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: aiam3492OpenThe Blunt Company, 4500 City National Bank Building, Detroit, MI 48226; The Blunt Company 4500 City National Bank Building Detroit MI 48226; Gentlemen: This responds to Mr. Michael E. Murphy's letter of August 20, 1981, t Joan Griffin of my staff, regarding Safety Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. Mr. Murphy asks whether an electronic odometer that can be rendered useless by the simple unplugging operation would be legal under the odometer provision of the standard. When the odometer is unplugged, a 'blank' is registered in the odometer record. Mr. Murphy also asks whether the agency is considering any amendments or additions to the standard that are relevant to electronic odometers.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment with any safety standard. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle in accordance with that determination. Under certain circumstances, the agency is willing to give an informal opinion concerning whether a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. Such opinions are not binding on NHTSA or on the manufacturer. However, in this case on the basis of the limited information contained in Mr. Murphy's letter, we cannot give even an informal opinion whether Chrysler's electronic odometer complies with Standard No. 127. We would need to see either the odometer itself or detailed pictures of it in order to make such a determination. We would also need to know if the odometer was manufactured in accordance with paragraphs S4.2.5.1, S4.2.5.2, S4.2.5.3, or S4.2.6, which specify four methods of resisting tampering.; I would emphasize that the odometer provisions of Standard No. 127 d not require that odometers be completely tamper proof. Rather, the rule simply requires that odometers resist tampering in one of four specified ways that are designed to leave visible evidence if reversal is attempted. It is possible for an odometer to comply with all the requirements of Standard No. 127 and still be susceptible to some form of tampering. Standard No. 127 was designed to prevent the mileage on odometers from being reduced. It was not designed necessarily to prevent tampering of the sort that would be possible with the Chrysler odometer where the odometer can be disconnected so that mileage is not recorded.; We stress that at this time no requirements for the manufacture an sale of odometers are in effect. The odometer provisions of Standard No. 127 (paragraphs S4.2-S5.2) are scheduled to take effect on September 1, 1982. Only odometers manufactured on or after that date must meet the requirements of the standard.; Further, on April 9, 1981, the NHTSA published a Notice of Intent (4 FR 21203) in which it announced that it would issue an NPRM to rescind Standard No. 127. The agency believes that such action may be warranted because there appear to be no direct safety benefits to be gained from the regulation and because of the potential for significant consumer savings. A notice proposing the rescission of the standard was published October 22, 1981 (46 FR 51788).; Finally, you should be aware that Title IV of the Motor Vehicle an Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C 1981) states that no person shall disconnect an odometer with the intent to change the number of miles thereon. This provision may impact the use of the odometer to which you refer.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3385OpenMr. Deng Shin-Wen, Deputy Director and Chief Engineer, Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant, Shanghai, CHINA; Mr. Deng Shin-Wen Deputy Director and Chief Engineer Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant Shanghai CHINA; Dear Mr. Deng: This responds to your November 17, 1980 letter in which you requeste information about the steps your manufacturing plant must take to comply with this agency's requirements for selling tires in the United States. Your letter stated that your main products are truck tires.; All truck tires (for both light and heavy-weight vehicles) importe into the United States must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119). I have enclosed a copy of this standard for your information. You will see that the standard specifies performance requirements (strength, endurance, and high speed performance), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements.; Concerning the performance requirements, your letter asked how man sets of each tire size must be delivered to this agency for testing and how the costs are paid. The European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires for testing before they can be sold, but this country does not. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that its tires comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119. After the manufacturer determines that the tires comply with the requirements, the manufacturer stamps the letters 'DOT' on the tire to accomplish the certification. This agency then makes spot checks of tires, by purchasing some from a dealer and testing the tires according to the procedures set forth in Standard 119. However, there is no advance approval procedure by the agency.; It is a simple matter to check the tire to see that the markin requirements have been followed. I should note that the U.S. Customs Service will not allow tires without a DOT marking to enter the United States.; With respect to the tire and rim matching, this information, as well a the loading schedules for the tire size (showing the maximum load the tire can carry at designated inflation pressures) must either be set forth in a current trade association manual or be furnished by manufacturers to dealers of the tires and in duplicate to this agency. If you wish to obtain a copy of the current manual published by the American tire manufacturers to see if the tire sizes manufactured by your plant are listed therein, you may send $8.50 plus postage costs to: The Tire and Rim Association, 3200 West Market Street, Akron, OH 44313. If the tire sizes and corresponding rims which you manufacture are listed in that manual, you have complied with this requirement. If the sizes are not listed, you may consult other trade associations, or you may exercise the option to furnish the information to your dealers and to this agency.; I am enclosing a copy