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: 1985-01.13OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 01/16/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Mr. William Shaw TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. William Shaw Sales Manager Shinn Fu Co. of America, Inc. 1004 Andover Park East Seattle Washington 98188
Dear Mr. Shaw:
This in in reply to your letter of December 5, 1984, with respect to the permissibility under Federal regulations of a "Supplemental Eye-Level Rear Stop Light" which provides functions additional to a stop signal.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment specifies requirements only for center high-mounted stop lamps as original equipment on passenger cars, and for equipment that replaces original equipment center high mounted stop lamps.
If you offer this device to new car dealers for installation on new cars before their sale, the dealer bears the responsibility for insuring that the car he sells complies with the center high mounted stop lamp requirements for new motor vehicles. On vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1986, equipped with the center lamp, that lamp may flash with the hazard warning lamp, but it cannot be combined with other lighting functions such as turn signals.
However, the device you wish to offer appears intended as an aftermarket device and not intended as original equipment for passenger cars. If this assumption is correct, there is no Federal standard that applies to it, and its legality must be determined according to the law of each State where it will be in use. We hope that this information has been helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U. S. Dept of Transportation Dec. 5, 1984 Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Sir,
We're a manufacturer of Supplemental Eye-Level Rear Stop Light and we understand it must meet the requirement of Federal Standard if we want to marketing this product.
Now, our question is: If we design it with multi functions, will it be O.K br D.O.T? That means it is designed with not only the stop light function, but also is designed with the hazard flashing light function for emergency use and with the automatic warning flashing light function if this supplemental light catches the high-beam bright lighting from the rear vehicle which approaches closely behind you in a short, unsafe distance. The designed is patented and is definitely helpful for highway safety.
Please help us by confirming this letter as soon as possible or advising us otherwise. Thank you in advance for your great help. Shinn Fu Co. of America Inc. William Shaw Sales Manager WS/ny Encl. |
|
ID: 09-007991 139OpenWesley R. Kliner, Jr. Coker Tire Company 1317 Chestnut St. Chattanooga, TN 37402 Dear Mr. Kliner: This responds to your letter concerning labeling requirements for newly-manufactured and retreaded tires. You ask several variations on the question of whether it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139, and 49 CFR Parts 574 and 575 to buff or polish off identifying information on the exterior wall of a tire to achieve a smooth, polished look. Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, the answer to your question is that it would be a violation of the Safety Act to take a tire out of compliance with either FMVSS No. 109 or No. 139 by removing required information from the exterior sidewall. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). NHTSA does not provide approval 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. Your letter states that your company distributes new, period correct tires for vintage automobile collectors, and that you understand that some tire manufacturers, distributors, and retreaders engaged in that business might buff off all labeling and identification on the exterior side of a radial tire in order to achieve a glassy smooth appearance, or a smoothie. You state that you understand that modifying tires that complied with the design requirements of FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139 would be a violation of the Safety Act, but ask whether NHTSA would consider light buffing or polishing to be a cosmetic design change that would be permitted. You further ask whether it would be permissible to buff off some or all of the labeling and identification on a tire and also add a white or colored vulcanized rubber sidewall inlay over the buffed area, and whether it would be permissible for a tire retreader to do either of these things. We will consider the requirements of both FMVSS No. 139 and FMVSS No. 109, for purposes of completeness, and the tire labeling and grading requirements of 49 CFR parts 574 and 575. FMVSS No. 139 FMVSS No. 139 applies to new radial tires, and requires certain tire markings on the exterior sidewall of the tire. First, both sidewalls of the tire must be marked with (1) the symbol DOT; (2) the tire size designation; (3), the maximum permissible inflation pressure; and (4) the maximum load rating (and for LT tires, the letter designating the tire load range).[1] These markings must be placed in a specific location on the tire, and cannot be less than 0.078 inches high and must be raised above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches.[2] Tires must also be labeled with a tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR Part 574.[3] 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. You state that to create a smoothie tire, the manufacturer or distributor would buff off all labeling and markings on the exterior side of a radial tire in order to achieve a glassy smooth appearance, or alternatively, buff off some or all of the labeling and markings on the exterior side of a radial tire and then applying a white or colored rubber sidewall inlay. Based on your description, it appears that both of these scenarios would presumably include removal of the markings and information required by FMVSS No. 139. If those were removed, that would take the tire out of compliance with FMVSS No. 139, and would be a violation of 30122(b). That said, we note that the new radial tires subject to FMVSS No. 139 are those for use on vehicles manufactured after 1975.