o NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids. Your letter has been referred to my office for a response. As a consumer retrofitting your vehicle with DOT 5 brake fluid, you had several questions concerning the possible effects that an ingredient in the brake fluid might have on elastomers used in brake systems. Your questions are answered below. You mentioned 'seal swelling additives' added to DOT 5 brake fluid, that contact various elastomers in the brake system. Your first question was, when brake fluid manufacturers combine additives with brake fluid, should consumers be concerned with the combined fluids' compatibility with various elastomers used in braking systems? Standard No. 116 defines, at S4. Definitions, brake fluid as a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system where it will contact elastomeric components made of: styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychlorophene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock, or natural rubber (NR). In order to minimize failures in hydraulic braking systems, Standard No. 116 specifies minimum performance standards for brake fluids. These performance standards include tests for styrene and butadiene rubber cups, the most common type of elastomer in a hydraulic brake system. The brake fluid manufacturer must certify that the brake fluid complies with Standard No. 116. (See S5.2.2(d).) While DOT 5 brake fluid must meet Standard No. 116, the specific ingredients in the fluid are not regulated by the standard. The brake fluid manufacturer is expected to be aware that in addition to SBR, its brake fluid may contact EPR, CR, and NR elastomers in the brake system. Thus, the brake fluid manufacturers must ensure that contact between the fluid and the above stated elastomers would not result in a safety-related defect under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the brake fluid manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the brake fluid contains a safety related defect, the brake fluid manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective brake fluid and remedying the problem free of charge. Your second question was whether DOT 5 brake fluid's compliance with Standard No. 116 ensures compatibility with elastomers. The answer is yes, for SBR elastomers. Further, besides Standard No. 116, the brake fluid manufacturer is subject to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act, that were previously discussed. At this time, NHTSA is not aware of safety related defects resulting from other ingredients used with brake fluid. Your third question was whether Standard No. 116 only addresses SBR compatibility with brake fluid. Standard No. 116, at S4, addresses brake fluid that contacts four elastomer types. However, the tests specified in the standard are only of the most commonly used SBR cups. Your fourth question was, if Standard No. 116 only mentions SBR elastomer, would it be advisable to add other elastomers to the specification, or to discuss elastomer compatibility on the brake fluid container? Information discussing the elastomer compatibility of the brake fluid, or other ingredients, may be voluntarily placed on brake fluid containers. Standard No. 116 specifies information that brake fluid containers must carry. However, Standard No. 116 does not prohibit manufacturers from noting on brake fluid containers, compatibility of the silicone brake fluid, or other ingredients, with various elastomers. Finally, you asked what Standard No. 116 specifies as the maximum viscosity for DOT 5 brake fluid, at -40 degrees Fahrenheit. Standard No. 116 specifies, at S5.1.3(c), that the maximum viscosity is 900 centistokes (cSt). I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4563OpenBill Whiteside, Subcontract Manager Harris Corporation Government Electronics Systems Division P. O. Box 96000 Melbourne, FL 32902; Bill Whiteside Subcontract Manager Harris Corporation Government Electronics Systems Division P. O. Box 96000 Melbourne FL 32902; "Dear Mr. Whiteside: This responds to your letter asking for a interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as those regulations apply to the certification of certain trailers. Your letter follows an earlier request for interpretation from Telex Communications. In the letter from Telex, your company, Harris Corporation, was identified as Company XYZ. Telex's question was whether it or your company had 'ultimate responsibility for DOT certification' pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. NHTSA responded to Telex in a letter dated March 1, 1988. Because the information provided in the incoming letter from Telex was somewhat sketchy, and we had to make certain assumptions about whether your company was the end user or intended to resell the trailer, we could not provide a definitive answer to them. Your letter and a telephone conversation between Larry Little of Harris Corporation and Dorothy Nakama of my staff have given us the following additional information. Your company has a contract with Telex under which Telex is required to deliver trailers to your company. According to your letter, Telex designs, integrates and/or fabricates all 'transport related' features of the trailer, including structure, wheels, axles, brakes, running lights, towing package, and other parts. You state that in your specifications, Telex is 'required to comply with the Code of Federal Regulations in the design and fabrication of the trailer.' After Harris receives a trailer from Telex, other parties in a contractual relationship with Harris permanently mount hardware, such as generators and radio equipment, onto the trailer. You asserted that this additional equipment does not result in exceeding or modifying the GAWR or GVWR of the trailer, which comes from Telex. After the vendors have mounted the hardware onto the trailer, Harris delivers the finished trailer to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pursuant to a Federal contract with that agency. My answers to the questions posed in your letter are based on the above understanding of the facts. I will now address the specific questions posed in your letter. Questions One and Two: Is Telex the complete vehicle manufacturer of this trailer? What process(es) are proper for certification of the trailer? Response: Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the trailers delivered to Harris by Telex are 'completed vehicles' within the meaning of 49 CFR 568.3. That section defines a 'completed vehicle' as: a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting. The determination of whether a vehicle meets this definition is made at the time it is delivered to the purchaser. In this case, the vehicles delivered to Harris by Telex are trailers which, according to your letter, already have the body structure, wheels, axles, brakes, lights, towing package, and all other components that are necessary for the trailer to be used as is without any further manufacturing operations. Assuming this is the case, these vehicles are completed vehicles because they do not require any further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function as trailers. Hence, Telex must certify that each of its completed vehicles conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle standards, as specified in 49 CFR 567.4. This certification should appear on the trailer at the time it is delivered to Harris. However, Telex is not the only party that must certify that the trailers conform to applicable safety standards. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that the parties that permanently mount hardware to these trailers are 'alterers,' and must affix their own certifications that the trailers conform to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration, after they have mounted the hardware to the trailer. Alterers that are required to affix certification labels in accordance with 567.7 are defined in that section as follows: A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with 567.4 or 567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, ... * * * * * The parties that permanently mount hardware to the trailers delivered by Telex are altering previously certified vehicles before the first purchase of the trailer in good faith for purposes other than resale. The only conditions in which these alterers would not be required to affix their own certification labels to each trailer on which they permanently mount hardware would be: 1. The hardware consisted of 'readily attachable components,' or 2. Permanently mounting this hardware is only a 'minor finishing operation.' Based on the information you have provided, neither of these exceptions would apply to these parties. Equipment of the sort described in your letter (generators, powerful radio antennas, communications equipment, etc.) are not 'readily attachable components.' Similarly, the operations performed by these parties appear to be far more sophisticated than 'minor finishing operations.' Since the requirements set forth in 49 CFR 567.7 appear to apply to these parties, the parties must make the certification specified in that section. To summarize, alterers must allow the certification labels affixed by the original manufacturer (Telex, in this case) to remain in place and affix their own certification labels in accordance with 567.7. The alterers' certification label must identify the alterer and the month and year in which the alterations were performed, and state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. The information you have provided suggests that your company simply purchases the trailers from Telex and delivers the trailers to the two parties to be altered. Assuming that your company does not itself either manufacture or alter these trailers before delivering them to FEMA, your company is not required to make any certification pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. However, since the parties that are altering the Telex trailers are doing so under contract to Harris, Harris could, if it chooses to do so, assume the certification responsibilities for the parties with whom it has contracted. In that case, Harris would have to affix a certification label in accordance with 567.7 that identifies Harris as the alterer of the trailers. Question Three: If you rule that Telex has certification responsibility for the trailer, do we have any recourse through your office to enforce certification of the trailer? Assuming that the facts presented in your letter and our understanding of those facts are correct, Telex must certify that the trailers it delivers comply with all applicable safety standards and each party that has mounted hardware inside the trailer must certify that the trailer complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. If you believe that you have information showing that some party has failed to comply with its certification responsibilities or any other requirement in our regulations or safety standards, we would appreciate it if you would forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address. That office will investigate the matter and take appropriate action. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3347OpenMr. Gene S. Rosenfeld, President, Elgene Tire Company, Milltown Road, Union, New Jersey 07083; Mr. Gene S. Rosenfeld President Elgene Tire Company Milltown Road Union New Jersey 07083; Dear Mr. Rosenfeld: This responds to your August 15, 1980 letter to this office requestin an interpretation of the requirements of Standard 120 (49 CFR S571.120). Specifically, you were concerned about paragraph S5.1.3, which permits the use of used tires on new vehicles other than passenger cars. The interpretations set forth below follow the same order used in your letter.; (1) New motor vehicles subject to Standard 120, which includes al motor vehicles other than passenger cars, may be equipped with used tires, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard, *provided*, that the used tires are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser and that they are installed on the vehicle at the request of the purchaser. This means that a vehicle manufacturer may not itself purchase used tires to install on new vehicles, nor may a vehicle purchaser authorize the manufacturer to install used tires not owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle.; (2) There is no limitation as to the axles on which used tires may b used. It would be permissible for a vehicle purchaser to ask a vehicle manufacturer to install the purchaser's used tires on each axle of the vehicle. The only requirement for axles in section S5.1.3 is that each axle must be equipped with tires, new or used, the sum of whose load ratings is at least equal to the gross axle weight rating for that axle.; (3) The used tires installed pursuant to paragraph S5.1.3 must b marked with the DOT number to indicate that the tires were originally manufactured in compliance with Standard 119. The January 1, 1978 date to which you referred means that all vehicles manufactured after that date and equipped with used tires under S5.1.3, must be