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: aiam4533OpenWilliam K. Baldwin, Sr. 14219 Decatur Drive Magalia, CA 95954; William K. Baldwin Sr. 14219 Decatur Drive Magalia CA 95954; "Dear Mr. Baldwin: This responds to your May 7, 1988 letter, concernin the 'Baldwin Rear-View Mirror Safety System.' You stated that this mirror system contains both a flat mirror of unit magnification and a convex mirror, and stated your belief that this mirror system 'offers the latest in technology and safety.' You requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) evaluate and approve your mirror system. We have no authority to approve any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, as explained below. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the 'Safety Act') authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance. In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product, the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary performance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this provision in the law, NHTSA cannot approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for new vehicles in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111, copy enclosed). As you will see, Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle. This means that vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. Standard No. 111 does not apply to rearview mirrors as items of equipment. The effect of this is to place the certification responsibility for original equipment rearview mirror systems entirely on the vehicle manufacturer. You as the manufacturer of the mirror are not required to certify that your mirrors comply with Standard No. 111 or any other standard. With respect to your new mirror system, NHTSA has said in many previous interpretations that vehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle type on which the mirror system is installed. Assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on new vehicles of that type. Please note that the requirements of Standard No. 111 do not apply to mirrors installed as aftermarket equipment. The only limitation on such installations is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The rearview mirror system in a vehicle is a device installed in compliance with Standard No. 111. If the installation of an aftermarket mirror system resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that removed a complying system and replaced it with the noncomplying system would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 111. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the 'render inoperative' provision. Again assuming that the flat mirror portion of your mirror system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for the vehicle type on which it is to be installed, this new mirror system can legally be installed on used vehicles of that type. If your mirror system does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111 for a vehicle type, it cannot be installed on used vehicles of that type by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business. Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any mirror system they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whether that mirror system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0823OpenMr. Trevor Williams, Service Manager, Rolls-Royce, Inc., P.O. Box 189, Paramus, New Jersey 07652; Mr. Trevor Williams Service Manager Rolls-Royce Inc. P.O. Box 189 Paramus New Jersey 07652; Dear Mr. Williams: This is in reply to your letter of May 19, 1971, concerning th placement of vanity mirror in sun visors. We apologize for our delay in responding to your letter. The issues it raised, however, are of consequence to manufacturers other than Rolls-Royce, and concerned basic matters of interpretation of Standard No. 201 which have only recently been resolved.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined tha paragraph S3.4.1 of Standard No. 201 does not prohibit the installation by manufacturers of vanity mirrors on sun visors. Consequently, manufacturers are free to incorporate such mirrors into or onto sun visors, including mirror that are recessed into the surface of the visor as in the sample you enclosed.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1731OpenMr. George McDonald, Engineering Manager, Tridon Limited, Box 5029, Burlington, Ontario, Canada; Mr. George McDonald Engineering Manager Tridon Limited Box 5029 Burlington Ontario Canada; Dear Mr. McDonald: This is in reply to your letter of December 6, 1974 to this offic requesting clarification of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You are correct in your interpretations numbered 1, 2, and 3. Th applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice for a turn signal flasher is J590b, October 1965, and for a vehicular hazard warning signal flasher is J945, February 1966. The footnote 'See S4.4.2' is in error and should be deleted.; You are incorrect in your interpretation No. 4. Paragraph S4.4.1 allow use of a combination turn signal flasher-hazard warning signal flasher if the requirements of both J590b and J945 are met. The correct testing sequence is as follows: (1) for performance as a turn signal flasher, (2) for performance as a hazard warning signal flasher, (3) for durability as a turn signal flasher, and (4) for durability as a hazard warning signal flasher.