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: GAO telematics Sept 13OpenAshley G. Alley, Esq. Office of General Counsel Government Accountability Office (GAO) 441 G St., NW Washington, DC 20548 Dear Ms. Alley: This responds to your e-mail asking about the extent to which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) can regulate wireless communication technologies in motor vehicles that might be sources of driver distraction. You asked us to address: 1) Integrated, in-vehicle technologies (e.g., OnStar); 2) Nomadic technologies (e.g., handheld cell phones); and 3) After-market technologies that are integrated after the vehicle is manufactured (e.g., a satellite TV). As you know, NHTSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. As discussed below, the answer to the issue of whether that authority permits the agency to regulate the technologies you listed is dependent, first, on whether the items and systems are considered motor vehicle equipment under Chapter 301 and, second, if they are so considered, whether issuing a standard for the items and systems would meet the statutory requirements for a standard, especially the requirement of meeting the need for motor vehicle safety. NHTSAs Authority to Regulate Wireless Communication Technologies that might be Sources of Driver Distraction Background Based on the definitions of motor vehicle safety and motor vehicle safety standard in subsection 30102(a)(8) and (9),[1] the agency has authority to issue standards for motor vehicle equipment as well as motor vehicles. The question of whether something qualifies as motor vehicle equipment is addressed by the definition of that term in subsection 30102(a)(7): "(M)otor vehicle equipment" means-- (A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) 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; or (C) any device or an article or apparel ... that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury, or death. (Emphasis added.) In order to issue a standard for motor vehicle equipment, the agency must show that the standard meets the requirements in subsection 30111(a). It states that (e)ach standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. Discussion Integrated, in-vehicle technologies (e.g., OnStar) You first asked about integrated, in-vehicle technologies, e.g., OnStar. Given that you separately ask about after-market technologies, we assume that this question is limited to items and systems that are integrated into the vehicle prior to first retail sale. The initial issue for these items and systems is whether they are considered motor vehicle equipment under the definition quoted above. Under 30102(a)(7), all items and systems that are integrated into a vehicle prior to its first retail sale are within the definition of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, the agency has authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for integrated, in-vehicle technologies. However, given the requirement in subsection 30111(a) that each standard meet the need for motor vehicle safety, we can establish standards for these technologies only to the extent that we can show a safety benefit for those standards. A challenge in using our authority is that while research suggests that use of personal communication devices by drivers can adversely affect driving performance, it is difficult to find confirmation that these findings represent actual real-world crash risks. It would also be difficult to develop effective countermeasures for any risks whose existence we could demonstrate. Nomadic technologies (e.g., handheld cell phones) Next, you asked about nomadic technologies, e.g., handheld cell phones. Given your other questions, we assume that this question is limited to items and systems that are not integrated into the vehicle. Since these items and systems would not be integrated into the vehicle, they would be motor vehicle equipment under subsection 30102(a)(7) only if they were considered accessories under (a)(7)(B). NHTSA uses two criteria in determining whether a device is an "accessory." The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If a product satisfies both criteria, then the product would be an "accessory." Applying these criteria to cell phones, it is our opinion that a substantial portion of the expected uses of a cell phone would not be related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. While a cell phone can be used in a motor vehicle, there is no particular nexus between the function of a cell phone and either the operation or the maintenance of motor vehicles. The cell phone performs the same function wherever it is taken by the user, e.g., on public sidewalks, in buildings, and so forth. Because the first prong of the two-part test for an accessory is not met, a cell phone is not an item of motor vehicle equipment. The same criteria would be applied in determining whether other items or systems incorporating nomadic technologies are accessories. We cannot provide a broad opinion covering all nomadic technologies, since specific information about the item or system and its expected uses is needed to apply these criteria. After-market technologies that are integrated after the vehicle is manufactured (e.g.., a satellite TV) You also asked us to address after-market technologies that are integrated after the vehicle is manufactured (e.g., a satellite TV). Given your other questions, we assume that this question is limited to items and systems that are integrated into the vehicle after first retail sale. Some items and systems incorporating these technologies would come within the subsection 30102(a)(7) definition of motor vehicle equipment. This would likely be the case for satellite