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: aiam2753OpenG. K. Pilz, Manager, Product Compliance, Mercedes-Benz of N.A., One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645; G. K. Pilz Manager Product Compliance Mercedes-Benz of N.A. One Mercedes Drive Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Pilz: This responds to your February 1, 1978, letter asking whether you certification label complies with the requirements of Part 567, *Certification*.Your certification would state the gross vehicle and axle weight ratings in both pounds and kilograms. In the past, the agency has permitted this approach for the purpose of international harmonization of measurements. Therefore, your proposed label appears to comply with the requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5096OpenEmmett Koelsch Coaches ATTN: Kim Welsh 926 Delaware Longview, WA 98632; Emmett Koelsch Coaches ATTN: Kim Welsh 926 Delaware Longview WA 98632; "Dear Sir/Madam: Your letter of November 5, 1992 addressed to th Department of Transportation Publications Department was forwarded to this office for response. In your letter you requested a copy of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards pertaining to school buses 'and other Transit type vehicles.' The Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), apply to all classes and categories of motor vehicles, including passenger cars, trucks, buses of all types including school buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and the like. Excluded from the definition of motor vehicles are such vehicles as farm tractors, earth-moving equipment, and other off-road vehicles. For your information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Also enclosed are copies of two fact sheets issued by this office entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. You did not elaborate on what was meant by 'Transit type vehicles.' If you were referring to intercity buses, you should contact the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Room 3404, this address for information on their pertinent standards and regulations. For information on intracity buses, you should contact the Federal Transit Administration, Room 9328, this address. Finally, for information regarding implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, you should contact the Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. I hope this information is helpful. If after examining this material you have more specific questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0294OpenMr. Francis M. Coffey, Jr., Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Engineering Staff, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI, 48090; Mr. Francis M. Coffey Jr. Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Engineering Staff General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Coffey: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1971, to Mr. R. A Diaz, Acting Associate Administrator, concerning an error in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; SAE Standard J954 referenced in Table III is an error, this should b J945, and will be corrected in a future amendment.; Thank you for calling this to our attention. Sincerely, Roger H. Compton, Director, Office of Operating Systems Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5242OpenMr. Joey Ferrari Director Technical Sales Grant Products 700 Allen Avenue Glendale, CA 91201; Mr. Joey Ferrari Director Technical Sales Grant Products 700 Allen Avenue Glendale CA 91201; "Dear Mr. Ferrari: This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993 concerning aftermarket steering wheels. Your questions concerned replacement of the steering wheel in a vehicle equipped with an air bag with an aftermarket steering wheel manufactured by your company. The steering wheel you manufacture is not equipped with an air bag. Before answering your questions, some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that passenger cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. Your specific questions are addressed below. Where more than one question concerns a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. The responses to your questions explain: (1) Federal law does prevent a repair shop from removing an operating air bag, (2) Federal law does not require a vehicle to have a usable air bag for its life, prevent a private individual from removing the air bag in the vehicle, require a usable air bag before a used vehicle can be sold, or require replacement of an air bag deployed in an accident, (3) State law may address these issues, and (4) our agency strongly discourages owners from removing or modifying the safety systems in their vehicles, and urges the replacement of these systems when they are not functional, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. 1. If a vehicle is originally equipped with an air bag, must it have an operable air bag system for its entire useful life? 2. If a repair shop removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable? 3. If a private individual removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable? 6. Upon resale of a vehicle from the first owner (individual) to a second or subsequent owner, must the vehicle have an operable air bag system as originally equipped? The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. However, the Safety Act also provides that once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the safety standards. However, States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning for the vehicles to be registered or sold. After the first retail purchase of a vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is the 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act which provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In the case of a vehicle equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise 'rendering inoperative' the air bags. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their vehicles. I would like to caution anyone considering removal of an air bag to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Improper removal of an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the person. 4. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, must a repair shop or individual replace the air bag and/or system so that it is again operable as originally equipped? 5. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, can a repair shop or individual replace the air bag with a Grant product not having an air bag? The 'render inoperative' provision does not impose an affirmative duty on repair shops to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, a repair shop could replace the steering wheel after an accident that deployed the air bag with a steering wheel that was not equipped with an air bag. However, despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, repair shops may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. 7. If we have a potential liability exposure for someone using our products to replace an original air bag, what do we need to do to limit this exposure? We suggest that you consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for an answer to this question. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy that air bags not be removed, and that air bags always be replaced following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. While air bags are in some respects 'supplemental' to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Air bags provide some protection, even if the safety belt is not worn, and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to a subsequent purchaser of the vehicle would identify it as one equipped with air bags. The purchaser may well expect a used car to include the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2587OpenMr. Jackson Decker, Chief Product Engineer, E.D. Etnyre & Co., 200 Jefferson Street, Oregon, IL 61061; Mr. Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer E.D. Etnyre & Co. 200 Jefferson Street Oregon IL 61061; Dear Mr. Decker: This responds to your March 30, 1977, letter asking whether th rebuilding of a motor vehicle with all new running gear and an old body constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle requiring compliance with Federal regulations.; In the rebuilding operation you describe, you retain the old body tan structure while replacing the entire running gear assembly. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined by regulation in 49 CFR 571.7(f) that the rebuilding of a motor vehicle using old running gear with a new body does not constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. The vehicle will be considered newly manufactured unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly is not new and was taken from an existing trailer whose identity is continued with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number. In addition, the trailer must be owned or leased by the same party both before and after the remanufacture. Since the running gear with which you plan to equip your vehicle is new, your operation constitutes the new manufacture of a vehicle.; You ask secondly what portion of the running gear can be replaced a normal repairs without such replacement being considered the manufacture of a new vehicle. You may replace any part of the running gear assembly that breaks or malfunctions during operation of the motor vehicle. The NHTSA would consider this to be normal maintenance of the vehicle, not subject to the requirements applicable to vehicle manufacture.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0040OpenMr. A. Nathan Darby, 810 Blanco Street, Austin, TX 76703; Mr. A. Nathan Darby 810 Blanco Street Austin TX 76703; Dear Mr. Darby:#Thank you for your letter of December 17, 1967, to th National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning the installation of dual controls on passenger cars.#The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not prohibit the installation of dual controls provided none of the requirements specified by the standards are eliminated or adversely affected by such installation. In other words, if a dealer or manufacturer modifies a conforming vehicle, then he assumes the responsibility for the vehicle's certification. We enclose a complete set of standards now in effect for your information.#In the event that dual steering controls and other controls are provided on driver training vehicles, the applicability of the appropriate standards is confined to the primary controls. For example, under Standard No. 101, the person seated behind the secondary steering control need not be able to reach all controls.#We trust this information will be of assistance to you in your desire to comply with existing safety standards.#Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performance Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam5612OpenMr. Robert J. Ponticelli President American International Pacific Industries Corp. 1040 Avenida Acaso Camarillo, CA 93012; Mr. Robert J. Ponticelli President American International Pacific Industries Corp. 1040 Avenida Acaso Camarillo CA 93012; Dear Mr. Ponticelli: This responds to your letter asking about how th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations apply to your product. You described your product as an aftermarket anti-theft device that is installed between the steering wheel and the steering shaft. The device is activated by 'a key switch' and causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling, thus preventing actual steering of the vehicle. In an August 29, 1995 meeting with NHTSA staff, you demonstrated this device and stated that you also have plans to market it to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment. For the original equipment version of the device, you plan to incorporate a starter interrupt that will prevent the vehicle from starting while the device is in the freewheeling mode. You also requested information on how our regulations apply to regulated parties such as new car dealers and aftermarket service businesses. I will respond to your questions below. First, I will give you some background information. NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an item of motor vehicle equipment such as your anti-theft device. However, since the steering wheel, steering column, and the area in front of the driver are among the most closely regulated parts of a vehicle, your device could affect a vehicle's compliance with several safety standards. Because the purpose of your device is to prevent vehicle theft, I will first discuss FMVSS No. 114, the safety standard that deals with theft protection. The pertinent part of Standard No. 114 requires most vehicles to 'have a key- locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) t he normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, and (b) e ither steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.' Most motor vehicle manufacturers have chosen to comply with this requirement by installing a steering lock. Because a device that causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling prevents actual steering, or maneuvering of the vehicle, it could also be used to meet this requirement. However, to be used as a basis for certification with FMVSS No. 114, the device would have to be activated by removal of the key that controls engine activation. In addition to possibly being used as a means of complying with FMVSS No. 114, your device could alternatively be operated by a separate key and installed in addition to a steering lock, assuming that it did not affect compliance of the vehicle with that or other safety standards. However, you should evaluate whether the device might pose a safety hazard if used without your planned starter interrupt. A driver who doesn't know (or forgets) about your device could start the vehicle in motion without realizing that the turning of the wheel is not affecting the vehicle. Other standards that you should be concerned about include FMVSS Nos. 203 (impact protection for the driver from the steering control system), 204 (steering control rearward displacement), and 208 (occupant crash protection). As our engineers explained in our meeting, even small changes to the steering column can affect vehicle compliance with these standards. Turning to the second part of your question, which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product is installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with your device installed complies with all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard Nos. 114, 203, 204, and 208. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g. by a new car dealer, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a commercial business, such as an aftermarket service business or new car dealer, that business would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'make inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners installed your device in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam4900OpenMr. H. George Johannessen, P.E. Chairman, Seat Belt Technical Committee Automotive Occupant Restraints Council 757 Redwood Court Rochester Hills, MI 48309; Mr. H. George Johannessen P.E. Chairman Seat Belt Technical Committee Automotive Occupant Restraints Council 757 Redwood Court Rochester Hills MI 48309; Dear Mr. Johannessen: This responds to your letter seeking a interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209). More specifically, you asked about the meaning of the requirement in S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 that '...the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this provision. You explained that some have asserted that a safety belt fails to comply with S4.1(b) if it actually moves off an occupant's pelvis during a crash. To reach such a conclusion, one must ignore the words 'be designed to' and treat the requirement as though it read '...the pelvic restraint shall remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle.' Such a reading is plainly incorrect, because it reads the phrase 'be designed to' out of the regulation. You explained that you believe S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory phrase that is essentially meaningless. According to your letter, this language first appeared in a standard developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and was subsequently adopted verbatim in the safety belt standard issued bye the Department of Commerce and in Standard No. 209. You asserted that the SAE committee that developed this language included it as a design goal only, since the committee members 'were aware that they had no objective test procedure to confirm compliance with this design goal,' and 'were aware that the seat belt would not necessarily remain on the pelvis during the entire collision event in all of the varied collisions encountered in the field.' We cannot agree with your suggestion that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory design goal. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires each safety standard to meet certain requirements, including, among other things, that the standard be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. When NHTSA adopted Standard No. 209 as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency concluded that Standard No. 209, including S4.1(b), met all applicable statutory criteria. It is true that there is no compliance test procedure specifically for S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. However, the meaning of that provision becomes clear when it is viewed in the context of the occupant protection requirements in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and the rest of Standard No. 209. Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that vehicles be equipped with safety belts and that the lap belt portions of those belts adjust to fit persons ranging in size from a 6-year-old child to a 95th percentile adult male (See S7.1.1). Standard No. 209 requires that safety belts meet specified strength, durability, and other performance requirements. Standard No. 210 requires that the anchorage holding the safety belt in the vehicle meet stringent strength requirements, so that the belt will remain attached to the vehicle in a crash, and lap belt location requirements (S4.3.1), including a minimum lap belt mounting angle, to reduce the likelihood of occupant submarining, i.e., having the lap belt move off the pelvis. See the detailed discussion of the minimum lap belt mounting angle at 55 FR 17970, at 17974, April 30, 1990. Viewed in this context, we believe that the requirement of S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 means that safety belts must be designed to be capable of being properly adjusted and positioned on the pelvis of occupants ranging from 6-year-old children to 95th percentile adult males. The belts must also be capable of remaining on the pelvis of such occupant during collision or roll-over. A belt system that was not capable of being positioned on the pelvis and remaining there during crashes would not comply with S4.1(b). Given this meaning and purpose, we offer the following observations. First, the fact that a lap belt moved off the occupant's pelvis during a collision would not of itself show that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. Compliance with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is determined by the design of the safety belt system, not the performance of individual safety belts while in service. Second, the actual performance of a safety belt in a vehicle (e.g., a lap belt moving off the occupant's pelvis during a crash) could indicate that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. If the agency had information indicating that a particular belt design was not capable of being properly positioned on the pelvis or not capable of remaining on the occupant's pelvis when installed in particular vehicles in particular crash modes, the agency might well investigate whether that safety belt design complied with S4.1(b). However, NHTSA has no such information about any safety belt systems at this time. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0410OpenMr. David A. Phelps, Jr., Group Supervisor, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA, 31030; Mr. David A. Phelps Jr. Group Supervisor Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Phelps: This is in reply to your letter of July 12 asking whether the 'Safet Backing System' can be 'legally installed and operated under the provisions of FMVSS 108.'; As you know, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No. 10 provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. Your system is intended to contribute to the effectiveness of back-up lamps, and its installation is permissible under Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3396OpenMr. O. Vandewege, President, PolyDyne Engineering, Box 3517, Scottsdale, AZ 85257; Mr. O. Vandewege President PolyDyne Engineering Box 3517 Scottsdale AZ 85257; Dear Mr. Vandwege: This responds to your letter of March 6, 1981, to Joseph Zemaitis Motor Vehicle Program Director, Region IX, regarding Safety Standard No. 125, *Warning Devices*. You wish to obtain approval of your warning device (the 'short stop') for use on trucks and trailers. Your device is a collapsible reflective triangle that is designed to be permanently mounted on the side or rear of a vehicle.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amende (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 125, *Warning Devices*, establishes requirements for devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle. The rule does not apply to warning devices that are designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and thus does not apply to your device. Hence, it is not necessary for you to obtain the 'approval' of this agency before you may manufacture or sell a 'short stop' or before an owner may use such a warning device on his vehicle.; However, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has promulgated regulation (49 CFR S393.95) regarding the use of emergency equipment on heavy duty trucks and buses that are used in interstate commerce. This standard may prohibit the use of warning devices such as the 'short stop' on certain types of vehicles. Since the FHWA can best address this issue, we have forwarded your letter to that agency's Chief Counsel for response. The address of that office is Room 4213, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; We hope you find this information helfpul. Please contact this offic if you have any questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.