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: aiam1904OpenMr. K. Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 1099 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1975, requestin clarification of the requirement and demonstration procedure for sliding doors specified in Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*.; You have indicated that it is your understanding that derailment of th guide roller or track and slide combination is permissible under Standard No. 206 as long as door stoppers and door locks withstand the specified transverse load. This interpretation is correct. Standard No. 206 requires in S4.3 that the track and slide combination *or other supporting means* for each sliding door not separate when a transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position. Since the track and slide combination is not designed to bear loads at the closed position, derailment of the combination is of no consequence. Other supporting means must support the test load.; You have also outlined three demonstration procedures and asked whethe they 'fall within the intent' of S5.3 of Standard No. 206. While all three procedures might satisfy the literal requirements of S5.3, procedure 'C' most thoroughly implements the intent of Standard No. 206.; The bench test fixture described in 'A' is particularly troublesome. O the Toyota vehicle in question, resistance against a transverse load applied at the leading edge appears to depend heavily on the lock at the trailing edge. Since the resistance of this lock must be transmitted to the leading edge stoppers through the door itself, the door plays an important role in the performance of the entire system. Yet the rigid door described in 'A' would almost certainly behave differently than an actual door, in which case the test results would not demonstrate compliance with S4.3.; A similar problem exists with regard to procedure 'B', in that th rigid pillar employed might provide much more resistance to bending than the actual vehicle pillar. Bending of the pillar at the door's leading edge would substantially lessen the resistance to opening provided by the stoppers (B & C in your Fig. 1).; Standard No. 206 does not set out separate requirements for every doo design. Indeed, this standard was adopted in anticipation that most sliding doors would incorporate a track- and-slide combination as a supporting means. Where a different design is employed, as in this instance, procedure 'C' best fulfills the intent of the standard by providing the most authentic demonstration.; Please do not hesitate to write if we can be of further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3939OpenThe Honorable Dick Cheney, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Dick Cheney House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Cheney: Thank you for your letter requesting clarification of the Department' regulations pertaining to the use by school districts of commercial-type buses as activity buses. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.; You requested clarification of whether the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the sale of a used commercial-type bus to a school district for use on activity trips. The Act only applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Thus, persons selling a *used* bus to a Wyoming school district are not subject to the Act's requirement to sell certified school buses, and a used commercial-type bus, regardless of its model year, may be sold as an activity bus.; You also had several questions about Highway Safety Program Standar No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety*. You are correct that states have the discretion to adopt all or part of Standard No. 17, and that the standard has no direct effect on the purchase of used buses by local school districts. Congress has given the Department the discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While the Department has stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with Standard No. 17, the Department has not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.; You asked whether Wyoming school districts can obtain an administrativ waiver from the requirements of Standard No. 17 if Wyoming has adopted the standard as its own policy. Since a state has the discretion to adopt and amend Standard No. 17 as it determines to be necessary for its highway safety program, the effect of Standard No. 17 on Wyoming school districts is a matter for the state to decide. An administrative waiver from NHTSA is therefore not necessary.; I trust this letter has clarified our regulations for school buses. With best wishes. Sincerely, Elizabeth Hanford Dole |
|
ID: aiam5414OpenSamson Helfgott, Esq. Helfgott & Karas, P.C. 60th Floor Empire State Building New York, NY 10118-6098; Samson Helfgott Esq. Helfgott & Karas P.C. 60th Floor Empire State Building New York NY 10118-6098; "Re: Your Ref. No.: 12.065 Dear Mr. Helfgott: We have received you letter of July 1, 1994, to Paul Jackson Rice, former chief counsel of this agency, on behalf of your client Harold Caine, with respect to whether a certain supplementary lighting system would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have enclosed copies of two previous letters that this Office has sent you on other supplementary lighting systems developed by Mr. Caine. You state that 'Mr. Caine is considering the possibility of utilizing a combination of red and amber lighting arrangement to be placed along the side of trucks and other vehicles.' Since you later ask 'whether the presence of the red and amber lights on the sides of the vehicle would be permissible under Standard No. 108', we interpret this as meaning that the red and amber lamps would be in addition to those red and amber lamps that are presently required on the sides of vehicles (the side marker lamps) by Standard No. 