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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: 08-006947revdrnOpenThomas R. Erickson, Esq. Scott, Hulse, Marshall, Feuille, Finger & Thurmond, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1100 Chase Tower 201 East Main Drive El Paso, TX 79901 Dear Mr. Erickson, This responds to your request for an interpretation on behalf of your client, asking several questions related to platform lifts and/or modifications to buses. We note that some of the questions you ask relate to Mexican law, i.e., whether certain buses would be considered newly manufactured for purposes of importing them into Mexico. While we can provide interpretations concerning the U.S. Federal statutes and regulations that we administer, we cannot provide interpretations or other information about Mexican law. Therefore, we are addressing the questions you ask only in the context of U.S. law. Similarly, while we can address the issue of whether modified used vehicles or vehicles constructed with both new and used parts would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of the laws and regulations administered by this agency, we would suggest that you contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it would be appropriate to advertise such a vehicle as new. In your correspondence, you explained that your client owns a bus transportation company. Your client has designed a platform lift that it wants to manufacture and install on its own buses and on buses owned by other companies. Your client is also considering taking used 40 foot buses and using two such buses to create single 60 foot articulated buses which would be driven in the United States. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) (49 CFR Part 571) 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 of new vehicles or new equipment are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. These manufacturers must also ensure that their vehicles and equipment are free of safety-related defects. Question One - Your first question concerned platform lifts, which your client would like to manufacture and install on buses. You note that FMVSS No. 404 requires that platform lifts be installed in accordance with the installation instructions provided by the lift manufacturer. You asked whether there are any regulations that would require that the persons installing the lifts have any particular certification, such as being a certified welder or mechanic. NHTSAs Response - There are no requirements in FMVSS Nos. 403 or 404 that persons installing platform lifts have any particular credentials. We note that State laws or regulations may speak to this issue. Question Two - Your second question addressed taking two used 40 foot buses and joining portions of them to create a single 60 foot articulated bus. You note that there are no FMVSSs specifically addressing articulated buses and ask if the modifier would simply follow FMVSSs applicable to buses. You also ask if the modifiers who convert the two buses into one bus must have any particular type of certifications to do such work. NHTSAs Response - There are no FMVSSs that apply solely to articulated buses. All articulated buses manufactured as new must meet the bus standards specified in the FMVSSs. The certification requirements (at 49 CFR Part 567) apply to manufacturers of new buses and alterers of new buses, before first sale of the new bus to the retail customer. However, we would generally not consider the joining together of portions of two used 40 foot buses to create a single 60 foot bus to constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. (See also the response to the next question relating to this issue.) Since your client plans to modify used buses, there is a statutory provision which I would like to bring to your attention: 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which states: Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. In general, this section prohibits the entities listed in Section 30122(b) from removing, disabling or otherwise making inoperative any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. We do not require manufacturers, alterers, or modifiers of motor vehicles to have any special certifications, although, again, State laws may address this issue. We note that this point also applies to your next question. Question Three - Your third question addressed the circumstances in which modifications to used buses could create new buses, as well as vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements. You stated that a person at NHTSA stated that a used bus could be considered new if the engine, transmission and drive axle were replaced on the used bus and such parts were not from the same vehicle. You requested confirmation as to whether this is correct and, if not, whether there is a way to make used buses qualify as new buses so that a new VIN could be placed on the bus. You also asked, assuming that it is possible to turn a used bus into a new bus, whether it is permissible to take a totaled or burned bus and turn it into a new bus or to use parts from such buses in the manufacture of a new bus. You also asked whether the persons/companies doing the actual manufacturing of the new buses need any special certification. NHTSAs Response - In most cases NHTSA does not regulate the repair or refurbishment of used motor vehicles, except that the make inoperative provision discussed earlier may apply, and some of our safety standards apply to new motor vehicle equipment that may be used during the repair/refurbishment process. However, in some cases, the modifications could be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new motor vehicle rather than a modified vehicle. The replacement of a vehicles engine, transmission and drive axle would not create a new motor vehicle. Therefore, there would be no legal basis for the bus to be assigned a new VIN. We have enclosed two interpretation letters, addressed to Robert R. Keatinge, Esq., and C. N. Littler which address some of the circumstances in which modifications to buses could be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new vehicle. If the modifications to a used bus were so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new vehicle, the person making the modifications would be considered the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle and would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Other Responsibilities