of another regulation that would also apply t your tires, 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Record Keeping*. This requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see S574.5), including the manufacturer's identification mark. To obtain an identification mark, you should follow the steps set forth in S574.6 of this regulation.; Further, this regulation requires each manufacturer to furnish forms t its tire dealers to record the names and addresses of the first purchasers of these tires. The dealers must then return the completed forms to the tire manufacturer, or some party designated by the manufacturer to receive these forms. This is necessary in case the manufacturer must recall the tires because they fail to comply with Standard 119 or because the tires have a safety-related defect. It may be necessary for you to make arrangements with some party in this country to store the completed forms for you.; Finally, I am enclosing a procedural rule, which applies to all partie subject to the regulations of this agency (49 CFR Part 551). This regulation requires all manufacturers to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. This designation must be in writing and in a form which is valid and binding under Chinese law. Such designation must provide the information set forth in S551.45(b) and be mailed to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; I hope that this information helps you and that the trade relationshi between our countries will be a long and fruitful one. If you need any further information, or clarification of some of the information set forth in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3272OpenMr. Robert Fondiller, President, WOW! Corporation, 200 West 58th Street, New York, NY 10019; Mr. Robert Fondiller President WOW! Corporation 200 West 58th Street New York NY 10019; Dear Mr. Fondiller: This responds to your March 18, 1980, letter to this agency in whic you posed some questions about a 3-wheeled vehicle your company plans to produce. First, you wanted to know if a 3-wheeled vehicle would be classified as a car, a motorcycle, or some other vehicle. Second, you asked if the vehicle could be licensed for street and/or highway use. Third, you asked if replacing the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel would result in the vehicle being classified as a 3- wheel or 4-wheel vehicle, and what effect, if any, classification as a 4-wheel vehicle would have on the answers given to the first two questions.; This agency classifies all 3-wheeled motor vehicles as motorcycles pursuant to the definition of 'motorcycle' given in 49 CFR S 571.3. The pertinent part of that section reads:; >>>'Motorcycle' means a motor vehicle with motive power having a sea or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.<<<; We determine the number of wheels on a vehicle simply by counting thos wheels. Hence, if you were to replace the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel, the vehicle would then be a 4-wheeled vehicle and could not be classified as a motorcycle. Such a vehicle would be classified as a passenger car.; The classification of a vehicle is important since it affects th Federal motor vehicle safety standards with which the vehicle must comply If a vehicle is a motorcycle, it must comply with the following safety standards: 108, 111, 112, 115, 120, 122, 123, and 127. If, on the other hand, a vehicle is a passenger car, it must comply with the following standards: 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 124, 127, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 219, and 302. As you see, the requirements for passenger cars are more stringent than for motorcycles.; I have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by this agency which gives a brie summary of the requirements of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. I have also enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain copies of our standards and other regulations.; This agency does not license any vehicles for street or highway use. W specify performance requirements, and any motor vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer as being in compliance with all applicable safety standards as of the date of its manufacture. If the vehicle complies with these requirements, we specify no further steps which must be taken.; If you have any further questions concerning motor vehicle safety o need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3273OpenMr. Robert Fondiller, President, WOW! Corporation, 200 West 58th Street, New York, NY 10019; Mr. Robert Fondiller President WOW! Corporation 200 West 58th Street New York NY 10019; Dear Mr. Fondiller: This responds to your March 18, 1980, letter to this agency in whic you posed some questions about a 3-wheeled vehicle your company plans to produce. First, you wanted to know if a 3-wheeled vehicle would be classified as a car, a motorcycle, or some other vehicle. Second, you asked if the vehicle could be licensed for street and/or highway use. Third, you asked if replacing the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel would result in the vehicle being classified as a 3- wheel or 4-wheel vehicle, and what effect, if any, classification as a 4-wheel vehicle would have on the answers given to the first two questions.; This agency classifies all 3-wheeled motor vehicles as motorcycles pursuant to the definition of 'motorcycle' given in 49 CFR S 571.3. The pertinent part of that section reads:; >>>'Motorcycle' means a motor vehicle with motive power having a sea or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.