108. However, your letter fails to state the number and candela of the lamps, and how they would be arrayed along the side of the vehicle. As we understand it, during normal vehicle operation, the amber side lamps of the system would be activated. When the brake pedal is applied, the amber lamps are extinguished and the required stop lamps and red side lamps of the system would be activated. As you know from previous correspondence, supplementary lighting equipment is prohibited only if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. Standard No. 108 specifies that front and intermediate side marker lamps (those at or near the midpoint of the length) shall be amber, and that rear ones shall be red. If, in the Caine system, the amber supplementary lamps are mounted to the front of the vehicle side and the red supplementary lamps to the rear of the vehicle side (i.e., amber from front to and including the midpoint, red, after the midpoint to the rear), we do not see that the supplementary system would have an impairing effect upon the stop lamps or rear side marker lamps and reflectors. If, however, the system consists of alternating red and amber lamps displayed along the side of the vehicle, then the potential for confusion as to orientation of the trailer could result, impairing the effectiveness of the color code of the required side marker lamps. We assume that the candela of the lamps in the Caine system is no greater than that permitted for the side marker lamps that are required by Standard No 108, but if the candela is greater, that would also create the potential for impairment if the array alternates red and amber lamps. You have also asked 'whether there are any prohibitions that might prevent utilization of this structure on the sides of the vehicles.' We know of none, however, it is possible that some States might have laws that would affect this. As we are unable to advise you on State law, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3313OpenMr. Brian Gill, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 100 W. Alondra Blvd., P.O. Box 50, Gardena, CA 90247; Mr. Brian Gill American Honda Motor Co. Inc. 100 W. Alondra Blvd. P.O. Box 50 Gardena CA 90247; Dear Mr. Gill:#This responds to your letter of April 22, 1980, askin two questions about Standard No. 101-80, *Controls and Displays*.#Your first question concerns whether a display incorporated in the tachometer instrument face that shows which gear position has been selected by the automatic transmission control lever is an 'informational readout display.' You explained that the display 'consists of 5 stacked transparent screens on which are printed 'D', '2', 'N', 'P', 'R' to identify the transmission control lever positions. Each screen is illuminated by an incandescent bulb which is energized selectively through contacts at the control lever.'#The display which you have described is not an informational readout display. Section 4 of the standard defines 'informational readout display' as 'a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed.' As explained in the June 26, 1978, preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 101-80, the agency did not want to inhibit the development of electronic 'readout' panels which present the driver with specific information concerning vehicle and environmental conditions affecting safety. The preamble further described these devices as displays 'capable of exhibiting information and warning with word messages and not with symbols.' The device you have described uses symbols instead of words and conventional incandescent bulb technology instead of electronic technology and thus is not an informational readout display.#The display you have described is a gauge. Section 4 of the standard defines 'gauge' as 'a display that is listed in S5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale.' Section 5.1 and Table 2 do not identify the automatic gear position as a telltale. Likewise, an automatic gear position display does not meet the definition of 'telltale.' Section 4 of the standard defines 'telltale' as 'a display that indicates, by means of a light-emitting signal, the actuation of a device, a correct or defective functioning or condition, or failure to function.' In this case, the display does not indicate the activation of a device since a transmission is always activated. Likewise, the display does not indicate that the transmission is functioning correctly or improperly or has failed to function. Section 5.3.3 provides that the light intensity of each gauge shall be continuously variable. The display you have described does not comply with section 5.3.3, since it only has two light intensities.#Your second question concerns 'a display adjacent to the shift control lever which shows the transmission shift level sequence. The identifying characters 'P', 'R', 'N', '2', 'D', are shown on a transparent screen, the position selected is indicated by a colored panel which moves with the shift control level.' You explained that the 'colored panel *only* is illuminated when the headlights are switched on showing which position is selected, the other positions on the display are not illuminated.' [Emphasis in the original]#You asked whether the display is exempt from the illumination requirements of the standard because it is 'a hand- operated control mounted upon a...floor console' or because it is a 'telltale.' Section 5.1 and Table 2 of the standard classify an automatic gear position indicator as a display. Thus, an automatic gear position indicator cannot be a 'hand-operated vehicle control.'#Further, the display that you have described is not a 'telltale.' As explained above, an automatic gear position display is a gauge. According to your description, the display '*only* is illuminated when the headlights are switched on.' Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires the light intensity for gauges to be continuously variable. Since the illumination for the display you have described apparently is not variable, it would not comply with the standard.#If you have any further questions, please let me know.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2851OpenRolan B. Senior, Utah State Tax Commission, Motor Vehicle Division, 1095 Motor Avenue, Salt Lake City, UT 84116; Rolan B. Senior Utah State Tax Commission Motor Vehicle Division 1095 Motor Avenue Salt Lake City UT 84116; Dear Mr. Senior: Thank you for your letter of August 10, 1978, requesting approval t use Utah's proposed Certificate of Title as a substitute for the Federal odometer disclosure form required by 49 CFR Part 580.; The proposed Certificate of Title which you enclosed with your lette differs from the Federal odometer disclosure form in the following ways:; (1) The Utah Certificate of Title contains no reference to State o Federal law,; (2) the set of certifications relating to the distance the vehicle ha travelled are shortened by adopting the format recommended by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators,; (3) the certifications relating to alteration of the odometer ar deleted, and; (4) the transferee is not required to sign the statement. The only suggestions that we have are that you include a reference t either State or Federal law and the signature of the transferee (buyer). The purpose of the reference to the law is to alert the purchaser to the fact that the odometer information is a legal requirement, the violation of which is punishable. The purpose of the transferee's signature is to ensure that he or she has seen the disclosure statement and to prevent him or her from later claiming that no statement was received. With these changes Utah's Certificate of Title will be in substantive conformity with the Federal odometer law, despite its differences from the Federal form. Therefore, pursuant to 49 CFR 580.4(f)(2), I hereby grant your request to use Utah's Certificate of Title, with the changes noted above, as a substitute for the Federal form.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4086OpenThe Honorable Bobbi Fiedler, House of Representatives, 1607 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable Bobbi Fiedler House of Representatives 1607 Longworth House Office Building Washington D.C. 20515; Dear Ms. Fiedler: Thank you for your letter enclosing corresponence (sic) from you constituent, Mr. William Griffiths of Newbury Park, who asked several questions about our regulations for safety belts on passenger motor vehicles, buses and school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.; Your constituent asked why safety belt designs vary between differen seating positions and among different types of motor vehicles. He observes that some vehicles have a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints ('lap and shoulder belts') in the front seats, while providing only lap belts for the rear seats. He further notes that safety belts are not required for passengers in buses and school buses. Apparently Mr. Griffiths believes that shoulder belts are uncomfortable and feels that they should not be installed in the front seats of passenger motor vehicles.; I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify our requirements fo your constituent. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards for all new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, establishes performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Under FMVSS No. 208, motor vehicle manufacturers must provide lap and shoulder belts for front outboard passenger positions in order to comply with the standard. Since persons in the front seating positions of an automobile should be protected from rigid structures forward of those positions, such as the windshield pillars, we believe that an upper torso restraint of some kind is necessary. Our requirements differ for the rear seating positions, where only a lap belt need be provided, because the area forward of those positions does not contain the relatively hard surfaces found in the areas surrounding the front seats.; As Mr. Griffiths has noted, our safety standards for buses and schoo buses do not require safety belts for passengers. NHTSA does not require safety belts for transit-type buses because the crash forces experienced by those vehicles are less severe than those of lighter vehicles in similar collisions. Also, the safety record for transit buses is good. Accordingly, we believe that revising our requirements for their seating systems would not reduce injuries substantially. Safety belts are not required for passengers in large school buses because those vehicles are required to provide high levels of occupant crash protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large school buses be constructed so that children are protected without the need to use safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and improved seat spacing and performance.; Your constituent might be interested to know that we have addressed hi concern regarding the discomfort some passengers experience with safety belts equipped with shoulder restraints. We have taken steps to improve the comfort and convenience of safety belt systems by a recent amendment to our safety standards. A copy of the amendment is enclosed.; I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contac my office if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3743OpenMs. Pamela Cox, NADA Management Education, National Automobile Dealers Association, 8400 Westpark Drive, McLean, VA 22102; Ms. Pamela Cox NADA Management Education National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean VA 22102; Dear Ms. Cox: This responds to your request to Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff t verify the record retention checklist your organization plans to