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: 09-007991 139OpenWesley R. Kliner, Jr. Coker Tire Company 1317 Chestnut St. Chattanooga, TN 37402 Dear Mr. Kliner: This responds to your letter concerning labeling requirements for newly-manufactured and retreaded tires. You ask several variations on the question of whether it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139, and 49 CFR Parts 574 and 575 to buff or polish off identifying information on the exterior wall of a tire to achieve a smooth, polished look. Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, the answer to your question is that it would be a violation of the Safety Act to take a tire out of compliance with either FMVSS No. 109 or No. 139 by removing required information from the exterior sidewall. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Your letter states that your company distributes new, period correct tires for vintage automobile collectors, and that you understand that some tire manufacturers, distributors, and retreaders engaged in that business might buff off all labeling and identification on the exterior side of a radial tire in order to achieve a glassy smooth appearance, or a smoothie. You state that you understand that modifying tires that complied with the design requirements of FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139 would be a violation of the Safety Act, but ask whether NHTSA would consider light buffing or polishing to be a cosmetic design change that would be permitted. You further ask whether it would be permissible to buff off some or all of the labeling and identification on a tire and also add a white or colored vulcanized rubber sidewall inlay over the buffed area, and whether it would be permissible for a tire retreader to do either of these things. We will consider the requirements of both FMVSS No. 139 and FMVSS No. 109, for purposes of completeness, and the tire labeling and grading requirements of 49 CFR parts 574 and 575. FMVSS No. 139 FMVSS No. 139 applies to new radial tires, and requires certain tire markings on the exterior sidewall of the tire. First, both sidewalls of the tire must be marked with (1) the symbol DOT; (2) the tire size designation; (3), the maximum permissible inflation pressure; and (4) the maximum load rating (and for LT tires, the letter designating the tire load range).[1] These markings must be placed in a specific location on the tire, and cannot be less than 0.078 inches high and must be raised above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches.[2] Tires must also be labeled with a tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR Part 574.[3] 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. You state that to create a smoothie tire, the manufacturer or distributor would buff off all labeling and markings on the exterior side of a radial tire in order to achieve a glassy smooth appearance, or alternatively, buff off some or all of the labeling and markings on the exterior side of a radial tire and then applying a white or colored rubber sidewall inlay. Based on your description, it appears that both of these scenarios would presumably include removal of the markings and information required by FMVSS No. 139. If those were removed, that would take the tire out of compliance with FMVSS No. 139, and would be a violation of 30122(b). That said, we note that the new radial tires subject to FMVSS No. 139 are those for use on vehicles manufactured after 1975.[4] To the extent that the vintage automobiles you mention in your letter are pre-1975, FMVSS No. 109 might be applicable instead. FMVSS No. 109 FMVSS No. 109 applies to new radial tires for use on passenger cars manufactured before 1975, and also to new bias-ply tires, T-type spare tires, ST, FI, and 8-12 rim diameter and below tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. FMVSS No. 109 requires certain information on both sidewalls, roughly described as follows: (1) one size designation; (2) maximum permissible inflation pressure; (3) maximum load rating; (4) generic name of each cord material used in the tire plies; (5) actual number of plies in the sidewall/tread area; (6) the words tubeless or tube type, as applicable; and (7) the word radial if applicable.[5] One sidewall of the tire must also be marked with the DOT symbol and the TIN as required by 49 CFR Part 574.[6] Given that FMVSS No. 109 requires those markings described above on both sidewalls of the tires described above, buffing or otherwise removing those markings from those tires would take them out of compliance with FMVSS No. 109, and, as for FMVSS No. 139, would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). Tire Identification Number Requirements 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners to label conspicuously one sidewall of each tire a tire identification number (TIN) by permanently molding or laser-etching it into or onto one sidewall. The required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers. A tire distributor or dealer cannot legally remove any of the required information from new tire sidewalls. The TIN is required to facilitate a recall or other action in the event of a defect.[7] Even when a tire is retreaded, while the original TIN does not need to be maintained, the retreader must replace the original TIN with its own TIN.[8] Because both FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139 include the TIN as part of their labeling requirements, removing the TIN would take the tire out of compliance with either of those standards (as applicable), and would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b).
Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards 49 CFR 575.104 requires motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to provide information indicating the relative performance in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance of new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars. The quality grade information required by 574.105 must be permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall between the tires shoulder and its maximum width.[9] If that labeling is obliterated, as seems likely based on your description, then the tire would no longer be compliant with the UTQGS. 49 U.S.C. 30163 gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Chapter 301, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS.
Becoming a Tire Retreader Finally, you asked whether these buffing processes could be performed on a new tire without violating any safety standards if your company became certified as a tire retreader. A person who retreads tires is still considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act.[10] Thus, a retreader, like any manufacturer, would still be subject to any applicable FMVSS. If you were not actually retreading the tire, and were simply buffing the information off the sidewall of a new tire, then FMVSS No. 109 or No. 139 would still apply, and it would still be a violation of 30122(b) to take the tire out of compliance with those standards. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure Dated: 7/15/2010
[1] See FMVSS No. 139, Paragraph S5.5(a)-(d). [2] See Paragraph S5.5. [3] See Paragraph S5.5.1. [4] See Paragraph S2.1. [5] See FMVSS No. 109, Paragraph S4.3. [6] See Paragraphs S4.3.1 and S4.3.2. [7] See 49 CFR 574.2. [8] See 49 CFR 574.5. [9] See 49 CFR 575.105(d)(1)(A). We note that 575.104(c) states that the UTQGS do not apply to deep tread, winter type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rims diameters of 10 to 12 inches, or limited production tires. However, in order to qualify as a limited production tire, section 575.104(c)(2) establishes four criteria, all of which the tires must meet: (i) The manufacturer's annual domestic production or importation into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000; (ii) The annual domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires; (iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture; and (iv) The total annual production or importation into the U.S. by the manufacturer or, if the tire is marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase or purchase for importation into the U.S. by the tire's brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of (i), (ii), and (iii) above, does not exceed 35,000 tires. Additionally, 575.104(d)(1)(A) states that tires do not need to be graded if they are tires of a new line manufactured within the first six months of production of that tire line. Based on the information you have provided, we do not know whether the tires you plan to modify would meet these criteria. [10] See Letter to Frank S. Perkin, January 22, 1988, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/2635o.html (last accessed June 9, 2010). Copy enclosed. |
2010 |
ID: 09-008024ws YuenOpenDerek Yuen X-Test, Inc. 2480 Precision Drive, Suite A Minden, NV 89423 Dear Mr. Yuen: This responds to your letter, dated October 9, 2009, asking whether the motorcycle rear lamp system you describe is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, which governs lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment on vehicles. I sincerely apologize for the delay in this response. As explained below, we believe that the system would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the Safety Act to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The following is our interpretation of the Safety Act and the FMVSSs based on the description contained in your letter. You describe the lamp system as consisting of two lamps, with one lamp located on either side of the rear vertical centerline of the motorcycle. The lamps are separated by a distance of 300 mm (11.8 in). Each of the lamps functions as turn signal, stop lamp, and taillamp. You indicate that the system has four functional modes: 1) Both lamps continuously illuminated as taillamps when the vehicle is on; 2) Both lamps illuminated at a higher intensity as stop lamps when the brakes are applied; 3) One lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a taillamp; and 4) In a situation where the brakes are applied at the same time as a turn is indicated, one lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated at a higher intensity. You also submitted diagrams showing two configurations of this system using lamps with different effective projected luminous lens areas (EPLLA). In the first configuration (No. 1), each of the two lamps has an EPLLA of 25.5 cm2 (3.96 in2). In the second configuration (No. 2), each of the lamps has an EPLLA of 50.3 cm2 (7.8 in2). You ask whether either of these configurations would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In particular, you express concern as to whether the first configuration would meet the EPLLA requirements for a stop lamp because, in Functional Mode No. 4, only one of the two lamps would be illuminated as a stop signal. As you indicate in your letter, FMVSS No. 108 requires a motorcycle to have one stop lamp but permits it to have two stop lamps symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline. A