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: 09-004766 Seigel 302 refrigeratorOpenMr. Louis Siegel VP Dometic Automotive, USA P.O. Box 15299 Richmond, VA 23227-0699 Dear Mr. Siegel: This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to a refrigerator mounted in a cabinet in the sleeper of a Class 8 truck (a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,969 kilograms (33,000 pounds)). You ask whether the standard would have to be met by just the front of the refrigerator door, and not the other exterior surfaces of the refrigerator. As explained below, our answer is yes. Background By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. You provide the following description of the refrigerator. [T]he refrigerator is mounted in such a manner such that the front door is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space; the other surfaces are contained within a cabinet whose outer surfaces are in the refreshable air space, and the other surfaces of the refrigerator are greater than 13 mm from the cabinets inner surface. You ask: Does the standard apply only to the front door? Does the standard apply to the other five surfaces (not in the refreshable air space)? The following response is based on our understanding of your letter and the description you provided. Discussion FMVSS No. 302 applies to particular components, listed in S4.1 of the standard, on new completed motor vehicles, including trucks of all GVWRs. The following components are listed in S4.1: Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Of these components, any portion of a single or composite material which is within 13 millimeters (mm) of the occupant compartment air space shall meet the flammability resistance requirements (S4.2). A component such as a refrigerator door is not specifically enumerated in S4.1 of FMVSS No. 302. However, there are several considerations to bear in mind when answering your question. NHTSA has previously determined that a glove box door is not a component included in S4.1, unless it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash[1] or describes a component that closely resembles an enumerated component.[2] Further, a component that is incorporated into an enumerated component could be considered part of the enumerated component.[3] We understand from your letter that the refrigerator is stored in a built-in cabinet, such that the front door [of the refrigerator] is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space. Applying the above considerations, the refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is incorporated into a listed component. The built-in cabinet and refrigerator face could be considered part of the vehicles trim panels, which is enumerated in S4.1. The refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. We are unable to be more specific with our answer without more detailed information about the configuration and appearance of the refrigerator and cabinet. Even if the standard applies to the front door, it does not appear that the standard would apply to the other five surfaces of the refrigerator. According to your letter, those surfaces are more than 13 mm from the occupant compartment air space. Under S4.2 of the standard, only portions of material that are within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space are subject to FMVSS No. 302. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosures Dated: 2/25/10 [1] See, e.g., letters to Mr. Yasunobu Mitoya, September 24, 1971, and to Mr. F.A. Stewart, June 9, 1972 (copies enclosed). [2] Letter to Mr. J.C. Eckhold, July 19, 1971 (glove box door subject to the standard if glove box door is merely a different description of an enumerated component)(copy enclosed). [3] See, e.g., letter to Mr. F.A. Stewart, supra (stereo speaker grills and cones would be considered part of a trim panel and compartment shelf, respectively). |
2010 |
ID: 09-007712 lavigne jul28OpenMr. Lawrence N. Lavigne Vice President Operations/General Counsel Foreign Tire Sales, Inc. 2204 Morris Ave., Suite L-5 Union, NJ 07083 Dear Mr. Lavigne: This letter responds to your September 29, 2009 request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and motorcycles. You ask whether you may import a particular size special trailer tire. You note that the tire is not listed in the publication of a tire organization listed in S5.1(b), but that an identically sized light truck tire is listed. As we explain below, there may be a way for you to import such a tire for sale in the United States. By way of background, S5.1 of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire manufacturer ensure that a listing of the rims suitable for that manufacturers tires is provided to the public. There are two ways of complying with this requirement. First, a document listing suitable rims is made available by the manufacturer to tire dealers, NHTSA, and other parties upon request. If this approach is chosen, each rim listing must include dimensional specifications and a diagram of the rim. Second, the listing of suitable rims can be made available in publications of one of the following organizations: (1) The Tire and Rim Association; (2) The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation; (3) Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association, Inc.; (4) Deutsche Industrie Norm; (5) British Standards Institution; (6) Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization; and (7) The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia. If the latter method is used, the listing need not include dimensional specifications or a diagram of a rim if the information is contained in the publication. You ask specifically about an all steel radial special trailer tire size ST235/85R16 14-ply rated. You note that this designation is not found in the Tire and Rim Association yearbook. We note that there are seven different organizations whose publications may have the necessary information. Also, that information can be submitted to NHTSA. Although you have not stated that you consulted all seven organizations publications or NHTSAs database, we will presume for the purpose of this letter that the information about the tire in question has not been provided to NHTSA or published in any of the seven organizations publications. Nevertheless, you