TV systems marketed for use in motor vehicles. However, in order to provide a specific opinion, we would need detailed information about the specific product at issue. For those technologies that are items of motor vehicle equipment, the agency would face the same challenges described above in discussing integrated, in-vehicle technologies. Other Considerations We note that our safety standards generally apply to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment up to the time of first retail sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a new or used vehicle are prohibited by section 30122 from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. For example, installation of after-market technologies reduce the effectiveness of devices or elements of design installed pursuant to our crashworthiness standards would be prohibited. The make inoperative provision does not, however, apply to modifications made by vehicle owners themselves to their own vehicles. Thus, while we recommend that owners maintain the safety of their vehicles, Federal law does not prevent them from making modifications that take their vehicle out of compliance with a safety standard. The States, however, can regulate the changes that vehicle owners make to their vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSAs authority to regulate motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992. She may be reached at this address. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel NCC-20:DNakama:62992:mar:jul/19/07:OCC#07-003616 [S:\NCC20\INTERP\VSA\07-003616 GAO drn.doc] cc:NCC-20, subj/chron, DN, NVS-100, NVS-200, NPO-100 Interps, VSA 102(4), Docket [1] (8) "motor vehicle safety" means the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.
(9) "motor vehicle safety standard" means a minimum standard for motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. |
|
ID: garbage.crsOpen Mr. Richard G. Parks Dear Mr. Parks: This is in response to your letter of April 18, 1997, requesting confirmation of an interpretation that you state I gave you over the telephone on March 5, 1997 regarding the required contents of an incomplete vehicle document specified at 49 CFR 568.4, and one of the requirements for seating systems specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, 49 CFR 571.207. Because your letter assumed knowledge of matters that we discussed on March 5 and because I did not recall that conversation in all particulars, I asked Coleman Sachs of my staff to contact you so that we could gain a better understanding of your request. You informed Mr. Sachs on June 3, 1997 that your company is providing consulting services for a party litigating an action involving a garbage truck rollover incident. You stated that the garbage truck was completed by a final stage manufacturer from a chassis cab furnished as an incomplete vehicle by a major truck manufacturer. You further stated that the final stage manufacturer removed the bench-style seat that was furnished with the chassis-cab and replaced it with a bucket-type seat at the driver's position. Additionally, you stated that the final stage manufacturer equipped the vehicle with a steering wheel and a complete second set of controls on the right side of the vehicle so that it could be operated from that side while picking up trash. You noted, however, that the vehicle was not equipped with a driver's seat where the auxiliary controls were located. You have raised two questions with regard to these modifications. The first concerns the contents of the incomplete vehicle document that the chassis-cab manufacturer was required to furnish under NHTSA's certification regulations for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages at 49 CFR Part 568. Section 568.4(a)(7) of those regulations requires this document to list each standard in effect at the time of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle that applies to any of the vehicle types into which the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured. As your letter notes, section 568.4(a)(7) further requires the incomplete vehicle document to state, alternatively, after each standard listed, either (i) that the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, (ii) the specific conditions of final manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard, or (iii) that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard. You have asked whether the incomplete vehicle document must contain the statement specified in subparagraph (i) of section 568.4(a)(7) if a foreseeable modification of the incomplete vehicle involves moving the driver's seat. If the incomplete vehicle is equipped with a driver's seat, its manufacturer would ordinarily ensure that the driver's seat and its attachment assembly comply with FMVSS No. 207, and that the seat was installed in compliance with the standard. Assuming the manufacturer has taken these measures, the statement in subparagraph (i) of section 568.4(a)(7) would be the most appropriate of the three statements in that section to cover the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 207. That answer would not change even if the incomplete vehicle manufacturer could reasonably anticipate that the driver's seat would be replaced or that other modifications would be made to the driver's seat at a subsequent manufacturing stage, since the incomplete vehicle document should properly reflect the compliance status of the incomplete vehicle at that stage of manufacture. If the final stage manufacturer replaces the driver's seat or makes other modifications to it, before that manufacturer certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards, as required under 49 CFR 567.4, it must ensure