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: aiam2811OpenMr. Doug Mills, Rt. 1 Box 149, Tellico Plains, TN 37385; Mr. Doug Mills Rt. 1 Box 149 Tellico Plains TN 37385; Dear Mr. Mills: This responds to your recent letter asking additional question concerning the responsibilities of a person converting a pick-up truck into a dump truck, under Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. This office explained the general responsibilities of a person who alters a certified vehicle in a letter to your associate, Mr. Henry Brown, dated February 1, 1978. You now ask questions regarding specific aspects of the conversion operating and whether they can be accomplished without destroying a vehicle's compliance with safety regulations.; Unfortunately, it is impossible for the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) to answer your specific questions. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer or vehicle alterer to determine whether his vehicle is in compliance with applicable safety standards and to certify that vehicle. The NHTSA cannot review an alteration procedure such as the one with which you are concerned and state that it can or cannot be done in compliance with Federal regulations. There are no safety regulations which require a specific number of bolts or specific bolt locations, for instance. Likewise, Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, is specified only in terms of performance requirements, so the NHTSA cannot tell you whether a modified fuel filler neck will destroy a vehicle's compliance with the standard.; As stated in our previous letter, a person who alters a pick-up truc to convert it to a dump truck must certify that the truck remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. Further, the person who makes the conversion must assure that the alterations do not result in any 'safety related defects' whether or not there is a specific safety standard that is applicable. Therefore, you must determine for yourself whether the number of bolts you use, the bolt strengths and the bolt locations will result in safety hazards.; I can answer your question number 8 regarding possible liability fo removal and alteration of the truck bumper. The Federal safety standard for bumpers is only applicable to passenger cars, so you may alter a truck bumper with impunity provided the action does not result in a safety related defect.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5063OpenMr. Paul D. Barron Professional Technologies International Inc. 400 South Vermont #116 Oklahoma City, OK 73108; Mr. Paul D. Barron Professional Technologies International Inc. 400 South Vermont #116 Oklahoma City OK 73108; "Dear Mr. Barron: This responds to your inquiry about this agency' requirements that are applicable to your product, a 'UV Heat Shield.' Your sales literature explains that this product is a UV protective window film that permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front windshield. You state that the UV Heat Shield blocks ultra-violet radiation from entering the vehicle's occupant compartment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes 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. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (e.g., 70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure driver visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install your window film over the glazing, that subsequent manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 with the window film installed. I note that while you state that your window film permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front windshield, it is the windshield with your product installed that would be required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any applicable safety standard. This provision means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying installation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles. If you are interested in further information on the provisions on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. In addition, under the Safety Act, the UV Heat Shield would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4524OpenMr. Ward W. Reeser Project Engineer Electrical Systems Caterpillar Tractor Co. 100 N. E. Adams St. Peoria, Illinois 61629; Mr. Ward W. Reeser Project Engineer Electrical Systems Caterpillar Tractor Co. 100 N. E. Adams St. Peoria Illinois 61629; "Dear Mr. Reeser: I am writing in response to your December 4, 198 letter in which you described Caterpillar Inc.'s worldwide program to review lighting used on Caterpillar product lines in order to standardize the devices. You specifically asked if any of Caterpillar's lighting devices were covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108. You enclosed descriptive literature on the Caterpillar product line. I regret the delay in responding to your question. It must be noted at the outset that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for 'motor vehicles.' Therefore, Standard 108 and all of our other regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a 'motor vehicle' under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 102(3) of the Act defines 'motor vehicle' as: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles because Congress clearly did not intend to include them in its coverage. