NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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

Displaying 7261 - 7270 of 16490

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam3663 Open Mr. 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
ID: aiam4355 Open Mr. Yueh-An Chen, Division Head, Planning Division, Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center, P. O. Box 510, Taoyuan, Taiwan 330, Republic of China; Mr. Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P. O. Box 510 Taoyuan Taiwan 330 Republic of China; Dear Mr. Chen: This is in reply to your letter of June 5, 1987, asking whether certai rear lighting arrangements are acceptable under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have submitted a diagram showing four lamps on either side of th vertical centerline of the rear of the car. The most inboard lamps, denoted 'R', are the backup lamp system. Yue Loong contemplates four different functions for the remaining three systems of lamps, 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D', 'E', 'F' (inboard to outboard) and asks about acceptability.; >>>1. In the first system, ABC or DEF will serve the respective tur signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No. 108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple functions. This system is permissible as long as ABC and DEF will serve the respective turn signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No.108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple function. This system is permissible as long a ABC and DEF meet all Standard No. 108's requirements for turn, hazard warning, and stop signals when tested in those modes. Your diagram, however, does not indicate which, if any, of these lamps provide the taillamp functions that Standard No. 108 also requires for the rear of motor vehicles. Therefore, lamps ABC and DEF would have to meet the taillamp requirements as well.; >>>2. The second system differs from the first in that the hazar warning system would not operate through the two most outboard lamps. This system is permissible, as Standard No. 108 does not mandate use of all turn signal lamps for the hazard warning signal mode, requiring only 'at least one' on each side of the vehicle, front and rear.; >>>3. The third system differs from the second in that the two mos outboard lamps would no longer be part of the stop lamp system. We view this arrangement as permissible. Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signal lamps, and taillamps be located 'as far apart as practicable'. In a literal sense this would appear to require stacking the lamps vertically at the outboard edges of the vehicle, but NHTSA has not adopted a design-restrictive interpretation of this requirement. The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, but it is subject to review and comment by this agency in instances where such a determination appears clearly erroneous. Where the turn signal system (or part of it) is located at the outboard edges of the vehicle, and the stop lamps and taillamps are adjacent to it, or to each other, we view the 'practicability' requirement as met.; >>>4. The fourth system differs from the third in that the stop lam system would be either that of the systems discussed in items 2 and 3 above, and operating according to Section 3 of your letter. Either system would be acceptable, subject to the operational restriction with turn signal lamps that I shall discuss in my response to section 3.; Next, you have presented four kinds of flashing arrangements for th turn signal lamps. You ask (a) which could meet Standard No. 108, and (b) which could meet Standard No. 108 assuming a flash cycle of 104 seconds. With respect to (a), all four would appear to be acceptable. The standard allows multiple turn signal lamps either to flash simultaneously, or sequentially in the direction of the turn. With respect to (b), Standard No. 108 specifies that a turn signal flasher provide not less than 60 and not more than 120 cycles per minute. This translates to not less than 1 and not more than 2 cycles per second. This requirement would have to be met by all lamps in arrangement (d), i.e. where all lamps operate simultaneously. When operating sequentially, each lamp individually would be subject to the restrictions with the result that the inclusive cycle for a three lamp system would be not less than 3 seconds and not more than 6 seconds. Therefore, arrangements (a), (b), and (c) would meet this requirement assuming a flash cycle of 4 seconds, by arrangement (d) would not, being restricted to a cycle of 2 seconds maximum.; In your third question, or Section 3 as you term it, you have combine the condition of your first two questions and attached a table of 'detailed operating states' of the rear lamps, which incorporated three attached figures, with the question whether it would comply with Standard No. 108. Two of the Operating States illustrated denote the stop lamp 'on' and, individually, the right or left turn signal as 'on'. Standard No. 108 does not allow simultaneous activation of the stop lamp and turn signal lamp when the stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal. In that event, the circuit must be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing (paragraph 4.2, SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108). Our other comment concerns 'Fig. a', 'Fig. b', and 'Fig. c' depicting flash cycles of the turn signal lamps. As we noted earlier, the individual lamps are subject to the cycle minima and maxima of 1 to 2 cycles per second, and none of the rates depicted in the three Figures appears to meet the minimum requirement of 1 second. Otherwise, the 'Operating State' table appears acceptable.