<<<; We determine the number of wheels on a vehicle simply by counting thos wheels. Hence, if you were to replace the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel, the vehicle would then be a 4-wheeled vehicle and could not be classified as a motorcycle. Such a vehicle would be classified as a passenger car.; The classification of a vehicle is important since it affects th Federal motor vehicle safety standards with which the vehicle must comply If a vehicle is a motorcycle, it must comply with the following safety standards: 108, 111, 112, 115, 120, 122, 123, and 127. If, on the other hand, a vehicle is a passenger car, it must comply with the following standards: 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 124, 127, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 219, and 302. As you see, the requirements for passenger cars are more stringent than for motorcycles.; I have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by this agency which gives a brie summary of the requirements of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. I have also enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain copies of our standards and other regulations.; This agency does not license any vehicles for street or highway use. W specify performance requirements, and any motor vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer as being in compliance with all applicable safety standards as of the date of its manufacture. If the vehicle complies with these requirements, we specify no further steps which must be taken.; If you have any further questions concerning motor vehicle safety o need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5034OpenMr. Douglas Berg President Ascend Productions 9823 Lake Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44102; Mr. Douglas Berg President Ascend Productions 9823 Lake Avenue Cleveland Ohio 44102; "Dear Mr. Berg: This responds to your letter requesting that th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provide 'recognition and support' for your item of motor vehicle equipment, the 'Hazard Helper Safety Sign.' You explained that this reversible device attaches to the driver's window and displays either a help needed symbol (a stick figure with extended arms and legs) or a hazard alert symbol (a triangle). Your sales literature indicates that the help needed symbol is intended to be displayed in the event of medical emergencies, mechanical breakdown, having a flat tire, or being stuck in snow or being out of fuel. The hazard alert symbol is intended to be displayed for going for gasoline, doing roadside repairs, resting, or awaiting known assistance. As discussed below, this agency does not recognize, support or otherwise endorse particular products. Moreover, based on the information provided with your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed). By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the 'Safety Act') gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. The Safety Act provides 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 new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self- certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations. Section S3 of Standard No. 125 specifies that the standard 'applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle.' (Emphasis added.) Your device has no self-contained energy source, is designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and is not permanently affixed to the vehicle. Another condition set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to 'warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle.' Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance, are not subject to Standard No. 125. An example of such a device would be a 'HELP' message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade. The 'help needed' portion of your device appears to be designed to function in the same manner as other non-warning devices, i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. This portion of the device would therefore not be subject to Standard No. 125. However, the 'hazard alert' portion of your device does appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, and must therefore comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 125. From the enclosed copy of the standard you will see that some of the specific requirements with which your device must comply include minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. From the information you provided with your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with several of these requirements. Please be aware that violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards. 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: aiam4600OpenThe Honorable Harry Reid United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510; The Honorable Harry Reid United States Senate Washington D.C. 20510; "Dear Senator Reid: Thank you for your letter to the Department o Transportation, on behalf of the City of Sparks, Nevada. That city's police department has received six new patrol cars equipped with airbags. According to the City Attorney for Sparks, the city police cars are often required to push disabled vehicles out of travel lanes of highways and the police officers are afraid that the airbags will be activated during these pushing operations. You asked if the Department of Transportation would authorize the Sparks police department to disconnect the air bags on its patrol cars. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection, and specified percentages of each manufacturer's 1987, 1988, and 1989 model year cars to be so equipped. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the patrol cars in question, has chosen to comply with the new requirement for automatic crash protection by installing air bags in these police cars. When a safety standard like Standard No. 208 is in effect and applicable to new passenger cars, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, importing, or introducing in interstate commerce any new car that does not comply with the safety standard. However, the Safety Act provides that these prohibitions do not apply after the first purchase of the car 'in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Hence, the Federal requirement that the cars comply with all applicable safety standards ceased to apply when the Sparks city police department purchased these cars, since the police department bought these cars in good faith to use them as police patrol cars, not to resell them. After the first purchase of a car in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in the car in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Obviously, disconnecting air bag systems would have that effect. Accordingly, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disconnecting the air bag systems on the Sparks police department cars. Please not that the Safety Act does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from rendering inoperative safety features on their own vehicles. Hence, the City of