may request that the tires manufacturer provide the rim listings and specifications to NHTSA. Alternatively, you may obtain the necessary information from the tires manufacturer and provide it to NHTSA. As the importer of the tire, you would fall under the statutory definition of manufacturer of the tire. If either you, as the importer, or the tires original manufacturer provides the necessary information to NHTSA (or, alternatively, has the data published in one of the listed organizations publications), and the tire meets all of the other requirements of FMVSS No. 119, including performance, treadwear indicator, and tire marking requirements, you may import the tire for sale in the United States. Although you state that your engineer has verified the loads and pressures of the tire in question, the fact remains that the tire manufacturer has not provided the information required by S5.1. You note that the Tire and Rim Association yearbook lists tire size LT235/85R16 14-ply rated. This tire is a light truck tire. You ask us to allow you to interpret FMVSS No. 119 to allow you to import a special trailer tire that is the same size. We cannot do so. The exact tire you wish to import must be in NHTSAs database or one of the tire organizations publications. The light truck tire you refer to is not the same tire you wish to import. The tire you wish to import is subject to a different Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 49 CFR 571.139. The tire you wish to import and sell is for special trailers and, based on your representation, is not in the appropriate publication. Accordingly, you cannot import for sale in the United States the tire in question based on the appearance of this light truck tire in the Tire and Rim Association yearbook. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel 11/19/2010 |
|
ID: 09-007987 bolduc feb25 11OpenMr. Jacques Bolduc Technical Advisor National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) 3327 W. Bearss Avenue Tampa, FL 33618 Dear Mr. Bolduc: This letter responds to your letter dated June 17, 2009 regarding phase-in compliance periods for new or amended Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as related to the make inoperative provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). I sincerely apologize for the delay in this response. You note that, in the case of many new or amended standards, there is a 100 percent compliance date for vehicles produced in a single stage and a later compliance date (usually one year later) for vehicles produced by alterers and final-stage manufacturers.[1] By way of example, you refer to the upgraded rear impact crash requirements of S6.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. The 100 percent compliance date for manufacturers of vehicles produced in a single stage was September 1, 2008. The compliance date for alterers and final stage manufacturers was September 1, 2009 (S8.2, FMVSS No. 301). You ask about the example of a company that is both an alterer and a modifier of vehicles modified to accommodate disabled persons. You state that the company performs the same manufacturing process on vehicles. When the company performs the process before the first retail sale, the company is an alterer.[2] You note that, as an alterer, the company had until September 1, 2009 to meet the upgraded rear impact crash requirement of FMVSS No. 301. On the other hand, had the company performed the process after the first retail sale, the company would be a modifier. (Modifier is not defined in the regulations issued by the agency, but we would say in the context you present, the term generally refers to an entity adding, substituting, removing, repairing, or reworking components on a used vehicle.) There is no express provision in the upgraded FMVSS No. 301 that addresses modifiers. You ask about FMVSS No. 301s phase-in period between September 1, 2008 and September 1, 2009. You ask whether NHTSA considers a modifier of a vehicle equivalent to an alterer for purposes of S8.2.1 of FMVSS No. 301. Short Answer Our response to your question is no. A modifier of a vehicle is not the same as an alterer. A modifier that is performing processes between the compliance date applicable to original manufacturers and the compliance date applicable to alterers on a vehicle certified by its original manufacturer as meeting the upgraded rear impact requirements of S6.2(b)) must ensure that its modification does not make inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with S6.2(b). Background The make inoperative provision of the Safety Act (49 USC 30122(b)) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative, in whole or in part, any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. An alterer is responsible for continued compliance with the FMVSSs and is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix a label, similar to the certification label affixed by the original manufacturer, certifying that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs affected by the alteration. FMVSS No. 301 specifies requirements for the integrity of motor vehicle fuel systems and serves to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes. As provided by S6.2(a), vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2006 were required to meet the fuel spillage requirements when impacted from the rear by a barrier moving at 48 km/h (30 mph). As provided by S6.2(b), vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2006, are required to meet the fuel spillage requirements when impacted from the rear by a barrier moving at 80 km/h (50 mph). The upgraded requirements of S6.2(b) were phased in, such that specified percentages of each manufacturers fleet manufactured on or after September 1, 2006 were required to meet the new requirements, with full compliance, with some exceptions, being required for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2008. Special provision was made for vehicles produced by alterers and final-stage manufacturers (see S8.2 of FMVSS No. 301). Alterers and final-stage manufacturers had the option of a September 1, 2009 compliance date for their vehicles (S8.2). That is, vehicles produced by these manufacturers before September 1, 2009, were not required to comply with the upgraded requirements of S6.2(b). The