distribute to its members. The checklist indicates that automobile dealers must maintain records of 'New and retread tires, name, address of purchaser, tire seller and identification number,' and 'Tires on each vehicle sold.' This is not an accurate description of the recordkeeping requirements imposed on automobile dealers with respect to tire sales.; For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 574, *Tir Identification and Recordkeeping*. The tire registration requirements applicable to motor vehicle dealers are set forth in section 574.9. Motor vehicle dealers are *not* required to register the tires on each vehicle sold, they are only required to register tires in two instances. First, if the dealer is selling a new vehicle, the tires must be registered by that dealer only if the vehicle is equipped with tires other than those installed on the vehicle or furnished with it by the vehicle manufacturer. In the far more common situation where the dealer delivers a new vehicle with the original equipment tires installed on or furnished by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle dealer has no registration responsibility for those tires.; Second, if the motor vehicle dealer is selling a used vehicle o leasing a vehicle for more than 60 days, the dealer must register the tires on that vehicle only if he has installed new tires on it. Again, it is more usual for a used vehicle to be equipped with the used tires already on it, and, in that case, the vehicle dealer is not required to register the tires. Moreover, tire registration is not required for any dealer when a vehicle is equipped with retreaded tires, even if the dealer installed the retreaded tires on the vehicle.; Even when motor vehicle dealers are required to register tires, the are only required to record the purchaser's name and address if the dealer's business is owned or controlled by a tire company. I presume this would be a very unusual situation. This agency published an interim final rule establishing voluntary tire registration requirements for 'independent' dealers in the Federal Register of May 19, 1983 (copy enclosed). 'Independent' dealers means those whose business is not owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer. When one of your members is required to register tires and qualifies as an independent dealer, he must simply record the tire identification number(s) of the tire(s) sold on a registration form provided by the tire manufacturer, together with the dealer's name and address, and give the form to the tire purchaser. It is up to the purchaser to fill in his or her name and address on the form and return it to the manufacturer. The dealer is not required to retain any record of this. Even if the motor vehicle dealer were owned or controlled by a tire manufacturer, that dealer would simply be required to complete the entire registration form and return it to the tire manufacturer, and the tire manufacturer would be required to retain a record of the registration form for three years.; I trust that this information will help you in your efforts to educat your members about their responsibilities under Federal laws. If you need any further assistance in those efforts, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1284OpenMr. Robert G. Beaumont, President, Sebring Vanguard, Inc., P.O. Box 1479, Sebring Air Terminal, Sebring, FL 33870; Mr. Robert G. Beaumont President Sebring Vanguard Inc. P.O. Box 1479 Sebring Air Terminal Sebring FL 33870; Dear Mr. Beaumont: This is in response to your request for clarification of the meaning o 'truck chassis' as it appears in the definition of 'multipurpose passenger vehicle.'; The term 'truck chassis' has been used in the Motor Vehicle Safet Standards since their initial issuance in 1967. It was not explicitly defined at that time although it was and is in common use within the motor vehicle industry.; In light of the notice proposing redefinition of multipurpose passenge vehicle and the comments on that proposal, we are considering the desirability of further explanation of the term.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2502OpenMr. Carlyle Holtan, Director of Transportation, Administrative Offices, Oconomowoc Public Schools, 7077 Brown Street, Oconomowoc, WI 53066; Mr. Carlyle Holtan Director of Transportation Administrative Offices Oconomowoc Public Schools 7077 Brown Street Oconomowoc WI 53066; Dear Mr. Holtan: This responds to your February 3, 1977, letter asking whether the ne school bus definition (effective April 1, 1977) precludes the use of vans which seat less than 10 passengers from transporting children to and from school.; The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L 93-492) authorized the NHTSA to redefine the term 'school bus' to include all motor vehicles which seat 10 or more passengers and which transport children to and from school. The NHTSA redefined the term in accordance with the wishes of Congress for the purpose of prescribing safety requirements for buses that fall within the definition. The definition does not preclude the use of vans or any other type of motor vehicle which seat fewer than 10 passengers from transporting children to and from school. Such vehicles may transport children without complying with the school bus safety requirements.