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: nht95-1.83OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: March 2, 1995 FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Steve Anthony -- Product Manager, Structural Composites Industries TITLE: None ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/15/94 LETTER FROM STEVE ANTHONY TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 10495) TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Container Integrity, which takes effect on March 27, 1995. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you manuf acture CNG containers for OEMs. You further stated that some of your customers have requested that containers they purchase prior to FMVSS No. 304's effective date be labeled with a statement that they comply with FMVSS No. 304. Specifically, you asked whether your containers could be labeled with the statement "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995" or "DOT effective March 27, 1995." As explained below, prior to the effective date, you are prohibited from labeling a container with information that could appear to be a certification to the FMVSS. In the preamble to the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 304, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a certification is a statement that a vehicle or item of equipment meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are then in effect. Therefore, until a standard is effective, manufacturers may not certify compliance with it (59 FR 49010, 49020 September 26, 1994). Based on this discussion, you acknowledge that it would be impermissible for a manufacturer to include the symbol DOT on CNG containers manufactured prior to March 27, 1995. Nevertheless, you wish to specify information on the container that the contain er will comply with the soon to be effective FMVSS. As discussed in our September 1994 notice, a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Any label on a product about meeting a standard tends to create the appearance of a certification . It is therefore our opinion that, along with not using the symbol DOT, any such statement on a container label must affirmatively indicate that (1) no standard applies to the container, and (2) the statement is not a certification. With these considerations in mind, your suggestion to include the statement "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995" would not be permissible because it might be read as constituting a certification. More over, the symbol DOT may not be included in your statement because its inclusion might be misinterpreted as implying that the container has been certified to an FMVSS that is in effect, since use of the DOT symbol is the usual method by which certificati ons are made. You may, however, label a container with the following statement: "This CNG container would comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 304, that takes effect on March 27, 1995. However, since this container was manufac tured before the effective date of FMVSS 304, it cannot be certified to comply with that standard. No FMVSS applies to the container." I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 10495-iiOpen Mr. Steve Anthony Dear Mr. Anthony: This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Container Integrity, which takes effect on March 27, 1995. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you manufacture CNG containers for OEMs. You further stated that some of your customers have requested that containers they purchase prior to FMVSS No. 304's effective date be labeled with a statement that they comply with FMVSS No. 304. Specifically, you asked whether your containers could be labeled with the statement "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995" or "DOT effective March 27, 1995." As explained below, prior to the effective date, you are prohibited from labeling a container with information that could appear to be a certification to the FMVSS. In the preamble to the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 304, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a certification is a statement that a vehicle or item of equipment meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are then in effect. Therefore, until a standard is effective, manufacturers may not certify compliance with it (59 FR 49010, 49020 September 26, 1994). Based on this discussion, you acknowledge that it would be impermissible for a manufacturer to include the symbol DOT on CNG containers manufactured prior to March 27, 1995. Nevertheless, you wish to specify information on the container that the container will comply with the soon to be effective FMVSS. As discussed in our September 1994 notice, a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Any label on a product about meeting a standard tends to create the appearance of a certification. It is therefore our opinion that, along with not using the symbol DOT, any such statement on a container label must affirmatively indicate that (1) no standard applies to the container, and (2) the statement is not a certification. With these considerations in mind, your suggestion to include the statement "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995" would not be permissible because it might be read as constituting a certification. Moreover, the symbol DOT may not be included in your statement because its inclusion might be misinterpreted as implying that the container has been certified to an FMVSS that is in effect, since use of the DOT symbol is the usual method by which certifications are made. You may, however, label a container with the following statement: "This CNG container would comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 304, that takes effect on March 27,1995. However, since this container was manufactured before the effective date of FMVSS 304, it cannot be certified to comply with that standard. No FMVSS applies to the container." I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref: 303 d:3/2/95