vehicles they manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, must comply with the upgraded requirements. Discussion In your letter, you wish to equate alterers with modifiers. We cannot do so. S8.2 of FMVSS No. 301 provides special accommodation for alterers, a term defined in 49 CFR 567.3. S8.2 provides no special accommodation for modifiers. We believe that there are sound reasons for not equating alterers to modifiers for purposes of S8.2 and 49 CFR 571.8(b). There are legally significant differences between alterers and modifiers that justify the need to treat them differently. As discussed above, an alterer has an affirmative certification obligation. An alterer that performs a manufacturing process on a vehicle must certify the vehicles continued compliance with applicable FMVSSs. This certification must be placed near the original manufacturers certification label. In contrast, a modifier has no certification obligation. The modifiers sole obligation is to ensure that it does not violate the make inoperative provision of 49 USC 30122(b). Because of their certification responsibilities, alterers and final-stage manufacturers are provided additional time to meet a new or upgraded standard. Incomplete vehicle manufacturers often do not provide final-stage manufacturers with information necessary to certify their vehicles until shortly before, and in some cases, after the effective date of the standard in question. See 70 FR 7418. If a vehicle manufacturer waits until the last possible moment to certify vehicles, alterers and final-stage manufacturers will not be able to conduct any engineering analysis to determine if the alterations and manufacturing processes affect compliance. See 70 FR 7425. The additional time provides more time for engineering analysis of the vehicles to be produced by alterers and final-stage manufacturers. Since a modifier has no certification obligation, the need for more time to meet a new or amended standard does not apply to modifiers. NHTSA views with disfavor vehicle modifications, performed after first retail sale, that take a vehicle out of compliance with the FMVSSs, except as permitted under 49 CFR Part 595. See 70 FR 7427. It does not seem reasonable to permit modifiers, during that one-year period between the full phase-in of a standard or a requirement and the compliance date for alterers, to make inoperative a device or element of design that has been installed to meet the upgraded FMVSS No. 301 requirements. Doing so would permit anyone, as a modifier, to make inoperative a device or element of design installed to meet the new or upgraded standard until the compliance date for alterers and final-stage manufacturers is reached. This would, in effect, annul the compliance date of the standard as applied to vehicles manufactured in one stage for a year, which would be contrary to sound public policy.[3] Previous Interpretation You also refer to an April 7, 2006 interpretation letter to Mr. Dick Keller, Director of Business Development for Bruno Independent Living Aids. In that letter, we concluded that, if an FMVSS offers multiple compliance options for manufacturers, it would not violate the make inoperative provision for a modifier to substitute equipment in vehicles certified to one compliance option with equipment enabling vehicles to meet a different option. We do not believe that letter is applicable to the issue you raise. The standard at issue in the letter to Mr. Keller, FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints, offered manufacturers three options for compliance with head restraint requirements prior to September 1, 2008, the effective date of a new standard: (1) Complying with the existing NHTSA standard, (2) complying with the upgraded NHTSA standard, or (3) complying with the then current European regulations. Bruno wished to replace seats on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2008 that complied with the applicable European regulations with seats that met the existing NHTSA standard but not the European regulation. We concluded that the make inoperative provision did not prevent the substitution of seats. In the case of the upgraded rear impact crash requirements of FMVSS No. 301, the standard did not offer manufacturers multiple options for compliance for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2008. Because the manufacturer of the vehicles did not have multiple compliance options with FMVSS No. 301, a modifier that modifies a vehicle in a manner such that it would not comply with the upgraded standard would violate the make inoperative provision of 49 USC 30122(b). If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: FMVSS No.301 7/29/2011 [1] This approach of providing more time for alterers and manufacturers of vehicles produced in more than one stage (multi-stage manufacturers) is now an established practice as of September 1, 2006. As provided by 49 CFR 571.8(b), unless otherwise specified, the date for manufacturer certification of compliance with any standard or amendment to a standard, insofar as its application to intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers is concerned, is one year after the last applicable date for manufacturer certification of compliance (manufacturers of vehicle completed in one stage). See final rule amending 49 CFR part 571, 70 FR 7414, February 14, 2005. [2] Alterer is defined in 49 CFR 567.3 as: a person who alters by addition, substitution, or removal of components (other than readily attachable components) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle other than for resale. [3] We note that in the February 14, 2005 final rule, NHTSA addressed the concern you raise in your letter. In response to a concern expressed by NMEDA about vehicle modifiers, NHTSA stated that because vehicle modifiers bear no certification responsibility, a change to provide modifiers with an additional year to make modifications would not be made in the context of amending part 571. Further, businesses engaging in operations that may invalidate compliance certification should be held responsible for their actions. 70 FR 7418. This further supports our conclusion not to equate alterers with modifiers. |
|
