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: aiam4523OpenMr. Louis F. Klusmeyer Senior Research Scientist Vehicle Research and Development P.O. Drawer 28510 San Antonio, TX 78284; Mr. Louis F. Klusmeyer Senior Research Scientist Vehicle Research and Development P.O. Drawer 28510 San Antonio TX 78284; "Dear Mr. Klusmeyer: This is in reply to your letter of July 11, l988 to Mr. Vinson of this office with reference to a 'deceleration' or 'pre-braking' concept. As you presently envision the implementation of this concept, an amber lamp would be activated when the driver's foot is removed from the accelerator pedal, and would be extinguished automatically when the driver reapplies pressure to the accelerator pedal. You believe that the optimum location appears to be immediately adjacent to the center highmounted stoplamp. You believe further that this location has already been considered by NHTSA for this purpose, and ask whether it is precluded by Standard No. l08. Your belief is based upon the Federal Register notice of October l983 adopting the center highmounted stoplamp, which stated that 'Other types of lamps or added functions such as deceleration signals may be desirable and should be investigated.' However, this was in the context of alternatives to adoption of the center lamp, and relates to the agency's statement in the same paragraph that 'with additional research, more nearly optimum specifications for stoplamp configurations may be developed.' Indeed, the agency made it quite clear in prohibiting combining the center lamp with any other lamp or reflector (paragraph S4.4) that no added functions were contemplated or desirable. Under paragraph S4.4 therefore, a deceleration lamp and the center stop lamp could not be combined. S4.4 would not prohibit an amber lamp adjacent to the center lamp. However, paragraph S4.1.3 prohibits optional lighting equipment if it would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. Your letter indicates that the deceleration signal is deactivated by renewed pressure on the accelerator pedal (and not by pressure on the brake pedal) so that a following driver would be presented with both amber and red signals, creating the possibility of confusion, and hence impairment. You have not indicated whether the deceleration lamp would be steady-burning or flashing, but we believe the possibility of confusion would increase were the lamp flashing. However, were the lamp to be extinguished when the brake pedal is applied (which activates the stop lamps), then the possibility of confusion would be substantially lessened. With respect to deceleration warning systems, last year the Flxible Corporation determined that a system installed on its buses created an impairment, and hence a noncompliance with paragraph S4.l.3. The company then conducted a notification and remedy campaign (87V-089) as required by statute. The company concluded that its flashing amber deceleration lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stoplamps. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3966OpenMs. Melinda Maggs, 243 Washington Ave., Scotia, NY 12302; Ms. Melinda Maggs 243 Washington Ave. Scotia NY 12302; Dear Ms. Maggs: Thank you for your March 25, 1985, letter asking about Federal moto vehicle safety regulations that might affect an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. You described your product as a pad to cushion safety belts. The pad, which is removable, is made of 1/4 inch foam and is attached with velcro to the safety belt. I regret the delay in our response.; You first asked for confirmation of information received in a phon conversation with Paul Bauer of this office. As Mr. Bauer explained, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) may affect the sale of your product. As you requested, I have enclosed a copy of the Act for your reference. That section provides that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not render inoperative any safety device installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. Since safety belts are safety devices installed in accordance with Safety Standards No. 208 and 209, those types of businesses may not install any other products which would impair the effective operation of the belts. Individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherwise modify existing equipment, without risk of violating the 'render inoperative' provision.; I should emphasize that we are unable to offer any opinion on whethe your product would impair the effectiveness of safety belts. We do recommend that manufacturers carefully consider that possibility before placing their products on the market.; You also asked whether any Federal regulations relating to materia content and flammability affect your product. Although no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards directly govern material content, Standard No. 302 does provide flammability requirements for components of new vehicle occupant compartments, including safety belts. Thus, your product would need to meet the flammability standard if it was installed as original equipment in new vehicles.; Standard No. 302 would not apply directly to your product if it is sol only as aftermarket equipment. