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: aiam4792OpenMr. Ricky Bass Q. C. Manager Terminal Service Co. P.O. Box 1200 Tallahassee, FL 32302; Mr. Ricky Bass Q. C. Manager Terminal Service Co. P.O. Box 1200 Tallahassee FL 32302; Dear Mr. Bass: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, l990. Yo have asked whether it would be permissible to use a triple lamp cluster, each lamp containing a dual filament bulb, to perform identification and stop lamp functions on cargo tank trucks. The cluster would be mounted not less than l0 feet 6 inches above the road surface. You believe that with this design, the function of the identification lamp 'will be intact.' In telephone conversations with agency personnel on September ll, l990, you clarified that you would like to have this device installed on all new tank trucks, and installed on vehicles in use when they are returned for extensive repairs. The device is intended to supplement the vehicle's conventional stop lamps. With respect to new tank trucks, Standard No. 108 permits supplementary lighting equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard. The determination of impairment is to be made initially by the truck manufacturer in its certification of compliance with all applicable standards, and if the decision appears to be clearly erroneous, NHTSA will so inform the manufacturer. In the present case, the required lighting devices that concern us are the identification lamps, and the conventional stop lamps. As the triple cluster will continue to be illuminated, though with a somewhat greater intensity in the stop lamp mode, we do not consider that the device would impair the effectiveness of the identification lamps. As for whether the device would impair the effectiveness of the conventional stop lamps, we note that the triple lamp cluster will be located from 126 inches to 156 inches above the road surface. Under Standard No. 108, the conventional stop lamps cannot be located more than 72 inches from the road surface. We judge from the configuration of the tank truck that, in actuality, the lamps will be mounted substantially lower than 72 inches. We raise the possibility that the activation of the supplementary lamps, which are located at such a distance from the conventional ones, could create momentary confusion in a driver immediately following a truck equipped with the device. You also wish to install the device on trucks in use, when they are due for major repairs. The sole Federal restraint upon modifications of this nature is that, when performed by vehicle or equipment manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses, they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As we understand it, your company would perform these modifications on its own vehicles. Therefore, the prohibition would not come into play. Even if the modifications were done by, for example, a motor vehicle repair business, it would be substituting one type of identification lamp for another. We see no problem with the substitution by itself. However, to the extent that the supplementary stop lamps might impair the effectiveness of the conventional stop lamps on new trucks, their installation by the repair business could be considered as rendering the conventional stop lamps partially inoperative, within the meaning of the statutory prohibition for vehicles in use. Vehicles in use are also subject to the laws of the States in which they are registered and operated. Since we are not conversant with State laws, we suggest that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3508OpenMr. Ernesto Rodriguez, Cariben, Inc., 144-30 Roosevelt Avenue, Suite 606, Flushing, NY 11354; Mr. Ernesto Rodriguez Cariben Inc. 144-30 Roosevelt Avenue Suite 606 Flushing NY 11354; Dear Mr. Rodriguez: This responds to your letter of September 22, 1981, asking whether an Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device. The device works by blocking the brakes and electric circuits to the motor. In trucks, the clutch is also blocked. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system.; By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals o vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale*.' [Emphasis added.]; The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft device that work by preventing release of the brakes. However, since installation of your device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.; If your device is added to a 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. In the case of your device, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems* (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such (sic) 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 the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...<<<; Standard No. 105 includes various requirements that might be affecte by installation of your device. We are not able to determine from the drawings included with your letter whether compliance with the standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard. Your letter states that when your device is not in use, the vehicle works normally without any interference whatsoever. In addition to requirements specifically concerning stopping performance, the standard also includes requirements related to such things as a split system and the ability to withstand a series of spike stops, which might be affected by your device.; While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particula device, we do have general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.; Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether b the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under section 151 *et seq*. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.; Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3509OpenMr. Ernesto Rodriguez, Cariben, Inc., 144-30 Roosevelt Avenue, Suite 606, Flushing, NY 11354; Mr. Ernesto Rodriguez Cariben Inc. 144-30 Roosevelt Avenue Suite 606 Flushing NY 11354; Dear Mr. Rodriguez: This responds to your letter of September 22, 1981, asking whether an Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device. The device works by blocking the brakes and electric circuits to the motor. In trucks, the clutch is also blocked. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system.; By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals o vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale*.' Emphasis added. ; The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft device that work by preventing release of the brakes.; However, since installation of your device requires cutting into vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.; If your device is added to a 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. In the case of your device, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems* (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such (sic) 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 the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall 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. . .<<<; Standard No. 105 includes various requirements that might be affecte by installation of your device. We are not able to determine from the drawings included with your letter whether compliance with the standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard. Your letter states that when your device is not in use, the vehicle works normally without any interference whatsoever. In addition to requirements specifically concerning stopping performance, the standard also includes requirements related to such things as a split system and the ability to withstand a series of spike stops, which might be affected by your device.; While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particula device, we do have a general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.; Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether b the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections (sic) 151 *et seq*. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.; Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3510OpenMr. Ernesto Rodriguez, Cariben, Inc., 144-30 Roosevelt Avenue, Suite 606, Flushing, NY 11354; Mr. Ernesto Rodriguez Cariben Inc. 144-30 Roosevelt Avenue Suite 606 Flushing NY 11354; Dear Mr. Rodriguez: This responds to your letter of September 22, 1981, asking whether an Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device. The device works by blocking the brakes and electric circuits to the motor. In trucks, the clutch is also blocked. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system.; By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals o vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale*.' Emphasis added. ; The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft device that work by preventing release of the brakes.; However, since installation of your device requires cutting into vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.; If your device is added to a 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. In the case of your device, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems* (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such (sic) 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 the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall 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. . .<<<; Standard No. 105 includes various requirements that might be affecte by installation of your device. We are not able to determine from the drawings included with your letter whether compliance with the standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard. Your letter states that when your device is not in use, the vehicle works normally without any interference whatsoever. In addition to requirements specifically concerning stopping performance, the standard also includes requirements related to such things as a split system and the ability to withstand a series of spike stops, which might be affected by your device.; While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particula device, we do have a general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.; Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether b the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections (sic) 151 *et seq*. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.; Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5505OpenMr. Dirk du Plooy Motorcycle Safety Consultant Motorcycle Rider Advancement Centre P.O. Box/Postbus 46298 Mayfair 2108 Republic of South Africa; Mr. Dirk du Plooy Motorcycle Safety Consultant Motorcycle Rider Advancement Centre P.O. Box/Postbus 46298 Mayfair 2108 Republic of South Africa; "Dear Mr. du Plooy: We have received your letter of March 6, 1995, t Joe Pesci of this agency, asking his assistance 'in acquiring information about U.S. laws on motorcycle trailers.' You understand that 'there could be a number of different U.S. states with different laws, but the most generally accepted standard' is what you are seeking in drafting legislation legalizing motorcycle trailers. Any trailer that is manufactured for sale in, or imported into, the United States must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards are issued by this agency. Several of them apply to trailers. As we have no separate category of 'motorcycle trailer', these standards would apply to any trailer manufactured for the purpose of carrying one or more motorcycles. Here are the requirements that apply to trailers. A trailer with a hydraulic brake system must be equipped with brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings that meet Standard No. 106, and with brake fluid that complies with Standard No. 116. Lighting equipment and reflectors must be installed pursuant to Standard No. 108. Each trailer must have a Vehicle Identification Number attached, in accordance with Standard No. 115 to facilitate any recall campaigns for safety purposes. Standards Nos. 119 and 120 apply to tires and rims used on trailers. Finally, at the end of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer must affix a permanent label which certifies that the trailer complies with the safety standards. Because these Federal standards apply throughout the United States, I believe that they meet your request for information on 'the most generally accepted standard.' Under our laws, if any State has its own standard covering any aspect of performance that is covered by one of the Federal standards listed above, that State standard must be identical to the Federal one. So, to that extent, State regulation of motorcycle trailers should be identical to the Federal requirements. However, States may impose their own standards in areas that are not covered by the Federal standards. For example, this agency has no requirement covering strength of trailer hitches, or that trailers be equipped with mud flaps. Therefore, a State could adopt standards in these areas. We are not conversant with State laws for motorcycle trailers, and cannot advise you about them. If you wish further information on such laws, we recommend that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. I am enclosing for your information a pamphlet on our regulations that we provide to prospective trailer manufacturers. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. Given the distance between us, you may wish to communicate by FAX. Our number is 202-366-3820. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4656OpenRobert N. Levin, Esq. Hudock & Levin 1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 910 Washington, DC 20036; Robert N. Levin Esq. Hudock & Levin 1101 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 910 Washington DC 20036; "Dear Mr. Levin: This responds to your letter on behalf of one of you clients, seeking information on how our law and agency regulations might affect the installation of sun roofs in vehicles. You stated that your client is an automobile repair facility. According to your letter, you recently discovered this agency's regulation (49 CFR /567.7) requiring vehicle alterers to affix to the vehicles they alter a label certifying that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. You asked whether such certification labels must be affixed by your client to those vehicles on which it installs a sun roof. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of our laws and regulations for you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Two of those safety standards could be relevant to a repair shop's installation of sun roofs on motor vehicles. Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR /571.205) sets performance requirements for glazing materials installed in new motor vehicles and for new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Any glazing incorporated in a vehicle's sun roof would have to conform to the applicable performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. In addition, installation of a sun roof could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars, (49 CFR 571.216), which sets forth strength requirements for roofs of passenger cars. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any 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 ...' Because of this statutory requirement, any person or business that installs sun roofs in new motor vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 216. The form and contents for this certification are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Any manufacturer that installs a sun roof on a new motor vehicle is required by /567.4 or /567.5 to certify that the vehicle conforms to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Any person or business that adds a sun roof to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale would be required to certify the vehicle's continuing compliance with all applicable safety standards, in accordance with /567.7. Such a person or entity is an 'alterer' for the purposes of Part 567. (Persons or entities that modify vehicles by using a 'readily attachable component' or performing a 'minor finishing operation' are not considered 'alterers.' Modifications involving a readily attachable component or a minor finishing operation are instead subject to the requirements of 49 CFR /567.6. However, NHTSA does not consider a sun roof to be a 'readily attachable component' nor is the installation of a sun roof a 'minor finishing operation.' Hence, this exception is not relevant to your client's activities.). In addition to these certification requirements, an 'alterer' is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards arising from the alterations, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1411-1420). I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that generally describes our statutory and regulatory requirements, and explains how to obtain copies of those statutes and regulations. The certification and labeling requirements set forth in section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and in Part 567 apply to vehicles only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. Thus, once a vehicle has been purchased by a consumer, persons that modify that vehicle for its owner (e.g., by installing a sun roof) are not required to certify or label the vehicle by this agency's statutes or regulations. A different statutory provision applies to modifications made by a repair shop to vehicles after the first purchase. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that, 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, ...' To comply with the obligations imposed by this 'render inoperative' provision, your client should examine the sun roofs it installs and the means of installation for those sun roofs, and compare those with the requirements of Standards No. 205 and 216. After such an examination and comparison, your client should be able to decide if the sun roof installations it performs result in any apparent violations of the 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act. If your client decides there is no apparent 'render inoperative' violation, Federal law does not require any additional actions, such as labeling or certification, on your client's part in connection with the installation of sun roofs in vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles. You should be aware that NHTSA may reexamine your client's decision and make its own determination of whether your client's sun roof installations may have violated the 'render inoperative' provision in the Safety Act in the context of an enforcement proceeding. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3171OpenMr. R. M. Premo, Director, Vehicle Safety Activities, Sheller-Globe Corporation, 3555 St. Johns Road, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. R. M. Premo Director Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Premo: This responds to your November 12, 1979, letter asking whether severa joints in your school bus must comply with Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*. All of the joints concern what you have called maintenance access panels.; As you are aware, the agency has discovered through its complianc testing that most school bus manufacturers have taken advantage of the maintenance access panel exemption from the standard. The result is that many joints in school buses are not as secure as they should be and, during an accident, might result in injury to children being transported in those buses. The agency is very concerned about this practice and is considering methods of limiting the maintenance access panel exemption.; Your letter asks the agency to consider the fact that the panels whos joints you are questioning are plastic and not metal. Therefore, you conclude that the edges are not sharp, and even if the panels come unfastened in an accident, their edges will not be likely to injure the occupants of your buses.; The standard establishes joint strength tests that apply uniformly t all joints regardless of the material used in the panel. While it may be true that plastic panels are less likely to injure occupants of buses when a panel becomes disconnected during an accident, Standard No. 221 addresses other safety areas beyond preventing the sharp edges of panels from cutting occupants. Joint strength is necessary for the vehicle integrity during accidents. This is as important as preventing cutting edges from panels. Accordingly, the agency will continue to subject all joints falling within the parameters of the standard to the requirements of the standard without regard to the material used in a panel.; With respect to the questions posed in your letter, you first as whether the right and left hand windshield pillar covers must comply with the standard. You indicate that a hose runs behind one pillar cover and a cable control runs behind the other. The agency has indicated that the installation of a wire, hose or cable behind a wall does not make that wall a maintenance access panel. Accordingly, the agency concludes that the joints connecting the pillar cover panel are subject to the standard.; Your questions 2, 4, and 5 refer to panels that cover motors which yo indicate must be serviced. The motors include the windshield wiper and heater motors. The agency is unable to determine from your pictures and sketches whether all of the joints surrounding these motors are subject to the standard. The joints connecting panels that *must* be removed for *routine* servicing of a vehicle's motors would not be considered as joints subject to the standard. However, these joints must be the minimum necessary for routine servicing of the motors. In compliance testing your vehicles, the agency will only exempt those joints that are necessary for routine servicing. We will not exempt adjacent panel joints simply because wires run beneath them.; In your third question you describe a dash trim panel that covers wiring harness, some chassis cowl mounting bolts, and an entrance door cable. The agency needs more information to make a formal determination with respect to this panel and its joints. Our inclination based upon the information that you have presented is that these would be joints subject to the standard, because the removal of this panel is not required for routine maintenance.; Your final question asks whether the entrance door control cover mus comply with the standard. You state only that it must be removed to remove the dash trim panel. As we stated in the last paragraph, we believe that the dash trim panel joints may be required to comply with the standard. If this is the case, it may also be necessary for the door control cover joints to comply with the standard. The key factor in determining whether this panel's joints must comply with the requirement is whether the panel must be removed for routine maintenance. You have not proven such a need in your letter, and therefore, the agency cannot give you a determination concerning the need for these joints to comply with the standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0243OpenIng. Efrain Alvarez S., Cristales Inastillables de Mexico S.A., Av. Central N*o* 101, Sta. Clara Edo. de Mexico; Ing. Efrain Alvarez S. Cristales Inastillables de Mexico S.A. Av. Central N*o* 101 Sta. Clara Edo. de Mexico; Dear Ing. Alvarez: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1970, requesting th National Highway Safety Bureau's approval or comments on an Electrical Testing Laboratories Report No. 411430, concerning your CM-20 safety glazing material.; The National Highway Safety Bureau does not approve or confirm whethe specific motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment comply with Federal standards. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment bears the responsibility for ensuring that his product complies with applicable standards. Section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. S1403), furthermore, requires manufacturers to 'certify' that their products comply with applicable standards, and specifies how this certification is to be accomplished. A notice published in the *Federal Register* on November 4, 1967, further explained how manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment may comply with this requirement. I enclose a copy of this notice and the aforementioned Act, with the appropriate sections marked for your information.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (S3.4) provides a additional method by which manufacturers of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles may certify that their products comply with that standard. This method may be used as a substitute for the methods specified in section 114 and the enclosed notice. It consists of labeling the glazing material with a label that meets the requirements of Section 6 of ASA Z.26.1-1966, 'Marking of Safety Glazing Materials', but to which has been added the symbol 'DOT', and a manufacturer's code number which is assigned by the Bureau on request. The label which you furnish in the appendix to your ETL Report No. 411430, provided the required 'AS'-designation, glazing-model number, and assigned DOT code mark are at least 0.070 inch in height, will meet this requirement. Should you desire to certify your glazing in this manner, we will furnish you with a manufacturer's code number.; Although the Bureau does not furnish approvals of glazing materials many states do require some form of approval before specific glazing material can be used in motor vehicles subject to their jurisdiction. For information regarding such approvals and assistance in obtaining them I suggest you write to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Attention: Mr. Armand Cardarelli, Suite 500, 1828 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.; In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment fo importation into the United States, you are required by section 110(e) of the Act (15 U.S.C. S1399(e)) to designate an agent for service of process purposes. The designation must conform to regulations governing its making (49 CFR 551.45), and I enclose a copy also with appropriate sections marked for your reference.