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: 07-004357asOpenMr. Mark Merchant 336 Sprague Road # 104 Berea, OH 44017 Dear Mr. Merchant: This letter responds to your note asking how to submit an idea for traffic safety on vehicles. Your device would be an addendum to the taillight currently used on most vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for motor vehicles and equipment. Any interested person may recommend that NHTSA adopt a new standard or amend an existing one. Such recommendations are formally submitted via a petition for rulemaking. The requirements for petitioning for rulemaking are set forth in 49 CFR 552.4. The petition must be in the English language, the word "Petition" must be in the heading preceding the text, and the petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that an amendment is necessary, set forth a brief description of the substance of the amendment which it is claimed should be issued, and contain the name and address of the petitioner. Petitions must be sent to: Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, W41-307 Washington, DC 20590 We have a specific policy with respect to evaluating requests related to signal lamps, which include taillights. We believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. As you might imagine, the agency is frequently presented with new lighting ideas intended to enhance safety. Many of these are not allowable under Standard No. 108 because of deviations from the performance of the lighting equipment mandated by the standard. These ideas are often submitted without proof of their effectiveness. On December 13, 1996, we published a Federal Register notice that articulated the agency's general policy regarding new signal lighting ideas and how that policy would apply in the case of four specific brake signaling ideas (61 FR 65510). In a subsequent notice, published on November 4, 1998 (63 FR 59482), we expressed our intent to participate in efforts to develop an international consensus on how to handle new signaling ideas. We went on to say that, until a new international consensus emerges, we will follow the policy described in the December 1996 notice. I enclose a copy of both the 1996 and 1998 notices. Of particular interest to you will be the discussion on p. 65517 of the December 1996 notice in which we advised inventors to provide our Office of Research and Development with candidates for future agency research. We summarized our policy as follows: In summary, a petitioner seeking to persuade the agency to mandate a lighting invention for new vehicles bears the initial burden of establishing its safety value and cost effectiveness. The burden for those inventors seeking to make an invention optional is to convince the agency that the invention will not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment through creating ambiguity or negatively affecting standardization of signals. Before submitting any invention to the agency, we urge you to carefully read the enclosed Federal Register notices, and make sure that you are submitting the kind of data necessary for us to evaluate your petition. Furthermore, you should be aware of agency rules regarding disclosure of communications. If you are submitting information you would like to keep confidential, you must follow the instructions laid out in 49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business Information. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:108 d.2/29/08 |
2008 |
ID: 07-004380-3asOpenDietmar K. Leicht Secretary General Federation of European Manufacturers of Friction Materials Robert-Perthel-Str. 49 D-50739 Kln Germany Dear Mr. Leicht: This responds to your letter in which you ask whether AMECA Standard VESC V-3 is still a legal requirement and mandatory in [the U.S.]. You stated that your members would like to know which legal requirements must be fulfilled for the export of brake linings to the United States. You cited brake linings for the aftermarket which are approved in Europe by ECE Regulation No. 90 and OE brake linings offered on the market as original replacement parts which are approved in Europe by ECE Regulation No. 13 (13H). By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates reports of safety-related defects. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard for new or replacement linings used on motor vehicles sold in the United States. However, new vehicles are required to be certified to brake safety standards which specify minimum performance requirements under a variety of different test conditions. While the brake linings used on a vehicle could affect the vehicles ability to meet some of the minimum performance requirements, the requirements do not establish any separate performance requirements for the brake linings. The Federal requirements operate separately from the State law requirements. States are free to impose their own requirements on motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, unless such requirements are preempted by Federal law. We are unable to provide information about possible State requirements for brake linings. Standard V-3 was promulgated by the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC), and specified minimum requirements and uniform test procedures for motor vehicle brake linings. VESC ceased operations in January 1984. With regard to Federal law, the VESC V-3 standard is not and never was a legal requirement. However, we cannot provide information as to whether some or all of the requirements of this standard may have been adopted as State laws. In your letter, you referenced AMECA. We note that, according to its website, the Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. (AMECA) was incorporated in late 1994 to continue providing the same safety equipment services to the states that the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators had provided since 1967. Finally, brake linings are items of "motor vehicle equipment" and are subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This "recall" responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the equipment is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) I am enclosing an information sheet we prepared for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that provides additional information about relevant Federal states and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle manufacturers. We hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, you may call Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA d.11/20/08 |