|
1995 |
ID: nht87-1.29OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/06/87 FROM: HANNS-OTFRIED WESTERMANN--HELLA KG HUECK & CO. TO: DR. BURGETT--NHTSA TITLE: RE MULTI BULB DEVICES ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-22-90 TO H. WESTERMANN FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 108) TEXT: We intend to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices, which have - opposite to conventional lamps - a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb. The miniature bulbs are about 2 to 3 cp each, as is actually applied t o CHMSL. This design shows a number of advantages: 1. The failure probability of the signal function of a device is very low, because the burn out of a single bulb does not drop the light-out-put of the lamp below the minimum value required. 2. The average life of the miniature-bulbs is greater than the one of current 32 cp bulbs: about 3 per cent mortality rate after 1500 burning hours. 3. The devices can be built smaller and particularly with less depth. 4. The openings in the vehicle's body work can be avoided in part or totally, because the devices can be surface mounted. 5. The absence of body work openings increases the vehicle's stability and avoids sealing problems. Summary: "Multi-bulb-devices" increase the traffic safety and lower the system costs over the vehicle's life time. FMVSS No. 108 opposes this idea, because it is required that lamps with 2, 3 or more lighted sections have to comply with higher intensity requirements than a lamp with only one compartment or bulb. The reason for this requirement is to assure a uniform ly conspicuous surface luminance. These higher intensity requirements because of the larger overall lens area are not applicable to our design with a great number of miniature bulbs. In spite of the great number of bulbs (10 to 20, depending on function) the total area of the lamp is not larger than the one of current one-compartment-lamps. The luminous Intensity requirement for 3- or more compartment lamps for this lamp size would c ause undesirable high luminances. For each of the many bulbs the lighted lens area is substantially smaller than the required minimum area (22 inches square) for each compartment of multi-compartment lamps, but the total area of all bulbs is in compliance with the requirement for one-com partment-lamps. We kindly ask for your comment on the legal aspects of this deviating design with many miniature bulbs and in particular, whether the intensity requirements of single-compartment lamps are applicable. (For LED-lamps it is even discussed, that for their higher conspicuity the intensity requirements could be lowered below those of single-compartment lamps). In our opinion the minimum requirements should not depend on the type of design (number of bulbs or compartments) but on the overall visible lens ar ea. We want to draw your attention to the changes of ECE Regulations R6 and R7: "If with a single lamp containing more than one bulb one of this bulbs fails, the lamp with the remaining bulbs shall comply with the minimum value required ... Any failure of a bulb in such a lamp shall be clearly visible, if the lamp is switched on." |
|
ID: nht92-5.39OpenDATE: June 29, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 6/3/92 from Steven Henderson to Michael Perel (OCC 7383) TEXT: Michael Perel of this agency has asked this Office to reply to your FAX of June 3, 1992, in which you have asked for a legal opinion with respect to the relationship of your motorcycle headlamp warning-device to S5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. As you have described the device, it "flickers the headlight, tail light, and signal lights at a rate of 10 flashes per second whenever the horn button is pressed." If the horn button is pushed while a turn signal is operating, "the headlight flickers at a rate of 10 Hz, and only the actuated signal light gives out 2 Hz bursts of 10 Hz flicker." The device "is also intended for use with automobile signal lights (but not automobile headlights)." One of the basic performance requirements of Standard No. 108 is that lighting equipment in use be steady-burning, with the exceptions provided in S5.5.10. One of these exceptions (S5.5.10(c)) allows either the upper beam, or the lower beam, of a motorcycle headlamp to be wired to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity, in accordance with S5.6. Your letter does not state whether the "flicker" is between the upper and lower beams, or between intensity levels within a single beam so that we do not know whether the modulation is in accordance with S5.6. However, the flash rate of 10 per second is substantially more than the maximum of 280 cycles per minute specified by S5.6.1(a), so, that overall, the device would not comply with the exception set forth in S5.5.10(c). Furthermore, the device would affect compliance of the taillamps and turn signal lamps with Standard No. 108. The taillamps would no longer be steady-burning, as required by S5.5.10(d). It would appear that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. For the reasons stated above, the device would be impermissible for installation as original motor vehicle equipment. The situation is much the same in the aftermarket. Under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), as it applies to your device, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle-repair business may modify a motor vehicle in a manner that renders it noncompliant with Standard No. 108. You will note that the statute does not preclude the owner from such modifications. Thus, if a motorcycle owner can install the device, there would be no violation of Federal Law. In this event, the legality of its use would be determinable under the laws of the individual American states, many of which follow Standard No. 108. You have also asked our assistance "in advancing the examination of a U.S. patent application" for the device in accordance with 37 CFR 1.102. Advancements may occur upon application wherein the invention is "deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action for that reason." Because the safety benefits of the device are speculative and unproven, and because the device is contrary to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I believe that it would be improper for this agency to intervene in the manner you have requested. |