ID: 09-007991 139OpenWesley R. Kliner, Jr. Coker Tire Company 1317 Chestnut St. Chattanooga, TN 37402 Dear Mr. Kliner: This responds to your letter concerning labeling requirements for newly-manufactured and retreaded tires. You ask several variations on the question of whether it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139, and 49 CFR Parts 574 and 575 to buff or polish off identifying information on the exterior wall of a tire to achieve a smooth, polished look. Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, the answer to your question is that it would be a violation of the Safety Act to take a tire out of compliance with either FMVSS No. 109 or No. 139 by removing required information from the exterior sidewall. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Your letter states that your company distributes new, period correct tires for vintage automobile collectors, and that you understand that some tire manufacturers, distributors, and retreaders engaged in that business might buff off all labeling and identification on the exterior side of a radial tire in order to achieve a glassy smooth appearance, or a smoothie. You state that you understand that modifying tires that complied with the design requirements of FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139 would be a violation of the Safety Act, but ask whether NHTSA would consider light buffing or polishing to be a cosmetic design change that would be permitted. You further ask whether it would be permissible to buff off some or all of the labeling and identification on a tire and also add a white or colored vulcanized rubber sidewall inlay over the buffed area, and whether it would be permissible for a tire retreader to do either of these things. We will consider the requirements of both FMVSS No. 139 and FMVSS No. 109, for purposes of completeness, and the tire labeling and grading requirements of 49 CFR parts 574 and 575. FMVSS No. 139 FMVSS No. 139 applies to new radial tires, and requires certain tire markings on the exterior sidewall of the tire. First, both sidewalls of the tire must be marked with (1) the symbol DOT; (2) the tire size designation; (3), the maximum permissible inflation pressure; and (4) the maximum load rating (and for LT tires, the letter designating the tire load range).[1] These markings must be placed in a specific location on the tire, and cannot be less than 0.078 inches high and must be raised above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches.[2] Tires must also be labeled with a tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR Part 574.[3] 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. You state that to create a smoothie tire, the manufacturer or distributor would buff off all labeling and markings on the exterior side of a radial tire in order to achieve a glassy smooth appearance, or alternatively, buff off some or all of the labeling and markings on the exterior side of a radial tire and then applying a white or colored rubber sidewall inlay. Based on your description, it appears that both of these scenarios would presumably include removal of the markings and information required by FMVSS No. 139. If those were removed, that would take the tire out of compliance with FMVSS No. 139, and would be a violation of 30122(b). That said, we note that the new radial tires subject to FMVSS No. 139 are those for use on vehicles manufactured after 1975.[4] To the extent that the vintage automobiles you mention in your letter are pre-1975, FMVSS No. 109 might be applicable instead. FMVSS No. 109 FMVSS No. 109 applies to new radial tires for use on passenger cars manufactured before 1975, and also to new bias-ply tires, T-type spare tires, ST, FI, and 8-12 rim diameter and below tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. FMVSS No. 109 requires certain information on both sidewalls, roughly described as follows: (1) one size designation; (2) maximum permissible inflation pressure; (3) maximum load rating; (4) generic name of each cord material used in the tire plies; (5) actual number of plies in the sidewall/tread area; (6) the words tubeless or tube type, as applicable; and (7) the word radial if applicable.[5] One sidewall of the tire must also be marked with the DOT symbol and the TIN as required by 49 CFR Part 574.[6] Given that FMVSS No. 109 requires those markings described above on both sidewalls of the tires described above, buffing or otherwise removing those markings from those tires would take them out of compliance with FMVSS No. 109, and, as for FMVSS No. 139, would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). Tire Identification Number Requirements 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, requires new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners to label conspicuously one sidewall of each tire a tire identification number (TIN) by permanently molding or laser-etching it into or onto one sidewall. The required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers. A tire distributor or dealer cannot legally remove any of the required information from new tire sidewalls. The TIN is required to facilitate a recall or other action in the event of a defect.[7] Even when a tire is retreaded, while the original TIN does not need to be maintained, the retreader must replace the original TIN with its own TIN.[8] Because both FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139 include the TIN as part of their labeling requirements, removing the TIN would take the tire out of compliance with either of those standards (as applicable), and would be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b).
Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards 49 CFR 575.104 requires motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to provide information indicating the relative performance in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance of new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars. The quality grade information required by 574.105 must be permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall between the tires shoulder and its maximum width.[9] If that labeling is obliterated, as seems likely based on your description, then the tire would no longer be compliant with the UTQGS. 49 U.S.C. 30163 gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Chapter 301, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS.
