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: aiam3661OpenMr. John C. Dobbs, Project Manager, E-Z-Go Textron, P.O. Box 388, Augusta, GA 30913-2699; Mr. John C. Dobbs Project Manager E-Z-Go Textron P.O. Box 388 Augusta GA 30913-2699; Dear Mr. Dobbs: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1983, telling of you wish to build a four-wheeled light weight traffic enforcement vehicle similar to a three-wheeled machine manufactured by Cushman. You have asked whether you have to meet passenger car safety standards 'or can we obtain a waiver for this vehicle only to comply with motorcycle safety standards?' You have enclosed a brochure on the vehicle you propose to modify, Textron's GX-800.; I am sorry to say that only vehicles with three wheels or less ar defined as 'motorcycles' for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Years ago, the agency totally excluded from the application of those standards four-wheeled vehicles with a curb weight of 1000 pounds or less such as the GX-800. However, that exclusion was terminated in the early 1970's.; A manufacturer of 10,000 vehicles or less per year may petition for temporary exemption from any safety standard where immediate compliance would cause substantial economic hardship. However, he must make a good faith effort to bring the vehicle into compliance during the exemption period. Although this would appear impossible with your vehicle because of its physical limitations, the agency has in the past exempted replicas of 1900-style vehicles where full compliance was manifestly not feasible. I enclose a copy of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 555 which sets out the exemption procedures. If your planned vehicle would have a cargo box, similar to the one on the Cushman vehicle, your vehicle could be considered a 'truck' for compliance purposes.; As a car or truck, your vehicle would also have to comply with Federa fuel economy and emissions standards. Exemptions from fuel economy standards may be sought under 49 CFR Part 525. As to the emissions standards, you should write the Environmental Protection Agency.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2148OpenMr. Howard Shapiro, Helm, Shapiro, Ayers & Aldrich, P.C., 111 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12210; Mr. Howard Shapiro Helm Shapiro Ayers & Aldrich P.C. 111 Washington Avenue Albany NY 12210; Dear Mr. Shapiro: This is in response to your letters of November 11 and December 9 1975, asking two questions relating to the odometer mileage disclosure requirements contained in section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513).; You explain in your letter that New York law requires, at the time vehicle is sold, the execution of a certification of sale (MV-50) containing the odometer mileage. This certificate must be signed by the vehicle purchaser unless a separate form is completed (MV-50.1) by which the purchaser waives his right to sign the certificate of sale. If the purchaser waives his right to sign the MV-50 form, it is filed with the State Department of Motor Vehicles and need not be shown to him.; You ask whether the execution and filing of both the MV- 50 and MV-50. forms (meaning the MV-50 is not seen by the purchaser) would constitute compliance with the Federal odometer requirements. Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act requires that the transferor of a motor vehicle give the transferee a written statement disclosing the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer. If the transferor knows that the mileage indicated on the odometer is different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually traveled, he must state this fact in writing on the mileage disclosure form. Section 408 directed the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules relating to this disclosure process. 49 CFR Part 580, *Odometer Disclosure Requirements*, was promulgated in compliance with this mandate and requires the following information to appear on the disclosure document in addition to that specifically mentioned in section 408: date of transfer, transferor's name, address and signature, make, body type, year, model, vehicle identification number, and last plate number of the vehicle, and a statement certifying that the seller is complying with the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972 and is aware that violation of the Act's provisions may subject him to civil liability. Neither the MV-50 nor the MV-50.1 forms contain this required information. In addition, under the New York scheme you describe, no written mileage information is provided to a purchaser when an MV-50.1 form is completed during a sales transaction. Thus, based on the information you have provided, compliance with the New York law alone would not satisfy the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.; You also ask whether a purchaser can waive his rights to receive a odometer disclosure statement. The duty to provide a mileage disclosure statement to the transferee of a motor vehicle at the time of transfer rests with the transferor. Relief from this Federally imposed duty cannot be provided by the individual to whom the duty is owed.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4326OpenDavid C. Maroon, The Sentinel Group, P. O. Box 905, Miami, FL 33137-0905; David C. Maroon The Sentinel Group P. O. Box 905 Miami FL 33137-0905; Thank you for your letter to Stephen Oesch of my staff concernin Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. I regret the delay in our response. You explained that your company represents, on an exclusive basis, a number of different manufacturers of both windshields and tempered glazing material for automobiles. You asked whether it is possible to consolidate these different manufacturers 'into one identity by using both one DOT number assigned to the Sentinel group as well as one university logo.' As explained below, the answer is yes with regard to using one logo, but no with regard to using one DOT certification number.; S6 of Standard 205 specifies certification and marking requirements fo manufacturers and distributors of glazing material