equipped with used tires that originally complied with Standard 119 and have the DOT marking. The requirement does not mean that the used tires must have been originally manufactured on or after January 1, 1978, as you stated in your letter.; (4) for purposes of this section of Standard 120, used tires have bee interpreted to include retreaded tires. To repeat what I stated under answer number '1' above, your statement that the vehicle purchaser may use retreaded tires on his vehicle if he requests the manufacturer to install retreaded tires is not entirely accurate. The retreaded tires may only be used if they are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser.; The penalties for failure to comply with Standard 120 could be up t $1,000 for each violation, pursuant to the authority of sections 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1398). Since Standard 120 applies to vehicles, the vehicles manufacturer would be responsible for any violation. This agency considers each separate use of an unauthorized tire on a vehicle to be a separate violation. For example, if a vehicle had six tires and each failed to comply with the requirements of Standard 120, the vehicle would have six violations, and civil penalties of up to $6,000 could be assessed against the vehicle manufacturer.; Enforcement of Standard No. 120 is under the general provisions of th Vehicle Safety Act. There are no special enforcement procedures. The agency has investigators who check vehicles to ensure that they comply with the applicable standards. If there is a noncompliance, the agency has the authority to sue the violator in a Federal court to collect the civil penalties, pursuant to section 105 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394).; If the new vehicles were shipped without tires, as you suggested in th last question in your letter, Standard 120 would not apply to the vehicles. Section S5.1.1 specifies that the requirements of this standard apply to 'each vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service.' Only vehicles so equipped are subject to Standard 120.; You should be aware of the fact that this agency will soon publish notice proposing changes in the requirements of section S5.1.3 of Standard 120. If your would like a copy of that proposal after it is published, or have any further questions on this matter, please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5239OpenMr. Sam C. Nigro Bus Product Manager Webasto Thermosystems 1598 E. Lincoln Madison Heights, MI 48071; Mr. Sam C. Nigro Bus Product Manager Webasto Thermosystems 1598 E. Lincoln Madison Heights MI 48071; "Dear Mr. Nigro: This responds to your letter about auxiliary heater fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid natural gas (LNG) for installation on buses using those alternative fuels. You stated that your company currently manufactures auxiliary heaters for diesel fueled buses, and is interested in developing heaters that would 'burn CNG and LNG same as the engine.' In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you would like information about NHTSA's current requirements for auxiliary heaters on alternative fueled buses and the agency's future plans in this area. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering auxiliary heaters of any kind, and I am not aware of any plans to issue standards in this area. Nevertheless, an auxiliary heater is an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you 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-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the heater 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. As Mr. Shaw informed you on the telephone, earlier this year NHTSA proposed to issue a safety standard that would apply to CNG tanks (i.e., containers designed to store CNG as motor vehicle fuel on-board a motor vehicle) and vehicles using CNG as a fuel (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If this proposed standard is adopted, it would affect your product in the following manner. If your heater were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's, including the CNG fuel system standard. If the heater were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. These certification requirements apply to the vehicle manufacturer and alterer regardless of whether the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system. Of course, if the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system, the vehicle's compliance with the CNG standard should be carefully scrutinized. If the heater were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not be subject to the certification requirements outlined above. Instead, the installer would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including the CNG standard. This is required by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. If the modification of the vehicle entailed connecting the heater to the vehicle's fuel system, compliance with the CNG standard would be especially germane to whether 108(a)(2)(A) were violated. The prohibition of 108(a(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSS's. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. The certification responsibilities discussed above would affect vehicle manufacturers even if the proposed CNG standard is not adopted or is not yet effective when you market your product. Except for FMVSS 301, which sets fuel system integrity requirements for gasoline and diesel-powered buses under 10,000 pounds GVWR, all of the FMVSS's that apply to a diesel- or gasoline- powered vehicle now apply to a CNG-powered vehicle. A manufacturer of a CNG- powered vehicle who installs your heater as original equipment must certify the vehicle to those standards, regardless if the CNG FMVSS is among them. Similarly, a vehicle alterer would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS's. The 'render inoperative' prohibition would also apply even in the absence of a CNG FMVSS. The commercial entity listed in 108(a)(2)(A) who installs the heater on a CNG-powered vehicle would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any FMVSS that applies to the vehicle, even if a CNG standard is not among them. I am enclosing for your information a copy of NHTSA's proposed FMVSS for CNG tanks and vehicles. Also enclosed is a fact sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. As you are aware, the Federal Highway Administration has issued a regulation applicable to heaters on commercial vehicles. (49 CFR 393.77). You can contact the FHWA for an interpretation of its regulations at the following address: Theodore McConnell Chief Counsel Federal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590 I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5238OpenMr. Sam C. Nigro Bus Product Manager Webasto Thermosystems 1598 E. Lincoln Madison Heights, MI 48071; Mr. Sam C. Nigro Bus Product Manager Webasto Thermosystems 1598 E. Lincoln Madison Heights MI 48071; "Dear Mr. Nigro: This responds to your letter about auxiliary heater fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid natural gas (LNG) for installation on buses using those alternative fuels. You stated that your company currently manufactures auxiliary heaters for diesel fueled buses, and is interested in developing heaters that would 'burn CNG and LNG same as the engine.' In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you would like information about NHTSA's current requirements for auxiliary heaters on alternative fueled buses and the agency's future plans in this area. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering auxiliary heaters of any kind, and I am not aware of any plans to issue standards in this area. Nevertheless, an auxiliary heater is an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you 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-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the heater 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. As Mr. Shaw informed you on the telephone, earlier this year NHTSA proposed to issue a safety standard that would apply to CNG tanks (i.e., containers designed to store CNG as motor vehicle fuel on-board a motor vehicle) and vehicles using CNG as a fuel (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If this proposed standard is adopted, it would affect your product in the following manner. If your heater were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's, including the CNG fuel system standard. If the heater were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. These certification requirements apply to the vehicle manufacturer and alterer regardless of whether the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system. Of course, if the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system, the vehicle's compliance with the CNG standard should be carefully scrutinized. If the heater were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not be subject to the certification requirements outlined above. Instead, the installer would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including the CNG standard. This is required by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. If the modification of the vehicle entailed connecting the heater to the vehicle's fuel system, compliance with the CNG standard would be especially germane to whether 108(a)(2)(A) were violated. The prohibition of 108(a(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSS's. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. The certification responsibilities discussed above would affect vehicle manufacturers even if the proposed CNG standard is not adopted or is not yet effective when you market your product. Except for FMVSS 301, which sets fuel system integrity requirements for gasoline and diesel-powered buses under 10,000 pounds GVWR, all of the FMVSS's that apply to a diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicle now apply to a CNG-powered vehicle. A manufacturer of a CNG-powered vehicle who installs your heater as original equipment must certify the vehicle to those standards, regardless if the CNG FMVSS is among them. Similarly, a vehicle alterer would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS's. The 'render inoperative' prohibition would also apply even in the absence of a CNG FMVSS. The commercial entity listed in 108(a)(2)(A) who installs the heater on a CNG-powered vehicle would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any FMVSS that applies to the vehicle, even if a CNG standard is not among them. I am enclosing for your information a copy of NHTSA's proposed FMVSS for CNG tanks and vehicles. Also enclosed is a fact sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. As you are aware, the Federal Highway Administration has issued a regulation applicable to heaters on commercial vehicles. (49 CFR 393.77). You can contact the FHWA for an interpretation of its regulations at the following address: Theodore McConnell Chief Counsel Federal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590 I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3945OpenAB Tunaverken, Narjeholmevagen 18, S-633 46 Eskilstuna, SWEDEN (Sverige); AB Tunaverken Narjeholmevagen 18 S-633 46 Eskilstuna SWEDEN (Sverige); Dear Sirs: This responds to your recent letter to this office seeking informatio about this agency's requirements applicable to the importation of rims for use on trucks and buses. You were particularly interested in learning the requirements for you to use the DOT symbol on your rims, and asked what technical support the agency would need to make that determination.; All rims for use on trucks and buses which are imported into or sold i the United States customs territory must satisfy Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.120, copy enclosed). This standard specifies two requirements applicable to these rims. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims mounted on a new vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle. That is, the rims size must be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer. This requirement is the sole responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will be mounted on the rim.; The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim b marked by the rim manufacturer with five specified items of information. These are:; >>>(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim' published nominal dimensions,; (2) The rim's size designation and, in the case of multi-piece rims the rim type designation,; (3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the ri manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards,; (4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark or symbol, and; (5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.