that the new or modified seat and its attachment assembly comply with FMVSS No. 207 and that the seat is installed in compliance with the standard. Your second question is whether the final stage manufacturer was required to equip the garbage truck that is the subject of your inquiry with a driver's seat at the right-side location where auxiliary controls were installed. You note that paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 207 provides that "[e]ach vehicle shall have an occupant seat for the driver." You interpret this language as requiring a seat for the driver "wherever the driver may be located," including two driver's seats if the vehicle may be operated from two separate locations. In the one previous opportunity that we have had to address this issue, we did not interpret the requirements of paragraph S4.1 in this way. In a letter dated July 30, 1975 to Mr. Byron A. Crampton (copy enclosed), we stated that "a garbage truck that contained an auxiliary driver's position on the right side of the vehicle, with a separate set of controls" did not require a seat at the auxiliary location. The letter explains that this conclusion was reached because this office considers "the standards relating to the driver's position as relating to the normal position, and not to an auxiliary driving position." Lending suport to this interpretation is a letter to Mr. Glenn S. Park (copy enclosed), in which we stated that a "stand-up, right-hand drive position in a truck with a mounted side loader" would not be considered a designated seating position under Federal safety standards. Consistent with our past interpretation, we must disagree with your conclusion that two separate driver's seats must be installed in the vehicle you have described. If you have any further questions about vehicle certification requirements, please call Coleman Sachs of this office at 202-366-5238. Any further questions that you may have regarding the seating system requirements of FMVSS No. 207 should be directed to Otto Matheke of this office at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: garymillerOpen The Honorable Gary Miller Fax: (909) 612-1087 Dear Congressman Miller: Thank you for your telephone inquiry seeking information for a constituent about the Federal requirements applicable to the marking of automotive wheel rims. Mr. Jonny Vong of your staff has advised us that the constituent is a rim manufacturer who believes that other rim manufacturers may not be marking their rims as required by law. There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that apply to wheel rims, one for passenger cars and the other for rims for all other types of motor vehicles. Markings are only required to appear on rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, to be certain that I answer your question fully, I will explain our requirements for both passenger car rims and rims for use on other motor vehicles. The two applicable standards are FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims - Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.110), and FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120). I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. For passenger cars, section S4.4 of FMVSS No. 110 specifies two requirements. First the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in FMVSS No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional requirements shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, including the Tire and Rim Association, The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, or the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application. No markings are required on passenger car rims. For rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, FMVSS No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either FMVSS No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, not the rim manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will actually be mounted on the rim. The second requirement, set forth in S5.2, is that rims be marked with five specified items of information. These are: (1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions; (2) The rim size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation; (3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards; (4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark, or symbol; and (5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured. If, after reviewing this information, your constituent continues to believe that other rim manufacturers are not complying with any applicable standard or standards, he or she may wish to contact John Finneran in NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-0645. For your constituent's information, I am enclosing fact sheets we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Frank Seales, Jr. cc: Washington Office Enclosures |
2000 |
ID: gasketsOpen
