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: aiam4779OpenMr. Heracilio R. Prieto President Easton Inc. Road 870, KM 2.6, Palo Seco Levittown, Puerto Rico 00949; Mr. Heracilio R. Prieto President Easton Inc. Road 870 KM 2.6 Palo Seco Levittown Puerto Rico 00949; "Dear Mr. Prieto: This responds to your letter asking about the markin and labeling requirements in Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids (49 CFR 571.116). You asked whether you could comply with the requirement in Standard No. 116 that each brake fluid container be labeled with a 'serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging' by means of a 'label notch coding system,' which you described as a mechanical device which permanently notches a label. Standard No. 116 does not prohibit the use of a label notch coding system provided that it is not susceptible to being torn. However, any label notch coding system must be permanent and unambiguous, and satisfy all other relevant provisions of the standard. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 116 sets forth packaging and labeling requirements for brake fluid containers. Section S5.2.2.2 requires each packager of a brake fluid to include information that is either 'marked' directly on the container or marked on a label that is 'permanently affixed to the container.' Section S5.2.2.2(a)-(g) sets forth the specific information that must appear directly on or be labeled on every brake fluid container. Section S5.2.2.2(d) requires that the container be marked with 'a serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging.' Information about the label notch coding system enclosed with your letter and samples of your notched labels show that you use the system known as 'code-dating,' which uses uniquely spaced notches to represent a code that can be translated into a packaging date by means of a 'Codedge decoder card.' With this number or date represented by notches, the number could be traced by the packager to the packaging date and lot number through its production quality control records. While the 'Codedge' system only identifies the year of manufacturing by means of a single digit, your recent letter indicates that an additional notch will be added to identify the decade.With respect to the label notch coding system, if the notches clearly identified the packaged lot and date of packaging, the combination would be a 'serial number' and would appear to comply with the requirement of S5.2.2.2(d). I would also like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1407) requires every manufacturer to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. For this reason, this agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance with respect to any system of labeling brake fluid containers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, 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"; |
|
ID: aiam4806OpenMr. Mitch L. Williams President, Hella Inc. P.O. Box 1064 Cranford, NJ 07016; Mr. Mitch L. Williams President Hella Inc. P.O. Box 1064 Cranford NJ 07016; "Dear Mr. Williams: This is in reply to your letters of November 1 an 8 to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. In your letter of November 1 you ask 'How would NHTSA view the addition of a rear spoiler with integrated third rear brake light to a vehicle already originally equipped with a third rear brake light?' There are two relevant provisions of Standard No. 108 that deal with your question. The first is relevant if installation of the spoiler prevents the original lamp from meeting the photometric or visibility requirements of Standard No. 108. If this occurs, compliance may be maintained by installing another center high-mounted lamp that meets all requirements of Standard No. 108. See S5.3.1.1. Presumably, the lamp in the spoiler is designed, or could be designed, to comply to all applicable requirements. A further question is whether two center high-mounted stop lamps are permissible. An auxiliary lamp is prohibited by S5.1.3 if it impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. One example of impairment is when the auxiliary lamp creates confusion as to the function of the original lamp. The motoring public is used to seeing only one center lamp in operation. Although we cannot reach a definitive conclusion that an auxiliary center stop lamp would impair the effectiveness of the original center stop lamp, it would probably be prudent to ensure that there is only one center stop lamp in operation. Thus, if the spoiler lamp complies with Standard No. 108, the original lamp may be disconnected. If the spoiler lamp does not comply with Standard No. 108 and the original lamp remains in compliance with Standard No. 108, the question of impairment arises. On balance, it would appear unlikely that impairment would result from this configuration. In your letter of November 8 you ask several questions with respect to the installation of center high-mounted stop lamps on pickup trucks. On May 31, l990, NHTSA proposed that the lamp be installed on pickup trucks and some other types of vehicles as well. We anticipate publishing a final rule on this issue in the Federal Register in the near future. The preamble to the rule will address your questions on location of the lamp. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4478OpenMr. Al Cunningham Chief Engineer Wesbar Corporation P.O. Box 577 West Bend, WI 53095; Mr. Al Cunningham Chief Engineer Wesbar Corporation P.O. Box 577 West Bend WI 53095; Dear Mr. Cunningham: This is in reply to your letter of September l4 l988, attaching two lamps, and asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to each. Specifically, you wish clarifications of SAE J588e, 'the definition...2.2 'Multiple Compartment Lamp' and the term used in 3.1 'Single Compartment Lamp''. SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, defines a multiple compartment lamp as 'a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts such as a housing or lens.' The term 'single compartment lamp' is not used in section 3.1, though the term 'single compartment photometric requirements' is used in referencing the values for one 'lighted section' given in Table 1 of J588e. For purposes of this discussion we shall define a 'single compartment lamp' as one that gives its indication by one lighted area. You have described your first lamp as 'a housing with back and four sides containing a two filament bulb with a single lens covering face of housing.' The lamp photometrically