In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), (which are also part of the U.S. Department of Transportation) may have requirements that apply to your clients proposed changes. For further information about FHWAs requirements, please contact: Mr. Michael P. Onder, Team Leader, Truck Size and Weight, Office of Freight Management and Operations, FHWA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20590. For further information about FMCSAs requirements, please contact: Mr. Mike Huntley, Chief, Vehicle & Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operation, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. bh 20590. We also note that State laws may also apply to the modified used buses. I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing our publication, Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. If you have any further questions about NHTSAs platform lift requirements, please feel free to contact Mr. Ari Scott of my staff. All other questions may be directed to Dorothy Nakama of my staff. Both attorneys are at this address and may be reached by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:VSA# 403#404 |
|
ID: 08-006965a ActonOpenJonathan Acton II, Assistant Attorney General Maryland Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E. Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062 Dear Mr. Acton: This responds to your letter asking whether a can of tire sealant and a method for reinflating a flat tire, in lieu of a spare tire, should be considered under Maryland law a technological improvement that conforms with applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). As discussed below, we regret to inform you that we cannot answer your question since it is one of interpretation of state law that is not within the purview of this agency. As you state in your letter, Maryland state law requires manufacturers to equip new cars sold in Maryland with a spare tire unless technological improvements, consistent with applicable [FMVSS], become available. Md. Code. Ann., Transp. 22-405.3 (2008). Your letter explains that a vehicle manufacturer is hoping to equip new vehicles with a can of tire sealant and a method for reinflating a flat tire in lieu of equipping the vehicle with a spare tire. You ask whether such equipment is a technological improvement that conforms with applicable [FMVSS]. Various FMVSS apply to spare tires. For example, all new spare tires must satisfy the requirements of FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic and Certain Specialty Tires (49 CFR 571.109), and be labeled in accordance with Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (49 CFR Part 574). However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not mandate that new vehicles must be equipped with a spare tire. NHTSA could regulate the tire sealant as an item of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7) (defining, in relevant part, the term motor vehicle equipment as any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle ). However, NHTSA does not have an FMVSS that addresses tire sealants, nor have we made an agency determination that a tire sealant plus inflator is a technological improvement over a spare tire. We believe that your letter asks a State law question: whether Maryland should consider the tire sealant plus inflator a technological improvement over a spare tire, permitting the new vehicle to be sold with the sealant and inflator instead of a spare tire. Since it is a matter of interpreting what Maryland officials had in mind when enacting the technical improvement provision, it is a question that Maryland state officials should answer, rather than NHTSA. If you have any questions about the applicability of specific FMVSS provisions, we would encourage you to write us in greater detail regarding those questions. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:571 d.7/24/08 |
2008 |
ID: 08-006966rev.drnOpenMr. Jacques Bolduc SRD Bolduc, Inc. 12521 St.-Charlotte Drive Tampa, FL 33618 Dear Mr. Bolduc: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. That standard specifies requirements for the return of a vehicles throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control, or in the event of a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. You wish to know of foreseeable concerns that a vehicle equipped with an engine and a parallel hybrid electric vehicle drive may have with complying with FMVSS No. 124. We address your question below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce the FMVSSs 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 certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by, among other things, purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. Your letter stated that your client, a final stage manufacturer, completes an incomplete heavy duty vehicle by adding various bodies and a parallel hybrid electric vehicle drive system. You expressed concern about whether the completed vehicle can meet FMVSS No. 124 because: The hybrid system provides, in addition to providing electrical power to truck mounted equipment, power assist (acceleration) on a decreasing level. The power assist operates at RPMs below 3600 and speeds below 40 MPH. The higher the RPM and the vehicle speed, the less input from the power assist. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer provides a gasoline or diesel engine to the vehicle. Your client places an electric power assist system that is intended to function when the vehicle speed is less than 40 miles per hour (MPH). The electric power assist system works in parallel with the gasoline or diesel engine and is intended to provide additional torque at lower speeds. Cutting back on torque required for the gasoline or diesel engine results in reduced fuel consumption. You stated that whether the vehicle is propelled by the engine or the electric power assist system is determined by the vehicle. The driver does not control whether the vehicle is propelled by the engine or the electric power assist system. As noted above, you asked whether there are any foreseeable concerns with the compliance of a vehicle equipped with such a power assist in regards to the requirements of FMVSS 124. While we can provide information about our standards and respond to specific requests for interpretation, we are unable to provide technical analysis of specific products. As noted above, manufacturers have the responsibility to ensure that their vehicles meet applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to make required certifications. As a final stage manufacturer, your client should, among other things, be familiar with 49 CFR Parts 567, Certification, and 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More StagesAll Incomplete, Intermediate and Final-Stage Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Nakama at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 9/22/09 |
2009 |
ID: 08-007039drn eddsOpenMr. Daryl Edds Director of Operations Mechanicsville Christian Center 8161 Shady Grove Road Mechanicsville, VA 23111 Dear Mr. Edds: Thank you for your letter requesting information bearing on your decision whether your church should buy a new van or a mini-bus. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, Mr. David Coker of your church explained that a van was a 15-passenger van and that the mini-bus is a bus that meets this agencys school bus or multifunction school activity bus (MFSAB) standards. We understand that, among other uses, the vehicle would be used to transport children in your congregation, and that there is no school (other than Sunday school) associated with your church. Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable FMVSSs. In the school bus context, the statute requires any person selling a new school bus (a vehicle that is designed to carry 11 or more persons and which is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary students to or from school or related events) to sell a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applying to school buses. An MFSAB may be sold if the school transportation does not involve school bus route transportation (i.e., that do not involve transporting students between home and school). An MFSAB is a school bus that meets all the school bus FMVSSs except those requiring the installation of traffic control devices (flashing lights and stop arms). From the information you present, it does not appear to us that you are required to be sold a school bus or an MFSAB, since your church will not be transporting children to or from school or related events. We note, however, that NHTSA believes that school buses (including MFSABs) are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. Conversely, we have had numerous safety campaigns to warn people of the risk of rollover in 15-passenger vans. There are some actions that consumers can take to mitigate this risk. Information can be found at www.safercar.gov and clicking on the van safety link. We encourage purchasers to consider purchasing a school bus or MFSAB to transport school-age children. I am enclosing, for your information, copies of an April 6, 2000 letter to Mr. Ted Cashion and an October 1, 2003 letter to U.S. Representative Chris Chocola addressing transportation for children attending church schools. All enclosures referenced in each of these letters are also provided. While NHTSA regulates the first sale of new vehicles, NHTSA does not regulate how the vehicles are to be used. Questions about what vehicles may be used to transport children attending church are addressed by State law, since the State has the authority to determine how the children must be transported to and from school or school-related activities, including the transportation of children by day care centers. Since your church is operating in Virginia, you should contact Virginia state officials to determine if there are any State requirements that pertain to your purchase of the vehicle. You also asked us to address issues of liability relating to the use of 15-passenger vans. The information enclosed discusses a few general concerns associated with the operation of 15-passenger vans. You should ask your insurance agent or private attorney any questions you may have about private tort liability. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff by mail or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:VSA d.2/17/09 |
2009 |