Becoming a Tire Retreader Finally, you asked whether these buffing processes could be performed on a new tire without violating any safety standards if your company became certified as a tire retreader. A person who retreads tires is still considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act.[10] Thus, a retreader, like any manufacturer, would still be subject to any applicable FMVSS. If you were not actually retreading the tire, and were simply buffing the information off the sidewall of a new tire, then FMVSS No. 109 or No. 139 would still apply, and it would still be a violation of 30122(b) to take the tire out of compliance with those standards. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure Dated: 7/15/2010
[1] See FMVSS No. 139, Paragraph S5.5(a)-(d). [2] See Paragraph S5.5. [3] See Paragraph S5.5.1. [4] See Paragraph S2.1. [5] See FMVSS No. 109, Paragraph S4.3. [6] See Paragraphs S4.3.1 and S4.3.2. [7] See 49 CFR 574.2. [8] See 49 CFR 574.5. [9] See 49 CFR 575.105(d)(1)(A). We note that 575.104(c) states that the UTQGS do not apply to deep tread, winter type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rims diameters of 10 to 12 inches, or limited production tires. However, in order to qualify as a limited production tire, section 575.104(c)(2) establishes four criteria, all of which the tires must meet: (i) The manufacturer's annual domestic production or importation into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000; (ii) The annual domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires; (iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture; and (iv) The total annual production or importation into the U.S. by the manufacturer or, if the tire is marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase or purchase for importation into the U.S. by the tire's brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of (i), (ii), and (iii) above, does not exceed 35,000 tires. Additionally, 575.104(d)(1)(A) states that tires do not need to be graded if they are tires of a new line manufactured within the first six months of production of that tire line. Based on the information you have provided, we do not know whether the tires you plan to modify would meet these criteria. [10] See Letter to Frank S. Perkin, January 22, 1988, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/2635o.html (last accessed June 9, 2010). Copy enclosed. |
2010 |
ID: 09-008024ws YuenOpenDerek Yuen X-Test, Inc. 2480 Precision Drive, Suite A Minden, NV 89423 Dear Mr. Yuen: This responds to your letter, dated October 9, 2009, asking whether the motorcycle rear lamp system you describe is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, which governs lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment on vehicles. I sincerely apologize for the delay in this response. As explained below, we believe that the system would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the Safety Act to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The following is our interpretation of the Safety Act and the FMVSSs based on the description contained in your letter. You describe the lamp system as consisting of two lamps, with one lamp located on either side of the rear vertical centerline of the motorcycle. The lamps are separated by a distance of 300 mm (11.8 in). Each of the lamps functions as turn signal, stop lamp, and taillamp. You indicate that the system has four functional modes: 1) Both lamps continuously illuminated as taillamps when the vehicle is on; 2) Both lamps illuminated at a higher intensity as stop lamps when the brakes are applied; 3) One lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a taillamp; and 4) In a situation where the brakes are applied at the same time as a turn is indicated, one lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated at a higher intensity. You also submitted diagrams showing two configurations of this system using lamps with different effective projected luminous lens areas (EPLLA). In the first configuration (No. 1), each of the two lamps has an EPLLA of 25.5 cm2 (3.96 in2). In the second configuration (No. 2), each of the lamps has an EPLLA of 50.3 cm2 (7.8 in2). You ask whether either of these configurations would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In particular, you express concern as to whether the first configuration would meet the EPLLA requirements for a stop lamp because, in Functional Mode No. 4, only one of the two lamps would be illuminated as a stop signal. As you indicate in your letter, FMVSS No. 108 requires a motorcycle to have one stop lamp but permits it to have two stop lamps symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline. A motorcycle is also required to have two rear turn signal lamps, one on each side of the vertical centerline, with at least 9 inches separating the lamps. FMVSS No. 108 requires that the stop lamps must meet the requirements of Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J586, revised February 1984, and that the rear turn signal lamps must meet the requirements of SAE J588, revised November 1984. The SAE standards permit the use of multiple compartment lamps or multiple lamps to meet the photometric requirements for stop lamps. The compartments or lamps in such systems are tested together as a unit so long as all the compartments or lamps are within a certain distance of each other. For a two-lamp system, the lamps must be within 560 mm of each other to be tested as a unit. In previous interpretation letters addressing rear motorcycle lamp configurations, we have applied the distance requirements in the SAE standards to conclude that lamp systems consisting of lamps on either side of the rear vertical centerline can be considered single lamps for the purposes of meeting the stop lamp photometric requirements (See enclosed November 20, 1998 letter to Tadashi Suzuki). In addition to the requirements contained in the SAE standards, FMVSS No. 108 states that [i]f a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements for stop lamps . . . the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp shall be at least 22 square centimeters, provided the combined area is at least 50 square centimeters. However, each motorcycle rear turn signal lamp is only required to have an EPLLA of 22.58 cm2 (3.5 in2). In your letter, the Configuration No. 1 lamp system consists of two lamps located 300 mm (11.8 in) apart, each of which has an EPLLA of 25.5 cm2, for a combined EPLLA of 51 cm2. Accordingly, we believe that this system would meet the EPLLA requirements for a single stop lamp and two motorcycle rear turn signal lamps. In response to your specific question, FMVSS No. 108 explicitly contemplates the optical combination of stop lamps and turn signal lamps. Therefore, we would not consider the stop lamp system to be noncompliant because only one of the lamps would function as a stop signal when a turn signal is flashing. Likewise, we believe