|
ID: 20393.ztvOpenMr. Thomas N. Nelson Dear Mr. Nelson: We have received your petition, dated July 23, 1999, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 555, for a temporary exemption from S5.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, which requires heavy vehicles manufactured on and after March 1, 1999, to be equipped with an antilock brake system. Noting that the petition estimated October 1, 1999, as the date by which full compliance will be achieved, Taylor Vinson of this Office telephoned Larry Fetter of your company on July 30, 1999, for a clarification. We learned that the vehicles for which exemption is sought are model M8A and M9D Mobil Street Sweepers that Athey has manufactured from March 1, 1999, to date, and which have already been sold, without antilock brake systems. Thus, it appears that your company may be in violation of 49 USC 30112(a) for manufacturing and selling nonconforming vehicles. Athey may also be in violation of 49 USC 30115 if it certified that the vehicles complied with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (or if it failed to affix any certification at all). The exemption authority under which you applied, 49 USC 30113 implemented by 49 CFR Part 555, is prospective in nature, allowing acts that are otherwise prohibited by 49 USC 30112(a), such as manufacturing and selling noncomplying motor vehicles. We have no authority to excuse violations of 49 USC 30112(a)that have already occurred. When a manufacturer determines that there is a noncompliance in its product, it is required to take immediate steps to notify the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration formally by following the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 573. Athey must follow this procedure now with respect to the sweepers manufactured since March 1, 1999. Athey is then required to notify dealers and purchasers pursuant to 49 CFR Part 577, and to formulate a remedy for the noncompliance. The three statutory remedies are repair of the noncompliance (by retrofit in this instance), repurchase of the vehicle, or replacement with a conforming equivalent. With respect to the Athey sweepers, "repair" could entail governing the maximum speed from 50 mph to 33 mph or less, the speed at which an antilock system is required. However, we do have authority to exempt a manufacturer from the notification and remedy requirements upon finding that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. You may file an inconsequentiality application by following the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 556. Petitions under Part 556 should be submitted not later than 30 days after a company notifies the agency under Part 573 that a noncompliance exists. Unlike the granting of a Part 555 petition, the granting of a Part 556 petition does not allow you to continue to manufacture and sell a nonconforming motor vehicle; that is allowable only under a Part 555 exemption decision. This means that Athey may no longer manufacture and sell the two models of noncompliant vehicles in the United States until they fully conform to Standard No. 105. In addition, the granting of a Part 556 petition does not cure the original violations of Sec. 30112(a) and we may still impose a civil penalty because of them. The only effect of a Part 556 grant is to excuse a manufacturer from notifying and remedying the noncompliance. Please inform us whether Athey wishes to withdraw its Part 555 petition or whether it would like us to consider it further. Athey could continue to manufacture, but not sell or deliver, noncompliant street sweepers in the interim period. Were the petition granted, the vehicles could then legally be certified as exempted and sold in the United States. However, we would not anticipate a decision until sometime in November 1999. If you wish us to consider the petition further, please supply arguments why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of motor vehicle safety. This information is required by 49 CFR 555.5, but was lacking in your petition. In summary, because of Athey's apparent noncompliance with Standard No. 105, it must file a notification document with us (part 573) and follow that with the form it will use in notifying other persons (part 577). Regarding vehicles produced from March 1, 1999, until now, Athey may file, if it wishes, a request to be excused from the requirements to notify dealers and purchasers and to remedy the noncompliance on the grounds of inconsequentiality (part 556). Regarding future production, if Athey wishes further consideration of its previously-filed part 555 temporary exemption petition, it should notify us and supplement the petition with public interest and safety arguments. Taylor Vinson may be reached at 202-366-5263 if you have further questions on this matter. Sincerely, |
|