Sparks does not need any sort of 'authorization' from this agency to disconnect the airbag systems on the city's police cars. The City of Sparks is permitted to disconnect the air bags on its own vehicles without violating any Federal law. Such removals may, however, violate the laws of the State of Nevada. I recommend that the city carefully consider the effects of disconnecting the air bag systems in its policy cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the city from doing so. The airbags in those cars are an effective means of protecting vehicle occupants in frontal crashes. As to the possibility of inadvertent deployment of air bags in police cars, I note that the agency has entered into a contract under which police cars have been retrofitted with air bag systems, without a single reported instance of an air bag detonation while pushing a disabled vehicle. Enclosed is a report with some additional information on this contract. Particularly since the City of Sparks police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe those police officers deserve the benefits of automatic crash protection in their police cars. I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4418OpenMr. Gary W. Rossow, Director, Government Technical Affairs, Mercedes-Benz Truck Company, Inc., 4747 N. Channel, P.O. Box 3849, Portland, OR 97208; Mr. Gary W. Rossow Director Government Technical Affairs Mercedes-Benz Truck Company Inc. 4747 N. Channel P.O. Box 3849 Portland OR 97208; Dear Mr. Rossow: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. Section S6.2.1 of that standard specifies for certain tests conducted on a dynamometer that '(t)he dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating.' According to your letter, you have interpreted the term 'equivalent' in this section to 'authorize compliance testing by reference to axle loads under actual stopping conditions.' You requested confirmation of this interpretation. As discussed below, we disagree with your suggested interpretation.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; As indicated in your letter, your request for an interpretation wa submitted in light of recent correspondence between your company and NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). OVSC requested you to submit information on the compliance with Standard No. 121 of the Mercedes-Benz model L-1317, a two axle straight truck. You responded to that request by submitting a compliance certification and interpretation concerning section S6.2.1. In letter dated April 9, 1987, OVSC informed you that it did not agree with your interpretation.; Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests are set forth in section S5.4 That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force--relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. One of those conditions, set forth in S6.2.1, is as follows:; >>>S6.2.1 The dynamometer inertia for each wheel is equivalent to th load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating. For a vehicle having additional gross axle weight ratings specified for operation at reduced speeds, the GAWR used is that specified for a speed of 50 mph, or, at the option of the manufacturer, any speed greater than 50 mph.<<<; In support of your suggested interpretation, you noted that axle load of a decelerating vehicle vary under different deceleration conditions, i.e., as a vehicle travelling forward decelerates, the load on the axles shifts so that the front axle load rises and rear axle load falls. You stated that it is your reading of Standard No. 121 that the manufacturer 'can assess compliance by either using a static load value or determining which of the varying values of the axle load should be considered in view of actual vehicle behavior.' With respect to gross axle weight rating (GAWR), you suggested that when used in the context of Parts 567 and 568, the GAWR is properly measured in a static manner, to permit determination of whether the load carrying capacity of a vehicle axle in actual use has been reached. For dynamometer tests of service brakes under dynamic conditions, however, you argued that such tests should properly take into account the dynamic effects of deceleration.; You then stated the following: >>>The language of S6.2.1, setting dynamic test conditions, indicate that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is to be set at the 'equivalent' to the load on the wheel, when the axle is loaded to its GAWR (i.e., its load-carrying capacity). This language is not restrictive and grants a manufacturer the flexibility of determining an 'equivalent' loading in consideration of the dynamic phenomena in conducting the tests required by S5.4. Thus, the static GAWR is permitted to be linked to dynamic conditions by the word 'equivalent.'<<<; We disagree with your suggested interpretation, which we believe i inconsistent with the language of S6.2.1, past interpretations of that provision, and the compliance test procedures the agency has long followed with respect to this provision. As indicated above, S6.2.1 specifies that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel is 'equivalent to the load on the wheel with the axle loaded to its gross axle weight rating.' The phrase 'equivalent to the load' uses the singular 'load,' instead of the plural 'loads,' to show that the dynamometer inertia has only a single value. By itself, this suggests that S6.2.1 was not intended to provide multiple options for the dynamometer inertia setting, depending on the dynamic conditions simulated.; Further, the overall language of S6.2.1 shows how the singl dynamometer inertia setting is to be determined. The term 'GAWR' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as 'the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.' When an axle is loaded to its load-carrying capacity, there is one 'load on the wheel,' at whose 'equivalent' the dynamometer inertia must be set.; While we believe that the language of section S6.2.1 is clear on th issue raised by your letter, we also note that agency guidance in the form of past interpretation letter and OVSC's laboratory procedures for Standard No. 121 are also clear. In an interpretation letter to Wagner Electric, dated May 26, 1972, the agency stated:; >>>In the dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1, the dynamomete inertia for each brake assembly is based on 1/2 the GAWR of the axle. The rating for each axle is required to be stated separately. If, in the example you give, you choose to give 17,000 pounds as the rating for each axle, then the dynamometer inertia would be at 8,500 pounds for each brake assembly.; <<>>Section S5.1.1 does not specify whether or not the vehicle is movin as a test condition for the requirement. In view of the absence of this test condition, the NHTSA will resolve differences in this test condition in the manufacturer's favor if they affect the outcome of testing.