2008 |
ID: 07-004525--5 Oct 07--saOpenMr. William Farmer 10114 Allenwood Drive Riverview, FL 33569 Dear Mr. Farmer: This responds to your request for our support of your development of an electronic device that would be installed in a motor vehicle, that could inform and warn drivers of an emergency situation (such as an approaching emergency vehicle), of hazardous road conditions (e.g., road closures) or to exercise caution in certain situations (e.g., that the driver is in the vicinity of a school or train crossing). As explained below, this office cannot comment on or offer the opinion sought by your letter regarding the safety impacts of your proposed devices. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates reports of safety-related defects. We cannot render an opinion as to how our safety standards would affect your product, in part because your description of your device was very general. In any event, it would be your responsibility as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that the product complies with all applicable standards and is free of safety-related defects. NHTSA does not have an FMVSS that applies to aftermarket warning systems, but we cannot say for sure that no standard applies to your product since we know very little about your device. Keep in mind also that installation of your product on a new or used vehicle by a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair business must not make inoperative the compliance of any safety system with an applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). It appears that you are seeking a judgment call or some kind of indication as to whether NHTSA believed these devices would increase safety. NHTSA does not certify, endorse, approve, or give assurances of compliance for any vehicle or item of vehicle equipment. Therefore, this office cannot and will not express support for or approval of your idea. We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety, however. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes manufacturer responsibilities under our statutes and regulations. Please also note that States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. If you wish to know whether State law permits the installation of your product in motor vehicles, you should contact State officials with your question. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571 d:12/5/07 |
2007 |
ID: 07-004899-Jan08--saOpenMr. Brent K. Faulkner PSC 476 Box 347 FPO AP 96322 Dear Mr. Faulkner: This responds to your letter requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provide you with a letter authorizing the importation of your 2005 Honda XR230 bike as a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle. You dispute the U.S. Navys denial of a request to ship your bike from Japan based on their interpretation of NHTSA regulations to prohibit the importation of motorcycles without DOT stickers or VIN numbers. Specifically, you disagree with the Navys classification of your bike as a motor vehicle because you would plan to import the bike exclusively for off-road use. As discussed below, we cannot provide the letter you request. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1), a person may generally not import a motor vehicle into the U.S. unless the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) in place at the time the vehicle was manufactured, and the manufacturer certified the vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSSs under 49 U.S.C. 30115. Motor vehicle is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a) as: [A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. Accordingly, only vehicles that are intended to be operated on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of their primary uses, are considered to be motor vehicles, and vehicles which are manufactured solely for use "off-road" are excluded. In your letter you state that the XR230 is a dirt bike, intended for off-road use, but is manufactured with devices such as turn signals, brake lights, and mirrors. You indicated that, in Japan, it is lawful to drive dirt bikes on the road provided that they are equipped with these types of devices. You stated that this facilitates the transportation of off-road, recreational vehicles without the need for vehicles capable of towing trailers. You argue that while capable of on-road use in Japan, the vehicle is manufactured primarily for off-road use. We believe that the presence of lights, mirrors, and turn signals on a bike with speed capabilities above 20 mph, such as the XR230, indicates that the manufacturer intends the bike to be used on the public roads. Moreover, we have reviewed information on Hondas website concerning the XR230. Hondas 2005 Annual Report (which can be found under the Investor Relations section of Hondas website) indicates that Honda introduced the XR230 into the Japanese market in 2005 as a dual-purpose bike . . . that is suited for both on-road and off-road use. Given the available information, we believe that on-road use is one of the primary purposes of the XR230, and that the vehicle is thus a motor vehicle. You also state that you intend to remove the mirrors, turn signals and brake lights, and import the bike into the United States for your solely off-road use. However, an individual owners planned use for a vehicle being imported is not determinative of whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle. The statutory definition of motor vehicle directs us to consider the vehicle as manufactured. We also note that if removal of safety equipment from a motor vehicle had the effect of re-categorizing it as exclusively intended for off-road use and thus not a motor vehicle for importation purposes, nothing would prevent individuals from reinstalling such equipment after importation into the U.S. and using the vehicle for on-road purposes. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:571 d.3/11/08 |