[4] To the extent that the vintage automobiles you mention in your letter are pre-1975, FMVSS No. 109 might be applicable instead. FMVSS No. 109 FMVSS No. 109 applies to new radial tires for use on passenger cars manufactured before 1975, and also to new bias-ply tires, T-type spare tires, ST, FI, and 8-12 rim diameter and below tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. FMVSS No. 109 requires certain information on both sidewalls, roughly described as follows: (1) one size designation; (2) maximum permissible inflation pressure; (3) maximum load rating; (4) generic name of each cord material used in the tire plies; (5) actual number of plies in the sidewall/tread area; (6) the words tubeless or tube type, as applicable; and (7) the word radial if applicable.[5] One sidewall of the tire must also be marked with the DOT symbol and the TIN as required by 49 CFR Part 574.[6] Given that FMVSS No. 109 requires those markings described above on both sidewalls of the tires described above, buffing or otherwise removing those markings from those tires would take them out of compliance with FMVSS No. 109, and, as for FMVSS No. 139, would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). Tire Identification Number Requirements 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners to label conspicuously one sidewall of each tire a tire identification number (TIN) by permanently molding or laser-etching it into or onto one sidewall. The required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers. A tire distributor or dealer cannot legally remove any of the required information from new tire sidewalls. The TIN is required to facilitate a recall or other action in the event of a defect.[7] Even when a tire is retreaded, while the original TIN does not need to be maintained, the retreader must replace the original TIN with its own TIN.[8] Because both FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139 include the TIN as part of their labeling requirements, removing the TIN would take the tire out of compliance with either of those standards (as applicable), and would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b).
Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards 49 CFR 575.104 requires motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to provide information indicating the relative performance in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance of new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars. The quality grade information required by 574.105 must be permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall between the tires shoulder and its maximum width.[9] If that labeling is obliterated, as seems likely based on your description, then the tire would no longer be compliant with the UTQGS. 49 U.S.C. 30163 gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Chapter 301, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS.
Becoming a Tire Retreader Finally, you asked whether these buffing processes could be performed on a new tire without violating any safety standards if your company became certified as a tire retreader. A person who retreads tires is still considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act.[10] Thus, a retreader, like any manufacturer, would still be subject to any applicable FMVSS. If you were not actually retreading the tire, and were simply buffing the information off the sidewall of a new tire, then FMVSS No. 109 or No. 139 would still apply, and it would still be a violation of 30122(b) to take the tire out of compliance with those standards. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure Dated: 7/15/2010
[1] See FMVSS No. 139, Paragraph S5.5(a)-(d). [2] See Paragraph S5.5. [3] See Paragraph S5.5.1. [4] See Paragraph S2.1. [5] See FMVSS No. 109, Paragraph S4.3. [6] See Paragraphs S4.3.1 and S4.3.2. [7] See 49 CFR 574.2. [8] See 49 CFR 574.5. [9] See 49 CFR 575.105(d)(1)(A). We note that 575.104(c) states that the UTQGS do not apply to deep tread, winter type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rims diameters of 10 to 12 inches, or limited production tires. However, in order to qualify as a limited production tire, section 575.104(c)(2) establishes four criteria, all of which the tires must meet: (i) The manufacturer's annual domestic production or importation into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000; (ii) The annual domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires; (iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture; and (iv) The total annual production or importation into the U.S. by the manufacturer or, if the tire is marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase or purchase for importation into the U.S. by the tire's brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of (i), (ii), and (iii) above, does not exceed 35,000 tires. Additionally, 575.104(d)(1)(A) states that tires do not need to be graded if they are tires of a new line manufactured within the first six months of production of that tire line. Based on the information you have provided, we do not know whether the tires you plan to modify would meet these criteria. [10] See Letter to Frank S. Perkin, January 22, 1988, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/2635o.html (last accessed June 9, 2010). Copy enclosed. |
2010 |