<<<; We do not agree that this letter supports your suggeste interpretation. The letter addressed only the issue of how a requirement should be read in view of the absence of a particular test condition. As explained at length above, we conclude that section S6.2.1 clearly specifies the particular test conditions to be followed for this section. Therefore, the Oshkosh letter is not relevant to requests for interpretation of S6.2.1.; You also argued that in order to provide an appropriate braking system with proper distribution of brake forces between the axles, its design must take into account the transfer of weight from the rear axle to the front axle during normal and emergency braking conditions. You stated that such a design and compliance test leads to a significant reduction in premature lockup of the rear axle. You also argued that NHTSA has recognized your braking system as 'a safe and effective system' in its research testing.; We agree that a manufacturer must take into account the transfer o weight from the rear axle to the front axle when designing an appropriate braking system. This is necessary to provide safe brake performance during varying loading conditions, for normal and emergency brake applications on varying road conditions, and it is so for all kinds of vehicles. However, the requirements of Standard No. 121 do not require vehicles to have too much rear braking, as you appear to imply. The requirements of S5.4.2 (Brake Power), and S5.4.3 (Brake Recovery), are minimum performance requirements intended to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. In practice, in order to perform well in such conditions, both front and rear brakes must have a minimum capacity, and this capacity is related to GAWR despite the fact that the actual loads borne by the front and rear axles vary during different brake applications. The agency therefore referred to GAWR in section S6.2.1, because this is an objective value that is readily ascertainable for every vehicle, and performance based on this value meets the particular safety need provided for by the requirements of section S5.4. These minimum requirements are not intended, nor do they operate, as a restriction on the design decisions that manufacturers must make independently to distribute braking capacity to meet anticipated load distributions.; Contrary to your assertion, NHTSA has not concluded that your brak system is 'safe and effective.' We also note that the quotations of the agency's research report cited in your letter address only limited aspects of braking performance and are taken out of context. We note that you stated that '(t)he Agency reported finding that the subject vehicle's front and rear axles were '. . .well balanced and tended to lock at close to the same pedal effort level.' (p. 19).' A more complete quotation is as follows:; >>>. . . In the empty driver best effort stops the driver was also abl to utilize this peak friction, although not as effectively as the antilock, because the brakes on front and rear axles of the vehicle were well balanced and tended to lock at close to the same pedal effort level. In the loaded case, however, the front axle tended to lock prematurely and it was not possible for the driver to maintain all four wheels near the peak friction level. He could keep the front tires near the peak but when this occurred rear braking was relatively low. If he applied more braking, the front axle locked and he lost steering control due to lack of lateral traction at the front tires.'<<<; Based on the information before the agency, OVSC is continuing it investigation concerning the compliance of your vehicles with Standard No. 121.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2475OpenMr. R. E. Weil, Exterior Lighting Development, Chrysler Corporation, P.O. Box 1118, Detroit, MI, 48231; Mr. R. E. Weil Exterior Lighting Development Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1118 Detroit MI 48231; Dear Mr. Weil: This is in reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, to Mr. Brooks o this agency on photometric test requirements of multiple compartment and multiple lamp configurations. You have asked for our concurrence on two interpretations of Standard No. 108, as discussed below.; In your 'example 1', on vehicles designed with a two lamp system parking and (or taillamp) and turn signal functions are combined in each lamp of the two lamp system. You have asked whether the second lamp in this system would be treated as supplemental and need not meet the photometric requirements for required lamps.; The answer is no. As you are aware the photometric requirements o multiple lamps or multiple compartment lamps, where a tail or parking lamp is combined with the turn signal lamp, are partially determined by Note 4 to SAE Standard J588e *Turn Signal Lamps*. Note 4 establishes permissible ratios of intensity between functions *i*. *e*. that the intensity of the tail or parking lamps shall not be so great as to diminish the effectiveness of the turn signal function. Where two lamps are used and the distance between filament centers does not exceed 22 inches (as appears to be the case here) the combination of the lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding number of lighted sections. (Paragraphs 3.1 of J585d, J588e). Further, the ratio of the turn signal to the tail or parking lamps must be computed with all the lamps lighted (Note 4). With reference to those vehicles designed with a two-lamp system (your example 1), your first answer is the correct one, the lamps would be photometered together to meet the two compartment requirements for the two lamp functions performed, as specified in Table 1 of Standard No. 108.; With respect to your example 2, a multiple compartment lamp with on compartment performing turn signal and parking or tail lamp functions, and the other portion the function of parking or tail lamp only, photometric requirements for the tail lamp function are determined on the basis of the output of the two compartments. The single compartment parking lamp may, however, be treated as a 'supplemental' lamp, except that the candlepower ratios (with turn signal lamp) must be met with both parking lamp compartments illuminated.