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: aiam5237OpenCONFIDENTIAL; CONFIDENTIAL; "Dear CONFIDENTIAL: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). You asked whether 'embossing' is permitted to mark engines and transmissions for original and replacement parts. You also asked whether the symbol 'DOT' and your company's logo may appear in identical locations on original and replacement parts. As explained below, embossing is permitted, but 'DOT' may not appear on original parts. The relevant Part 541 provisions are Sections 541.5 Requirements for passenger cars and 541.6 Requirements for replacement parts. Section 541.5(a) states that each passenger car subject to the theft prevention standard must have an identifying number 'affixed or inscribed' on each of fourteen specified original parts. Section 541.6(a) states that each replacement part must have the trademark of the replacement part manufacturer and the letter 'R' 'affixed or inscribed' on such replacement part. Section 541.6(f) states that each replacement part must bear the symbol 'DOT,' that is 'inscribed or affixed.' In response to your first question about embossing, we note the required information on original and replacement parts must be 'inscribed or affixed.' To determine whether embossing is a means of 'inscribing,' we have reviewed the dictionary's definition. 'Inscribe' means 'to mark or engrave (words, symbols, etc.) on some surface.' (See Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition.) Since embossing is a means of marking on a surface, embossing would be included within the definition of 'inscribing.' The preamble to the final rule that established Part 541 confirms the above interpretation. NHTSA then stated that it 'has no authority to mandate the use of any particular marking system. NHTSA has authority only to establish performance criteria that will accomplish the purposes of the Theft Act. The manufacturers are free to select any marking system that satisfies those criteria.' (See 50 FR 43166, at 43170, October 24, 1985.) Thus, if your company believes embossing satisfies Part 541 performance criteria, it may emboss. Your second question asked whether 'DOT' may be marked on original parts. The answer is no. Original parts must be marked with the vehicle identification number. If an original part includes 'DOT,' the part would be dual marked. 'Dual marking' was discussed in Part 541's preamble: ... the agency cannot allow such dual markings under the theft prevention standard. Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stolen original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. ... This would not serve the purpose of the Theft Act of 'decreasing the ease with which certain stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced.' (See 50 FR 43166, at 43179). It would also be inappropriate to mark 'DOT' on an original part because 'DOT' is a manufacturer's certification that a replacement part conforms to Part 541. (See 49 CFR 541.6(f)). Since an original part would not conform to Part 541's requirements for replacement parts, it would be inappropriate for a manufacturer to certify compliance by placing 'DOT' on the original part. Finally, it was requested that your company not be identified in public copies of this letter, and that your incoming letter be purged of references to your company. In order to save time, we agree to do this. In the future, however, please note that 49 CFR Part 512 Confidential Business Information sets forth procedures for protecting information that your company believes is confidential. I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If there are further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4200OpenMr. W. Alex Cantrell, President, C&A Control Systems, Inc., 7117 Commercial Park Drive, Knoxville, TN 37918; Mr. W. Alex Cantrell President C&A Control Systems Inc. 7117 Commercial Park Drive Knoxville TN 37918; Dear Mr. Cantrell: This responds to your letter regarding the LA-Z-START, a remote contro device which you manufacture for starting automobiles. You ask whether your device is compatible with Standard No. 114, *Theft Protection*. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.; For your information, this agency does not approve motor vehicles o motor vehicle equipment. Instead, NHTSA relies on the self-certification process in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, which requires each manufacturer to certify that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards.; The product information enclosed with your letter indicates that thi device permits a person to use a remote control device to send a coded signal to start or stop a vehicle engine up to 500 feet away. Your device will shut off the engine immediately if any of the following events occur: (1) the transmission is removed from the park position, (2) the brake pedal is depressed, (3) the engine overspeeds or overheats, or (4) the hood is raised. In addition, the device will not start the engine if the transmission is in forward or reverse gear. The device automatically shuts off the engine after 12 to 14 minutes running time and allows remote shut-off at any time.; Standard No. 114 requires that passenger cars as well as trucks an multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less have a key locking system. When the key is removed, the system must prevent normal activation of the vehicle's engine and prevent either steering or forward self-mobility or both. You state that starting a vehicle with your device does not permit normal activation of the vehicle's engine and either forward motion or steering until the key is inserted into the ignition and turned to the on position. Therefore, the question is whether your device, which permits activation of the engine when the ignition key is removed, permits 'normal activation' of the vehicle.; In previous interpretations, the agency has determined that automotiv remote starting devices with characteristics similar to yours were outside the concept of 'normal activation.' These characteristics have included automatic deactivation of the remotely started engine when a vehicle door is opened, maintenance of the steering column or gear shift locking