for use in motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment. All glazing material must be marked both with the basic identifying information specified in section 6 of the ANSI standard Z26.1 (as modified by S6.1 of Standard 205) and with a certification that the glazing meets the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Different certifications are specified for prime manufacturers and other manufacturers/distributors of glazing material (contained in paragraphs S6.2 through S6.5 of the standard).; Further distinction in certification requirements of prim manufacturers depends on whether the glazing is designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, or whether the glazing is designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. (A prime manufacturer is defined in S6.1 of the Standard as one who fabricates, laminates or tempers the glazing materials, as opposed to one who alters or cuts an already manufactured piece of glazing.); Since you indicate in your letter that the manufacturers you represen make windshields and tempered glazing materials for automobiles, we assume that the glazing is manufactured by the prime manufacturer and is designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper. In this case,the S6.2 certification requirements apply, which include marking each piece of glazing material with the symbol DOT and a manufacture's code mark, assigned by NHTSA.; The purpose of the manufacturer's code mark is to aid the agency i identifying the actual manufacturer of the glazing for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Accordingly, the agency only issues a code mark to a manufacturer that actually fabricates, laminates or tempers glazing materials. We have found the code mark to be an effective method to identify the manufacturer for enforcement purposes.; Because of this, the agency is less concerned that the distinctive log be for the same company as that which the code mark indicates. For example, in a November 7, 1983, letter to the Libby-Owens-Ford Company, the agency stated that so long as the manufacturer placed its DOT code mark on the glazing material, the tracing and enforcement policies would not be circumvented and the use of another company's logo would not violate Standard No. 205. Accordingly, it is acceptable, if you wish to have each prime manufacturer mark its glazing material with its unique code mark and your logo for the Sentinel group, which is used for all of the various manufacturers you represent.; I hope this provides an adequate response to your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1758OpenMr. Philip P. Friedlander, Jr., Director of Communications, Dealer News, 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; Mr. Philip P. Friedlander Jr. Director of Communications Dealer News 1343 L Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20005; Dear Mr. Friedlander: This is in reply to your letter of December 24, 1974, forwarding to u a copy of an article in the December 23-30, 1974, issue of the NTDRA *Dealer News*, which attempts to clarify an earlier article interpreting the labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117.; We believe your revised article is still somewhat unclear i interpreting the requirements, and we would like to clarify these requirements for you.; >>>*THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS ARE PRESENTLY EFFECTIVE*<<< The casing, before retreading, must contain in a permanent fashion, th following: the symbol 'DOT', the size of the tire, and the actual number of plies or ply rating.; The completed retread must be labeled,either permanently or with a affixed label that is not easily removable, with the following: the tire's size designation, its maximum permissible inflation pressure, the actual number of plies, ply rating or both, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type,' as appropriate, the word radial, if the tire is of radial construction, and if the tire is of bias-belted construction, the words 'bias belted' *or* the actual number of plies in the sidewall and the actual number of plies in the tread area.; The completed retreaded tire must be permanently labeled only with it maximum permissible load. Permanent labeling includes molding, branding, or other method that will produce a permanent label, and includes any original casing label that is retained through the retread process.; >>>*THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS ARE EFFECTIVE MAY 12, 1975*<<< The casing before retreading must contain in a permanent fashion th following: the symbol 'DOT', the size of the tire, and the actual number of plies or ply rating. These requirements are the same as those presently in effect.; The completed retread must be labeled, either permanently or with a affixed label that is not easily removable, with the following: the tire's size designation, its maximum permissible inflation pressure, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type' as appropriate, and the word 'radial' if the tire is of radial construction.; The completed retread must be permanently labeled only with th following: the tire's maximum permissible load, the actual number of plies in the tire sidewall, and the actual number of plies in the tire tread area, if different, and the generic name of each cord material used in the plies (both sidewall and tread area) of the tire.; The changes made by the amendment published November 12, 1974 (39 F 39882), which are effective May 12, 1975, are, in summary, that (1) the labeling of the actual number of plies in the sidewall, and tread area if different, must after May 12, 1975, be permanently labeled, and (2) the generic names of each cord material, which prior to May 12, 1975, is not required to be labeled at all, must after May 12, 1975, be permanently labeled.; We believe some further clarification of the requirements should b conveyed to your readers.