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: aiam3159OpenMr. Maurice Paul Pare, Jr., Director of Legal Compliance/Design, Cars & Concepts, Inc., 12500 E. Grand River, Brighton, MI 48116; Mr. Maurice Paul Pare Jr. Director of Legal Compliance/Design Cars & Concepts Inc. 12500 E. Grand River Brighton MI 48116; Dear Mr. Pare: In your letter of October 29, 1979, you commented on Mr. Taylo Vinson's opinion, expressed to you a week earlier, that the scope of the agency to grant exemptions under the Cost Savings Act is narrower than that which exists under the Traffic Safety Act. Your interpretation of the Cost Savings Act is that the authority is broader because the exemption can be based upon the fact that compliance with the bumper standard would 'unreasonably interfere with the special use of such vehicle' while the Traffic Safety Act set forth 'very exact' criteria for the granting of an exemption. You have asked for a further explanation.; To begin with, the exemption scheme varies greatly between the tw statutes. Under the Traffic Safety Act, exemptions are 'temporary' in nature, with the anticipation that at the end of the exemption period, three years at the most, the condition giving rise to the need for an exemption will have passed and the vehicle will comply. Four bases for application are provided. On the other hand, the Cost Savings Act appears to me narrower in scope though broader in effect (which may be what you had in mind). Since 'special use' refers directly to the functional characteristics of a vehicle, the manufacturer's need for an exemption will be 'permanent' as long as the configuration involved is required for the vehicle's 'special use.' Therefore, the Secretary, '*in promulgating any bumper standard*' (Sec. 102(c)(1)(B), emphasis supplied) is authorized to exempt special- use vehicles if compliance would interfere with the special use. I interpret this as meaning the standard itself would have to be amended to exclude a vehicle permanently from its applicability rather than an exemption granted as it is under the Traffic Safety Act. The concept that the exemption or exclusion from applicability of the bumper standard is permanent is also reflected in the provisions of the Cost Act regarding importation of non-complying used vehicles. The Traffic Safety Act authorizes the Secretary to permit 'temporary importation' (Sec. 108(B)(4)) while the Cost Savings Act does not modify the noun 'importation' (Sec. 106(b)(4)), indicating that vehicles may be admitted without the necessity of conformance.; While neither the Cost Savings Act nor NHTSA has defined 'special use, the statute is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: that it be manufactured for a special use, and that compliance would unreasonably interfere with that use. An example that I cite is a vehicle with a front power take-off (a special use) on which a full bumper might unreasonably interfere with that function. It is clear to us that passenger cars, exotic cars (such as the Lamborghini Countach), and replicars (such as the Model A) are not special use vehicles. Indeed, no manufacturer wishing an exemption from the bumper standard has tried to convince us to the contrary. Now I hope you understand our opinion that exemptions are more difficult to obtain under the Cost Savings Act than under the Traffic Safety Act.; Your impression that the Lamborghini Countach as been granted a exemption from the bumper standard in 1978 is indeed erroneous. The car was granted an exemption from the safety bumper standard No. 215, in 1975, to expire on November 1, 1978. But early in 1978 we notified it (and three other manufacturers whose exemptions from Standard No. 215 were stated to expire on October 1 and November 1, 1978) that Standard No. 215 was revoked effective September 1, 1978, and its exemption would expire on that date, and that we had no authority to provide it with an exemption under the Cost Savings Act.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4366OpenMr. Ernest Farmer, Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Department of Education, Office of Commissioner, Nashville, TN 37219-5335; Mr. Ernest Farmer Director Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Office of Commissioner Nashville TN 37219-5335; Dear Mr. Farmer: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking how ou regulations apply to the refurbishment of used school buses. I would like to apologize for the delay in this reply. In your letter, you explained that the Tennessee Department of Corrections plans to use prison labor to 'refurbish' used school buses. The refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. You are concerned that this undertaking might conflict in some way with our regulations applicable to school buses, and posed five specific questions as to how our regulations would apply to your planned refurbishment.; Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide som background information. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*. (sic) gives this agency the authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Thus, all new school buses must be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to school buses. Additionally, the Safety Act prohibits commercial establishments, such as repair businesses or school bus dealers, from performing modifications to school buses after they have been sold, if those modifications cause the used bus no longer to comply with the safety standards. As a general rule, however, vehicle owners are not subject to this prohibition, and are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the modified vehicle complies with the safety standards.; It is possible that a vehicle owner's modifications would be s substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle instead of just a modified vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when a modified truck or school bus has been so substantially altered that it is considered a new vehicle, we have set forth specific criteria in 49 CFR S571.7(e) of our regulations. In past interpretations of our regulations, NHTSA has applied S571.7(e) to school buses that are assembled combining new and used components, because school buses are typically manufactured with a truck chassis. Under S571.7(e), a modified school bus or truck is *not* considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission and drive axle(s) are not new *and* at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.; I will now address your specific questions in the order they wer presented:; 1. Has NHTSA taken an official position on the refurbishment of schoo buses?; Yes, we have. As explained above, we have set forth specific criteri to allow refurbishers to determine whether a refurbished school bus is a new bus, subject to all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, or a refurbished used bus.; Further, while we encourage effective school bus maintenance programs we would be concerned if a refurbishment program has the effect of avoiding the replacement of obsolete school buses. The school bus safety standards do not apply to school buses that were manufactured before April 1, 1977. It is possible that a refurbishment program could be used to continuously recondition these old buses that do not comply with any school bus safety standards, and use them for pupil transportation. We believe that school buses complying with the Federal school bus standards are one of the safest means of transportation, and that school bus safety will improve as complying school buses replace older non-complying school buses. We certainly hope that school bus owners will ensure that their fleets are replenished with complying school buses.; In addition, I am enclosing a copy of a Federal Register notice w published on September 23, 1985, (50 FR 38558), which denied a petition for rulemaking from the Blue Bird Company concerning the remanufacture of school buses. In this notice, we expressly encouraged school bus operators to consider voluntarily meeting Federal school bus safety standards when they refurbish their school buses.; 2. Would such refurbishment void the original manufacturer' certification?; The original school bus manufacturer's certification means that th school bus as sold was manufactured to comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification does not mean that a school bus continues to comply with the safety standards after it is sold, since that obviously depends on many factors beyond the manufacturer's control, such as maintenance, any accidents, any modifications, and so forth. Since the original manufacturer's certification is limited to the vehicle's condition at the time of sale, it cannot be 'voided' by any subsequent actions of the vehicle owner.; If you were asking whether a refurbisher is required to make a separat certification in addition to the original manufacturer's certification, the answer depends on whether the refurbished school bus is considered 'new' or simply refurbished, according to the criteria set forth in S571.7(e). If the refurbished school bus is new according to those criteria, the refurbisher is required to certify that the school bus complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and affix its own certification label to the school bus. If the refurbished school bus is not considered new, the refurbisher is not required to affix another certification label. Instead, the refurbisher simply allows the original manufacturer's certification label to remain on the school bus.; 3. Would the State Department of Correction be required to recertif all refurbished buses to the NHTSA?; The answer to this question depends on whether the refurbished buse are considered new under S571.7(e). If the buses are not new according to those criteria, no additional certification is necessary as explained above. However, the specification sheet for the refurbishment that was enclosed with your letter indicates that the refurbishing procedures may include replacing the engine in the school bus with a new engine, or replacing the rear axle. Every school bus that is equipped with a new engine or drive axle would be considered a new school bus, according to S571.7(e). Additionally, each school bus on which the engine, transmission, and/or rear axle are replaced with used components will be considered a new school bus, unless two of those three components came from the same vehicle. If your refurbishing constituted the manufacture of a new vehicle, the State of Tennessee would be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles.; As explained above, each refurbished school bus that is new, accordin to the criteria of S571.7(e), must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. However, the manufacturer does not make any certification directly to the agency. Instead, the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to furnish a certification with the vehicle. We have promulgated a regulation that sets forth how each vehicle must be certified as complying with the Safety Act (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed). As you will see, this regulation requires that the manufacturer permanently affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies with the applicable safety standards. I have also enclosed for your information an information sheet that describes generally the responsibilities of manufacturers of new motor vehicles.; 4. Is the refurbishment process permitted under current NHTS standards?; As explained above, the refurbishment program is permitted, provide that it complies with the applicable requirements.; 5. What responsibility and/or liability would be assumed by th Department of Education and the Department of Correction under such a refurbishment proposal?; If the State of Tennessee engages in operations during school bu refurbishing that make it a manufacturer of new vehicles, according to S571.7(e), the State would be responsible for compliance with the requirements of the Safety Act itself and this agency's regulations issued pursuant to the Safety Act. The State would also be responsible for remedying any vehicles that either do not comply with applicable safety standards or that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA does not provide advice on the State's potential liability under State law for manufacturing and refurbishing school buses. Therefore, you might wish to consult an attorney familiar with Tennessee law for information on these matters.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if yo have any further questions on this program.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2318OpenMs. Dianne Black, Liaison Engineer, British Leyland Motors Inc., 600 Willow Tree Road, Leonia, NJ 07605; Ms. Dianne Black Liaison Engineer British Leyland Motors Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia NJ 07605; Dear Ms. Black:#This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1976 concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Control Location, Identification, and Illumination*, for identification of the headlamps and taillamps control.#Your letter presented two symbols specified by the International Standards Organization as alternative for identification of the master lighting switch. One of these appears in Column 4 of Table 1 of the standard and the other does not appear anywhere in the table. The headlamps and taillamps control (master lighting switch) is required by S4.2.1 to be identified with the word 'Lights'. The manufacturer may supplement this identification with a symbol, but only with a symbol that appears in Column 3 or Column 4 of TAble 1. In issuing the amendment to the standard published July 29, 1975 (40 FR 31770, copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered both ISO symbols and decided not to permit the one that does not appear in the table.#Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0325OpenJacob P. Billig, Esq., Suite 400, 1108 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20036; Jacob P. Billig Esq. Suite 400 1108 Sixteenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Billig: In response to your letter of April 16, 1971, it is our opinion tha the placement of the 2 1/4-inch-wide orange reflex reflector striping material on motor vehicles, in the manner shown in Exhibit A of your letter, would not impair the effectiveness of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and would not be prohibited by that standard.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5127OpenMr. J. C. Townley Jay Townley & Associates N1367 Southern Road Lyndon Station, WI 53944-9708; Mr. J. C. Townley Jay Townley & Associates N1367 Southern Road Lyndon Station WI 53944-9708; "Dear Mr. Townley: This is in further response to your letter o November 24, 1992, asking for 'an advisory opinion that the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle is not a 'motor vehicle' or 'motor driven cycle' within the meaning of the Safety Act and regulations promulgated thereunder.' Previously, we had acknowledged your withdrawal of your request for confidentiality. The Yamaha is 'a bicycle equipped with a battery powered pedal assist system that engages when the system senses 'kicking' torque between 5 Kg and 50 Kg, such as when the bicycle is starting from a stop, or climbing hills.' It is intended to facilitate standing starts in traffic, assist in climbing hills, and to 'keep up the pace when a rider becomes fatigued while commuting, running an errand or exercising. The system is designed to engage when the driver is actively pedaling, and to disengage when the speed is less than 1.24 mph or more than 15 mph, when torque at the pedals is less than 11 lbs or more than 110 lbs, and when the braking system is activated. The photographs you have enclosed show, in all important respects, vehicles configured as conventional bicycles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), defines a 'motor vehicle,' in pertinent part, as 'any vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)). On November 6, 1974, the Consumer Product Safety Commission asked the agency whether a 'motorized bicycle' was a 'motor vehicle' if it utilized mechanical power to propel it 'only some of the time.' NHTSA replied on December 6 of that year that it considered motorized bicycles to be motor vehicles subject to its jurisdiction (specifically classified as motor-driven cycles), and that it did 'not find it relevant to the question of safety standards' applicability that a particular vehicle, fully equipped to operate as a motor vehicle within the meaning of our Act, may also have the capability of operating in some other mode.' Earlier that year, the agency had rejected arguments by Peugeot and Motobecane on behalf of their 'mopeds' that vehicles