Mr. Kim Jensen Dear Mr. Jensen: This is in response to your October 19, 2000, fax requesting information on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations governing asbestos-containing gaskets in renovated engines for classic European cars. Specifically, you ask this office to confirm that the gaskets may contain asbestos. Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, NHTSA has the authority to regulate motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7) defines "motor vehicle equipment" as: Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the U.S., any motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with NHTSA standards. In addition, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Gaskets in renovated engines meet the definition of "motor vehicle equipment," and thus are under NHTSA's jurisdiction. To date, however, NHTSA has not promulgated any Federal motor vehicle safety standards on gaskets. Nevertheless, other federal agencies do regulate asbestos and may maintain regulations governing the use of asbestos in gaskets. For example, the Department of Transportation's Research and Special Programs Administration classifies asbestos as a hazardous material and maintains regulations governing the shipment of asbestos-containing material (49 C.F.R. 172.101). Also, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulates asbestos as a hazardous substance and maintains rules governing occupational exposures to asbestos (29 C.F.R. 1910.1001 and 29 C.F.R. 1926.1101(g)(8)(iv), which governs the removal of gaskets containing asbestos). Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency maintains effluent standards for asbestos (40 C.F.R. 427.10, et seq.). You should contact these agencies to determine the regulations an importer must follow before importing engines with asbestos-containing gaskets. Because you ask about importing motor vehicle equipment, I direct your attention to 49 CFR Part 551, "Procedural Rules" (copy enclosed). Section 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured motor vehicle equipment to designate a permanent resident of the U.S. as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under S551.45:
In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Frank Seales, Jr. Enclosure ref:VSA |
2000 |
ID: gehmanOpenMr. Roland P. Gehman, P.E. Dear Mr. Gehman: This responds to your letter and telephone call requesting an interpretation of whether two flatbed trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. I regret the delay in responding. Specifically, you ask whether the TM500 and TM600 trailer designs, which each have full width cross-members above the chassis frame rails at a height of 26 inches above the ground, would be excluded from the standard. Our answer is yes, for reasons relating to the gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of the trailers. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, applies to trailers and semitrailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms or more (10,000 pounds (lb) or more). The literature you enclosed with your letter states that "[t]he MGS TM 600 can carry loads up to 10,000 lbs., and the MGS TM500 up to 7,000 lbs." Standard No. 224 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR of less than 10,000 lb. I understand that in a June 17, 1999, telephone conversation with my staff, you had asked about the application of the standard to your trailers and also clarified drawings you had enclosed. (Mr. Atelsek, with whom you had spoken, has since left our office.) We assume that you ask about MGS trailers with GVWRs of 10,000 lb or more. You explained that the TM500 and TM600 trailers have identical configurations at the rear. The drawing shows frame rails, constructed of longitudinal I-beams, whose lower surface is 18 inches above the ground. There is nothing between the frame rails. Above the frame rail at the rear is a full-width cross member at the back of the rear deck whose bottom is 26 inches above the ground. You asked Mr. Atelsek if these trailers are considered "low chassis vehicles" under Standard No. 224. The answer is no. A "low chassis vehicle" is defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." S5.1.2 states that "[t]he vertical distance between the bottom edge of the horizontal member of the guard and the ground shall not exceed 560 mm at any point across the full width of the member." In its current configuration, neither of your trailers meet the definition of a low chassis vehicle. The trailers have no horizontal cross member at the rear lower than 26 inches. Thus, they do not meet the 22 inch maximum height configuration requirement in S5.1.2. In the event that your trailers are not low chassis vehicles, you asked Mr. Atelsek whether a horizontal cross member attached to the rear of the frame rails would produce a vehicle configuration that meets the definition of a low chassis vehicle. An 18-inch high horizontal member would meet the 22-inch maximum height configuration requirement in S5.1.2. However, the definition also specifies that the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. So the question becomes whether the cross member would be considered to be part of the chassis of the vehicle. "Chassis" is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure." To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit. To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. The agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load. Applying these principles to your contemplated cross member, we conclude that it would be part of the chassis. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the extension of the cross member to the bottom of the frame rails would be of the same material, thickness, etc., of the existing cross member. If this assumption is correct, we would consider such a cross member to be an integral part of the frame structure that contributes to supporting load. Therefore, the modified cross member, with its lower edge located 18 inches above the ground, would be considered part of the chassis. Since a part of the chassis would meet all the configurational requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.3, the trailer would then meet the definition of a low chassis vehicle, and would be excluded from Standard No. 224. If you have any further questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: GF000167Open