that the Configuration No. 2 lamp system, which consists of two lamps with individual EPLLAs of 50.3 cm2, would meet the EPLLA requirements for two stop lamps and two motorcycle rear turn signal lamps. However, the Configuration No. 1 lamp system raises another issue that we would like to address regarding the optical combination of the stop lamp and turn signals. The SAE standards state that when a stop lamp is optically combined with a turn signal lamp, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing. FMVSS No. 108 adopts the definition of optically combine found in SAE J387, revised November 1987. Under the SAE definition, optical combination results when 1) a lamp has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb), and 2) the lamps optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions. In the Configuration No. 1 lamp system, both lamps together constitute the required single stop lamp, and each individual lamp also acts as a turn signal. Under the definition stated above, the single stop lamp (consisting of both lamps) could be considered to be optically combined with both turn signals. Such an interpretation would mean that Functional Mode No. 4, where one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a stop signal, would not be permissible. Neither of the lamps could be illuminated as a stop signal if one of the turn signals is flashing. In other words, the vehicle would display no signal indicating that the brakes were being applied in such a situation. In light of these consequences, we do not believe that such an interpretation of the term optically combine is appropriate for the unique situation presented by the lamp system you describe. Instead, we conclude that Functional Mode No. 4 is permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In that mode, the lamp that is flashing as a turn signal ceases operating as a stop signal. Nevertheless, the lamp system would continue to signal when the brakes are applied because the other lamp continues to operate as a stop signal. We caution that this interpretation is limited to the unique motorcycle rear lamp system described in your letter. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact William Shakely of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure ref: Standard No. 108 7/26/11 |
|
ID: 09-008772 GodseyOpenMr. Richard L. Godsey Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. 22 Whittier St. Newton, NH 03858 Dear Mr. Godsey: This responds to your letter dated December 4, 2009 asking whether the grinding, chipping, and shredding units you manufacture are motor vehicles regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Our answer is no. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The following is our interpretation of the FMVSSs based on the description in your letter. You state that Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (CBI) manufactures grinding, chipping, and shredding equipment units. The brochures you enclosed indicate that the units are used to grind, chip, and shred logs, forestry debris and wood waste wood products (e.g., trees, stumps, railroad ties). These units can be stationary or mobile. You state that the mobile equipment is non-motorized and relies on a tractor to be transported from the factory to the jobsites. CBIs website www.cbi-inc.com indicates that some of the units (e.g., the 8600 Magnum Force Series) are mounted on a tri-axle trailer frame with tires. The Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6)) defines a motor vehicle as: A vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it is regulated by NHTSA and must, among other things, comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Whether the agency considers your work units to be motor vehicles depends on the use of the vehicles. In past agency interpretations, we have determined that vehicles which are primarily used off-highway and which only incidentally use the highways (to move between jobsites) are not motor vehicles under the Safety Act. An example of this is mobile construction equipment which use the highway only to move between jobsites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single jobsite. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. However, certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways and the agency has determined that such equipment are motor vehicles under the Safety Act. For example, dump trucks have been determined to be motor vehicles because they regularly use the highways to travel between jobsites and stay on such jobsites for only a limited period of time, thereby rendering their on-highway use more than incidental. The photographs you enclose with your letter and on your website show the grinding, chipping, and shredding units to be fairly massive units. The jobsites are located where there are forestry debris and wood waste wood products present. You do not state how long a mobile unit may remain on a jobsite but we understand from the information you provided that the units are towed to the jobsites and remain there for a period of time. It appears that use of the units on streets or highways appears to be incidental to their use on jobsites. Based on the above information, we do not believe that the grinding, chipping, and shredding units are motor vehicles under the Safety Act. This determination is based on the information provided. If in fact the grinding, chipping, and shredding units are using the roads and highways more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Date: June 2, 2010 |
|