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2188 Open Mr. Stuart R. Perkins, Director, Vehicle Safety, Jeep Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. Stuart R. Perkins Director Vehicle Safety Jeep Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Perkins: This responds to Jeep Corporation's October 16, 1975, petition t initiate rulemaking to amend the present definition of 'Unloaded vehicle weight' (49 CFR S571.3) which reads:; >>>'Unloaded vehicle weight' means the weight of a vehicle with maximu capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.<<<; Jeep requests that the definition be amended to 'indicate that th unloaded vehicle [weight] does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories.' The Jeep petition argues that the impracticality of conducting some dynamic testing with 'work-performing accessories' in place may force the discontinuance of some factory-installed accessories although factory installation may be more safe than a subsequent aftermarket installation.; The Jeep Corporation petition is denied. As a general matter, the NHTS has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept an optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with the component installed. The NHTSA has evaluated the potential problems of dynamic testing with heavy or protruding accessories in place and concludes that a decision on the practicality and wisdom of so doing should be made on a 'standard-by-standard' basis. As you noted, the NHTSA has provided for removal of work-performing accessories in conducting compliance tests under Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. If Jeep considers dynamic testing in other standards to be unjustifiably burdensome because of the necessity of testing with all accessories in place, it would be appropriate to petition for rulemaking to amend the standard in question.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;
ID: aiam0245 Open Mr. James Deifster, 914 Willow Run, Covington, KY 41011; Mr. James Deifster 914 Willow Run Covington KY 41011; Dear Mr. Deifster: Your request for information on requirements for camper manufacturer has been referred to this office for reply. The information we have received states that you are a manufacturer of campers, selling them to dealers, and also installing them on trucks.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C S1381 et seq., (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to manufacture their products so that they comply, and to 'certify' that they comply, with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Camper bodies for both slide-in and chassis-mount camper installation are items of motor vehicle equipment and must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and be certified by their manufacturer that they comply with the standard. I enclose a copy of the standard and the regulations governing certification for your information, Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference the USA Standard Z26.1-1966, 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways.' This USAS standard can be obtained for a small fee from the USA Standards Institute, 10 East 40th Street, New York, N.Y. 10016.; If you install slide-in camper bodies on pick-up trucks only, you ar not subject to additional requirements. However, if you install chassis-mount camper bodies onto truck chassis, you are in addition to being a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, a manufacturer of motor vehicles, specifically, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and are required to comply with regulations and standards applicable to manufacturers of multipurpose passenger vehicles. Copies of these requirements, which have been promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and codified in Chapter 5 (formerly Chapter 3) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, are available from the Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402, under the title Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The price is $8.00, which includes a subscription for one year to receive copies of amendments.; Because of the relative length and complexity of these requirements, i is difficult to summarize them for you here. Many trade associations have familiarized themselves with them in order to assist their membership in complying with them. If after studying them materials you have specific questions concerning their application to you, we will be pleased to answer them.; I have also enclosed a mailing list questionnaire. If you will complet and return it to the address indicated thereon, you will receive future notices pertaining to those areas you have marked.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulation
ID: aiam4003 Open Mr. Thomas J. Burke, Vice President - Domestic Sales, Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company, 8959 Blue Ash Road, Cincinnati, OH 45242; Mr. Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company 8959 Blue Ash Road Cincinnati OH 45242; Dear Mr. Burke: Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Burdette and Mr Brownlee concerning a new automobile safety package your company is developing. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described your product as a number of modifications to a vehicle to improve its security. The modifications include changes to the windows, tires, doors, and fuel tank. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations would affect your product.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including on tires, windows, doors and fuel tanks. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our standards. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Under our certification regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer is considered an 'alterer.' Part 567.7 requires vehicle alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all of our safety standards. Thus, if your company is modifying vehicles with your security package prior to their first sale to the consumer, it must certify that the vehicles, as altered, conform with all applicable standards. Any person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.; If your company is modifying used vehicles, then its actions would b affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)), which was added to the Act in 1974 to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part, 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.....