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., Airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. As noted above, this agency has consistently interpreted 'motor vehicle' to exclude vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel. Therefore, the track-type tractors, excavators, track-type loaders, tracked pavement profilers PR-450, PR-750B and PR-1000, concrete slipform pavers & auxiliary equipment, finegraders, front shovels, swing machines, tracked skidders D4H and D5H are not considered to be 'motor vehicles.' In your letter, you described the Caterpillar line of construction and industrial equipment as basically for off-highway use: 'There are occasional uses on the highway for such equipment as motor graders, but obviously none of this equipment is designed for normal highway use or for the transportation of people.' Despite their use of the highway, some vehicles are excepted from the motor vehicle classification. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered 'motor vehicles.' Although many items in the Caterpillar product line have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles, the product literature enclosed with your letter did not provide sufficient information on the maximum speed capabilities or intended uses (i.e., strictly off highway or occasional on-highway use) of the motor graders, off-highway tractors, articulated dump trucks, wheel tractors, compactors, landfill compactors, wheel loaders, integrated toolcarriers, backhoe loaders, pavement profilers PR-75, PR-105 and PR-275, asphalt pavers & auxiliary equipment, compaction equipment, skidders, pipelayers, scrapers, and off-highway trucks to enable me to make a determination whether these would be considered 'motor vehicles.' However, I believe that the guidelines for classifying vehicles that are set forth above will allow you to determine if these are 'motor vehicles.' If they are, they must comply with safety standards, including Standard 108, applicable to trucks. The lighting devices and other features of 'motor vehicles' would be required to comply with the FMVSS (49 CFR Part 571). As you are aware, Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR 571.108) specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment necessary for signaling andfor the safe operation of motor vehicles during darkness and other conditions of reduced visibility. Finally, the product literature included several items which did not appear to be self-propelling, including the asphalt drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment items TSF-54 and TSM-54. These products fall within NHTSA's jurisdiction if they are 'trailers' as that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3. That section defines 'trailer' as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' Based on the depiction in the brochure, the equipment appear to be designed for carrying property (drum mixers, aggregate bins, and compaction equipment) and for being drawn by another vehicle. Therefore, whether the equipment are trailers depends on whether they are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act and on whether the vehicles the equipment are designed to be drawn by are 'motor vehicles.' Specific information has not been provided about the intended uses of the equipment. If they make frequent use of the highways, and stay at one particular job site for a limited amount of time, the items mentioned above would be motor vehicles, and would fall within the definition of 'trailers.' Trailers are subject to Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If, on the other hand, the equipment are intended to be drawn by vehicles that are not motor vehicles, or the equipment stays at a job site for extended periods of time and it travels on the highways only to move to another job site for an extended stay, the equipment would not be considered motor vehicles. It is important to note that NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self certification' process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product. I hope the information provided above will be useful to you and to Caterpillar, Inc. If there are any further questions or if you need further information, please do not hesitate to write to me. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3929OpenMr. Joseph L. Hourihan, Vehicle Inspection Services, Room 438, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, 100 Nashua Street, Boston, MA 02114; Mr. Joseph L. Hourihan Vehicle Inspection Services Room 438 Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles 100 Nashua Street Boston MA 02114; Dear Mr. Hourihan: This responds to your March 11, 1985 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning our school bus safety standards. You asked who is responsible for determining, at the time of the initial sale of the bus, whether the vehicle's intended use is to transport school children. You also asked who is the party responsible for ensuring that a school bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.; The responsibility for determining whether the vehicle's intended us is to transport school children rests with the seller of the school bus. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers or distributors from selling new buses for school transportation which do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. I have enclosed a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033) that discusses the responsibility of manufacturers and dealers who know that a vehicle will be used to transport school children to sell school buses that comply with our school bus safety standards. As discussed in that notice, the agency believes that, of all the persons in the chain of distribution who are subject to the Vehicle Safety Act, the seller is most likely to have knowledge of the likely use of the vehicle. Of course, the seller is not held responsible for more than its knowledge of the purpose of the sale.; In response to your second question, under the Vehicle Safety Act, th manufacturer of a new school bus certifies that its vehicle meets the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. The