ID: aiam4139OpenKarl-Heinz Faber, Vice President, Product Compliance and Service, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350, Montvale, NJ 07645; Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive P.O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Faber: This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Barry Felrice concernin Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Controls and Displays*, and use of the 'fanfare' symbol. According to your letter, all Mercedes-Benz passenger cars are provided with a horn that when activated produces an audible tone. The control for so activating the horn is located in the steering wheel hub. In addition to the standard horn, your company also offers an optional system on some models which permits the driver to choose either the standard tone or a higher frequency tone by means of a dash-board-mounted rocker switch. The rocker switch is identified by the fanfare symbol. The audible tone selected is then produced by activating the horn control in the steering wheel in the usual manner. This letter confirms that the use of the fanfare symbol for the rocker switch described above is permissible under Standard No. 101.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet 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 and equipment meet applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Standard No. 101 requires that vehicles with any control listed in th standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such control. See section S5. Among the controls listed in Standard No. 101 is the 'horn' control. See section S5.1 and column 1 of Table 1.; It is our opinion that the 'horn' control referred to by Standard No 101 is limited to that which activates the horn to produce an audible tone. Thus, a separate rocker switch which permits the driver to choose different tones but does not activate the horn to produce an audible tone is not considered to be a 'horn' control within the meaning of Standard No. 101. Since a control of this type is not otherwise covered by Standard No. 101 or any other standard, the identification of the control is at the option of the manufacturer.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5553OpenMr. Stuart Sacks Tradepro, Inc. 7350 N.W. 35th Street Miami, FL 33122; Mr. Stuart Sacks Tradepro Inc. 7350 N.W. 35th Street Miami FL 33122; "Dear Mr. Sacks: This responds to your letter to Mr. Philip Recht, ou former Chief Counsel, in which you stated that you are considering importing tires from the Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which has been assigned NHTSA manufacturer identification number 7D. You stated that the tires do not display the 'molded D.O.T. code numbers,' and that Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), 'clearly does not require DOT code numbers for non-passenger tires.' Your reading of FMVSS No. 119 is not correct. I assume from your letter that you are considering importing only non-passenger car tires. This letter, then, will address only the labeling requirements for non-passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 119 and 49 CFR 574. I further assume that by 'DOT code numbers' you mean the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR 574.5. 49 U.S. Code 30112 provides that no person may sell in or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. With respect to non-passenger car tires, which are items of motor vehicle equipment, section S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires specific items of information to be marked on the tire sidewalls. Those markings must be no less than 0.078 inch high and must be 'raised above or sunk below the tire surface' a specified distance. Among other things, the markings must include the TIN (S6.5(b)). Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 requires the TIN to comply with part 574. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be permanently molded into or onto tire sidewalls as specified in Figure 1 of Part 574, and specifies what information the TIN must contain. The TIN can be branded into or onto the sidewalls of retreaded tires after the fact, but not new tires. On new tires, the TIN must be molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the original manufacturer. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5552OpenMr. Stuart Sacks Tradepro, Inc. 7350 N.W. 35th Street Miami, FL 33122; Mr. Stuart Sacks Tradepro Inc. 7350 N.W. 35th Street Miami FL 33122; "Dear Mr. Sacks: This responds to your letter to Mr. Philip Recht, ou former Chief Counsel, in which you stated that you are considering importing tires from the Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which has been assigned NHTSA manufacturer identification number 7D. You stated that the tires do not display the 'molded D.O.T. code numbers,' and that Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), 'clearly does not require DOT code numbers for non-passenger tires.' Your reading of FMVSS No. 119 is not correct. I assume from your letter that you are considering importing only non-passenger car tires. This letter, then, will address only the labeling requirements for non-passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 119 and 49 CFR 574. I further assume that by 'DOT code numbers' you mean the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR 574.5. 49 U.S. Code 30112 provides that no person may sell in or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. With respect to non-passenger car tires, which are items of motor vehicle equipment, section S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires specific items of information to be marked on the tire sidewalls. Those markings must be no less than 0.078 inch high and must be 'raised above or sunk below the tire surface' a specified distance. Among other things, the markings must include the TIN (S6.5(b)). Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 requires the TIN to comply with part 574. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be permanently molded into or onto tire sidewalls as specified in Figure 1 of Part 574, and specifies what information the TIN must contain. The TIN can be branded into or onto the sidewalls of retreaded tires after the fact, but not new tires. On new tires, the TIN must be molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the original manufacturer. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5180OpenMr. Joseph G. Wilson President The Monmouth Corporation Box 143 Highlands, NJ 07732; Mr. Joseph G. Wilson President The Monmouth Corporation Box 143 Highlands NJ 07732; "Dear Mr. Wilson: Thank you for your letter informing us of th Blu-Lite system, which your company developed. You stated that the system 'protects a vehicle driver from the threat of rear-end collision.' You enclosed a brochure for our information, and would like to demonstrate your system to us. We regret that we cannot accept your offer for a demonstration. In addition, as discussed below, we must advise you that Blu-Lite appears to conflict with both Federal and local laws. Your brochure shows that Blu-Lite is a three compartment lamp, consisting of a center compartment with blue lens (described as 'emergency stop') flanked by two 'red stop lights'. Blue-Lite is shown installed in the rear parcel shelf, apparently as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp. In use, Blu-Lite flashes rapidly. The center highmounted stop lamp has been required as original equipment on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The effect of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) is to forbid any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the center highmounted stop lamp, and replacing it with any lamp that does not meet the requirements for the center lamp that was original equipment. Blu-Lite does not meet the original equipment specifications in lamp color, which must be red, and in operation, which must be steady-burning. Thus, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who substituted Blu-Lite for an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp would appear to be in violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). The Safety Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Blu-Lite, or any other person, including manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, from installing it on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985. However, the legality of its use must be determined under state laws. It is our impression that many states allow the use of blue lamps only on emergency vehicles. Additionally, many states have laws similar to the Federal one as it relates to the performance and use of the center highmounted stop lamp. If you wish to confirm this, we suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel "; |
|
ID: aiam3659OpenMr. Jack Garvin, Vice President-Operations, Garvin-Fram, Inc., 817 Albion Avenue, Schaumburg, IL 60193; Mr. Jack Garvin Vice President-Operations Garvin-Fram Inc. 817 Albion Avenue Schaumburg IL 60193; Dear Mr. Garvin: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staf requesting information concerning any regulations applicable to the salvage and sale of farm implement tires exposed to a warehouse fire. This agency has no such regulations, and I am not aware of any other Federal regulations applicable to this situation.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (1 U.S.C. 1381 *et* *seq*.), gives this agency authority to regulate motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Tires for use on motor vehicles are subject to regulation as motor vehicle equipment. 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...' Farm implements have been determined not to be motor vehicles, because they are not manufactured primarily for use on public roads. Therefore, tires for use on farm implements are not considered motor vehicle equipment, and are not regulated by this agency. The inventory sheet attached to your letter shows that these tires are of a size and strength that were designed for use on farm implements. Accordingly, you may conduct the salvage and sale of these farm implement tires as you wish without violating any of this agency's regulations.; In your telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, you mentioned tha some tires for use on passenger cars were also involved in the fire and asked about any agency requirements for subsequent sale of these tires. With respect to those tires, the manufacturer that has certified the tires as complying with our safety standards (by molding the letters 'DOT' on the sidewall) must make a determination of whether the certification is still valid. If the manufacturer determines that the certification is still valid, the tires may be sold. If, on the other hand, the certification is not still valid, the manufacturer must remove its DOT symbol from the sidewall of the tires, and those tires could not be sold. The means by which the manufacturer determines whether or not its certification is still valid is left completely to the discretion of the individual manufacturer. I have enclosed a 1981 interpretation explaining this more fully.; I appreciate your concern for tire safety and for complying with ou safety regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4749OpenMr. Douglas Mayes President Creative Products, Inc. Number One Carissa Littleton, CO 80127; Mr. Douglas Mayes President Creative Products Inc. Number One Carissa Littleton CO 80127; "Dear Mr. Mayes: This responds to your letter asking questions i relation to your product called 'gyroscopic wheel covers.' We apologize for the delay in our response. According to your letter and accompanying information, you claim that use of 'gyroscopic wheel covers' can reduce stopping distance. You stated that Dr. Carl Clark of this agency suggested that you request this office to provide a letter specifically outlining the requirements of the agency's braking test, and a list of the various testing facilities used by the agency when testing a product for this purpose. You then asked for a letter stating the 'stopping distance test guidelines' of Safety Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems,' and a list of laboratories acceptable to DOT that could be used to test your product. You also asked whether an SAE standard is a proper example of a stopping distance test. You stated that it is your intention to use these testing standards and one of the acceptable laboratories so as to properly document your product's test results in compliance with the DOT testing standards. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 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 products meet applicable standards. Safety Standard No. l05, Hydraulic Brake Systems, applies to passenger cars and other motor vehicles. The standard specifies, among other things, a number of stopping distance tests that each motor vehicle must meet. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information. I note that Standard No. l05 was not designed for the purpose of evaluating whether a product such as yours can improve stopping distance. We are unable to offer an opinion as to the appropriateness of using Standard No. l05's stopping distance tests for that purpose, or how such a test program would best be carried out. This agency does not provide recommendations or endorsements for particular testing laboratories. I have, however, enclosed a list of the independent laboratories conducting compliance tests for NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance during the current fiscal year. I have also enclosed a copy of an information sheet we have prepared which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5253OpenMr. Milford R. Bennett, Head Safety Affairs and Operations NAO Engineering Safety Center General Motors Corporation 30200 Mound Road/S3-N27 Warren, MI 48090-9010; Mr. Milford R. Bennett Head Safety Affairs and Operations NAO Engineering Safety Center General Motors Corporation 30200 Mound Road/S3-N27 Warren MI 48090-9010; "Dear Mr. Bennett: This is in reply to your letter of October 7, 1993 to Howard Smolkin concerning information labels for vehicles covered by NHTSA temporary exemptions (49 CFR Part 555). Paragraph 555.9(b) requires that a windshield or side window label containing an advisory statement be affixed securely to each exempted vehicle. You have concluded that this label is intended to notify prospective purchasers that the vehicle has been exempted from compliance with certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because General Motors (GM) does not intend to sell its recently exempted GMEV, it believes that it is not required to place the label on its vehicles. Section 123(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1410(b)) specifies that ' t he Secretary may require that written notification of an exemption be delivered to the dealer and first purchaser for purposes other than the resale of such exempted motor vehicle in such manner as he deems appropriate.' NHTSA chose to exercise this discretionary power through promulgating paragraph 555.9(b) requiring windshield and side window labels on exempted vehicles, commenting that ' t he window label appears to be the most appropriate way of providing written notification of exemptions to dealers and first purchasers' (37 FR 25534). We read in The New York Times on October 14, 1993, that GM will build 50 Impacts (presumably the exempted GMEVs) 'and lend them for two to four weeks to 1,000 drivers around the country over the next two years, with the help of 14 utilities.' If these cars are made available through GM's dealer network, then we believe that the label should nevertheless be provided even if the vehicle is not sold, and that it should remain affixed until the vehicle is first lent or leased through the dealer. Although subsequent users of the GMEV will not have access to the temporary label in order to evaluate the risk they assume by accepting temporary use of a nonconforming motor vehicle, the permanently affixed exemption certification label will furnish this information should they care to consult it. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0817OpenMr. Russell E. MacCleery, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, 320 New Center Building, Detroit, MI 48202; Mr. Russell E. MacCleery Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association 320 New Center Building Detroit MI 48202; Dear Mr. MacCleery: This is in reply to your request of August 7, 1972, for the data use to support the conclusions we announced in Notice 20 of Docket 69-7 concerning the ignition interlock for the center front position and the ability of seat belt systems to meet a 60g, 3-millisecond injury criterion in 1975.; In evaluating the petitions for reconsideration of the center sea interlock requirements, we followed the techniques of cost/benefit analysis adopted in our earlier studies of passive restraints (see General Reference items 42, 43, and 99). The anticipated incremental benefit from an interlock at the center position was $9.70 per vehicle, which, when divided by the incremental cost of $7.00 supplied by Ford Motor Company (N16-69- 7-3), produced a favorable ratio of 1.4. Although the analysis was completed, it was used as a rough working paper and was not submitted to the docket. A typed draft of the analysis is being prepared for submission to the docket.; Although we decided to grant interim relief for belt systems from th 60g, 3-millisecond chest injury criterion, several manufacturers submitted data which indicated to us that their present systems were capable of meeting the criterion or that they were close enough that minor modifications would enable them to meet it. The data from your own organization (N13-69-7-16) showed that a number of cars were passing the criterion by comfortable margins. The Chrysler data, for example, revealed that in 9 tests no dummy recorded chest accelerations in excess of 50g's. Although General Motors, in its comment, submitted data on subcompacts which indicated a problem with chest accelerations, the data from their larger vehicles ranged between 38 and 52g's. (N13-69-7-20). Toyota also submitted test results with most accelerations in the range of 45-50g's, with only one test of a Corrolla appearing to show a marginal condition (N13-69-7-23).; From our research contracts, a number of sled tests have been conducte at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (General Reference No. 135), and most of these produced accelerations of between 30 and 50g's. From other sources have come data indicating that such improvements in belt design as the use of tear seams can produce significantly lower accelerations (see, e.g., General Reference items 161, 166, and 167).; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
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.