ID: nht76-4.20OpenDATE: 02/12/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: General Teamsters Local 959 - Alaska TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your January 29, 1976, questions whether an owner-operator of a vehicle manufactured to comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, may legally disconnect portions of the brake system after a vehicle is delivered, or specify that the vehicle be delivered without certain portions of the brake system installed. Your members are asking about the antilock portion of the brake systems installed to meet the "no lockup" provisions of the standard (S5.3.1). Two provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.) are involved. Section 108(a)(1)(A) prohibits the sale of any vehicle unless it complies with all applicable safety standards that were in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture. This means that a member cannot purchase a newly-constructed tractor with portions of the brake system disconnected, if those portions are installed in compliance with the standard. The antilock portions of the system are, as far as I know, installed in compliance with the standard and therefore cannot be disconnected prior to sale. Section 108(a)(2)(A) with which you are familiar prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of the antilock system by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses. Thus, there is no prohibition on disconnection by an owner-operator of his own vehicle's system under the Traffic Safety Act. However, other State of Federal statutes, or the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that you not disconnect safety devices without consultation with the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safest configuration of the vehicle. SINCERELY General Teamsters Local 959 State of Alaska January 29, 1976 Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Several of our members have obtained copies of your letter of September 29, 1975 to Mr. Joseph L. Casson, concerning Standard Number 121 and Section 108 (a) (2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. In that letter, you stated that manufacturers of air braked buses that conform to Standard Number 121 may instruct the owners of his products to disconnect the anti-lock system used to meet the Standard. For the period necessary to correct a safety-related defect in the system that may make its operation hazardous. Several members of Local 959 either operate tractors or are in the process of obtaining newly built tractors. They have requested that I contact you to obtain your opinion on if they may disconnect the anti-lock system in the existing tractors, or not have an anti-lock system placed on their tractors which are presently being constructed. They are of the opinion that no anti-lock system currently on the market is safe. In other words, they wish to disconnect or not have placed on the newly constructed tractors any anti-lock system until the safety-related defects in the anti-lock system are corrected. If the anti-lock systems were disconnected, the defect report requirement of 49 CFR Part 573 and the defect notification requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be complied with. Thanking you in advance for your attention to my request, James A. Witt, General Counsel CC: BILL SHANNON -- COPPER FREIGHT LINES |
|
ID: 12-003091 Giordano (Std. No 120)OpenMr. Paul Giordano Manager New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission Bus Unit 225 East State St. (4E) P.O. Box 680 Trenton, NJ 08666-0680 Dear Mr. Giordano: This letter responds to your request for clarification regarding the relationship between the certification label and the tire selection requirements for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, which relates to tire selection and rims. We are pleased to provide the following clarification. We begin by clarifying NHTSAs regulatory authority. NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The FMVSSs are applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has limited authority to regulate changes made to a vehicle after its first retail sale. There is a make inoperative provision (49 USC 30122(b)) that prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative, in whole or in part, any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Because your inquiry relates to school buses, State laws and regulations would determine any obligations school bus owners and operators have regarding on-road use of school buses. Additionally, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) may regulate some school buses that are used for commercial purposes. I can offer an opinion only on matters within NHTSAs regulatory authority in this case, NHTSAs new vehicle standards. I cannot opine on the applicability of State laws or how NHTSAs new vehicle regulations relate to States or FMCSAs regulation of in-service vehicles. As set forth in 49 CFR section 567.4, motor vehicle manufacturers are required to affix to each vehicle a permanent label certifying compliance with the FMVSSs. Among the statements required by paragraph (g) of that section to be on the label is the vehicles GVWR and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR), in pounds, for each axle. That label identifies the tire size designation associated with the GAWR. FMVSS No. 120 requires that motor vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds must be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of FMVSS Nos. 109, 119, or 139 (all of which provide standards for tires) that are identified as suitable for that rim, as listed in the publication of an approved tire organization or as provided to NHTSA by the tire manufacturer. As you note in your letter, paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall not be less than the GAWR of the axle system as specified in the certification label. Vehicles that cannot attain a speed of 50 mph (80 km/h) are excepted from this requirement. In your request, you cite the example of a school bus with a certification label stating that the vehicles GVWR is 31,000 pounds. The GAWR of the front axle is listed as 12,000 pounds with size 11R22.5(G) tires, and the GAWR of the rear axle is listed as 19,000 pounds with 11R22.5(G) tires in a dual configuration. The (G) designation reflects the load range of the tire. You state that the vehicle in question has two 11R22.5(G) tires mounted on the front axle, but has four 11R22.5(F) tires mounted on the rear axle (which you presume were not installed by the original manufacturer). The (F) designation shows that, although the rear tires are the same size as the front tires, they have a lower load carrying capability. According to information from