<<< You stated that you were interested in knowing the requirements for yo to mark your rims with the symbol 'DOT.' The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity test the rims to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the Untied States, the individual rim manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with all applicable standards. In the case of rims for use on trucks and buses, Standard No. 120 contains all the applicable requirements. The certification need not be based on actual tests, the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Obviously, with respect to the requirements for rims for use on trucks and buses, no testing is necessary since the standard only sets marking requirements for those rims. Once the manufacturer determines that these rims satisfy those requirements, it marks the symbol 'DOT' on the rims.; If either your company or this agency determines that the imported rim do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 or determine that the rims contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company would be required to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Section 154 (a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if the rims fail to comply with Standard No. 120 or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect of noncompliance and must either:; >>>(1) repair the rim so that the defect or noncompliance is removed or; (2) replace the rim with an identical or reasonably equivalent rim tha does not have a defect or noncompliance.<<<; Whichever of these options is chosen, the rim manufacturer must bea the full expense and cannot charge the rim owner for the remedy if the rim was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.; Additionally, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which appl to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This requires either the actual manufacturer of the rims or your company as the importer to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to the agency within 30 days of the date these wheels arrive in the United States.; The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, *Procedural Rules*. Thi regulation requires that actual manufacturer of these rims to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agency for service of process in this county. Your company may be designated as the agent, if the manufacturer so chooses. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agency must contain the following six items of information:; >>>1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and bindin on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address of your company,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed b the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.<<< This designation must be received by this agency before these wheel and rims are imported into the United States.; If you need further information, or a clarification of any of th information set forth herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4849OpenMs. Nancy J. Hunt Bankston & McDowell 3700 Chevron Tower 1301 McKinney Houston, TX 77010; Ms. Nancy J. Hunt Bankston & McDowell 3700 Chevron Tower 1301 McKinney Houston TX 77010; "Dear Ms. Hunt: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about test conditions in Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity (49 CFR 571.301, copy enclosed). In particular, you asked whether the spare tire must be in its proper place inside a vehicle at the time of testing. You also asked whether the spare tire must be in the vehicle during other types of vehicle testing. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you. Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidelines are called compliance test procedures and are available through the NHTSA Technical Reference Library. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities. The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written. With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 301 when they are tested in accordance with the test conditions set forth in section S7 of the standard. This section specifies the general test conditions under Standard No. 301. However, this section does not specify whether a spare tire must be included during the testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 301 may be based on tests with or without the spare tire, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 301 are satisfied. You should be aware that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that if the spare tire is standard equipment, it should be inflated to the vehicle manufacturer's specifications and be in the vehicle during the agency's compliance testing (see page 27 of the 'OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures,' copy enclosed). Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to include a spare tire that is standard equipment, absence of a spare tire might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the requirements of Standard No. 301. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, you should feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3456OpenMs. Nancy Nishmura, Global Link, Inc., 548 Rose Avenue, Venice, CA 90291; Ms. Nancy Nishmura Global Link Inc. 548 Rose Avenue Venice CA 90291; Dear Ms. Nishmura: This letter confirms your recent telephone conversations with Joa Griffin of my staff regarding Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. You asked Ms. Griffin what safety standards apply to the manufacture of automotive glazing materials, and whether glazing manufacturers must obtain prior approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) before manufacturing and marketing their products.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 197 (the Act), authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, specifies performance requirements for glazing materials to be used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' Z26.1-1966 (ANS Z26). The requirements of Standard No. 205 are set forth in ANS Z26 in terms of performance tests that the various types or 'Items' of glazing must pass. There are 13 'Items' of glazing for which requirements are specified in the standard. Copies of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z26 were sent to you at an earlier date.; NHTSA does not require or offer prior approval of compliance of an vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle in accordance with that determination. Standard No. 205 sets forth specific certification and marking requirements in paragraph S6. It is our understanding that you represent Asahi Glass Co., a manufacturer of glazing materials. The requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) such as Asahi are set forth in paragraphs S6.1-6.3. These paragraphs require each prime glazing material manufacturer to mark the glazing materials in accordance to ANS Z26 and Section 114 of the Act. Section 6 of ANS Z26 requires that the glazing be permanently marked with the words 'American Standard' or the letters 'AS', a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, the manufacturer's trademark or designation, and the 'Item' number. Paragraph S6.2 further requires the manufacturer to mark the glazing with the symbol 'DOT' and the manufacturer's code mark, which is assigned by NHTSA. The code mark assigned to Ahasi Glass Co. is '20'. Section 114 of the Act provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Standard No. 205.