motorcycle is also required to have two rear turn signal lamps, one on each side of the vertical centerline, with at least 9 inches separating the lamps. FMVSS No. 108 requires that the stop lamps must meet the requirements of Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J586, revised February 1984, and that the rear turn signal lamps must meet the requirements of SAE J588, revised November 1984. The SAE standards permit the use of multiple compartment lamps or multiple lamps to meet the photometric requirements for stop lamps. The compartments or lamps in such systems are tested together as a unit so long as all the compartments or lamps are within a certain distance of each other. For a two-lamp system, the lamps must be within 560 mm of each other to be tested as a unit. In previous interpretation letters addressing rear motorcycle lamp configurations, we have applied the distance requirements in the SAE standards to conclude that lamp systems consisting of lamps on either side of the rear vertical centerline can be considered single lamps for the purposes of meeting the stop lamp photometric requirements (See enclosed November 20, 1998 letter to Tadashi Suzuki). In addition to the requirements contained in the SAE standards, FMVSS No. 108 states that [i]f a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements for stop lamps . . . the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp shall be at least 22 square centimeters, provided the combined area is at least 50 square centimeters. However, each motorcycle rear turn signal lamp is only required to have an EPLLA of 22.58 cm2 (3.5 in2). In your letter, the Configuration No. 1 lamp system consists of two lamps located 300 mm (11.8 in) apart, each of which has an EPLLA of 25.5 cm2, for a combined EPLLA of 51 cm2. Accordingly, we believe that this system would meet the EPLLA requirements for a single stop lamp and two motorcycle rear turn signal lamps. In response to your specific question, FMVSS No. 108 explicitly contemplates the optical combination of stop lamps and turn signal lamps. Therefore, we would not consider the stop lamp system to be noncompliant because only one of the lamps would function as a stop signal when a turn signal is flashing. Likewise, we believe
that the Configuration No. 2 lamp system, which consists of two lamps with individual EPLLAs of 50.3 cm2, would meet the EPLLA requirements for two stop lamps and two motorcycle rear turn signal lamps. However, the Configuration No. 1 lamp system raises another issue that we would like to address regarding the optical combination of the stop lamp and turn signals. The SAE standards state that when a stop lamp is optically combined with a turn signal lamp, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing. FMVSS No. 108 adopts the definition of optically combine found in SAE J387, revised November 1987. Under the SAE definition, optical combination results when 1) a lamp has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb), and 2) the lamps optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions. In the Configuration No. 1 lamp system, both lamps together constitute the required single stop lamp, and each individual lamp also acts as a turn signal. Under the definition stated above, the single stop lamp (consisting of both lamps) could be considered to be optically combined with both turn signals. Such an interpretation would mean that Functional Mode No. 4, where one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a stop signal, would not be permissible. Neither of the lamps could be illuminated as a stop signal if one of the turn signals is flashing. In other words, the vehicle would display no signal indicating that the brakes were being applied in such a situation. In light of these consequences, we do not believe that such an interpretation of the term optically combine is appropriate for the unique situation presented by the lamp system you describe. Instead, we conclude that Functional Mode No. 4 is permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In that mode, the lamp that is flashing as a turn signal ceases operating as a stop signal. Nevertheless, the lamp system would continue to signal when the brakes are applied because the other lamp continues to operate as a stop signal. We caution that this interpretation is limited to the unique motorcycle rear lamp system described in your letter. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact William Shakely of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure ref: Standard No. 108 7/26/11 |
|
ID: 09-008772 GodseyOpenMr. Richard L. Godsey Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. 22 Whittier St. Newton, NH 03858 Dear Mr. Godsey: This responds to your letter dated December 4, 2009 asking whether the grinding, chipping, and shredding units you manufacture are motor vehicles regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Our answer is no. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The following is our interpretation of the FMVSSs based on the description in your letter. You state that Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (CBI) manufactures grinding, chipping, and shredding equipment units. The brochures you enclosed indicate that the units are used to grind, chip, and shred logs, forestry debris and wood waste wood products (e.g., trees, stumps, railroad ties). These units can be stationary or mobile. You state that the mobile equipment is non-motorized and relies on a tractor to be transported from the factory to the jobsites. CBIs website www.cbi-inc.com indicates that some of the units (e.g., the 8600 Magnum Force Series) are mounted on a tri-axle trailer frame with tires. The Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6)) defines a motor vehicle as: A vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it is regulated by NHTSA and must, among other things, comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Whether the agency considers your work units to be motor vehicles depends on the use of the vehicles. In past agency interpretations, we have determined that vehicles which are primarily used off-highway and which only incidentally use the highways (to move between jobsites) are not motor vehicles under the Safety Act. An example of this is mobile construction equipment which use the highway only to move between jobsites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single jobsite. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. However, certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways and the agency has determined that such equipment are motor vehicles under the Safety Act. For example, dump trucks have been determined to be motor vehicles because they regularly use the highways to travel between jobsites and stay on such jobsites for only a limited period of time, thereby rendering their on-highway use more than incidental. The photographs you enclose with your letter and on your website show the grinding, chipping, and shredding units to be fairly massive units. The jobsites are located where there are forestry debris and wood waste wood products present. You do not state how long a mobile unit may remain on a jobsite but we understand from the information you provided that the units are towed to the jobsites and remain there for a period of time. It appears that use of the units on streets or highways appears to be incidental to their use on jobsites. Based on the above information, we do not believe that the grinding, chipping, and shredding units are motor vehicles under the Safety Act. This determination is based on the information provided. If in fact the grinding, chipping, and shredding units are using the roads and highways more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Date: June 2, 2010 |
|
ID: 09-008772 VSAOpenMr. Richard L. Godsey Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. 22 Whittier St. Newton, NH 03858 Dear Mr. Godsey: This responds to your letter dated December 4, 2009 asking whether the grinding, chipping, and shredding units you manufacture are motor vehicles regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Our answer is no. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The following is our interpretation of the FMVSSs based on the description in your letter. You state that Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (CBI) manufactures grinding, chipping, and shredding equipment units. The brochures you enclosed indicate that the units are used to grind, chip, and shred logs, forestry debris and wood waste wood products (e.g., trees, stumps, railroad ties). These units can be stationary or mobile. You state that the mobile equipment is non-motorized and relies on a tractor to be transported from the factory to the jobsites. CBIs website www.cbi-inc.com indicates that some of the units (e.g., the 8600 Magnum Force Series) are mounted on a tri-axle trailer frame with tires. The Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6)) defines a motor vehicle as: A vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it is regulated by NHTSA and must, among other things, comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Whether the agency considers your work units to be motor vehicles depends on the use of the vehicles. In past agency interpretations, we have determined that vehicles which are primarily used off-highway and which only incidentally use the highways (to move between jobsites) are not motor vehicles under the Safety Act. An example of this is mobile construction equipment which use the highway only to move between jobsites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single jobsite. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. However, certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways and the agency has determined that such equipment are motor vehicles under the Safety Act. For example, dump trucks have been determined to be motor vehicles because they regularly use the highways to travel between jobsites and stay on such jobsites for only a limited period of time, thereby rendering their on-highway use more than incidental. The photographs you enclose with your letter and on your website show the grinding, chipping, and shredding units to be fairly massive units. The jobsites are located where there are forestry debris and wood waste wood products present. You do not state how long a mobile unit may remain on a jobsite but we understand from the information you provided that the units are towed to the jobsites and remain there for a period of time. It appears that use of the units on streets or highways appears to be incidental to their use on jobsites. Based on the above information, we do not believe that the grinding, chipping, and shredding units are motor vehicles under the Safety Act. This determination is based on the information provided. If in fact the grinding, chipping, and shredding units are using the roads and highways more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 6/2/2010 |