2008 |
ID: 07-005005asOpenJames A. Haigh, Vice President Technical Specifications & Application Development Transpec Worldwide 7205 Sterling Ponds Court Sterling Hts., MI 48312 Dear Mr. Haigh: This responds to your letter regarding whether your product, the Transpec Merge Alert, is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, the Merge Alert is an LED (light emitting diode) device that mounts on the rear of a transit bus, and alternatively flashes in amber lights the word Merging, as well as a Yield sign or an arrow. As discussed below, we do not believe that such a device would be permitted under FMVSS No. 108 if installed as original equipment on a motor vehicle. Furthermore, we believe that it would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 if the Merge Alert were installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. New motor vehicles are subject to the requirements in Standard No. 108 regarding flashing lamps. The question of which lamps are permitted to flash on a vehicle is addressed in paragraph S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108. The relevant provision states: The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are: (b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes; In general, flashing lamps are prohibited on vehicles under S5.5.10(d), unless they fall into one of the exceptions listed in S5.5.10(a)-(c). Because the Merge Alert does not fall into any of the lamp categories covered in sections (a)-(c),[1] it is subject to the general prohibition on flashing lamps of S5.5.10(d). Therefore, the Merge Alert could not be installed on transit buses as an item of original equipment or installed on a vehicle by its manufacturer or dealer prior to the initial sale of the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, as it would be a violation of Standard No. 108. Also, S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the addition of equipment on a vehicle if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. As we have explained to you in previous letters,[2] while there are limited exceptions, we interpret the standard as generally prohibiting electronic message boards because they have the potential of impairing the effectiveness of required lighting. The primary concern is that such devices can distract other drivers sharing the roadway from understanding and responding to the lighting devices required by Standard No. 108. For example, given that your product would be mounted on the rear of a transit bus, it could distract other drivers attention from the required turn signals. While we have recognized a limited exception for school buses, i.e., we defer to the States with respect to the narrow issue of prescribing or prohibiting electronic message boards (including flashing message boards) on school buses, we do not recognize such an exception for transit buses.[3] Also, non-standard signal lamps are generally prohibited by this provision due to the potential to cause confusion. If sold as aftermarket equipment, the Merge Alert would be treated differently. Paragraph S3, Application, of FMVSS No. 108, defines the type of equipment and vehicles that Standard No. 108 applies to. Part (c) of that paragraph applies to [l]amps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies. [emphasis added] Because the Merge Alert is an auxiliary lamp that does not replace a like item of motor vehicle equipment, Standard No. 108 is not applicable. Therefore, the requirements of Standard No. 108 would not prohibit the sale of the Merge Alert as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal restrictions would still exist with respect to the installation of the Merge Alert. Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, if an item of equipment is installed by a "manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business," that equipment as installed must not "make inoperative" any of the required safety equipment. As NHTSA has stated in previous interpretations, if an item of motor vehicle equipment impairs the effectiveness of lamps required by Standard No. 108, we consider that to have made the lighting system inoperative, and therefore the installation of that equipment would be a violation of 30122 if performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Therefore, it would be a violation of 30122 for any of these entities to install the Merge Alert on vehicles other than transit buses, even if it was purchased as aftermarket equipment. We note that 30122 applies only to manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses. Therefore, if an electronic message board, such as the Merge Alert, is installed by a vehicle owner, without assistance from a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the owner is not violating Federal law if (s)he installs it and uses it. Furthermore, States regulate auxiliary lighting equipment in various ways. We suggest that you contact State agencies to ascertain the legal status of the Merge Alert with regard to State regulation. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d.4/8/08 [1] See also our discussion below of flashing message boards on school buses. [2] These letters are available on NHTSAs website at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/. [3] We note that we do not interpret Standard No. 108 as prohibiting signs on the front of new transit buses showing the destination, although the standard does limit the color of the lamps for such signs. See our October 19, 2006 interpretation to New Flyer, also available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/. |