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1144OpenMs. Anna Ruth Baldwin, 4315 Aegean Drive, Apartment 230, Tampa, FL 33611; Ms. Anna Ruth Baldwin 4315 Aegean Drive Apartment 230 Tampa FL 33611; Dear Ms. Baldwin: This is in response to your letter request of May 8, 1973, fo information on possible dealer liability for a nonfunctional odometer and for failure to make an odometer disclosure statement in connection with your purchase of a 1970 Pontiac Lemans on March 29, 1973.; Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 197 became effective January 18, 1973, and made it unlawful to reset or alter the odometer of any motor vehicle with the intent to change the numers (sic) indicated thereon. It would not be a violation of the Act if either dealer sold the vehicle without repairing the odometer, or repaired the odometer without resetting the mileage prior to sale. If, however, it can be proved that the odometer was reset by either dealer after January 18, 1973, you may have cause of action under 409(a) of the Act for $1,500 or three times the amount of damages you actually sustained.; On March 1, 1973, regulations implementing the Act became effective an made it unlawful for a transferor of a motor vehicle to fail to make an odometer disclosure to his transferee, or to give a false statement in making a disclosure. A signed statement from the transferor to the transferee must be executed prior to the transfer of the vehicle, disclosing the cumulative mileage on the odometer, and indicating that the reading is inaccurate if the transferor knows such to be the case.; Ralph King's may be liable for its failure to make a statement if i could be proved that it knew of the disclosure obligation and purposely failed to make the statement with intent to defraud Crown. The bookkeeper's belief that March 15, 1973, was the effective date would appear to make proof of fraudulent intent difficult.; Crown's mileage statement is deficient in several respects. It was no made prior to the transfer and it was not completed and dated. If Crown bought the car with the odometer still inoperative or with notice of the inaccurate mileage reading, Crown was also required to check the box indicating that the odometer reading was inaccurate.; To obtain a recovery against either dealer under the provisions of th Act for failure to make the required statement or for a false statement, you must prove that the dealer knew of its disclosure obligation and ignored it in an attempt to defraud its transferee.; I am enclosing a copy of the Act and regulations. You may find i advisable to consult an attorney concerning your rights in this matter.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4091OpenMr. Donald H. Giberson, Assistant Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Law and Public Safety, State of New Jersey, 26 South Montgomery Street, Trenton, NJ 08666; Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety State of New Jersey 26 South Montgomery Street Trenton NJ 08666; Dear Mr. Giberson: This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121 *Air Brake Systems*. You asked whether vehicles equipped with 'Mini-Max' brakes, produced by Transquip Industries, Inc., comply with the standard. You stated that since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. Your question is responded to below. We note that Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40 is administered by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) rather than by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We have sent a copy of this correspondence to BMCS in order that they may respond to that part of your request.; By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals o motor vehicles or equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part: >>>The parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimu performance specified in either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing). . . .<<<; The single diaphragm used in the Mini-Max brake is common to both th service and parking brake systems. As part of the service brake system, it is part of a brake system 'other' than the parking brake system. Therefore, since the diaphragm is not a component of a brake chamber housing, section S5.6.3 requires that a vehicle must be able to achieve the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure.; We do not have sufficient data to determine whether particular vehicle equipped with Mini-Max brakes would meet the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure. The answer to that question could depend on the nature of the particular vehicle. It is possible, of course, that a vehicle could be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 as a result of the braking force provided by the other parking brakes whose diaphragms have not failed.; We note that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised this issu and other issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and an interpretation letter to International Transquip. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590 (202-426-2768).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5482OpenMr. Allan E. McIntyre Engineering and Product Development Sprague Devices, Inc. P. O. Box 389 Michigan City, IN 46360; Mr. Allan E. McIntyre Engineering and Product Development Sprague Devices Inc. P. O. Box 389 Michigan City IN 46360; "Dear Mr. McIntyre: This responds to your letter to the Federal Highwa Administration asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield washing and wiping systems. Since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) , including Standard No. 104, your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in this response. Your letter concerns a standard issued by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and referenced in S4.2.2 of Standard No. 104. S4.2.2 specifies that each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus shall have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965 (as modified). You explain that you chair an SAE subcommittee that developed a new Recommended Practice J1944, 'Truck & Bus Multipurpose Vehicle Windshield Washer System,' that you believe is more suitable for testing 'commercial vehicles.' You ask whether NHTSA would 'allow for documentation of compliance to FMVSS 104 through use of the new J1944 recommended practice or is it necessary to evaluate per J942 as specifically written.' Your question raises two issues, both of which concern how a test procedure specified in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards may vary in practice from that described in the standard. The first issue is whether a vehicle manufacturer is obligated to test its vehicle only in the manner specified in Standard No. 104, i.e., only by using J942 and not the newly developed J1944. The answer is no. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. However, NHTSA does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of Standard No. 104, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA. If NHTSA's compliance test of Standard No. 104 were to show an apparent noncompliance of a vehicle with the standard, the vehicle manufacturer would be asked to show the basis for its certification that its vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer would be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised 'reasonable care' in the manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance. We cannot tell you at this time whether a manufacturer's use of J1944 to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 104 would constitute 'reasonable care.' NHTSA is unable to judge what efforts constitute 'reasonable care' outside of the course of a specific enforcement proceeding. What constitutes 'reasonable care' in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. The second issue raised by your question is whether NHTSA is required to use J942 in the agency's compliance tests. The answer is yes, as long as J942 is incorporated into the test procedure of Standard No. 104. When conducting its compliance testing, NHTSA must precisely follow each of the specified test procedures and conditions set forth in the safety standard. If a different procedure or condition is desirable, the agency must undertake rulemaking to amend the standard to incorporate the desired change. You ask in your letter about the procedure for amending Standard No. 104. NHTSA has a process whereby you can petition for a change to the FMVSS, including Standard No. 104. The petitioning procedure is outlined at 49 CFR part 552 Petitions for rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance orders (copy enclosed). Very briefly, section 552.4 states that a petition should be addressed and submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Each petition must be written in English, have a heading that includes the word 'Petition,' set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change to the regulation is necessary, set forth a brief description of the substance of the revised regulation which it is claimed should be issued, and contain the name and address of the petitioner. After receiving the petition, NHTSA conducts a technical review to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the requested regulatory change will be issued at the end of the appropriate rulemaking proceeding. You state that J1944, the newer SAE standard, is overall a 'tougher' document than J942. You should be aware that NHTSA cannot automatically incorporate a 'tougher' version of an incorporated document into the FMVSS. Before NHTSA incorporates an upgraded standard, NHTSA examines whether there is a safety need for the newer requirements. In its examination, NHTSA considers data from all sources, including the petitioner. If you decide to submit a petition, you ought to explain the safety need for the new requirements and provide an analysis of the increased costs likely to be associated with the new requirements. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions. please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4814OpenMr. Chino O'Hara Minority Co-ordinator Del Mar Manufacturing Company 2713-B North Towne Avenue Pomona, California 91767; Mr. Chino O'Hara Minority Co-ordinator Del Mar Manufacturing Company 2713-B North Towne Avenue Pomona California 91767; "Dear Mr. O'Hara: This responds to your letter of December 11, 1990 i which you ask whether your product 'Husky Brake Anti-Squeek' needs approval of the Department of Transportation (DOT). An enclosure to your letter indicates that the product is intended for application on the pad surface of motor vehicle disc brakes to 'stop brake squeeking' and to 'produce a surface that gives better braking' by acting as a 'lubricant to the friction material.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) (part of DOT) does not certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that every one of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the safety standards and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. However, there are other requirements that may affect this product. First, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4) defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . If the 'Husky Brake Anti-Squeek' is manufactured and sold for the improvement of motor vehicle brake systems, it would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Safety Act. If either the equipment manufacturer or this agency were to determine that your product contained such a defect, the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers. Second, use of this product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair shops from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' devices or elements of design that were installed in a motor vehicle to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. To avoid a 'rendering inoperative' violation, the above-named parties should review the application instructions for your product and determine if installing the product following those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The most relevant safety standard appears to be Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. That standard applies to new motor vehicles. I hope that this information has been helpful. For your information, I am enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and information on how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5281Open"Herr Dr. Thomas L ckemeyer ITT Automotive