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0989OpenMr. Orin D. Miner, P.O. Box 138, Palmyra, Wisconsin 53156; Mr. Orin D. Miner P.O. Box 138 Palmyra Wisconsin 53156; Dear Mr. Miner: Contact 6 of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has sent us a copy of your lette asking that we respond to your questions.; In your letter you inquire as to the distribution of fines collecte from tire manufacturers as a result of their manufacturing tires that do not comply with the requirements of the Federal standard for passenger car tires (Standard No. 109).; Monies collected as settlement offers are transmitted to the genera funds of the United States Treasury.; The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, including the passenger ca tire standard, are minimum standards vehicle manufacturers and equipment manufacturers are required to meet. They are issued to give assurance that if the product in question meets the standards the public will have some protection against unreasonable risk of death or injury.; In addition to the question of civil penalties, manufacturers o non-conforming vehicles or tires are usually required to issue a defect notification and are urged to replace the defective equipment. Your complaint does not appear to be concerned with a safety related problem but rather with tires that you believe have not given you adequate treadwear. This is not area covered by existing standards, however, this agency has under consideration a quality grading regulation which would include grading requirements for the treadwear life of each tire manufactured after a given date.; Concerning your recommendation that Federal inspectors be placed i tire manufacturers' plants, has been considered at various times and the agency's present thinking is that the cost and manpower involved would not warrant this course of action.; Thank you for your interest in auto safety and your view in this area. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4163OpenMr. Robert E. Mileham, Operations Manager, Durnell Engineering, Inc., Highway 4 South, Emmetsburg, IA 50536; Mr. Robert E. Mileham Operations Manager Durnell Engineering Inc. Highway 4 South Emmetsburg IA 50536; Dear Mr. Mileham: Thank you for your letter of September 18, 1985, regarding th trailer-mounted aerial personnel left or 'cherry picker' which your company manufactures. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.; You ask whether a vehicle identification number (VIN) is required o these trailers. You state that the sole purpose of the trailer is to take the aerial lift to and from a job site and estimate that the trailer will not spend more than 10% to 15% of its time traveling on the highway.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides tha vehicles which fall within the statutory definition of the term 'motor vehicle' must comply with applicable safety standards. That definition includes vehicles 'manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)). The agency has taken the position that this definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment which uses the highways only to move between job sites, whose job sites are normally located off the public roads, and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle is manufactured.; The information in the brochure enclosed with your letter indicate that the job site of your cherry picker is typically in the streets, not off the road. Based on that information, it appears that your cherry picker may spend virtually its entire operating life on public roads. When a vehicle frequently uses the highway going to and from job sites, and its job site is frequently on the road, the agency's position is that the vehicle is a 'motor vehicle.' Therefore, these trailers are required to comply with Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number-- Basic Requirements*, and other standards applicable to trailers.; You also ask in your letter if these trailers could be considered th same as mobile air compressors, mobile cement mixers, or mobile generators, which the state of Iowa apparently licenses as 'Special Mobile Equipment,' not requiring a VIN. Whether a state requires a VIN on your trailer lifts, for purposes of licensing or registration, is not determinative of Federal regulatory questions. This agency has taken the position that mobile cement mixers, for example, are motor vehicles because of their use of the public roadways in traveling from job site to job site and their typically short time at any particular site. Therefore, they must comply with Standard No. 115 as well as other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1361OpenMr. George R. Semark, Planning and Development Center, Sheller-Globe Corporation, Transportation Group, 1200 East Kibby Street, Lima, Ohio 45802; Mr. George R. Semark Planning and Development Center Sheller-Globe Corporation Transportation Group 1200 East Kibby Street Lima Ohio 45802; Dear Mr. Semark: This is in response to your letter of November 21, 1973. Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 applies only to the manufacturers of warning devices, not manufacturers of vehicles who supply warning devices with their vehicles. Therefore, there are no requirements that you furnish an approved device with your vehicles. What the standard prohibits is the manufacture or sale (separately or on a vehicle) of a *warning device produced on or after January 1, 1974*, that does not conform to the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4499OpenMs. Deborah M. Bakker Assistant Manager, Regulatory Affairs MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075; Ms. Deborah M. Bakker Assistant Manager Regulatory Affairs MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; "Dear Ms. Bakker: This letter is in response to your request for a interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you asked about a situation in which a car line (the Mitsubishi Galant) was designated as a high theft line beginning in the 1987 model year, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 542. Mitsubishi applied for and received an exemption from the marking requirements of the theft prevention standard because of a standard equipment antitheft device to be installed in the Galant. This exemption, issued pursuant to Part 543, applied beginning in the 1987 model year. For the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and a new nameplate was assigned to the line. It is now called the Galant Sigma. Additionally, Mitsubishi plans to introduce a new car line in the 1989 model year called the Galant. This line is, according to your letter, completely redesigned from the 1987 line that was called the Galant, bears no resemblance to the Galant Sigma, and will cost less than either the Galant Sigma or the 1987 line called Galant. You posed the following questions: 1. Should a new theft determination be made for both the Galant Sigma and the redesigned Galant? ANSWER: No. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is a new model within the Galant line. As a general matter, section 601(2) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021(2)) defines the term 'line' as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design.' As noted in your letter, the agency uses the same language to define the term 'line' in 541.4. This language treats groups of motor vehicles as a continuation of an existing line if the groups have the same name and are similar in construction or design. We have applied this language in the following manner. With respect to the redesigned Galant, I addressed such a question in my March 6, 1987 letter to Mr. Jeffrey Link (copy enclosed) as follows: The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the predecessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles. The redesigned Galant obviously has the same name as the 1987 model year Galant. Additionally, the redesigned Galant is similar in construction and design to the 1987 Galant, notwithstanding the new sheet metal and different drivetrains. Accordingly, we believe that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line. This means that the redesigned Galant is subject to the previous high theft determination for the Galant line. With respect to the Galant Sigma, we conclude that this is a new model within the Galant line, not a new line. In our preamble to the insurer reporting requirements in 49 CFR Part 544, we discussed the application of the terms 'model, make, and line' as follows: 'Make' refers to the general name used by the vehicle manufacturer. For example, Dodge, Ford, and Pontiac are makes of vehicles. 'Line' refers to the nameplate assigned by the manufacturer to a group of vehicle models of the same make. For example, Dodge Charger, Ford Thunderbird, and Pontiac 6000 are lines of vehicles. 'Model' refers to a specific grouping of similar vehicles within a line. For example, the Dodge Charger 2.2 2-door, Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and Pontiac 6000 LE 4-door are models. 52 FR 59, at 65, January 2, 1987. In general, if a manufacturer calls a group of vehicles by the same general name as it applies to another group, but adds a further description to that name (e.g., Honda Civic CRX, Volkswagen Golf GTI, and Porsche 911 Carrera), we presume that the further description indicates a unique model within that line. This presumption can be overcome only if the vehicle with the further description in its name is not 'similar in construction or design.' Thus, we have determined, for example, that the Honda Civic CRX is simply a model within the Civic line, notwithstanding the fact that its driveline and body styling are different from all other Honda Civic models. It is similar in construction or design (all are front-wheel drive passenger cars) and bears the same name as other Civics. On the other hand, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is not considered a model within your Colt/Mirage line. The Station Wagon bears the same name as other Colt/Mirage models. However, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, while the other Colt/Mirage models are passenger cars. This difference is substantial enough that the vehicles are not 'similar' in construction or design. In the case of the Galant Sigma, we agree that it is not identical in construction or design to the other redesigned Galant models. However, it is similar in construction and design to the other Galant models, since all are front-wheel drive passenger cars. Hence, the Galant Sigma is simply a model within the Galant line. 2. If a new high theft determination should not be made for the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma, which of the vehicles is designated as high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the old Galant be used? ANSWER: As explained above, the Galant Sigma is not a separate car line, but is simply a model within the Galant line. The redesigned Galant line is a continuation of the older Galant line. Thus, the previous high theft determination applies to all models in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma. The exemption that was granted to the older Galant line can be used for the redesigned Galant line if the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma. If the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is not installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, you would be required to mark all cars in the redesigned Galant line to conform to Part 541. 