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 |
|---|---|
ID: 07-007541asOpenMr. Darby Crow CEO Crow Cycle Co. 863 Opal Street San Diego, CA 92109 Dear Mr. Crow: This responds to your letter concerning whether the Crow Cycle Companys motorized bicycle design (the Crow beach cruiser) is considered a motorcycle, subject to the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As discussed below, it is our opinion that the Crow beach cruiser is a motor vehicle. Moreover, based on the specifications of the vehicle that you provided, it is our opinion that the Crow beach cruiser should be considered a motorcycle, or more specifically a motor-driven cycle, and therefore is subject to Federal laws governing those vehicles. By way of background, NHTSA regulates the manufacture, importation, and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The definition of motor vehicle is given is 49 USC 30102, and reads: [M]otor vehicle means 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. Furthermore, the NHTSA has included definitions of various vehicle types in its regulations. In 49 CFR 571.3, we defined a motorcycle as a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. A motor-driven cycle is defined as a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less. You have provided detailed specifications regarding the Crow beach cruiser. Most relevantly, you stated that it comes equipped with a 36cc, 1.6 HP engine. The Crow beach cruiser has a bicycle frame, seat, transmission, and mountain bike wheels. The speed control is a twist throttle, similar to motorcycle designs, and most other components are standard bicycle components. Furthermore, you stated that the Crow beach cruiser can be operated in three different modes. The first is Human Power, in which the vehicle is operated like a non-powered bicycle. The second is Human Power plus gasoline engine, in which the vehicle operates like a power-assisted bicycle. The third is Gasoline engine only, in which the engine provides the sole power for the vehicle. In this mode, the vehicle has a top speed of 28 mph when placed in the smallest gear. Additionally, we note that the beach cruiser style of bicycles, whether motorized or not, are marketed in part for and commonly used on public roads. You provided several arguments as to why you believe NHTSA should not consider your product a motor vehicle. You state that the engine output and top speed of the vehicle, 1.6 HP and 28 mph, respectively, are similar to what a world-class cyclist can sustain through human power alone, and what an average cyclist can produce in brief bursts. Therefore, you state, the performance of the vehicle is similar to that of an ordinary bicycle powered by a cyclist. You also state that the Crow beach cruiser cannot keep up with normal road traffic, is not capable of quick acceleration, and cannot climb hills at a speed comparable to a motorized vehicle. You made several additional arguments. First, you argued that the Crow beach cruiser is very similar to a mountain or road bicycle. You state that the controls are similar and the components are largely bicycle components. Furthermore, you presented information on various State laws regarding the classification of motorized bicycles and motorcycles. You stated that a majority of States classify a vehicle a top speed of 30 mph or less and an engine capable of producing 2 HP or less as a motorized bicycle. Based on the description of the vehicle you provided, we believe that the Crow vehicle is a motor vehicle, subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). We believe that it should be classified as a motor-driven cycle. Below, we will state our rationale, as well as address the arguments you put forth in your letter. NHTSAs position on whether motorized bicycles should be classified as motor vehicles under the definition in 49 U.S.C. 30102 has been discussed in several previous interpretations. In a 1999 interpretation, we stated that attaching a motor to a bicycle rendered the bicycle a motor vehicle, because the motor was capable of propelling the vehicle on its own.[1] Similarly, a 1997 interpretation to an electric bicycle manufacturer stated that NHTSA considered self-propelled bicycles to be motor vehicles, subject to the Federal requirements.[2] We are enclosing copies of both previous interpretations. Because the Crow beach cycle is capable of operating solely under mechanized power, we would consider it to be a motor vehicle, and thus subject to Federal requirements. We note that we do not consider power-assisted bicycles to be motor vehicles. In a recent letter of interpretation, we stated that a bicycle with an engine that was not powerful enough to power the bicycle alone would not be considered a motor vehicle.[3] The Crow beach cruiser, on the other hand, is capable of performing purely on engine power. You argued that the Crow beach cruiser is no more capable of keeping up with traffic than human-powered cyclists, and therefore should not be considered a motor vehicle. We disagree with this argument. The Crow beach cruiser, using only the motor, is capable of sustained speeds of up to 28 mph. We believe that vehicles with speeds of over 20 mph are capable of on-road operation. We note that one class of four-wheeled motor vehicles, low speed vehicles (LSVs), have a top speed of more than 20 mph but not more than 25 mph. You also argued that because the Crow beach cruiser uses similar controls to a road or mountain bicycle, it should be considered a motorized bicycle, and that many States do not consider low-powered motorized bicycles to be motorcycles. While we are not familiar with the various State laws you mentioned, we note that Congress has enacted laws regarding motorized bicycles. Specifically, in the Consumer Product Safety Act, Congress distinguished certain types of motorized bicycles, namely, low-speed electric bicycles, which have a top speed of less than 20 mph. In that Act, Congress stated that because low-speed electric bicycles are designed not to exceed the maximum speed of a human-powered bicycle, and they are typically used in