ID: 08-007276as smidlerOpenMr. Francis S. Smidler Director of Project Engineering Wabash National Corp. P.O. Box 6129 Lafayette, IN 47903 Dear Mr. Smidler: This responds to your letter concerning a trailer you are developing for the transport of long items, such as windmill blades. You ask whether your telescoping trailer design would be considered by NHTSA to be a pole trailer, and thus excluded from the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear Impact Protection. Based on our understanding of the information you provided in your letter, 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. The definition of a pole trailer, set forth in 49 CFR 571.3, reads as follows: Pole trailer means a motor vehicle without motive power designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle and attached to the towing vehicle by means of a reach or pole, or being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle, for transporting long or irregularly shaped loads such as poles, pipes, or structural members capable generally of sustaining themselves as beams between the supporting connections. In describing your vehicle, you state that: The trailer has three main frame sections that telescope out from each other. From a closed length of 53 feet it can be extended to 128 feet or more. In addition, the bolster and rear frame can also be extended out further aft to accommodate payloads that may extend beyond the length of the main frame. We note that the definition of pole trailer has two parts. The first is that the vehicle must be a vehicle without motive power, and must be attached to the towing vehicle by means of a reach or pole, or being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle. We assume for the purposes of this letter that your trailer is unpowered, and that it would be otherwise secured to the towing vehicle. Thus, it meets this first part of the definition. The second part concerns the use for which the trailer was designed (for transporting long or irregularly shaped loads such as poles, pipes, or structural members capable generally of sustaining themselves as beams between the supporting connections). This means that the items pole trailers are designed to transport must be capable of being laid or secured across any gulf or gap between supporting connections. They have to be capable generally of sustaining themselves as beams. Windmill blades, like poles and pipes, are contiguous structural members that are capable of supporting themselves as beams. Thus, the second part of the definition appears to be met. Given what you have described in your letter, we have determined that your trailer meets the definition of a pole trailer. However, we note that you did not provide a picture or description of the telescoping frame sections that attach the rear part of the trailer to the tractor. If further information led us to believe that the trailer was capable of, and in fact used for, carrying loads other than those for which a pole trailer is designed, that could provide cause to change our determination. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:224 d.2/26/09 |
2009 |
ID: 08-007784drn-2OpenMs. Melissa Van Gorkom Washington State Patrol Government and Media Relations P.O. Box 42600 Olympia, WA 98504-2600 Dear Ms. Van Gorkom: This responds to your questions regarding how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) regulations apply to kit cars. You indicated that your questions specifically focus on a vehicle called the Tango T600, which is offered for sale by a company called Commuter Cars Corporation in Spokane, Washington. The companys website is: www.commutercars.com. Our answers are provided below. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue FMVSSs that apply to passenger cars. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards. At www.commutercars.com (as accessed on July 19, 2011) the following description of the Tango T600 is provided: In order to avoid the time and expense of certification, it is being sold as a mostly-assembled kit making completion by any customer, with or without mechanical skills, a quick and easy task. Based on the photographs provided, it appears the Tango T600 has four wheels, and is therefore considered a passenger car for purposes of NHTSAs regulations. Because the description does not state that the purchaser will provide a used chassis or other used parts, it appears that all new parts are used in the kit. The retail price listed is $108,000. In your e-mail message dated December 9, 2008, to Rebecca Yoon of my staff, you posed the following questions regarding NHTSA requirements for Commuter Cars Corporation (CCC) and its product. Your first question was whether the kit car manufacturer would be required to certify the compliance of the kit as meeting all applicable FMVSSs (pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 Certification) and would have to apply a vehicle identification number (VIN) as specified in 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. The manufacturer in the case of the Tango T600 is CCC. In a NHTSA interpretation letter of July 9, 1993 to Mr. Christopher Banner (copy enclosed) we stated the following: If you ship your kit cars with all parts needed to produce a complete motor vehicle, including the power source, the agency will treat the kit car as a motor vehicle, not an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of the state of completion of the kit. You would be required to certify that the kit car conformed to all applicable safety standards if it were treated as a new vehicle under the rules set forth in 1.[1] and 2.