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4985OpenMr. William H. Spain Touch Wood 5417 Caldwell Mill Road Birmingham, AL 35242; Mr. William H. Spain Touch Wood 5417 Caldwell Mill Road Birmingham AL 35242; "Dear Mr. Spain: This responds to your letter of January 21, 1992, t Taylor Vinson of this office, with reference to your 'Auxiliary Lighting Device'. I understand that you have also discussed the Device on the phone with Mr. Vinson on March 3, and with Mr. Van Iderstine of the Office of Rulemaking on March 26. You have referenced sections S5.1.3, S5.1.1.11, S5.3.1.1, S5.5.3 and S5.5.10(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and ask for an 'initial first impression as to whether or not we might have a problem.' In your experience, 'it is not an uncommon occurrence for a tractor/trailer to lose its taillamps due to a circuit or wiring malfunction.' When this occurs, you point out that the driver's only choice is to activate his hazard warning system, which is not its intended purpose, and which defeats the normal turn signal circuits. Your Device would permit the operator of the tractor to employ the rear turn signal lamps as surrogate taillamps if the vehicle's standard taillamps were inoperative. Specifically, 'a reduced voltage is fed through both right and left rear turn signal circuits to cause both turn signal lamps to illuminate at a reduced brilliance equal to that of a normal tail lamp.' The Device has an alternative function. It permits the turn signal lamps to be used at full intensity as fog lamps to increase rear visibility. The activation of the turn signal switch within 1/2 second overrides the Device and allows normal operation of the turn signal lamps. The Device is activated through a toggle switch on the dash, which glows to indicate to the driver that it is engaged. The applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the 'Act') and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to tractor-trailer combinations is not well defined. Standard No. 108 is, in essence, a manufacturing standard that applies to individual motor vehicles. It ceases to apply at the time of purchase by its first owner (other than the manufacturer or dealer). Once a vehicle is sold, questions of continued compliance with the standards, including Standard No. 108, must be answered with reference to the Act. The question presented by your letter concerns a device added to one vehicle before its first sale that is intended to affect the lighting performance on another vehicle after the sale of the second vehicle (i.e., when it has become a 'vehicle in use', to use the statutory term). We recently provided another interpretation of the applicability of Standard No. 108 and the Act to towing and towed vehicle combinations which I would like to discuss, as it provides a basis for our interpretation to you, but is nevertheless distinguishable from it by its facts (letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin Corp.) The Echlin Corp. device (the 'Control') was intended to control trailer sway by allowing the towing vehicle's driver to apply the towed vehicle's brakes through modulated pressure by use of a hand control in the towing vehicle. The wiring of the Control was such that the trailer stop lamps were not activated when the Control was in use. Standard No. 108 and the laws of some States require that the stop lamps be activated when the service brakes are applied. We informed the manufacturer of the Control that, under the specific facts of the case, the question was not one to be answered under Standard No. 108 as applying to new vehicles, but to be answered under the Act as it affects vehicles in use. The Act contains a general prohibition (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) against knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design on a vehicle in use that has been installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition applies to any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. With respect to the Control, the dealer of the towed vehicle adds the Control to the towing vehicle (a vehicle in use) at the time that the towed vehicle is purchased. In our opinion, the legal question was whether the dealer of the towed vehicle had rendered the stop lamps of the towed vehicle partially inoperative by its installation of the Control on the towed vehicle. In our opinion, it was not the installation of the Control but its use that was critical. The user of the Control, the vehicle operator, is not covered by the prohibition. Therefore, we informed Echlin that the sale and use of the Control does not violate the Act. This interpretation can also be viewed as stating that 'inoperability' as the word is used in the statute must result from a direct act, and not an indirect one. This, however, was not our intent. We do not believe that a person should be excused from responsibility simply because an intervening agency is required to operate a device that that person has manufactured or sold. Although many of the facts concerning the use of the Control and your Device are similar, the fact of importance in this instance is the primary purpose of the equipment in question. The primary purpose of the Control was to control trailer sway, not to affect the operation of the stop lamps. The primary purpose of your Device is to affect vehicle lighting, by serving as surrogate and supplementary lighting equipment. A further fact in difference is that you envision the Device to be installed as part of the manufacture of the tractor trailer, and not added by the dealer of the trailer to a tractor trailer in use. This raises the question of the certification that the Act requires by the truck tractor manufacturer of compliance with Standard No. 108, specifically S5.1.3. As your letter indicates, you are aware that S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of additional lamps or reflectors 'or other motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by' Standard No. 108. It is manifest that installation of the Device has no effect upon the lighting equipment of the vehicle on which it is installed, the truck tractor. The question is whether S5.1.3 can be read as prohibiting the installation of a device on one vehicle that may affect the operation of lighting equipment on another vehicle. We believe that S5.1.3. can be so read because the term 'lighting equipment required by' Standard No. 108 is general in nature, and not restricted to the