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: aiam2638OpenNoel C. Ice, Esq., Cantey, Hanger, Gooch, Munn, & Collins, 1800 First National Bank Building, Fort Worth, TX 76102; Noel C. Ice Esq. Cantey Hanger Gooch Munn & Collins 1800 First National Bank Building Fort Worth TX 76102; Dear Mr. Ice: This responds to your March 1, 1977, letter asking whether your client a company that manufactures, distributes, and sometimes installs air conditioners and cruise control units on automobiles prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale, must comply with the certification and other requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1403) requires that motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers certify that each vehicle or item of equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There are no standards applicable to air conditioners or cruise controls. Thus, your client would not be required to certify the equipment he manufactures.; Your client may, however, have certification responsibilities a prescribed in the regulation issued under Section 114 (49 CFR Part 567, *Certification) in his capacity as installer of air conditioners or cruise controls if such installation places him within the status of 'alterer,' as that term is defined in Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the equipment, prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, either altered the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating or gross axle weight rating or was the installation of a nonreadily attachable component.; It is unlikely that the installation of an air conditioning unit woul alter the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as 'the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.' The installation of air conditioners or cruise controls may, however, constitute an installation of equipment which is not readily attachable or may exceed the gross axle weight rating. If this is the case, your client would have to comply with the requirements of Part 567.7. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise or tools must be taken into consideration.; You ask whether your client would be required to comply with 49 CF Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This part applies to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies. Since no safety standards apply to the equipment manufactured by your client, he would not be required to comply with this regulation in his capacity as an equipment manufacturer. Further, the NHTSA has determined by interpretation that vehicle alterers need not comply with Part 566. Similarly, 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, may not apply to your client, since the installation of an air conditioner or a cruise control would not make your client an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, an intermediate manufacturer, or a final stage manufacturer of vehicles as those terms are defined in the regulation (568.3). Your client might have responsibilities under Part 568.8 as a vehicle alterer, however.; You should note that if your client is considered an alterer, a defined in Part 567 or Part 568 he would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliances resulting from his installations (the Act, Section 151 *et seq.).; If we can be of further assistance do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2640OpenNoel C. Ice, Esq., Cantey, Hanger, Gooch, Munn, & Collins, 1800 First National Bank Building, Fort Worth, TX 76102; Noel C. Ice Esq. Cantey Hanger Gooch Munn & Collins 1800 First National Bank Building Fort Worth TX 76102; Dear Mr. Ice: This responds to your March 1, 1977, letter asking whether your client a company that manufactures, distributes, and sometimes installs air conditioners and cruise control units on automobiles prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale, must comply with the certification and other requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1403) requires that motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers certify that each vehicle or item of equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There are no standards applicable to air conditioners or cruise controls. Thus, your client would not be required to certify the equipment he manufactures.; Your client may, however, have certification responsibilities a prescribed in the regulation issued under Section 114 (49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*) in his capacity as installer of air conditioners or cruise controls if such installation places him within the status of 'alterer,' as that term is defined in Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the equipment, prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, either altered the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating or gross axle weight rating or was the installation of a nonreadily attachable component.; It is unlikely that the installation of an air conditioning unit woul alter the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as 'the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.' The installation of air conditioners or cruise controls may, however, constitute an installation of equipment which is not readily attachable or may exceed the gross axle weight rating. If this is the case, your client would have to comply with the requirements of Part 567.7. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise or tools must be taken into consideration.; You ask whether your client would be required to comply with 49 CF Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This part applies to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies. Since no safety standards apply to the equipment manufactured by your client, he would not be required to comply with this regulation in his capacity as an equipment manufacturer. Further, the NHTSA has determined by interpretation that vehicle alterers need not comply with Part 566. Similarly, 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, may not apply to your client, since the installation of an air conditioner or a cruise control would not make your client an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, an intermediate manufacturer, or a final stage manufacturer of vehicles as those terms are defined in the regulation (568.3). Your client might have responsibilities under Part 568.8 as a vehicle alterer, however.; You should note that if your client is considered an alterer, a defined in Part 567 or Part 568 he would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliances resulting from his installations (the Act, Section 151 *et seq*.).; If we can be of further assistance do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4316OpenMr. Barry Bartlett, President, Canadian Automotive Radiator, Air Industrial Park, P. O. Box 189, Debert, Nova Scotia, BOM 1GO, CANADA; Mr. Barry Bartlett President Canadian Automotive Radiator Air Industrial Park P. O. Box 189 Debert Nova Scotia BOM 1GO CANADA; Dear Mr. Barlett(sic): Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1987, concerning Standard No. 301 *Fuel System Integrity*. You asked the agency to confirm that the requirements set out in the standard apply only to fuel systems installed as items of original equipment in new vehicles and do not apply to aftermarket fuel systems. Several of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply both to original and aftermarket equipment. Standard No. 301, however, applies only to fuel systems installed as items of original equipment in new vehicles.; Although the agency does not have any standards that directly apply t aftermarket fuel systems, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes aftermarket fuel systems, are subject to the requirements in section 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which briefly describes those responsibilities.; In addition, installation of your product can be affected by sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair shop that installs replacement fuel tanks must ensure that it does not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301.; The prohibition of Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individua vehicle owner who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.; If you have any further questions , please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4424OpenEllen A. Lockwood, Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney District of Guam Suite 502-A PNB 238 O'Hara Street Agana, Guam 969l0; Ellen A. Lockwood Esq. Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Attorney District of Guam Suite 502-A PNB 238 O'Hara Street Agana Guam 969l0; "Dear Ms. Lockwood: This is in reply to your letter of September 24 l987, to Jim Marquez, the former General Counsel of this Department. You have asked about the applicability to the Commmonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI) of l5 U.S.C. l38l, and l9 C.F.R. l2.80. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, l5 U.S.C. l38l et seq., as you have noted, applies to the CNMI through Section 502(a)(2) of the 'Covenant to Establish the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States,' and is a 'State' within the meaning of l5 U.S.C. l39l. This means that it is a violation of l5 U.S.C. l397(a)(1)(A) to import into the CNMI any motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As authorized by l5 U.S.C. l397(b)(3), the Departments of Transportation and Treasury issued joint regulations to enforce the importation prohibition of l397(a)(l)(A). As the authority of the Customs Service is limited to the Customs Territory of the United States, these regulations apply only to 'States' within this Territory. They do not apply to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the CNMI, 'States' that lie without the Customs Territory of the United States. It is our understanding that each of these 'States' enforces l397(a)(1)(A) within its borders through an Executive Order issued by the Governor, designating an appropriate local agency for this task. In the Virgin Islands, for example, the Department of Public Safety will not register any vehicle that lacks the label required by 49 C.F.R. Part 567 Certification certifying compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose representative copies of correspondence that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has had with the Virgin Islands and the CNMI on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4693OpenRoger C. Fairchild, Esq. Shutler and Low 14500 Avion Parkway Suite 300 Chantilly, VA 22021-1101; Roger C. Fairchild Esq. Shutler and Low 14500 Avion Parkway Suite 300 Chantilly VA 22021-1101; "Dear Mr. Fairchild: This responds to your request for my opinion o whether a particular vehicle (the Pinzgauer) would be considered a 'motor vehicle' for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. When NHTSA previously considered this question, we stated in a March 25, 1982 letter to Mr. Leonard Fink that the Pinzgauer would be considered to be a motor vehicle, based on the information that was available to the agency at that time. However, that letter also stated that the agency would be willing to reconsider this conclusion if additional information were provided regarding the vehicle's marketing, advertising, and actual use. Your recent letter set forth three additional factors that you suggested might lead the agency to change its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer was a motor vehicle. As explained in detail below, this agency reaffirms the previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle'. Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated. Vehicles such as the Pinzgauer are not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, the Pinzgauer is obviously designed to have substantial off-road capabilities, as evidenced by high ground clearance, deep water fording capabilities, and all-wheel drive. According to its manufacturer, 95 percent of the annual production of Pinzgauers is purchased by armed forces worldwide. These factors suggest that the Pinzgauer should not be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, the available information shows the Pinzgauer is suitable for use on-road. The vehicle has a top speed of nearly 70 miles per hour. Page 4 of Enclosure 1 of your letter shows that the Pinzgauer is equipped with turn signals and states that the power steering minimizes steering effort 'both in difficult terrain and when parking.' Page 4 of Enclosure 3 with your letter describes the serviceability of the Pinzgauer 'with ordinary on- and off-road usage.' These factors suggest that the vehicle is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, which suggests that it should be classified as a motor vehicle. In instances where the agency is asked whether something is a motor vehicle, when the vehicle has both on-road and off-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, NHTSA has applied five factors to reach its conclusion. These factors are: 1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. 