2010 |
ID: 09-008774 223OpenMr. S. Lafferty Manager, Engineering Maxon 10321 Greenleaf Avenue Santa Fe Springs, CA 90760 Dear Mr. Lafferty: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223, Rear impact guards, and No. 224, Rear impact protection. Specifically, you ask whether the horizontal member of a rear impact guard may be composed of multiple pieces, as long as the guard passes the requirements of FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224. Our answer is yes. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The following is our interpretation of the FMVSSs based on the description in your letter. FMVSS No. 223 applies to rear impact guards as items of motor vehicle equipment. Nothing in the standard requires the horizontal member to be composed of a single piece. S5.1 of the standard specifies that the horizontal member of each guard, when viewed from the rear as it would be installed on a trailershall have a vertical height of at least 100 [millimeters (mm)] at each point across the guard width. If your guard is composed of multiple pieces, each horizontal member must have a vertical height of at least 100 mm at each point. S5.2 of the standard specifies strength and energy absorption requirements at test locations P1, P2, and P3. As long as your guard meets S5.2 at P1, P2, and P3 when tested according to S6 of the standard, the horizontal member may be composed of multiple pieces. FMVSS No. 224 applies to trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. This standard requires the vehicles to be equipped with a rear impact guard that is certified as meeting Standard No. 223. We do not interpret FMVSS No. 224 to require the horizontal member of the guard to be composed of a single piece. If the vehicle can meet the requirements in the standard regarding the guards width, height and rear surface location, the horizontal member of the guard may be composed of multiple pieces. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 5/26/2010 |
2010 |
ID: 0911Open K. Howard Sharp, Esq. Dear Mr. Sharp: We have received your letter of May 12, 1995, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on behalf of your client, NYTAF Industries. You are concerned that installation of a NYTAF lighting system on the rear of trailers might be considered to impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of paragraph S5.1.3. The NYTAF Auxiliary Rear Lighting System NYTAF has developed "an auxiliary signaling system for heavy duty vehicles" which "displays a verbal message appropriate to the particular potential hazard." According to Exhibit A of your letter, a draft information brochure, the specific words displayed are: "Wide Turn", "Braking", "Wide Load", "Caution", "Help", "Backing", and "Long Load". In addition, right and left facing arrowheads indicate the direction of turning. Drivers cannot alter these messages or program the system to accept personal messages. The brochure depicts the message unit "on the rear of the trailer frame directly below the trailer body in the center putting the display panel on approximately the same horizontal plane as the tail lights and brake lights." Words are provided by light-emitting diodes (L.E.D.). According to your letter, the L.E.D. display "is somewhat more intense than existing brake lights, turn and tail lamps." Exhibit B "Operation Summary" explains how the system operates with respect to each message, e.g., "Braking" is "activated and illuminated in conjunction with brake lights." Applicable Requirement of Standard No. 108 Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed [before first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for other than resale] that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by [Standard No. 108]." Prior Interpretations of S5.1.3 Relating to Message Boards In the past, the agency has advised that the determination of impairment is initially made by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle on which the supplementary equipment is installed, when it certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that determination is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. Thus, NHTSA's interpretations are generally cautionary in tone rather than prohibitive. I enclose copies of two interpretations relating to message boards intended for the rear parcel shelves of passenger cars. The first is a letter of August 17, 1989, to Alan S. Eldahr ("Eldahr"). The relevant language of Eldahr is that a rear window message board "sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp." The second is a letter dated August 13, 1993, to Kenneth E. Ross ("Ross"). The Ross letter discusses the relation of message boards to the aftermarket, as well as the notification and remedy obligations which would fall upon NYTAF as a manufacturer of automotive accessory equipment. Relationship of Eldahr to NYTAF Eldahr indicates that there is less possibility of impairment existing if the message visible to a following driver is related to the lamp function that occurs simultaneously, as happens, for example in the NYTAF system, when stop lamp activation is accompanied by the word "Braking." We suggest that vehicle manufacturers installing the NYTAF system follow this guideline in their determinations of whether impairment exists. NYTAF might also wish to reconsider the intensity of the L.E.D. display which you