feature until the ignition key is inserted in the vehicle, and automatic deactivation of the remotely started engine after 15 minutes unless the key is inserted into the ignition.; Your device apparently has some of these same characteristics, as wel as other automatic deactivation features which are comparable in nature. Therefore, we conclude that your device does not conflict with the requirements of Standard No. 114, since it does not permit normal activation of the engine without the ignition key.; Although not related to compliance with Standard No. 114, the agency i concerned about the possibility that a child could accidentally press the transmitter button on your device and, thus, start a car by remote control. This situation could clearly raise safety problems. Therefore, we suggest that you add language to the purchasers' instructions making them aware of this possibility and urging them to take precautions to avoid use of the product by anyone who is not authorized to drive the car.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3480OpenMr. T. Fumima, President, Taiyo Trading USA Inc., 1543 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90015; Mr. T. Fumima President Taiyo Trading USA Inc. 1543 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90015; Dear Mr. Fumima: This responds to your letter of June 17, 1981, asking about th applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to a manually operated door opener that you are considering importing. The door opener is designed for passenger cars and taxis and allows the driver to open the rear door by shifting a lever located by the driver's side.; By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals o vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale*.' Emphasis added. ; The agency does not have any regulations covering manually operate door openers. However, installation of such a device may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards. If any standard would be affected, it would probably be Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*. For your convenience, we have enclosed a copy of that standard, which includes performance requirements for a vehicle's latch and striker assembly, door hinges, and door locks. However, based on the limited drawings included with your letter, it is not possible for us to determine whether a vehicle's compliance with that standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 206 to make that determination.; If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.<<<; Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Yo may also wish to check with state and local authorities to determine whether the use of your device is affected by their regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3584OpenMr. Bernard S. Horton, 100 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02142; Mr. Bernard S. Horton 100 Memorial Drive Cambridge MA 02142; Dear Mr. Horton: This responds to your recent letter regarding the roof crus requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216. You ask why convertibles are excluded from the requirements of the standard, yet the BMW 318 which has a 'targa' roof is not excluded.; Convertibles were excepted from Safety Standard No. 216 when th standard was first issued in 1971 because it was impossible for most convertibles to comply with the requirements. The legislative history of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), which authorizes the issuance of our safety standards, clarifies that Congress did not intend for the safety standards that would be issued to effectively preclude any type of existing motor vehicle. If no exception had been provided, the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216 would have caused the production of convertibles to cease. For this reason alone, they were excepted from the requirements.; The agency has limited the convertible exception to vehicles for whic it is truly impractical to comply. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of 'convertible', the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose 'A' pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the 'B' pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the 'B' pillar position) by a fixed rigid structural member. Therefore, passenger cars equipped with a 'sun roof', 'hurst hatch roof' or 'targa roof' do not qualify as convertibles because they have a fixed rigid structural member in the described location. This interpretation applies, moreover, whether the rigid structural member joining the 'A' and 'B' pillars is a hidden reinforcing component or whether the structural member is part of the exterior roof panel.; I am sorry that you are unable to obtain the BMW 318, but this i primarily due to the fact that the manufacturer has chosen not to bring this model into compliance with Safety Standard No. 216. As you probably know, there are other models with 'targa roofs' and 'hurst roofs' that are in compliance with the standard and currently in use.; You also mention the fact that many vehicle custom shops cut one o more panels from vehicles to make them into convertibles or 'targas'. You state that there seems to be no prohibition to this. There are certain prohibitions, however. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative in whole or part any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard. This means that custom shops cannot cut panels from a used vehicle's roof if such operation would impair the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 216. Failure to observe this prohibition could result in civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note, however, that custom shops are not precluded by this section from totally removing a vehicle roof, thereby converting the vehicle into a convertible. The prohibition does not apply to such a conversion since the vehicle would not have had to comply with Standard No. 216 if it had originally been manufactured as a convertible.; I realize that these various distinctions may be confusing. If you hav any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202- 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4685OpenMr. William Walters 7709 Wallace