<<<; Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business making the modifications you describe must ensure that those modifications do not 'render inoperative' the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that 'render inoperative' an element of a safety standard.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4000 Open Mr. Thomas J. Burke, Vice President - Domestic Sales, Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company, 8959 Blue Ash Road, Cincinnati, OH 45242; Mr. Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company 8959 Blue Ash Road Cincinnati OH 45242; Dear Mr. Burke: Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Burdette and Mr Brownlee concerning a new automobile safety package your company is developing. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described your product as a number of modifications to a vehicle to improve its security. The modifications include changes to the windows, tires, doors, and fuel tank. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations would affect your product.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including on tires, windows, doors and fuel tanks. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our standards. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Under our certification regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer is considered an alterer.' Part 567.7 requires vehicle alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all of our safety standards. Thus, if your company is modifying vehicles with your security package prior to their first sale to the consumer, it must certify that the vehicles, as altered, conform with all applicable standards. Any person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.; If your company is modifying used vehicles, then its actions would b affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)), which was added to the Act in 1974 to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part, 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.....<<<; Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business making the modifications you describe must ensure that those modifications do not render inoperative' the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that render inoperative' an element of a safety standard.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4001 Open Mr. Thomas J. Burke, Vice President - Domestic Sales, Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company, 8959 Blue Ash Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242; Mr. Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company 8959 Blue Ash Road Cincinnati Ohio 45242; Dear Mr. Burke: Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Burdette and Mr Brownlee concerning a new automobile safety package your company is developing. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described your product as a number of modifications to a vehicle to improve its security. The modifications include changes to the windows, tires, doors, and fuel tank. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations would affect your product.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including on tires, windows, doors and fuel tanks. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our standards. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Under our certification regulating, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer is considered an 'alterer.' Part 567.7 requires vehicle alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all of our safety standards. Thus, if your company is modifying vehicles with your security package prior to their first sale to the consumer, it must certify that the vehicles, as altered, conform with all applicable standards. Any person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.; If you company is modifying used vehicles, then its action would b affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)), which was added to the Act in 1974 to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part 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....<<<; Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business making the modifications you describe must ensure that those modifications do not 'render inoperative' the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that 'render inoperative' an element of a safety standard.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4211 Open Mr. Heinz Huentemann, Vice-President, Spartan Transit Supply Corp., 325 Fairlane Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29302; Mr. Heinz Huentemann Vice-President Spartan Transit Supply Corp. 325 Fairlane Drive Spartanburg SC 29302; Dear Mr. Huentemann: This responds to your letter dated June 17, 1986, asking how ou regulations affect a convex outside mirror manufactured by your company. In your letter, you state that this convex mirror has a reflective surface of 92.5 square inches, and would be used on the curb side of a transit bus. You also state that this convex mirror has a radius of curvature of 94.5 inches. You specifically asked whether this mirror can be used on the curb side of a transit bus.; Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, a copy of which is enclosed, set different requirements for buses depending on whether the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is above 10,000 pounds. I believe that the GVWR of a transit bus would exceed 10,000 pounds.; Buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds must meet S7.1, whic requires buses, other than school buses, to have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 square inches of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle. These mirrors must also be located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and must be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene. Although the surface of your convex mirror is close to a plane (flat) surface, due to the 94.5-inch radius of curvature, it is not a unit magnification or plane mirror. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements for rearview mirrors on new buses.; A manufacturer of new transit buses could use your convex mirror on th curb side of the bus in addition to a unit magnification mirror which met all applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. However, a commercial business could not substitute your mirror for a complying mirror. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business could not remove a unit magnification rearview mirror, installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard, and replace that mirror with a convex mirror.; The sample of your rearview mirror, No. STS-0.253, is being returned t you under separate cover.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4993 Open Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara Manager, Information Services Ichikoh America, Inc. Suite 220 3025 Boardwalk Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48108-1777; Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara Manager Information Services Ichikoh America Inc. Suite 220 3025 Boardwalk Drive Ann Arbor MI 48108-1777; Dear Mr. Aihara: This responds to your letter of March 16, 1992 requesting an interpretation of the applicability of the moisture prohibition of S7.4(i)(6) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Initially, we would like to call your attention to the fact that S7.4(i)(6), which you quoted in its entirety, was amended on March 11, 1991, to delete the requirement that a headlamp meet the photometric requirements after a humidity test. S7.4(i)(6) now states in pertinent part that, after a humidity test conducted in accordance with S8.7, 'the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification.' You have attached a drawing of a vented headlamp with an onboard aiming system. The headlamp is available with two different types of bubble indicators. Your first question is: 'After the humidity test, both types . . . show the fogging in the location as shown in attached sketches. But, this fogging is gone at normal temperature. * * * Is such fogging acceptable after the humidity test?' Your second question is whether ''the inside of the housing' means the lens and reflector portions' or 'the entire inside portion of headlamps?' The humidity test was adopted for replaceable bulb headlamps in l983. Allowing humidity or water in headlamps causes slow degradation of the reflector over the long term. The presence of humidity results in spots on the reflector and lens, and eventual photometric failure. The humidity test is designed to assure that the vents in vented headlamps eliminate moisture in the headlamp when exposed to air flow with the headlamps off, thus assuring adequate performance in long term use. The provision for onboard headlamp aiming devices was not adopted until 1989, and, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps, did not specify that they be located within the headlamp. From the foregoing, it is evident that the humidity test for replaceable bulb headlamps was not adopted to address a problem inherent in the exposure of onboard aiming devices to moisture. These devices were not in use at the time the humidity test was added to Standard No. 108, and they do not contribute directly to the photometric performance of the headlamp. From the diagram you enclosed, the aiming device appears located behind the reflector. It is not possible to determine from your letter whether moisture forms on the exterior or the interior of the aiming device. Although S7.4(i)(6) prohibits moisture 'inside the headlamp' and the aiming device is located inside the headlamp, we would not read the prohibition as extending to the aiming device if the moisture occurs inside that device. Even if the moisture occurs on the exterior of the aiming device, it does not affect the photometric properties of the headlamp. The agency does not wish to impose inadvertent design restrictions that are not directed towards safety, and therefore regards any moisture that may occur on the exterior of the aiming device as outside the prohibition of S7.4(i)(6). This interpretation, however, is limited to the specific design that you have presented. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam4459 Open Mr. Mike Kaizaki Manager, Truck Tire Engineering Yokohama Tire Corporation Corporate Office 60l S. Acacia Fullerton, CA 9263l; Mr. Mike Kaizaki Manager Truck Tire Engineering Yokohama Tire Corporation Corporate Office 60l S. Acacia Fullerton CA 9263l; "Dear Mr. Kaizaki: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether it is permissible to place two tire size designations, 385/65R22.5 in larger letters and l5R22.5 in small letters, on the same tire. The answer to your question is no. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. The practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as 'dual-size markings.' Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109, 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with 'the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1.' Section S5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires each tire manufacturer to ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire the manufacturer produces is available to the public. This may be done either by the individual manufacturer furnishing a document to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to any person upon request, or the manufacturer may rely on the tire and rim matching information published by certain standardization organizations. While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the 'tire size designation' to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size. Sincerely, Erika Z. 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.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam3663 Open Mr. 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