say is "more" than that of the existing rear lighting equipment, especially as it may affect reaction to the stop signal. The intensity should not be so great as to divert driver attention to the message rather than to the stop signal. There are several areas of Exhibit B "Operation Summary" which require more specific comment. "Caution" is activated in conjunction with the hazard warning system. Standard No. 108 requires these systems to simultaneously flash all turn signal lamps, and not sequentially as Exhibit B states. Exhibit B should be corrected to reflect this if it is to be distributed publicly, as we do not understand that the NYTAF system is intended to create sequential flashing of turn signals when operated in the hazard signal mode. The sole explanation of "Help" is that it is to be activated manually. In our view, a flashing "Help" while the trailer is in motion would be more likely to impair rear lighting equipment than if it is operable only when the trailer is at rest. In addition, Exhibit B does not indicate whether the "Help" message is overridden by other messages when related lighting systems are activated. We are unsure of the purpose of "Clearance Marker" which is operated "in conjunction with parking lights." Standard No. 108 does not require truck tractors to be equipped with parking lamps. We believe that you meant taillamps. We do not view this lamp as having an impairing effect upon the taillamps. The name of the lamp is somewhat misleading, as it would be mounted at the center of a vehicle whereas a "clearance lamp" is intended to indicate a vehicle's overall width. Additionally, on certain trailer designs the three identification lamps are mounted around the vertical centerline in the same location in which you have stated the NYTAF system will be mounted. With respect to the close proximity of the two lighting systems, we believe that the brightness of the NYTAF device compared with that of the identification lamps could impair their ability to signal the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway ahead, the intended function of these lamps. Finally, we note that the color red would indicate a backing function. Although trailers are not required to have backup lamps, Standard No. 108 specifies that the color white shall be used for backup lamps, and we believe that the public has come to associate an activated white lamp on the rear of a vehicle as indicating that the vehicle is in reverse gear. Your client may wish to reevaluate this function in light of possible liability concerns. We hope that these guidelines will be helpful to NYTAF. If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson will again be happy to answer them (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel 2 Enclosures ref:108 d:6/7/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0942Open Mr. Mayo D. Tubbs Dear Mr. Tubbs: Thank you for providing a FAX copy of your letter of April 27, 1995, to Philip Recht. As Taylor Vinson explained to you when you phoned, the agency had no record of receiving your original letter. Our letter of April 13, 1995, to you was based upon your representation that the strip lights in your system would be "Aviation Green". We advised you that use of this color has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory side lighting equipment, i.e., amber front side markers, red rear side markers, and red and white conspicuity striping or red reflectors. You have asked whether our response would be different if the strip lamps were red or amber in color, as shown in the drawings of a van trailer in your Attachment A. In this scheme, amber lamps would be located on the side of the trailer, and red lamps on the rear. Because these colors are associated with caution, we do not believe that they would impair the effectiveness of any of a trailer's required lighting equipment. You expressed your understanding that, if the three rear identification lamps are installed at the top of a trailer, the clearance lamps can be mounted at the bottom and vice versa, as reflected in the drawings shown in your Attachment C. This is not exactly correct. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires identification lamps, without exception, to be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." While clearance lamps also are required to be "as near the top as practicable" (Table II), when the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle the rear clearance lamps need not be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle (paragraph S5.3.1.4). This configuration is reflected in the drawing on Attachment C titled "Identification Lights on Top". The drawing "Identification Lights on Bottom" does not depict a location for identification lamps that conforms to Table II. Because clearance lamps are intended to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, the exception originated to accommodate trailer designs in which the widest part of the trailer was the fenders. In the van configuration shown on Attachment C, it would be practicable for both identification and clearance lamps to be mounted at the top of the trailer, and that is the location preferred by this agency for clearance lamps, notwithstanding S5.3.1.4. If there are other questions you have, Taylor Vinson will be happy to answer them for you. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:6/9/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0976Open Richard Mark Gergel, Esq.