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, discussed above, could affect your product as it relates to the flammability standard. NHTSA would consider the installation of safety belt pads that do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 as 'rendering inoperative' an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in accordance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Again, this provision prohibits only manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses from installing such products, it does not prohibit consumers from purchasing and installing those products on their own.; Again, we are not offering any opinion as to whether your product woul meet those flammability standards, but we recommend that you consider that aspect.; The agency believes that all Federal motor vehicle safety standards ar important and that all manufacturers should strive to meet those standards, whether required by law or not. Additionally, if noncomplying pads were to catch fire in a situation where a pad complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, a manufacturer might face possible product liability consequences under state law. Likewise, a manufacturer might face product liability consequences if its product impaired the effectiveness of the safety belts. You may wish to consult a local attorney in this regard to discuss your product.; I am enclosing copies of Safety Standards Nos. 208, 209 and 302. W appreciate your interest in devices which may encourage safety belt usage, and I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3976OpenMs. Melinda Maggs, 243 Washington Ave., Scotia, NY 12302; Ms. Melinda Maggs 243 Washington Ave. Scotia NY 12302; Dear Ms. Maggs: Thank you for your March 25, 1985, letter asking about Federal moto vehicle safety regulations that might affect an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. You described your product as a pad to cushion safety belts. The pad, which is removable, is made of 1/4 inch foam and is attached with velcro to the safety belt. I regret the delay in our response.; You first asked for confirmation of information received in a phon conversation with Paul Bauer of this office. As Mr. Bauer explained, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) may affect the sale of your product. As you requested, I have enclosed a copy of the Act for your reference. That section provides that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not render inoperative any safety device installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. Since safety belts are safety devices installed in accordance with Safety Standards No. 208 and 209, those types of businesses may not install any other products which would impair the effective operation of the belts. Individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherwise modify existing equipment, without risk of violating the 'render inoperative' provision.; I should emphasize that we are unable to offer any opinion on whethe your product would impair the effectiveness of safety belts. We do recommend that manufacturers carefully consider that possibility before placing their products on the market.; You also asked whether any Federal regulations relating to materia content and flammability affect your product. Although no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards directly govern material content, Standard No. 302 does provide flammability requirements for components of new vehicle occupant compartments, including safety belts. Thus, your product would need to meet the flammability standard if it was installed as original equipment in new vehicles.; Standard No. 302 would not apply directly to your product if it is sol only as aftermarket equipment. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, discussed above, could affect your product as it relates to the flammability standard. NHTSA would consider the installation of safety belt pads that do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 as 'rendering inoperative' an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in accordance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Again, this provision prohibits only manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses from installing such products, it does not prohibit consumers from purchasing and installing those products on their own.; Again, we are not offering any opinion as to whether your product woul meet those flammability standards, but we recommend that you consider that aspect.; The agency believes that all Federal motor vehicle safety standards ar important and that all manufacturers should strive to meet those standards, whether required by law or not. Additionally, if noncomplying pads were to catch fire in a situation where a pad complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, a manufacturer might face possible product liability consequences under state law. Likewise, a manufacturer might face product liability consequences if its product impaired the effectiveness of the safety belts. You may wish to consult a local attorney in this regard to discuss your product.; I am enclosing copies of Safety Standards Nos. 208, 209 and 302. W appreciate your interest in devices which may encourage safety belt usage, and I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2153OpenMr. Tokio Iinuma, Staff, Safety, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Tokio Iinuma Staff Safety Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma: This is in response to your November 20, 1975, letter concerning th use of replacement parts which may affect a vehicle's compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is applicable only to vehicles.; You have presented the example of a vehicle that, if equipped with door that does not have guard bars, would not be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214. Because that standard is applicable only to passenger cars, there is no prohibition on the mere *sale* of such doors for use as replacement equipment. However, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended ('the Act'), specifies that; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.<<<; Therefore, the *installation* of a door that does not have guard bar is a violation of the Act, if that installation is performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. Installation of such a door by one of your dealers, for example, is not permitted.; Your letter also asked whether the use of such doors would be permitte in the future, in the event that Standard No. 214 is relaxed in a way that would permit the use of such doors on a new vehicle. It is the opinion of this agency that replacement of a door, or any other safety system installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, with a system mandated by a later safety standard (even if the later standard imposes a less stringent level of performance) would not violate Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, as amended.