2008 |
ID: 07-005545asOpenLawrence J. Oswald CEO, Global Electric Motorcars LLC Director, GEM and EV Product Team Chrysler LLC CIMS 483-00-02 800 Chrysler Drive Auburn Hill, MI 48326 Dear Mr. Oswald: This responds to your letter concerning new State laws on medium speed electric vehicles (MSEVs). You noted that Montana and Washington have enacted legislation that purports to allow motor vehicles called MSEVs to operate on certain public roads. The statutes define MSEVs as electric-powered vehicles with a maximum speed of 35 mph that meet certain limited safety requirements similar to those established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for low speed vehicles (LSVs). You requested that NHTSA advise State officials on inconsistencies between these new State laws and Federal law, and potential significant safety problems that such State laws may create. As discussed below, the responsibilities of manufacturers and dealers to comply with Federal law, including not manufacturing or selling vehicles unless they comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), are not limited by State laws on MSEVs. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Chapter 301 provides that a person may not "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. Manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA has used its authority to, among other things, establish special category of motor vehicles called low speed vehicles (LSVs). This was done in part to accommodate the use of small golf cars as personal transportation vehicles in controlled, low-speed environments, such as retirement communities. In order to qualify as an LSV under the agencys definition,[1] a vehicle must, among other things, have a speed capability no higher than 25 mph and a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 3,000 pounds. As defined, LSVs are subject to the limited set of safety measures in Standard No. 500, including requirements regarding the installation of lamps, mirrors, seat belts, and a windshield. However, LSVs are not subject to the rigorous crashworthiness standards to which other vehicles are required to comply. We note that vehicles with a speed capability above 25 mph are more likely to be driven outside controlled, low speed environments, and the limited LSV safety requirements are not appropriate for such vehicles. A motor vehicle that has a speed capability above 25 mph, such as an MSEV with a top speed of 35 mph, would not be classified as an LSV under Federal law. Instead, the vehicles with a speed capability above 25 mph that would be considered MSEVs under the State laws at issue are classified as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks under Federal law. These vehicles are subject to the full range of FMVSSs that apply to those classes of vehicles, including, as you noted in your letter, crashworthiness requirements in frontal, side, and rear crashes, braking requirements, lighting requirements, etc. As noted above, under Federal law, no person may manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is certified as such. In conclusion, regardless of State laws, the classification of a vehicle under Federal law remains unchanged. Therefore, the manufacturer of an MSEV with a speed capability above 25 mph (or which otherwise does not meet the Federal definition of LSV) must certify it as complying with all applicable FMVSSs specified for passenger cars, multipurpose passengers, or trucks, as applicable. I hope this information is helpful. A copy of this letter will be placed in the docket. We will consider whether specific steps are needed to advise State officials about relevant requirements of Federal law. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:500 d.4/29/08 |
2008 |
ID: aiam1618OpenMr. K. Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Toyota Motors Sales U.S.A. Inc. Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima:#This is in response to your letter of September 9 1974, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, specifically, whether Toyota should identify controls with words as well as symbols.#Your use of symbols alone, without the words specified in Column 2 of Table 1 to identify the headlamp, hazard warning, and washer/wiper controls on the 1974 Corona model, is not in compliance with the standard. Symbols are merely an option which may be used in addition to the mandatory word identification.#I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the NHTSA Office of Standard Enforcement, for such action as it deems necessary.#Your truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3625OpenConfidential; Confidential; Dear Confidential: This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1982, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*. You have asked whether the standard permits three-wheeled motorcycles to be equipped with a reverse gear.; Standard No. 123 applies only to motorcycles with handlebars, which ar generally those machines with two wheels. As the standard is silent with respect to reverse gears, the agency considers that a manufacturer of a three-wheeled motorcycle with handlebars may provide and locate a reverse gear change mechanism wherever he deems appropriate.; This office can offer no comments on three-wheeled motorcycle safety i general. However, I suggest that you contact NHTSA's Office of Research and Development. Several years ago it conducted a study of three-wheeled vehicles, and as I recall, a configuration with two wheels in front and one behind was found to offer greater stability than the converse.; We shall delete your name and that of your company from the publicl available copies of this letter, in accordance with your wish for confidentiality.