party selling a new bus for school transportation is responsible for selling a complying school bus.; In your letter, you state that new 10- to 15-passenger buses are bein sold to schools and school districts in Massachusetts for the transportation of students even though they may not comply with our school bus safety standards. We would appreciate learning more about instances in which a noncomplying bus may have been sold. Please provide any information you may have to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Room 6113, at the address given above. With respect to the future purchases of new vehicles, schools and school districts should keep in mind that the dealers are obligated to sell vehicles that meet the school bus safety standards. The dealers should know that they are at risk if they sell noncomplying vehicles.; In a telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff on March 25, yo requested that we send you the Federal Register notice (41 FR 28506) that interpreted the term 'public school buses' to include buses owned and operated by a private contractor under contract with a State to provide transportation for students to and from public schools. You will find that notice enclosed.; Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4612OpenMr. P.H. Moes President U.S. Trade Corp. 1661 Katy Lane Fort Mill, SC 29715; Mr. P.H. Moes President U.S. Trade Corp. 1661 Katy Lane Fort Mill SC 29715; "Dear Mr. Moes: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1989 requesting an interpretation of your company's obligations and responsibilities when importing and converting motor vehicles for use in the United States. Specifically, you asked about the effects of the differing practices of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to indicating the importer of record on their respective import forms, Form HS-7 and Form 3250-1. You also asked about your obligations for annual CAFE reporting. Your understanding that the vehicle owner is normally shown as the importer of record on DOT Form HS-7 is correct. EPA, on the other hand, requires that for purposes of certification under EPA Form 3520-1, an independent commercial importer (ICI) registered with EPA must be shown as the importer of record. You indicated that these two different designations of the importer of record have caused confusion in your dealings with U.S. Customs officials. You state that those officials have sometimes required customs brokers to list your company as the importer of record on the DOT forms as well as on the EPA form. The Customs Service headquarters office has recognized that there has been some confusion in the past, but has indicated to NHTSA that it intends to clarify this matter with its field offices. You should thus instruct your brokers to continue to indicate the vehicle's owner as the importer of record on the DOT importation declaration, Form HS-7 and the checklist of conformance operations, Form HS-189, if submitted. With respect to CAFE reporting, section 501(9) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, (15 USC 1901, at 200l(9)) defines the term 'manufacture' as meaning '... to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the United States, or to import' (emphasis added). Thus, under the Cost Savings Act, an importer is clearly a manufacturer for purposes ofCAFE requirements. Section 502 of the Cost Savings Act (l5 USC 2002) requires all manufacturers to comply with the CAFE standards for their vehicles, and section 505 (l5 USC 2005) sets out CAFE reporting requirements for such manufacturers. (See also, 49 CFR /537.5). As with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391 et seq.), it is the importer of record, as shown on Form HS-7, who must comply with these reporting requirements. Your firm, however, may be required to report fuel economy data to EPA. See, 40 CFR //85.1510(f), 600.312-86.) I hope you have found this information helpful. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2335OpenMr. Richard McRay, Chief Engineer, Walter Motor Truck Company, School Road, Voorheesville, NY 12180; Mr. Richard McRay Chief Engineer Walter Motor Truck Company School Road Voorheesville NY 12180; REGISTERED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dear Mr. McRay: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1976 providing us you views with respect to defect notification. You appear to have concluded that you were not required to provide either a certification label or an incomplete vehicle document to Advance Mixer, Inc. (AMI) with respect to the 50 mixer trucks in question, but acknowledge the fact that 'the label furnished by us was . . . incorrect.' You wish to correct the error 'by requesting that the customer (AMI) remove the incorrect data plate from the vehicle.'; We have reviewed the information supplied with your letter and you argument that Walter acted as a sub-contractor to AMI for the purposes of constructing and assembling a proprietary item. They do not alter our conclusion expressed on June 10, 1976, that Walter, as the certifying manufacturer of a motor vehicle, has the obligation to inform the purchaser of the defect in the vehicle, and to remedy it.; Mixer trucks are vehicles manufactured in two or more stages as tha term is employed in 49 CFR Part 568. Their manufacture is begun by an 'incomplete vehicle manufacturer' (Walter) and completed by a 'final-stage manufacturer' (AMI). Certification of the completed vehicle, which is required by S 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, may be accomplished by either party. If the final stage manufacturer is to certify the completed vehicle, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer is required by S 568.4 to furnish an incomplete vehicle