Dear Mr. Gergel: We have received your letter of June 5, 1995, concerning "the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to transactions between a local car dealer and purchasers within the same state." The litigation in which you are involved concerns the sale of a motor vehicle to a school to transport students. This vehicle, which had the capacity to carry more than 10 persons, "did not meet the safety standards for a `school bus' under the Act." The defendant dealer asserts that a transaction between a dealer and purchaser within the same state is beyond the scope of the Act "since such a transaction allegedly is not within interstate commerce." Taylor Vinson of this office talked with you on June 14 for a clarification of the facts. We understand that the vehicle in this case was a cargo van originally manufactured by Ford Motor Company and which, before its first purchase in good faith other than for resale, by a private school, was altered by persons not yet known to carry more than 10 persons. The vehicle does not appear to carry the certification of its alterer. The plaintiff in your case is the estate of a child killed while being transported in the vehicle. Under South Carolina law, failure to comply with a Federal safety statute is negligence per se. As noted above, the defendant dealer asserts that there is no violation of the Act because the sale of the vehicle did not occur in interstate commerce, and, hence, that it was not negligent per se. This is our interpretation of the relevant portions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). Section 30112(a) provides as follows: Except as provided in this section, sections 30113 and 30114 of this title, and subchapter III of this chapter, . . . a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title. The sale or offer for sale of a nonconforming motor vehicle which is not certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), regardless of whether the purchaser and seller reside in the same state. The phrase "introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce" is self-contained and separated by commas from the rest of the prohibited acts. It in no way modifies the words "sell" and "offer for sale," which are violations separate and distinct from those of introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce a noncomplying or uncertified motor vehicle. Thus, the case that you refer to, National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. Brinegar, 483 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973), is irrelevant to the issue of whether the dealer violated section 30112(a) by selling the vehicle in question. As noted above, the statute provides certain exemptions and defenses that may be applicable to the question of whether there has been a violation of section 30112(a). The general and special exemptions of sections 30113 and 30114, and the import exemptions of subchapter III are not relevant here. However, if the dealer can establish that any of the following defenses set out in section 30112(b) apply, there would be no violation. C If the vehicle had previously been in use before it was sold to the school (section 30112(b)(1)) C If the dealer had no reason to know at the time it offered for sale and sold the vehicle to the private school, despite exercising reasonable care, that the van did not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. (section 30112(b)(2)(A)) C If the dealer held a certificate by the manufacturer stating that the vehicle complied with applicable Federal school bus safety standards, and did not know about the noncompliance before sale to the school. (section 30112(b)(2)(B)) Further, it appears that the alterer of this vehicle may have violated 49 CFR 568.8, a regulation issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 30115. Under this regulation, one who alters a certified vehicle before its first purchase in good faith for other than resale must affix its certification that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you have any further questions, please contact Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:VSA d:6/23/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0978Open Mr. David A. Lowell Dear Mr. Lowell: This responds to your letter of June 8, 1995, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, your company manufactures "stinger steered automobile transport trailers" as defined by 23 CFR 658.5, paragraphs (k) Tractor or Truck Tractor, (m) Automobile Transporters, and (n) Single-steered combination. Your company currently mounts taillamps, turn signal lamps, and clearance lamps on the back of the truck tractor. It is your understanding of paragraphs S5.1.1.1 and S5.1.1.2 of Standard No. 108 that "these items do not seem to be necessary." For purposes of Standard No. 108, types of motor vehicles are defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b), a regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, rather than 23 CFR 658.5, a regulation of the Federal Highway Administration. Under 571.3(b), the towing portion of your combination vehicle is a "truck", rather than a "truck tractor." A "truck" is defined, in pertinent part, as a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property." A "truck tractor" is a "truck designed primarily for drawing other motor vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and the load so drawn." The photographs you enclosed show that the towing portion of Bankhead's combination vehicle is designed to carry motor vehicles, and may do so without the attachment of the trailer, hence it is a "truck." It is constructed to carry a load other than a part of the trailer, hence it is not a "truck tractor." Accordingly, Bankhead's towing vehicle may not avail itself of the truck tractor lighting options of paragraphs S5.1.1.1 and S5.1.1.2 of Standard No. 108. Your understanding of these sections as they relate to truck tractors meeting the definition of 571.3(b) is generally accurate. However, no provision of Standard No. 108 permits either the elimination or the relocation of taillamps from truck tractors.
Because Bankhead's product is operated in interstate commerce, it must also conform to the safety regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (49 CFR part 393). This is to advise you that the Office of Motor Carrier Standards has reviewed this letter and concurs in it. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:7/25/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0991Open K. Howard Sharpe, Esq. Dear Mr. Sharpe: This responds to your further letter of June 13, 1995, with reference to your client, NYTAF Industries, Inc. You have informed us that NYTAF will sell in the aftermarket its rear lighting system that displays verbal messages. You ask whether NYTAF must certify compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards as "it is simply a manufacturer of an accessory." The answer is no. The only aftermarket lighting equipment for which certification of compliance is required is equipment that is manufactured to replace any item of required original lighting equipment on a vehicle. The NYTAF system is not intended to replace any item of original equipment, and no certification is required. However, because the NYTAF system is "manufactured or sold . . . as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle", it is "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B). This means that if either NYTAF or NHTSA determines that there is a safety related defect in the system, NYTAF will be required to notify and remedy according to statutory provisions. If you have any further questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d:6/30/95
|
1995 |
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.