ID: aiam4355 Open Mr. Yueh-An Chen, Division Head, Planning Division, Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center, P. O. Box 510, Taoyuan, Taiwan 330, Republic of China; Mr. Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P. O. Box 510 Taoyuan Taiwan 330 Republic of China; Dear Mr. Chen: This is in reply to your letter of June 5, 1987, asking whether certai rear lighting arrangements are acceptable under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have submitted a diagram showing four lamps on either side of th vertical centerline of the rear of the car. The most inboard lamps, denoted 'R', are the backup lamp system. Yue Loong contemplates four different functions for the remaining three systems of lamps, 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D', 'E', 'F' (inboard to outboard) and asks about acceptability.; >>>1. In the first system, ABC or DEF will serve the respective tur signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No. 108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple functions. This system is permissible as long as ABC and DEF will serve the respective turn signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No.108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple function. This system is permissible as long a ABC and DEF meet all Standard No. 108's requirements for turn, hazard warning, and stop signals when tested in those modes. Your diagram, however, does not indicate which, if any, of these lamps provide the taillamp functions that Standard No. 108 also requires for the rear of motor vehicles. Therefore, lamps ABC and DEF would have to meet the taillamp requirements as well.; >>>2. The second system differs from the first in that the hazar warning system would not operate through the two most outboard lamps. This system is permissible, as Standard No. 108 does not mandate use of all turn signal lamps for the hazard warning signal mode, requiring only 'at least one' on each side of the vehicle, front and rear.; >>>3. The third system differs from the second in that the two mos outboard lamps would no longer be part of the stop lamp system. We view this arrangement as permissible. Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signal lamps, and taillamps be located 'as far apart as practicable'. In a literal sense this would appear to require stacking the lamps vertically at the outboard edges of the vehicle, but NHTSA has not adopted a design-restrictive interpretation of this requirement. The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, but it is subject to review and comment by this agency in instances where such a determination appears clearly erroneous. Where the turn signal system (or part of it) is located at the outboard edges of the vehicle, and the stop lamps and taillamps are adjacent to it, or to each other, we view the 'practicability' requirement as met.; >>>4. The fourth system differs from the third in that the stop lam system would be either that of the systems discussed in items 2 and 3 above, and operating according to Section 3 of your letter. Either system would be acceptable, subject to the operational restriction with turn signal lamps that I shall discuss in my response to section 3.; Next, you have presented four kinds of flashing arrangements for th turn signal lamps. You ask (a) which could meet Standard No. 108, and (b) which could meet Standard No. 108 assuming a flash cycle of 104 seconds. With respect to (a), all four would appear to be acceptable. The standard allows multiple turn signal lamps either to flash simultaneously, or sequentially in the direction of the turn. With respect to (b), Standard No. 108 specifies that a turn signal flasher provide not less than 60 and not more than 120 cycles per minute. This translates to not less than 1 and not more than 2 cycles per second. This requirement would have to be met by all lamps in arrangement (d), i.e. where all lamps operate simultaneously. When operating sequentially, each lamp individually would be subject to the restrictions with the result that the inclusive cycle for a three lamp system would be not less than 3 seconds and not more than 6 seconds. Therefore, arrangements (a), (b), and (c) would meet this requirement assuming a flash cycle of 4 seconds, by arrangement (d) would not, being restricted to a cycle of 2 seconds maximum.; In your third question, or Section 3 as you term it, you have combine the condition of your first two questions and attached a table of 'detailed operating states' of the rear lamps, which incorporated three attached figures, with the question whether it would comply with Standard No. 108. Two of the Operating States illustrated denote the stop lamp 'on' and, individually, the right or left turn signal as 'on'. Standard No. 108 does not allow simultaneous activation of the stop lamp and turn signal lamp when the stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal. In that event, the circuit must be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing (paragraph 4.2, SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108). Our other comment concerns 'Fig. a', 'Fig. b', and 'Fig. c' depicting flash cycles of the turn signal lamps. As we noted earlier, the individual lamps are subject to the cycle minima and maxima of 1 to 2 cycles per second, and none of the rates depicted in the three Figures appears to meet the minimum requirement of 1 second. Otherwise, the 'Operating State' table appears acceptable.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2188 Open Mr. Stuart R. Perkins, Director, Vehicle Safety, Jeep Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. Stuart R. Perkins Director Vehicle Safety Jeep Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Perkins: This responds to Jeep Corporation's October 16, 1975, petition t initiate rulemaking to amend the present definition of 'Unloaded vehicle weight' (49 CFR S571.3) which reads:; >>>'Unloaded vehicle weight' means the weight of a vehicle with maximu capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.