the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, the maximum load of each 11R22.5(G) tire is 5,840 pounds mounted in dual use at the maximum inflation pressure of 105 psi. The maximum load of each 11R22.5(F) tire is 5,205 pounds mounted in dual use at the maximum inflation pressure of 90 psi. You note that the total load ratings of the tires fitted to the rear axle is 20,820 pounds (two pairs of tires mounted in dual use rated at 5,205 pounds each), which exceeds the rear axle GAWR of 19,000 pounds. You state that this satisfies the requirement in S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120 that the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle must be at least the GAWR specified on the certification label. Nevertheless, you ask whether the tire size must be exactly what is stated on the certification label or whether it is sufficient to meet the requirement in S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120. As indicated at the beginning of this letter, we will address whether the tires at issue could have been installed on the vehicle at the time of first sale. The answer is yes. The tires, for a vehicle of this type and GVWR, need not be the exact tire size and load range set forth on the vehicles certification label provided: (1) The size of the tire matches the rim mounted on the vehicle and (2) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle is at least the GAWR of the axle system, as required by S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120. For example, in the example you raise, it would be acceptable to install the load range F tires on the rear axle of the vehicle because the maximum load carrying capability of the four load range F tires is greater than the GAWR of the axle. We note that S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120 considers the circumstance where the size designation of the tires installed on the vehicle does not appear on the certification label.[1] In that event, S5.1.2 requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to the axle shall not be less than the lowest GAWR appearing on the label. Although there would not be issues with compliance with FMVSS No. 120 as a result of installing tires with a lower load rating than the tires listed on the certification label (provided the sum of the load ratings of the tires installed on each axle is at least the axles GAWR), there may be a safety consequence. In the example you gave, the maximum inflation pressure of the same size load range F and load range G tires is different. The load range G tire has a maximum inflation pressure of 105 psi, whereas the load range F tire has a maximum inflation pressure of 90 psi. That is, the maximum inflation pressure of the rear tire is lower than the recommended inflation pressure on the certification label. In order not to operate on overinflated tires, the operator of the vehicle would have to recognize that the rear tires have a lower maximum inflation pressure. The operator would also have to take care to prevent underinflation, which also may pose a risk because underinflation would reduce the tires load carrying capability. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Dated: 8/10/12 Ref: Standard No. 120 [1] We also refer you to the parenthetical in S5.3.1 and S5.3.2 of FMVSS No. 120, which states that the tire and rim size designation on the tire information label is not necessarily for the tires and rims on the vehicle. |
2012 |
ID: 571-108 - outdoor exposure test - Koito - 05-006676OpenMr. Kiminori Hyodo Deputy General Manager, Regulations & Certification Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 4-8-3, Takanawa Minato-ku Tokyo Japan Dear Mr. Hyodo: This responds to your recent letter, in which you asked whether it would be necessary to carry out a three-year, outdoor exposure test on a new combination of plastic lens and coating material under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter stated that you plan to use two existing types of polycarbonate materials, each of which independently meets the requirements of S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 (i.e., Material A with a coating, and Material B without a coating). However, we understand that you now intend to combine these materials, such that Material A is used as an inner lens without a coating, and Material B is used as an outer lens with the same coating that had been applied to Material A. In response to your question, FMVSS No. 108 does not specifically require manufacturers to conduct testing, but it is the manufacturers responsibility to produce a product that complies with all applicable requirements of our standard when tested in accordance with the standard, and to properly certify compliance. 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. NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification). We note further that the agencys safety standards specify the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA follows the test procedures and conditions applicable and in effect at the time of certification when conducting its compliance testing. A manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that its product complies with applicable standards when tested in accordance with NHTSA procedures. A manufacturer may choose a valid means other than NHTSA performance test procedures for evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified by the standard and to provide a basis for its certification of compliance. If the agency has reason to believe that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard(s). If in fact the vehicle or equipment does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard when tested according to procedures specified by the standard, the manufacturer will have to recall the product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer. In addition, the manufacturer will be subject to civil penalties, unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care in the design and manufacture