Europe Bietigheim-Bissingen Dept. VER/LB"; "Herr Dr. Thomas L ckemeyer ITT Automotive Europe Bietigheim-Bissingen Dept. VER/LB"; "FAX 07142/73-2895 Dear Dr. L ckemeyer: This responds to your FAX o December 10, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked the following questions with respect to the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars: 'Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the FMVSS 108.' Paragraph S5.1.3. of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation as original equipment of additional lamps such as rear fog lamps if the additional lamp 'impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard.' The determination of whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit impairs the effectiveness of other lighting equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the lamp is installed. Unless such a determination is clearly erroneous, this agency will not question it. We do not know whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit is permissible in all the States. Because a fog lamp is not required motor vehicle equipment under Federal law, each State in which it is used may regulate it according to its own laws. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, and suggest that you ask the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its FAX number is 001 703 522 1553, and its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. 'Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?' There are no Federal requirements that apply to rear fog lamps, and, as noted above, we are not conversant with state requirements. For your information, the latest specification of the Society of Automotive Engineers for this item of equipment is SAE Recommended Practice J1319 AUG87 'Fog Tail Lamp (Rear Fog Light) Systems.' 'Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?' No. The certification of the vehicle manufacturer is its representation that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. A State has no authority to question this certification. However, a State is permitted to have a State vehicle lighting standard provided that the State lighting standard is identical to the Federal lighting standard in those areas covered by the Federal lighting standard. Under these circumstances, a State may enforce the State lighting standard even if the vehicle is certified as conforming to the Federal lighting standard. Furthermore, a State may have its own State lighting standard in those areas where there is no Federal lighting standard, such as fog lamps. 'Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S.' AAMVA may be able to provide you with this information as we are unable to. Because State requirements must be identical with respect to the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, State specifications and prohibitions will differ only with respect to supplementary lighting equipment not covered by Standard No. 108 such as cornering lamps and front and rear fog lamps. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3664OpenMr. Anton (Tony) Ostermeier, 19240 S. Vermont Avenue, Gardena, CA 90248; Mr. Anton (Tony) Ostermeier 19240 S. Vermont Avenue Gardena CA 90248; Dear Mr. Ostermeier: Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1983, supplying the furthe information we requested on January 28.; The 1955 Mercedes replica which you contemplate building is a hybrid o new and old parts. The body is of your construction and consists of new parts. You fabricate the chassis using new tubing, however, its front cross member may be either a new replacement Mustang part (1974-1978 models) or one actually taken from a vehicle in use. Similarly, the front suspension, differential and rear suspension, and transmissions may be new replacement parts or taken from vehicles in use. You will employ used rear wheel cylinders in the braking system and used engines (either a 1964 Chrysler Slant 6 or a 1969 Chevrolet V-8). Any equipment that has previously been used will be rebuilt to the manufacturer's specifications, and new parts will be incorporated where necessary.; As a general rule, the agency has no requirements for 'used' vehicles Whether a vehicle is treated as new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage consisting of a new body on the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads as a 'used' motor vehicle and therefore not subject to the Federal motor vehicle standards. On the other hand, the agency will consider a truck newly manufactured when an old cab is replaced with a new one unless at least the engine, transmission, and drive axle of the assembled vehicle are not new and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.; The vehicle you propose to manufacture is somewhat different fro either of these examples, but we have concluded that it is a 'new' motor vehicle and must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new passenger cars. Not only do previously unused parts appear to predominate in your plans, but, in addition, the old parts that are used will be rebuilt with new parts where necessary, to the manufacturer's original specifications. With the exception of the 1964 engine, the rebuilt components were originally used in vehicles manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and there appears no reason why your product may not also be manufactured to comply, even though it is a replica of a 1955 car.; Use of the 1964 engine could raise problems of compliance with Safet Standard No. 124, *Accelerator Control Systems*, and with Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. However, in that event, we believe that you (as a producer of less than 10,000 vehicles a year) would be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from those standards, or any other standard where immediate compliance would cause you substantial economic hardship. I enclose an information sheet which tells you where you may obtain a copy of our regulations, including the standards and temporary exemption petition procedures.; If you have further questions, we would be happy to assist you. 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.