<<<; Jeep requests that the definition be amended to 'indicate that th unloaded vehicle [weight] does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories.' The Jeep petition argues that the impracticality of conducting some dynamic testing with 'work-performing accessories' in place may force the discontinuance of some factory-installed accessories although factory installation may be more safe than a subsequent aftermarket installation.; The Jeep Corporation petition is denied. As a general matter, the NHTS has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept an optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with the component installed. The NHTSA has evaluated the potential problems of dynamic testing with heavy or protruding accessories in place and concludes that a decision on the practicality and wisdom of so doing should be made on a 'standard-by-standard' basis. As you noted, the NHTSA has provided for removal of work-performing accessories in conducting compliance tests under Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. If Jeep considers dynamic testing in other standards to be unjustifiably burdensome because of the necessity of testing with all accessories in place, it would be appropriate to petition for rulemaking to amend the standard in question.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;
ID: aiam0245 Open Mr. James Deifster, 914 Willow Run, Covington, KY 41011; Mr. James Deifster 914 Willow Run Covington KY 41011; Dear Mr. Deifster: Your request for information on requirements for camper manufacturer has been referred to this office for reply. The information we have received states that you are a manufacturer of campers, selling them to dealers, and also installing them on trucks.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C S1381 et seq., (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to manufacture their products so that they comply, and to 'certify' that they comply, with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Camper bodies for both slide-in and chassis-mount camper installation are items of motor vehicle equipment and must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and be certified by their manufacturer that they comply with the standard. I enclose a copy of the standard and the regulations governing certification for your information, Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference the USA Standard Z26.1-1966, 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways.' This USAS standard can be obtained for a small fee from the USA Standards Institute, 10 East 40th Street, New York, N.Y. 10016.; If you install slide-in camper bodies on pick-up trucks only, you ar not subject to additional requirements. However, if you install chassis-mount camper bodies onto truck chassis, you are in addition to being a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, a manufacturer of motor vehicles, specifically, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and are required to comply with regulations and standards applicable to manufacturers of multipurpose passenger vehicles. Copies of these requirements, which have been promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and codified in Chapter 5 (formerly Chapter 3) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, are available from the Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402, under the title Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The price is $8.00, which includes a subscription for one year to receive copies of amendments.; Because of the relative length and complexity of these requirements, i is difficult to summarize them for you here. Many trade associations have familiarized themselves with them in order to assist their membership in complying with them. If after studying them materials you have specific questions concerning their application to you, we will be pleased to answer them.; I have also enclosed a mailing list questionnaire. If you will complet and return it to the address indicated thereon, you will receive future notices pertaining to those areas you have marked.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulation
ID: aiam4003 Open Mr. Thomas J. Burke, Vice President - Domestic Sales, Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company, 8959 Blue Ash Road, Cincinnati, OH 45242; Mr. Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company 8959 Blue Ash Road Cincinnati OH 45242; Dear Mr. Burke: Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Burdette and Mr Brownlee concerning a new automobile safety package your company is developing. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described your product as a number of modifications to a vehicle to improve its security. The modifications include changes to the windows, tires, doors, and fuel tank. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations would affect your product.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including on tires, windows, doors and fuel tanks. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our standards. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Under our certification regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer is considered an 'alterer.' Part 567.7 requires vehicle alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all of our safety standards. Thus, if your company is modifying vehicles with your security package prior to their first sale to the consumer, it must certify that the vehicles, as altered, conform with all applicable standards. Any person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.; If your company is modifying used vehicles, then its actions would b affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)), which was added to the Act in 1974 to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part, 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.....