complies to the basic requirements of a Class A tail, stop and turn signal lamp. You have asked if this lamp is a single compartment lamp. The answer is yes, your model 3504 Exp. contains a single light source and has a single lighted area. Your second lamp is described as 'a housing with a back, two sides and one end, containing one; 57 bulb and one 1157 (2 filament) bulb. This housing is closed with two red lenses, on on the end and one on the face with an additional clear lens on bottom side. This lamp also complies to all standards of a class A tail, stop and turn lamp plus side marker clearance, license plate illuminator and class a reflex reflector side and rear'. You ask if this also is a single compartment lamp. The answer is yes. The term 'separately lighted area' in the definition of a multiple compartment lamp is understood to mean an area that is illuminated by a separate light source. In your model 3504 the turn signal light is provided by the; 1157 bulb alone, and not in tandem with the 57 bulb. I hope that this provides the clarification you seek. We ar returning your lamps under separate cover. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1628OpenMr. H. Hirai, Technical Representative, Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd., 23777 Greenfield Rd. Suite 462, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. H. Hirai Technical Representative Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd. 23777 Greenfield Rd. Suite 462 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Hirai: This responds to Toyo Kogyo's October 2, 1974, question whether 'cur weight' includes only the weight of an air conditioner installed by the manufacturer at the factory, or whether it also includes the weight of an air conditioner installed by a Toyo Kogyo dealer prior to sale of the vehicle.; 'Curb weight' is defined in 49 CFR S571.3 as 'the weight of a moto vehicle with standard equipment, maximum capacity of engine fuel, oil, and coolant, and, if so equipped, air conditioning and additional weight optional engine.'; Section 108(a) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac of 1966 requires that a vehicle comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of sale. Therefore, a vehicle must be capable of meeting a standard's requirements with the weight of any air conditioner that is present in the vehicle at the time of its sale, if the weight specified for compliance testing includes an air conditioning system.; We understand that your question arises with regard to the prope vehicle loading to conduct a barrier crash test under Standard No. 204, *Steering control rearward displacement*. Neither Standard No. 204 nor the SAE procedures it references, specifies vehicle weight conditions for purposes of the crash test. In the absence of a weight specification, the NHTSA concludes that the vehicle must be capable of meeting the requirement with the weight of the air conditioner included, if the vehicle is to be so equipped at the time of its sale.; As it interprets the Safety Act of 1966, the NHTSA has established th policy that a manufacturer may conduct certification testing in any manner it chooses, as long as it is calculated, in the exercise of due care, to demonstrate that the vehicle would pass if tested as specified in the standard. Thus, Toyo Kogyo could, for example, choose the air conditioner installation most adverse to barrier testing and conduct its barrier crash test with that air conditioner installed. Such testing would be evidence that the vehicle is capable of meeting the requirement with any other air conditioner installed, including the factory air conditioner.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4759OpenMr. Jack E. Eanes Chief, Vehicle Services State of Delaware Department of Public Safety Division of Motor Vehicles P. O. Box 698 Dover, Delaware, 19903; Mr. Jack E. Eanes Chief Vehicle Services State of Delaware Department of Public Safety Division of Motor Vehicles P. O. Box 698 Dover Delaware 19903; "Dear Mr. Eanes: This is in response to your letter asking whether ver darkly tinted rear windows that obscure the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL) required in passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 would violate any Federal laws or regulations. Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue two safety standards that are relevant to your question. The first of these is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), which applies to all new vehicles and new replacement equipment for motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in this Standard is a requirement for all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 to be equipped with a CHMSL of specified minimum size, brightness, and visibility from the range of locations set forth in the standard. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). This standard applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing for use in motor vehicles, and includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance of the glazing (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. A new passenger car with a rear window tinted so darkly that the CHMSL was not easily visible would probably not be in conformity with Standards No. 108 and 205, and so could not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States. However, this prohibition on the manufacture or sale of a nonconforming vehicle does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. Both before and after the first sale of a vehicle, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .' If any of the listed commercial entities were to install tint film or otherwise darken the rear windows on passenger cars so that the light transmittance of that window plus the darkening material was below 70 percent, those entities would be 'rendering inoperative' the light transmittance of the rear window of the car, in violation of Federal law. This same prohibition in Federal law makes it unlawful for a service station to permanently remove the safety belts or permanently disconnect the brake lines on a car. Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle no longer complies with the safety standards after such alterations. Hence, no provision of the Safety Act or our safety standards makes it unlawful for vehicle owners themselves to tint or otherwise darken the rear window of their car so that its light transmittance is below 70 percent and/or its CHMSL is obscured. The individual States, however, do have authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. The States also have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. You indicated in your letter that the State of Delaware 'allows vehicle rear windows to be tinted as dark as the owner desires.' While I am not familiar with Delaware law, I assume that this statute, and similar statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing and CHMSLs by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, any commercial firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent and/or reduces the required brightness of the CHMSL would have violated the 'render inoperative' provision in Federal law, even if Delaware permits individual owners to make such modifications themselves and to register and operate vehicles with rear windows and CHMSLs that would not comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards for new vehicles. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Delaware from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in the State of Delaware. Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and Delaware law, and Delaware would be free to enforce the provisions of its law. We would, however, urge the State of Delaware to carefully consider the adverse safety consequences that will result from the provision of its law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety, and that the CHMSL on passenger cars enhances motor vehicle safety. It is not clear why the State of Delaware would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance and CHMSLs in new passenger cars is satisfied by allowing far lower light transmittance levels and lower-brightness CHMSLs in passenger cars to be operated in the State. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0008OpenMr. Stanley L. Dembecki 2303 N. 44th Street, #14-237 Phoenix, AZ 80058; Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki 2303 N. 44th Street #14-237 Phoenix AZ 80058; Dear Mr. Dembecki: This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991 asking for an 'evaluation' of your 'Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: 'complete' one and two bulb units 'for l984 and older vehicles', and one and two 'electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991.' In your opinion, 'since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed.' We understand that your 'complete' unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the 'electronic module' intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer. Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. 108 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. 108 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard. With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. 108 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps. Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4848OpenMr. Stanley L. Dembecki 2303 N. 44th Street, #14-237 Phoenix, AZ 80058; Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki 2303 N. 44th Street #14-237 Phoenix AZ 80058; Dear Mr. Dembecki: This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991 asking for an 'evaluation' of your 'Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: 'complete' one and two bulb units 'for l984 and older vehicles', and one and two 'electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991.' In your opinion, 'since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed.' We understand that your 'complete' unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the 'electronic module' intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer. Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. 108 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. 108 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard. With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. 108 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps. Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4863OpenMr. Stanley L. Dembecki 2303 N. 44th Street, #14-237 Phoenix, AZ 80058; Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki 2303 N. 44th Street #14-237 Phoenix AZ 80058; Dear Mr. Dembecki: This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991 asking for an 'evaluation' of your 'Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: 'complete' one and two bulb units 'for l984 and older vehicles', and one and two 'electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991.' In your opinion, 'since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed.' We understand that your 'complete' unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the 'electronic module' intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer. Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. 108 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. 108 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard. With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. 108 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps. Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1370OpenMr. M. L. Higgins, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. M. L. Higgins Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Higgins: This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1973, asking whethe motor vehicle new or used car dealers are prohibited from selling vehicles mounted on regrooved or recapped tires. You indicated in a phone conversation with Michael Peskoe of this office that your concern is with motor vehicles generally, and not passenger cars alone.; New passenger cars are required to be sold with tires meeting th requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.110). New vehicles other than passenger cars are not presently required by NHTSA regulations to be sold with particular tires, but requirements in this regard have been proposed (36 F.R. 14273, August 3, 1971).; This agency has no requirements regarding the sale of used moto vehicles equipped with recapped or retreaded tires. However, buses subject to Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations are prohibited from operating with recapped, retreaded, or regrooved tires on their front wheels (49 CFR S 393.75(d)).; Trucks and truck tractors subject to Motor Carrier Safety requirement may not be operated with regrooved tires on the front wheels which have a load carrying capacity equal to or greater than that of 8.25-20 8 ply-rating tires (49 CFR 393.75(e)). For more inforamtion regarding the applicability of these requirements you should contact, Regualtions Division Bureau of Motor carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.; The sale of regrooved tires is subject to regulations issued by thi agency (49 CFR Part 569). the recent opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals (*NAMBO* v. *Brinegar*, D.C. Dir., Case No. 71-1268, July 26, 1973) appears to allow the sale of regrooved tires under these regulations in certain circumstances. We believe the opinion is unclear in this regard, and as a result we have determined to seek additional judicial review to further clarify the matter.