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2937OpenMr. James R. Randolph, 765 Malley Drive, Northglenn, CO 80233; Mr. James R. Randolph 765 Malley Drive Northglenn CO 80233; Dear Mr. Randolph: This responds to your December 28, 1978, letter concerning an auxiliar fuel tank installed by the dealer on a 1978 Ford van that you purchased. You are concerned that the auxiliary tank represents a safety hazard due to the location of the tank's filler cap in the left rear wheel-well.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel Syste Integrity* specifies performance requirements for fuel systems on motor vehicles. Although the standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components, your dealer had to assure that your van complied with the standard. A person who mounts an auxiliary fuel tank on a new motor vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is a vehicle alterer under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations. That person is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix a label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards--including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Therefore, there should be an 'alterer' label on your van in addition to the certification label placed on the vehicle by the original manufacturer.; Even if the vehicle complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75, th location and design of the auxiliary fuel tank could constitute a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer would also be responsible. I am, therefore, forwarding a copy of your letter to the agency's Office of Defects Investigation. That office will examine this situation and may be in touch with you at a later date.; Thank you for your letter and for bringing this matter to ou attention.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4949OpenMr. Woodruff Carroll Carroll, Carroll, Davidson, & Young The White Memorial Building Suite 206 100 East Washington St. Syracuse, NY 13202; Mr. Woodruff Carroll Carroll Carroll Davidson & Young The White Memorial Building Suite 206 100 East Washington St. Syracuse NY 13202; "Dear Mr. Carroll: This responds to your letter inquiring about ho NHTSA's regulations relate to snowplows. Ms. Kathleen DeMeter, the Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, has already responded to your Freedom of Information request in a letter dated January 6, 1992. I am pleased to have this opportunity to further explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, 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 that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. A snow plow that is designed and intended to be attached to a motor vehicle would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, within the meaning of the Safety Act. However, NHTSA has not issued any specific standards setting forth performance requirements for snow plows. While there are no safety standards directly applicable to snow plows, the following circumstances are relevant to equipping motor vehicles with snow plows. If before the first consumer purchase, the original equipment manufacturer or an alterer equips a motor vehicle with a snow plow, the manufacturer or alterer must certify that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards when equipped with the snow plow. This leads to the question of what conditions would be used to determine if the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards when equipped with a snow plow. This question is answered in the definition of 'unloaded vehicle weight' set forth in 49 CFR 571.3. 'Unloaded vehicle weight,' which is used to determine a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating for the purposes of the tire and braking standards and to specify the test conditions for NHTSA's crash testing standards, is defined as 'the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use.' Thus, those parts of the snow plow which are permanently attached to the vehicle and any snow plow parts that are not ordinarily removed from the vehicle would be in place and their weight would be considered in determining compliance with applicable standards. However, the snow plow blade and any other parts of the snow plow that are ordinarily removed when the snow plow is not in use would not be attached to the vehicle and the weight of these parts would not be considered in determining compliance with the applicable safety standards. Another relevant provision of Federal law with respect to equipping a vehicle with a snow plow is 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which specifies 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business added a snow plow to a motor vehicle in such a way that any of the elements of design installed on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard were 'rendered inoperative,' that entity would have violated the Safety Act. This agency also has authority to investigate allegations that motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects related to motor vehicle safety, and to order the manufacturer to notify owners and to remedy without charge any vehicles or items of equipment determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, as provided in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420.) If there were indications that any snow plows contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency would investigate and take appropriate action. Of course, as with any investigation of alleged safety-related defects, the outcome would depend on the facts of the specific investigation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
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.