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: aiam4435OpenThe Honorable Beverly B. Byron Member of Congress U.S. House of Representatives Westminster District Office 6 North Court Street Westminster, MD 21157; The Honorable Beverly B. Byron Member of Congress U.S. House of Representatives Westminster District Office 6 North Court Street Westminster MD 21157; "Dear Ms. Byron: Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr., who received a citation from the Maryland State Police, Automotive Safety Enforcement Division, for noncomplying window tinting. You asked us to review Mr. Ciampa's letter and provide you with our comments and appropriate information. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so. Mr. Ciampa suffers from diabetes, which makes his eyes extremely sensitive to sunlight. Because of this, the side windows on his passenger automobile apparently were tinted such that the tinted glazing no longer complied with State of Maryland requirements. There is no indication whether Mr. Ciampa did the tinting on his own or had an aftermarket business do it. According to Mr. Ciampa's letter, he was previously given a medical exemption by the State of Maryland that permitted him to drive with windows tinted differently than Maryland law permits. However, Mr. Ciampa stated that Maryland officials have now told him that the Federal government will not allow Maryland to grant any more medical exemptions. This information is inaccurate. Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light transmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute. The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including the tinting performed on the side windows of Mr. Ciampa's car, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation. Again, Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the 'render inoperative' prohibition in Federal law. Thus, the State of Maryland does not have any authority to permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses to install tinting on the side windows of passenger cars if such tinting causes those windows to have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed such tinting on Mr. Ciampa's side windows would be liable for the civil penalty discussed above. Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows. However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Maryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, not the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel cc: Washington Office Constituent's Correspondence"; |
|
ID: aiam5088OpenMr. Thomas Price ABAS Marketing, Inc. P.O. Box 5644 Norman, OK 73070; Mr. Thomas Price ABAS Marketing Inc. P.O. Box 5644 Norman OK 73070; "Dear Mr. Price: This responds to your letter asking about requirement for a device you call a 'noncomputerized antilock braking assist system,' for brakes installed on trucks and trailers. You stated that your device can be installed on vehicles equipped with air brake, electric brake, air over hydraulic brake, and vacuum/hydraulic brake systems. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. You asked what the agency's policy is regarding the approval, disapproval, or certification of any particular antilock brake system product. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act'), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. You also asked for a listing of the various standards and regulations with which you should be conversant, given your product, and an explanation of the responsibilities under the Safety Act of three types of parties: an original equipment manufacturer, an alterer of a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, and an installer of an ABS device on a used motor vehicle. NHTSA has issued two standards about brake systems: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 105 specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses equipped with hydraulic brake systems. Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The agency does not have a regulation specifically covering a device such as a 'noncomputerized antilock braking assist system' which is added to a brake system. However, since your device would be tied into a vehicle's brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121. If one of your devices is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 105 and Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.) If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A).) You should also be aware of the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, which specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. That standard applies to new motor vehicle equipment as well as to new motor vehicles. You should check to see if any parts of your devices are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106. I also note that manufacturers of aftermarket equipment are subject to the Safety Act's defect provisions. Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required to notify purchasers and dealers and provide a cost-free remedy for the defect. Enclosed is a copy of an information sheet entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment,' which further explains a manufacturer's responsibilities under NHTSA's regulations. You may also wish to review the Federal Highway Administration's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which set forth requirements for commercial motor vehicles. The address of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards is included in the enclosed information sheet. Finally, you asked how you could secure or have access to the complete Docket No. 92-29-01. This docket includes responses to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in which NHTSA announced that it is considering proposing additional requirements that might require medium and heavy duty vehicles to be equipped with antilock brake systems. The complete docket, including all the responses to the ANPRM, can be reviewed at the agency's Docket Section, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590. Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A complete copy of the docket is also available for a fee to cover search and copying costs by contacting the agency's technical reference division at (202) 366-4949. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please 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 Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4608OpenMr. Jack Satkoski Spectra Enterprises East 832 11th Avenue Spokane, WA 99202-2502; Mr. Jack Satkoski Spectra Enterprises East 832 11th Avenue Spokane WA 99202-2502; "Dear Mr. Satkoski: This responds to your letter asking for informatio about the application of Federal safety standards to a 'sun visor extender' which 'attaches by means of velcro straps to the existing auto, truck, or RV's sun visor.' I regret the delay in responding. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a sun visor extender sold directly to a consumer. The Federal safety standard that regulates sun visors (Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact) applies only to new motor vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale) and not to items of aftermarket equipment such as a sun visor extender. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your sun visors contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. As stated above, the sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Safety Standard No. 201, which requires that the visor be 'constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material' and that the visor's mounting must 'present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form.' The purpose of the standard is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. If your sun visor extender were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor, as modified by that installation, would have to comply with the visor requirements of the standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 201 for your review. Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). This standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including sun visors, on new vehicles. If a new vehicle manufacturer installs your product on the new vehicle, that manufacturer would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the sun visor conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard and that the extender does not interfere with or prevent that ability to comply. A commercial business that installs the sun visor on new or used vehicles would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your sun visor extender on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the device would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not reduce the effectiveness of those features and aspects of performance of the sun visor that enabled the visor to comply with Standard No. 201 or Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the sun visor extender, even if doing so would negatively affect the safety performance of the sun visor. In addition to the materials described above, we are also returning herewith the photograph and sketches you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information whose confidentiality you have asked us to maintain. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1722OpenMr. Frank L. Wigand Jr., Engineering Department, Todco Division, 2195 Alpine Way, Hayward, CA 94545; Mr. Frank L. Wigand Jr. Engineering Department Todco Division 2195 Alpine Way Hayward CA 94545; Dear Mr. Wigand: This responds to your November 17, 1974, letter asking whether trailer converter dolly which may also be coupled to a two-axle truck-tractor as a 'third axle attachment' (the Jifflox) must be equipped with a spring brake parking system to conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems.*; Our November 4, 1974, response (copy enclosed) to your September 27 1974, questions on the same subject states that the Jifflox would be exempt from parking brake requirements if it is manufactured and sold for use as a trailer converter dolly. A trailer converter dolly is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as a trailer equipped with one or more axles, a lower half of a fifth wheel, and a drawbar.; You questioned our conclusion of November 4, 1974, that a truck-tracto which is manufactured to accept the Jifflox must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the standard with the Jifflox in place. You argue that the Jifflox is simply another towed vehicle which meets the requirements applicable to trailer converter dollies.; The NHTSA has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept a optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with that component installed. Specifically, in response to inquiries from Volkswagen, the NHTSA stated that a vehicle designed to accept an air conditioner, must be capable of meeting barrier crash requirements with the weight of an air conditioner installed.; Similarly, a vehicle designed to accept certain components must b capable of meeting Standard No. 121 with those components attached. For example, a truck-tractor designed to accept a cargo box forward of the fifth wheel must be capable of meeting all requirements of Standard No. 121 with that cargo box in place.; It is even more important that a vehicle design which involve modification of the air lines to accept the Jifflox must be capable of meeting all requirements of the standard with the Jifflox attached. The Jifflox connections, for example, can affect the actuation and release times of the truck air brake system. Also, the added GAWR capabilities of two rear axles would affect the stopping capabilities of the truck-tractor loaded to GVWR. Other standards (e.g., Standard No. 108, *Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment*) could be affected by the addition of Jifflox.; Thus we would require manufacturers of truck-tractors that are designe to accept the Jiffloox to certify compliance with Jifflox attached. We noted in our November 4, 1974, letter that, if the truck manufacturer determines that parking brakes are required on the Jifflox axle to meet S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, those parking brakes would have to be applied by an energy source that is not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4776OpenDonald C. J. Gray, Commissioner Federal Supply Service General Services Administration Washington, DC 20406; Donald C. J. Gray Commissioner Federal Supply Service General Services Administration Washington DC 20406; "Dear Mr. Gray: This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, ou Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Your letter noted that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not apply to vehicles that are 'manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications.' You asked if this exception could be interpreted as applying to school buses purchased by the General Services Administration for the sole use of the Army. The answer to your specific question is 'yes.' Those buses would be regarded as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces. The exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c) reflects a balancing of competing interests. On the one hand, Congress specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that all new motor vehicles sold in the United States must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. On the other hand, NHTSA recognizes the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles. When the Armed Forces include specifications in a contract stating how the vehicles shall be produced and as a result the vehicles do not conform with some safety standards, this presumably reflects a judgment by the Armed Forces that the specialized capabilities needed in the vehicle are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the general interest in ensuring that Armed Forces' vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. To reflect both of these competing interests, NHTSA tailored a narrow exception to the broad requirement that all motor vehicles sold in the United States be certified as complying with the safety standards. This exception, reflected in the language of 49 CFR 571.7(c), provides that the safety standards do not apply to vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that are: manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications. We would regard the buses as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces despite the fact that the purchasing was performed by the GSA instead of some element of the Armed Forces. The essential element of this criterion is that the Armed Forces be the principal. In this case, the Armed Forces would be the principal, and the GSA would simply be acting as its agent. We see no meaningful difference between a sale to an element of the Armed Forces and one to the GSA acting as agent for the Armed Forces, as long as the vehicles are for the sole use of the military. Our conclusions in this regard are consistent with several 1975 agency interpretations informing brake hose manufacturers that brake hoses manufactured according to military specifications and sold to military contractors for incorporation in vehicles to be sold to the military could be regarded as equipment sold directly to the Armed Forces. Please note that to qualify for this exemption, the buses must be manufactured for the Armed Forces 'in conformity with contractual specifications.' In the interest of safety, we strongly recommend that the GSA or the Army, as appropriate, include the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses in those specifications, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended usage of the buses. I hope this response is useful. If you can provide me with further information, I would be happy to provide further guidance. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4777OpenDonald C. J. Gray, Commissioner Federal Supply Service General Services Administration Washington, DC 20406; Donald C. J. Gray Commissioner Federal Supply Service General Services Administration Washington DC 20406; "Dear Mr. Gray: This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, ou Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Your letter noted that 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not apply to vehicles that are 'manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications.' You asked if this exception could be interpreted as applying to school buses purchased by the General Services Administration for the sole use of the Army. The answer to your specific question is 'yes.' Those buses would be regarded as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces. The exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c) reflects a balancing of competing interests. On the one hand, Congress specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that all new motor vehicles sold in the United States must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. On the other hand, NHTSA recognizes the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles. When the Armed Forces include specifications in a contract stating how the vehicles shall be produced and as a result the vehicles do not conform with some safety standards, this presumably reflects a judgment by the Armed Forces that the specialized capabilities needed in the vehicle are sufficiently compelling to outweigh the general interest in ensuring that Armed Forces' vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. To reflect both of these competing interests, NHTSA tailored a narrow exception to the broad requirement that all motor vehicles sold in the United States be certified as complying with the safety standards. This exception, reflected in the language of 49 CFR 571.7(c), provides that the safety standards do not apply to vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that are: manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications. We would regard the buses as having been sold directly to the Armed Forces despite the fact that the purchasing was performed by the GSA instead of some element of the Armed Forces. The essential element of this criterion is that the Armed Forces be the principal. In this case, the Armed Forces would be the principal, and the GSA would simply be acting as its agent. We see no meaningful difference between a sale to an element of the Armed Forces and one to the GSA acting as agent for the Armed Forces, as long as the vehicles are for the sole use of the military. Our conclusions in this regard are consistent with several 1975 agency interpretations informing brake hose manufacturers that brake hoses manufactured according to military specifications and sold to military contractors for incorporation in vehicles to be sold to the military could be regarded as equipment sold directly to the Armed Forces. Please note that to qualify for this exemption, the buses must be manufactured for the Armed Forces 'in conformity with contractual specifications.' In the interest of safety, we strongly recommend that the GSA or the Army, as appropriate, include the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses in those specifications, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended usage of the buses. I hope this response is useful. If you can provide me with further information, I would be happy to provide further guidance. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5311OpenMr. Richard A. Zander AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds 32104 State Road 2 New Carlisle, IN 46552; Mr. Richard A. Zander AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds 32104 State Road 2 New Carlisle IN 46552; "Dear Mr. Zander: This responds to your letter asking about the fad and recovery requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You noted that the standard requires vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to be capable of making a specified number of fade stops 'at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop.' You stated that you are aware of a number of different understandings within the industry of the quoted phrase, and requested an interpretation as to whether vehicles must be capable of maintaining an average deceleration of at least 15 fpsps or a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps. As discussed below, vehicles must be capable of maintaining a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Standard No. 105's fade and recovery test requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1. The purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions cause by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Each of the fade and recovery tests consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops, (2) fade stops, and (3) recovery stops. The requirements for the fade stops are set forth in S5.1.4.2(a), which states that: Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less shall be capable of making 5 fade stops (10 fade stops on the second test) from 60 mph at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop, followed by 5 fade stops at the maximum deceleration attainable from 5 to 15 fpsps.' As you noted, S5.1.4.2(a) must be read in conjunction with S7.11.2.1, which sets forth the procedure for conducting the fade stops. It reads, in relevant part, as follows: Make 5 stops from 60 mph at 15 fpsps followed by 5 stops at the maximum attainable deceleration between 5 and 15 fpsps for each stop. ... Attain the required deceleration within 1 second and, as a minimum, maintain it for the remainder of the stopping time. Control force readings may be terminated when the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. (Emphasis added.) The words 'required deceleration' in S7.11.2.1 refer to 15 fpsps. (That value is set forth both in S5.1.4.2(a) and the first sentence of S7.11.2.1.) Thus, in conducting fade stops, within one second of beginning a stop, a deceleration of 15 fpsps must be attained. S7.11.2.1 then specifies that, 'as a minimum,' the required deceleration (15 fpsps) must be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. (The word 'it' in the highlighted sentence refers back to the phrase 'required deceleration.') Thus, after a deceleration of 15 fpsps is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even momentarily. You stated that you are aware of the following three understandings within the industry concerning the meaning of this requirement: 1. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps. The average deceleration is calculated from one second after the stop begins to a vehicle speed of 5 mph. 2. After 1 second the deceleration can not drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. If the deceleration drops below 15 fpsps at any time it is considered a failure even if the average deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps. 3. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps and the deceleration must be greater than 15 fpsps for at least 75% of the stop excluding the first second of the stop. Of the three understandings, the first and third are inconsistent with the plain wording of S7.11.2.1 which specifies that, after the required 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), it must, as a minimum, be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. The first and third understandings would, among other things, replace S7.11.2.1's specification that the 15 fpsps deceleration be maintained as a 'minimum' with one that it be maintained as an 'average.' The second understanding is largely correct. It is correct to state that, in conducting a fade stop, after a 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. However, if the deceleration did drop below 15 fpsps, that would not necessarily indicate a 'failure' but might simply be an invalid test. As you note in your letter, a deceleration might fall below 15 fpsps because the driver did not compensate for in-stop fade. However, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates. You stated in your letter that the second understanding appears to not consider the intent of the fade procedure, the intent being that a vehicle must be capable of making multiple high deceleration stops in a short period of time without drastic changes in effectiveness. As discussed above, the purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions cause by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. If a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would indicate inadequate stopping capability during conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. You also stated that in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, published by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC), the data sheet for the fade stops requests the following information for the deceleration: 'Average Sust Decel.' You stated that it therefore appears that NHTSA's interpretation of the phrase 'at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop' is 'the average sustained deceleration.' It is incorrect to interpret the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures as limiting the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I call your attention to the following note which is set forth at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure: The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures. I am enclosing a copy of the most recent version of the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, in response to your request. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3020OpenMr. John Cordner, Technical Assistant, Product Compliance, Subaru of America, Inc., 7040 Central Highway, Pennsauken, NJ 08109; Mr. John Cordner Technical Assistant Product Compliance Subaru of America Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennsauken NJ 08109; Dear Mr. Cordner: This is in response to your letter of April 23, 1979, in which yo requested the agency's opinion whether a four-wheel drive hatchback sedan could be classified as a multi- purpose passenger vehicle (MPV).; As was stated by Eileen Leahy of my staff in telephone conversation regarding your request, the agency cannot give an opinion regarding this vehicle's classification for purposes of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards without knowing whether the vehicle has any special features for off-road use other than four-wheel drive. An MPV is defined in 49 CFR S 571.3(b) as 'a motor vehicle with motor power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' Since the vehicle you describe is not constructed on a truck chassis, it must have 'special features for occasional off-road operation' in order to qualify as an MPV. The agency interprets this language as requiring that the vehicle contain more than a single feature designed for off-road use. This interpretation is based on the use of the word 'features' in the plural rather than the singular in the definition, and on the fact that a vehicle's total design determines its likely use. Four-wheel drive would be useful in snow on public streets, roads and highways, so this feature cannot be determinative of the vehicle's classification if there are no features for off-road use.; Also, the agency is reluctant to exempt a vehicle from compliance wit any of its safety standards purely on the grounds that it is equipped with four-wheel drive. There is little likelihood that a vehicle that is identical to a passenger car in every other respect will be used differently than other passenger cars. Under these circumstances, the agency sees no reason for treating such vehicles any differently from other passenger cars with respect to the applicability of safety standards.; Therefore, unless you can provide us with additional informatio (including, but not limited to, pictures or drawings of the vehicle) concerning other special features of this vehicle that would make it suitable for off-road operation, the agency cannot concur with the opinion expressed in your letter that this vehicle should be classified as a multipurpose vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Also, I would refer you to 49 CFR S 523.5(b)(2) for a description of some of the characteristics that would be considered as 'special features for off-road operation' although that section relates primarily to fuel economy.; If you will provide us with additional information, we will be happy t offer a final opinion.