document with its incomplete vehicle. No such document need be supplied where the incomplete vehicle manufacturer is the certifying party. Regardless of what you believe to be the 'unusual circumstances' surrounding the construction of the 50 trucks, it appears that Walter nevertheless allowed itself to be the certifier of the trucks and supplied the incorrect labels that were affixed to them. Under those circumstances we believe that a court of law would find persuasive our argument that Walter was an incomplete vehicle manufacturer that had assumed 'legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act . . . with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured. . .' within the meaning of S 568.7(a), or alternatively that, it had failed to provide the incomplete vehicle document required by Part 568.; One of the certifying party's obligations is to notify vehicle owner and remedy the defect upon determination of the existence of a safety-related defect in a motor vehicle. We assume, of course, that AMI will cooperate in providing Walter appropriate weight rating information for the labels and a list of the purchasers of the 50 trucks. To expedite this matter I am providing AMI's Washington counsel with a copy of your letter of June 18 and this response.; As you know, pursuant to Section 109 of the Act a maximum civil penalt of $1,000 may be imposed for each violation, and there are 50 trucks involved here. Since the error apparently 'resulted from Walter's administrative misinterpretation' and not from an attempt to evade responsibilities, we would be willing to close our file without imposing civil penalties provided Walter conducts a suitable notification campaign. Otherwise we may institute proceedings under Section 152 to compel notice.; We request your further views within 20 days after receipt of thi letter. We would be willing to help you initiate the campaign by critiquing a draft notification letter should you wish to submit it with your response.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5598OpenMr. Kenneth Zawlocki 7028 Laurel Oak Way Fair Oaks, CA 95628; Mr. Kenneth Zawlocki 7028 Laurel Oak Way Fair Oaks CA 95628; "Dear Mr. Zawlocki: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. Your questions are addressed below. You first ask whether the Penetration Test (S7.2) tests the outer shell of the helmet, the Impact Attenuation Test (S7.1) tests inner protection materials, and the Retention System Test (S7.3) tests straps that hold the helmet on the head. Each of these tests measures the performance of a motorcycle helmet as a total system, i.e., the tests are conducted on a motorcycle helmet as a whole, rather than on helmet components. Therefore, the tests are not limited to measuring the performance of the components you cite. By way of example, while the shell of the helmet may play a critical role in a helmet's resistance to penetration, the composition and thickness of the liner may also be important. Similarly, while certain components are more important than others in meeting certain criteria, overall design and construction of the helmet will determine whether it meets the impact attenuation and retention requirements. You next ask whether Standard No. 218 specifies the types or amounts of material to be used in manufacturing helmets. Standard No. 218 specifies performance requirements for motorcycle helmets. A manufacturer may use any types or amounts of materials that enable the manufacturer to fully comply with the standard. While Standard No. 218 does not specify that certain materials must be used in manufacturing a helmet, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) experience in over 20 years of helmet testing indicates that helmets meeting Standard No. 218 have common characteristics. The first of these is a dense foam liner that is approximately one inch thick. Helmets with thinner liners or liners composed of a soft compressible foam are not likely to meet the impact attenuation or penetration requirements of the Standard. The weight of the helmet, while not governed by any section of Standard No. 218, is also a good indicator of how it will perform in testing. Although it may be technically possible to build a lightweight helmet that satisfies the performance requirements of Standard No. 218, NHTSA is not aware of any motorcycle helmet weighing less than three pounds that has done so. Finally, you ask whether Standard No. 218 precludes decorating a helmet with any material such as leather or cloth, or with items such as wigs, flowers, decals or hats. The various helmet decorations you describe could affect a motorcycle helmet's compliance with a variety of Standard No. 218's performance requirements. One example is S5.5, Projections. The inside of the shell must be free of protruding rivets or other projections. The presence of any projections within the helmet indicates that it is not a complying helmet. Projecting snaps or other objects are permitted on the outside of the helmet only if they are required for essential accessories such as visors or face shields. Any projection on the outside of a helmet must not protrude more than five millimeters. I note that under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), 'a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' a new motorcycle helmet that does not comply with Standard No. 218. Also, dealers and repair businesses may not modify new or used motorcycle helmets in a manner that results in the helmet no longer complying with the standard. Any of these parties must therefore ensure that any contemplated decorations would not affect a helmet's compliance with Standard No. 218. Federal law does not address modifications made by a motorcycle helmet owner to his or her own helmet. However, it is NHTSA's policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. This is because even relatively simple modifications can reduce the safety protection provided by the helmet. S5.6.1(f)(3) of Standard No. 218 requires the following instruction to be placed on helmets: 'Make no modifications...' I also note that State laws may address modifications made by motorcycle helmet owners to their own helmets. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5634OpenMr. Ben Ray Route 2, Box 229-E Savannah, TN 38372; Mr. Ben Ray Route 2 Box 229-E Savannah TN 38372; "Dear Mr. Ray: This responds to your letter asking about Federa requirements for automatic brake adjusters on log trailers. According to your letter, you manufacture log trailers, using used axles that already have what you call 'regular' (i.e., manual) brake adjusters on them. In an October 13, 1995 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you further stated that the wheels, brakes, and suspension are typically used, but that occasionally you use new brake systems. You also clarified that these trailers are used on the public roads as well as in the woods for transporting logs to the mills. You asked whether it is permissible to use manual brake adjusters instead of automatic adjusters. The answer depends on whether your log trailers are equipped with new or used components and the trailer continues to use the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and to be owned by the user of the reassembled vehicle. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. One such standard is Standard No. 121, Air brake system, which requires new trailers to be equipped with automatic brake adjusters. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA's regulations specifically address the question of when trailers produced by combining new components and used materials are considered to be new trailers. Section 49 CFR 571.7(f) states that when new and used components are used in trailer manufacture, the trailer will be considered 'newly manufactured' unless each of the following three conditions is true with respect to the trailer. First, the trailer running gear assembly, which includes the axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension, is not new and was taken from an existing trailer. Second, the existing trailer's identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the VIN. Third, the existing trailer is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle. In other words, a log trailer will generally be considered newly manufactured, unless all these conditions are met. If a trailer is considered newly manufactured, then it must comply with the current requirements applicable to trailers. Among other things, this means that the trailer must be equipped with automatic adjusters. If a trailer meets these three conditions, then it is considered not newly manufactured and may be equipped with manual adjusters. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4747OpenMr. Raymond D. Strakosch President Safety Premiums 87 Broadway P. O. Box 1031 Newburgh, NY 12550; Mr. Raymond D. Strakosch President Safety Premiums 87 Broadway P. O. Box 1031 Newburgh NY 12550; "Dear Mr. Strakosch: Thank you for your letter to John Messera, of ou Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125). You indicated that you have for many years produced and sold a 'Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On,' which you described as a 'dangling safety tag which attaches to the car mirror to alert passersby of emergency needs.' These warning devices are made of a reflective plastic material designed with a clip attachment, and come in eight different shapes, including a triangular configuration. These products are slightly more than four inches high. You also stated that, pursuant to a request from a customer, your company has developed a larger size warning triangle for mounting on a car mirror. You have provided a prototype of this new larger size 'Lite at Nite' Reflective Auto Triangle, that is approximately 6' at the base and 5 1/2' in height. You stated that, as your warning triangle gets larger, you 'wish to make sure it is not confused with the roadside truck version described in Standard No. 125.' Additionally, you stated that you wanted to be certain that the instructions for this larger size warning triangle 'in no way conflict with the standard.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. 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. This agency has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. Section S3 of Standard 125 states 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.) This language in S3 of Standard No. 125 makes clear that the standard's requirements are not limited to devices used by large trucks, that is, Standard No. 125 does not apply only to a 'roadside truck version' of a warning device. Instead, the standard applies to all devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, from the smallest motorcycle to the largest truck, if the device satisfies the other conditions set forth in S3 of the standard. One of the conditions 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. Examples of such devices include a rag tied on a radio antenna and a 'HELP' message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade. By the time approaching traffic sees one of these non-warning devices, the traffic would already be aware that the vehicle displaying such a device was stopped. Your 'Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On' product appears to be designed and to function in the same way other non-warning devices do, 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. If this is the case, the 'Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On' would