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3263OpenMr. R.W. Strauss, Stewart-Warner Corporation, Washington Offices, 425 - 13th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004; Mr. R.W. Strauss Stewart-Warner Corporation Washington Offices 425 - 13th Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20004; Dear Mr. Strauss: This responds to your letter of January 24,, 1980, which requeste approval of an odometer design developed by Stewart-Warner in order to comply with section 4.2.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. Based on our understanding of the information that you have supplied, it appears that Stewart-Warner's design, which incorporates either a seventh wheel or a sixth wheel (for odometers which do not register tenths of a mile) printed with a series of the numeral 1 to indicate that the vehicle has traveled in excess of 99,999 miles or kilometers, would comply with section 4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 127.; Section 4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 127 requires that each odomete other than a motorcycle odometer:; >>>'clearly indicate to the vehicle driver by a sixth wheel or digi registering whole miles or kilometers or by a permanent means such as inking, when the number of whole miles or whole kilometers, as appropriate, has exceeded either at the manufacturer's option 89,999 or 99,999.'<<<; Stewart-Warner's design, as described in your letter, would registe whole miles or kilometers from 100,000 to 199,999. Once the vehicle in which the odometer was installed had traveled 200,000 miles or kilometers, or more, the additional wheel on the Stewart-Warner design would no longer register whole miles or kilometers but it would indicate that the vehicle milage had exceeded 99,999. Thus, the Stewart-Warner design, as we understand it, would apparently comply with section 4.2.3's requirement that each odometer indicate that such mileage has been exceeded.; Finally, I would emphasis that this letter only represents the agency' opinion based on the information supplied in your letter and the model that you provided. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not pass approval on any vehicle design or design for vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or items of vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicles or items of vehicle equipment in accordance with that determination.; I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not bee greatly inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4065OpenMr. Shintaro Nakatasuka, Manager, Certification Business Dept. II, Mazda Motor Corporation, P.O. Box 18, Hiroshima 703 91, JAPAN; Mr. Shintaro Nakatasuka Manager Certification Business Dept. II Mazda Motor Corporation P.O. Box 18 Hiroshima 703 91 JAPAN; Dear Mr. Nakatasuka: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Part 541 *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. You asked two separate questions, which are discussed in detail below.; First, you stated that you plan to introduce a 1987 carline in Februar 1986. This particular carline has been selected as one that will be subject to the requirements of Part 541. However, Part 541 does not become effective until April 24, 1986. You stated your belief that the introduction of the 1987 vehicles before the effective date of Part 541 means that none of the 1987 vehicles in that carline will be required to comply with Part 541. Your belief is a correct interpretation. Nevertheless, you stated that Mazda would voluntarily comply with the requirements of Part 541 for the 1987 vehicles in that carline produced after April 24, 1986, the effective date for Part 541. You asked whether your voluntary marking of some of the 1987 vehicles in that carline would cause this agency to conclude that *all* of the 1987 vehicles in that carline were not in compliance with Part 541. It will not.; As you noted, the effective date for Part 541 is April 24, 1986. Thi effective date means that Part 541 applies to all selected carlines beginning with the 1987 model year. However, the legislative history for Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 *et seq*.), which Title requires that Part 541 be promulgated, expressly states: 'The theft prevention standard cannot apply to a car in the middle of the model year.' H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 11 (1984).; For purposes of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, NHTSA believes tha the model year for a carline begins on the day on which a vehicle in that carline is introduced into commerce in the United States. Hence, if a 1987 model year vehicle in a carline is introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541, the 1987 model year for that carline would have begun prior to the effective date of the theft prevention standard. Obviously, the requirements of a standard do not apply before the effective date. Given the clear expression of Congressional intent that this theft prevention standard cannot apply to a carline in the middle of its model year, NHTSA concludes that a 1987 model year version of a carline introduced into commerce before the effective date of the theft prevention standard is not subject to the requirements of the theft prevention standard for the 1987 model year. It would, of course, be subject to the requirements for the 1988 model year.; Having concluded that the theft prevention standard does not apply t such 1987 model year vehicles, any voluntary actions taken by the vehicle manufacturer cannot affect this conclusion. Your company may choose to mark the 1987 vehicles in this carline introduced on or after the effective date of Part 541, as your letter indicates you plan to do. On the other hand, you may choose not to mark those or any of the 1987 vehicles in this carline. Whichever course of action you choose does not change the fact that Part 541 does not apply to the 1987 model year vehicles of a carline introduced into commerce before April 24, 1986.; Second, you stated that Part 541 was unclear as to whether a metal ta stamped with the vehicle