of the product to ensure compliance, that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standard(s) (49 U.S.C. 30115(a) and 30165). This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute reasonable care in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. As you are aware, the requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, which provides in relevant part: S5.1.2 Plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576 [Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J576, Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts Such as Lenses and Reflex Reflectors of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices] JUL91, except that: (a) Plastic lenses (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors) used for inner lenses or those covered by another material and not exposed directly to sunlight shall meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.3 and 4.2 of SAE J576 JUL91 when covered by the outer lens or other material; (b) After the outdoor exposure test, the haze and loss of surface luster of plastic materials (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors) used for outer lenses shall not be greater than 30 percent haze as measured by ASTM D 1003-92, Haze and Luminous Transmittance of Transparent Plastic; . . . (g) All outdoor exposure tests shall be 3 years in duration, whether the material is exposed or protected. Accelerated weathering procedures are not permitted. We note that neither SAE J576 nor Standard No. 108 specifically requires use of a coating. Thus, the standard sets forth the test that NHTSA follows in conducting compliance testing. Specifically, under SAE J576 (incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108), the agency will subject plastic materials used for optical parts to an unaccelerated, three-year outdoor exposure test. In short, Koito must ensure that its lamps as manufactured conform to all applicable requirements of FMVSS No 108, including that the plastic materials meet the exposure test requirements under S5.1.2. Again, our standards do not compel manufacturers to test the motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that they produce under NHTSAs test procedures, although many choose to do so in order to provide a basis for their certification. However, if the agency subjected the lamp in question to compliance testing, the lamps plastic materials would need to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, as certified. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel
Dated: October 4, 2005 Ref: Standard No. 108 |
|
ID: 21314.ztvOpenMr. Wade Browder Dear Mr. Browder: Thank you for your letter of February 17, 2000, and the photos you enclosed, telling us about a product you have developed called "Adver-Light." You have asked for "an evaluation and a ruling," and I will tell you how it relates to laws on motor vehicle lighting. We see from your materials that Adver-Light is a panel containing a message (in this instance "SHOP ONLINE/wal-mart.com/samsclub.com,") mounted on the rear of a tractor trailer and visible under daylight conditions. When the taillamps are on, the message is illuminated, and the illumination increases in intensity when the stop lamps are activated. We therefore consider Adver-Light, when illuminated, to be a supplemental taillamp and stop lamp. Our agency issues the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture of motor vehicles, and which must be met at the time the vehicles are first sold. Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, applies to lighting devices. Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits supplementary lamps if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that the standard requires. Standard No. 108 requires new vehicles to be equipped with both taillamps and stop lamps. Thus, Adver-Light is permissible as new-vehicle equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of taillamps and stop lamps (as well as other rear lamps such as turn signals). In our view, impairment of a required lamp occurs when a supplemental lamp detracts from the clear meaning that the required lamp is intended to convey. This is particularly critical with stop lamps, where a following driver must respond immediately when the stop lamps are activated. It is for this reason that we believe supplemental lamps must not be novel in appearance but instead be consistent with the design and performance of original equipment. Further, a supplemental lamp must not distract a following driver. For this reason, we have considered illuminated message boards on the rear of vehicles to have an impairing effect on the required equipment. Taking these factors into consideration, we believe that Adver-Light will impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps during daylight hours when it is activated simultaneously with the stop lamps, with its potential to momentarily distract the attention of a following driver. There is also the possibility of impairment at night when a following driver may try to approach the tractor trailer to read the message, and be unable to respond quickly if the trailer stop lamps are suddenly applied. We therefore conclude that S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits manufacturers or new-vehicle dealers from installing Adver-Light on a trailer before its first sale. Though expressed differently, the law has a similar application to after-market devices. Our laws prohibit manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We generally equate "impairment" with "inoperative;" thus, we conclude also that Adver-Light would create at least a partial impairment (inoperability) of the stop lamp system, and could not be installed by any of the four entities mentioned in the second sentence of this paragraph. Note that this prohibition does not extend to the trailer owner. However, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has safety regulations that would prohibit the trailer owner from using