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that: >>>No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, o introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard....<<<; Section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation o Section 108. However, Section 108(b)(1) provides that there is no violation of Section 108 if the person establishes that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment does not conform to certain standards. Thus, Asahi does not necessarily have to follow the test procedures set forth in ANS Z26 in determining that glazing complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. As long as the manufacturer acts with due care, he can certify that his glazing materials comply with the standard based on means other than such testing. For example, it should be sufficient to use analytical means alone if they are reliable predictors of how glazing would perform when tested. The procedures set forth in ANS Z26 are the procedures that the agency will follow in doing its compliance testing.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact Joan Griffi (202- 426-9511) if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4093OpenMr. A. G. Beier, Chief Engineer, Brakes/Wheels, Navistar, P.O. Box 1109, Fort Wayne, IN 46801; Mr. A. G. Beier Chief Engineer Brakes/Wheels Navistar P.O. Box 1109 Fort Wayne IN 46801; Dear Mr. Beier: This responds to your letter concerning whether the Mini-Max brak system, produced by International Transquip Industries, Inc., complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. We apologize for the delay in our response. According to your letter, you have a number of concerns about the quality of the Mini-Max unit. You expressed concern about a letter from International Transquip which asserts that the Mini-Max brake system complies with FMVSS No. 121 and provides the names of Mr. James Brittel and Mr. Gerald Davis, both of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS), for 'further confirmation.' You asked several questions which are answered below.; Your first question is whether a June 6, 1984 letter signed by Mr Gerald Davis of BMCS denotes approval of Mini-Max by either BMCS or NHTSA. Mr. Davis' letter indicates that BMCS reviewed material furnished by International Transquip concerning that company's parking brake system (i.e., the Mini-Max system) and states that the system 'appears to meet an interpretation issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in April 1974' an interpretation dated April 16, 1974, concerning FMVSS No. 121 .; As stated by Mr. Davis in his letter, the Federal Highwa Administration has a long-standing policy of not approving equipment. Likewise, NHTSA does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment with respect to their compliance or noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, under which the standards are issued, provides that it is the manufacturers which have the responsibility for certifying the compliance of their products with the FMVSS.; Your second question is whether a 'certification of compliance provided by International Transquip has any significance. The document in question states that the Mini-Max brake system when installed per details provided by International Transquip meets or exceeds all Federal motor vehicle safety standards and Federal Highway Administration standards pertaining to air brake systems for trucks, buses and trailers as to fleet owners and operators. I will address your question to the extent of possible significance to compliance with FMVSS No. 121.; FMVSS No. 121 applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with ai brake systems. See section S3, *Application*. The standard thus applies to vehicles and not directly to equipment. As an equipment manufacturer, International Transquip is not required to certify compliance of Mini-Max to Standard No. 121, but any vehicle manufacturer which would install Mini-Max would be required to make such certification. It is not uncommon for a vehicle manufacturer to request information from an equipment manufacturer as part of fulfilling its duty to exercise due care in certifying that a vehicle complies with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the responsibility for certification is on the vehicle manufacturer.; It is our opinion that reliance by a vehicle manufacturer solely on 'certification of compliance' provided by an equipment manufacturer, without more, would not be an exercise of due care. Moreover, should it be determined that a vehicle does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or contains a defect, the recall and remedy obligations of sec. 151 *et seq.* of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would fall upon the vehicle manufacturer and not the equipment manufacturer which supplied particular equipment. See 49 CFR Part 579. Possible liability in tort under state law could fall upon both the vehicle manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer.; Your third question is whether NHTSA has run any tests on the Mini-Ma unit and, if so, what the results were. NHTSA has not run any compliance tests on a Mini-Max unit but has run some tests for purposes of research and development. It is our understanding that Mr. Sid Williams of NHTSA's Office of Research and Development has already discussed these tests with you. It is also our understanding that International Transquip may have changed the design of the Mini-Max system since the tests were run.; We note that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised a number o issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and three related interpretation letters, to International Transquip, the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles, and P.T. Brake Lining Company. The CHP and Mini- Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590 (202-426-2768).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.