identification number and affixed to a vehicle part by mans of 'one-way screws' would be considered 'labels', subject to the requirements of section 541.5(d)(1), or 'other means of identification', subject to the requirements of section 541.5(d)(2). All means of identification which are affixed to a part are considered labels for purposes of Part 541.; Section 541.5 expressly states that the required markings 'must b *affixed* by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section or *inscribed* by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section' (Emphasis added). All markings which are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, one- way screws, rivets, or welding, are labels. As such, those markings must satisfy all the requirements of section 541.5(d)(1). Conversely, all markings which are inscribed into a part, whether by means of etching, stamping, engraving, or sandblasting, are other means of identification. As such, those markings must satisfy all the requirements of section 541.5(d)(2).; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1378OpenHonorable Charles H. Percy, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20015; Honorable Charles H. Percy United States Senate Washington DC 20015; Dear Senator Percy: This is in reply to your communication of January 3, 1974, forwardin to us correspondence dated November 29, 1973, from Mr. Bruce Motyka of Des Plaines. Mr. Motyka requests information regarding laws relating to pickup truck and camper weight limits, laws or studies relating to the sale of trucks exceeding GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) rate minimums, and regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.; The NHTSA has issued regulations relating to the installation o campers onto pickup trucks. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S 571.126) requires each camper to bear a permanent label containing information on its maximum loaded weight. The standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that contains information on total camper weight, the selection of an appropriate pickup truck, appropriate methods of camper loading, how to determine the camper's center of gravity and where it should be placed in the truck cargo area. A companion 'Consumer Information' regulation, 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S 575.103) requires that written information be provided at the sale of each truck capable of being equipped with a slide-in camper that deals with the correct installation of a slide-in camper in that vehicle. This information is also required to be available in dealers' showrooms for retention by prospective purchasers of such trucks.; Other NHTSA regulations (49 CFR Part 567, 'Certification') requir every motor vehicle, including pickup trucks, to be labeled, usually on the driver's door or door jam, with its gross vehicle weight rating, and the gross axle weight rating for each axle. Each of these ratings is intended to be based on the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, as determined by the vehicle's manufacturer. While it is possible for manufacturers proposed course of action appears to have the aim of generating dissatisfaction with Federal tire regulations among dealers and distributors, and could, by lessening cooperation at the retail level, interfere with your client's ability to fulfill its obligations under the regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1380OpenHonorable Charles H. Percy, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20015; Honorable Charles H. Percy United States Senate Washington DC 20015; Dear Senator Percy: This is in reply to your communication of January 3, 1974, forwardin to us correspondence dated November 29, 1973, from Mr. Bruce Motyka of Des Plaines. Mr. Motyka requests information regarding laws relating to pickup truck and camper weight limits, laws or studies relating to the sale of trucks exceeding GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight) rate minimums, and regulations or studies regarding maximum weights for tires.; The NHTSA has issued regulations relating to the installation o campers onto pickup trucks. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S 571.126) requires each camper to bear a permanent label containing information on its maximum loaded weight. The standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that contains information on total camper weight, the selection of an appropriate pickup truck, appropriate methods of camper loading, how to determine the camper's center of gravity and where it should be placed in the truck cargo area. A companion 'Consumer Information' regulation, 'Truck camper loading' (49 CFR S 575.103) requires that written information be provided at the sale of each truck capable of being equipped with a slide-in camper that deals with the correct installation of a slide-in camper in that vehicle. This information is also required to be available in dealers' showrooms for retention by prospective purchasers of such trucks.; Other NHTSA regulations (49 CFR Part 567, 'Certification') requir every motor vehicle, including pickup trucks, to be labeled, usually on the driver's door or door jam, with its gross vehicle weight rating, and the gross axle weight rating for each axle. Each of these ratings is intended to be based on the weight of a fully loaded vehicle, as determined by the vehicle's manufacturer. While it is possible for manufacturers proposed course of action appears to have the aim of generating dissatisfaction with Federal tire regulations among dealers and distributors, and could, by lessening cooperation at the retail level, interfere with your client's ability to fulfill its obligations under the regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4130OpenRobert Bosch GmbH, Postfach 50, 7000 Stuttgart 1, Germany, Attention: Herr Berg; Robert Bosch GmbH Postfach 50 7000 Stuttgart 1 Germany Attention: Herr Berg; Gentlemen: This is in response to a letter from Robert Bosch GmbH dated March 13 1986, with reference to 'Approval for exemption from Humidity test