vehicle on which the additional equipment is installed. Although Standard No. 108 does not establish lighting requirements to be met by combinations of towing and towed vehicles, we interpret S5.1.3 as prohibiting installation of any original equipment on the towing vehicle that could impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 to be installed on a towed vehicle. The determination of whether impairment exists is initially made by the manufacturer in certifying compliance of the towing vehicle to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a manufacturer installs as original equipment on one motor vehicle a device whose sole purpose is to affect the lighting performance of another motor vehicle, then that manufacturer must take into account whether that device would impair the effectiveness of the other vehicle's lighting equipment in certifying compliance to S5.1.3. If that decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA may make its own determination in order to effect compliance with Standard No. 108. We turn first to the question of the use of the Device as a surrogate taillamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps. When used as a taillamp surrogate, the Device would substitute one steady-burning red rear light for another. If, as you indicate, the intensity of the surrogate taillamp is no greater than that of the original taillamp (and thereby maintains the ratio of difference required in combination turn signal- taillamps), there would appear to be no impairment of rear lighting equipment. When used as a fog lamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps, the taillamps are not disabled, and the Device activates the turn signal lamps at full intensity in a steady burning mode. Commonly, combination rear lamps on large vehicles also include the stop function as well. Because of the similarity of intensity between the steady burning fog lamp and the stop function provided by the same filament, or the stop function in an adjacent lamp, we believe that the stop signal would be impaired when the Device is used as a fog lamp in a lamp configured as described in this paragraph. When used on a trailer equipped with the amber turn signal lamps that Standard No. 108 permits, different considerations apply. All lamps that serve as marker lamps on the rear (taillamps, identification lamps, clearance lamps) are required by Standard No. 108 to be red in color. On a trailer equipped with amber rear turn signals, the use of your Device would result in a pair of steady burning amber marker lamps on the trailer rear where, heretofore, the motoring public has not been accustomed to seeing them. Thus, the question arises under S5.1.3 whether the effectiveness of the required red rear lighting equipment is impaired when the Device activates steady burning amber rear lamps. You are aware of this possibility, but have pointed out to Mr. Vinson that the Device is intended for use when the taillamps are not available. Because taillamps, identification lamps, and clearance lamps share the same wiring, inoperability of the taillamps often means inoperability of the other rear marker lights. Thus, the steady burning amber lamps provided by the Device may be the only operating marker lamps on the rear of the vehicle. You believe that this is preferable to no lights at all. We would agree that, in this circumstance, there would be no impairment of required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of S5.1.3. However, the Device provides no safeguards against operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the taillamp mode when the taillamps (and other rear marker lamps) remain operative. Further, it permits operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the fog lamp mode regardless of the operability of the other rear marker lamps. Because the Device is intended for use only under conditions of reduced visibility, such as night and fog, when the headlamps are activated, there is a potential for confusion when a motorist is confronted with simultaneously operating steady burning red and amber lamps. In this situation, a conclusion could be drawn that the utilization of the Device to create a steady burning amber lamp could, within the meaning of S5.1.3, impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required to be red. You told Mr. Vinson of your willingness to provide a warning with the Device cautioning against its use when the taillamps are operative, and we appreciate your concern with the issue. You may wish to reexamine the efficacy of amber lamps as fog lamps. We understand that the most effective rear fog lamps are red, and that red is the only color permitted in Europe. You pointed out in your letter that, absent the Device, the tractor operator might choose to employ the flashing hazard warning lights for other than their intended purpose. We believe that today's motorists interpret flashing red or amber hazard lamps on moving vehicles as a signal that the vehicle is moving slower than the stream of traffic, and that caution is advised. Thus, safety may be enhanced when the hazard lamps flash, as they provide a contrast with the steady burning but less intense red rear taillamps. Finally, even if acceptable under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency, vehicles engaged in the commercial aspects of interstate commerce are subject to the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (OMCS) Federal Highway Administration, and to the regulations of the individual States where the trailer is operated. We are not able to advise you of their restrictions, if any. You may write the Director, OMCS, Room 3404, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 for an interpretation. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to provide you with an interpretation of State laws. 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.