which produce no more than 1.5 horsepower deserved a categorization other than as motor-driven cycles (motorcycles developing 5 horsepower or less), but it did amend the motorcycle lighting and braking standards to modify performance requirements for motor- driven cycles with a top speed of 30 mph or less, and to allow placement of the rear brake control on the left handlebar. Subsequently, on October 28, 1976, NHTSA informed Ohio Bikes, Inc. that a bicycle, even if used, became a newly manufactured motor vehicle when an engine was attached to it. At first blush, it might appear that this line of interpretations should lead to a conclusion that the Yamaha is a 'motor vehicle.' However, we believe there is a significant difference between the Yamaha pedal assisted bicycle and motorized bicycles and mopeds. The propulsion systems of the latter vehicles enable them to operate on power without pedaling. However, the power assist of the Yamaha disengages when torque at the pedals is less than 11 pounds, which means that the system will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular effort. NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' for purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 mph or less. While the Yamaha has a maximum speed of 20 mph or less, its body configuration does not distinguish it from motorized bicycles and mopeds. However, the vehicles that NHTSA addressed under this line of interpretations operated solely on power. The Yamaha does not easily fit into our previous analyses concerning whether particular vehicles are considered 'motor vehicles.' After carefully considering the question, we have concluded that, in light of the combination of a low maximum speed while operating on power (the power of the Yamaha disengages when speed is more than 15 mph) and the fact that power is only provided if the operator is providing muscular effort (by continuously pedalling), the Yamaha is not a 'motor vehicle' under the Safety Act. We note that, even with power assist, the operation of the Yamaha is essentially the same as that of a bicycle, i.e., the operator must pedal under the same circumstances as a traditional bicylist and the speed of the Yamaha does not differ from the speed of traditional bicycles. Since the Yamaha is not a 'motor vehicle,' it is not subject to the jurisdiction of this agency. Vehicles that are not motor vehicles are subject to the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and you should consult the Commission for further information as to whether there are regulations that the Yamaha must meet. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2748OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your January 5, 1978, letter asking whether the join connecting the front roof cap to the windshield header is considered a joint subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*.; Standard No. 221 applies only to joints connecting body components t body panels in a bus body. Bus body is defined as 'the portion of a bus that encloses the bus's occupant space, exclusive of the bumpers, the chassis frame, and any structure forward of the forwardmost point of the windshield mounting.' Any joint falling outside the area prescribed for the definition of bus body is not considered a joint subject to the standard.; If the joint to which you refer is forward of the *forwardmost* poin of the windshield mounting, it is not subject to the requirements of the standard. The location of this joint, however, is not clear from your letter. The second paragraph of your letter indicates that the lower portion of the windshield glass extends forward of the referenced joint. If the lower portion of the windshield mounting as well as the glass is forward of the joint in question then that joint lies within the area defined as the 'bus body' and is subject to the requirements of the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0775OpenMr. Paul Weirich, General Manager, Weirich Associates, 540 Frontage Road, Northfield, IL 60093; Mr. Paul Weirich General Manager Weirich Associates 540 Frontage Road Northfield IL 60093; Dear Mr. Weirich: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1972, inquiring about the use o plastic for an automatically closing fuel cap for automobiles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has th responsibility for promulgating standards that improve the safety performance of new motor vehicles to minimize injuries and fatalities associated with the use of motor vehicles. Among the standards that have been issued is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, which specifies performance requirements for the fuel tank, fuel tank filler pipe, and fuel tank connections. Like other Federal standards issued by the NHTSA, this standard is performance oriented and does not specify design requirements. This standard will shortly be amended to specify additional performance requirements including rear-end collisions and rollover. In addition, other proposals will also be issued to considerably improve fuel containment to minimize the possibility of fuel spillage resulting from additional vehicle impacts. The essential requirements pertain to demonstrations of safe fuel containment as the result of standardized vehicle crash tests. how the results are to be achieved, what materials can or cannot be used, or other design features, are left to the discretion of the motor vehicle manufacturer in order that there should be the maximum freedom for innovation and inventiveness to meet the specified safety performance. We have no restrictions in the use