Adver-Light. We discussed your letter with the FMCSA, the agency in the Department of Transportation responsible for regulations concerning the operation of commercial motor vehicles. We were advised that if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) prohibits manufacturers or new-vehicle dealers from installing Adver-Light on a trailer before its first sale, then the FMCSA would prohibit the operators of commercial motor vehicles used in interstate commerce from using the device. The regulations of the FMCSA (49 CFR 393.11) require that motor carriers operating commercial vehicles in interstate commerce maintain all lamps and reflectors required by Standard No. 108. Commercial motor vehicles must not be equipped with accessories or devices that are inconsistent with or prohibited by the FMCSA's regulations (49 CFR 393.3). Therefore, motor carriers may not use Adver-Light on trailers that are operated in interstate commerce. With regard to commercial trailers used exclusively in intrastate commerce, State laws and regulations generally would prohibit the use of Adver-Light. States are required to adopt and enforce intrastate motor carrier safety regulations that are compatible with the FMCSA's regulations as a condition of receiving Federal funds through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. The FMCSA's guidelines for this program are codified at 49 CFR Part 350. If you have any questions about the FMCSA's requirements, you may contact Larry W. Minor, Chief of the Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, FMCSA (202-366-4012). If you have further questions about NHTSA regulations, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, |
2000 |
ID: 22837ogmOpenMr. James Arnold Dear Mr. Arnold: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You indicate that your company manufactures truck trailers for highway use. Your letter further indicates that a number of your dealers have asked that your company produce trailers equipped with a certain item of equipment to satisfy the antilock brake systems (ABS) requirements of FMVSS No. 121. The device in question, marketed by its manufacturer Air Brake Systems, Inc. (ABS, Inc.) as the MSQR-5000, is described in promotional material from ABS, Inc. as a "Differential Pressure Regulator Quick Release Valve." You have also attached a document from ABS, Inc. that contains a number of representations relating to the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121 and concludes as follows: Air Brake Systems Inc. hereby certifies that the MSQR-5000TM anti-lock brake system fully satisfies the definition of anti-lock brakes as required by 49 CFR 571.121 and exceeds the performance requirements of 49 CFR 30113(b)(3)(B)(ii). (Warning light excluded thereto.) ABS Brakes, Inc. Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 USA Based on the aforementioned materials, you ask if a trailer equipped with the MSQR-5000 "system" installed as means of meeting ABS requirements would meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 121. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. With certain exceptions related to special configurations, FMVSS No. 121 applies to vehicles - trucks, buses, and trailers - with air brake systems. As an equipment manufacturer, ABS, Inc., is not required to certify compliance of its product to FMVSS No. 121, but any vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that its vehicle complies with all the requirements of FMVSS No. 121. It is not uncommon for a vehicle manufacturer to request information from an equipment manufacturer. However, the responsibility for compliance with FMVSS No. 121 and for certification of compliance rests with the vehicle manufacturer. As we have stated before, it is our opinion that reliance by a vehicle manufacturer solely on "certification of compliance" provided by an equipment manufacturer, without more, is not legally sufficient. Moreover, should it be determined that a vehicle does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or contains a defect, the recall and remedy obligations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would fall upon the vehicle manufacturer and not the equipment manufacturer which supplied particular equipment. See 49 CFR Part 579. Possible liability in tort under state law could fall upon both the vehicle manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer. A private attorney could advise you about this possibility. The following represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter, the attachments provided with your letter and agency review of other data obtained from ABS, Inc. In marketing and selling the MSQR-5000, ABS, Inc., has represented, in advertisements, promotional materials and in direct contact with potential customers, that the MSQR-5000 is an ABS whose installation in a vehicle will result in the vehicle meeting the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121). The configuration of the MSQR-5000 and the fact that the device has no electrical or electronic components has apparently led some potential customers of ABS, Inc. to ask NHTSA if the MSQR-5000 is a device which, if installed on a vehicle, would allow that vehicle to meet the ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121. As discussed below, based on a review of the promotional materials describing the device and the principles involved in its operation, it is NHTSA's view that the installation of the MSQR-5000 alone would not allow a vehicle to meet FMVSS No. 121's ABS requirement. Among other things, FMVSS No. 121 requires that trailers (S5.2.3) and trucks (S5.1.6) be equipped with an ABS. For the purposes of FMVSS No. 121, ABS is defined in S4 of the standard as follows: Antilock brake system or ABS means a portion of a service brake system that automatically controls the degree of rotational wheel slip during braking by: (1) Sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels; (2) Transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular rotation to one or more controlling devices which interpret those signals and generate responsive controlling output signals; and (3) Transmitting those controlling signals to one or more modulators which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those signals. In addition, in order to ensure that vehicle owners and operators have knowledge of the status of an ABS system installed on a truck, truck tractor or trailer, FMVSS No. 121 also contains extensive and detailed requirements for malfunction indicators that illuminate a light when the ABS is not working properly. These requirements, found in S5.1.6.2, S5.1.6.3 and S5.2.3.2, specify that a truck, truck tractor or trailer must have an electrical circuit that is capable of signaling a malfunction in the vehicle's antilock brake system, and must have the means for connection of this antilock brake system malfunction signal circuit to a trailer or towing vehicle. Such a signal must be present whenever there is a malfunction that affects the generation or transmission of response or control signals in the antilock brake system. The signal must remain present as long as the malfunction exists, whenever power is supplied to the antilock brake system, and each message about the existence of such a malfunction must be stored in the antilock brake system whenever power is no longer supplied to it. The ABS requirements of FMVSS No. 121 were incorporated into the standard by a final rule published in the Federal Register on March 10, 1995 (60 FR 13216). In the preamble to that final rule, the agency noted that 10 to 15 percent of heavy combination vehicle crashes involved braking induced instability or loss of control. These crashes resulted in significant property damage, injury and loss of life. In order to address the safety consequences of braking related instability, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 121 to require effective antilock braking systems. One of the primary considerations in developing the new requirements was what, at a minimum, an antilock braking system must do in order to prevent or reduce crashes. The agency determined that due to the wide range of surfaces a vehicle may encounter in normal use, an effective ABS system must have the ability to determine if and when a braked wheel is momentarily locked as it passes from high to low traction conditions. Because of such varying conditions, the agency determined that any effective ABS must be a "closed loop" system - i.e., a system that continuously monitors the rate of wheel rotation, adjusts that wheel rotation when needed and reacts to ongoing changes in rotation caused by the operation of the system, changing road surfaces or both (60 FR 13217). Similarly, NHTSA determined that warning light requirements that established a minimum level of safety were also important for reducing crashes, deaths and injuries. The warning light requirements would inform operators of an ABS malfunction and both facilitate and encourage repairs of faulty ABS systems (60 FR 13244). The MSQR-5000 appears to lack one or more features that an ABS must have to meet FMVSS No. 121. Based on literature provided to us, the MSQR-5000 does not seem to have any means of automatically controlling wheel slip during braking by sensing, analyzing, and modulating the rate of angular rotation of a wheel or wheels. The components identified and described in the MSQR-5000 promotional materials do not have a means for measuring wheel rotation, recognizing wheel lockup, controlling or modulating brake pressure to a locked wheel, or preventing one or more wheels from locking if a driver applies maximum brake pressure to the system. Therefore, standing alone, the MSQR-5000 does not satisfy the definition of ABS as set forth in FMVSS No. 121. In addition, the MSQR-5000 also appears to lack any provision for illuminating a warning light providing notification of an ABS malfunction. In fact, the materials distributed by ABS, Inc., including the "Certification of Compliance, "indicate that the company believes that the ABS warning light requirements of FMVSS No. 121 are "excluded"by virtue of a decision issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in the case of Washington v. Department of Transportation, 84 F.3d 1222 (1996). The Washington case involved a challenge to the validity of FMVSS No. 121's ABS requirements on two grounds - that the requirements conflicted with existing Federal Highway Administration regulations governing motor carriers and that NHTSA exceeded its authority in issuing the rule by establishing that an ABS must have certain characteristics. Mr. Washington argued that the requirement that an ABS have certain minimum characteristics unduly restrained design choices. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NHTSA in regard to both of these claims. Moreover, while the Court's decision discussed the fact that manufacturers may apply for an exemption from an existing standard or petition the agency to modify an existing standard, the decision did not provide for any such exemption or "exclusion"for ABS, Inc., or any other manufacturer. The claims now made by ABS, Inc. - that the ABS warning light requirements of FMVSS No. 121 were "excluded,"or that ABS, Inc. is exempt from meeting this requirement - are incorrect. Similarly, any assertion that the Court of Appeals found that FMVSS No. 121 unduly restricted design choices is in error. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253. Sincerely John Womack ref.121 Addendum: 09/26/01 At the request of Air Brake Systems, Inc. ("ABS, Inc."), the opinions stated in the foregoing letter are under further consideration by the agency, based, in part, on additional materials that ABS, Inc. has provided, or may submit, to the agency in the near future. The agency is now undertaking further review, after which NHTSA will, if appropriate, issue a revised interpretation to MAC Trailer. |
2001 |
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.