2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. 3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. 4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles. 5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads. When NHTSA previously considered whether the Pinzgauer should be considered a motor vehicle, the available information regarding these factors showed that the manufacturer had equipped the vehicle with side marker lights, the manufacturer expected the vehicle to be used on-road, and that it would be sold by dealers that also sell vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles. In your letter, you enclosed some additional information and brochures from the manufacturer that show the manufacturer continues to expect Pinzgauers to be used both on- and off-road. Since the manufacturer does not now expect to sponsor the vehicle's sale in the U.S., no information is available on the anticipated dealers. The additional information enclosed with your letter did not specifically address any factors on which no information was previously available to NHTSA. Hence, the agency has no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Pinzgauer appears to be a motor vehicle. You suggested three reasons that might lead the agency to reverse its previous conclusion. First, you suggested that the 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer has a unique body configuration which distinguishes it from typical, on-road vehicles and makes it particularly well suited to off-road use. You correctly noted that the agency's 1982 letter addressed both the 4-wheeled and 6-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. However, for the purposes of this analysis, there is no attribute of the 6-wheeled version that would lead the agency to conclude that it should be classified differently than the 4-wheeled version of the Pinzgauer. Many vehicles that are clearly motor vehicles have 6 wheels. In all other respects, the 4- and 6-wheeled Pinzgauers have similar on-road capabilities, including a top speed of more than 65 miles per hour. Second, you suggested that NHTSA concluded that the Unimog is not a 'motor vehicle' in a February 7, 1984 letter, and that the Unimog and Pinzgauer are comparable vehicles. In the February 7, 1984 letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber to which you refer, NHTSA stated that it had no basis for changing its previous conclusion that the Unimog was not a 'motor vehicle.' NHTSA also noted that this conclusion was based upon the assumptions that Unimog vehicles would continue to be marketed through dealers of farm machinery and heavy equipment and that Unimog vehicles would have a label affixed stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use. In other words, the information available for Unimog (especially regarding factors number 4 and 5 above) was sufficient to lead the agency to conclude that it was not a motor vehicle, even though Unimogs are operationally capable of on-road use. By way of contrast, either no information is available for Pinzgauer vehicles regarding the five factors identified above or, if information is available for a factor, it suggests that the Pinzgauer should be treated as a motor vehicle. Since the Pinzgauer is operationally capable of on-road use, and there is no indication that the manufacturer does not intend for it to spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA reaffirms its previous statement that these vehicles appear to be 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Third, you suggested that NHTSA's 1982 conclusion did not include a consideration of the primary design intent of the Pinzgauer for military purposes and the high percentage of its total sales to the military. NHTSA's 1982 conclusion and this reconsideration both are addressed only to the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer. The military versions of the Pinzgauer would not be subject to the safety standards if their sales satisfied 49 CFR 571.7(c). In both the 1982 and this examination of whether the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer are motor vehicles, the agency fully considered the substantial off-road capabilities of these vehicles. However, absent indications that the manufacturer does not intend the Pinzgauer to spend substantial periods of time on-road, NHTSA concluded in 1982, and reaffirms at this time, that the non-military versions of the Pinzgauer appear to be 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1540OpenMr. John W. Kourik, Wagner Division, Wagner Electric Corporation, 11444 Lackland Road, St. Louis, MO 63141; Mr. John W. Kourik Wagner Division Wagner Electric Corporation 11444 Lackland Road St. Louis MO 63141; Dear Mr. Kourik: This responds to your March 12, 1974, request for interpretation of th volume requirements for service brake chambers in S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*:; >>>S5.1.2 Total service reservoir volume shall be at least eight time the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms.<<<; You also requested the addition of language equating brake chambe volume with brake chamber displacement, based on nominal effective area and rated stroke. In testing for compliance with S5.1.2.1 and S5.2.1.2, the NHTSA will accept a manufacturer's published 'rated volume' of the brake chamber with the piston or diaphragm at maximum travel. This means that the manufacturer may specify the full stroke of the piston or diaphragm and compute the 'rated volume' based on the designed volume of the chamber and the full stroke he has established. This volume may be somewhat larger than 'nominal brake chamber displacement' which does not necessarily account for the void ahead of the relaxed diaphragm or piston, the so-called 'pre-fill volume'. This volume must be included because it must be pressurized along with the displaced volume.; In the absence of manufacturer's published ratings, the NHTSA wil measure the brake chamber volume with the push rod at maximum stroke.; Your request to add explanatory language to the standard of th measurement technique is denied as unnecessary in view of this interpretation.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3648OpenMr. Tom Dobbs, Oshkosh Trucks, 2307 Oregon Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901; Mr. Tom Dobbs Oshkosh Trucks 2307 Oregon Street Oshkosh Wisconsin 54901; Dear Mr. Dobbs: This responds to your recent telephone request asking whether Standar No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, would prohibit the use of a hand control that would allow the vehicle operator to apply only the rear brakes if the driver so chooses. You question whether this can be proper in light of the requirement that vehicles be equipped with brakes that act on all wheels. Although the standard requires brakes acting on all wheels, nothing in the standard prohibits the type of hand control that you mention.; For years, tractor-trailer combinations have been equipped with brake acting on all wheels. Some of these combinations also have been equipped with hand controls that allow the operator to activate only the trailer brakes. It has been argued that in some instances this control can be used to produce beneficial results in combination vehicles. While we can see no beneficial results that could possibly be gained by the use of hand controls in trucks, such a control would not be prohibited by the standard. The standard simply requires a service brake system acting on all wheels. The trucks that you mentioned would still have this system, and therefore, would continue to comply with the standard.; You should note that the agency does not encourage the use of such han controls, particularly on trucks. This type of control provides an opportunity for vehicle operators to lessen the effectiveness of their braking systems. Should an operator use the hand control instead of the full service brakes in a stop and create an accident, there could be the potential for tort liability for both the operator that purchased vehicles with such systems and for the manufacturer who installed them knowing that they could lead to the easy misuse of the braking system. We suggest that you contact your attorneys for further guidance in this area.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0182OpenMr. R. Debesson, General Secretary, E.T.R.T.O., 49, Rue Barathon, 03-Montlucon, France; Mr. R. Debesson General Secretary E.T.R.T.O. 49 Rue Barathon 03-Montlucon France; Dear Mr. Debesson: This will acknowledge your recent submittal of data to the Nationa Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the addition of the belted-bias tire construction as a new category within Table I of Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. Your submittal was not accompanied by a cover letter.; The National Highway Safety Bureau realizes that this construction o motor vehicle passenger car tires warrants consideration within Standard No. 109. We do not believe, however, that the introduction of additional tables to the standard is needed to cover belted-bias tires. The tables within the standard are becoming voluminous and the variety of size designations are confusing to the consumer.; During the recent ISO/TC 31 meeting in Rome, Mr. W.W. Jordan, Chief o the Tire Branch discussed briefly with members of your organisation our philosophy on the standardization of the tire size designations and load inflation schedules. We have been working closely with the American Tire and Rim Association in further developing the alphanumerical system for tire size designations. We believe we are approaching a workable, standardized solution to the problem. In this light, we understand that members of E.T.R.T.O. visit the United States at regular intervals and we would like to extend an invitation to your organization to have a representative meet with us to review this matter and your petition in detail.; The National Highway Safety Bureau, at the present time, does not pla to differentiate belted-bias type tire construction from other constructions, consequently, we will delay action on your petition until we have the opportunity to discuss it with your representative.; Sincerely, H.M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4527OpenMr. Joseph P. Faia 9703 Lilac Ave. Garfield Heights, OH 44l25; Mr. Joseph P. Faia 9703 Lilac Ave. Garfield Heights OH 44l25; Dear Mr. Faia: This is in reply to your recent undated letter regardin a vehicle lighting accessory for trucks and trailers. It appears from your letter and enclosed diagram that the purpose of the device is to illuminate 'two dimensional displays' on the side or rear of vehicles. A number of such devices would be required, depending on the size of the display to be illuminated. You have not stated the candlepower of the device. Reference is made to a transparent section through which the light is emitted, and to a 'semi-translucent' section which is 'tinted and arranged to function as the running lights commonly seen on trailers.' The color of the light is not specified, but we shall assume that it is amber or red when emitted through the 'semi-translucent' sections, and white when emitted through the transparent sections to illustrate the display. You have asked four questions with regard to this device. The first question is whether it can be used as a 'combination side illumination and marker light.' As a general rule, supplementary lighting devices such as yours are permissible as original equipment if they do not impair the effectiveness of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. They are permissible as aftermarket equipment under Federal law if their installation by a person other than the vehicle owner does not 'render