ID: 09-008772 VSAOpenMr. Richard L. Godsey Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. 22 Whittier St. Newton, NH 03858 Dear Mr. Godsey: This responds to your letter dated December 4, 2009 asking whether the grinding, chipping, and shredding units you manufacture are motor vehicles regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Our answer is no. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The following is our interpretation of the FMVSSs based on the description in your letter. You state that Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (CBI) manufactures grinding, chipping, and shredding equipment units. The brochures you enclosed indicate that the units are used to grind, chip, and shred logs, forestry debris and wood waste wood products (e.g., trees, stumps, railroad ties). These units can be stationary or mobile. You state that the mobile equipment is non-motorized and relies on a tractor to be transported from the factory to the jobsites. CBIs website www.cbi-inc.com indicates that some of the units (e.g., the 8600 Magnum Force Series) are mounted on a tri-axle trailer frame with tires. The Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6)) defines a motor vehicle as: A vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it is regulated by NHTSA and must, among other things, comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Whether the agency considers your work units to be motor vehicles depends on the use of the vehicles. In past agency interpretations, we have determined that vehicles which are primarily used off-highway and which only incidentally use the highways (to move between jobsites) are not motor vehicles under the Safety Act. An example of this is mobile construction equipment which use the highway only to move between jobsites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single jobsite. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. However, certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways and the agency has determined that such equipment are motor vehicles under the Safety Act. For example, dump trucks have been determined to be motor vehicles because they regularly use the highways to travel between jobsites and stay on such jobsites for only a limited period of time, thereby rendering their on-highway use more than incidental. The photographs you enclose with your letter and on your website show the grinding, chipping, and shredding units to be fairly massive units. The jobsites are located where there are forestry debris and wood waste wood products present. You do not state how long a mobile unit may remain on a jobsite but we understand from the information you provided that the units are towed to the jobsites and remain there for a period of time. It appears that use of the units on streets or highways appears to be incidental to their use on jobsites. Based on the above information, we do not believe that the grinding, chipping, and shredding units are motor vehicles under the Safety Act. This determination is based on the information provided. If in fact the grinding, chipping, and shredding units are using the roads and highways more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 6/2/2010 |
2010 |
ID: 09-008774 223OpenMr. S. Lafferty Manager, Engineering Maxon 10321 Greenleaf Avenue Santa Fe Springs, CA 90760 Dear Mr. Lafferty: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223, Rear impact guards, and No. 224, Rear impact protection. Specifically, you ask whether the horizontal member of a rear impact guard may be composed of multiple pieces, as long as the guard passes the requirements of FMVSS No. 223 and FMVSS No. 224. Our answer is yes. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. The following is our interpretation of the FMVSSs based on the description in your letter. FMVSS No. 223 applies to rear impact guards as items of motor vehicle equipment. Nothing in the standard requires the horizontal member to be composed of a single piece. S5.1 of the standard specifies that the horizontal member of each guard, when viewed from the rear as it would be installed on a trailershall have a vertical height of at least 100 [millimeters (mm)] at each point across the guard width. If your guard is composed of multiple pieces, each horizontal member must have a vertical height of at least 100 mm at each point. S5.2 of the standard specifies strength and energy absorption requirements at test locations P1, P2, and P3. As long as your guard meets S5.2 at P1, P2, and P3 when tested according to S6 of the standard, the horizontal member may be composed of multiple pieces. FMVSS No. 224 applies to trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. This standard requires the vehicles to be equipped with a rear impact guard that is certified as meeting Standard No. 223. We do not interpret FMVSS No. 224 to require the horizontal member of the guard to be composed of a single piece. If the vehicle can meet the requirements in the standard regarding the guards width, height and rear surface location, the horizontal member of the guard may be composed of multiple pieces. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 5/26/2010 |
2010 |
ID: 0911Open K. Howard Sharp, Esq. Dear Mr. Sharp: We have received your letter of May 12, 1995, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on behalf of your client, NYTAF Industries. You are concerned that installation of a NYTAF lighting system on the rear of trailers might be considered to impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of paragraph S5.1.3. The NYTAF Auxiliary Rear Lighting System NYTAF has developed "an auxiliary signaling system for heavy duty vehicles" which "displays a verbal message appropriate to the particular potential hazard." According to Exhibit A of your letter, a draft information brochure, the specific words displayed are: "Wide Turn", "Braking", "Wide Load", "Caution", "Help", "Backing", and "Long Load". In addition, right and left facing arrowheads indicate the direction of turning. Drivers cannot alter these messages or program the system to accept personal messages. The brochure depicts the message unit "on the rear of the trailer frame directly below the trailer body in the center putting the display panel on approximately the same horizontal plane as the tail lights and brake lights." Words are provided by light-emitting diodes (L.E.D.). According to your letter, the L.E.D. display "is somewhat more intense than existing brake lights, turn and tail lamps." Exhibit B "Operation Summary" explains how the system operates with respect to each message, e.g., "Braking" is "activated and illuminated in conjunction with brake lights." Applicable Requirement of Standard No. 108 Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed [before first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for other than resale] that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by [Standard No. 108]." Prior Interpretations of S5.1.3 Relating to Message Boards In the past, the agency has advised that the determination of impairment is initially made by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle on which the supplementary equipment is installed, when it certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that determination is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. Thus, NHTSA's interpretations are