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4605OpenMr. Garry O. McCabe 37 E. Cotton Hill Rd. New Hartford, CT 06057; Mr. Garry O. McCabe 37 E. Cotton Hill Rd. New Hartford CT 06057; "Dear Mr. McCabe: Earlier this year you wrote to the Federal Highwa Administration (FHWA) asking for information concerning your plans to field test a 'rapid fueling system' on an existing truck fleet. The FHWA has asked us to review your letter with regard to the regulations we administer. I expect that the FHWA will contact you directly with information concerning their regulations. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applying to the manufacture of 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 FMVSS's. 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. (A general information sheet describing manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.) There is currently no FMVSS that is directly applicable to parts of the fuel system retrofitted to a used motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (copy enclosed), applies only to completed new motor vehicles. (The standard applies to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.) If the rapid fueling system were installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the entire fuel system, with your product installed, satisfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 301. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who adds the system 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. If the rapid fueling system is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage or repair shop, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, the installer would have to make sure that he or she did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. This is required by /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. The prohibition of /108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to rapid fueling systems installed on used vehicles, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which would include your product, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle 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. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the system is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions requirements that might affect the manufacture and installation of the rapid fueling system. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam2897OpenMr. Suminori Eguchi, Chief Engineer, Technical Department, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd, 80 Itado, Isehara City, Kanagawa 259-11, JAPAN; Mr. Suminori Eguchi Chief Engineer Technical Department Ichikoh Industries Ltd 80 Itado Isehara City Kanagawa 259-11 JAPAN; Dear Mr. Eguchi: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1978, to Bill Eason o our Office of Rulemaking asking several questions about motor vehicle headlamps and the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 issued on July 27, 1978.; Your questions and our answers are: 1. Ichikoh headlamps are designed to comply with SAE Standard J579 with maximum candela not exceeding 37,500. Does the amendment allow Ichikoh to place 'DOT' and the new designation code on the lens of each headlight?; Ichikoh's practice reflects compliance with the option afforded b S4.1.1.33 until July 27, 1978. The deletion of candlepower permitted by J579c but does not require it. Thus, Ichikoh may continue its existing practice under the amendment. One purpose of the marking code, however, is to enable a consumer to replace original equipment headlamps with lamps of compatible photometric output. Currently, S4.1.1.21 as amended requires the lens of each Ichikoh headlamp designed to conform to J579c to be marked with the new code on and after July 1, 1979. Obviously such a marking will be misleading if, even though designed to conform to J579c, a headlamp's maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. Accordingly, we are reviewing this problem with the idea of proposing rulemaking that would delete the code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. We do not anticipate a change in the requirement of S4.1.1.21 that the lens of each J579c headlamp be marked with the 'DOT' symbol since Ichikoh headlamps comply with J579c, even if they do not take advantage of the now-permissible maximum.; 2. With reference to your quality control system, will the headlamp 'be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?'; I am not quite sure what you mean. If you are asking whether Ichiko may relax quality control so that an occasional headlamp may exceed 37,500 cd, the answer is yes. Headlamps designed to J579c are not restricted to the maximum imposed by J579a.; 3. You ask our comments on possible mismatch of headlamps on the sam vehicle, i.e., one low intensity headlamp and one high intensity headlamp.; NHTSA is concerned about this possibility and, as indicated in reply t your first question, is considering rulemaking to delete the code requirement for low intensity J579c headlamps. Your second question, however, does raise the issue of identification of headlamps whose candela may exceed 37,500 but whose maxima are far less than 75,000. We shall also consider this issue and may issue a consumer bulletin advocating replacement of headlamps in pairs to help resolve this potential problem.; 4. You ask whether NHTSA intends to adopt the concept of ECE Regulatio No. 20 in the near future. This Regulation requires a mark on a headlamp lens indicating candlepower grade.; The NHTSA does not plan to adopt the requirements of Regulation No. 2 because this regulation is in essence an indicator of quality control.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.