not be subject to Standard No. 125. However, the larger 'Lite at Nite' Reflective Auto Triangle may be designed to be used to 'warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle.' It appears from the promotional material enclosed in your letter that this larger triangle is intended to serve the same purpose as what you call 'truck warning triangles.' We assume that you are describing warning devices that are certified as complying with Standard No. 125. If your larger triangle is to serve this function, it would be subject to Standard No. 125 and would have to conform to all the requirements of the standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the larger triangle must conform include minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) 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 are in conformity with the applicable standard. Further, the Safety Act provides that NHTSA has no authority to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. To comply with any applicable legal obligations, especially in connection with the manufacture of the larger size warning triangle, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard 125 and consider the design, marketing, and intended use of the new larger warning triangle. You should also be aware that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers and remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3451OpenMr. Robert W. Stanley, Executive Vice President, National Class Dealers Association, 1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Robert W. Stanley Executive Vice President National Class Dealers Association 1000 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Stanley: This is in response to your letters regarding Safety Standard No. 205 *Glazing Materials*. Please accept our apology for the lateness of our reply. You ask whether an installer of automotive safety glazing violates any of the regulations promulgated by the American National Standard Institute, Inc. (ANSI) or of this agency if the installer repairs damaged automotive glazing as a part of his or her business.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 197 (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 205 establishes performance requirements for automotive glazing. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' Z26.1-1966. Glazing repair businesses, sellers of vehicles or automotive glazing, and manufacturers of glazing repair kits all have different responsibilities and liabilities regarding automotive glazing and Safety Standard No. 205 under the Act.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any manufacturer distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. (There is no prohibition against an individual modifying his or her own vehicle or equipment.) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not consider fixing a damaged windshield to constitute rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205 even if the windshield does not meet the requirements of the standard once repaired. This is because the agency considers the object or event which damaged the windshield in the first place to have rendered the windshield inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205. However, if the repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield that is installed in a vehicle renders *another* part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop violates section 108(a)(2)(A). It does not matter whether the vehicle is new or used (i.e., has been sold for purposes other than resale). There is no violation if the repair business reasonably believes that the vehicle or item of equipment will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. Section 109 of the Act imposes a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). It is not likely that the process you describe would involve a rendering inoperative, but you should be aware of this section.; Sellers of repaired automotive glazing or vehicles equipped wit repaired automotive glazing may violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Section 108(a)(1)(A) provides that:; >>>no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, o introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard...<<<; (Note that section 108(b)(1) provides that section 108(a)(1)(A) doe not apply once the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale. In other words, section 108(a)(1)(A) applies only to new vehicles or equipment, not to used vehicles or equipment.) Thus, if someone sells a new, but damaged, replacement windshield that does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 once repaired, he or she is in violation of section 108(a)(1)(A), since he or she is selling an item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. An automobile dealer who sells a new car whose windshield does not comply with Standard No. 205 also violates section 108(a)(1)(A). Again, section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(1)(A).; The responsibilities of manufacturers of glazing repair kits or system under the Act are found in sections 151 *et seq*. of the Act. Such manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 also imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment. It is not likely, however, that glazing repair kits would contain safety related defects. This section generally would apply to mechanical motor vehicle components.; Compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard will not automatically relieve a repair business or manufacturer of responsibility in a products liability suit. You will have to contact a private attorney for more information in this area, however.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.