generally cautionary in tone rather than prohibitive. I enclose copies of two interpretations relating to message boards intended for the rear parcel shelves of passenger cars. The first is a letter of August 17, 1989, to Alan S. Eldahr ("Eldahr"). The relevant language of Eldahr is that a rear window message board "sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp." The second is a letter dated August 13, 1993, to Kenneth E. Ross ("Ross"). The Ross letter discusses the relation of message boards to the aftermarket, as well as the notification and remedy obligations which would fall upon NYTAF as a manufacturer of automotive accessory equipment. Relationship of Eldahr to NYTAF Eldahr indicates that there is less possibility of impairment existing if the message visible to a following driver is related to the lamp function that occurs simultaneously, as happens, for example in the NYTAF system, when stop lamp activation is accompanied by the word "Braking." We suggest that vehicle manufacturers installing the NYTAF system follow this guideline in their determinations of whether impairment exists. NYTAF might also wish to reconsider the intensity of the L.E.D. display which you say is "more" than that of the existing rear lighting equipment, especially as it may affect reaction to the stop signal. The intensity should not be so great as to divert driver attention to the message rather than to the stop signal. There are several areas of Exhibit B "Operation Summary" which require more specific comment. "Caution" is activated in conjunction with the hazard warning system. Standard No. 108 requires these systems to simultaneously flash all turn signal lamps, and not sequentially as Exhibit B states. Exhibit B should be corrected to reflect this if it is to be distributed publicly, as we do not understand that the NYTAF system is intended to create sequential flashing of turn signals when operated in the hazard signal mode. The sole explanation of "Help" is that it is to be activated manually. In our view, a flashing "Help" while the trailer is in motion would be more likely to impair rear lighting equipment than if it is operable only when the trailer is at rest. In addition, Exhibit B does not indicate whether the "Help" message is overridden by other messages when related lighting systems are activated. We are unsure of the purpose of "Clearance Marker" which is operated "in conjunction with parking lights." Standard No. 108 does not require truck tractors to be equipped with parking lamps. We believe that you meant taillamps. We do not view this lamp as having an impairing effect upon the taillamps. The name of the lamp is somewhat misleading, as it would be mounted at the center of a vehicle whereas a "clearance lamp" is intended to indicate a vehicle's overall width. Additionally, on certain trailer designs the three identification lamps are mounted around the vertical centerline in the same location in which you have stated the NYTAF system will be mounted. With respect to the close proximity of the two lighting systems, we believe that the brightness of the NYTAF device compared with that of the identification lamps could impair their ability to signal the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway ahead, the intended function of these lamps. Finally, we note that the color red would indicate a backing function. Although trailers are not required to have backup lamps, Standard No. 108 specifies that the color white shall be used for backup lamps, and we believe that the public has come to associate an activated white lamp on the rear of a vehicle as indicating that the vehicle is in reverse gear. Your client may wish to reevaluate this function in light of possible liability concerns. We hope that these guidelines will be helpful to NYTAF. If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson will again be happy to answer them (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel 2 Enclosures ref:108 d:6/7/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0942Open Mr. Mayo D. Tubbs Dear Mr. Tubbs: Thank you for providing a FAX copy of your letter of April 27, 1995, to Philip Recht. As Taylor Vinson explained to you when you phoned, the agency had no record of receiving your original letter. Our letter of April 13, 1995, to you was based upon your representation that the strip lights in your system would be "Aviation Green". We advised you that use of this color has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory side lighting equipment, i.e., amber front side markers, red rear side markers, and red and white conspicuity striping or red reflectors. You have asked whether our response would be different if the strip lamps were red or amber in color, as shown in the drawings of a van trailer in your Attachment A. In this scheme, amber lamps would be located on the side of the trailer, and red lamps on the rear. Because these colors are associated with caution, we do not believe that they would impair the effectiveness of any of a trailer's required lighting equipment. You expressed your understanding that, if the three rear identification lamps are installed at the top of a trailer, the clearance lamps can be mounted at the bottom and vice versa, as reflected in the drawings shown in your Attachment C. This is not exactly correct. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires identification lamps, without exception, to be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." While clearance lamps also are required to be "as near the top as practicable" (Table II), when the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle the rear clearance lamps need not be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle (paragraph S5.3.1.4). This configuration is reflected in the drawing on Attachment C titled "Identification Lights on Top". The drawing "Identification Lights on Bottom" does not depict a location for identification lamps that conforms to Table II. Because clearance lamps are intended to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, the exception originated to accommodate trailer designs in which the widest part of the trailer was the fenders. In the van configuration shown on Attachment C, it would be practicable for both identification and clearance lamps to be mounted at the top of the trailer, and that is the location preferred by this agency for clearance lamps, notwithstanding S5.3.1.4. If there are other questions you have, Taylor Vinson will be happy to answer them for you. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:6/9/95
|
1995 |
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.