the same manner as human-powered bicycles, electric bicycles should be regulated in the same manner and under the same agency (the [Consumer Product Safety Commission] CPSC) as human-powered bicycles. While we note that this law applies only to electric bicycles, and not gasoline-powered bicycles like the Crow beach cruiser, we take note that Congress used a cutoff speed of 20 mph. We also note that the 20 mph cutoff point was the speed that NHTSA used to determine the minimum top speed for LSVs. Therefore, we are not persuaded by your argument that the speed and design of the Crow beach cruiser should cause NHTSA to not consider it a motor vehicle. Based on the above analysis, we have concluded that the Crow beach cruiser is a motorcycle, or more specifically, a motor-driven cycle. As such, it is subject to the FMVSSs applicable to motorcycles. If you have any further questions relating to NHTSA, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:108 d.4/17/08 |
2008 |
ID: 07-007542--29 Feb 08--sa--2OpenDr. Klaus Bs Lear Corporation Technology Center Allershausen Am Ziegelwerk 1 D-85391 Allershausen-Leonhardsbuch Germany Dear Dr. Bs: This is in response to your December 12, 2007 facsimile, in which you asked about the head restraint position specification for the dynamic compliance option in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a, Head Restraints. Specifically, you refer to a 2007 final rules elimination of the backset adjustment specification (while maintaining the up/down adjustment specification) in the dynamic compliance option for head restraints (72 FR 25484, May 4, 2007). You ask for clarification of how head restraints with adjustable backsets should be positioned for the dynamic compliance tests. As discussed below, the omission in the regulatory text of the language you referenced was an inadvertent error, and we plan to correct this error as a technical correction. This correction will clarify that head restraints with adjustable backsets can be tested in any position of adjustment during compliance tests for the dynamic option, i.e., the vehicle must comply in all such positions of adjustment. FMVSS No. 202a seeks to reduce whiplash injuries in rear collisions, and in 2004 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) upgraded this standard to provide better whiplash protection for a wider range of occupants (2004 Final Rule). On May 4, 2007, NHTSA published a new final rule (2007 Final Rule) amending FMVSS No. 202a, which responded to petitions for reconsideration of the 2004 Final Rule (69 FR 74848, Dec. 14, 2004). In your letter, you refer to the 2007 Final Rules elimination of the specification of backset adjustment in the dynamic compliance option for head restraints. Your letter asks for clarification of your assumption that the absence of specific instructions for backset adjustment must mean that head restraints with adjustable backsets should be adjusted midway between the most forward and rearward position of adjustment, analogous to the condition specified for the up/down adjustment of the head restraint (midway between the lowest and the highest position of adjustment). As explained below, your assumption is incorrect. The 2004 Final Rule altered the head restraint position specification for the dynamic compliance option from any position of adjustment to a mid-height position and any position of backset adjustment. This was indicated in both S4.3 and S5.3: S4.3 Dynamic performance and width. At each forward-facing outboard designated seating position equipped with a head restraint, the head restraint adjusted midway between the lowest and the highest position of adjustment, and at any position of backset adjustment, must conform to the following: * * * * * S5.3 Procedures for dynamic performance. Demonstrate compliance with S4.3 of this section in accordance with S5.3.1 through S5.3.9 of this section with a 50th percentile male Hybrid III test dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572 subpart E, with the head restraint midway between the lowest and the highest position of adjustment, and at any position of backset adjustment. The 2007 Final Rule preamble did not discuss, and we did not intend to make any changes to the provisions of head restraint adjustment for this test. The omission of this test condition was an inadvertent error, and the agency plans on correcting this mistake in a forthcoming technical correction to the 2007 Final Rule. This will clarify that head restraints with adjustable backset can be tested in any position of adjustment during the dynamic compliance option. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:202 d.4/29/08 |
2008 |
ID: 07-26-01_Rubel_ltr_spwOpen Eric A. Rubel, Esq. Dear Mr. Rubel: This is in reply to your letter, written on behalf of DEKA Research and Development Corporation (DEKA), asking whether certain products would be considered "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by this agency. You generally described the products. You stated that the products in question, which to date have not been marketed or sold, would have either two or four drive wheels, would operate on battery power, and would be intended primarily for use on sidewalks. You also stated that the products could be described as low-speed electric personal assistive mobility devices, which are self-balancing, can operate on two non-tandem wheels, have an electric propulsion system, and have a maximum speed on a paved level surface of less than 20 mph, when powered solely by such a propulsion system and ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds. As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined, in part, as one "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." 