3. If one or both the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma are newly designated as high theft lines, can the exemption granted for the Galant in the 1987 model year be used for either or both car lines, or would the exemption be invalidated because of the change in body style? ANSWER: Because the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is just a model within the redesigned Galant line, as explained above, the exemption granted under Part 543 to the 1987 Galant line continues in full effect for the redesigned Galant line. Your company has the option of installing anti-theft devices as standard equipment in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma, in accordance with the 1987 exemption, or marking all major parts in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, in accordance with Part 541. 4. If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with Part 541, can installation of the anti-theft device be discontinued at any time? ANSWER: Yes. Exemptions are granted only, among other things, after a determination has been made that the line in question is a high theft line that should be listed in Appendix A of Part 541. Section 541.3 states that the parts marking requirements of Part 541 apply to all lines listed in Appendix A. Section 541.5 requires each major part that is original equipment on a line designated as high theft to be marked with certain information. Section 541.6 requires each replacement major part for high theft lines to be marked with certain information. Thus, each line listed in Appendix A must comply with the requirements of sections 541.5 and 541.6. There is a single exception to this requirement. Part 543 sets forth procedures by which a line that has been determined to be a high theft line can be exempted from the marking requirements of Part 541. To be eligible for an exemption under Part 543, an antitheft device must be installed as standard equipment in all cars in the line. The lines that have been granted exemptions under Part 543 are listed in a special subset of Appendix A, Appendix A-I. When a manufacturer gets an exemption for a line under Part 543, it is given two options to comply with the requirements of Part 541. First, the manufacturer can install the antitheft device that was the subject of the exemption proceeding under Part 543 as standard equipment on all cars in that line, in accordance with the terms of the exemption. However, the manufacturer is not required by Part 543 or any other provision to install standard equipment antitheft devices in that line. If the manufacturer chooses not to use the antitheft device exemption for that line, the manufacturer must choose the second option -- that is, marking the major parts of every car in the line, in accordance with 541.5, and marking the replacement major parts for that line, in accordance with 541.6. If a manufacturer has complied with both of these options in a particular model year, by marking every vehicle and every covered major replacement part for a line and by installing an antitheft device that was the subject of a Part 543 exemption proceeding in every marked vehicle, as posited in your example, the manufacturer is free to discontinue either, but not both, of the courses of action at any point during the model year. When the manufacturer chooses to discontinue either course of action for even a single vehicle in the high theft line, it is then required to follow the other course of action until the end of the model year in question. Please note that this choice exists only if the manufacturer has complied fully with the requirements of Part 541.5 and Part 541.6 and with the terms of the exemption granted under Part 543. If some vehicles in a line or some of the replacement major parts were not marked in accordance with Part 541, the manufacturer must install the antitheft device that was the subject of the Part 543 proceeding in all vehicles in that line for the rest of the model year. When the next model year for the subject line begins, the manufacturer is permitted to discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and to comply with the requirements of Part 541 for that line in the new model year. However, for any particular model year, each of a manufacturer's lines must fully comply with either the requirements of Part 541 or the exemption granted under Part 543. Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5322OpenMr. Mark Archer Orbital Engine Company Pty. Ltd. 1 Whipple Street, Balcatta 6021 Western Australia Australia; Mr. Mark Archer Orbital Engine Company Pty. Ltd. 1 Whipple Street Balcatta 6021 Western Australia Australia; "Dear Mr. Archer: This responds to your letter in which you asked i the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations affecting a vehicle that has an automatic engine shut-off device that operates when the vehicle remains idle for extended periods. I regret the delay in responding. By way of background information, NHTSA administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' copy enclosed) establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights these responsibilities. We cannot tell from your letter whether you seek to produce a vehicle that has a shut-off device installed as original equipment ('O.E.'), i.e., prior to a first sale