[2] above, but not if it were treated as a used vehicle under those rules. (See also, NHTSAs letter of September 27, 1993 to Mr. Joel Trim (copy enclosed).) Since it is offering for sale a kit car that includes all parts necessary for assembly, CCC is the manufacturer of the Tango T600 and must certify it as meeting all applicable FMVSSs for passenger cars. As the manufacturer of the Tango T600, it must also provide a VIN for each kit car. In your submission, you have included a sample copy of a CCC Certification of Origin signed by Rick Woodbury, President/CEO of CCC. As part of the Certification of Origin, the following number is provided as the VIN: CCCT6000711000002. The first three digits of the VIN are known as the World Manufacturer Identifier (WMI), which is assigned to the manufacturer by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) in Warrendale, Pennsylvania. (See 49 CFR Section 565.7(a)). We have checked with the SAE to ascertain whether SAE has assigned CCC to Commuter Cars Corporation as the WMI. We were advised that SAE has made no assignment of any WMI to Commuter Cars Corporation. Your second question was whether, if the manufacturer of the motor vehicle cannot certify the vehicle as meeting all applicable FMVSSs, the manufacturer would be able to apply for an exemption from certain requirements (such as the requirement for air bag installation) through NHTSA. The answer is yes, but NHTSA may deny the exemption request, based on its analysis of the manufacturers application. Finally, I am enclosing a copy of a NHTSA interpretation letter of October 29, 2003, to Mr. John Lovstedt of the Hawaii State Department of Transportation, discussing the relationship between Federal and State laws relating to kit cars. In that letter, we stated in part: I will note that the issue of whether a kit car is considered to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS in effect at the time of the assembly of the vehicle is a matter of Federal law, not State law. Thus, a person who manufactured a kit car that did not comply with the FMVSS and sold it, offered it for sale, or introduced it into interstate commerce would be in violation of Federal law, regardless of any State laws. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosures ref: Part 567 7/29/2011 |
|
ID: 08-007826 Testlabs May 15 09OpenDr. Wayne W. Tennesey Testlabs International Ltd. 1797 Logan Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3E 1S9 Dear Dr. Tennesey: This responds to your inquiry regarding the luminous transmittance requirement in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You believe and are concerned that handheld spectrophotometer devices which are used in law enforcement in Canada to determine the percentage of incident light transmitted through vehicle windows may return different results for the same sample. Reliable test results are a crucial part of any test program, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) carefully assesses compliance with the luminous transmittance requirement of FMVSS No. 205 in a manner that provides accurate results. The test that we use is described below. To the extent that you are concerned about the reliability of devices used by localities, your concern should be addressed to the jurisdictions involved. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. The agency has established FMVSS No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance and marking requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (ANSI Z26.1). ANSI Z26.1 specifies that glazing at specific locations shall have at least 70 percent luminous light transmittance, at normal incidence (i.e., with the glazing perpendicular to the measuring device), when measured in accordance with Luminous Transmittance, Test 2 of ANSI Z26.1. Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of Luminous Transmittance, Test 2, specify the sample sizes that are used for the test, the light source to be used, and how to interpret the results. Paragraph 5.1.2 of ANSI Z26.1 states that three specimens of glazing shall be tested for regular luminous transmittance at normal incidence calculated to International Commission on Illumination Illuminant A. The standard further specifies that after the regular luminous transmittance has been determined, the same three specimens shall be subjected to ultraviolet radiation (irradiation), and specifies the lamps that can be used for this irradiation. Paragraph 5.2.3 of ANSI Z26.1 specifies that glazing subject to Luminous Transmittance, Test 2 shall show regular luminous transmittance of not less than 70 percent of the light, at normal incidence, both before and after irradiation. The international standard ISO 3538-1978, Road Vehicles Safety glasses Test methods for optical properties (referenced in section 2.4 of ANSI Z26.1) provides the requirements to be found in equipment to be used for the transmissibility determination. NHTSA safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30112. In the U.S., States regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, and many limit how darkly tinted the glazing may be in vehicles operating in their jurisdictions. It appears that your question relates to the manner in which some Providences are enforcing their luminous transmittance requirements, and thus should be addressed to and answered by the entity that you believe uses an unreliable handheld device. We are not in a position to render an opinion on the means by which a Providence should resolve a disputed test result of a handheld spectrophotometer unit. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:205 d.7/24/09 |
2009 |
ID: 0813Open Mr. Mayo D. Tubbs Dear Mr. Tubbs: We have received your letter of March 23, 1995, asking for a waiver of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) which will enable the introduction of a new lighting system that you have developed for large trailers. You envision that this system will eventually be installed on emergency vehicles and school buses. We understand that you wish to market this system as original equipment. You have asked that we "provide adequate safeguards to prevent unauthorized dissemination of this information." As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you before you wrote, all the agency's letters of interpretation must be made available to the general public, and these letters must include enough information to make the interpretation comprehensible. Mr. Vinson telephoned you on March 30, 1995, and informed you that we proposed, in this instance, to limit the description of the system to the number, location, and quantity of lamps, to withhold the incoming letter with the exception of Attachment