49 U.S.C. ' 30102(a)(6). Accordingly, only vehicles which are operated on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of their primary uses, are considered to be motor vehicles. In determining whether a particular product is operated on the public streets, roads, and highways, as one of its primary uses, we consider a number of factors, including whether the vehicle can be licensed for use on public streets, roads and highways. If a vehicle cannot be so licensed, we consider whether the vehicle is, in fact, used on public streets, roads, and highways by a substantial number of people. Considering that the vehicles you describe are still in the planning stage (i.e., are not presently available for sale to the general public), no data are available concerning their actual use. In situations like this, where such data are unavailable, this agency has looked to the use patterns of vehicles similar to the ones in development. Given the general nature of the description, identifying like-vehicles is difficult. This problem is compounded by the fact that the vehicles DEKA is planning to manufacture appear to be unique. Nevertheless, we note that they have characteristics that, at least in some respects, are similar to those of motorized wheelchairs. This agency does not consider motorized wheelchairs to be "motor vehicles." They are not licensable and are not used on public streets, roads, and highways by a substantial number of people. Thus, they are not subject to this agency's safety regulations. Based on our understanding of the characteristics of the vehicles in question and on the assumptions that they would not be licensable and would be used in a fashion similar to motorized wheelchairs, we would not consider the vehicles to be "motor vehicles." If our assumptions about licensability and actual usage proved incorrect, we would reconsider this position. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:571 |
2001 |
ID: 0705rOpen Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Dear Mr. Shetler: This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green. You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted that the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators. You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. You also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acceptable. We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard specified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including turn signal pilot indicators and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator. We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light "with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle." Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with "a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders." Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to "inside" and "outside" the vehicle are inapposite. Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so. As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard No. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment "be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions." If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202- 366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/3/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0722Open Herr Tilman Spingler Dear Herr Spingler: We have received your FAX of February 15, 1995, asking whether a proposed design "for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108." The agency does not advise manufacturers whether particular designs are regarded as "conforming." That determination is to be made by the manufacturer in certifying that its product conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. However, we can provide you with an interpretive guideline. Section S4 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" as a headlamp "comprising a bonded lens reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources." The intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp. This means that, if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced. If your design is such that the lens cannot be removed from the reflector assembly for replacement, it would appear to meet the definition in S4. As you are well aware, NHTSA granted your company's petition for rulemaking, and, in November 1994, proposed an amendment of the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that would allow a replaceable lens if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2. Comments were due on this proposal February 21, 1995. In due course, after review of the comments, NHTSA will decide whether it will pursue further rulemaking or terminate the rulemaking action. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/8/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0761Open Mr. Chong D. Lee Dear Mr. Lee: This is in reply to your FAX of February 28, 1995, asking several questions about the importation and sale of an aftermarket airbag. The airbag "comes in assembly with a steering wheel" and is intended for installation in vehicles not originally equipped with a driver's airbag. You have asked the following questions: "a) Whether such a product as described is legal for U.S. sale." There is no Federal prohibition per se against the sale of aftermarket airbags. However, pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in airbag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208, even if they are aftermarket equipment. Therefore the manufacturer of these items (or the importer, who is defined as a "manufacturer" under our statute) must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. S9 prescribes performance requirements that are found in 49 CFR secs. 173 and 178, regulations of another Administration of the Department of Transportation. We suggest that you write the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, 400 7th Street, Washington, D.C. 20590 for an opinion as to whether other of its regulations apply to your product or its movement in interstate commerce. As to whether the laws of the individual States regulate the sale of aftermarket airbags, you should write, for an opinion, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. "b) Legal procedures, testing or submissions required to certify the product for U.S. sale." The requirements for compliance with S9 of Standard No. 208 are set forth in 49 CFR secs. 173 and 178. When the manufacturer who is responsible for certifying compliance