Street Merrillville, IN 46410; Mr. William Walters 7709 Wallace Street Merrillville IN 46410; "Dear Mr. Walters: This is in reply to your letter of October 8, l990 to Ms. Erika Jones, formerly Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked that we review the enclosures to your letter, and provide 'the reason why this system is not being used.' The primary material you enclosed is a patent granted May 1, l990, for an 'Automobile Warning Light Improvement.' The purpose of the 'Improvement' is to enhance existing rear signal lamps by sending an advance warning of driving situations which have the potential of impeding the flow of traffic. The device activates the center highmounted stop lamp under situations other than when the brake pedal is applied. According to the patent, the device causes the center lamp to operate in a steady-burning mode when a vehicle is in reverse gear, and in a flashing mode when the turn signals are operating. When activated under these conditions, the center lamp will be deactivated when the accelerator is depressed. The reason why this system cannot presently be used is that its installation would create a noncompliance with existing requirements. The performance of the center highmounted stop lamp is specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.5.4 of the standard specifically states that 'The highmounted lamp on passenger cars shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes.' In addition, the effect of paragraph S5.5.10 is to require all stop lamps to be steady burning when in use. Activation of the center lamp by means other than application of the brake pedal (such as putting the vehicle into reverse gear, or activating the turn signals), and in a mode other than steady burning (flashing with the turn signals) is prohibited by Standard No. 108. The reason why this system is unlikely to be used in the future is that it appears to have little if any potential for improving motor vehicle safety. Backup lamps, turn signal lamps, and center stop lamps have specific and different tasks to perform. Use of the center lamp to assist the other lamps in performing their tasks has the potential for creating confusion. The red center lamp used alone sends an unmistakable message: this vehicle is braking, with a deceleration that may lead to a stop. It is a message to which the motoring public is accustomed. Use of the center lamp when the backup lamps are on sends a false signal that the vehicle may be decelerating in a forward motion or stopped when, in fact, it may be proceeding in a reverse motion. Use of a flashing stop lamp, mounted on the centerline of the car, in conjunction with a turn signal lamp that is flashing either to the right or left of the centerline, has the potential also to create confusion as to the intent of the driver, and distracts attention from the message sent by the turn signal that the vehicle is changing lanes or preparing to turn. We appreciate your interest in safety and in bringing this invention to our attention. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4654OpenMr. Frank E. Timmons Deputy Director, Tire Division Rubber Manufacturers Association 1400 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005; Mr. Frank E. Timmons Deputy Director Tire Division Rubber Manufacturers Association 1400 K Street NW Washington DC 20005; "Dear Mr. Timmons: This responds to your September 28, 1989 lette requesting that NHTSA reconsider its August 30, 1989 interpretation (copy enclosed) of the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards ('UTQGS,' 49 CFR /575.104). In that earlier interpretation, the agency was asked by E.H. Galloway about the correct interpretation of the UTQGS provisions requiring one to 'inflate the tire to 24 psi, or, in the case of a tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals, to 180 kPa.' See //575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Specifically, Mr. Galloway asked whether tires with inflation pressures expressed in both English units (psi) and metric units (kPa) should be inflated to 24 psi or 180 kPa during the testing to determine the tires' traction grades under the UTQGS. In its August 30 interpretation, the agency concluded that tires whose inflation pressure is expressed in both English and metric units should be inflated to 24 psi for the UTQGS traction testing. That interpretation explained its conclusion as follows: The language of the regulation sets forth a general requirement for an inflation pressure of 24 psi, and a subordinate requirement that 'tires with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals' use an inflation pressure of 180 kPa. An examination of the background of this language shows that the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa is to be used only for tire sizes that have inflation pressures specified only in kilopascals. Your letter asked that the agency reconsider this interpretation. You stated that P-metric tires generally are labeled with a maximum inflation pressure of 240 kPa. However, section S4.3.4(a) of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars sets forth an additional labeling requirement for tires whose maximum inflation pressure in expressed in kPa, as follows: 'If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, or 340 kPa, then each marking of that inflation pressure ... shall be followed by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number.' This requirement in Standard No. 109, therefore, prohibits any passenger car tire from being sold or offered for sale in this country with the inflation pressure specified only in kPa. By specifying conditions for use of the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa that are impossible for any tire to satisfy, because of the requirements of Standard No. 109, the effect of the August 30, 1989 interpretation is to remove the alternative inflation pressure from the UTQGS traction testing procedures. A correct interpretation of a regulation gives effect and meaning to all of the language in a regulation. For this reason, I believe the August 30, 1989 interpretation of the UTQGS traction testing procedures was incorrect. I conclude that any tire with its inflation pressure expressed first in metric units, with the equivalent pressure in English units shown in parentheses, is a 'tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals,' as that phrase is used in 49 CFR /575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Accordingly, any such tire would be inflated to 180 kPa for UTQGS traction testing. I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that might have been caused by the August 30 interpretation. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: E. H. Galloway Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility P.O. Box 1671 San Angelo, TX 76902"; |