[ ] Dear [ ]: This responds to your letter dated December 29, 2004, asking whether an LED lighting design concept for school buses being contemplated by your company could be used to comply with applicable Federal regulations. Before I address your questions, I note that you requested confidential treatment of your letter. During a February 15, 2005, telephone call, George Feygin of my staff explained to you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not respond to confidential requests for an interpretation because our interpretations are made publicly available. However, NHTSA is able to keep your identity and that of your company confidential. You agreed to this approach. Thus, I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [ ] will be kept confidential from the public. Your incoming interpretation request will be redacted before being made publicly available. By way of background, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. In your letter, you describe a dual function school bus signal lamp that flashes amber when the bus is slowing down and red when it has stopped. You indicate that the lamp meets all "SAE light output requirements". You ask whether using one lighting device for both functions is permitted by our standards. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to school bus signal lamps is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires each school bus to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, or four red and four amber signal lamps designed to conform to the same SAE standard (with certain exceptions for the amber lamps). Additionally, S5.1.4(b) requires, in pertinent part, that if the bus is equipped with four amber lamps, their candlepower must be at least 2 1/2 times that specified for red signal lamps. Further, the amber signal lamps can be activated only by manual or foot operation, and must automatically deactivate when the red signal lamps automatically activate because the bus entrance door is opened. While the language of FMVSS No. 108 contemplates separate sets of red and amber signal lamps, it is our opinion that dual function school bus signal lamps that flash both red and amber could be used to meet the standards requirements. We note that S5.4 of FMVSS No. 108 permits combining two or more lamps if the requirements for each lamp are met. In this case, the following requirements of S5.1.4(b) would need to be satisfied: We also note that under SAE J887, the portion of the lamp that emits red light and the portion of the lamp that emits amber light must each provide an effective projected illuminated area of not less than 19 sq. inches. I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, /s Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2005 |
ID: GF0002060OpenDon Brown, Director of Engineering Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your February 23, 2005, letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, permits relocating front trailer clearance lamps in order to limit their exposure to damage. Your letter indicates that you intend to relocate the clearance lamp so that it is recessed into the "top rail". Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that for a trailer with an overall width of 80 inches or more, two amber clearance lamps must be located at the front edges of the trailer as near the top as practicable. S5.3.2.1 (formerly S5.3.1.1.1) of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that clearance lamps may be located elsewhere, if necessary for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle. Accordingly, our regulations do not prohibit relocation of clearance lamps in order to limit their exposure to damage. Please note that S5.3.2.1 also specifies that a relocated clearance lamp need not meet the applicable photometric output requirements at any test point that is 45 degrees inboard. Other applicable photometric output requirements remain (see SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps", July 1972). I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2005 |
ID: GF000333OpenMr. Joe Isaac Dear Mr. Isaac: This responds to your January 10, 2005, e-mail regarding certification issues pertaining to certain trailers. In your e-mail to Jeff Woods, you explained that your company purchases trailers that are already equipped with lights, brakes, tires, and rims. You indicated to us that the trailers are not certified, but come equipped with "incomplete vehicle documents" or "IVDs" that usually specify, among other things, the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), the gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), and tire information. Your company installs engines, transmissions, pumps, and driveshaft components in order for these trailers to perform oilfield services. You ask whether the trailers being purchased by your company are considered "completed vehicles" pursuant to 49 CFR 568.3, and whether the modifications performed by your company constitute "addition of readily detachable components". Briefly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations vehicle certification regulations state that a person who alters a previously certified vehicle need not re-certify the vehicle, if the alterations are limited to addition, substitution, or removal or readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting (see 49 CFR 567.6). Because the trailers purchased by your company are not certified when you receive them for the purpose of performing further modifications, the provisions of 567.6 would not apply to you. Instead, under Part 568.3, you are considered the final stage manufacturer of these trailers, and you are required to certify that these vehicles meet the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our answers to your specific question follow. The trailer modifications performed by your company do not constitute the addition of "readily attachable components". As specified in 567. 