inoperative in whole or in part' lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108, but their legality is otherwise determined by the laws of the States in which the vehicle is registered and operated. As for whether your device may be used as a combination side illumination and marker light, if you mean as the only side marker lamp, the combination per se is not prohibited by Standard No. 108. However, the side marker lamp in such a combination must comply with photometric, location, color, and other requirements for such lamps, and its effectiveness must not be impaired. One example of impairment would be if the glare from the device's white light masked the conspicuity of the side marker. As a combined device supplementing the required side marker lamp, it is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness ofthe required side marker. For purposes of this letter and with respect to Standard No. 108 we equate 'impairment of effectiveness' with 'partially inoperative.' Your second question is whether it can be used 'as a backup light and parking light, to be used only in these situations.' It is unclear whether you intend the device to be the backup lamp required by the standard, or one that supplements it. If the former, its use is permissible provided that the backup function meets all requirements of Standard No. 108 that are specified for backup lamps, such as color and photometrics, and provided that the display function does not impair the effectiveness of the backup function. Because the color of light in both functions would be identical, care must be taken to ensure that the backup signal is clearly perceived. If you intend it as a supplementary backup lamp, it is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the primary backup lamp. Your term 'parking light' is unclear, because front parking lamps are not required on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more, I assume you mean a lamp on the rear of a vehicle that is not a backup lamp but which can be used to indicate that the vehicle is moving slowly while being parked. The device appears permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the other lighting equipment on the rear. Your third question is whether the device may be used as a stop lamp, activated only when the brake is applied. Two devices may be used as the original equipment stop lamps, provided all requirements of Standard No. 108 are met and that the display function does not impair the effectiveness of any other lighting equipment. One or more devices could be used as supplementary stop lamps under the same restriction. Your final question is whether it may be used alone as a display light. The answer is yes, subject to the impairment prohibition. The only specifically prohibited use of the lamp is its combination with a clearance lamp, a configuration which appears depicted by the uppermost lights, front and rear, of your Figures 2 and 3. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4877OpenMr. Stephen Mamakas AIR Inc. 1517 West 9 Street Brooklyn, NY 11204; Mr. Stephen Mamakas AIR Inc. 1517 West 9 Street Brooklyn NY 11204; "Dear Mr. Mamakas: This responds to your letter asking what Federa standards apply to the 'repair' of deployed air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection, beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. The compliance testing of vehicles to the requirement of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria (as measured on a test dummy) when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Automatic crash protection will save thousands of lives and prevent tens of thousands of serious injuries each year. Note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to 'tune' the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. Hence, there are no specific performance attributes with which repaired air bags must comply. The only Federal requirement that might affect your planned operation would be the 'render inoperative' prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that, 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' In this case, air bags are a 'device or element of design' installed in passenger cars in compliance with Standard No. 208. Hence, your repair business would violate Federal law if it were to remove, deploy, disable, or otherwise 'render inoperative' air bags installed in passenger cars. However, your letter gives no indication that your company intends to perform repairs or other operations on air bags that have not yet deployed. Instead, your letter asks only about performing repairs on air bags that have already deployed. Deployed air bags have been 'rendered inoperative' by the forces that caused deployment, not by anything a repair business does after that deployment. Thus, it seems unlikely that any repairs your company performs on deployed air bags would violate the 'render inoperative' section of Federal law. Although there is no Federal law prohibiting the sort of repairs you asked about, your planned 'repair' of deployed air bags gives rise to a host of safety concerns. You will need to contact the manufacturer of each vehicle on which you repair an air bag to learn the exact formula and amount of gas generant in the inflator canister for each air bag. This would be necessary to ensure that the 'repaired' air bag will inflate at the time and in the manner intended by the original manufacturer. Additionally, you will need to replace the crash sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Again, you will need to contact the vehicle manufacturer to obtain specifications for the performance of these electronic components. You will also need to refold and lubricate the fabric of the air bag in the same manner as the original air bag. If you fail to exactly duplicate the equipment and procedures used in the original air bag, your company could significantly reduce or even eliminate the protection that would have been provided by the original air bag. This, in turn, could expose your company to substantial liability under State laws for such repairs. You may wish to consult a private attorney for more information in this regard. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.