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4275OpenMr. Jeffrey L. Link Head, Certification Government Relations Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea, CA 92621; Mr. Jeffrey L. Link Head Certification Government Relations Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea CA 92621; Dear Mr. Link: This responds to your letter to Mr. Brian McLaughlin formerly with our office of Market Incentives, seeking an interpretation of the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to give you some general background information on the statutory provisions underlying the theft prevention standard. Section 602(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2022(a)) specifies that this agency shall promulgate a vehicle theft prevention standard that applies with respect to - (1) the covered major parts which are installed by manufacturers in passenger motor vehicles in lines designated under section 603 as high theft lines, and (2) the major replacement parts for the major parts described in paragraph (1). The term 'line' is defined in section 601(2) as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design.' Finally, section 603(d) of the Cost Savings Act provides that the Secretary may not render the standard inapplicable to any line which at any time has been subject to the standard, except if the line is exempted under section 605 because it is equipped with an effective antitheft device as standard equipment. With this background, I will now address the two statements in your letter. 1. A manufacturer that is not required to mark a 1987 line in accordance with the theft prevention standard, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the line is not an actual or likely high theft line, will not be required to mark a new 1990 line bearing the same name as the 1987 line, even if subsequent annual surveys of vehicle theft rates show that this line's theft rate is higher than the median theft rate. This statement is inaccurate in two important areas. First, when a line is modified from one model year to the next, NHTSA does not simply treat a new model year's line as a continuation of the previous model year's line even if both groups of vehicles have the same name. Indeed, the definition in section 601(2) does not allow the agency to do so. Instead, the statutory definition requires the vehicle groups to have both the same name and be similar in construction or design. The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be a front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the predecessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles. This means that your assumption that new vehicles carrying the same name as older vehicles will necessarily be treated as the same line is incorrect. Second, there is no statutory prohibition against the agency reclassifying a line it previously determined to be a likely low theft line as a high theft line, based on actual theft data, if the line was introduced into commerce after January 1, 1983. In your example, let us assume that NHTSA determined that the 1987 line was a likely low theft line, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 542. If actual theft data for 1987, 1988, and 1989 showed the line was in fact a high theft line, the Cost Savings Act does not forbid NHTSA from selecting the 1990 model year cars as a high theft line, even if the 1990 version of the line were just a continuation of the line from previous model years. Such a selection would obligate the manufacturer to mark the line in accordance with Part 541 beginning in the 1990 model year. For lines introduced into commerce on or before January 1, 1983, Congress specified the procedure to be followed to determine whether the line is high theft in section 603(a)(1)(A) of the Cost Savings Act. Lines that were not selected as high theft lines according to that procedure cannot be selected as high theft lines according to the procedures to be followed for lines introduced into commerce on or before January 1, 1983 and if the 1990 version of the line were just a continuation of the 1987 line, your understanding is correct. The agency cannot reclassify such a line even if subsequent theft data shows the line's theft rate is higher than the median theft rate. 2. A manufacturer that is required to mark a 1987 line in accordance with the theft prevention standard, because NHTSA has determined that the line is an actual or likely high theft line, will be required to mark a new 1990 line bearing the same name as the 1987 line, even if subsequent annual surveys of vehicle theft rates show that this line's theft rate is lower than the median theft rate. This statement if also inaccurate. For the reasons set forth above, the new 1990 line is not automatically treated as the same line as the 1987 line, even if it bears the same name. If it were not considered to be the same line as the earlier one, NHTSA would make a determination of whether the new 1990 lines was a likely high or low theft line, following the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 542. However, if the line were determined to be a continuation of the old line, and not a new line, your statement would be accurate. Section 603(d) of the Cost Savings Act prohibits the agency from rendering the standard inapplicable to any line which at any time has been subject to the standard, unless the line is exempted pursuant to section 605 of the Cost Savings Act and if, (1) the 1987 version of a line was subject to the theft prevention standard, and (2) the 1990 version of the line were deemed a continuation of the 1987 line, the 1990 version of the line must be subject tot he marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. If you have any further questions or need more information about this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika S. Jones Chief Counsel; |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.