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2718OpenMs. Marguerite Orth, Director of Finance, Hendrickson Mfg. Co., 8001 West Forty-Seventh Street, Lyons, IL 60534; Ms. Marguerite Orth Director of Finance Hendrickson Mfg. Co. 8001 West Forty-Seventh Street Lyons IL 60534; Dear Ms. Orth: This responds to your October 25, 1977, letter and subsequen conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff asking several hypothetical questions concerning the date of manufacture of vehicles and the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to those vehicles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) i interested in the compliance of motor vehicles with safety standards. The agency does not regulate the model year designation of vehicles. You should note that sale as 'new' of a vehicle, which for our purposes is 'used,' is regulated in many instances by the States. Further, you should consult the Federal Trade Commission with respect to the legality of calling such vehicles new, since that agency is concerned with any consumer fraud that might arise when a vehicle with used parts is sold as a new vehicle.; In your conversation with Mr. Tilton, you stated that you might alte the dates on the certificates of title for the chassis mentioned in your first question. This alteration would change, for example, a 1975 manufacturing date on the chassis title documents to a 1977 manufacturing date. I strongly urge you to obtain legal advice on the practice of altering the dates on these documents.; With respect to the application of Federal safety standards to you vehicles, you ask whether several vehicle chassis manufactured in previous years can be used in the manufacture of new 1977 motor vehicles. For purposes of the applicability of Federal safety standards, a manufacturer is permitted to select as the date of manufacture of a vehicle, the date of manufacture of the chassis, the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle, or any date between those two dates (Volume 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*). Therefore, for a chassis manufactured in previous years and subsequently included in a completed vehicle, the manufacturer has some freedom in the selection of the manufacturing date of the final vehicle. The date of manufacture of the vehicle, as chosen by the manufacturer, would be the date upon which the applicability of all safety standards would be judged, including those applicable to the chassis.; You should note that your Crane Chassis and Yard Tractor may not hav to comply with our requirements regardless of the date of their manufacture. The NHTSA's regulations apply only to motor vehicles which are primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. Accordingly, vehicles designed for off-road use do not have to comply with the agency's requirements. The determination of whether a vehicle is an off-road vehicle depends upon its use. I have enclosed an interpretive letter that describes the criteria for determining which vehicles are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89- 563).; In your final two questions you ask whether our regulations applicabl to glider kits and to rebuilt tractors allow you to consider those vehicles 'used' for the purposes of compliance with Federal safety standards, but 'new' for purposes of their sale. Our glider kit regulation, Part 571.7(3), and our regulations concerning combining new and used components in trailers, Part 571.7(f), describe the limited circumstances under which reconstructed vehicles are not required to meet new motor vehicle safety standards. If the vehicles you reference meet the guidelines established in Parts 571.7(e) and (f) they will not be considered new motor vehicles for purposes of application of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; I trust that this fully responds to your questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5625OpenMr. Robert R. Brester Director of Product Engineering Velvac Inc. 2900 South 160th Street New Berlin, WI 53151; Mr. Robert R. Brester Director of Product Engineering Velvac Inc. 2900 South 160th Street New Berlin WI 53151; "Dear Mr. Brester: This responds to your request for an interpretatio concerning how Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, affects the brake products you sell. According to your letter: Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking. The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached catalogue drawings . . . .) You stated that Mr. Richard Carter of this agency advised you that different combinations of braking components may be used to achieve the braking performance requirements of Standard No. 105, and that the responsibility of certifying vehicles to Standard No. 105 lies in the hands of your customers. This information is correct. However, you should be aware that some of the components listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with that standard. A further discussion of the issues raised by your letter is provided below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue several vehicle and/or equipment standards related to braking performance. These standards include the aforementioned Standards No. 105 and No. 106, as well as ones on air brake systems, motorcycle brake systems, and motor vehicle brake fluids. You specifically asked about Standard No. 105. That standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems. If your brake products are installed as original equipment on a new vehicle subject to Standard No. 105, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the products installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of that standard (as well as all other applicable safety standards). If your brake products are added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an 'alterer' under our regulations, and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If your products are installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a repair shop, the repair shop would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as the hydraulic brake system. Assuming you do not manufacture or alter new vehicles, you do not have a responsibility to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105. However, I note that some of the brake products listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106. That standard specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, end fittings and assemblies. Standard No. 106 applies not only to new vehicles, as is the case with Standard No. 105, but also to brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies that are sold individually or in kit form. Manufacturers of these items must certify that the equipment complies with Standard No. 106, and persons selling these items must sell only certified items. NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to statutory requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your products are 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. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes various responsibilities of motor vehicle manufacturers under our regulations, and information on how you can obtain copies of our standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
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.