to a consumer, or produce the device as an 'aftermarket' item of equipment, sold for installation in used vehicles. We will discuss both situations in this letter. A shut-off device may not be installed on a new vehicle if the device causes the vehicle not to comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 102, 'Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect,' states that 'the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.' (S3.1.3). NHTSA does not know of any shut-off device that would enable a vehicle to meet S3.1.3 of Standard 102. In 1984, NHTSA terminated rulemaking on an action that would have amended S3.1.3 to permit a shut-off device that restarted the vehicle's engine when the accelerator is depressed. A copy of the termination notice is enclosed. The agency terminated rulemaking citing a number of safety concerns with the particular features of the shut-off device that was the subject of the rulemaking. NHTSA stated in the notice that, if in the future a more effective and safe fuel saving device is developed, NHTSA would again consider amending Standard 102. However, given that S3.1.3 of Standard 102 was not amended, that section precludes the O.E. installation on a shut-off device such as the one described in the termination notice. With respect to the aftermarket installation of a shut-off device, there is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product. Standard 102 applies only to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket components of a vehicle's transmission, such as a shut-off device. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of a shut-off device. Under the Safety Act, the product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As explained above, each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. 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. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render 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 ....' This means that if a shut-off device were sold in the 'aftermarket,' no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business could install it if doing so would render inoperative any previously certified item of equipment in the vehicle. As explained above, each motor vehicle is certified as meeting Standard 102. A shut-off device that causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard 102 could not be installed by any person listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) without subjecting that person to civil penalties (section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108). The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. However, NHTSA urges all owners not to perform modifications that would degrade the safety of their vehicles, such as installing a fuel shut-off device that raises significant safety concerns. I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0120OpenMr. Berkley C. Sweet, Executive Vice President, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 1012 Fourteenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005; Mr. Berkley C. Sweet Executive Vice President Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 1012 Fourteenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20005; Dear Mr. Sweet: Thank you for your letter of September 12, 1968, to Mr. J. E. Leysat of this Bureau, requesting a clarification of the aiming requirements for school bus signal lamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Paragraph S3.1.3.1 of Standard No. 108 specifies that red school bu signal lamps shall conform to SAE Standard J887, 'School Bus Red Signal Lamps,' July 1964, and that amber signal lamps shall conform to the same SAE Standard except for color and candlepower requirements. In the last paragraph of SAE Standard J887, aiming requirements are specified as follows: 'Lamps should be mounted on the school bus with their aiming plane vertical and normal to the vehicle axis. A suggested tolerance for this aim is 5 inches at 25 feet in vertical aim and 10 inches at 25 feet in horizontal aim. If lamps are aimed or inspected with a mechanical headlamp aimer (see SAE J602) the graduation settings for aim should be 2 down and 0 sideways. The limits for inspection should be from 3 up to 7 down and from 10 right to 10 left.'; In accordance with the above quoted paragraph, either visual o mechanical aiming of the signal lamps is permitted. Therefore, the graduation settings and inspection limits, as specified in the last two sentences of the paragraph, are applicable only when a mechanical headlamp aimer is used to aim the signal lamps.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4860OpenMr. Mark A. Pacheco Vice President Innovative Industries of Tampa, Inc. 5126 Le Tourneau Circle Tampa, FL 33610; Mr. Mark A. Pacheco Vice President Innovative Industries of Tampa Inc. 5126 Le Tourneau Circle Tampa FL 33610; "Dear Mr. Pacheco: This responds to your letter in which you aske about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a 'Walk Machine,' looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines 'motor vehicle' as: A ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. Your letter did not indicate whether the 'Walk Machine' would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a 'motor vehicle' even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the 'Walk Machine' indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles. Because this vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle,' none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.