|
ID: aiam2847OpenMr. D. Black, Manager, Alfa Romeo, Inc., 250 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. D. Black Manager Alfa Romeo Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Black: This responds to your recent letter concerning Alfa Romeo's propose designs for Type 2 seat belt assemblies to be used on convertibles. You ask for clarification of the anchorage location requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 210, as they would apply to your proposed designs.; Paragraph S4.1.1 of Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembl Anchorages*, specifies that anchorages for a Type 2 belt shall be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars *other than convertibles*. Manufacturers are permitted to install Type 2 belts in convertibles, however, under paragraph S4.1.2 of the standard which specifies that either a Type 1 or Type 2 belt may be installed for designated seating positions not required to have Type 2 belts under the previous section.; Since convertibles are only required to have Type 1 belts, only th pelvic portion of your proposed Type 2 designs must meet the anchorage location requirements of the standard. These location requirements are specified in S4.3.1, and the pelvic portion of your two proposed designs (Figures 2 and 3 in your letter) appear to fall within the 20 degree - 75 degree acceptable range. The upper torso portions of the belt designs do not have to comply with the 40 degree acceptable range specified in S4.3.2, since those portions are in addition to what is required by the standard.; In response to your general question, 'seat belt anchorage' is define in Standard No. 210 as the 'provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure.' For purposes of determining compliance with the anchorage location requirements of the standard, the agency interprets anchorage to include any load-bearing element of the seat belt assembly that is capable of meeting the force requirements of Standard No. 210. For example, in your Figure 1 you state that the lap belt is anchored 'at point 'C' within the 40 degree zone and then passes through a webbing guide anchorage.' The 40 degree zone is not the applicable location requirement for lap belts and if this were the only anchorage, the belt would not comply with the standard. However, since the 'webbing guide anchorage' appears to be within the applicable 20 degree - 75 degree zone, the belt would be in compliance if that anchorage is capable of meeting the force requirements of the standard. The agency considers an assembly to be in compliance if there is one force-complying anchorage within the acceptable ranges specified in the standard, and that anchorage is determinative of the angle the belt crosses the vehicle occupant.; To summarize, both of your proposed Type 2 seat belt assemblies woul comply with the location requirements of Standard No. 210 if used in convertibles, since only the pelvic portions of the assemblies would have to meet the requirements of the standard and the anchorages for those portions appear to be within the acceptable ranges. Further, either assembly design can be used in hard- top automobiles if it has one anchorage capable of meeting the force requirements of the standard that is located in the 40 degree acceptable range for upper torso portions of Type 2 belts.; Please contact Hugh Oates of this office if you have any furthe questions concerning this subject (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5116OpenMr. David H. B. Lee President, Lee Family, Inc. 701 East 30th Hutchinson, KS 67502; Mr. David H. B. Lee President Lee Family Inc. 701 East 30th Hutchinson KS 67502; "Dear Mr. Lee: This responds to your letter of December 29, 1992, wit respect to a 'Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor', for which you have requested a review and testing. You have also asked for our comments and advice on the sale and promotion of this product. We assume that you would like to sell it in the aftermarket to vehicle owners. We have reviewed the videotape you enclosed, and are able to advise you on this basis. The tape shows that the device is intended for installation by the owner of the vehicle, and, when installed, causes the center highmounted brake lamp to flash in proportion to braking effort (i.e., a panic or quick stop produces a higher flash rate than a stop made at a slower vehicle deceleration). Motor vehicle lighting in the United States is subject to both Federal and State requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment are the Federal requirements to which I refer. Standard No. 108 prescribes requirements for center highmounted stop lamps that must be followed by the manufacturer of the vehicle, and met at the time the vehicle is sold by the dealer to its first owner. One of these requirements is that the center highmounted stop lamp be steady burning when it is in use. Because the Sensor creates a flashing light, a vehicle manufacturer would not be able to use it as original equipment on a vehicle subject to Standard No. 108's requirements for center lamps. These vehicles are passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, and light trucks and vans manufactured on and after September 1, 1993. The Safety Act governs modifications to vehicles after their initial sale. This Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from modifications that affect compliance with Standard No. 108 (or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). Thus, a vehicle owner may install the Sensor without violation of Federal requirements. However, we interpret the Safety Act as prohibiting the installation of the Sensor by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Under the Act, these persons shall not 'render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' In our view, this forbids the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the Act does not forbid the sale of componentry such as the Sensor which creates a noncompliance once it is installed. In summary, under Federal law, any person may sell your device, but only a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may install it. We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State prohibit the use of a flashing center highmounted stop lamp, and recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. We are returning your videotape and sample Sensors. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4642OpenMr. Larry P. Egley 109 Travelers Trail St. Charles, MO 63303; Mr. Larry P. Egley 109 Travelers Trail St. Charles MO 63303; Dear Mr. Egley: This is in reply to your letters with respect to th Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF), your invention, now registered with the U.S. Patent Office. Your first letter is a 'Request for Evaluation/Interpretation' of your invention, your second is 'An Appeal for Variant Interpretation.' I regret the delay in responding. You have explained that the SSF operates as follows: when a vehicle reaches a certain high rate of deceleration, the SSF automatically flashes all three of the stop lamps on passenger cars at a rapid rate. If the vehicle has crashed, the SSF continues to flash until the ignition switch is recycled. You recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires stop lamps to be steady burning. You nevertheless ask for a favorable interpretation because the SSF will be actuated only rarely, and 'the concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system.' Because of the expense of developing the SSF, you state that you are not willing to undertake it 'unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model.' You are correct that Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady burning, and hazard warning signal lamps to flash (generally through the turn signal lamps). The primary reason for the distinction is that stop lamps are intended to be operated while the vehicle is in motion, while the hazard warning lamps are intended to indicate that the vehicle is stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a single, easily recognizable signal. If a lamp which is ordinarily steady burning begins to flash, the agency is concerned that the signal will prove confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its effectiveness. Even if we did not have this reservation about the SSF, we could not change the steady burning requirement through interpretation. A change could be made through rulemaking only. We do not currently have information indicating that a flashing signal would be superior to a steady burning one. The SSF is based upon the concept that a flashing lamp increases vehicle conspicuity, and hence should shorten the reaction time of following drivers. As you noted, 'whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration.' In research sponsored by this agency that led to the adoption of the center high-mounted stop lamp, a field study was conducted using 600 taxicabs in San Diego and Sacramento. The cabs were equipped with one of three kinds of center lamps, a steady-burning one, or one that flashed at 2.5 Hz, or one that flashed at either l.5, 2.5, 4.5, or 7.0 Hz depending on the degree of deceleration. The test fleet accumulated 4l million miles. The study found that there was no statistically significant differences among the lamps (Mortimer, R.G., Field test evaluation of rear lighting deceleration signals: II - Field test. Final Report, DOT-HS-806-125, 198l). The agency would be unlikely to issue grants or fund research for the SSF, a proprietary device. Most of its vehicle safety research is devoted to obtaining data to support the development of standards that are more performance-oriented. I am sorry that we cannot be more positive in our response, but we do appreciate your interest in reducing traffic accidents, and deaths and injuries associated with them. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3483OpenMr. T. Fumima, President, Taiyo Trading USA Inc., 1543 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90015; Mr. T. Fumima President Taiyo Trading USA Inc. 1543 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90015; Dear Mr. Fumima: This responds to your letter of June 17, 1981, asking about th applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to a manually operated door opener that you are considering importing. The door opener is designed for passenger cars and taxis and allows the driver to open the rear door by shifting a lever located by the driver's side.; By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals o vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term 'manufacturer' is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale*.' Emphasis added. ; The agency does not have any regulations covering manually operate door openers. However, installation of such a device may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards. If any standard would be affected, it would probably be Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*. For your convenience, we have enclosed a copy of that standard, which includes performance requirements for a vehicle's latch and striker assembly, door hinges, and door locks. However, based on the limited drawings included with your letter, it is not possible for us to determine whether a vehicle's compliance with that standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 206 to make that determination.; If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, *Certification*. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.; If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.<<<; Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Yo may also wish to check with state and local authorities to determine whether the use of your device is affected by their regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.