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4973OpenMr. Carl J. Clement Clement Associates 12785 Dianne Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94022; Mr. Carl J. Clement Clement Associates 12785 Dianne Drive Los Altos Hills CA 94022; "Dear Mr. Clement: This responds to your letter of January 28, 199 requesting information on any Federal regulations that may affect a new product you are developing. The product is an electronically-operated automotive sun visor that would automatically detect the direction of sunlight or glare and reposition itself to shield the driver. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of 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. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect. NHTSA has issued two safety standards that apply to sun visors: Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. These standards are called vehicle standards, because they apply to new vehicles, not to individual pieces of equipment. The Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. Therefore, if your sun visor were installed as original equipment by a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor would have to comply with the requirements of these two standards. Standard No. 201 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 that requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. Standard No. 302 requires sun visors to meet the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. The standard specifies that the material used on the visor must not burn at a rate of more than four inches per minute. If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of your product prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation is considered an 'alterer' and is required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. In addition to Standards No. 201 and 302, the installation of your product might affect the compliance of a vehicle with a number of other safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors, and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection. After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair 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... In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installed your sun visor would have to ensure that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Finally, under the Safety Act, your sun visor would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. If your sun visor will be sold as an item of equipment to be installed by the vehicle owner, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies. However, even if there is no safety standard applicable to the item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer is subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Additionally, a company making your product would be considered a manufacturer. A manufacturer is required by 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2625OpenMr. Charles Owen Verrill, Jr., Patton, Boggs & Blow, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. Charles Owen Verrill Jr. Patton Boggs & Blow 1200 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Verrill: This responds to your April 20, 1977, petition to amend Standard No 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. In your petition, you request that the National Highway traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permit the use of tires that have a maximum load rating of not less than 95% of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and not less than 95% of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Your petition is denied.; The problem addressed by your petition concerns a revision in the 197 Tire and Rim Manual that alters the load rating of tires. In effect, this revision will result in lower load ratings for certain tires. According to the facts you submit, the change in tire load rating will be implemented by tire manufacturers throughout the next few months which may not provide vehicle manufacturers sufficient time to correspondingly alter the GAWRs of their vehicles in accordance with the new tire load ratings. Therefore, for a short period of time, you allege that it will be impossible to obtain tires that correspond to the GAWR indicated on the vehicle.; To alleviate the above problem, you recommend rulemaking that woul permit vehicle manufacturers to install on their vehicles tires with load ratings slightly less than the GAWR of each axle. The NHTSA cannot permit the relief you request even for the limited time you propose. The intent of our tire standards is to provide minimum requirements for tires to ensure adequate safety. One of these minimum requirements mandates that the tire load rating be at least equal to the GAWR. Your request would have us reduce this minimum requirement. Since the matching of tires on a vehicle with the GAWR of each axle is such a basic principle of safety, the agency concludes that it would not be in the interest of safety to grant your request. Further, such an amendment might violate Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 *et seq*.), which requires that motor vehicles be equipped 'with tires which meet the maximum permissible load standards when such vehicle is fully loaded...'; As you may know, the label requirements of Standard No. 120 whic become effective in September permit you to list suitable tire and rim combinations on the vehicle. You need not equip a vehicle, however, with the tires indicated on the label. In this case, you may equip a trailer with any trailer tire that has a load rating equal to or greater than the GAWR of its associated axle. This may help resolve part of your problem with respect to a short term problem with matching tires on the vehicle with those indicated on the vehicle label.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
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.