is satisfied that the equipment, in fact, does conform, it certifies the product. At that point, pressure vessels and explosive devices that are part of an airbag assembly, if not manufactured in the United States, may be imported into this country. A state is not permitted to have performance requirements for pressure vessels and explosive devices that differ from those of S9, but it may have a standard requiring identical performance, and, if so, they may ask for documentary assurance of compliance. "c) Applicable Federal law (e.g. FMVSS 208)." See replies to your previous questions. You should also note that an aftermarket airbag is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. One Federal law does bear upon the installation of the airbag. It is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business replaces a piece of original equipment that was necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, if the replacement part creates a noncompliance with that standard. The design of the steering wheel may affect compliance with Federal Standards Nos. 203 Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system and 204 Steering control rearward displacement. We recommend that you satisfy yourself that installation of the airbag will not affect the previous ability to comply, of the vehicle in which it is installed, before marketing the product. "d) Actions or registrations required to reduce legal risks." We are not in a position to advise you on matters that do not relate to Federal laws that we administer. We recommend that you consult a private attorney on these matters. "e) Any other information of which we should be aware." You should encounter no difficulties in importing the airbag and steering wheel under our importation regulation, 49 CFR Part 591 as long as any components that are required to comply with S9 of Standard No. 208 are certified as meeting that standard. I am enclosing an information sheet that outlines the various laws and regulations that we administer pertaining to motor vehicles and equipment with the thought that you might find it helpful. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:208 d:4/10/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0784Open Mr. Marshall S. Reagle Dear Mr. Reagle: This is in reply to your recent FAX to Pat Boyd of this agency asking for a confirmation of an interpretation of certain reflex reflector requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically S5.7.2.1(b) and (c). For your future reference, requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel. You state that Mr. Boyd informed you that "any retro- reflector would have to be made in intervals of 4 inches" with the 0 degree at the two-inch mark, and that the reflective reading would have to comply with S5.7.2.1(b) or (c). He also informed you that, regardless of whether the segment was 4, 8, or 12 inches in length, the agency will test in 4-inch segments. This is correct. According to paragraph S5.7.2.2(a) and (b) of Standard No. 108, each reflector shall be installed "with the center of each reflector not more than 100 mm from the center of each adjacent reflector." As 100 mm is approximately 4 inches, this effectively limits the size of a reflector to a maximum length of 4 inches. However, this does not prohibit the mounting of two or three adjacent reflectors in "segments" of 8 or 12 inches, whether separately or in a housing. As Mr. Boyd informed you, each discrete 4- inch segment must comply with paragraph S5.7.2.1(b) or (c). Paragraphs S5.7.2.1(b) and (c) specify reflectivity values for red and white reflex reflectors respectively "at any light entrance angle between 30 degrees left and 30 degrees right, including an entrance angle of 0 degrees," as well as "any light entrance angle between 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right." Your drawing of a 4-inch reflector correctly depicts the 0 degree light entrance angle at the 2-inch mark, in the center of the reflector. However, SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, January 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires the measurement of the other light entrance angles also with respect to the center of the reflector, rather than with respect to the ends as pictured in your drawing. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/17/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0787Open Mr. Dirk du Plooy Dear Mr. du Plooy: We have received your letter of March 6, 1995, to Joe Pesci of this agency, asking his assistance "in acquiring information about U.S. laws on motorcycle trailers." You understand that "there could be a number of different U.S. states with different laws, but the most generally accepted standard" is what you are seeking in drafting legislation legalizing motorcycle trailers. Any trailer that is manufactured for sale in, or imported into, the United States must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards are issued by this agency. Several of them apply to trailers. As we have no separate category of "motorcycle trailer", these standards would apply to any trailer manufactured for the purpose of carrying one or more motorcycles. Here are the requirements that apply to trailers. A trailer with a hydraulic brake system must be equipped with brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings that meet Standard No. 106, and with brake fluid that complies with Standard No. 116. Lighting equipment and reflectors must be installed pursuant to Standard No. 108. Each trailer must have a Vehicle Identification Number attached, in accordance with Standard No. 115 to facilitate any recall campaigns for safety purposes. Standards Nos. 119 and 120 apply to tires and rims used on trailers. Finally, at the end of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer must affix a permanent label which certifies that the trailer complies with the safety standards. Because these Federal standards apply throughout the United States, I believe that they meet your request for information on "the most generally accepted standard." Under our laws, if any State has its own standard covering any aspect of performance that is covered by one of the Federal standards listed above, that State standard must be identical to the Federal one. So, to that extent, State regulation of motorcycle trailers should be identical to the Federal requirements. However, States may impose their own standards in areas that are not covered by the Federal standards. For example, this agency has no requirement covering strength of trailer hitches, or that trailers be equipped with mud flaps. Therefore, a State could adopt standards in these areas. We are not conversant with State laws for motorcycle trailers, and cannot advise you about them. If you wish further information on such laws, we recommend that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. I am enclosing for your information a pamphlet on our regulations that we provide to prospective trailer manufacturers. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. Given the distance between us, you may wish to communicate by FAX. Our number is 202-366-3820. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571 d:4/10/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0788Open Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your letter of March 6, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the license plate requirements of Standard No. 108. SAE J587 OCT81 is the SAE standard that has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that "paragraph 6.1 of SAE J587, which relates solely to the mounting angle of the license plate and not to the performance of the license plate lamp, is not included in the requirements of FMVSS 108." This paragraph requires that, when the license plate lamp is mounted on the vehicle, the angle between the plane of the license plate and the plane on which the vehicle stands will be 90 degrees plus or minus 15 degrees. You believe that "license plate mounting for visibility is a matter of concern for State law enforcement agencies and Volkswagen is not aware of any State laws that make reference to SAE J587 or that specify the mounting angle of the license plate." However, you acknowledge "that paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of SAE J587 specifying the angle of incidence of the lamp to the plate at a minimum of 8 degrees is part of FMVSS 108 and is intended to assure that the lamp illuminates the license plate." You believe "that a design which meets the 8 degree requirement and in which the plate is mounted so as to be clearly visible to an observer at the rear of the vehicle meets the intent and requirements of State laws and FMVSS 108, even if the angle of the plate itself is 15 degrees from the vertical." We cannot agree with your interpretation. Tables I and III have incorporated SAE J587 in its entirety, and there is no exclusion of paragraph 6.1 in Standard No. 108. To be sure, a plate may continue to be visible when it is mounted more than 15 degrees from the vertical, but the 15 degree limitation of paragraph 6.1 is necessary to ensure its legibility as well. The fact that the States and the Uniform Vehicle Code are silent on the point is legally irrelevant. If a State has a license plate mounting requirement, 49 U.S.C. 30103 requires it to be identical to the Federal requirement. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0789bOpen Mr. Jeffrey Echt Dear Mr. Echt: We have received your letter of March 10, 1995, asking whether it is permissible under Standard No. 108 to use the hazard warning lamps as a deceleration warning system. Paragraph S5.5.10(a) states that "Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash." With this in mind, "and the fact that hazard warning indicators are commonly used to warn high-speed trailing traffic that a leading vehicle or vehicles are moving slowly or stopped", you have asked: "1. Would a device which automatically activated a vehicle's hazard warning system at the onset of high, braking induced deceleration and deactivated the hazard warning system upon release of the brake pedal (following automatic activation) be permissible under FMVSS 108? This assumes that the device will not prevent activation or cause deactivation of the hazard warning system if the mandatory vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit has been activated by the driver." Heretofore, the agency's opinion letters on deceleration warning systems have covered those that operate through lamps that are steady burning in use (to Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and to Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990), or through original equipment lamps that are additional to those required by the standard (letter of July 30, 1993, to the Commonwealth of Virginia). In those instances, we have advised that a deceleration warning system must be steady burning in use. Your question raises the issue of whether a flashing deceleration warning system is acceptable if it operates through original equipment lamps that are intended to flash when they are used. Flexible asked a similar question with respect to a supplementary lighting system. We advised it (letter of December 8, 1986) that simultaneous use of flashing and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear and impairing the effectivess of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3 (the provision of Standard No. 108 that governs the permissibility of supplemental original lighting equipment). We believe that the same conclusion also applies to wiring the hazard warning system to operate as a high deceleration warning system as well. Thus, we do not view this system as permissible under Standard No. 108. Obviously, complying vehicles are manufactured so that it is possible for a driver to simultaneously activate the hazard warning system and stop lamp system. However, we believe that this happens infrequently, and when it does, it is a conscious choice of the operator and not of a system. Because of the conclusion we have reached above, your second question is moot. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/95
|
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.