S6.8' of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have asked that vented replaceable bulb headlamps produced b Robert Bosch be exempted from compliance with paragraph S6.8 of Standard No. 108 on the grounds that failure to comply would be inconsequential noncompliance. You request that this exemption continue until such time as S6.8 is modified, presumably in accordance with the petition for its amendment which you filed in October 1985. The purpose of your request is to allow you 'to test headlamps with ventilation openings pursuant to the procedure described on page 4' of your petition, and in the event that that test is successful 'we request authority to use the headlamps in motor vehicles.'; I should like to explain briefly our exemption authority because we ca not consider your request. You have asked us to excuse prospective conduct that would otherwise be a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Our laws and regulations do not permit this course of action. The inconsequentiality regulations (Part 556) excuse past conduct under which noncompliances have already occurred but which have ended at the time the petition is filed. A grant of an inconsequentiality petition means that the manufacturer of motor vehicles or of motor vehicle equipment is relieved of its obligation to notify purchasers of the existence of the noncompliance, and to remedy it.; Your petition for rulemaking is under evaluation, and you will b notified of the agency's decision in the near future. Until such time as the standard may be amended, all manufacturers are required to comply with all the requirements contained therein. Thus, an exemption such as you request is not possible.; As an aside, we note that the letter appears to have been signed by Herr Berg and another Bosch representative whose signature is illegible. It would be helpful to us if your letters to us would contain the name and title of the signers below their signatures, so that we can address our replies to the proper office. You may also wish to note for your records that Ms. Steed is the Administrator of NHTSA (since 1983, in fact) and that her first name is Diane, rather than Diana.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5453OpenMr. Harry L. Williams, Jr. President Willy Lights Inc. RR#1 Box 241 Bloomfield, Iowa 52537; Mr. Harry L. Williams Jr. President Willy Lights Inc. RR#1 Box 241 Bloomfield Iowa 52537; Dear Mr. Williams: We have received your letter mailed on September 27 1994, with respect to the permissibility under Federal law of your invention, Willy Lights. This product appears to consist of lights installed on wheel rims. You enclosed a copy of a memorandum to you on this subject dated October 24, 1988, from Greg Novak, an engineer with the Nevada Division of the Federal Highway Administration. After consulting with members of this agency, Mr. Novak wrote you that there were no regulations that prohibited the use of lighted wheel rims but that they could not 'interfere with any standard safety equipment on a vehicle.' You have asked whether this interpretation remains valid, and, if the lamps are not prohibited, the color permissible for the lamps. You have not provided a detailed description of your device, such as the amount of illumination provided by the lights. Mr. Novak's advice that there are 'no regulations prohibiting the use of lighted wheel rims' must be qualified. There are no Federal regulations that specifically prohibit the sale and installation of lighted wheel rims, but there may be regulations governing the use of lighted wheel rims issued by the individual States. We have no knowledge of State laws on this matter and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment establishes the requirements for original lighting equipment for motor vehicles. Standard No. 108, in effect, prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting equipment such as Willy Lights before the initial sale of a vehicle if it impairs the effectiveness of the equipment required by Standard No. 108. Thus, if Willy Lights were sufficiently bright to mask in whole or in part the side marker lamps and reflectors and any lamps mounted on the front and rear that wrap around the sides, Standard No. 108 would prohibit their installation. The seller (dealer) of the new vehicle has the responsibility of ensuring that the vehicle remains in compliance with Standard No. 108 when it installs supplementary lighting equipment, that is to say, the responsibility of determining whether or not impairment exists. This agency does not question such determinations unless they appear clearly wrong. There is a similar prohibition for supplementary lighting equipment installed after the initial sale of a vehicle. When Willy Lights are installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, they must not make inoperative any of Standard No. 108's required equipment. With respect to Willy Lights, we would regard the question of making inoperative as equivalent to the question of impairing effectiveness. If it is concluded that Willy Lights do not impair new vehicle equipment, then one can conclude that its installation on a used vehicle will not have an operative effect on 108's equipment. However, the States retain the right to say whether or not Willy Lights may be used within their borders. The color of the lamps may also be important in any determination of impairment or inoperability. Under Standard No. 108, required side marking equipment at or near the front of a vehicle must be amber in color, and red at or near the rear. To lessen the chance of confusion in a driver approaching from the side who may never have seen lighted wheel rims, we believe that it would be preferable to follow Standard No. 108's color code. Use of different colors, such as white or green, could cause momentary confusion in the eyes of an approaching driver, leading to the conclusion that the required side lighting equipment has been impaired or made partially inoperative by Willy Lights. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht 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.