of plastics or other materials that meet a specified safety performance requirement.; In view of present rulemaking action to amend FMVSS No. 301, there ha been much information assembled, which is part of the public record, concerning comments from manufacturers, the interested public, and from suppliers of components. Your components, including a self-closing fuel cap and a seal within the filler pipe are interesting developments having possible contribution to improved safety. We would be pleased to have more information concerning these developments and with your permission, we would like to have copies of descriptive information to put into our public record, Docket No. 70-20, for the public and for the motor vehicle industry to see.; We should mention also that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, whic regulates interstate commercial transportation of passengers and cargo, has regulations which include fuel caps. you may want to contact this organization for their current requirements. Their location is at the same address of NHTSA.; Relative to pollution, the current requirements for fuel evaporativ emission controls have resulted in motor vehicles being equipped with fuel caps that either have no vents or which vent only after certain stress develops from positive of negative internal tank pressure. You may want to contact the Environmental Protection Agency concerning their regulations. The address is 1626 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.; We are enclosing a copy of FMVSS No. 301, a copy of a notice proposin additional requirements, and a copy of Public Law 89-563.; We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1867OpenMrs. Valerie L. Stein, Specialty Sales Assistant, William Penn Laboratories, 1882 Guildhall Building, Cleveland, Ohio 44115; Mrs. Valerie L. Stein Specialty Sales Assistant William Penn Laboratories 1882 Guildhall Building Cleveland Ohio 44115; Dear Mrs. Stein: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1975, to Mr. Schultz enclosing a sample brake fluid can, and asking whether it meets paragraph S5.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116.; Since the inner metal pressed-in closure must be punctured or otherwis damaged, or removed, in order to use the fluid, the can meets our container sealing requirement.; The can also meets other requirements of Standard No. 116 with t exceptions, The phrase 'Conforms to Federal Standard No. 116' should be phrased 'Conforms to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116' in order to meet S5.2.2.2(a). In addition, the designation of the contents as 'DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID' must appear on the can in accordance with S5.2.2.2(e). This designation in such form presently does not appear on the container.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5577OpenMr. Shih-Chiang Chen President Top World Traffic Equipments Co., Ltd. 7F-1. No/ 286-9, Hsin Ya Road Chien Chen Dist. Kaohsiung Taiwan R.O.C.; Mr. Shih-Chiang Chen President Top World Traffic Equipments Co. Ltd. 7F-1. No/ 286-9 Hsin Ya Road Chien Chen Dist. Kaohsiung Taiwan R.O.C.; Dear Sir: This is in reply to your letter of June 15, 1995, to th Department of Transportation regarding your invention, the 'brake condition warning sensor.' You ask whether such an invention is permissible in this country. The sensor causes flashing in 'the third brake light' keyed to the rate of deceleration. Under the Federal regulations in the United States, motor vehicles must be manufactured so that the third brake light (or 'center highmounted stop lamp' as we call it) and all other stop lamps are steady-burning when they are in use. After the vehicle is sold, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from installing the sensor to modify the performance of the third brake light and cause it to flash. However, Federal law does not prohibit the owner of the car from installing the sensor. In this circumstance, the law of the State in which the vehicle is operated must be consulted to determine whether a flashing third brake light is permissible. We are not able to answer questions about State laws. If you wish an opinion on State laws governing flashing third brake lights, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Mr. John Womack Acting Chief Counsel (202) 366-9511. Sincerely, Ricardo Martinez, M.D.; |
|
ID: aiam5259OpenMr. Dennis G. Moore President Sierra Products, Inc. 1113 Greenville Road Livermore, CA 94550; Mr. Dennis G. Moore President Sierra Products Inc. 1113 Greenville Road Livermore CA 94550; Dear Mr. Moore: We have received your letter of August 12, 1993 'requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted.' It is clear from your letter that it is the lateral spacing of clearance lamps that concerns you as you believe that it is not uncommon to see them mounted as much as 6 to 8 inches ''inside' the side extremities of huge vehicles.' With respect to lateral spacing, Table II of Standard No. 108 requires clearance lamps to be mounted 'to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . .' The standard does not require the lamps to be mounted at the widest point of the vehicle, nor does it require them to be mounted as far apart as practicable. We believe that manufacturers generally try to mount clearance lamps to 'indicate' the overall width of the vehicle, but we recognize that there may be certain circumstances and/or configurations that require mounting of the lamps at something less than the widest point. Sincerely, John Womack Acting 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.