6, components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies are considered "readily attachable components". Other similar changes, including minor finishing operations or painting, that do not affect the vehicles stated weight rating would not require re-certification of the vehicle. In the present case, however, you permanently attach onto each trailer a sizeable quantity of work-performing equipment. Based on the information provided in your e-mails and the attached photograph, the trailers stated weight rating is affected by these modifications. Thus, the modifications performed by your company do not constitute the addition of "readily detachable components", even if the trailers purchased by your company were certified when you received them. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, /s Jacqueline Glassman ref:568 |
2005 |
ID: GF000492OpenMr. Guy S. Edington Dear Mr. Edington: This is in response to your January 16, 2006, letter and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff regarding certain requirements in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, "New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars."As Mr. Feygin explained to you, this letter is limited to the discussion of the current regulations and does not address suggestions you made concerning how you believe certain tires should be tested. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues FMVSSs applicable to new vehicles and equipment, including tires. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. Thus, the tire manufacturer is responsible for self-certifying its product. S6.2 of FMVSS No. 119 specifies certain tire strength requirements that tires must meet when tested according to the procedure specified in S7.3. As a part of this procedure, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into a raised tread element as near as possible to the centerline of the tread, at a rate of 2 inches per minute, until the tire breaks or the plunger is stopped by the rim. The diameter of the plunger depends on the diameter of the rim and is specified in Table I. You ask what diameter plunger is used to test tubeless 17.5 diameter code "medium duty truck" tires. Table I of FMVSS No. 119 specifies that for tubeless tires with a diameter code of 17.5 or smaller, a plunger with a diameter of inches (19.05 mm) is used. Table I does not differentiate between different categories of 17.5 diameter code tires and does not provide for use of different plunger diameters for any 17.5 diameter code tires. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:119 |
2006 |
ID: GF000494OpenMs. Erika Z. Jones Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your January 16, 2004, letter regarding applicability of 49 CFR 571.201, S6.3(b) to targets located near third row folding bench seats. Specifically, you ask whether targets located within 600 mm of a third row folding bench seat, which is not a split row bench seat, are excluded from the requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, when the third row bench seat is in a stowed position. NHTSA will not test these target points for compliance if the seat, when stowed, is not likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. S6.3(b) excludes targets located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind the seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating from the requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201. In your letter, you describe a vehicle featuring three rows of seats. The third row bench seat stows to in order to create an expanded cargo area. The third row seat has a latch system attached to the D-pillar that secures the seat back in its upright position. When the third row bench seat is stowed, the latch remains exposed. The latch is located within 600 mm of the seating reference point of the third row bench seat, but beyond 600 mm from the seating reference point of the second row seat. You ask if the second row seating position would be considered the rearmost designated seating position when the third row seat is stowed. The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as "any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats." The third row folding bench seat described in your letter is not an auxiliary seating accommodation because it is not a temporary or a jump seat but a permanent seat available for use by occupants. When in the upright position, the third row seat described in your letter constitutes the rearmost designated seating position for the purpose of S6.1 and S6.2. In a 1993 interpretation letter to Michael Love of Porsche, the agency stated that a folding rear seat described in that letter would be considered a designated seating position at all times. We noted that the examples provided by Porsche were not precise enough for us to make a more specific determination as to whether the vehicle in question must comply with all requirements related to a specific designated seating position. In the present case, the third row seat, when in its stowed position, is unlikely to be used for anything other than cargo carrying, since it appears that all available leg room would be occupied by the folded seat back. Accordingly, NHTSA would not test for compliance with S6.1 and S6.2 at the target point in question when the third row seat is in its stowed position. However, compliance with the requirements of S6.1 and S6.2 would be verified when the third row bench seat is in its upright position intended for occupant use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:201 |
2004 |
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.