<<<; Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business making the modifications you describe must ensure that those modifications do not 'render inoperative' the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that 'render inoperative' an element of a safety standard.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4000 Open Mr. Thomas J. Burke, Vice President - Domestic Sales, Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company, 8959 Blue Ash Road, Cincinnati, OH 45242; Mr. Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company 8959 Blue Ash Road Cincinnati OH 45242; Dear Mr. Burke: Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Burdette and Mr Brownlee concerning a new automobile safety package your company is developing. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described your product as a number of modifications to a vehicle to improve its security. The modifications include changes to the windows, tires, doors, and fuel tank. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations would affect your product.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including on tires, windows, doors and fuel tanks. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our standards. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Under our certification regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer is considered an alterer.' Part 567.7 requires vehicle alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all of our safety standards. Thus, if your company is modifying vehicles with your security package prior to their first sale to the consumer, it must certify that the vehicles, as altered, conform with all applicable standards. Any person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.; If your company is modifying used vehicles, then its actions would b affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)), which was added to the Act in 1974 to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part, 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.....<<<; Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business making the modifications you describe must ensure that those modifications do not render inoperative' the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that render inoperative' an element of a safety standard.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4001 Open Mr. Thomas J. Burke, Vice President - Domestic Sales, Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company, 8959 Blue Ash Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242; Mr. Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company 8959 Blue Ash Road Cincinnati Ohio 45242; Dear Mr. Burke: Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Burdette and Mr Brownlee concerning a new automobile safety package your company is developing. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described your product as a number of modifications to a vehicle to improve its security. The modifications include changes to the windows, tires, doors, and fuel tank. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations would affect your product.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including on tires, windows, doors and fuel tanks. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our standards. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Under our certification regulating, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer is considered an 'alterer.' Part 567.7 requires vehicle alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all of our safety standards. Thus, if your company is modifying vehicles with your security package prior to their first sale to the consumer, it must certify that the vehicles, as altered, conform with all applicable standards. Any person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.; If you company is modifying used vehicles, then its action would b affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)), which was added to the Act in 1974 to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part 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....<<<; Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business making the modifications you describe must ensure that those modifications do not 'render inoperative' the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that 'render inoperative' an element of a safety standard.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4211 Open Mr. Heinz Huentemann, Vice-President, Spartan Transit Supply Corp., 325 Fairlane Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29302; Mr. Heinz Huentemann Vice-President Spartan Transit Supply Corp. 325 Fairlane Drive Spartanburg SC 29302; Dear Mr. Huentemann: This responds to your letter dated June 17, 1986, asking how ou regulations affect a convex outside mirror manufactured by your company. In your letter, you state that this convex mirror has a reflective surface of 92.5 square inches, and would be used on the curb side of a transit bus. You also state that this convex mirror has a radius of curvature of 94.5 inches. You specifically asked whether this mirror can be used on the curb side of a transit bus.; Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, a copy of which is enclosed, set different requirements for buses depending on whether the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is above 10,000 pounds. I believe that the GVWR of a transit bus would exceed 10,000 pounds.; Buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds must meet S7.1, whic requires buses, other than school buses, to have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 square inches of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle. These mirrors must also be located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and must be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene. Although the surface of your convex mirror is close to a plane (flat) surface, due to the 94.5-inch radius of curvature, it is not a unit magnification or plane mirror. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements for rearview mirrors on new buses.; A manufacturer of new transit buses could use your convex mirror on th curb side of the bus in addition to a unit magnification mirror which met all applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. However, a commercial business could not substitute your mirror for a complying mirror. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business could not remove a unit magnification rearview mirror, installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard, and replace that mirror with a convex mirror.; The sample of your rearview mirror, No. STS-0.253, is being returned t you under separate cover.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4993 Open Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara Manager, Information Services Ichikoh America, Inc. Suite 220 3025 Boardwalk Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48108-1777; Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara Manager Information Services Ichikoh America Inc. Suite 220 3025 Boardwalk Drive Ann Arbor MI 48108-1777; Dear Mr. Aihara: This responds to your letter of March 16, 1992 requesting an interpretation of the applicability of the moisture prohibition of S7.4(i)(6) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Initially, we would like to call your attention to the fact that S7.4(i)(6), which you quoted in its entirety, was amended on March 11, 1991, to delete the requirement that a headlamp meet the photometric requirements after a humidity test. S7.4(i)(6) now states in pertinent part that, after a humidity test conducted in accordance with S8.7, 'the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification.' You have attached a drawing of a vented headlamp with an onboard aiming system. The headlamp is available with two different types of bubble indicators. Your first question is: 'After the humidity test, both types . . . show the fogging in the location as shown in attached sketches. But, this fogging is gone at normal temperature. * * * Is such fogging acceptable after the humidity test?' Your second question is whether ''the inside of the housing' means the lens and reflector portions' or 'the entire inside portion of headlamps?' The humidity test was adopted for replaceable bulb headlamps in l983. Allowing humidity or water in headlamps causes slow degradation of the reflector over the long term. The presence of humidity results in spots on the reflector and lens, and eventual photometric failure. The humidity test is designed to assure that the vents in vented headlamps eliminate moisture in the headlamp when exposed to air flow with the headlamps off, thus assuring adequate performance in long term use. The provision for onboard headlamp aiming devices was not adopted until 1989, and, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps, did not specify that they be located within the headlamp. From the foregoing, it is evident that the humidity test for replaceable bulb headlamps was not adopted to address a problem inherent in the exposure of onboard aiming devices to moisture. These devices were not in use at the time the humidity test was added to Standard No. 108, and they do not contribute directly to the photometric performance of the headlamp. From the diagram you enclosed, the aiming device appears located behind the reflector. It is not possible to determine from your letter whether moisture forms on the exterior or the interior of the aiming device. Although S7.4(i)(6) prohibits moisture 'inside the headlamp' and the aiming device is located inside the headlamp, we would not read the prohibition as extending to the aiming device if the moisture occurs inside that device. Even if the moisture occurs on the exterior of the aiming device, it does not affect the photometric properties of the headlamp. The agency does not wish to impose inadvertent design restrictions that are not directed towards safety, and therefore regards any moisture that may occur on the exterior of the aiming device as outside the prohibition of S7.4(i)(6). This interpretation, however, is limited to the specific design that you have presented. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam4459 Open Mr. Mike Kaizaki Manager, Truck Tire Engineering Yokohama Tire Corporation Corporate Office 60l S. Acacia Fullerton, CA 9263l; Mr. Mike Kaizaki Manager Truck Tire Engineering Yokohama Tire Corporation Corporate Office 60l S. Acacia Fullerton CA 9263l; "Dear Mr. Kaizaki: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether it is permissible to place two tire size designations, 385/65R22.5 in larger letters and l5R22.5 in small letters, on the same tire. The answer to your question is no. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. The practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as 'dual-size markings.' Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109, 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with 'the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1.' Section S5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires each tire manufacturer to ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire the manufacturer produces is available to the public. This may be done either by the individual manufacturer furnishing a document to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to any person upon request, or the manufacturer may rely on the tire and rim matching information published by certain standardization organizations. While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the 'tire size designation' to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam3663

ID: aiam4355

ID: aiam2188

ID: aiam0245

ID: aiam4003

ID: aiam4000

ID: aiam4001

ID: aiam4211

ID: aiam4993

ID: aiam4459

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?