A, and to exclude your name and address from the copy made publicly available. You concurred with this treatment of your letter, except that you preferred not to have your name and address withheld in the event a reader might be interested in getting in touch with you. You believe that the current lighting and conspicuity requirements for large trailers are inadequate for safety when compared with your system. This system consists of 18 "strip lights on the side and rear" of large trailers which are "Aviation Green" in color. The side and rear lighting schemes are depicted on Attachment A to your letter. As we interpret Attachment A, two of the strip lights are mounted in the upper right and left rear corners, while eight lights are on each side of the trailer (four right- angle lights in each upper and lower corner, and four lights deployed at one-third body-length intervals at the top and bottom). Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is the Federal regulation that governs original lighting equipment on trailers. These requirements must be met upon the manufacture and sale of trailers. With respect to the rear of a van trailer, your Attachment A depicts only strip lights in the upper right and left corners. This is not permissible under Standard No. 108. The Federal regulation requires the conspicuity treatment specified by S5.7 to be applied in this area, as well as clearance lamps. With respect to the side of a van trailer, Standard No. 108 requires horizontal conspicuity treatment to be applied near the lower edge of the trailer as close to the front and rear as practicable, though it need not be continuous as long as it covers at least half the trailer length. Because of the gaps between the strip lights on the trailer side as depicted in Attachment A, it is possible that conspicuity treatment could be applied between the strips that would total half or more of the trailer length. However, supplementary lighting equipment such as your system is not permissible under Standard No. 108 (paragraph S5.1.3) if it impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of exterior lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green 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. A vehicle manufacturer may petition for a temporary exemption from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under the conditions specified in 49 CFR part 555, a copy of which is enclosed. Therefore, a trailer manufacturer interested in using your system could apply for a 2-year exemption on the basis that the exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level of the standard. The effect of an exemption is to allow the manufacture and sale of a nonconforming vehicle without violating 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). I am sorry to inform you that the exemption is not available to equipment manufacturers. If you have data that sustains your belief that your system enhances safety, our Office of Research and Development would be interested in corresponding with you. The Associate Administrator of that Office is George Parker. If there are other questions you have, Taylor Vinson will be happy to answer them for you. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/13/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0826Open Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Dear Mr. Shetler: We are responding to your FAX of March 29, 1995, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. On May 6, 1994, we advised you that a motorcycle headlamp with an upper beam projector on one side of the vertical centerline and a lower beam projector on the other did not comply with Standard No. 108. You now ask whether the headlamp would comply if an exterior housing were installed on the headlamp which "provides the appearance of two headlamps." This modification in the design does not result in a complying headlamp. Regardless of its exterior appearance, the lamp remains a single headlamp incorporating both an upper and lower beam projector. Since both projectors are within a single headlamp, both projectors must be on the vertical centerline, as specified in Table IV of Standard No. 108. Even if the upper and lower beam projectors were in separate units, neither in itself would be a complying headlamp, and hence not a two-lamp system that could be mounted symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Standard No. 108 does not permit motorcycles to have a headlamp system with asymmetrical beam location. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel ref:109 d:4/24/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0841Open Mr. James M. Hanson Dear Mr. Hanson: This replies to your letter of April 7, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the applicability requirements of paragraph S5.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The conspicuity requirements of S5.7 apply to "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width and with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs." You state that the word "and" in this paragraph "could cause some trailer manufacturers to think that both conditions must be present before tape is applied on the trailer", and that some manufacturers could interpret this to avoid applying tape to trailers of the specified width but less than the specified GVWR and vice versa. We have no objection to a manufacturer's applying conspicuity treatment to trailers of any width or GVWR. However, as S5.7 clearly states, a manufacturer is not required to comply with the conspicuity requirements unless its trailer is at least 80 inches in overall width and has a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. If you desire further clarification on this matter, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/26/95
|
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.